I CALLED last evening on Mrs. Carter. I had no previous acquaintance with her. Her brother is a man of letters, who, ne­vertheless, finds little leisure from the en­gagements of a toilsome profession. He scarcely spends an evening at home, yet takes care to invite, specially and general­ly, to his house, every one who enjoys the reputation of learning and probity. His sister became, on the death of her husband, his house-keeper. She was always at home. The guests who came in search of the man, finding him abroad, lingered a little as politeness enjoined, but soon found something in the features and accents of the lady, that induced them to prolong their [Page 6] stay, for their own sake: nay, without any well-defined expectation of meeting their inviter, they felt themselves disposed to repeat their visit. We must suppose the conversation of the lady not destitute of attractions; but an additional, and, per­haps, the strongest inducement, was the society of other visitants. The house be­came, at length, a sort of rendezvous of persons of different ages and conditions, but respectable for talents or virtues. A commodious apartment, excellent tea, le­monade, and ice—and wholesome fruits—were added to the pleasures of instructive society: no wonder that Mrs. Carter's coteric became the favourite resort of the liberal and ingenious.

These things did not necessarily imply any uncommon merit in the lady. Skill in the superintendence of a tea-table, af­fability and modesty, promptness to in­quire, and docility to listen, were all that [Page 7] were absolutely requisite in the mistress of the ceremonies. Her apartment was no­thing, perhaps, but a lyceum open at stated hours, and to particular persons, who en­joyed, gratis, the benefits of rational dis­course, and agreeable repasts. Some one was required to serve the guests, direct the menials, and maintain, with suitable vigi­lance, the empire of cleanliness and order. This office might not be servile, merely because it was voluntary. The influence of an unbribed inclination might constitute the whole difference between her and a waiter at an inn, or the porter of a theatre.

Books are too often insipid. In reading, the senses are inert and sluggish, or they are solicited by foreign objects. To spur up the flagging attention, or check the ra­pidity of its flights and wildness of its ex­cursions, are often found to be impracti­cable. It is only on extraordinary occa­sions [Page 8] that this faculty is at once sober and vigorous, active and obedient. The revo­lutions of our minds may be watched and noted, but can seldom be explained to the satisfaction of the inquisitive. All that the caprice of nature has left us, is to profit by the casual presence of that which can, by no spell, be summoned or detained.

I hate a lecturer. I find little or no be­nefit in listening to a man who does not occasionally call upon me for my opinion, and allow me to canvass every step in his argument. I cannot, with any satisfac­tion, survey a column, how costly soever its materials, and classical its ornaments, when I am convinced that its foundation is sand which the next tide will wash away. I equally dislike formal debate, where each man, however few his ideas, is subjected to the necessity of drawing them out to the length of a speech. A single proof, or question, or hint, may be all that the state [Page 9] of the controversy, or the reflections of the speaker, suggest: but this must be ampli­fied and iterated, till the sense, perhaps, is lost or enfeebled, that he may not fall be­low the dignity of an orator. Conversa­tion, careless, and unfettered, that is some­times abrupt and sententious, sometimes fugitive and brilliant, and sometimes co­pious and declamatory, is a scene for which, without being much accustomed to it, I entertain great affection. It blends, more happily than any other method of in­struction, utility and pleasure. No won­der I was desirous of knowing, long before the opportunity was afforded me, how far these valuable purposes were accomplished by the frequenters of Mrs. Carter's lyceum.

In the morning I had met the doctor at the bed-side of a sick friend, who had strength enough to introduce us to each other. At parting I received a special in­vitation for the evening, and a general one [Page 10] to be in force at all other times. At five o'clock I shut up my little school, and changed an alley in the city—dark, dirty, and narrow, as all alleys are—for the fresh air and smooth footing of the fields. I had not forgotten the doctor and his lyceum. Shall I go (said I to myself), or shall I not? No, said the pride of poverty, and the bashfulness of inexperience. I looked at my unpowdered locks, my worsted stockings, and my pewter buckles. I be­thought me of my embarrassed air, and my uncouth gait. I pondered on the superci­liousness of wealth and talents, the awful­ness of flowing muslin, the mighty task of hitting on a right movement at entrance, and a right posture in sitting, and on the perplexing mysteries of tea-table decorum: but, though confused and panic-struck, I was not vanquished.

I had some leisure, particularly in the evening. Could it be employed more [Page 11] agreeably or usefully? To read, to write, to meditate; to watch a declining moon, and the varying firmament, with the emo­tions of poetry or piety—with the optics of Dr. Young, or of De la Lande—were de­lightful occupations, and all at my com­mand. Eight hours of the twenty-four were consumed in repeating the names and scrawling the forms of the alphabet, or in engraving on infantile memories that twice three make six; the rest was employed in supplying an exhausted, rather than crav­ing, stomach; in sleep, that never knew, nor desired to know, the luxury of down, and the pomp of tissue; in unravelling the mazes of Dr. Waring; or in amplifying the seducing suppositions of, 'if I were a king,' or, 'if I were a lover.' Few, indeed, are as happy as Alcuin. What is requisite to perfect my felicity, but the blessings of health, which is incompatible with periodi­cal head-achs, and the visits of rheumatism; [Page 12] —of peace, which cannot maintain its post against the hum of a school, the discord of cart-wheels, and the rhetoric of a notable landlady;—of competence—My trade pre­serves me from starving and nakedness, but not from the discomforts of scarcity, or the disgrace of shabbiness. Money, to give me leisure; and exercise, to give me health; these are all my lot denies: in all other re­spects, I am the happiest of mortals. The pleasures of society, indeed, I seldom taste: that is, I have few opportunities of actual intercourse with that part of mankind whose ideas extend beyond the occurrences of the neighbourhood, or the arrangements of their household. Not but that, when I want company, it is always at hand. My solitude is populous, whenever my fancy thinks proper to people it, and with the very beings that best suit my taste. These beings are, perhaps, on account of my slen­der experience, too uniform, and somewhat [Page 13] grotesque. Like some other dealers in fic­tion, I find it easier to give new names to my visionary friends, and vary their condi­tion, than to introduce a genuine diversity into their characters. No one can work without materials. My stock is slender. There are times when I feel a moment's regret that I do not enjoy the means of en­larging it.—But this detail, it must be owned, is a little beside the purpose. I merely intended to have repeated my con­versation with Mrs. Carter, but have wan­dered, unawares, into a dissertation on my own character. I shall now return, and mention that I cut short my evening excur­sion, speeded homeward, and, after ja­panning anew my shoes, brushing my hat, and equipping my body in its best geer, proceeded to the doctor's house.

