再论关于两性品格的流行观点

强壮的身体本来是英雄的优秀特性,但是现在却遭到了不公平的鄙视,甚至男人和女人都认为这无关紧要;女人这样认为,是因为它破坏了她们的阴柔气质和可爱的娇弱,而这些正是她们谋得特权的源泉;男人这样认为,是因为强壮的体魄看起来和一位有身份的绅士的品格不符。

男人和女人都从一个极端滑到了另一个极端,这很容易证明;但是首先应当注意到有种世俗的错误已经赢得了一些人的信任,并导致了一个错误的结论,错把结果当成了原因。

天资聪颖的人,往往因为潜心研究或不关注健康而伤害了自己的身体,他们热情的激烈程度是和智慧的活力相对应的,以至于剑刃伤了剑鞘,毁了自己的身体,这个事实几乎是人人皆知的,于是一些肤浅的评论家就会由此发挥,声称聪明人的体质都不好,或者用时兴的话来说,体质孱弱。但我相信,事实似乎正好相反;因为我经过周密的调查发现,思维的力量在大多数情况下总是和强壮的体魄同在的,我说的是天生的健全体质,而非从事体力劳动导致的头脑简单四肢发达,干这种体力劳动时大脑不是处于呆滞状态就是只能指挥双手。

普里斯特利博士 [1] 曾在他传记图表的前言中提到,大多数伟人的寿命都超过45岁。考虑到他们在钻研自己钟爱科学的时候,毫无顾忌地倾注他们所有的精力,他们废寝忘食地燃烧着生命之灯;抑或,考虑到当他们沉浸在诗意的梦境里,幻想充斥着视线,心灵受到了震撼,直到冥思引起的激情颤动了身体——这时他们幻想的东西,想象中的空中楼阁,才从他们疲惫的双眼中褪去——只考虑到这些,我们就可以推断这些人是拥有钢铁般体质的。莎士比亚不是用虚弱的手去抓住幻想的匕首,而弥尔顿也不是颤颤巍巍地带领魔鬼远离阴森沉闷牢狱的禁闭。这些不是乱七八糟的呓语,也不是神经病的病态发泄,而是丰富饱满的幻想,这种幻想以一种“美好的疯狂”状态四处漫游,而不会频繁地想到身体方面的限制。

我意识到了这个结论比人们设想我要谈论的内容更进一层;但是我信奉真理,并坚持我的第一个观点,我承认身体素质的差距确实给予男人一种天生的优越性;而这也正是男人优越性的唯一的有力证据。但我仍坚持认为,男人和女人的知识,正如他们的品德一样,应当拥有同样的本质,虽然程度可能有所差别。女人,既然被视为有道德有理性的人,应当奋力以同样的方式追求人类的美德(或者说完满),而不应该在接受教育时,被当成一个想象中的半个人,如卢梭笔下所述的怪物那样。

但是如果体力是男人理所应当拿来夸耀的东西,女人为何如此执迷不悟,以自己的缺点为荣呢?卢梭曾经为她们提出了一个貌似可信的理由,而这个理由完全是一个异想天开的人对由美妙感觉得到的印象加工后提出来的;他认为女人这样就可能真正有一个托辞,屈服于一种天然的欲望,又不会违反她们浪漫谦逊的规范,从而满足了男人的自傲和放荡。

女人受到这些观点的蒙蔽,时不时会吹嘘她们的弱点,并利用男人的弱点来巧妙地获得权利;她们甚至会以不正当手段得到的权势为荣,因为她们就像土耳其的傲慢权贵一样,比君主拥有更多的实权;但是她们为了暂时的满足牺牲了品德,为了瞬间的胜利牺牲了一生的尊严。

如果将世界分成国家,将国家进一步划分成家庭,统治这个世界的是由理性力量制定的法律的话,那么女人以及暴君都不会拥有现在这么大的权力;但是进一步对比我们就会发现,在争权夺利的过程中,她们的品行堕落了,而淫荡充斥着整个社会。大多数人被少数人踩在脚下。在此,我斗胆断言,除非妇女接受更加合理的教育,否则人类美德的发展和知识的进步还会持续遭受阻碍。如果承认女人不只是为了满足男人的欲望而生,也不是为了成为照料男人饮食起居的高级奴仆,那么那些真正关注女性教育的父母关心的首要问题即使不是加强孩子们的体质,至少也不要用“美丽”“女性的优点”等错误的观念来摧残她们的躯体;也不可以使女孩子受到这种致命观点的毒害,妄想通过各种推理过程,一个缺点能够如发生化学变化般变为一个优点。

……

即使女性天生比男性软弱已经得到证明,那请问她为何还应当努力使自己变得比原来更软弱呢?这种观点是对常识的侮辱,并且带着情欲的味道。我们希望在这个开明的年代,质疑丈夫的神圣权利和质疑君主的神圣权利一样,不会带来危险;也许我们的信念不能让诸多吵闹的争论者满意,但是在任何流行偏见遭到攻击时,智者就会思考,任由那些没有头脑的心胸狭隘的人对改革肆意抨击。

那些试图培养女儿拥有真正高贵品格的母亲一定要不顾无知者的嘲讽,采取一种和卢梭动用一切虚假动人的修辞和哲学上的诡辩推荐的方法完全相反的教育方案,因为他的雄辩使荒谬的言谈看起来合情合理,而他草率的结论即使没有说服,也会迷惑那些无力反驳它们的人。

在整个动物世界中,几乎所有幼小的生物都需要不断锻炼,同样由此可知,儿童应当在各种无害的嬉戏打闹中度过童年时期,以此锻炼手脚,不需要大脑给出什么精细的指令,也不需要保姆一刻不离的照顾。实际上,孩子照顾自己,是第一项锻炼运用理智的活动,正如愉悦当下的小发明会拓展想象力一样。但是这些自然的伟大构思,遭到了错误的溺爱和盲目热情的破坏。孩子一刻也没有自主行动的自由,女孩尤其如此,因此逐渐养成了依赖性。这样,依赖性就成了孩子的天性。

为了保持个人美貌——女人的荣耀——她的四肢和能力所受的束缚比中国的裹脚布带来的约束更大,男孩子在户外玩耍嬉闹时,她们只能听从宣判,过着久坐的生活,这种生活让她们肌肉衰竭,思维钝化。卢梭的意见,后来又得到了几个作者的拥护,认为女孩天生,也就是说从她们出生起,接受教育之前,对娃娃、打扮和聒噪有一种天生的爱好,这些观点太愚蠢了,我懒得反驳。一个女孩,被判定要连续坐着长达几个小时,听那些没文化的保姆无聊的闲谈,或是整天坐在母亲的化妆室里看她梳妆打扮,她要加入谈话很自然;她会模仿母亲或者阿姨,以她们打扮她的方式为布娃娃打扮聊以自娱,可怜天真的孩子,这种结果是再自然不过的了。最能干的人也很少会有本事不受周围环境的影响;如果记录天才事迹的书页不可避免地会受到时代偏见的影响,那女性,像国王们一样,也总是通过错误的方式看待事情,就更应该理解了。

通过这种方式,我们就可以很容易为女性特别喜爱打扮找到理由,而无须假定这是为了取悦她们依赖的男人。简而言之,认为女孩天生就爱卖弄风骚十分荒诞,而认为一种和繁衍后代冲动相关的自然欲望早就存在,甚至早于不正当的教育方式,通过煽动想象力过早地激发了这种欲望之前就已存在,实在是太不合理了。卢梭这样睿智的观察家要不是习惯了使理性屈从于好奇的心态,使真理顺从于他喜爱的悖论,是不会有这种观点的。

但是对于一个成功地为灵魂不朽激烈争辩的人来说,为心灵加上性别的区分是多么不符合他的原则啊。但是当真理成为假想的障碍,它是一道多么虚弱的屏障啊。卢梭尊重——近乎崇拜美德——但是他放纵自己,沉迷于情色。他的想象力经常使他的性欲之火熊熊燃烧;但是,为了调和他对自制、坚韧和其他英勇品德的尊重,一个像他那样的人是不可能冷静推崇这些美德的,他试图颠倒自然法则,并且提出一套暗藏危害、玷污至高智慧的学说。

