1859.2 妇女应该学习字母表吗？

shiyi18

U.S.
Ought Women to Learn the Alphabet?
“We venture to assert, then, that woman’s social inferiority, in the past, has been, to a great extent, a legitimate thing.”

By Thomas Wentworth Higginson
A painting of two women sitting together, one reading from a book
Library of Congress
FEBRUARY 1859 ISSUE
SHARE
Paris smiled, for an hour or two, in the year 1801, when, amidst Napoleon’s mighty projects for remodelling the religion and government of his empire, the ironical satirist, Sylvain Marechal, thrust in his “Plan for a Law prohibiting the Alphabet to Women.” Daring, keen, sarcastic, learned, the little tract retains to-day so much of its pungency, that we can hardly wonder at the honest simplicity of the author’s friend and biographer, Madame Gacon Dufour, who declared that he must be partially insane, and proceeded to prove herself so by replying to him. His proposed statute consists of eighty-two clauses, and is fortified by a “whereas” of a hundred and thirteen weighty reasons. He exhausts the range of history to show the frightful results which have followed this taste of the fruit of the tree of knowledge; quotes the Encyclopedie, to prove that the woman who knows the alphabet has already lost a portion of her innocence; cites the opinion of Moliere, that any female who has unhappily learned anything in this line should affect ignorance, when possible; asserts that knowledge rarely makes men attractive, and females never; opines that women have no occasion to peruse Ovid’s “Art of Love,” since they know it all in advance; remarks that three-quarters of female authors are no better than they should be; maintains that Madame Guion would have been far more useful, had she been merely pretty and an ignoramus, such as Nature made her, — that Ruth and Naomi could not read, and Boaz probably would never have married into the family, had they possessed that accomplishment, — that the Spartan women did not know the alphabet, nor the Amazons, nor Penelope, nor Andromache, nor Lucretia, nor Joan of Arc, nor Petrarch’s Laura, nor the daughters of Charlemagne, nor the three hundred and sixty-five wives of Mohammed; — but that Sappho and Madame de Maintenon could read altogether too well, while the case of Saint Brigitta, who brought forth twelve children and twelve books, was clearly exceptional, and afforded no safe precedent.

We take it, that the brilliant Frenchman has touched the root of the matter. Ought women to learn the alphabet? There the whole question lies. Concede this little fulcrum, and Archimedea will move the world before she has done with it; it becomes merely a question of time. Resistance must be made here or nowhere. Obsta principiis. Woman must be a subject or an equal; there is no middle ground. What if the Chinese proverb should turn out to be, after all, the summit of wisdom, — “For men, to cultivate virtue is knowledge; for women, to renounce knowledge is virtue”?

No doubt, the progress of events is slow, like the working of the laws of gravitation generally. Certainly, there has been but little change in the legal position of woman since China was in its prime, until within the last dozen years. Lawyers admit that the fundamental theory of English and Oriental law is the same on this point: Man and wife are one, and that one is the husband. It is the oldest of legal traditions. When Blackstone declares that “the very being and existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage,” and American Kent echoes that “her legal existence and authority are in a manner lost,” when Petersdorff asserts that “the husband has the right of imposing such corporeal restraints as he may deem necessary,” and Bacon that “the husband hath, by law, power and dominion over his wife, and may keep her by force within the bounds of duty, and may beat her, but not in a violent or cruel manner,”1 — when Mr. Justice Coleridge rules that the husband, in certain cases, “has a right to confine his wife in his own dwelling-house and restrain her from liberty for an indefinite time,” and Baron Alderson sums it all up tersely, “The wife is only the servant of her husband,” — these high authorities simply reaffirm the dogma of the Gentoo code, four thousand years old and more: — “A man, both day and night, must keep his wife so much in subjection that she by no means be mistress of her own actions. If the wife have her own free will, notwithstanding she be of a superior caste, she will behave amiss.”

Magazine Cover image
View This Story as a PDF
See this story as it appeared in the pages of The Atlantic magazine.

Open
Yet behind these unchanging institutions, a pressure has been for centuries becoming concentrated, which, now that it has begun to act, is threatening to overthrow them all. It has not yet operated very visibly in the Old World, where (even in England) the majority of women have not yet mastered the alphabet, and can not sign their own names in the marriage-register. But in this country, the vast changes of the last twelve years are already a matter of history. No trumpet has been sounded, no earthquake felt, while State after State has ushered into legal existence one half of the population within its borders. Every Free State in the American Union, except perhaps Illinois and New Jersey, has conceded to married women, in some form, the separate control of property. Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania have gone farther, and given them the control of their own earnings, — given it wholly and directly, that is, — while New York and other States have given it partially or indirectly. Legislative committees in Ohio and Wisconsin have recommended, in printed reports, the extension of the right of suffrage to women; Kentucky (like Canada) has actually extended it, in certain educational matters, and a Massachusetts legislative committee has suggested the same thing; while the Kansas Constitutional Convention came within a dozen votes of extending it without reserve, and expunging the word male from the Constitution. Surely, here and now, might poor M. Marechal exclaim, The bitter fruits of the original seed appear and the sad question recurs, whether women ought ever to have tasted of the alphabet.

Mr. Everett, perhaps without due caution, advocated, last summer, the affirmative of this question. With his accustomed eloquence, he urged on the attention of Suleiman Bey the fact of the equal participation of the sexes in the public school system of Boston, while omitting to explain to him that the equality is of very recent standing. No doubt, the eminent Oriental would have been pleased to hear that this public administration of the alphabet to females, on any terms, is an institution but little more than a half-century old in the city of Boston.  It is well established by the early deeds and documents that a large proportion of Puritan women could not write their own names; and in Boston especially, for a hundred and fifty years, the public schools included boys only.  In the year 1789, however, the notable discovery was made that the average attendance of pupils from April to October was only one half of that reported for the remainder of the year.  This was an obvious waste of money and accommodations, and it was therefore proposed that female pupils should be annually introduced during this intermediate period. Accordingly, school-girls, like other flowers, blossomed in summer only; and this state of things lasted, with but slight modification, for some forty years, according to the School-Superintendent’s Third Report.  It was not till 1828 that all distinctions were abolished in the Boston Common Schools; in the High Schools lingering far later, sole vestige of the “good old times,” before a mistaken economy overthrew the wholesome doctrine of M. Sylvain Marechal, and let loose the alphabet among women.

It is true that Eve ruined us all, according to theology, without knowing her letters.  Still, there is something to be said in defense of that venerable ancestress.  The Veronese lady, Isotta Nogarola, five hundred and thirty-six of whose learned letters were preserved by De Thou, composed a dialogue on the question, Whether Adam or Eve had committed the greater sin?  But Ludovico Domenichi, in his “Dialogue on the Nobleness of Women,” maintains that Eve did not sin at all, because she was not even created when Adam was told not to eat the apple.  It is “in Adam all died,” he shrewdly says; nobody died in Eve; — which looks plausible.  Be that as it may, Eve’s daughters are in danger of swallowing a whole harvest of forbidden fruit, in these revolutionary days, unless something be done to cut off the supply.

Magazine Cover image
Explore the February 1859 Issue
Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read.

View More
It has been seriously asserted that during the last half-century more  books have been written by women and about women than during all the previous uncounted ages.  It may be true; although, when we think of the innumerable volumes of Memoires by Frenchwomen of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, — each one justifying the existence of her own ten volumes by the remark, that all her contemporaries were writing as many, — we have our doubts. As to the increased multitude of general treatises on the female sex, however, — its education, life, health, diseases, charms, dress, deeds, sphere, rights, wrongs, work, wages, encroachments, and idiosyncrasies generally, — there can be no doubt whatever; and the poorest of these books recognizes a condition of public sentiment which no other age ever dreamed of. Still, literary history preserves the names of some reformers before the Reformation, in this matter. There was Signora Moderata Fonte, the Venetian, who left a book to be published after her death, in 1592, “Dei Meriti delle Donne.” There was her townswoman, Lucrezia Marinella, who followed ten years after, with her essay, “La Nobilità c la Eccelenza della Donne, con Difetti e Mancamenti degli Uomini,” — a comprehensive theme, truly! Then followed the all-accomplished Anna Maria Schurman, in 1645, with her “Dissertatio de lngenii Muliebris ad Doctrinam et meliores Literas Aptitudine,” with a few miscellaneous letters appended, in Greek and Hebrew. At last came boldly Jacquette Guillaume, in 1665, and threw down the gauntlet in her title-page, “Les Dames Illustres; ou par bonnes et fortes Raisons il se prouve que le Sexe Feminin surpasse en toute Sorte de Genre le Sexe Masculin”; and with her came Margaret Boufflet and a host of others; and finally, in England, Mary Wollstonecraft,  whose famous book, formidable in its day, would seem rather conservative now, — and in America, that pious and worthy dame, Mrs. H. Mather Croeker, Cotton Mather’s grandchild, who, in 1818, published the first book on the “Rights of Woman” ever written on this side the Atlantic.

Meanwhile there have never been wanting men, and strong men, to echo these appeals. From Cornelius Agrippa and his essay (1509) on the excellence of woman and her preeminence over man, down to the first youthful thesis of Agassiz, “Mens Feminae Viri Animo superior,” there has been a succession of voices crying in the wilderness. In England, Anthony Gibson wrote a book, in 1599, called “A Woman’s Woorth, defended against all the Men in the World, proouing them to be more Perfect, Excellent, and Absolute in all Vertuous Actions than any Man of what Qualitie so-ever, Interlarded with Poetry.” Per contra, the learned Acidalius published a book in Latin and afterwards in French, to prove that women are not reasonable creatures. Modern theologians are at worst merely sub-acid, and do not always say so, if they think so. Meanwhile most persons have been content to leave the world to go on its old course, in this matter as in others, and have thus acquiesced in that stern judicial decree, with which Timon of Athens sums up all his curses upon womankind, — “If there sit twelve women at the table, let a dozen of them be—as they are.”

Ancient or modern, nothing in any of these discussions is so valuable as the fact of the discussion itself. There is no discussion where there is no wrong. Nothing so indicates wrong as this morbid self-inspection. The complaints are a perpetual protest, the defenses a perpetual confession. It is too late to ignore the question, and once opened, it can be settled only on absolute and permanent principles. There is a wrong; but where? Does woman already know too much, or too little? Was she created for man’s subject, or his equal? Shall she have the alphabet, or not?

Ancient mythology, which undertook to explain everything, easily accounted for the social and political disabilities of woman. Goguet quotes the story from St. Augustine, who got it from Varro. Cecrops, building Athens, saw starting from the earth an olive-plant and a fountain, side by side. The Delphic oracle said, that this indicated a strife between Minerva and Neptune for the honor of giving a name to the city, and that the people must decide between them. Cecrops thereupon assembled the men, and the women also, who then had a right to vote and the result was that Minerva carried the election by a glorious majority of one. Then Attica was overflowed and laid waste; of course the citizens attributed the calamity to Neptune, and resolved to punish the women.  It was therefore determined that in future they should not vote, nor should any child bear the name of its mother.