I shall not stop to describe the company, or to dwell on those embarrassments and awkwardnesses always incident to an un­polished [Page 14] wight like me. Suffice it to say, that I was in a few minutes respectfully withdrawn into a corner, and fortunately a near neighbour of the lady. To her, after much deliberation and forethought, I ad­dressed myself thus: "Pray, Madam, are you a federalist?"

The theme of discourse was political. The edicts of Carnot, and the commentary of that profound jurist, Peter Porcupine, had furnished ample materials of discussion. This was my hint. The question, to be sure, was strange; especially addressed to a lady: but I could not, by all my study, light upon a better mode of beginning dis­course. She did not immediately answer. I resumed—I see my question produces a smile, and a pause.

True (said she). A smile may well be produced by its novelty, and a pause by its difficulty.

Is it so hard to say what your creed is [Page 15] on this subject? Judging from the slight observations of this evening, I should ima­gine that to you the theme was far from being new.

She answered, that she had been often called upon to listen to discussions of this sort, but did not recollect when her opi­nion had been asked.

Will you favour me (said I) with your opinion, notwithstanding?

Surely (she replied) you are in jest. What! ask a woman—shallow and inex­perienced as all women are known to be, especially with regard to these topics—her opinion on any political question! What in the name of decency have we to do with politics? If you inquire the price of this ribbon, or at what shop I purchased that set of china, I may answer you, though I am not sure you would be wiser for my answer. These things, you know, belong to the women's province. We are sur­rounded [Page 16] by men and politicians. You must observe that they consider themselves in an element congenial to their sex and station. The daringness of female curio­sity is well known; yet it is seldom so adventurous as to attempt to penetrate into the mysteries of government.

It must be owned (said I) there is suffi­cient reason for this forbearance. Most men have trades; but every woman has a trade. They are universally trained to the use of the needle, and the government of a family. No wonder that they should be most willing to handle topics that are con­nected with their daily employment, and the arts in which they are proficient.—Merchants may be expected to dwell with most zeal on the prices of the day, and those numerous incidents, domestic and foreign, by which commerce is affected. Lawyers may quote the clauses of a law, or the articles of a treaty, without forget­ting [Page 17] their profession, or travelling, as they phrase it, out of the record. Physicians will be most attached to livid carcases and sick beds. Women are most eloquent on a fan or a tea-cup—on the furniture of the nursery, or the qualifications of a cham­ber-maid. How should it be otherwise? In so doing, the merchant, the lawyer, the physician, and the matron, may all equally be said to stick to their lasts. Doubtless every one's last requires some or much of his attention. The only fault lies in some­times allowing it wholly to engross the fa­culties, and often in overlooking conside­rations that are of the utmost importance to them, even as members of a profession.

Well (said the lady), now you talk rea­sonably. Your inference is, that women occupy their proper sphere, when they confine themselves to the tea-table and their work-bag: but this sphere, whatever you may think, is narrow. They are [Page 18] obliged to wander, at times, in search of variety. Most commonly they digress into scandal; and this has been their eternal re­proach; with how much reason perhaps you can tell me.

Most unjustly, as it seems to me. Wo­men profit by their opportunities. They are trained to a particular art. Their minds are, of course, chiefly occupied by images and associations drawn from this art. If this be blameable, it is not more so in them, than in others. It is a circum­stance that universally takes place. It is by no means clear, that a change in this respect is either possible or desirable. The arts of women are far from contemptible, whether we consider the skill that is re­quired by them, or, which is a better cri­terion, their usefulness in society. They are more honourable than many profes­sions allotted to the men; those of soldier and barber for example; on one of which [Page 19] we may justly bestow all the contempt, and on the other all the abhorrence we have to spare. But though we may strive, we can never wholly extinguish, in women, the best principle of human nature, curiosity. We cannot shut them out from all com­merce with the world. We may nearly withhold from them all knowledge of the past, because that is chiefly contained in books; and it is possible to interdict them from reading, or, to speak more accurately, withhold from them those incitements to study, which no human beings bring into the world with them, but must owe to ex­ternal and favourable occurrences. But they must be, in some degree, witnesses of what is passing. There is a limited sphere, in which they are accurate observers. They see, and hear, somewhat of the ac­tions and characters of those around them. These are, of course, remembered; become the topic of reflection; and, when oppor­tunity [Page 20] offers, they delight to produce and compare them. All this is perfectly natural and reasonable. I cannot, for my life, dis­cover any causes of censure in it.

Very well, indeed (cried the lady), I am glad to meet so zealous an advocate. I am ready enough to adopt a plausible apology for the peculiarities of women. And yet it is a new doctrine that would justify tri­flers and slanderers. According to this system, it would be absurd to blame those who are perpetually prying into other peo­ple's affairs, and industriously blazoning every disadvantageous or suspicious tale.

My dear Madam, you mistake me. Art­ists may want skill; historians may be par­tial. Far be it from me to applaud the malignant or the stupid. Ignorance and envy are no favourities of mine, whether they have or have not a chin to be shaved: but nothing would be more grossly absurd, than to suppose these defects to be peculiar [Page 21] to female artists, or the historians of the tea-table. When these defects appear in the most flagrant degree, they are generally capable of an easy apology. If the sexes had, in reality, separate interests, and it were not absurd to set more value on qua­lifications, on account of their belonging to one of our own sex, it is the women who may justly triumph. Together with power and property, the men have likewise asserted their superior claim to vice and folly.

If I understand you rightly (said the lady), you are of opinion that the sexes are essentially equal.

It appears to me (answered I), that hu­man beings are moulded by the circum­stances in which they are placed. In this they are all alike. The differences that flow from the sexual distinction, are as nothing in the balance.

And yet women are often reminded that [Page 22] none of their sex are to be found among the formers of States, and the instructors of mankind—that Pythagoras, Lycurgus, and Socrates, Newton, and Locke, were not women.