他没有去观察现实生活中的例子,就试图通过他的那些荒谬的故事证明女孩天生注重打扮自己,这些故事配不上我们的鄙夷。

……

可以说我观察孩提时期女孩子的机会比卢梭更多,我仍能想起我自己的感受,并且我总是不断地观察我周围的女孩子。我敢断定,如果女孩子没有因为一成不变的生活精神沮丧,没有因为虚伪的害羞而丢失天真无邪,那么她一定会蹦蹦跳跳,活泼精明,而且布娃娃永远不会吸引她的眼球,除非禁闭的生活剥夺了她其他的选择。总之,如果不是家长在自然表现出男女差别之前不断灌输这个概念,男孩和女孩是可以很友好地在一起玩耍的。我还要进一步声明,在我的观察范围内,多数表现理性、智慧超群的女性都是得以无拘无束地发展,这也是不可置疑的事实,正如有些优雅的女智者暗示的那样。

童年和青年时期不注意身体导致的恶果超出了我们的想象——身体的依赖自然就会导致精神上的依赖;如果女人大部分时间都花在防御或忍受疾病折磨上,她怎么能成为好妻子或好母亲呢?如果关于美貌的错误观念和多愁善感的虚伪描述早年就侵蚀了一个女人的行为动机,我们如何期待她能意志坚定地努力增强体质、免于沉溺于各种伤身的放纵行为当中呢?大多数男人有时候不得不忍受身体的不适,或者和恶劣天气抗争,但是优雅的女性,简直已经成了她们自己身体的奴隶,她们甚至不以为耻反以为荣。

我以前认识一位身体孱弱的时髦女性,她对于自己的虚弱体质和多愁善感的神经异常自豪。她认为,挑剔的口味和很小的食量是人类完美的高级状态,并以之为行为规范。我曾经看到这位可怜的虚荣女人把人生中一切责任抛到九霄云外,扬扬自得地躺在沙发上,吹嘘着她没有什么好胃口,以此证明身体虚弱导致了她多愁善感,或者是多愁善感让她身体虚弱;将她那套愚蠢可笑的理论说明白太难了。但是就在那时,我看到她在侮辱一个可敬的老年妇人,这个老妇人因为突然的横祸而不得不依赖这个女人卖弄的施舍,其实,老妇人境况尚佳的时候还帮过这个女人一把。如果一个人像西巴里特 [2] 人那样沉溺于奢靡享乐,仍未丧尽各种品德,或者从未受到道德戒律的熏陶(这种道德戒律虽然可以防御罪恶,但是委实不能替代心灵培养),她会变成这种软弱而堕落的人吗?

……

世界各地的女人都处于这种可悲的境地;因为要保持她们的天真,而天真只是无知的比较温和的说法,人们不让她们看到真理,而在她们的能力得到发展之前,就培养她们表现出一副虚伪的性格。女人从小就受教导,美貌是女人得以统治一切的权杖,心灵要以身体为准,在囚困它的金丝鸟笼周围转悠,只为了表达对这座囚笼的溢美之词。男人有各种工作和追求来吸引他们的注意力,因此造就了他们心胸开阔的性格,但女人只关注一件事情(美貌),总是将精力耗费在自己身上最微不足道的地方,很少能将视野拓展到当前享乐以外去。男人的自大和情欲,以及女人自己如同暴君般统治下的欲望,使她们处在一种奴役状态,一旦她们的理智从这种奴役中解放出来,我们也许就会惊奇地发现她们的弱点。请允许我在这个问题上深入阐述。

《圣经》中有段寓言描述魔鬼四处游荡寻找可以吞噬的人,如果我们认同这样一个邪恶灵魂的存在,则败坏人类品行最有效的方法莫过于赋予一个人绝对的权利。

这个论点可以派生出几个分论点。出身、财富和一切使人无须运用智慧就可以凌驾于其同伴之上者的外在优势,实际上都使之堕落到不如别人。根据其软弱程度,他们将被各种富有心计者玩弄,直到这些傲慢的怪物失去所有的人性特征。而那一群如绵羊般盲从的人心甘情愿地成为这种人的从众,这种奇怪的现象只能归咎于后者贪图眼前享乐的欲望和有限的智力水平。受着奴隶般依赖性的教育,精力因奢靡和懒惰而日渐衰竭,我们该从哪去寻找那种敢于挺身而出维护人权,或者为有道德的人寻求特权的人呢(这是有道德的人达到卓越的唯一途径)?人们受着君主和侍臣们的奴役,这种奴役阻碍了人类思想的发展,至今仍未被废除,世界从这种奴役中解放出来还遥遥无期。

因此男人在夸耀权势的时候,就不要再用那些暴君和贪婪的侍臣们用过的论调,错误地主张,女人应该受奴役,因为她们一直被奴役着。但是,男人受合理法制的统治,享受着他的天赋自由,而如果女人不能与之同享自由,那就让男人鄙视女人吧;在那个光辉时代到来之前,男人在抨击女人的愚蠢时,请他们也不要忘记自己的愚钝。

确实,女人通过不正当的手段取得权力,或者通过做一些不道德的事情,培养恶习来获得权力,她们显然丧失了理智安排给她们的地位,不是变成卑鄙的奴隶就是成为暴虐的君王。她们在争夺权力时丧失了所有的天真浪漫、心灵的尊严,她们表现得和那些我们观察到的通过同样的方法取得权贵的男人一样。

现在到了变革女性行为方式的时候了,为她们争取失去的尊严,使她们,作为人类的一部分,通过改变自己进而改变世界。该是将不容改变的道德和当地习俗划分界限的时候了,如果男人是半人半神,那我们为什么还要服侍他们?如果女性灵魂的尊严和禽兽一般值得质疑,如果她们的理性不足以指导她们的行为,而她们又不像禽兽一般拥有万无一失的本能,那她们毫无疑问成了所有生物里面最悲惨的了。她们就只好屈膝于命运的铁蹄之下,无奈地承认自己是上帝造出来的一个“美丽的缺陷”了。但是为上帝把大多数人都造成既负责任又不负责任的样子,寻求一些生硬的无可辩驳的理由,目的是为了证明上帝如此对待她们是正确的,想必即使是最机智的诡辩家也会因此困惑不已。

……

真希望女人能对他们的丈夫倾注感情,这种感情赖以存在的基础应当和支撑忠诚的根基相同,天底下除此之外没有其他坚实的基础了——因为她们务必提防那种欺骗性的感情;感情很多时候都只是肉欲的傀儡。因此我认为,女人从幼年时期开始,就应当要么像东方王子那样被隔离,要么就接受恰当的教育,培养她们独立思考和行事的能力。

为什么男人总是在这两种想法之间徘徊不决,并且期待不可能发生的事情呢?他们为什么期待一个奴隶有道德,期待一个受文明社会制度戕害变得软弱(如果我们不称之为邪恶)的人拥有道德呢?

我心里很清楚,要想彻底清除好色之徒培植的根深蒂固的偏见需要很长时间;同样,要想让女人相信在受到娇柔这个词的蛊惑时,刻意培养甚至装出一副软弱的样子的做法,是极其违反她们本质利益的;或是让世人相信,导致女人邪恶和愚蠢的毒瘤(如果有必要使用一些比较缓和的符合习惯的同义词),是对美——更确切地说是容貌美的色情崇拜;要达到这些目标都是需要一些时间的。因为一位德国作家曾经敏锐地观察到,漂亮的女人是情欲的对象,这一点得到了各类男人的一致赞同;而一个因为表现出了智慧的魅力而激发了更多崇高情感的有教养的女人,也许会受到那些以满足情欲为乐的男人的忽略或冷淡。我预料明显有人会反驳我——如果男人同他以前一样一直是个不完美的存在,则他沦为欲望的奴隶也无可厚非;而那些女人为了满足一种主要的欲望而谋取最大的权力,她们的堕落即使不是道德上使然,也必然是身体使然。

我承认,这个反对意见有一定道理;但是尽管有“像上帝那样纯洁”这样一种崇高的戒律,貌似男人的品德并没有受到唯一能够限制这些品德的上帝的约束;而且他可以继续前进,而不去考虑沉溺于这种崇高的志愿是否会越出了他的范围。汹涌的波浪接到上帝指令:“你只能前进到这里,不许再向前跑;你们骄傲的波涛必须要止步于此。”奔驰的行星受到自然力量的约束,在其轨道内运转,而这种力量也制约着翻腾的浪花,使之不能前进。物质始终都是要屈服于支配一切的伟大神灵的。但是不朽的灵魂,不受机械定律的束缚,奋力从物质的枷锁中挣脱出来,它和上帝合作,试图用制约宇宙的永恒定律(在某种程度上这些定律是我们无法想象的)来指导自己的行为时,就不仅没有扰乱万物的秩序,反而帮助万物建立起秩序。

况且,如果女人接受的教育让她们依赖别人,也就是说让她们按照另外一个容易犯错的人的意志行事,而且盲从权威;那我们折腾到什么时候才能结束?那是不是应该把她们看作是拥有一块狭小领地的代理,而她们的行为是由一个不能免于谬误的高级法庭负责呢?