Thus easily did mythology explain all troublesome inconsistencies. But it is much that it should even have recognized them, at so early an epoch, as needing explanation. When we ask for a less symbolical elucidation, it lies within our reach. At least, it is not hard to take the first steps into the mystery. There are, to be sure, some flowers of rhetoric in the way. The obstacle to the participation of woman in the alphabet, or in any other privilege, has been thought by some to be the fear of impairing her delicacy, or of destroying her domesticity or of confounding the distinction between the sexes. We think otherwise. These have been plausible excuses; they have even been genuine, though minor, anxieties. But the whole thing, we take it, had always one simple, intelligible basis—sheer contempt for the supposed intellectual inferiority of woman. She was not to be taught, because she was not worth teaching. The learned Acidalius, aforesaid, was in the majority. According to Aristotle and the Peripatetics, woman was animal occasionatum, as if a sort of monster and accidental production. Mediaeval councils, charitably asserting her claims to the rank of humanity, still pronounced her unfit for instruction. In the Hindoo dramas, she did not even speak the same language with her master, but used the dialect of slaves. When, in the sixteenth century, Françoise de Saintonges wished to establish girls’ schools in France, she was hooted in the streets, and her father called together four doctors, learned in the law, to decide whether she was not possessed by demons, to think of educating women, — pour s’assurer qu’instruire es femmes n’etait pas un oeuvre du demon.

It was the same with political rights. The foundation of the Salic Law was not any sentimental anxiety to guard female delicacy and domesticity; it was, as stated by Froissart, a blunt, hearty contempt: “The kingdom of France being too noble to be ruled by a woman.” And the same principle was reaffirmed for our own institutions, in rather softened language, by Theophilus Parsons, in his famous defense of the rights of Massachusetts men (the “Essex Result,” in 1778): “Women, what age soever they are of, are not considered as having a sufficient acquired discretion [to exercise the franchise].”

In harmony with this are the various maxims and bon mots of eminent men, in respect to women. Niebuhr thought he should not have educated a girl well, — he should have made her know too much. Lessing said, “The woman who thinks is like the man who puts on rouge, ridiculous.” Voltaire said, “Ideas are like beards; women and young men have none.” And witty Dr. Maginn carries to its extreme the atrocity: “We like to hear a few words of sense from a woman, as we do from a parrot, because they are so unexpected.” Yet how can we wonder at these opinions, when the saints have been severer than the sages? since the pious Fenelon taught that true virgin delicacy was almost as incompatible with learning as with vice, — and Dr. Channing complained, in his “Essay on Exclusion and Denunciation,” of “women forgetting the tenderness of their sex” and arguing on theology.

Now this impression of feminine inferiority may be right or wrong, but it obviously does a good deal towards explaining the facts it takes for granted. If contempt does not originally cause failure, it perpetuates it. Systematically discourage any individual or class, from birth to death, and they learn, in nine cases out of ten, to acquiesce in their degradation, if not to claim it as a crown of glory. If the Abbe Choisi praised the Duchesse dc Fontanges for being “beautiful as an angel and silly as a goose,” it was natural that all the young ladies of the court should resolve to make up in folly what they wanted in charms. All generations of women having been bred under the shadow of intellectual contempt, they have of course done much to justify it. They have often used only for frivolous purposes even the poor opportunities allowed them. They have employed the alphabet, as Moliere said, chiefly in spelling the verb Amo. Their use of science has been like that of Mlle. de Launay, who computed the decline in her lover’s affection by his abbreviation of their evening walk in the public square, preferring to cross it rather than take the circuit, — “From which I inferred,” she says, “that his passion had diminished in the ratio between the diagonal of a rectangular parallelogram and the sum of two adjacent sides.” And their conception, even of Art, has been too often on the scale of Properzia de Rossi, who carved sixty-five heads on a walnut, the smallest of all recorded symbols of woman’s sphere.

All this might perhaps be overcome, if the social prejudice which discourages woman would only reward proportionately those who surmount the discouragement. The more obstacles the more glory, if society would only pay in proportion to the labor; but it does not. Women, being denied not merely the antecedent training which prepares for great deeds, but the subsequent praise and compensation which follow them, have been weakened in both directions. The career of eminent men ordinarily begins with colleges and the memories of Miltiades, and ends with fortune and fame; woman begins under discouragement, and ends beneath the same. Single, she works with half-preparation and half-pay; married, she puts name and wages into the keeping of her husband, shrinks into John Smith’s “lady” during life, and John Smith’s “relict” on her tombstone; and still the world wonders that her deeds, like her opportunities, are inferior.

Evidently, then, the advocates of woman’s claims—those who hold that “the virtues of the man and the woman are the same,” with Antisthenes, — or that “the talent of the man and the woman is the same,” with Socrates in Xenophon’s “Banquet”—must be cautious lest they attempt to prove too much. Of course, if women know as much as men without schools and colleges, there is no need of admitting them to these institutions. If they work as well on half-pay it diminishes the inducement to give them the other half. The safer position is, to claim that they have done just enough to show what they might have done under circumstances less discouraging. Take, for instance, the common remark, that women have invented nothing. It is a valid answer, that the only tools habitually needed by woman have been the needle, the spindle, and the basket, and tradition reports that she herself invented all three. In the same way it may be shown that the departments in which women have equalled men have been the departments in which they have had equal training, equal encouragement, and equal compensation, — as, for instance, the theatre. Madame Lagrange, the prima donna, after years of costly musical instruction, wins the zenith of professional success; she receives, the newspapers affirm, sixty thousand dollars a year, travelling-expenses for ten persons, country-houses, stables, and liveries, besides an uncounted revenue of bracelets, bouquets, and billet-doux. Of course, every young debutante fancies the same thing within her own reach, with only a brief stage-vista between. On the stage there is no deduction for sex, and therefore woman has shown in that sphere an equal genius. But every female common-school teacher in the United States finds the enjoyment of her two hundred dollars a year to be secretly embittered by the knowledge that the young college stripling in the next school-room is paid a thousand dollars for work no harder or more responsible than her own, — and that, too, after the whole pathway of education has been obstructed for her and smoothed for him. These may be gross and carnal considerations; but Faith asks her daily bread, and Fancy must be fed. We deny woman her fair share of training, of encouragement, of remuneration, and then talk fine nonsense about her instincts and her intuitions—say sentimentally, with the Oriental proverbialist, “Every book of knowledge is implanted by nature in the heart of woman,” and make the compliment a substitute for the alphabet.

Nothing can be more absurd than to impose entirely distinct standards, in thus respect, on the two sexes, or to expect that woman, any more than man, will accomplish anything great without due preparation and adequate stimulus. Mrs. Patten, who navigated her husband’s ship from Cape Horn to California, would have failed in the effort, for all her heroism if she had not, unlike most of her sex, been taught to use her Bowditch.  Florence Nightingale, when she heard of the distresses in the Crimea, did not, as most people imagine, rise up and say, “I am a woman, ignorant, but intuitive, with very little sense or information, but exceedingly sublime aspirations; my strength lies in my weakness; I can do all things without knowing anything about them.” Not at all. During ten years she had been in hard training for precisely such services, — had visited all the hospitals in London, Edinburgh, Dublin, Paris, Lyons, Rome, Brussels, and Berlin, — had studied under the Sisters of Charity, and been twice a nurse in the Protestant Institution at Kaiserswerth.  Therefore she did not merely carry to the Crimea a woman’s heart, as her stock in trade, but she knew the alphabet of her profession better than the men around her.  Of course, genius and enthusiasm are, for both sexes, elements unforeseen and incalculable; but, as a general rule, great achievements imply great preparations and favorable conditions.

To disregard this truth is unreasonable in the abstract and cruel in its consequences. If an extraordinary male gymnast can clear a height of ten feet with the aid of a spring-board, it would be considered slightly absurd to ask a woman to leap eleven feet without one; yet this is precisely what society and the critics have always done. Training and wages and social approbation are very elastic spring-boards, and the whole course of history has seen these offered bounteously to one sex and as sedulously withheld from the other. Let woman consent to be a doll, and there was no finery so gorgeous, no baby-house so costly, but she might aspire to share its lavish delights; — let her ask simply for an equal chance to learn, to labor, and to live, and it was as if that same doll should open its lips, and propound Euclid’s forty-seventh proposition. While we have all deplored the helpless position of indigent women, and lamented that they had no alternative beyond the needle, the wash-tub, the school-room, and the street, we have yet resisted their admission into every new occupation, denied them training, and cut their compensation down. Like Charles Lamb, who atoned for coming late to the office in the morning by going away early in the afternoon, we have, first, half educated women, and then, to restore the balance, only half paid them. What innumerable obstacles have been placed in the way of female physicians! what a complication of difficulties has been encountered by female printers, engravers, and designers! In London, Mr. Bennett was recently mobbed for lecturing to women on watchmaking. In this country, we have known grave professors to refuse to address lyceums which thought fit to employ an occasional female lecturer. Mr. Corner states that it was “in the face of ridicule and sneers” that he began to educate women as book-keepers, eight years ago; and it is a little contemptible in the authoress of “A Woman’s Thoughts on Women” to revive the same satire now, when she must know that in one half the retail shops in Paris her own sex rules the ledger, and Mammon knows no Salle law.

We find, on investigation, what these considerations would lead us to expect, that eminent women have commonly been more exceptional in their training and position than even in their genius. They have excelled the average of their own sex because they have had more of the ordinary advantages of the other sex. Take any department of learning or skill; take, for instance, the knowledge or languages, the universal alphabet, philology. — On time great stairway, at Padua, stands the statue of Elena Cornaro, professor of six languages in that once renowned university. But Elena Cornaro was educated like a boy, by her father. — On the great door of the University of Bologna is inscribed the epitaph of Clotilda Tambroni, the honored correspondent of Poison, and the first Greek scholar of Southern Europe in her day. But Clotilda Tanibroni was educated like a boy, by Einanucle Aponte. — How fine are those prefatory words, “by a Right Reverend Prelate,” to that pioneer book in Anglo-Saxon lore, Elizabeth Elstob’s grammar: “Our earthly possessions are indeed our patrimony, as derived to us by the industry of our fathers; but the language in which we speak is our mother-tongue, and who so proper to play the critic in this as the females?” But this particular female obtained the rudiments of her rare education from her mother, before she was eight years old, in spite of much opposition from her right reverend guardians. — Adelung, the highest authority, declares that all modern philology is founded on the translation of a Russian vocabulary into two hundred different dialects by Catherine II. But Catherine shared, in childhood, the instructors of her brother, Prince Frederick, and was subject to some reproach for learning, though a girl, so much more rapidly than he did. — Christina of Sweden ironically reproved Madame Dacier for her translation of Callimachus: “Such a pretty girl as you are, are you not ashamed to be so learned?” But Madame Dacier acquired Greek by contriving to do her embroidery in the room where her father was teaching her stupid brother; and her queenly critic had learned to read Thucydides, harder Greek than Callimachus, before she was fourteen. — And so down to our own day, who knows how many mute, inglorious Minervas may have perished unenlightened, while Margaret Fuller and Elizabeth Barrett Browning were being educated “like boys”?