True; nor were they mountain savages, nor helots, nor shoemakers. You might as well expect a Laplander to write Greek spontaneously, and without instruction, as that any one should be wise or skillful, without suitable opportunities. I humbly presume one has a better chance of becom­ing an astronomer by gazing at the stars through a telescope, than in eternally ply­ing the needle, or snapping the scissars. To settle a bill of fare, to lard a pig, to compose a pudding, to carve a goose, are tasks that do not, in any remarkable de­gree, tend to instil the love, or facilitate the acquisition of literature and science. Nay, I do not form prodigious expecta­tions even of one who reads a novel or [Page 23] comedy once a month, or chants once a day to her harpsichord the hunter's foolish invocation to Phoebus or Cynthia. Wo­men are generally superficial and ignorant, because they are generally cooks and sempstresses. Men are the slaves of ha­bit. It is doubtful whether the career of the species will ever terminate in know­ledge. Certain it is, they began in igno­rance. Habit has given permanence to errors, which ignorance had previously rendered universal. They are prompt to consound things, which are really distinct; and to persevere in a path to which they have been accustomed. Hence it is that certain employments have been exclusively assigned to women, and that their sex is supposed to disqualify them for any other. Women are defective. They are seldom or never metaphysicians, chemists, or law-givers. Why? Because they are semp­stresses and cooks. This is unavoidable. [Page 24] Such is the unalterable constitution of hu­man nature. They cannot read who never saw an alphabet. They who know no tool but the needle, cannot be skillful at the pen.

Yes (said the lady); of all forms of injustice, that is the most egregious which makes the circumstance of sex a reason for excluding one half of mankind from all those paths which lead to usefulness and honour.

Without doubt (returned I) there is abundance of injustice in the sentence; yet it is possible to misapprehend, and to overrate the injury that flows from the established order of things. If a certain part of every community must be con­demned to servile and mechanical profes­sions, it matters not of what sex they may be. If the benefits of leisure and science be, of necessity, the portion of a few, why should we be anxious to which sex the [Page 25] preference is given? The evil lies in so much of human capacity being thus fet­tered and perverted. This allotment is sad. Perhaps it is unnecessary. Perhaps that precept of justice is practicable, which re­quires that each man should take his share of the labour, and enjoy his portion of the rest: that the tasks now assigned to a few, might be divided among the whole; and what now degenerates into ceaseless and brutalizing toil, might, by an equitable distribution, be changed into agreeable and useful exercise. Perhaps this inequality is incurable. In either case it is to be la­mented, and, as far as possible, mitigated. Now, the question of what sex either of those classes may be composed, is of no importance. Though we must admit the claims of the female sex to an equality with the other, we cannot allow them to be superior. The state of the ignorant, servile, and laborious, is entitled to com­passion [Page 26] and relief; not because they are women, nor because they are men; but simply because they are rational.—Among savage nations the women are slaves. They till the ground, and cook the victuals. Such is the condition of half of the community—deplorable, without doubt; but it would be neither more nor less so, if the sexes were equally distributed through each class.

But, the burthen is unequal (said Mrs. Carter), since the strength of the females is less.

What matters it (returned I) whether my strength be much or little, if I am tasked to the amount of it, and no more; and no task can go beyond.

But nature (said the lady) has subjected us to peculiar infirmities and hardships. In consideration of what we suffer as mothers and nurses, I think we ought to be exempt­ed from the same proportion of labour.

[Page 27] It is hard (said I) to determine what is the amount of your pains as mothers and nurses. Have not ease and luxury a ten­dency to increase that amount? Is not the sustenance of infant offspring in every view a privilege? Of all changes in their condition, that which should transfer to men the task of nurturing the innocence, and helplessness of infancy, would, I should imagine, be to mothers the least accept­able.

I do not complain of this province. It is not, however, exempt from danger and trouble. It makes a large demand upon our time and attention. Ought not this to be considered in the distribution of tasks and duties?

Certainly. I was afraid you would im­agine, that too much regard had been paid to it; that the circle of female pursuits had been too much contracted on this ac­count.

[Page 28] I, indeed (rejoined the lady), think it by far too much contracted. But I cannot give the authors of our institutions credit for any such motives. On the contrary, I think we have the highest reason to com­plain of our exclusion from many profes­sions which might afford us, in common with men, the means of subsistence and independence.

How far, dear Madam, is your com­plaint well grounded? What is it excludes you from the various occupations in use among us? Cannot a female be a trader? I know no law or custom that forbids it. You may, at any time, draw a subsistence from wages, if your station in life, or your education has rendered you sufficiently ro­bust. No one will deride you, or punish you, for attempting to hew wood or bring water. If we rarely see you driving a team, or beating the anvil, is it not a fa­vorable circumstance? In every family [Page 29] there are various duties. Certainly the most toilsome and rugged do not fall to the lot of women. If your employment be for the most part sedentary and re­cluse, to be exempted from an intem­perate exertion of the muscles, or to be estranged from scenes of vulgar concourse, might be deemed a privilege. The last of these advantages, however, is not yours; for do we not buy most of our meat, herbs, and fruit, of women? In the distribution of employments, the chief or only differ­ence, perhaps, is, that those which require most strength, or more unremitted exertion of it, belong to the males: and yet, there is nothing obligatory or inviolable in this arrangement. In the country, the maid that milks, and the man that ploughs, if discontented with their present office, may make an exchange, without breach of law, or offence to decorum. If you possess stock, by which to purchase the labour of [Page 30] others—and stock may accumulate in your hands as well as in ours—there is no spe­cies of manufacture in which you are for­bidden to employ it.

But are we not (cried the lady) excluded from the liberal professions?

Why, that may admit of question. You have free access, for example, to the ac­compting-house. It would be somewhat ludicrous, I own, to see you at the Ex­change, or superintending the delivery of a cargo. Yet, this would attract our notice, merely because it is singular; not because it is disgraceful or criminal: but if the singularity be a sufficient ob­jection, we know that these offices are not necessary. The profession of a merchant may be pursued with success and dignity, without being a constant visitor of the quay or the coffee-house. In the trading cities of Europe, there are bankers and merchants of your sex, [Page 31] to whom that consideration is attached, to which they are entitled by their skill, their integrity, or their opulence.

But what apology can you make for our exclusion from the class of physicians?

To a certain extent, the exclusion is imaginary. My grandmother was a to­lerable physician. She had much personal experience; and her skill was, I assure you, in much request among her neighbours. It is true, she wisely forbore to tamper with diseases of an uncommon or complicated nature. Her experience was wholly per­sonal. But that was accidental. She might have added, if she had chosen, the expe­rience of others to her own.