我们不难证明,这种代理会表现得跟受了恐吓的男人一样,迫使他的孩子和仆人都屈从于他暴虐的压迫。既然女人会毫无缘由地屈从,她们在教导子女和管理仆人方面没有一贯的准则,她们对人是好是坏,完全凭一时兴起;她们无法承受枷锁的重负时,就会强行将之转嫁到更加弱小人的肩上,并恶意地以此为乐,我们看到这一幕时,没有必要大惊小怪。

但是,让我们假设一个训练得服服帖帖的女人,嫁给了一个明智的男人。他决定她的判断力却不会让她感觉到受压迫的奴隶性,正如理性可以间接影响一个人,这个男人折射出来的光辉能够使她得体地安排事情,但是她终究不能保全她的庇护者的性命,他也许会撒手西去,留给她一大家人要养活。

双重责任落在了她的肩上;她要以父亲和母亲双重的身份来教育子女,要培养他们的品行,还要保护他们的财产。但是,哎呀!她从来没有为自己想过,或者依照自己的意志行事。她只学会了取悦男人,优雅地以他们为生;但是现在她被孩子所累,如何才能找到另外一个保护人——一个丈夫来扮演理性的角色呢?一个理性的男人(因为我们现在不是在说故事,而是从实际出发)也许会认为她是一个温顺可爱的人儿,但是世界上更有姿色的女人比比皆是,他为什么要为了爱情娶一个拖家带口的女人呢?那她要如何是好呢?她要么很轻易地被一个卑鄙的企图通过结婚发财的男人钓上了钩,将父亲留给的子女的遗产拱手相送,变得十分凄惨;要么成为失意不满和盲目放纵的牺牲者。她无力教育子女,又无法为自己赢得他们的敬重(如果一个人本身不值得尊敬,则即使他身居要职,也不会得到人们的尊敬,这种说法并不是文字游戏),她追悔莫及,却徒劳无益,于是在痛苦中郁悒而终。即使她不贫困,但魔鬼的毒牙插入了她的灵魂深处,青春时代放荡不羁的恶习带给她的无尽悔恨挥之不去,随她一起埋入地下。

我并没有渲染什么;相反,这种情形非常可能出现,每一个善于观察的人一定亲眼目睹过类似的场景。

当然我是理所当然地假定一切顺利,然而经验表明,盲人就算走在熟悉的路上,也可能会掉进水沟。但是我们可以假定(这并不是一个完全不可能的猜想)一个只会取悦他人的人肯定能在讨好别人时得到快乐;这对于她天真的女儿来说,就算不是一个坏榜样,也是一个多么愚蠢的榜样啊!母亲会在卖弄风情时败下阵来,她们不但不能和女儿和睦相处,相反她会对自己的女儿怒目相视,因为她们成了自己争风吃醋的对手,而且是最残酷的对手,而且人们会拿女儿和她比较,使她相形见绌,她从未想过要在理性的长凳上占有一席之地,而现在她又被赶下了美丽的宝座。

要描述这样一个家庭主妇带给这个家庭的痛苦和轻微的罪恶,并不需要生动的笔墨或漫画家清晰的勾勒。但她也只是按照卢梭的那一套理论做了女人应该做的事情罢了。人们永远不会责备这样的女人有男人气,或者行为超出了自己的范围;而且,她还遵守了他的伟大戒律中的另外一条重要准则,小心谨慎地保护她的名誉免遭玷污,她会被看作是优秀的女人。可是哪一方面她能称得上优秀呢?确实,她无须挣扎,因此就可以免于犯下滔天大恶,但是她怎样去履行自己的责任呢?责任!其实她整天梳妆打扮、照料自己虚弱的身子都来不及,更别谈责任了。

至于宗教,她从来不敢擅自做决定;就像一个依赖别人的人应该做的那样,她严格遵守那个看着她长大的教堂的规矩,虔诚地相信有更聪明的人已经把一切安排妥当;无疑,永不质疑是她的完美优点。因此她会按时交纳她那份十分之一的薄荷和小茴香子 [3] ,她对上帝感恩戴德,庆幸自己不像其他女性那样。这就是良好教养带来的喜人结果!这就是男人伴侣应有的美德!

为了缓解我的情绪,我必须描述另一番景象。

现在我们假设有个女人,拥有差强人意的智力水准(我作此假设,是因为不想把普通人排除在外),她的身体由于经常锻炼而充满活力,同时她的思维也不断打开,逐渐发展,她深谙人生的道义责任,也知晓人类美德和尊严的意义。

通过履行应尽的义务,她养成了优秀的品质;她因爱而婚,却没有丧失小心谨慎;她的眼光不局限于夫妻幸福生活的琐事,因此得到丈夫的尊重,而无须通过玩弄卑劣把戏博取丈夫的欢心,试图挽救行将熄灭的爱情之火。当情人变成熟悉的枕边人,当友情和忍耐代替了狂热的爱情,爱情之火注定会熄灭。这是爱情的自然灭亡,家庭的安宁不会因挽救爱情的努力而破坏。我假设这个男人也是品德高尚的,否则这个女人还需要更多的独立品质。

但是,天生嫉妒,拆散了这对璧人。她变成了寡妇,甚至生活上都捉襟见肘;但是,她并不悲惨!她自然会悲痛欲绝;但是时间抚平了悲伤,她凄然地接受了命运的安排,一心扑在子女身上,比以前更加爱护他们,企盼将他们抚养成人,这种深情为她的母爱抹上了一丝神圣的英雄色彩。她希望,不仅她的子女们目睹了她的贤惠和劳作(他们现在是她一切慰藉的源泉,而他们的赞颂就是她的生命);而且她那因过度悲伤而心不在焉、同时又受到激发的想象力,还让她抱着深情的希望,希望那双她用颤抖的双手合上的眼睛也能够看到,她如何克制了内心所有骚动的情欲,履行了她既做父亲又做母亲的双重责任。她因不幸而成了英雄,她在自然的情欲发展为爱情之前,就将其扼杀在摇篮里,并且在女人一生最丰满的阶段忘记了自己是女人——忘记了让人觉醒的热情带来的快乐,这种热情受到激发很可能会重新燃烧。她不会再想到取悦他人,而她自觉的尊严也使她不会因为她的行为应得的赞扬而骄傲。她的爱是她的子女,她最光明的希望绝非是那个坟墓,虽然她时常会幻想一下那个地方。

我想我看到了她的孩子们环绕左右,他们都来报答她的养育之恩。孩子们聪明伶俐的目光和她的目光相遇,他们红润的脸颊上挂满了健康天真的微笑,孩子长大后,他们对母亲感恩的照料减轻了她生活上的操劳。她得以亲眼在孩子身上看到,自己根据原则努力培养的各种美德成为他们的习惯,她目睹了孩子们培养了坚强的性格,他们时刻铭记母亲的榜样,能够经受得住逆境的考验。

在这样完成了人生的使命之后,她静静地等待着死亡的到来,等待长眠于地下。她从坟墓中升入天堂的时候可以和上帝说:看,你给了我一千银币,现在我有五千银币! [4]

我想用几句话总结一下我刚刚所说的内容。在这里,我已经下了战书,我不承认美德有性格差别,就连谨慎端庄也不例外。真理,按照我的理解,对于男人和女人来说必然是相同的;但是在诗人和小说家的生动描绘下,幻想中的女性品格却以牺牲真理和正直为代价,使得品德成为一个相对的概念,仅以功利性为基础,而对于这种功利性,男人却自命不凡,根据自己的利益,随心所欲地加以评判。

我承认,女性可能有很多不同的责任需要履行;但那都是人的责任,因此我坚决认为,指导履行这种责任的原则必须是没有区别的。

为了成为可敬的人,女人需要运用她们的理智,这是取得人格独立的唯一基础;我的意思说明白了,就是指她们只能听从理性的权威,而不应该成为舆论谦卑的奴才。

在上流社会里,遇到一个拥有杰出能力或有普通成就的人多么不易啊!在我看来个中缘由很简单,他们出生并生长的环境不正常。人的性格都是由个人或阶级所从事的活动塑造的;如果人的才智不因需要接受磨炼,那就永远处在不开化阶段,无法发展;这个说法对于女人也同样适用;因为她们很少做正经的事情,对于享乐的追求使她们养成了卑微的性格,这就是为什么贵妇人的社交场合都如此无聊。同样的原因也导致她们缺乏坚定的意志,这种缺乏迫使她们涌向喧嚣的享乐和虚伪的激情,直到虚荣取代了一切社会情感,而在她们身上也丝毫看不到人性的痕迹。目前组织起来的市民政府带来了这样一种恶果:财富和女性的软弱都导致了人类的堕落,而且出于同样的原因;但是如果承认女人是有理性的人,就应该鼓励她们去追求那些属于她们的美德,因为一个理性的人,如果不通过自己的努力去争取什么,那他怎么能赢得大家的尊重呢?