This expression simply means that they had the most solid training which the times afforded. Most persons would instantly take alarm at the very words; that is, they have so little faith in the distinctions which Nature has established, that they think, if you teach the alphabet, or anything else, indiscriminately to both sexes, you annul all difference between them. The common reasoning is thus: “Boys and girls are acknowledged to be distinct beings. Now boys study Greek and algebra, medicine and book-keeping. Therefore girls should not.” As if one should say “Boys and girls are distinct beings. Now boys eat beef and potatoes. Therefore, obviously, girls should not.”

The analogy between physical and spiritual food is precisely in point. The simple truth is, that, amid the vast range of human powers and properties, the fact of sex is but one item. Vital and momentous in itself, it does not constitute the whole organism, but, only a small part of it. The distinction of male and female is special, aimed at a certain end; and apart from that end, it is, throughout all the kingdoms of Nature, of minor importance. With but trifling exceptions, from infusorial up to man, the female animal moves, breathes, looks, listens, runs, flies, swims, pursues its food, eats it, digests it, in precisely the same manner as the male; all instinct’s, all characteristics, are the same, except as to the one solitary fact of parentage. Mr. Ten Broeck’s race-horses, Pryor and Prioress, were foaled alike, fed alike, trained alike, and finally ran side by side, competing for the same prize. The eagle is not checked in soaring by any consciousness of sex, nor asks the sex of the timid hare, its quarry. Nature, for high purposes, creates and guards the sexual distinction, but keeps it humbly subordinate to still more important ones.

Now all this bears directly upon the alphabet. What sort of philosophy is that which says, “John is a fool; Jane is a genius; nevertheless, John, being a man, shall learn, lead, make laws, make money; Jane, being a woman, shall be ignorant, dependent, disfranchised, underpaid.” Of course, the time is past when one would state this so frankly, though Comte comes quite near it, to say nothing of the Mormons; but this formula really lies at the bottom of the reasoning one hears every day. The answer is: Soul before sex. Give an equal chance, and let genius and industry do the rest. La carrière ouverte aux talens. Every man for himself, every woman for herself, and the alphabet for us all.

Thus far, our whole course of argument has been defensive and explanatory. We have shown that woman’s inferiority in special achievements, so far as it exists, is a fact of small importance, because it is merely a corollary from her historic position of degradation. She has not excelled, because she has had no fair chance to excel. Man, placing his foot upon her shoulder, has taunted her with not rising. But the ulterior question remains behind, — How came she into this attitude, originally? Explain the explanation, the logician fairly demands. Granted that woman is weak because she has been systematically degraded; but why was she degraded? This is a far deeper question, — one to be met only by a profounder philosophy and a positive solution. We are coming on ground almost wholly untrod, and must do the best we can.


We venture to assert, then, that woman’s social inferiority, in the past, has been, to a great extent, a legitimate thing. To all appearance, history would have been impossible without it, just as it would have been impossible without an epoch of war and slavery. It is simply a matter of social progress, a part of the succession of civilizations. The past has been, and inevitably, a period of ignorance, of engrossing physical necessities, and of brute force, — not of freedom, of philanthropy, and of culture. During that lower epoch, woman was necessarily an inferior, — degraded by abject labor, even in time of peace, — degraded uniformly by war, chivalry to the contrary notwithstanding. Behind all the courtesies of Amadis and the Cid lay the stern fact, — woman a child or a toy. The flattering troubadours chanted her into a poet’s paradise; but, alas! That kingdom of heaven suffered violence, and the violent took it by force. The truth simply was, that her time had not come. Physical strength must rule for a time, and she was the weaker. She was very properly refused a feudal grant, because, say “Les Coustumes de Normandie,” she is not trained to war or policy: C’est l’homme ki se bast et ki conseille. Other authorities put it still more plainly: “A woman cannot serve the emperor or feudal lord in war, on account of the decorum of her sex; nor assist him with advice, because of her limited intellect; nor keep his counsel, owing to the infirmity of her disposition.” All which was, no doubt, in the majority of cases, true, and the degradation of woman was simply a part of a system, which has indeed had its day, but has bequeathed its associations.


From this reign of force woman never freed herself by force. She could not fight, or would not. Bohemian annals, indeed, record the legend of a literal war between the sexes, in which the women’s army was led by Libussa and Wlasla, and which finally ended with the capture, by the army of men, of Castle Dziewin, Maiden’s Tower, whose ruins are still visible near Prague. The armor of Libussa is still shown at Vienna, and the guide calls attention to the long-peaked toes of steel, with which, he avers, the tender Princess was wont to pierce the hearts of her opponents, while careering through the battle. And there are abundant instances in which women have fought side by side with men, and on equal terms. The ancient British women mingled in the wars of their husbands, and their princesses were trained to the use of arms in the Maiden’s Castle at Edinburgh and in the Isle of Skye. The Moorish wives and maidens fought in defence of their European peninsula; and the Portuguese women fought, on the same soil, against the armies of Philip II. The king of Siam has at present a bodyguard of four hundred women; they are armed with lance and rifle, are admirably disciplined, and their commander (appointed after saving the king’s life at a tiger-hunt) ranks as one of the royal family and has ten elephants at her service. When the all-conquering Dahomian army marched upon Abbeokuta, in 1851, they numbered ten thousand men and six thousand women; the women were, as usual, placed foremost in the assault, as being most reliable; and of the eighteen hundred bodies left dead before the walls, the vast majority were of women. The Hospital of the Invalides, in Paris, has sheltered, for half a century, a fine specimen of a female soldier, “Lieutenant Madame Bulan,” now eighty-three years old, decorated by Napoleon’s own hand with the cross of the Legion of honor, and credited on the hospital-books with “seven years’ service, — seven campaigns, — three wounds, — several times distinguished, especially in Corsica, in defending a fort against the English.” But these cases, though interesting to the historian, are still exceptional, and the instinctive repugnance they inspire is condemnatory, not of women, but of war.


The reason, then, for the long subjection of woman has been simply that humanity was passing through its first epoch, and her full career was to be reserved for the second. As the different races of man have appeared successively upon the stage of history, so there has been an order of succession of the sexes. Woman’s appointed era, like that of the Scandinavian tribes, was delayed, but not omitted. It is not merely true that the empire of the past has belonged to man, but that it has properly belonged to him; for it was an empire of the muscles, enlisting at best but the lower powers of the understanding. There can be no question that the present epoch is initiating an empire of the higher reason, of arts, affections, aspirations; and for that epoch the genius of woman has been reserved. The sprit of the age has always kept pace with the facts, and outstripped the statutes. Till the fulness of time came, woman was necessarily kept a slave to the spinning-wheel and the needle; now higher work is ready, peace has brought invention to her aid, and the mechanical means for her emancipation are ready also. No use in releasing her, till man, with his strong arm, had worked out his preliminary share in civilization. “Earth waits for her queen” was a favorite motto of Margaret Fuller’s; but it would be more correct to say that the queen has waited for her earth, till it could be smoothed and prepared for her occupancy. Now Cinderella may begin to think of putting on her royal robes.

Everybody sees that the times are altering the whole material position of woman; but most persons do not appear to see the inevitable social and moral changes which are also involved. As has been already said, the woman of ancient history was a slave to physical necessities, both in war and peace. In war she could do too little, in peace she did too much, under the material compulsions which controlled the world. How could the Jews, for instance, elevate woman? They could not spare her from the wool and the flax and the candle that goeth not out by night. In Rome, when the bride first stepped across her threshold, they did not ask her, Do you know the alphabet? they asked simply, Can you spin? There was no higher epitaph than Queen Amalasontha’s, — Domum servavit, lanam fecit. In Boeotia, brides were conducted home in vehicles whose wheels were burned at the door, in token that they were never to leave the house again. Pythagoras instituted at Crotona an annual festival for the distaff; Confucius, in China, did the same for the spindle; and these celebrated not the freedom, but the serfdom, of woman.


And even into modern days this same tyrannical necessity has lingered. “Go spin, you jades! Go spin!” was the only answer vouchsafed by the Earl of Pembroke to the twice-banished nuns of Wilton. And even now, travellers agree that throughout civilized Europe, with the partial exception of England and France, the profound absorption of the mass of women in household labors renders their general elevation impossible. But with us Americans, and in this age, when all these vast labors are being more and more transferred to arms of brass and iron, — when Rochester grinds the flour, and Lowell weaves the cloth, and the fire on the hearth has gone into black retirement and mourning, — when the wiser a virgin is, the less she has to do with oil in her lamp, — when the needle has made its last dying speech and confession in the “Song of the Shirt,” and the sewing-machine has changed those doleful marches to delightful measures, — how is it possible for the blindest to help seeing that a new era is begun, and that the time has come for woman to learn the alphabet?

Nobody asks for any abolition of domestic labor for women, any more than of outdoor labor for men. Of course, most women will still continue to be mainly occupied with the indoor care of their families, and most men with their external support. All that is desirable for either sex is such an economy of labor, in this respect, as shall leave some spare time, to be appropriated in other directions. The argument against each new emancipation of woman is precisely that always made against the liberation of serfs and the enfranchisement of plebeians, — that the new position will take them from their legitimate business. “How can he [or she] get wisdom that holdeth the plough, [or the broom,] — whose talk is of bullocks [or of babies]?” Yet the American farmer has already emancipated himself from these fancied incompatibilities, and so will the farmer’s wife. In a nation where there is no leisure-class and no peasantry, this whole theory of exclusion is an absurdity. We all have a little leisure, and we must all make the most of it. If we will confine large interests and duties to those who have nothing else to do, we must go back to monarchy at once; if otherwise, then the alphabet, and its consequences, must be open to woman as to man. Jean Paul says nobly, in his “Levana,” that, “before and after being a mother, a woman is a human being, and neither maternal nor conjugal relation can supersede the human responsibility, but must become its means and instrument.” And it is good to read the manly speech, on this subject, of John Quincy Adams, quoted at length by his recent venerable biographer, — in which, after fully defending the political petitions of the women of Plymouth, he declares that “the correct principle is, that women are not only justified, but exhibit the most exalted virtue, when they do depart from the domestic circle, and enter on the concerns of their country, of humanity, and of their God.”