But the law—

True, we are not accustomed to see female pleaders at the bar. I never wish to see them there. But the law, as a sci­ence, is open to their curiosity, or their benevolence. It may be even practised as [Page 32] a source of gain, without obliging us to frequent and public exhibitions.

Well (said the lady), let us dismiss the lawyer and the physician, and turn our eye to the pulpit. That, at least, is a sanctuary which women must not profane.

It is only (replied I) in some sects that divinity, the business of explaining to men their religious duty, is a trade. In such, custom or law, or the canons of their faith, have confined the pulpit to men: perhaps the distinction, wherever it is found, is an article of their religious creed, and, conse­quently, is no topic of complaint, since the propriety of this exclusion must be admit­ted by every member of the sect, whether male or female. But there are other sects which admit females into the class of preachers. With them, indeed, this dis­tinction, if lucrative at all, is only indi­rectly so; and its profits are not greater to one sex than to the other. But there is no [Page 33] religious society in which women are de­barred from the privileges of superior sanctity. The christian religion has done much to level the distinctions of property, and rank, and sex. Perhaps, in reviewing the history of mankind, we shall find the authority derived from a real, or pretended intercourse with heaven, pretty generally divided between them. And after all, what do these restrictions amount to? If some pursuits are monopolized by men, others are appropriated to you. If it appear that your occupations have least of toil, are most friendly to purity of manners, to de­licacy of sensation, to intellectual improve­ment, and activity, or to public usefulness; if it should appear that your skill is always in such demand as to afford you employ­ment when you stand in need of it; if, though few in number, they may be so generally and constantly useful, as always to furnish you subsistence; or, at least, to [Page 34] expose you, by their vicissitudes, to the pressure of want as rarely as it is incident to men; you cannot reasonably complain: but, in my opinion, all this is true.

Perhaps not (replied the lady): yet I must own your statement is plausible. I shall not take much pains to confute it. It is evident, that, for some reason or other, the liberal professions, those which require most vigour of mind, greatest extent of knowledge, and most commerce with books and with enlightened society, are occupied only by men. If contrary in­stances occur, they are rare, and must be considered as exceptions.

Admitting these facts (said I), I do not see reason for drawing mortifying inferen­ces from them. For my part, I entertain but little respect for what are called the li­beral professions, and, indeed, but little for any profession whatever. If their motive be gain, and that it is which constitutes [Page 35] them a profession, they seem to be, all of them, nearly on a level in point of dignity. The consideration of usefulness is of more value. He that roots out a national vice, or checks the ravages of a pestilence, is, no doubt, a respectable personage: but it is no man's trade to perform these services. How does a mercenary divine, or lawyer, or physician, differ from a dishonest chim­ney-sweep? The most that can be dreaded from a chimney-sweep is the spoiling of our dinner, or a little temporary alarm; but what injuries may we not dread from the abuses of law, medicine, or divinity! Honesty, you will say, is the best policy. Whatever it be, it is not the road to wealth. To the purposes of a profession, as such, it is not subservient. Degrees, and exami­nations, and licences, may qualify us for the trade; but benevolence needs not their aid to refine its skill, or augment its acti­vity. Some portion of their time and their [Page 36] efforts must be employed by those who need, in obtaining the means of subsistence. The less tiresome, boisterous and servile that task is, which necessity enjoins; the less tendency it has to harden our hearts, to benumb our intellects, to undermine our health. The more leisure it affords us to gratify our curiosity and cultivate our mo­ral discernment, the better. Here is a cri­terion for the choice of a profession, and which obliges us to consider the condition of women as preferable.

I cannot perceive it. But it matters nothing what field may be open, if our education does not qualify us to range over it. What think you of female education? Mine has been frivolous. I can make a pie, and cut out a gown. For this only I am indebted to my teachers. If I have added any thing to these valuable attainments, it is through my own efforts, and not by the assistance or encouragement of others.

[Page 37] And ought it not to be so? What can render men wise but their own efforts? Does curiosity derive no encouragement from the possession of the power and ma­terials? You are taught to read and to write: quills, paper, and books are at hand. Instruments and machines are forthcoming to those who can purchase them. If you be insensible to the pleasures and benefits of knowledge, and are therefore ignorant and trifling, it is not for want of assistance and encouragement.

I shall find no difficulty (said the lady) to admit that the system is not such as to condemn all women, without exception, to stupidity. As it is, we have only to la­ment, that a sentence so unjust is executed on, by far, the greater number. But you forget how seldom those who are most fortunately situated, are permitted to cater for themselves. Their conduct, in this case, as in all others, is subject to the [Page 38] controul of others who are guided by esta­blished prejudices, and are careful to re­member that we are women. They think a being of this sex is to be instructed in a manner different from those of another. Schools, and colleges, and public instruc­tors are provided in all the abstruse sciences and learned languages; but whatever may be their advantages, are not women totally excluded from them?

It would be prudent (said I), in the first place, to ascertain the amount of those advantages, before we indulge ourselves in lamenting the loss of them. Let us con­sider whether a public education be not unfavourable to moral and intellectual im­provement; or, at least, whether it be preferable to the domestic method;—whe­ther most knowledge be obtained by listen­ing to hired professors, or by reading books;—whether the abstruse sciences be best studied in a closet, or a college;— [Page 39] whether the ancient tongues be worth learning;—whether, since languages are of no use but as avenues to knowledge, our native tongue, especially in its present state of refinement, be not the best. Be­fore we lament the exclusion of women from colleges, all these points must be settled: unless they shall be precluded by reflecting, that places of public education, which are colleges in all respects but the name, are, perhaps, as numerous for fe­males as for males.

They differ (said the lady) from colleges in this, that a very different plan of in­struction is followed. I know of no fe­male school where Latin is taught, or geometry, or chemistry.

Yet, Madam, there are female geome­tricians, and chemists, and scholars, not a few. Were I desirous that my son or daughter should become either of these, I should not deem the assistance of a college [Page 40] Indispensible. Suppose an anatomist should open a school to pupils of both sexes, and solicit equally their attendance; would you comply with the invitation?

No; because that pursuit has no attrac­tions for me. But if I had a friend whose curiosity was directed to it, why should I dissuade her from it?