注释

[1] 普里斯特利博士(Dr. Priestley, 1733—1804),英国科学家、哲学家,当时英国进步组织“革命协会”的领导者。——译者注

[2] 西巴里特(Sgbarite),意大利南部古城,据传当地居民喜爱奢侈享乐,因此引申为不务正业、安于享乐的人的别名。——译者注

[3] 基督教实行的什一税,每年缴纳货物的十分之一,作为信徒上缴给教堂的年赋。——译者注

[4] 见《圣经·新约》“马太福音”25章14—30节。——译者注

关于使女人沦入堕落状态原因的探讨

女人究竟是天生软弱,还是受到客观环境中各种因素的共同作用而堕落,我想,已经很明白了。但我只是想把这种立场,和我经常从那些拥护贵族政体的聪明人口中听到的结论做一对比:他们说,不要把普通民众太当回事,否则那些甘受驱使、阿谀奉承的奴隶就会意识到自己的重要性,抛开他们的镣铐。他们进一步发表评论,如果他们只需抬头就可甩掉束缚,一定是处处都受压迫;他们不追求自己应得的权力,而是甘心舔食着尘土,说道:“我们尽情吃喝吧,因为明天我们就会死去 [1] 。”以此类推,女人堕落也同样是受贪图眼前享乐这一习性的驱使,最终她们没有足够的品德争取到自由,可她们对此却不屑一顾。我必须说明得更清楚一点。

大家一致赞成心灵的培养和性别无关,但女性在智力方面不如男人这个问题,却从未被人忽略过。女人只是拥有“绝对的可爱”,给予女人的理性却是微乎其微的;既然不承认她们拥有天才和判断力,我实在想不明白还有什么可以代表智慧了。

灵魂不灭的精义(如果我可以这样说的话)就在于人类理性的可完善性;因为,如果一个人生来完美,或当其步入成年时,一股知识的浪潮汹涌而至,使之豁然开朗,不致犯任何错误,我就会怀疑在其肉体分解之后,灵魂是否还将存在。但是依目前的情况来看,凡是人类道德上大家讨论之后仍然悬而未决的,同时让知识渊博的思想家和洞察力非凡的智者都困惑不解的难题,是我建立灵魂不朽信仰的依据。因此理智归根结底,是推动进步的一种原动力,更确切地说,是一种分辨真理的原动力;每个人都拥有一个理性的世界。可能理性程度因人而异,在某些人身上表现得比较明显,但理性如果是来自于神的力量,是连接人和造物主的纽带,那么所有人拥有的理性一定是性质相同的;因为如果一个人不能通过运用理智的力量日趋完美,那他的灵魂上又怎么会有上帝的印记呢?但是由于精心打扮而风姿绰约的女人,用迷人的外表来使男人开心,“他可以体面地和她谈情说爱”,但是女人的灵魂却不能拥有理智,男人总是挡在她和理智之间,人们总是认为她天生就应该通过一个巨大的媒介看世界,她也不会深究。但是抛开这些奇怪的言论,将女人当作一个整体来看,可以把她看成任何东西,但就不要当成男人的一部分,让我们来探究,她到底有没有理性。让我们暂时假定她有,则她就不仅仅是为了安慰男人而存在,而女性也不会破坏人类的品格。

男人犯有这样的错误,也许是因为他们看待教育的视角不对;他们不把教育当作帮助一个人走向完美的第一步,只是认为教育是为了更好的生活。我必须称这种态度为感觉论的错误,在这种错误基础上建立起了一个关于女性作风的错误体系,这个体系剥夺了整个女性群体的尊严,将女人,不论美丑,和那些只能点缀大地的鲜花归为一类。这一直是男人们的论调,甚至连那些智慧超群的女人,因为害怕失去男人期待的那种女性气质,也对此应声附和。因此,严格来说,就是否认女性拥有理智;为了生存,女人的本能升华为聪明和狡猾,代替了理智。

归纳总结各种思想的能力,即从个别的例子中概括出全面的结论的能力,对于一个不朽的灵魂来说,是唯一能称得上是知识的能力。对现象的观察,不尝试作任何解释,也许可以作为生活的常识保留,虽然是以极不完满的方式存在;但是当灵魂离开肉体时,我们是否保留了些什么来为灵魂遮风挡雨?

人们不仅认为女性没有这种能力,而且作家们,除了极个别的人,坚持说这种能力是和女性的性格不符的。如果男人能证明这个说法,我就承认女人是为男人而生。但是我要事先声明,这种深度的归纳总结的能力,对于男人女人都不常见。但是对这种能力的训练是真正意义上的对智慧的培养;而所有原因的共同作用,使得在女性身上培养理智比在男性世界里更加困难。

这个主张自然而然地把我引到这一章的主要内容;现在我要谈谈那些导致女性堕落、使她们无法对观察的现象归纳总结的原因。

我不必回到遥远的古代史料中追溯女性的历史,我只要承认女性一直以来,或是奴隶,或是暴君,并且这两种状态都同样阻碍了女性理智的发展就已足够。在我看来,似乎女性的各种愚蠢行径和恶劣行为主要都来源于心胸狭隘;而国民政府的制度也在培养女性理性的道路上设下了不可逾越的障碍;可是这是培养美德的唯一根基。富人们也面临着同样的障碍,因此他们也要承受同样的后果。

有句格言叫“需求乃发明之母”,这也可应用到美德上。美德是后天培养的,并且必须以牺牲享乐为代价才能获得;如果一个人没有经历磨难,心胸狭隘,意志脆弱,如果没有现实的需要迫使他追求知识,谁愿意放弃唾手可得的快乐呢?为了生活上的需要而操劳的人是幸福的,因为这种操劳可使他们不至于懈怠,而被那些耗费人精力的恶习所害。如果男人和女人从出生起就被放置在热带地区,正午炽热的阳光直射在他们身上,那么他们怎么能在思想上做好充分的准备,履行人生的责任呢,更不要说去享受使他们飘然欲仙的激情了。

从目前的社会状况来看,享乐已经占据了女人生命的主要内容,长此以往,我们无法期待这些软弱的人能有什么作为。她们从自然界第一位“美丽的缺陷” [2] 那里直接继承了美貌带来的王权,为了维持她们的权利,放弃了运用智力能够带给她们天赋权利,宁可选择做短命的女王,也不愿意费神于源自平等的清醒的快乐。她们因为地位低劣而意气风发(这话听起来非常矛盾),她们经常依仗自己是女人要求别人对之服服帖帖,虽然她们应当从经验中学会:那些以无可挑剔的恰到好处的态度,随意向女性表达无礼的崇拜,并以此为荣的男人,往往是最有可能践踏和鄙视女人视若珍宝的那些弱点的男人。

……

我以关切的心情写道,啊,为什么女人要屈尊接受陌生人这种勉强的殷勤和尊敬呢?这种殷勤和尊敬与人性规范和文明礼貌规定的人与人之间的礼尚往来不同。为什么她们领会不了,她们处在“美貌的特权如日中天”时,被男人像女王般地供着,但最终只能被虚伪的尊崇欺骗,直到她们放弃或不想再享有她们天生的权利?随后她们就会像鸟雀一样被关在笼子里,无所事事,偶尔修饰一下自己的羽毛,假装很有威严地从笼子的一头踱到另一头。确实,她们可以不劳而获,丰衣足食,但是她们为此牺牲了健康、自由和美德。然而,人世间有谁拥有足够坚强的意志,愿意放弃这些恩赐的特权呢?又有谁,能够拥有冷静理智的尊严,超越世俗舆论的束缚,敢于以人类本质的天赋权利为骄傲呢?当世袭的权利扼杀了人的感情,把理性消灭在萌芽状态时,做这种期待是徒劳无益的。