There are duties devolving on every human being, — duties not small or few, but vast and varied, — which spring from home and private life, and all their sweet relations. The support or care of the humblest household is a function worthy of men, women, and angels, so far as it goes. From these duties none must shrink, neither man nor woman; the loftiest genius cannot ignore them; the sublimest charity must begin with them. They are their own exceeding great reward, their self-sacrifice is infinite joy, and the selfishness which discards them receives in return loneliness and a desolate old age. Yet these, though the most tender and intimate portion of human life, do not form its whole. It is given to noble souls to crave other interests also, added spheres, not necessarily alien from these, — larger knowledge, larger action also, — duties, responsibilities, anxieties, dangers, all the aliment that history has given to its heroes. Not home less, but humanity more. When the high-born English lady in the Crimean hospital, ordered to a post of almost certain death, only raised her hands to heaven and said, “Thank God!” she did not renounce her true position as woman, she claimed it. When the queen of James I. of Scotland, already immortalized by him in stately verse, won a higher immortality by welcoming to her fair bosom the daggers aimed at his, — when the Countess of Buchan hung confined in her iron cage, outside Berwick Castle, in penalty for crowning Robert the Bruce, — when the stainless soul of Joan of Arc met God, like Moses, in a burning flame, — these things were as they should be. Man must not monopolize these privileges of peril, birthright of great souls. Serenades and compliments must not replace the nobler hospitality which shares with woman the opportunity of martyrdom. Great administrative duties also, cares of state, for which one should be born gray-headed, how nobly do these sit upon a female brow! Each year adds to the storied renown of Elizabeth of England, greatest sovereign of the greatest of historic nations. Christina of Sweden, alone among the crowned heads of Europe, (so says Voltaire,) sustained the dignity of the throne against Richelieu and Mazarin. And they most assuredly did not sacrifice their womanhood in the process; for her Britannic Majesty’s wardrobe included four thousand gowns, — and Mlle. de Montpensier declares, that, when Christina had put on a wig of the latest fashion, “she really looked extremely pretty.” Should this evidence of feminine attributes appear to some sterner intellects frivolous and insufficient, it is, nevertheless, adapted to the level of the style of argument it answers.


Les races se feminisent, said Buffon, — “The world is growing more feminine.” It is a compliment, whether the naturalist intended it or not. Time has brought peace; peace, invention; and the poorest woman of to-day is born to an inheritance such as her ancestors never dreamed of. Previous attempts to confer on women social and political equality, — as when Leopold, Grand Duke of Tuscany, made them magistrates, or when the Hungarian revolutionists made them voters, or when our own New Jersey tried the same experiment, in a guarded fashion, in early times, and then revoked the privilege, because (as in the ancient fable) the women voted the wrong way, — these things were premature, and valuable only as concessions to a supposed principle. But in view of the rapid changes now going on, he is a rash man who asserts the “Woman Question” to be anything but a mere question of time. The fulcrum has been already given, in the alphabet, and we must simply watch and see whether the earth does not move.

In this present treatment of the subject, we have been more anxious to assert broad principles than to work them out into the details of their application. We only point out the plain fact: woman must be either a subject or an equal; there is no other permanent ground. Every concession to a supposed principle only involves the necessity of the next concession for which that principle calls. Once yield the alphabet, and we abandon the whole long theory of subjection and coverture; the past is set aside, and we have nothing but abstractions to fall back upon. Reasoning abstractly, it must be admitted that the argument has been, thus far, entirely on the women’s side, inasmuch as no man has yet seriously tried to meet them with argument. It is an alarming feature of this discussion, that it has reversed, very generally, the traditional positions of the sexes: the women have had all the logic; and the most intelligent men, when they have attempted the other side, have limited themselves to satire and gossip. What rational woman, we ask, can be convinced by the nonsense which is talked in ordinary society around her, — as, that it is right to admit girls to common schools, and equally right to exclude them from colleges, — that it is proper for a woman to sing in public, but indelicate for her to speak in public, — that a post-office box is an unexceptionable place to drop a bit of paper into, but a ballot-box terribly dangerous? No cause in the world can keep above water, sustained by such contradictions as these, too feeble and slight to be dignified by the name of fallacies. Some persons profess to think it impossible to reason with a woman, and they certainly show no disposition to try the experiment.


But we must remember that all our American institutions are based on consistency, or on nothing; all claim to be founded on the principles of natural right, and when they quit those, they are lost. In all European monarchies, it is the theory, that the mass of the people are children, to be governed, not mature beings, to govern themselves. This is clearly stated, and consistently applied. In the free states of this Union, we have formally abandoned this theory for one half of the human race, while for the other half it still flourishes in full force. The moment the claims of woman are broached, the democrat becomes a monarchist. What Americans commonly criticize in English statesmen, namely, that they habitually evade all arguments based on natural right, and defend every legal wrong on the ground that it works well in practice, is the precise characteristic of our habitual view of woman. The perplexity must be resolved somehow. We seldom meet a legislator who pretends to deny that strict adherence to our own principles would place both sexes in precisely equal positions before law and Constitution, as well as in school and society. But each has his special quibble to apply, showing that in this case we must abandon all the general maxims to which we have pledged ourselves, and hold only by precedent. Nay, he construes even precedent with the most ingenious rigor; since the exclusion of women from, all direct contact with affairs can be made far more perfect in a republic than is possible in a monarchy, where even sex is merged in rank, and the female patrician may have far more power than the male plebeian. But, as matters now stand among us, there is no aristocracy but of sex: all men are born patrician, all women are legally plebeian; all men are equal in having political power, and all women in having none. This is a paradox so evident, and such an anomaly in human progress, that it cannot last forever, without new discoveries in logic, or else a deliberate return to M. Marechal’s theory concerning the alphabet.


Meanwhile, as the newspapers say, we anxiously await further developments. According to present appearances, the final adjustment lies mainly in the hands of women themselves. Men can hardly be expected to concede either rights or privileges more rapidly than they are claimed, or to be truer to women than women are to each other. True, the worst effect of a condition of inferiority is the weakness it leaves behind it; even when we say, “Hands off!” the sufferer does not rise. In such a case, there is but one counsel worth giving. More depends on determination than even on ability. Will, not talent, governs the world. From what pathway of eminence were women more traditionally excluded than from the art of sculpture, in spite of Non me Praxiteles fecit, sed Anna Damer? — yet Harriet Hosmer, in eight years, has trod its full ascent. Who believed that a poetess could ever be more than an Annot Lyle of the harp, to soothe with sweet melodies the leisure of her lord, until in Elizabeth Barrett’s hands the thing became a trumpet? Where are gone the sneers with which army surgeons and parliamentary orators opposed Mr. Sidney Herbert’s first proposition to send Florence Nightingale to the Crimea? In how many towns has the current of popular prejudice against female orators been reversed by one winning speech from Lucy Stone! Where no logic can prevail, success silences. First give woman, if you dare, the alphabet, then summon her to her career; and though men, ignorant and prejudiced, may oppose its beginnings, there is no danger but they will at last fling around her conquering footsteps more lavish praises than ever greeted the opera’s idol, — more perfumed flowers than ever wooed, with intoxicating fragrance, the fairest butterfly of the ball-room.


It may be well to fortify this point by a racy extract from that rare and amusing old book, the pioneer of its class, entitled “The Lawes Resolutions of Women’s Rights, or the Lawes Provision for Women. A Methodicall Collection of such Statutes and Customes, with the Cases, Opinions, Arguments, and Points of Learning in the Law as doe properly concern Women.” London: A. D. 1632. pp. 404 4to. The pithy sentences lose immeasurably however, by being removed from their original black-letter setting.

“Lib. III. Sect. VII. The Baron may beate his Wife.”

“The rest followeth, Justice Brooke 12. H. 8. fo. 4. affirmeth plainly, that if a man beat an out-law, a traitor, it Pagan, his villein, or his wife, it is dispunishable, because by the Law Common these persons can haue no action: God send Gentle-women better sport, or better companie.“

But it seemeth to be very true, that there is some kind of castigation which Law permits a Husband to vse; for if a woman be threatned by her husband to bee beaten, mischieued, or slane, Fitzherbert sets doune a Writ which she may sve out of Chancery to compel him to finde surety of honest behauiour toward her, and that he shall neither doe nor procure to be done to her (marke I pray you) any bodily damage, otherwise then appertaines to the office of a Husband for lawfull and reasonable correction. See for this the new Nat. bre, fo. 80 f. & fo. 238 f.“

How farre that extendeth I cannot tell, but herein the sexe feminine is at no very great disaduantage: for first for the lawfulnesse; If it be in no other regard lawfull to beat a man’s wife, then because the poore wench can sve no other action for it, I pray why may not the Wife beat the Husband againe, what action can be haue if she doe: where two tenants in Common be on a horse, and one them will trauell and vse this horse, hee may keepe it from his Companion a yeare two or three and so be euen with him; so the actionlesse woman beaten by her Husband, hath retaliation left to beate him againe, if she dare. If he come to the Chancery or Justices in the Country of the peace against her, because her recognizance alone will hardly bee taken, he were best be bound for her, and then if he be beaten the second time, let him know the price of it on God’s name.” ↩




美国
妇女应该学习字母表吗？
"那么，我们敢断言，在过去，妇女的社会地位低下，在很大程度上，是一件合法的事情。"

作者：托马斯-温特沃斯-希金森
一幅两个女人坐在一起的画，其中一个在读一本书
美国国会图书馆
1859年2月号
分享
1801年，在拿破仑重塑其帝国的宗教和政府的宏伟计划中，讽刺作家西尔万-马雷夏尔将他的 "禁止妇女使用字母表的法律计划 "推到了巴黎，有一两个小时的时间是微笑的。大胆、敏锐、讽刺、博学，这篇小文章至今仍保留着如此多的辛辣，以至于我们很难对作者的朋友和传记作者加康-杜福尔夫人的诚实单纯感到惊讶，她宣称他一定是部分疯了，并通过回答他来证明自己是如此。他提议的法规由82个条款组成，并以113条重要理由的 "而 "字加以强化。他用尽了历史的方法来说明品尝知识之树的果实后的可怕结果；引用《百科全书》来证明知道字母表的女人已经失去了一部分清白；引用莫里哀的观点，即任何不幸在这方面学到任何东西的女性都应该尽可能地保持无知。声称知识很少能使男人有吸引力，而女人永远不会；认为女人没有机会阅读奥维德的《爱的艺术》，因为她们事先都知道；指出四分之三的女作家并不比她们应该做的好。认为吉翁夫人如果仅仅是个漂亮的无知者，就会有更大的作用，就像大自然赋予她的那样，--路得和拿俄米不识字，波阿斯如果有这种修养，可能永远不会嫁到这个家庭。- 斯巴达的女人不认识字母，亚马逊人也不认识，佩内洛普也不认识，安德洛玛奇也不认识，卢克丽霞也不认识，圣女贞德也不认识，彼特拉克的劳拉也不认识，查理曼的女儿们也不认识，穆罕默德的三百六十五位妻子也不认识。- 但萨福和曼特侬夫人的阅读能力太强了，而圣布里吉塔的情况，她生了12个孩子和12本书，显然是例外，没有安全的先例。