Perhaps (said I) you are but little ac­quainted with the real circumstances of such a scene. If your disdain of prejudices should prompt you to adventure one visit, I question whether you would find an in­clination to repeat it.

Perhaps not (said she); but that mode of instruction in all the experimental sci­ences is not, perhaps, the best. A nume­rous company can derive little benefit from a dissection in their presence. A closer and more deliberate inspection than the circumstances of a large company will allow, seems requisite. But the assembly [Page 41] need not be a mixed one. Objections on the score of delicacy, though they are more specious than sound, and owe their force more to our weakness than our wis­dom, would be removed by making the whole company, professor and pupils, fe­male. But this would be obviating an imaginary evil, at the price of a real be­nefit. Nothing has been more injurious than the separation of the sexes. They associate in childhood without restraint; but the period quickly arrives when they are obliged to take different paths. Ideas, maxims, and pursuits, wholly opposite, engross their attention. Different systems of morality, different languages, or, at least, the same words with a different set meanings, are adopted. All intercourse between them is fettered and embarrassed. On one side, all is reserve and artifice. On the other, adulation and affected hu­mility. The same end must be compassed [Page 42] by opposite means. The man must affect a disproportionable ardour; while the woman must counterfeit indifference and aversion. Her tongue has no office, but to belie the sentiments of her heart, and the dictates of her understanding.

By marriage she loses all right to sepa­rate property. The will of her husband is the criterion of all her duties. All merit is comprised in unlimited obedience. She must not expostulate or rebel. In all con­tests with him, she must hope to prevail by blandishments and tears; not by ap­peals to justice and addresses to reason. She will be most applauded when she smiles with most perseverance on her op­pressor, and when, with the undistin­guishing attachment of a dog, no caprice or cruelty shall be able to estrange her affection.

Surely, Madam, this picture is exag­gerated. You derive it from some other [Page 43] source than your own experience, or even your own observation.

No; I believe the picture to be gene­rally exact. No doubt there are excep­tions. I believe myself to be one. I think myself exempt from the grosser defects of women; but by no means free from the influence of a mistaken education. But why should you think the picture exag­gerated? Man is the strongest. This is the reason why, in the earliest stage of society, the females are slaves. The ten­dency of rational improvement is to equa­lize conditions; to abolish all distinctions, but those that are founded in truth and reason; to limit the reign of brute force, and uncontroulable accidents. Women have unquestionably benefited by the pro­gress that has hitherto taken place. If I look abroad, I may see reason to congra­tulate myself on being born in this age and country. Women, that are no where [Page 44] totally exempt from servitude, no where admitted to their true rank in society, may yet be subject to different degrees or kinds of servitude. Perhaps there is no coun­try in the world where the yoke is lighter than here. But this persuasion, though, in one view, it may afford us consolation, ought not to blind us to our true condition, or weaken our efforts to remove the evils that still oppress us. It is manifest, that we are hardly and unjustly treated. The natives of the most distant regions do not less resemble each other, than the male and female of the same tribe, in conse­quence of the different discipline to which they are subject. Now, this is palpably absurd. Men and women are partakers of the same nature. They are rational be­ings; and, as such, the same principles of truth and equity must be applicable to both.

To this I replied, Certainly, Madam: [Page 45] but it is obvious to inquire to which of the sexes the distinction is most favourable. In some respects, different paths are allot­ted to them, but I am apt to suspect that of the woman to be strewed with fewest thorns; to be beset with fewest asperities; and to lead, if not absolutely in conformity to truth and equity, yet with fewest devia­tions from it. There are evils incident to your condition as women. As human be­ings, we all lie under considerable disad­vantages; but it is of an unequal lot that you complain. The institutions of society have injuriously and capriciously distin­guished you. True it is, laws, which have commonly been male births, have treated you unjustly; but it has been with that species of injustice that has given birth to nobles and kings. They have distinguished you by irrational and undeserved indulgen­ces. They have exempted you from a thou­sand toils and cares. Their tenderness has [Page 46] secluded you from tumult and noise: your persons are sacred from profane violences; your eyes from ghastly spectacles; your ears from a thousand discords, by which ours are incessantly invaded. Yours are the peacefullest recesses of the mansion: your hours glide along in sportive chat, in harmless recreation, or voluptuous indo­lence; or in labour so light, as scarcely to be termed encroachments on the reign of contemplation. Your industry, delights in the graceful and minute: it enlarges the empire of the senses, and improves the flexibility of the fibres. The art of the needle, by the lustre of its hues and the delicacy of its touches, is able to mimic all the forms of nature, and pourtray all the images of fancy: and the needle but prepares the hand for doing wonders on the harp; for conjuring up the 'piano' to melt, and the 'forte' to astound us.

This (cried the lady) is a very partial [Page 47] description. It can apply only to the opu­lent, and but to few of them. Meanwhile, how shall we estimate the hardships of the lower class? You have only pronounced a panegyric on indolence and luxury. Eminent virtue and true happiness are not to be found in this element.

True (returned I). I have only at­tempted to justify the male sex from the charge of cruelty. Ease and luxury are pernicious. Kings and nobles, the rich and the idle, enjoy no genuine content. Their lot is hard enough; but still it is bet­ter than brutal ignorance and unintermitted toil; than nakedness and hunger. There must be one condition of society that ap­proaches nearer than any other to the standard of rectitude and happiness. For this it is our duty to search; and, having found it, endeavour to reduce every other condition to this desirable mean. It is use­ful, meanwhile, to ascertain the relative [Page 48] importance of different conditions; and since deplorable evils are annexed to every state, to discover in what respects, and in what degree, one is more or less eligible than another. Half of the community are females. Let the whole community be divided into classes; and let us inquire, whether the wives, and daughters, and sin­gle women, of each class, be not placed in a more favourable situation than the hus­bands, sons, and single men, of the same class. Our answer will surely be in the affirmative.

There is (said the lady) but one import­ant question relative to this subject. Are women as high in the scale of social felicity and usefulness as they may and ought to be?

To this (said I) there can be but one answer: No. At present they are only higher on that scale than the men. You will observe, Madam, I speak only of that [Page 49] state of society which we enjoy. If you had excluded sex from the question, I must have made the same answer. Hu­man beings, it is to be hoped, are destined to a better condition on this stage, or some other, than is now allotted them.