男人的激情就是这样把女性放到王位上,我担心在人类变得更理智之前,女人会继续利用这种她们不费吹灰之力就得到的不可置疑的特权。她们会面带微笑,是的,她们笑得出来,尽管她们会听到这样的声音:



美丽的王国里没有中间道路,

女人不是奴隶,就是国王,

一旦不受崇拜必遭唾弃。



问题是她们首先得到的是崇拜,也不会想到有朝一日会遭唾弃。

特别是路易十四,他在社会上树立了弄虚作假的风气,并用华而不实的方法,让整个国家跟着他受累;他狡诈地建立起一条专制枷锁,让全体民众尊重他的王权,拥护他的统治,以获取个人私利。他用一种幼稚的殷勤奉承所有女性,女人在他统治期间获得了贵如王公的地位,但这些对理智和美德都是致命的。

国王永远是国王,女人永远是女人。国王的权威和女人的色情是他们之间不变的主题和合理的交换物。我承认,对于情人,她应当如此,而她的敏感自然会让她竭力激发情感,但不是为了满足虚荣心,而是为了使心灵愉悦。我不认为这是卖弄风情;这是未加修饰的自然冲动。我反对的只是没有爱情的性爱征服欲。

……

女人因为接受一些微不足道的殷勤而一步步走向堕落,我很为她们感到惋惜。男人认为向女人献这种殷勤很合适,实际上,他们正是通过这种侮辱别人的方式维护他们自己的优越地位。向一个地位不如自己的人低头,并不是屈尊。当我看到一个男人迫不及待地万分庄重地帮女人拾起手帕或关上门时,其实这位女士仅需走一两步就可以自己办到,我不禁觉得这些礼节是那么滑稽可笑,我甚至都无法控制自己不至于笑出声来。

适才有个疯狂的想法从我的心底涌现,飞入我的脑海,虽然它可能会让大家笑掉大牙,我还是不得不说。我诚挚地希望除了爱情激起的行为,社会上没有两性的区别;我完全相信,这种区别是女性软弱性格的根源;这就是为什么女人勤学才艺的时候会忽略理智的培养;同样的原因也解释了为什么女人偏爱优雅的性格胜于英勇的品质。

人类,包括形形色色的人,都希望受到某种爱戴和尊敬,而普通人总是会为了完成愿望走捷径。对财富和美色的尊崇是最不容置疑和毫不含糊的,因此也最容易吸引庸俗民众的眼球。毫无疑问,一个人要想从普通人中脱颖而出,上升到显要地位,能力和美德是必需的,这自然就会导致这个臭名昭著的结果:中等阶层最富有道德和能力。男人因而有机会,至少在一个岗位上有尊严地为自己努力,这种努力能够真正地提升一个理性的人,使他拥有更高的社会地位;但是所有的女人,在她们的性格形成之前,处在和富人同样的境地,因为她们生来(我现在谈的是文明社会)就有一定性别上的优势;这些特权她们可以无偿享用,因此很少会有人想到去付出额外的努力,赢得少数上层社会人的尊重。

我们何时听说过,出身贫贱的女人因为自己伟大的才干和勇敢的品行,敢于要求别人尊重自己?我们从哪里可以找到这种女人呢?……女人,所谓的上流社会的女士们,当众不能受到驳斥,不能做体力活;如果她们具有任何品德的话,也只能是消极的品德,诸如耐心、温顺、好脾气和韧性等,这些品德和任何智慧的有效发挥都是不相容的。另外,因为女人生活起居大多数时候都是在一起,她们很少有绝对独处的时候,因此她们更多地是受到别人情感的影响,而不是自己感情的支配。要给予愿望以热情的力量,确保想象力扩大目标,使之变为自己最想要的东西,那么独处和思索是必需的。对于富人来说也是如此;他们无力充分考虑远大的理想来获得坚强的性格,而这种理想必须依靠热情的思索和冷静的调研才能得到,因此他们无法做出举足轻重的决定。

……

在社会的中级阶层,男人在年轻时代是为了未来的职业做准备,但婚姻不是他们生活中的大事;而女人正好相反,她们没有什么其他计划来增加才能。吸引她们的不是事业、远大的计划和伟大的抱负;不,她们不会思考试图建立这些宏伟的整体构架。要想在社会上有头有脸并且能肆意寻欢,她们必须寻求有利的婚姻;她们为了达到这个目标耗费了自己的时间,并最终从事着“合法的卖淫”。男人一旦进入一个行业,就会把精力集中在未来的利益上(当精力完全集中于某一点时,思维就会变得强壮),并且因为他忙于工作,享乐对他来说只是暂时的休息;而女人却将享乐当成生命的主要目标。实际上,她们从社会上所受的错误教育使得我们可以认为,贪图享乐控制了所有的女人,但是这如何说明灵魂有性别区分呢?若果真如此,我们就可以宣称法国所有的廷臣都不是男人,因为这种摧毁人性的专制制度造就了他们的性格,他们以自由、美德和人性为代价,追求享乐和虚荣。这些都是致命的欲望,它们一直统治的恰恰是整个人类!

女性教育的整体方针培养了女人贪图享乐的习惯,这使得她们在很多情况下,为人处世拘泥于琐碎的细节;比如,她们总是关注次要的事情;她们总是对各种冒险感兴趣,而不去履行自己的责任。

男人踏上征程时,一般都会将目标放在心上;而女人则更关注一些偶然的遭遇,那些在路上发生的奇怪的事情以及自己给旅伴留下的印象;但她最关心的莫过于她身上穿着的华丽服饰,在她要奔赴一个新的地方,或者用一个恰当的法国人的说法,就是在她要制造一场轰动时,服饰就比以往任何时候都重要,更是成为她身体的一部分了。当一个人整天关心这些细枝末节,她还会有精神上的尊严吗?

简而言之,从整体上看,女人和富人一样,染上了文明社会所有的愚蠢和罪恶,却错过了文明社会的有益成果。我无须每次都说明,我是就女性的整体状况而言的,不考虑特殊情况。她们燃烧着欲火,却忽略了理性,结果她们成为感官的牺牲品,还美其名曰多愁善感,每次突然迸发的感情都可以让她们不能自持。因此文明社会的妇女受到虚伪的教养的毒害如此深重,以致如果让她们处在一个更贴近自然的环境里,道德方面所能达到的水平也会比现在高得多。她们总是心神不定,左顾右盼,她们过度的敏感让她们自己不舒服,也让别人(用一个语气温和的词)觉得讨厌。她们应当用理智思考时,思维都转移到了能够刺激感情的那些事物上去了。她们的行为不坚定,想法也是左右摇摆,不是因为深思熟虑或渐进式发展的观点而踌躇,而是因为她们矛盾的情感而摇摆。她们会一时兴起,对很多东西感兴趣;但是这种热情绝不会发展成精力集中的坚韧不拔的力量,很快就会冷却;热情融化于自己的温度,或者是碰上其他理性上毫无意义、转瞬即逝的热情,就产生了无所谓的态度。如果一个人对心灵的培养只关注如何激发感情,那这个人一定很悲惨!激发感情和加强感情之间应有区别。这样放纵感情去培养判断力,会有什么好结果呢?无疑,结果就是疯狂和愚蠢的混合物!