我们认为，这位杰出的法国人已经触及了问题的根源。妇女是否应该学习字母？整个问题就在这里。让出这个小支点，阿基米德亚就会在她完成这个任务之前移动世界；这只是一个时间问题。必须在这里或任何地方进行抵抗。违背原则。女人必须是一个主体或一个平等；没有中间地带。如果中国的谚语毕竟是智慧的巅峰："对男人来说，培养美德就是知识；对女人来说，放弃知识就是美德"，那该怎么办？

毫无疑问，事件的进展是缓慢的，就像引力定律的工作一般。当然，自中国鼎盛时期以来，直到最近十几年，妇女的法律地位几乎没有变化。律师们承认，在这一点上，英国和东方法律的基本理论是相同的。男人和妻子是一体的，而这个一体就是丈夫。这是最古老的法律传统。当布莱克斯通宣称 "妇女的存在和存在在婚姻期间被中止 "时，美国肯特回应说 "她的法律存在和权力在某种程度上丧失了"，当彼得斯多夫断言 "丈夫有权施加他认为必要的肉体限制时。 "和培根说 "丈夫依法拥有对妻子的权力和支配权，可以在职责范围内用武力约束她，可以打她，但不能用暴力或残忍的方式，"1 --当Mr. Coleridge法官裁定，在某些情况下，丈夫 "有权将妻子限制在自己的住所内，并无限期地限制她的自由"，Alderson男爵简单地总结了这一切："妻子只是丈夫的仆人，"--这些权威人士只是重申了有四千年以上历史的根图法典的教条：--"一个男人，无论白天还是晚上，都必须使妻子受到如此大的约束，使她决不能成为自己行为的主人。如果妻子有自己的自由意志，尽管她的种姓较高，她的行为也会不正常。"

杂志封面图片
以PDF格式查看本故事
请看这个故事出现在《大西洋》杂志的页面上。

打开
然而，在这些不变的机构背后，几个世纪以来，一种压力一直在集中，现在它已经开始行动，威胁着要推翻它们。这种压力在旧世界还没有非常明显的作用，在那里（甚至在英国）大多数妇女还没有掌握字母，也不能在婚姻登记册上签署自己的名字。但是在这个国家，过去12年的巨大变化已经成为历史了。没有号角响起，没有地震发生，而一个又一个的州却将其境内的一半人口纳入了合法的生活。除了伊利诺伊州和新泽西州，美国联邦的每一个自由州都以某种形式承认已婚妇女可以单独控制财产。缅因州、马萨诸塞州、康涅狄格州和宾夕法尼亚州走得更远，让她们控制自己的收入，也就是全部和直接控制，而纽约和其他州则部分或间接控制。俄亥俄州和威斯康星州的立法委员会在印刷的报告中建议将选举权扩大到妇女；肯塔基州（像加拿大一样）在某些教育问题上实际扩大了选举权，马萨诸塞州的一个立法委员会也提出了同样的建议；而堪萨斯州制宪会议在十几票之内毫无保留地扩大了选举权，并将男性一词从宪法中删除。当然，此时此刻，可怜的马雷夏尔先生可能会感叹：原始种子的苦果出现了，可悲的问题又出现了，妇女是否应该尝到字母的滋味。

去年夏天，埃弗雷特先生也许没有采取应有的谨慎态度，主张对这个问题持肯定态度。他以其惯有的口才，敦促苏莱曼-贝注意波士顿公立学校系统中男女平等参与的事实，但却没有向他解释，这种平等是最近才有的。毫无疑问，这位杰出的东方人会很高兴地听到，这种以任何条件对女性进行字母的公共管理，在波士顿市的历史不过半个多世纪。 早期的契约和文件充分证明，很大一部分清教徒妇女不会写自己的名字；特别是在波士顿，一百五十年来，公立学校只包括男孩。 然而，在1789年，人们发现，从4月到10月的学生平均出勤率只有一年中其余时间的一半。 这显然是对资金和设施的浪费，因此，有人建议在这一中间时期每年引入女学生。因此，女学生就像其他花朵一样，只在夏季开花；根据学校校长的第三次报告，这种状况持续了约40年，但略有改变。 直到1828年，波士顿的普通学校才废除了所有的区别；在中学里的区别更晚，这是 "美好的旧时代 "的唯一遗迹，当时错误的经济政策推翻了Sylvain Marechal先生的健康学说，并在妇女中放开了字母表。

的确，按照神学的说法，夏娃在不知道她的字母的情况下就把我们都毁了。 不过，还是有必要为这位可敬的女祖先辩护一下。 维罗尼斯的女士伊索塔-诺加罗拉（Isotta Nogarola），她的五百三十六封博学的信件被德图保存了下来，她就 "亚当还是夏娃犯了更大的罪 "这一问题写了一篇对话。 但卢多维科-多梅尼奇在他的 "关于妇女的高贵的对话 "中认为，夏娃根本没有犯罪，因为当亚当被告知不要吃苹果时，她甚至还没有被创造出来。 他精明地说道："在亚当身上，所有人都死了；在夏娃身上，没有人死；--这看起来很有道理。 尽管如此，夏娃的女儿们在这些革命的日子里有可能吞下整个禁果的收获，除非采取一些措施来切断供应。

杂志封面图片
探索1859年2月号
查看本期的更多内容，并找到你要阅读的下一个故事。

查看更多
有人严肃地断言，在过去的半个世纪里，由妇女写的和关于妇女的书比以前所有不计其数的时代都多。 这也许是真的；不过，当我们想到十七和十八世纪法国妇女写的无数卷回忆录时，--每个人都以她同时代的人都在写同样多的书来证明自己十卷书的存在，--我们就会产生怀疑。然而，对于越来越多的关于女性的一般论述--其教育、生活、健康、疾病、魅力、服饰、行为、范围、权利、错误、工作、工资、侵占以及一般的特质--是毫无疑问的；这些书中最差的也承认了其他时代从未梦想过的公众情绪的状况。不过，文学史上还是保留了宗教改革前一些改革者的名字，在这个问题上。威尼斯人莫德拉塔-方特夫人（Signora Moderata Fonte）留下了一本在她死后于1592年出版的书，"Dei Meriti delle Donne" 。她的妻子卢克雷齐亚-马里内拉（Lucrezia Marinella）在10年后发表了她的文章："La Nobilità c la Eccelenza della Donne, con Difetti e Mancamenti degli Uomini," - 一个全面的主题，真的！然后是所有的成就。随后，1645年，全能的安娜-玛丽亚-舒尔曼（Anna Maria Schurman）发表了《Dissertatio de lngenii Muliebris ad Doctrinam et meliores Literas Aptitudine》，并附上了几封希腊文和希伯来文的杂文。最后，1665年，雅克特-纪尧姆（Jacquette Guillaume）勇敢地来到这里，在她的标题页上写下了 "Les Dames Illustres; ou par bonnes et fortes Raisons il se prouve que le Sexe Femin surpasse en toute Sorte de Genre le Sexe Masculin"。最后，在英国，玛丽-沃斯通克拉夫特（Mary Wollstonecraft），她的名著在当时是很有影响力的，但现在看来却相当保守，而在美国，那位虔诚而有价值的女士，H-Mather Croeker夫人。H. Mather Croeker，Cotton Mather的孙子，1818年，她出版了大西洋这边有史以来第一本关于 "妇女权利 "的书。

同时，从来就不缺少呼应这些呼吁的人，而且是强有力的人。从科尼利厄斯-阿格里帕（Cornelius Agrippa）和他关于妇女的卓越性和她对男人的优越性的文章（1509年），一直到阿加西的第一篇年轻的论文 "Mens Feminae Viri Animo superior"，都有一连串的声音在荒野中呐喊。在英国，安东尼-吉布森在1599年写了一本书，名为《女人的价值》，针对世界上所有的男人进行辩护，证明他们在所有良性行为中比任何有资格的男人都更完美、更出色、更绝对，并夹杂着诗意。相反，博学的阿萨里乌斯用拉丁文出版了一本书，后来又用法文出版，以证明妇女不是合理的生物。现代神学家在最坏的情况下也不过是次酸，而且如果他们这样想，也不一定会这样说。同时，大多数人都满足于让世界继续走它的老路，在这个问题上和在其他问题上一样，并因此默许了那个严厉的司法法令，雅典的提蒙用它来总结他对妇女的所有诅咒："如果桌子上坐着12个女人，让她们中的一打人像她们一样。"

无论是古代还是现代，这些讨论中的任何内容都没有讨论本身那么有价值。没有讨论，就没有错误。没有什么比这种病态的自我反省更能说明问题。抱怨是一种永久的抗议，辩护是一种永久的忏悔。忽略这个问题已经太晚了，一旦打开，只能根据绝对和永久的原则来解决。有一个错误；但在哪里？女人已经知道的太多，还是太少？她是被创造出来作为男人的附属品，还是与男人平等？她应该拥有字母表，还是不应该？

古代神话致力于解释一切，很容易解释妇女的社会和政治障碍。Goguet引用了圣奥古斯丁的故事，他是从瓦罗那里得到的。塞克罗普斯在建造雅典时，看到一株橄榄树和一个喷泉并排从地里冒出来。德尔菲克神谕说，这表明密涅瓦和海王星在争夺为城市命名的荣誉，人们必须在他们之间做出决定。塞克罗普斯于是召集了男人和女人，他们有权投票，结果是密涅瓦以1的光荣多数通过了选举。然后，阿提卡被淹没，变成了一片废墟；当然，公民们把这场灾难归咎于海王星，并决定惩罚妇女。 因此，人们决定，今后她们不应投票，任何孩子也不应使用其母亲的名字。

就这样，神话学轻松地解释了所有麻烦的不一致之处。但是，在这么早的时代，它甚至应该认识到这些需要解释的地方。当我们要求一个不那么象征性的阐释时，它就在我们的掌握之中。至少，我们不难迈出进入奥秘的第一步。可以肯定的是，在这条路上有一些修辞学的花朵。一些人认为，妇女参与字母表或任何其他特权的障碍是担心损害她的细腻，或破坏她的家庭生活，或混淆两性之间的区别。我们不这么认为。这些都是合理的借口；它们甚至是真正的，尽管是小的焦虑。但是，我们认为，整个事件总是有一个简单的、可理解的基础--对所谓妇女智力低下的蔑视。她不应该被教导，因为她不值得教导。前面提到的博学的阿萨里乌斯是多数人。根据亚里士多德和Peripatetics的说法，女人是动物的偶象，好像是一种怪物和偶然的产物。中世纪的议会慈善地宣称她享有人类的地位，但仍然宣称她不适合接受教育。在印度教的戏剧中，她甚至不和她的主人说同一种语言，而是使用奴隶的方言。十六世纪时，弗朗索瓦丝-德-桑东格希望在法国建立女子学校，她在街上被叫嚣，她的父亲召集了四位精通法律的医生，来决定她是否被恶魔附身，来考虑教育妇女的问题，--以保证指导妇女不是恶魔的一种手段。