THIS remark was succeeded by a pause on both sides. The lady seemed more in­clined to listen than talk. At length I ventured to resume the conversation.

Pray, Madam, permit me to return from this impertinent digression, and repeat my question—"Are you a federalist?"

And let me (replied she) repeat my an­swer—What have I, as a woman, to do with politics? Even the government of our country, which is said to be the freest in the world, passes over women as if they were not. We are excluded from all poli­tical rights without the least ceremony. Law-makers thought as little of compre­hending us in their code of liberty, as if [Page 52] we were pigs, or sheep. That female are exceptions to their general maxims, per­haps never occurred to them. If it did, the idea was quietly discarded, without leaving behind the slightest consciousness of inconsistency or injustice. If to uphold and defend, as far as woman's little power extends, the constitution, against violence; if to prefer a scheme of union and confe­deracy, to war and dissention, entitle me to that name, I may justly be stiled a fe­deralist. But if that title be incompatible with a belief that, in many particulars, this constitution is unjust and absurd, I cer­tainly cannot pretend to it. But how should it be otherwise? While I am con­scious of being an intelligent and moral being; while I see myself denied, in so many cases, the exercise of my own dis­cretion; incapable of separate property; subject, in all periods of my life, to the will of another, on whose bounty I am [Page 53] made to depend for food, raiment, and shel­ter: when I see myself, in my relation to society, regarded merely as a beast, or an insect; passed over, in the distribution of public duties, as absolutely nothing, by those who disdain to assign the least apo­logy for their injustice—what though poli­ticians say I am nothing, it is impossible I should assent to their opinion, as long as I am conscious of willing and moving. If they generously admit me into the class of existence, but affirm that I exist for no purpose but the convenience of the more dignified sex; that I am not to be entrusted with the government of myself; that to foresee, to deliberate and decide, belongs to others, while all my duties resolve them­selves into this precept, "listen and obey;" it is not for me to smile at their tyranny, or receive, as my gospel, a code built upon such atrocious maxims. No, I am no federalist.

[Page 54] You are, at least (said I), a severe and uncommon censor. You assign most ex­traordinary reasons for your political here­sy. You have many companions in your aversion to the government, but, I sus­pect, are wholly singular in your motives. There are few, even among your own sex, who reason in this manner.

Very probably; thoughtless and servile creatures! but that is not wonderful. All despotism subsists by virtue of the errors and supineness of its slaves. If their dis­cernment was clear, their persons would be free. Brute strength has no part in the government of multitudes: they are bound in the fetters of opinion.

The maxims of constitution-makers sound well. All power is derived from the people. Liberty is every one's birth­right. Since all cannot govern or delibe­rate individually, it is just that they should elect their representatives. That every [Page 55] one should possess, indirectly, and through the medium of his representatives, a voice in the public councils; and should yield to no will but that of an actual or virtual majority. Plausible and specious maxims! but fallacious. What avails it to be told by any one, that he is an advocate for li­berty? we must first know what he means by the word. We shall generally find that he intends only freedom to himself, and subjection to all others. Suppose I place myself where I can conveniently mark the proceedings at a general election: "All," says the code, "are free. Li­berty is the immediate gift of the Creator to all mankind, and is unalienable. Those that are subject to the laws should possess a share in their enaction. This privilege can be exercised, consistently with the maintenance of social order, in a large so­ciety, only in the choice of deputies" A person advances with his ticket. "Pray," [Page 56] says the officer, "are you twenty-one years of age?"—"No."—"Then I cannot re­ceive your vote; you are no citizen." Disconcerted and abashed, he retires. A second assumes his place, "How long," says the officer, "have you been an inha­bitant of this State?"—"Nineteen months and a few days."—"None has a right to vote who has not completed two years residence." A third approaches, who is rejected because his name is not found in the catalogue of taxables. At length room is made for a fouth person. "Man," cries the magistrate, "is your skin black or white?"—"Black"—"What, a sooty slave dare to usurp the rights of freemen?" The way being now clear, I venture to approach. "I am not a minor," say I to myself. "I was born in the State, and cannot, therefore, be stigmatized as a fo­reigner. I pay taxes, for I have no father or husband to pay them for me. Luckily [Page 57] my complexion is white. Surely my vote will be received. But, no, I am a woman. Neither short residence, nor poverty, nor age, nor colour, nor sex, exempt from the jurisdiction of the laws." "True," says the magistrate; "but they deprive you from bearing any part in their formation." "So I perceive, but I cannot perceive the justice of your pretentions to equality and liberty, when those principles are thus openly and grossly violated."

If a stranger question me concerning the nature of our government, I answer, that in this happy climate all men are free; the people are the source of all authority; from them it flows, and to them, in due season, it returns. But in what (says my friend) does this unrivalled and precious freedom consist? Not (say I) in every man's governing himself, literally and in­dividually; that is impossible. Not in the controul of an actual majority; they are [Page 58] by much too numerous to deliberate com­modiously, or decide expeditiously. No, our liberty consists in the choice of our governors: all, as reason requires, have a part in this choice, yet not without a few exceptions; for, in the first place, all fe­males are excepted. They, indeed, com­pose one half of the community; but, no matter, women cannot possibly have any rights. Secondly, those whom the feudal law calls minors, because they could not lift a shield, or manage a pike, are except­ed. They comprehend one half of the re­mainder. Thirdly, the poor. These vary in number, but are sure to increase with the increase of luxury and opulence, and to promote these is well known to be the aim of all wise governors. Fourthly, those who have not been two years in the land: and, lastly, slaves. It has been sagely de­creed, that none but freemen shall enjoy this privilege, and that all men are free but [Page 59] those that are slaves. When all these are sifted out, a majority of the remainder are entitled to elect our governor; provided, however, the candidate possess certain qualifications, which you will excuse me from enumerating. I am tired of explain­ing this charming system of equality and independence. Let the black, the young, the poor, and the stranger, support their own claims. I am a woman. As such, I cannot celebrate the equity of that scherne of government which classes me with dogs and swine.

In this representation (said I) it must be allowed there is some truth; but do you sufficiently distinguish between the form and spirit of a government? The true con­dition of a nation cannot be described in a few words; nor can it be found in the vo­lumes of their laws. We know little or nothing when our knowledge extends no farther than the forms of the constitutions [Page 60] As to any direct part they bear in the go­vernment, the women of Turky, Russia, and America, are alike; but, surely, their actual condition, their dignity, and free­dom, are very different. The value of any government lies in the mode in which it is exercised. If we consent to be ruled by another, our liberty may still remain inviolate, or be infringed only when supe­rior wisdom directs. Our master may go­vern us agreeably to our own ideas, or may restrain and enforce us only when our own views are mistaken.