这种看法不仅仅适用于女性;不过,我现在只是将它用在女性身上。

小说、音乐、诗歌和献殷勤都会使女人成为感性动物,因此她们在培养才艺的时候,就会塑造出这样的性格。这些才艺是她们的社会地位促使其获得的唯一进步。这种被过分强调的多愁善感,自然会不利于心灵其他方面能力的发展,而且妨碍了智力控制一切。一个有理性的人要想有利于人,或者满足于自己的地位,其智力必须要取得这种地位。因为自然告诉我们,随着生命的发展,运用理智是能够克制情欲的唯一方法。

过分享乐会导致另外一种完全不同的结果。我时常因为一段对精神毁灭的生动刻画而深受震撼,描述的是一个人总是充满渴求享受的欲望,但身体已伤,因为没有敏锐的感觉器官,因此感受不到任何事物的乐趣。然而,女人却完全变成了她们感官的奴隶,因为她们就是靠着敏感获取手头的权利的。

道德学家们会假惺惺地主张:占人类半数的女人应当以一种无精打采的消极表现和愚蠢默认的态度处在这种状态,这就是我们大力推崇的状态。善良的导师们!我们是为何而生呢?也许人们会说,为了保持天真;他们想说的其实是保持一种幼稚的状态。女性从泥土中来,也自甘堕落其中,永远不翻身;要不是有必要造出女人,使男性能够获得理智的高贵权利和辨别善恶的能力,否则女人根本不用来这个世界走上一遭。

女人由于一种流行的意见沦入各种卑贱、忧虑和悲哀之中,这些情形不一而足,无法全部列举。这种意见认为女人生来就应当凭感官感知,而不是凭智力理论;认为她们必须靠美貌和软弱获得权力,即:

因缺陷而美丽,因软弱而可爱!

这种可爱的软弱使她们完全依赖男人,除了用不正当的权力谋得一些利益外,她们向男人寻求保护和忠告。她们漠视只有理性才能指明的责任,拒绝锻炼她们心智的考验,绞尽脑汁为自己的不足罩上优雅的外套,以求加强自己在好色之徒眼中的吸引力,这些也都没什么奇怪,尽管他们这么做只会使自己堕落到道德底线以下。

她们实在是软弱的人,她们必须得依靠男人获得慰藉。即使是碰到最不足挂齿的“危险”,她们也要缠着男人帮助自己,像个寄生虫似的黏住男人不放,可怜地乞求援助;于是她们的天生护花使者就会伸出手臂,提高嗓门保护这些瑟瑟发抖的小可爱们,但他们到底为女人排除了什么样的险情呢?也许是吼叫的老牛,或是窜逃的老鼠;一只大老鼠就已经是个重大灾难了。即使她们是温柔动人的,但就理性或常识来说,她们的行为怎么能使自己免受轻视呢?

这些恐惧如果不是装模作样的话,也许会带来一些惹人怜爱的状态;但这些状态恰恰是低能和愚蠢的一种表现,以女人毫不知晓的方式降低了一个有理性人的身份——因为爱情和尊重是完全不同的概念。

我坚决相信,如果允许女孩子作适量的锻炼,不把她们关在密闭的房间里,直到她们的肌肉变得无力、消化系统遭到破坏,就绝不会有这些幼稚的现象。进一步说,假如社会不去培养,也许更确切地说是创造女孩子的胆怯,而是像对待男孩子的怯懦那样胆怯,我想很快我们就能看到,女人会更有尊严。确实,那时称她们是男人生活道路上绽放的鲜花并不恰当;但是她们一定是社会上更有尊严的成员,并在自己理性的指引下,履行人生的重要责任。卢梭说:“用男人的教育方式来教导女人,她们和我们男人越相似,她们支配我们的权力就会越小。”这也正是我想说的。我不希望她们有支配男人的权力,只是希望她们有能力支配自己。

……

无知是品德脆弱的基础!然而,那些强烈支持男人拥有优越地位的作家们一直坚持认为,无知是女人与生俱来的特点;男人的优越不是指他们程度上比女性更高,而是他们拥有胡作非为的特权。虽然,为了使自己的论调更为温和,他们以骑士般的宽宏大量,极力证明不应当将男女两性作对比;男人生来是运用理智的,而女人生来是凭感觉的,将理性和感觉整合为一个完整的性格,就会得到灵和肉的结合,造就一个最完美的整体。

敏感究竟是什么?“感觉快,知觉快,灵敏度高。”这是约翰逊博士 [3] 给敏感下的定义;可是这个定义给我的感觉莫过于是在用最精致简练的语言说本能罢了。不论是在感觉上或实质上,我都看不出哪里提到了神的形象。即使提炼70次,反复推敲,它仍然是感觉;没有理智的存在;火永远也不能把铅炼成金子!

再回到我以前的论点上来:如果承认一个女人有不朽的灵魂,那么作为人生的一项任务,就必须锻炼自己的理智。她为使现状更为完整(虽然一切现象都表明,现状只不过是庞大总体内部极小的一个部分),为了满足眼前的享乐而忽略了伟大目标时,她们就阻碍了天性的发展,除非她生下来就是为了繁殖后代,然后死亡腐烂,要不然就是承认各种禽兽都有灵魂(虽然不是理性的灵魂),运用本能和感觉是它们在此生所采取的一个步骤,为来世拥有理性做准备;因此它们将永远落后于人类,因为人类从存在之初就享有取得理性的能力,虽然我们并不知道原因是什么。

我在像讨论一个公民或者一个父亲的特殊责任那样讨论女人的特殊责任时,就发现,我并非想暗示她们(我指的是大多数)应该走出家庭生活。但是社会的福利并非建立在个别杰出人士的努力奋斗的基础上;而且如果社会组织方式更加合理,也许我们就不需要伟大的才干或是英雄的美德了。

在管理一个家庭和教育子女方面,理智(真正意义上的理智)特别重要——身心两方面都需要坚强有力;但是那些通过撰写作品而费尽心机提倡把女人圈养在家里的男人们,却试图用粗俗的欲望支配的观点(这种欲望因为过度享乐而变得十分挑剔),来削弱女性的体质,禁锢她们的思维。但是,即使他们通过一些邪恶的手段,成功地利用了女人的感情,说服了她们,使她们安心呆在家里履行母亲和主妇的责任,我还是会慎重地反对某些指导女人纠正她们行为方式的主张,这些主张试图说服女人让她们把这些所谓的重要责任当成是人生的主要职责,这种主张是有损理性的。可是,我根据经验判断,如果她们由于理智疏忽,对这些家务活不管不问,程度上和她们在认真追求知识时(虽然我可以说,人类中绝大多数人永远不会求知不倦)表现出来的对家务活的漠然程度相同或者还要严重的话,我还是可以得出以下推论:理性乃是女人正确完成任何工作必不可少的因素,同时我还要重复一遍,敏感并不是理性。

……

另外一个我认为很有分量的观点,也许会引起任何一位体贴善良人士的共鸣。那些没有接受良好教育的女孩子,往往被父母残忍地抛弃,他们去世以后,没有给她们留下任何生活物资,因此她们不仅要依赖弟兄的理性行事,还要靠他们养活。往最好的方面想,这些弟兄都是善良的人,他们把同一父母生育的孩子所应该享有的同等权利恩赐还给她们。在这种不明显的屈辱环境下,一个温顺的女人可能勉强舒适地维持一段时间。但是一旦她的弟兄结了婚——这个可能性是很大的——她就不再被看作是家庭的女主人,而是遭到横眉冷对,被当作是个可恶的入侵者,对于男主人和他的新欢的善心来说,是个不必要的负担。

很多在身心方面都很软弱的可怜人,没有工作能力,却耻于乞讨,又有谁能够描述她们在这种情况下遭受的痛苦呢?她弟兄的妻子,一个心肠冷酷、心胸狭隘的女人(这个说法并不会有失公允,因为现在的教育制度并不可能让女性豁达大度、视野开阔),因为丈夫对他的亲属表现出了一点善行而心生嫉妒;她的敏感也让她不近人情,因此当她看到自己子女的财产糟蹋在这个没有自立能力的小姑子身上,很是不悦。

这些都是事实,我一次又一次亲眼看到这些情况发生。结果很明显:妻子用狡猾的手段暗中破坏她不敢公然反对的惯常的兄妹之情;她甚至不惜用自己的泪水和抚摸,来打动丈夫,直到这个“间谍”被逐出家门,流落到社会上,毫无准备地面对社会的各种挑战;或者这位妻子表现出一种极大的慷慨——也许她认为这比较合乎时宜,给这个女人一小笔活命钱,让她带着这笔钱和一颗未经教化的心灵独自度过郁郁寡欢的日子。

这两个女人也许在理性和人性方面没什么差别,如果交换角色的话,可能表现同样自私;但是,如果她们接受的是另外一种教育的话,情况将会有天壤之别。妻子不会有以自我为中心的感觉,理性也会指引她不要期待丈夫的爱情,更不要在他的丈夫因爱情违反他的重要职责时,以这种爱情为骄傲。她会希望不仅仅是因为丈夫爱她,她才爱自己的丈夫,而是因为丈夫的品德而爱她;那个做姐妹的也可能会自己去努力,而不是寄人篱下,讨要嗟来之食。