政治权利的情况也是如此。萨利克法的基础不是对保护女性的细腻和家务的任何感性的焦虑；正如弗洛瓦特所说，它是一种直率的、热烈的蔑视。"法兰西王国太高贵了，不能由女人来统治"。西奥菲勒斯-帕森斯（Theophilus Parsons）在他为马萨诸塞州男子的权利所做的著名辩护中（1778年的 "埃塞克斯结果"），用相当柔和的语言为我们自己的机构重申了同一原则。"妇女，不管她们是什么年龄，都不被认为有足够的后天判断力[来行使选举权]"。

与此相协调的是知名人士关于妇女的各种格言和谚语。尼布尔认为他不应该好好教育一个女孩，--他应该让她知道太多。莱辛说："有思想的女人就像涂了胭脂的男人一样，很可笑"。伏尔泰说："思想就像胡须，女人和年轻人都没有。" 而机智的马金博士将这种暴行发挥到了极致。"我们喜欢从一个女人那里听到几句有意义的话，就像我们从一只鹦鹉那里听到的那样，因为它们是如此出人意料。" 然而，当圣人比圣人更严厉时，我们怎么能对这些观点感到奇怪呢？因为虔诚的费内隆教导说，真正的处女的细腻与学问几乎是不相容的，就像与恶习一样，--而钱宁博士在他的《排斥与谴责的论文》中抱怨说，"妇女忘记了她们性别的温柔"，在神学上争论。

现在，这种对女性劣根性的印象可能是正确的，也可能是错误的，但它显然在解释它认为理所当然的事实方面做了很多工作。如果蔑视最初没有导致失败，那么它就会使失败永久化。对任何个人或阶级，从出生到死亡，进行系统的劝阻，他们十有八九会学会默许自己的堕落，如果不是把它当作一顶光荣的皇冠。如果Choisi神父称赞丰唐公爵夫人 "像天使一样美丽，像鹅一样愚蠢"，那么宫廷里的所有年轻女士自然会决心用愚蠢来弥补她们在魅力方面的不足。所有世代的妇女都是在知识分子的蔑视阴影下长大的，她们当然也做了很多事情来证明这一点。她们甚至常常把允许她们利用的可怜的机会也只用于轻浮的目的。正如莫里哀所说，她们使用的字母主要是用来拼写动词Amo的。他们对科学的运用就像德-劳内夫人一样，她通过爱人缩短晚上在公共广场上的散步时间，宁愿穿过广场也不绕行，来计算他的感情下降，--"我由此推断，"她说，"他的热情减少了，就像矩形平行四边形的对角线与相邻两边之和的比例一样。而他们的观念，甚至是对艺术的观念，也常常停留在普罗普齐亚-德-罗西的规模上，他在核桃上雕刻了65个头像，这是所有有记载的女人领域的最小的象征。

如果阻碍妇女的社会偏见只按比例奖励那些克服阻碍的人，这一切也许都可以克服。如果社会只按劳动比例支付报酬，那么障碍越多，荣耀越大；但它没有这样做。妇女不仅被剥夺了为伟大事业做准备的先期训练，而且被剥夺了随后的赞扬和补偿，因此在两个方面都被削弱了。杰出男子的事业通常以学院和对米蒂亚斯的回忆开始，以财富和名声结束；妇女在沮丧中开始，在同样的沮丧中结束。单身的，她在半准备和半工资的情况下工作；结婚的，她把名字和工资交给丈夫保管，在生活中缩成约翰-史密斯的 "女士"，在墓碑上变成约翰-史密斯的 "遗物"；世界仍然怀疑她的行为，像她的机会一样，是低劣的。

那么，显然，主张妇女权利的人--那些认为 "男人和女人的美德是一样的 "的人，与安提斯尼一样，或者认为 "男人和女人的才能是一样的"，与色诺芬《宴会》中的苏格拉底一样--必须谨慎，以免他们试图证明太多。当然，如果妇女在没有学校和学院的情况下也能像男人一样知道很多东西，那么就没有必要让她们进入这些机构。如果她们拿着一半的工资也能工作，那就减少了给她们另一半工资的诱因。更安全的做法是，声称他们所做的工作足以表明他们在不那么令人沮丧的情况下可以做什么。例如，人们常说，妇女没有任何发明。这是一个有效的答案，因为妇女惯常需要的唯一工具是针、纺锤和篮子，而传统的说法是她自己发明了这三种工具。同样，我们可以证明，女性在那些与男性平起平坐的部门，是她们受到同等训练、同等鼓励和同等报酬的部门，例如，剧院。拉格朗日夫人，首席女演员，经过多年昂贵的音乐教育，赢得了职业成功的顶峰；报纸证实，她每年收到6万美元，10个人的旅行费用，乡下的房子，马厩和公馆，以及不计其数的手镯，花束和billet-doux的收入。当然，每个年轻的名媛都希望在自己的能力范围内得到同样的东西，中间只有短暂的舞台之旅。在舞台上，没有性别的限制，因此女人在这个领域表现出同样的天才。但是，美国的每一位普通学校的女教师都会发现，在她享受每年200美元的时候，会因为知道隔壁教室里的年轻大学生的工作并不比她的工作更辛苦或更负责任而暗自神伤--而且，这还是在整个教育道路被她阻挡而被他抹平之后。这些可能是粗暴和肉体的考虑；但信仰要求她每天的面包，而幻想必须得到满足。我们剥夺了女人应有的训练、鼓励和报酬，然后对她的本能和直觉大放厥词--和东方谚语家一样感性地说："每本知识书都是大自然植入女人心中的"，并把赞美之词作为字母表的替代品。

没有什么比在这方面把完全不同的标准强加给两个性别更荒谬的了，也没有什么比期望女人比男人在没有适当准备和充分刺激的情况下完成任何大事更荒谬的了。彭定康夫人把她丈夫的船从合恩角航行到加利福尼亚，如果她不像她的大多数性别那样被教导使用她的鲍迪奇，那么她的努力就会失败。 弗洛伦斯-南丁格尔在听到克里米亚的苦难时，并没有像大多数人想象的那样，站起来说："我是一个女人，无知，但有直觉，没有什么感觉或信息，但有极其崇高的愿望；我的力量在于我的弱点；我可以做所有的事情而不知道它们。" 一点也不。在十年间，她一直在为这种服务进行艰苦的训练，--参观了伦敦、爱丁堡、都柏林、巴黎、里昂、罗马、布鲁塞尔和柏林的所有医院，--在慈善修女会学习，并两次在凯泽斯韦特的新教机构担任护士。 因此，她不仅仅是把一颗女人的心带到了克里米亚，作为她的交易资产，而且她比她周围的男人更了解她的职业的字母表。 当然，天才和热情对男女来说都是不可预见和不可估量的因素；但是，一般来说，伟大的成就意味着伟大的准备和有利的条件。

无视这一事实在抽象上是不合理的，在其后果上是残酷的。如果一个杰出的男性体操运动员在弹簧板的帮助下可以跨越十英尺的高度，那么要求一个女人在没有弹簧板的情况下跃过十一英尺就会被认为是略显荒谬的；然而这正是社会和批评家们一直在做的事情。训练、工资和社会认可是非常有弹性的跳板，在整个历史进程中，我们看到这些东西对一个性别提供了丰厚的回报，而对另一个性别则小心翼翼地加以拒绝。让女人同意做一个玩偶，没有任何装饰品如此华丽，没有任何婴儿房如此昂贵，但她可以渴望分享其奢华的乐趣；--让她仅仅要求一个平等的学习、劳动和生活的机会，就好像那个玩偶应该张开嘴唇，提出欧几里德的第四十七个建议。当我们都为贫困妇女的无助处境感到痛心，并为她们在针线、洗脸盆、教室和街道之外别无选择而叹息时，我们却抵制她们进入每一种新职业，拒绝对她们进行培训，并削减她们的报酬。就像查尔斯-兰姆（Charles Lamb）那样，为了弥补早上迟到的损失，他在下午就早早地离开了办公室，我们首先让妇女接受了一半的教育，然后为了恢复平衡，只给了她们一半的报酬。在女医生的道路上设置了多么多的障碍！女印刷商、雕刻家和设计师遇到了多么复杂的困难！在伦敦，贝内特先生在他的书房里看到了他的作品。在伦敦，贝内特先生最近因为给妇女讲授钟表制作而遭到了围攻。在这个国家，我们知道一些严肃的教授拒绝在认为适合偶尔雇用女性讲师的学院里演讲。科纳先生说，他是在 "面对嘲笑和讥讽 "的情况下，于八年前开始教育妇女成为簿记员的；《一个女人对女人的思考》的女作者现在重提同样的讽刺，这有点可鄙，因为她必须知道，在巴黎一半的零售店中，她自己的性别掌管着账簿，而玛门不知道萨尔法。

经过调查，我们发现，这些考虑会使我们预期，杰出的女性通常在她们的训练和地位方面比她们的天才更出色。她们超越了自己性别的平均水平，因为她们拥有更多其他性别的普通优势。以任何学习或技能部门为例；例如，语言知识、通用字母、语言学。- 在帕多瓦的时间大楼梯上，矗立着埃莱娜-科纳罗的雕像，她是那所曾经著名的大学的六种语言的教授。但埃莱娜-科纳罗是像男孩一样被她父亲教育的。- 在博洛尼亚大学的大门前，刻着克洛蒂尔达-坦布罗尼的墓志铭，她是《诗经》的荣誉通讯员，是她那个时代南欧的第一位希腊学者。但克洛蒂尔达-塔尼布罗尼是像男孩一样接受教育的，由爱纳努克-阿彭特负责。- 伊丽莎白-艾尔斯托布的语法学是盎格鲁-撒克逊传说中的先驱之作，"由一位尊敬的教士撰写的 "这些序言是多么好啊："我们的尘世财产确实是我们的财产，是我们的父辈们的努力换来的；但我们说话的语言是我们的母语，谁能像女性一样在这方面扮演批评者的角色？" 但是这位女性在八岁之前就从她的母亲那里获得了她罕见的教育的基础，尽管她那尊敬的监护人有很多反对意见。- 最高权威人士阿德隆宣称，所有的现代语言学都建立在凯瑟琳二世将俄语词汇翻译成两百种不同的方言之上。但是，凯瑟琳在童年时就与她的哥哥弗雷德里克亲王分享了导师的指导，而且因为她是个女孩，学习速度比他快得多而受到了一些责备。- 瑞典的克里斯蒂娜讽刺地责备达西尔夫人对卡里马科斯的翻译："像你这样漂亮的女孩，如此博学，你不觉得羞耻吗？" 但是达西尔夫人是通过在她父亲教她愚蠢的弟弟的房间里做刺绣而获得希腊语的；她的女王式批评家在她14岁之前就学会了阅读比卡利马科斯更难的希腊语的修昔底德。