No government is independent of popu­lar opinion. By that it must necessarily be sustained and modified. In the worst des­potism there is a sphere of discretion allotted to each man, which political authority must not violate. How much soever is relin­quished by the people, somewhat is always reserved. The chief purpose of the wise is to make men their own governors, to [Page 61] persuade them to practise the rules of equi­ty without legal constraint: they will try to lessen the quantity of government, with­out changing or multiplying the deposito­ries of it; to diminish the number of those cases in which authority is required to in­terfere. We need not complain of the injustice of laws, if we refrain, or do not find it needful to appeal to them: if we decide amicably our differences, or refer them to an umpire of our own choice: if we trust not to the subtilty of lawyers, and the prejudice of judges, but to our own eloquence, and a tribunal of our neigh­bours. It matters not what power the laws give me over the property or persons of others, if I do not chuse to avail myself of the privilege.

Then (said the lady) you think that forms of government are no subjects of contest. It matters not by whom power is possessed, or how it is transferred; whe­ther [Page 62] we bestow our allegiance on a child or a lunatic; whether kings be made by the accident of birth or wealth; whether supreme power be acquired by force, or transmitted by inheritance, or conferred freely and periodically by the suffrages of all that acknowledge its validity?

Doubtless (replied I) these considera­tions are of some moment; but cannot you distinguish between power and the exercise of power, and see that the importance of the first is derived wholly from the consi­deration of the last?

But how it shall be exercised (rejoined she) depends wholly on the views and ha­bits of him that has it. Avails it nothing whether the prince be mild or austere, ma­lignant or benevolent? If we must delegate authority, are we not concerned to repose it with him who will use it to the best, ra­ther than the worst purposes? True it is, we should retain as much power over our [Page 63] own conduct, maintain the sphere of our own discretion, as large and as inviolate as possible. But we must, as long as we as­sociate with mankind, forego, in some par­ticulars, our self-government, and submit to the direction of another; but nothing interests me more nearly than a wise choice of a master. The wisest member of so­ciety should, if possible, be selected for the guidance of the rest.

If an hundred persons be in want of a common dwelling, and the work cannot be planned or executed by the whole, from the want of either skill or unanimity, what is to be done? We must search out one who will do that which the circumstances of the case will not allow us to do for our­selves. Is it not obvious to inquire who among us possesses most skill, and most virtue to controul him in the use of it? Or shall we lay aside all regard to skill and integrity, and consider merely who is the [Page 64] tallest, or richest, or fairest among us, or admit his title that can prove that such an one was his father, or that he himself is the eldest among the children of his father? In an affair which is of common concern, shall we consign the province of deciding to a part, or yield to the superior claims of a majority? If it happen that the smaller number be distinguished by more accurate discernment, or extensive knowledge, and, consequently, he that is chosen by the wiser few, will probably be, in himself considered, more worthy than the favourite of the injudicious many; yet what is the criterion which shall enable us to distin­guish the sages from the fools? And, when the selection is made, what means shall we use for expunging from the catalogue all those whom age has enfeebled, or flattery or power corrupted? If all this were ef­fected, could we, at the same time, exclude evils from our system, by which its bene­fits [Page 65] would be overweighed? Of all modes of government, is not the sovereignty of the people, however incumbered with in­conveniencies, yet attended by the fewest?

It is true (answered I) that one form of government may tend more than another to generate selfishness and tyranny in him that rules, and ignorance and profligacy in the subjects. If different forms be submit­ted to our choice, we should elect that which deserves the preference. Suppose our countrymen would be happier if they were subdivided into a thousand little inde­pendent democratical republics, than they are under their present form, or than they would be under an hereditary despot: then it behoves us to inquire by what, if by any means, this subdivision may be effected, and, which is matter of equal moment, how it can be maintained: but these, for the most part, are airy speculations. If not absolutely hurtful, they are injurious, by [Page 66] being of inferior utility to others which they exclude. If women be excluded from political functions, it is sufficient that, in this exercise of these functions, their hap­piness is amply consulted.

Say what you will (cried the lady), I shall ever consider it as a gross abuse that we are hindered from sharing with you in the power of chusing our rulers, and of making those laws to which we equally with yourselves are subject.

We claim the power (rejoined I); this cannot be denied; but I must maintain, that as long as it is equitably exercised, no alteration is desirable. Shall the young, the poor, the stranger, and the females, be admitted, indiscriminately, to political pri­vileges? Shall we annex no condition to a voter but that he be a thing in human shape, not lunatic, and capable of loco­motion; and no qualifications to a candi­date but the choice of a majority? Would [Page 67] any benefit result from the change? Will it augment the likelihood that the choice will fall upon the wisest? Will it endow the framers and interpreters of law with more sagacity and moderation than they at present possess?

Perhaps not (said she). I plead only for my own sex. Want of property, youth, and servile condition, may, possibly, be well-founded objections; but mere sex is a circumstance so purely physical; has so little essential influence beyond what has flowed from the caprice of civil institutions on the qualities of mind or person, that I cannot think of it without impatience. If the law should exclude from all political functions every one who had a mole on his right cheek, or whose stature did not exceed five feet six inches, who would not condemn, without scruple, so unjust an in­stitution? yet, in truth, the injustice would be less than in the case of women. The [Page 68] distinction is no less futile, but the injury is far greater, since it annihilates the po­litical existence of at least one half of the community.

But you appeared to grant (said I) that want of property and servile condition are allowable disqualifications. Now, may not marriage be said to take away both the liberty and property of women? at least, does it not bereave them of that independ­ent judgment which it is just to demand from a voter?

Not universally the property (answered she): so far as it has the effect you men­tion, was there ever any absurdity more pal­pable, any injustice more flagrant? But you well know there are cases in which women, by marriage, do not relinquish their pro­perty. All women, however, are not wives and wards. Granting that such are disquali­fied, what shall we say of those who are in­disputably single, affluent and independent? [Page 69] Against these no objection, in the slightest degree plausible, can be urged. It would be strange folly to suppose women of this class to be necessarily destitute of those qualities which the station of citizen re­quires. We have only to examine the pre­tentions of those who already occupy pub­lic stations. Most of them seem not to have attained heights inaccessible to ordi­nary understandings; and yet the delega­tion of women, however opulent and en­lightened, would, probably, be a more in­supportable shock to the prejudices that prevail among us, than the appointment of a youth of fifteen, or a beggar, or a stran­ger.