我确实相信感情和理智一样是靠培养和对官能的锻炼(这点好像不太明显)获得的。我现在谈的不是转瞬即逝的感情,而是爱情。在男人和女人的教育工作中最艰巨的一项任务,也许就是采用一种恰到好处的教育方式,使之既不限制他们理智的和发展,让他们的内心洋溢着一种由青春期激发起来的活力带来的温情;又不要因为思考的问题都是与生活关系不大的研究而使感情逐渐衰竭。

至于女人,她们接受了周全的教育之后,或是成为优雅的淑女,多愁善感,天马行空,反复无常;或是成为优秀的家庭主妇。后者通常都是友好、真诚的人,精明有头脑,又不乏世俗的谨慎,虽然她们没有伟大的思想和高级的趣味,但是和那些优雅的多愁善感的淑女比起来,往往是这些品质让她们成为对社会更有用的人。知识世界的大门是向她们关闭的。带她们走出家庭或社区,她们就无所适从;思维无所事事,因为虽然文学提供了丰富的娱乐资源,但是她们未试图去享受,还经常对之嗤之以鼻。那些更有教养的人的感情和品位对她们来说是非常荒唐的,即使是那些由于机缘巧合或者家庭关系而让她们深爱的人也不例外;至于那些泛泛之交,她们认为这些都是矫揉造作。

一个明智的男人之所以爱这样的女人,是因为她是女性;之所以尊重她,是因为她是一个可以信赖的仆人。他为了求清静,任由她去责骂奴仆,穿着最好材质做的衣服去教堂做礼拜。一个与她智力相当的男人也许就不会事事顺着她,因为他也许想要侵犯她的特权,想要自己照料一些家务;但是女人,她们因未接受教化而心胸狭隘,她们天生自私自利,不会因深思而拥有宽广的胸襟,因此她们是不适合管理家庭的,因为一旦她们手头的权力泛滥,她们就会采取专制手段来维持用大笔财富堆积起来的优越地位。这种恶行有时候会变本加厉,家仆没有任何放松,不得不超负荷工作,为了让这个显要的女人享受豪宴,或者让她在和邻居夸耀衣服和排场时有谈资。当她照看孩子的时候,她基本上会让她们穿非常昂贵的衣服,无论这种疼爱是出于虚荣还是母爱,这对她的孩子来说都是百害无一利的。

此外,有多少这样的女人整天闷闷不乐地打发着日子,或者至少一到晚上她们就郁郁寡欢。她们的丈夫承认她们是好管家和忠贞的妻子,但是他们却离家去寻找更心仪的——请允许我用一个意味深长的法语词——富有刺激性(piquant)的社交伙伴。这个有耐心的苦人儿,就像磨坊里蒙了眼睛的骡子一样,勤勤恳恳地完成了她的工作,却没有得到她应当属于她的报酬,因为对她来说,丈夫的爱抚就是她的薪酬;而本来就没有什么资源的女人,绝对不会逆来顺受地接受这种剥夺自然权利的行为。

相反,文雅的淑女接受的教育让她们用鄙夷的态度对待日常生活中的琐碎小事;虽然人们也只不过让她学习一点比常识略高一筹的才艺而已;因为除非通过练习锻炼她的理智,否则她也不可能很精准地获得一些体力方面的才能。没有原则做基础,品位也是肤浅的;优雅必须来源于比模仿更为深刻的东西。但是,想象力开始沸腾,感情即使没有世故复杂,也会变得吹毛求疵;或者虽然她的心灵依然质朴(但却过于温和),却无法做出有见地的判断。

……

如果爱情是一种极致的美德,那就只教育女人去激发爱情即可,让她们尽情发挥自己的魅力去迷醉人们的感官吧;但是如果她们是有道德的人,那就应该给她们机会成为有智慧的人;让她们对男人的爱情仅仅成为热情洋溢的普遍大爱中的一部分,在普泽众生之后,升华为对上帝的感恩。

履行家庭责任需要很大的决心,还要有坚强的毅力,这种毅力需要比感情更加坚固的东西做后盾,无论感情是多么活跃和真挚。要做一个自律的榜样,一个有道德的人必须在行为上严格要求自己,而这又是一个自幼就随着个人情绪而动的人所做不到的人。任何在理性上想要有所作为的人,都必须有严格的行为规范;我们在履行最简单的责任时,经常不得不违背自己一时兴起的怜悯之心或慈悲情怀。严厉往往是感情的最坚实和最高尚的证据;正是由于缺乏这种控制感情的力量,缺乏一种更高尚的感情——这种感情让人意识到自己深爱未来的福祉比当下的享乐重要得多——很多溺爱的母亲对她们的孩子万般宠爱,却产生了忽略和纵容哪一坏处最大的疑问;在我看来,后者遗害最深。

人类似乎相信孩子在童年时期应当由母亲来管教。但是现在,据我观察,多愁善感的女人最不适合这项工作,因为她们很容易被情绪左右,宠坏了孩子的性情。性情的管理是教育中最初和最重要的部分,需要理性做出冷静稳重的观察;孩子的行为规范既不是专制暴虐的,也不是溺爱纵容的:但是敏感的人往往不是陷入这个极端,就是走到那个极端,始终把握不好度。我曾经顺着我的思辨逻辑走得更远,得出结论,一个极富天赋的人是最不适合从事教育工作的,无论是公共教育还是家庭教育。这类极少数的人看问题好从大处着眼,很少有好脾气(如果曾经有过的话)。这种惯常性的乐天派脾气,即我们所说的好性情,也许很难和卓越的智力结合,正如它不会和强烈的感情兼容一样。那些满怀着好奇和崇拜追随放荡不羁的天才,或者是带着冷静的赞许之情,吸收那些学富五车的智者为他们精心准备指示的人,一旦他们发现天才暴躁易怒,智者郁郁寡欢,就不应该感到厌恶。因为活跃的想象力和深刻的洞察力与顺从的谦恭文雅是难以相容的,这种文雅至少会让一个人屈从于大众的意见和偏见,而不是勇敢地予以反驳。

但是在谈论教育或者举止时,我们可以不考虑那些智力卓群的人,让他们顺其自然吧;我们谈的是能力平平的普通大众,他们需要接受教育,会因周围环境的影响而近朱者赤。我认为这些可敬的民众,无论男女,都不应当躺在奢侈和懒惰的温床上增强他们的情感,而牺牲他们的理智;因为,除非有一定的智力做基础,否则他们不可能成为有道德的人或是自由的人:一个靠财富或真正的智慧发家的贵族,永远都会让那些时而胆小怯懦时而凶恶勇猛的情感努力臣服。

……

女人很少能有足够认真的工作来平静她们的心情;四周琐碎的挂念或虚荣的追求耗尽了她们身心的精力,她们自然而然地只成为了感觉的对象。简言之,整个女性教育(社会教育)宗旨就是要让那些状况最好的女人变得浪漫、多变;让剩下的女人变得虚荣和可鄙。在目前的社会状况下,恐怕这种弊端很难克服;也许一种更远大的理想在社会上占主流趋势时,女人就会比较接近自然和理性,在她们变得日益高尚的同时,成为更有美德、更有益的人才。

但是我还是要斗胆声明,当世界上大多数人的主要愿望是向世人炫耀摆阔时,女人的理智就永远得不到长足的发展,从而理性也就无法规范她们的行为,因为自然的情感和最有益的美德都成为这种愚蠢欲望的牺牲品。女孩结婚的目的,借用一个意味深长的俗话来说,就是为了荣华富贵,并且如此巧妙地控制自己的情感,除非一个家财万贯的男人来求婚,否则绝不坠入爱河。我要在另一章讨论这个话题;现在我只需要点到为止,因为年轻女人总是过早患上成年人自私的精明,浇灭了她们青春的热情,从而日益堕落。