这句话的意思是，他们接受了时代所提供的最坚实的训练。大多数人一听到这句话就会立刻惊慌失措；也就是说，他们对自然界所建立的区别缺乏信心，他们认为，如果你不分青红皂白地把字母或其他任何东西教给男女，你就取消了他们之间的所有区别。常见的推理是这样的。"男孩和女孩被认为是不同的存在。现在男孩学习希腊语和代数，学习医学和簿记。因此，女孩不应该。就好像人们应该说 "男孩和女孩是不同的生命。现在男孩吃牛肉和土豆。因此，显然，女孩不应该"。

肉体和精神的食物之间的类比恰恰是正确的。一个简单的事实是，在人类广泛的能力和属性中，性别只是其中一项。它本身是重要的，但并不构成整个有机体，而只是其中的一小部分。男性和女性的区别是特殊的，是为了达到某种目的；而除了这个目的之外，在自然界的所有领域中，它都是不重要的。除了极小的例外，从婴儿到人，雌性动物的行动、呼吸、看、听、跑、飞、游、追逐食物、吃、消化，都与雄性动物完全一样；所有的本能，所有的特征，都是一样的，除了亲子关系这一个单独的事实。Ten Broeck先生的赛马，Pryor和Prioress，都是同样的马驹，同样的饲料，同样的训练，最后并肩作战，争夺同一个奖项。鹰在翱翔时不会因任何性别意识而受到限制，也不会询问它的猎物--胆小的野兔的性别。大自然为了崇高的目的，创造并保护了性别的区别，但却让它谦卑地从属于更重要的区别。

现在，所有这些都直接关系到字母表。什么样的哲学会说："约翰是个傻瓜；简是个天才；尽管如此，约翰作为一个男人，应该学习、领导、制定法律、赚钱；简作为一个女人，应该无知、依赖、被剥夺权利、报酬不足。" 当然，人们如此坦率地说出这句话的时代已经过去了，尽管孔德离这句话很近，更不用说摩门教徒了；但这个公式确实是人们每天听到的推理的基础。答案是。灵魂高于性别。给予平等的机会，剩下的就交给天才和工业吧。培养人才的事业。每个男人为自己，每个女人为自己，而字母表为我们所有人。

到目前为止，我们的整个论证过程都是防御性和解释性的。我们已经表明，妇女在特殊成就方面的劣势，就其存在而言，是一个不太重要的事实，因为这只是她的历史地位下降的一个必然结果。她没有出人头地，因为她没有出人头地的公平机会。人类把他的脚踩在她的肩膀上，嘲弄她没有崛起。但后面还有一个不可告人的问题：--她最初是如何陷入这种态度的？解释一下吧，逻辑学家公平地要求。诚然，女人之所以软弱，是因为她被系统地贬低了；但她为什么会被贬低？这是一个更深刻的问题，只有通过更深刻的哲学和积极的解决方案才能解决。我们正走在几乎完全没有人走过的路上，我们必须尽力而为。


那么，我们敢断言，在过去，妇女的社会地位低下，在很大程度上，是一种合法的事情。从表面上看，如果没有它，历史是不可能的，就像没有战争和奴隶制的时代是不可能的一样。这只是一个社会进步的问题，是文明继承的一部分。过去一直是，而且不可避免地是一个无知的时期，是令人厌烦的物质需求和野蛮的力量，而不是自由、慈善和文化的时期。在那个较低的时代，妇女必然是下等人，即使在和平时期也因卑贱的劳动而堕落，因战争而一律堕落，尽管有骑士精神。在阿玛迪斯和希德的所有礼节背后，隐藏着一个严酷的事实：女人是一个孩子或一个玩具。谄媚的游吟诗人把她唱成了诗人的天堂；但是，不幸的是! 那个天国遭受了暴力，而暴力者则强行夺取了它。事实是，她的时代还没有到来。身体上的力量必须统治一段时间，而她是弱者。她被拒绝授予封地是非常恰当的，因为 "诺曼底宫廷 "说，她没有受过战争或政策方面的训练。C'est l'homme ki se bast et ki conseille. 其他权威人士则说得更明白。"妇女不能在战争中为皇帝或封建主服务，因为她的性别不合适；也不能协助他提供建议，因为她的智力有限；也不能为他出谋划策，因为她的性格不健全"。毫无疑问，在大多数情况下，所有这些都是真实的，妇女的堕落只是一个制度的一部分，这个制度确实有其存在的意义，但也留下了其关联。


在这种武力统治下，妇女从未通过武力解放自己。她不能抗争，也不愿意抗争。事实上，波希米亚的历史记录了一场两性之间的文字战争的传说，在这场战争中，妇女的军队由利布萨和瓦拉斯拉领导，最后以男人的军队占领德泽文城堡（少女之塔）而结束，其废墟在布拉格附近仍然可见。利布萨的盔甲仍然在维也纳展出，导游提请注意长长的钢趾，他说，这位柔弱的公主在战斗中小心翼翼地用它刺穿对手的心脏。妇女与男子并肩作战的例子很多，而且是在同等条件下。古代英国妇女参与了她们丈夫的战争，她们的公主在爱丁堡的少女城堡和斯凯岛接受了使用武器的训练。摩尔人的妻子和少女们为保卫他们的欧洲半岛而战；葡萄牙妇女在同一片土地上与菲利普二世的军队作战。暹罗国王目前有一支由四百名妇女组成的保镖队伍；她们手持长矛和步枪，纪律严明，她们的指挥官（在一次猎虎行动中救了国王一命后被任命）与王室成员同列，并有十头大象为她服务。1851年，当大河流域的军队向阿贝奥库塔进军时，他们有一万名男子和六千名妇女；像往常一样，妇女在进攻中被放在最前面，因为她们最可靠；在留在城墙前的一千八百具尸体中，绝大部分是妇女。半个世纪以来，巴黎荣军院收容了一位优秀的女兵标本，"布兰夫人中尉"，现在已经八十三岁了，她被拿破仑亲手授予荣誉军团十字勋章，并在医院手册上注明 "服役七年，七次战役，三次受伤，多次表现出色，特别是在科西嘉岛保卫一个要塞，对抗英国人"。但是，这些案例虽然对历史学家来说很有趣，但仍然是例外，它们所激发的本能的厌恶感不是对妇女的谴责，而是对战争的谴责。


那么，妇女长期受制于人的原因只是因为人类正在经历它的第一个时代，而她的全部事业将被保留到第二个时代。正如人类的不同种族相继出现在历史舞台上一样，性别的继承也是有顺序的。妇女的指定时代，就像斯堪的纳维亚部落的时代一样，被推迟了，但没有被遗漏。过去的帝国不仅是属于人类的，而且是适当地属于人类的；因为它是一个肌肉的帝国，充其量只是征召了较低的理解能力。毫无疑问，现在的时代正在启动一个更高层次的理性、艺术、情感和愿望的帝国；为这个时代保留了妇女的天才。这个时代的精神总是与事实同步，并超越了法规的规定。在时间充裕之前，妇女必然是纺车和针线的奴隶；现在更高的工作已经准备好了，和平给她带来了发明的帮助，解放她的机械手段也准备好了。在人类用他强有力的臂膀完成他在文明中的初步份额之前，释放她没有用。"地球在等待她的女王 "是玛格丽特-富勒最喜欢的座右铭；但更正确的说法是，女王一直在等待她的地球，直到它可以被磨平并准备好供她居住。现在灰姑娘可以开始考虑穿上她的皇室袍子了。

每个人都看到，时代正在改变妇女的整个物质地位；但大多数人似乎没有看到其中不可避免的社会和道德变化。正如我们已经说过的，古代历史上的妇女在战争与和平中都是身体需求的奴隶。在战争中，她能做的太少，而在和平时期，在控制世界的物质强制力下，她做的太多。例如，犹太人怎么能提高妇女的地位？他们不能把她从羊毛、亚麻和晚上不熄灭的蜡烛中解放出来。在罗马，当新娘第一次踏进她的门槛时，他们不会问她，你知道字母表吗？ 他们只是问，你会纺纱吗？没有比Amalasontha女王的墓志铭更高的了："Domum servavit, lanam fecit。在波欧提亚，新娘被带回家的车辆，其车轮在门口被烧毁，以示她们永远不会再离开家。毕达哥拉斯（Pythagoras）在克罗托纳（Crotona）设立了一年一度的 "镰刀节"；孔子在中国也为纺锤设立了同样的节日；这些庆祝活动不是为了庆祝妇女的自由，而是为了庆祝妇女的奴役。


甚至到了现代，这种同样的暴虐的必要性还在持续。"去纺纱吧，你们这些玉人！去纺纱吧！"这是唯一的回答。去纺纱吧！"这是彭布罗克伯爵对两次被禁的威尔顿修女的唯一回答。即使是现在，旅行者们都认为，在整个文明的欧洲，除了英格兰和法国以外，广大妇女对家务劳动的深刻吸收使她们不可能得到普遍的提升。但是对于我们美国人来说，在这个时代，当所有这些巨大的劳动越来越多地被转移到铜和铁的武器上时，--当罗切斯特磨面粉，洛厄尔织布，壁炉上的火已经进入黑色的退休和哀悼时，--当一个处女越聪明，她就越不需要在她的灯中用油。- 当针在 "衬衫之歌 "中作了最后的垂死挣扎和忏悔，缝纫机把那些悲哀的行进变成了令人愉快的措施，--最盲目的人怎么可能不看到一个新时代已经开始，妇女学习字母的时候到了？

没有人要求废除妇女的家务劳动，就像废除男人的户外劳动一样。当然，大多数妇女仍将继续主要从事室内照顾家庭的工作，而大多数男子则从事外部支持工作。对任何一个性别来说，所希望的是在这方面节省劳动，以便留下一些空闲时间，用于其他方面。反对每一次新的妇女解放的理由，恰恰是反对解放农奴和赋予平民公民权的理由，即新的地位会使他们离开自己的合法事业。"拿着犁[或扫帚]的人[或她]怎么能得到智慧呢，他们谈论的是公牛[或婴儿]？" 然而，美国农民已经从这些自以为是的不协调中解放出来了，农民的妻子也将如此。在一个没有休闲阶层和农民的国家里，这整个排斥理论是一种荒谬的说法。我们都有一点闲暇，我们都必须最大限度地利用它。如果我们将大的利益和义务限制在那些无事可做的人身上，我们就必须立即回到君主制；如果不是这样，那么字母表及其后果就必须像对男人一样对女人开放。让-保罗在他的 "Levana "中说得很高尚，"在成为母亲之前和之后，女人都是人，无论是母亲还是夫妻关系都不能取代人的责任，而必须成为其手段和工具。" 读一读约翰-昆西-亚当斯关于这个问题的充满男子气概的演讲是很好的，他最近可敬的传记作者详细地引用了这段话，在这段话中，他为普利茅斯妇女的政治请愿进行了充分的辩护，他宣称，"正确的原则是，当妇女离开家庭圈子，进入国家、人类和上帝的关切时，她们不仅是正当的，而且表现出最崇高的美德。"