If this innovation be just (said I), the period for making it has not arrived. You, Madam, are singular. Women in general do not reason in this manner. They are contented with the post assigned them. If the rights of a citizen were extended to [Page 70] them, they would not employ them—stay till they desire it.

If they were wise (returned the lady), they would desire it: meanwhile, it is an act of odious injustice to withhold it. This privilege is their due. By what means have you discovered that they would not exercise it, if it were granted? You cannot imagine but that some would step forth and occupy this station, when the obstruction was removed.

I know little of women (said I); I have seldom approached them, much less have I enjoyed their intimate society; yet, as a specimen of the prejudice you spoke of, I must own I should be not a little surprized to hear of a woman proferring her services as president or senator. It would be hard to restrain a smile to see her rise in a po­pular assembly to discuss some mighty to­pic. I should gaze as at a prodigy, and listen with a doubting heart: yet I might [Page 71] not refuse devotion to the same woman in the character of household deity. As a mo­ther, pressing a charming babe to her bo­som, as my companion in the paths of love, or poetry, or science; as partaker with me in content, and an elegant sufficiency, her dignity would shine forth in full splen­dour. Here all would be decency and grace. But as a national ruler; as busied in poli­tical intrigues and cares; as intrenched in the paper mounds of a secretary; as bur­thened with the gravity of a judge; as bearing the standard in battle; or, even as a champion in senatorial warfare, it would be difficult to behold her without regret and disapprobation. These emotions I should not pretend to justify; but such, and so difficult to vanquish, is prejudice.

Prejudices, countenanced by an experi­ence so specious and universal, cannot be suddenly subdued. I shall tell you, how­ever, my genuine and deliberate opinion [Page 72] on the subject. I have said that the inequa­lity of the sexes was all that could be ad­mitted; that the superiority we deny to men can, with as little justice, be ascribed to women: but this, in the strictest sense, is not true: on the country, it must be al­lowed that women are superior.

We cannot fail to distinguish between the qualities of mind and those of person. Whatever be the relation between the thinking principle, and the limbs and organs of the body, it is manifest that they are distinct; insomuch, that when we pass judgment on the qualities of the former, the latter is not necessarily taken into view, or included in it. So, when we discourse of our exterior and sensible qualities, we are supposed to exclude from our present consideration, the endowments of the mind. This distinction is loose, but sufficiently accurate for my purpose.

Have we not abundant reason to con­clude [Page 73] that the principle of thought is, in both sexes, the same; that it is subject to like influences; that like motives and situ­ations produce like effects? We are not concerned to know which of the sexes has occupied the foremost place on the stage of human life. They would not be beings of the same nature in whom different causes produced like effects. It is sufficient that we can trace diversity in the effects to a corresponding diversity in the circumstan­ces; that women are such as observation exhibits them, in consequence of those laws which belong to a rational being, and which are common to both sexes: but such, beyond all doubt, must be the result of our inquiries. In this respect, then, the sexes are equal.

But what opinion must be formed of their exterior or personal qualities? Are not the members and organs of the female body as aptly suited to their purposes as [Page 74] those of the male? The same, indeed, may be asserted of a mouse or a grashopper; but are not these purposes as wise and dig­nified, nay, are they not precisely the same? Considering the female frame as the subject of impressions, and the organ of intelli­gence, it appears to deserve the preference. What shall we say of the acuteness and variety of your sensations; of the smooth­ness, flexibility, and compass of your voice?

Beauty is a doubtful quality. Few men will scruple to resign the superiority in this respect to women. The truth of this de­cision may be, perhaps, physically demon­strated; or, perhaps, all our reasonings are vitiated, by this circumstance, that the rea­soner and his auditors are male. We all know in what the sexual distinction con­sists, and what is the final cause of this distinction. It is easier to conceive than describe that species of attraction which [Page 75] sex annexes to the person. It would be fallacious, perhaps, to infer female superio­rity, in an absolute and general sense, from the devotion which, in certain cases, we are prone to pay them; which it is impossible to feel for one of our own sex; and which is mutually felt: yet, methinks, the infer­ence is inevitable. When I reflect on the equality of mind, and attend to the feelings which are roused in my bosom by the pre­sence of accomplished and lovely women; by the mere graces of their exterior, even when the magic of their voice sleeps, and the eloquence of their eyes is mute;—and, for the reality of these feelings, if politeness did not forbid, I might quote the experience of the present moment—I am irresistibly induced to believe, that, of the two sexes, yours is, on the whole, superior.

It is difficult, I know, to reason dispas­sionately on this subject: witness the uni­versal persuasion of mankind, that in grace, [Page 76] symmetry, and melody, the preference is due to women. Yet, beside that opinion is no criterion of truth but to him that harbours it, when I call upon all human kind as wit­nesses, it is only one half of them, the in­dividuals of one sex, that obey my call.

It may at first appear that men have ge­nerally ascribed intellectual pre-eminence to themselves. Nothing, however, can be inferred from this. It is doubtful whether they judge rightly on the question of what [...] is not intrinsically excellent. Not seldom they have placed their superiority in that which, rightly understood, should have been pregnant with ignominy and humili­ation. Should women themselves be found to concur in this belief, that the other sex surpasses them in intelligence, it will avail but little. We must still remember that opinion is evidence of nothing but its own existence. This opinion, indeed, is pe­culiarly obnoxious. They merely repeat [Page 77] what they have been taught; and their teachers have been men. The prevalence of this opinion, if it does not evince the incurable defects of female capacity, may, at least, be cited to prove in how mourn­ful a degree that capacity has been neglect­ed or perverted. It is a branch of that prejudice which has so long darkened the world, and taught men that nobles and kings were creatures of an order superior to themselves.

Here the conversation was interrupted by one of the company, who, after listen­ing to us for some time, thought proper at last to approach, and contribute his mite to our mutual edification. I soon after seized an opportunity of withdrawing, but not without requesting and obtaining per­mission to repeat my visit.