每个人都有责任--责任不小，也不多，而是庞大而多样--这些责任来自家庭和私人生活，以及它们之间的所有甜蜜关系。对最卑微的家庭的支持或照顾是值得男人、女人和天使履行的职责，就其本身而言。无论是男人还是女人，都不能对这些职责退缩；最崇高的天才也不能忽视它们；最崇高的慈善必须从它们开始。它们是对自己极大的奖赏，它们的自我牺牲是无限的快乐，而抛弃它们的自私则会换来孤独和荒凉的晚年。然而，这些虽然是人类生活中最温柔、最亲密的部分，但并不构成其全部。高贵的灵魂也渴望其他的利益，更多的领域，不一定与这些领域相异，--更大的知识，更大的行动，--义务、责任、焦虑、危险，所有历史赋予它的英雄们的食物。不是少了家，而是多了人性。当克里米亚医院里那位出身高贵的英国女士被命令到几乎必死的岗位上时，她只是举起双手对天说："感谢上帝！"她并没有放弃她作为女人的真正地位，而是要求得到它。当苏格兰詹姆士一世的王后，已经被他用庄严的诗句写成了不朽之作，通过迎接瞄准他的匕首进入她美丽的怀抱而赢得了更高的不朽，--当布坎伯爵夫人被限制在她的铁笼子里悬挂在贝里克城堡外，作为对罗伯特-布鲁斯加冕的惩罚，--当圣女贞德的不锈钢灵魂像摩西一样，在燃烧的火焰中与上帝相遇，--这些事情是他们应该做的。人不能垄断这些危险的特权，伟大灵魂与生俱来的权利。小夜曲和恭维不能取代与妇女分享殉道机会的更高尚的款待。巨大的行政职责，国家的忧虑，一个人应该生来就是灰头土脸的，这些在女性的额头上是多么的高贵！每一年都会增加一个传奇的故事。英国的伊丽莎白是历史上最伟大国家的最伟大的君主，她的名声每年都在增加。瑞典的克里斯蒂娜，在欧洲的王室成员中独树一帜，（伏尔泰如是说），在与黎塞留和马扎然的斗争中维护了王位的尊严。他们在这个过程中肯定没有牺牲自己的女人味；因为不列颠陛下的衣柜里有四千件礼服，而且蒙恬夫人宣称，当克里斯蒂娜戴上最新流行的假发时，"她看起来真的非常漂亮。" 如果这些关于女性特质的证据在一些坚强的智者看来是轻率的、不充分的，那么它还是适应了它所回答的论证风格的水平。


布丰说："世界正在变得更加女性化"。这是一种赞美，无论这位自然学家是否有意为之。时间带来了和平；和平带来了发明；而今天最贫穷的妇女所继承的遗产是她的祖先从未梦想过的。以前赋予妇女社会和政治平等的尝试--如托斯卡纳大公利奥波德让她们成为行政官，或匈牙利革命者让她们成为选民，或我们自己的新泽西州在早期以谨慎的方式尝试同样的试验，然后取消了这一特权，因为（如古代寓言）妇女投错了票，--这些事情都不成熟，只作为对一个假定原则的让步而有价值。但是，鉴于目前正在发生的快速变化，声称 "妇女问题 "只是一个时间问题的人是很轻率的。支点已经在字母表中给出，我们必须简单地观察，看看地球是否不动。

在目前对这个问题的处理中，我们更急于主张广泛的原则，而不是把它们落实到应用的细节上。我们只指出了一个明显的事实：妇女必须是一个主体，或者是一个平等者；没有其他永久的理由。对一个假定的原则的每一个让步，只涉及该原则所要求的下一个让步的必要性。一旦屈服于字母表，我们就放弃了整个漫长的臣服与被奴役的理论；过去被搁置，我们只有抽象的东西可以依靠。抽象地推理，我们必须承认，到目前为止，论证完全是站在妇女一边的，因为还没有一个男人认真地试图用论证来满足她们。这场讨论的一个令人震惊的特点是，它在很大程度上颠覆了两性的传统立场：妇女掌握了所有的逻辑；而最聪明的男人，当他们试图反驳时，却只限于讽刺和八卦。我们要问的是，哪个理性的女人能被她周围的普通社会中的胡言乱语所说服，比如，普通学校录取女孩是正确的，而将她们排除在大学之外同样是正确的，--女人在公共场合唱歌是合适的，而在公共场合讲话则是不礼貌的，--邮局的信箱是一个可以投进一点纸的无可挑剔的地方，而投票箱则非常危险？世界上没有任何事业能在水面上维持下去，靠的是这样的矛盾，这些矛盾太软弱，太轻微，不能用谬论的名义来形容。有些人声称，他们认为不可能与女人讲道理，而且他们当然也不愿意尝试这种实验。


但我们必须记住，我们所有的美国机构都是建立在一致的基础上，或者说是一无所有；所有的机构都声称是建立在自然权利的原则之上，一旦放弃这些原则，它们就会丧失。在所有的欧洲君主制国家，它的理论是，广大人民是儿童，需要被管理，而不是成熟的人，需要管理自己。这一点是明确的，而且是一贯的。在这个联盟的自由国家里，我们已经正式放弃了这一理论，对人类的一半来说，而对另一半来说，它仍然在充分发展。一旦提到妇女的要求，民主党人就会变成君主主义者。美国人通常批评英国政治家的做法，即他们习惯性地回避所有基于自然权利的论点，并为每一个法律错误辩护，理由是它在实践中运作良好，这正是我们对妇女的习惯性看法的特点。这种困惑必须以某种方式加以解决。我们很少遇到一个立法者假装否认严格遵守我们自己的原则会使两性在法律和宪法面前，以及在学校和社会中处于完全平等的地位。但每个人都有自己特殊的争论，表明在这种情况下，我们必须放弃我们所承诺的所有一般格言，而只按先例行事。不，他甚至以最巧妙的严谨态度来解释先例；因为在共和制下，排除妇女与事务的一切直接接触，比在君主制下可能做到的要完美得多，在君主制下，连性别都与等级合并，女贵族可能比男平民拥有更多的权力。但是，就我们现在的情况而言，除了性别之外，没有贵族制度：所有男人都是天生的贵族，所有女人在法律上都是平民；所有男人在拥有政治权力方面都是平等的，而所有女人在没有权力方面都是平等的。这是一个如此明显的悖论，也是人类进步中的一个反常现象，它不可能永远持续下去，除非在逻辑上有新的发现，否则就会故意回到马雷夏尔先生关于字母的理论。


同时，正如报纸所说，我们焦急地等待着进一步的发展。根据目前的情况来看，最终的调整主要是在妇女自己的手中。很难指望男人会比他们所要求的更快地让出权利或特权，也很难指望男人对女人比女人对彼此更真诚。诚然，自卑状况的最坏影响是它留下的弱点；即使我们说："把手拿开！"受害者也不会站起来。在这种情况下，只有一个建议值得给予。决心甚至比能力更重要。主宰世界的是意志，而不是才能。尽管 "Non me Praxiteles fecit, sed Anna Damer"，但在传统上，妇女被排除在雕塑艺术之外，还有什么途径比这更重要呢？- 然而，哈丽雅特-霍斯默在八年时间里就走完了它的全部路程。谁会相信一个女诗人能成为竖琴的Annot Lyle，用甜美的旋律抚慰她主人的闲暇，直到在伊丽莎白-巴雷特的手中，这东西变成了小号？陆军外科医生和议会演说家们反对西德尼-赫伯特先生首次提出的将弗洛伦斯-南丁格尔派往克里米亚的建议的讥笑声到哪里去了？在多少个城镇，大众对女性演说家的偏见被露西-斯通的一次胜利演讲所扭转！在没有逻辑可言的地方，成功就会消失。在没有逻辑可言的地方，成功会使人沉默。如果你有胆量的话，先给女人一个字母表，然后召唤她进入她的事业；尽管男人们，无知和偏见，可能会反对它的开始，但没有危险，他们最终会在她征服的脚步周围抛出比以往迎接歌剧偶像时更多的赞美，比以往用醉人的香味向舞厅里最美丽的蝴蝶求婚时更多的香水。


我们不妨从那本罕见而有趣的旧书中摘录一段话来强化这一点，这本书是同类书中的先驱，名为《妇女权利的法律决议》，或《妇女的法律规定》。该书收集了与妇女有关的法规和习俗，以及法律中的案例、观点、论据和知识点，是一本有条理的书。伦敦。A. D. 1632. pp. 404 4to. 然而，这些精辟的句子由于被从原来的黑体字环境中移出而失去了不可估量的意义。

"Lib. 第三章。第7节。第七节。男爵可以娶他的妻子。"

"其余的都在后面，布鲁克法官12。H. 8. fo. 4.明确指出，如果一个人殴打逃犯、叛徒、异教徒、他的乡民或他的妻子，是可以免责的，因为根据普通法，这些人不能采取行动。上帝会给温柔的女人派来更好的运动，或者更好的同伴。"

但似乎是真的，法律允许丈夫进行某种形式的惩罚。因为如果一个女人被她的丈夫威胁要被殴打、虐待或侮辱，Fitzherbert规定了一个她可以从大法官办公室发出的文书，迫使他为对她诚实的行为提供担保，并且他不得对她进行或促使她进行任何身体上的伤害（请注意），否则就属于丈夫的合法和合理的纠正。关于这一点，请看新的《国家法典》，第80页和第82页。80 f. & fo. 238 f."

我不知道这有多远，但在这里，女性的性别并不十分不利：首先是合法性；如果打男人的妻子在其他方面不合法，那么因为贫穷的妻子不能为此提出其他诉讼，我想，为什么妻子不能再次打丈夫，如果她这样做，可以提出什么诉讼。如果两个共同租户骑着一匹马，其中一个人要拖着这匹马走，他可以从他的同伴那里保留这匹马两三年，这样就可以和他和解了；因此，被丈夫殴打的妇女，如果她敢于报复，可以再次殴打他。如果他到大法官或治安官那里去控告她，因为光是她的担保书就很难被接受，他最好为她被捆绑起来，然后如果他第二次被打，让他知道以上帝之名的代价。"