同样的来源传出了一种说法,年轻女孩应该把大多数时间用来做针线活;但是,这种活计把她们的思维限制在自己的穿着打扮上,因此比其他任何可选择的事情都更阻碍她们智力的发展。男人吩咐别人为他做衣裳,交代完了就不再提起;女人的衣服,无论是必需的还是装饰性的,都需要自己缝制,而且总是在絮絮叨叨地说这个话题;而她们的大脑也跟着手运动。实际上削弱她们思维的不是那些必需的衣服,而是那些廉价的华丽服装。因为当一个处于社会底层的女人为她的丈夫和孩子缝制衣服时,她是在履行她的责任,这是她家务活的一部分;但是那些想要华丽衣装却又消费不起,只好自己制作衣服的女人,她们损失的不仅仅是时间。贫穷的女人必须工作才能拥有道德,这些女人如果不盲目追求贵族阶层时髦,不贪图闲适安逸的生活,那些中产阶级的女人也许会雇用她们,因为这些女人需要料理家务、教育子女和锻炼自己的心智。园艺、实验哲学和文学会为她们提供思考的内容和谈论的话题,这些在一定程度上可以锻炼她们的思维。虽然那些不会僵坐在椅子上一动不动地缝衣襟、织花边的法国妇女谈论的话题已经够肤浅了,但是我认为,她们的交谈远没有英国女人的无聊,她们整天把时间花在做各种帽子和所有用来装饰的玩意儿上面。因为这些事情而堕落的往往是体面、谨慎的女人,因为她们的动机仅仅是爱慕虚荣。那些利用自己的品位让自己感情更有诱惑力的放荡女人们,心里想的更多。

我的这些论点都是从一个总的论点发展而来的,这个论点我以前提过,并且多次强调,因为说到男人、女人和职业,我们会发现思维塑造性格,对于人类和对于个人来说都是如此。女人的脑子里整天都是她自己的个人容貌,那她把外貌当作是最重要的事又有什么奇怪的呢?但是即使是长得容颜秀丽,一定程度的心灵自由也是必不可少的;这也许就是有些温柔的妻子除了性的吸引力之外,再也没有什么魅力的原因吧。除此之外,需要久坐的工作让大多数女人体弱多病——而对于女性品质的错误观念使她们以这种柔弱为荣,虽然这种柔弱实则为一副枷锁,通过让女人不断关注自己的外表,而禁锢了心灵的发展。

那些高贵的女性很少亲自缝制衣服,因此她们只需运用自己的鉴赏力,而且她们在化完妆以后,不会再想那些华丽的服饰,因此拥有了一份闲适的淡定,而那些为了打扮而打扮的女人,很少会表现出这种淡然。实际上,我所做的关于中产阶级(在中产阶层,有才能的人最能大展拳脚)的评价,并不是对所有女人都适用;因为那些上流社会的女人,因为至少读过一些文学作品,而且和男人谈论过一些宏观问题,因此会比那些盲目模仿她们的时髦和缺点,却无法享有她们优势的女人拥有更多的学识。而谈到美德,我说的是广义上的美德,我在底层群众中见到的最多。很多贫苦的女人,呕心沥血地养育子女,竭力维持着因男人的恶行而濒临破碎的家庭;但是上层社会的淑女们懒惰成性,不会主动去培养自己的品格,有文化并不会使她们更优雅,反而更软弱。确实,我亲眼目睹了许多贫困的女人非常通情达理,她们没有接受教育的机会,却表现出英勇的行为,这些有力地证实了我的观点,无聊琐事只会让女人变成没有追求的人。男人占有了女人的身体,却任其心灵腐烂;因此肉体之爱让男人疲惫不堪(其实这是他最喜欢的娱乐活动)时,他就会想办法奴役女人——而谁又能预测需要多少世代的发展,这些卑贱的奴隶的后代才能获得自由,拥有高尚的品德和富有创造性的思想呢?

在追溯那些我认为曾导致女性堕落的原因的时候,我将范围局限在那些对整个女性的道德和行为产生普遍影响的因素上,并且我认为,这些因素显然都是由于缺乏理智而导致的。至于这种不足到底是因为身体内在的还是偶然的智力缺陷导致的,时间迟早会为我们揭开谜底;我因为不想过度强调那极少数受过男性教育,英勇非凡意志坚定的女性的例子;我只是补充一句,那些处在同样环境中的男人也获得了和这些女人相似的性格——我说的是普通的男人,那些聪颖过人的男人都是来自于某一个阶层,然而没有一个女性属于这个阶层。

注释

[1] 见《圣经·旧约》“以赛亚书”22章13节。——译者注

[2] 即夏娃。——译者注

[3] 塞缪尔·约翰逊(Samuel Johnson, 1709—1784),英国文学家,《英文字典》(Dictionary of the English Language)编纂者。——译者注

各种关于良好声誉重要性的性别观念对道德的损害

我很早就意识到,那些人们不遗余力向女人灌输的有关行为举止的忠告和保持良好声誉的各种方法,都是华而不实的毒药,它们为道德包了一层外壳,却侵蚀了它的本质。何况,用这种徒有其表的标准来衡量人,必定会带来错误的结果,因为就如同影子一样,长短很大程度上取决于太阳的高度和很多偶然性的因素。

……

如果女性不是常常受教导要孜孜不倦地保持她们表面性格的光鲜和美好,并把它们看作是女人的全部职责;如果人们不总是用规范行为和保持良好声誉的规矩来代替道德义务,我就没有必要对此话题展开论述,使之成为贯穿我所有作品的主要原则。但是,谈到良好名誉,注意力就被局限到一种品德上——贞洁。如果一个女人的荣誉(用这种荒谬的方法来称谓)得到保全,她就可以忽略所有的社会责任;甚至可以沉溺于玩乐和奢侈,将她的家庭带向毁灭;但是她仍然表现出一副道貌岸然的样子——因为她确实是一个值得尊敬的女人。

麦考莱夫人曾公正声明:“只有一种错误,体面的女人犯了之后不能免于惩罚。”她随后公正而仁慈地补充,“因此就导致了一种愚蠢的老生常谈,认为女人第一次犯了出卖贞操的错误,就会从根本上败坏她的名誉。但是造物主创造出的生物不可能这么脆弱。人类的心灵的本质很高贵,不会这么容易受侵蚀。虽然女人在境遇和教育方面处于劣势,但是除非她们遭到同性恶毒的诅咒而流于绝望的境地,否则她们很少被完全抛弃。”

但是,虽然女人将贞洁的名誉视为珍宝,男人却对它嗤之以鼻:这两种极端态度对道德危害都很大。

无疑,男人比女人更容易受到欲望的诱惑,而且他们的欲望往往因为肆意享乐和欲壑难填而更为堕落。奢侈的生活让人们在饮食上挑三拣四,体质每况愈下;还导致了人们的贪食行为,这种行为过于粗俗,以致我们已经在这类人身上看不到任何礼貌得体的概念了:他们在别人面前肆无忌惮地纵情饕餮,事后还因为自己毫无节制造成的腹内胀痛牢骚满腹。有些女人,特别是法国女人,已经在这方面有失端庄了,因为她们会坦然自若地谈论消化不良,我们只有希望杜绝那些游手好闲的人在财富的温床上滋养那些以食腐为生的成群的夏虫,只有这样我们才不会因为看到这种粗俗的贪婪而心生厌恶。

我认为,有一条行为规范方面的准则,可以制约所有其他准则;这就是对人类抱有习惯性的尊重,防止我们一时因贪图享乐而招来同伴的憎恶。很多已婚女人和其他稍微上了年纪的人经常因为懒惰成性而颜面尽失。虽然大家坚信外貌是联系两性的纽带,然而又有多少次女人纯粹因为懒惰,或是贪图毫无意义的自我放纵,而遭致别人的厌恶呢?

那种让两性结合的堕落腐化的欲望,有更致命的后果。天性应当是品位的唯一标准,欲望的永恒量尺——然而好色之徒多么粗暴地侮辱了天性。我们暂且不论高尚的爱情;为了保证人类的传宗接代,天性,在这一方面和所有其他方面一样,将对欲望的满足规定为维持人类繁衍生息必要的自然法则,因此抬高了肉欲的地位,并让肉欲掺杂了一些理智和感情的成分。为纯粹的动物本能加上一些为人父母的感情,可以使这种本能更加尊贵;男人和女人为了孩子经常相聚,双方对孩子共同的感情激发了相互之间的关心和感情。女人因此有了比打扮自己更加崇高的责任,为了履行职责,她们不会心安理得地沦为无耻淫欲的奴隶;而现在相当多的女人都是这种奴隶,更准确点说,她们就是所有贪食者的常备佳肴。

也许有人会反驳我,虽然这种堕落情节恶劣,但它不过影响了女人中一部分甘于奉献者,她们为了挽救其余的女人而牺牲自己。但是这种允许小部分罪恶存在以追求更大利益的说法,和其他所有错误的主张一样,很容易得到证实;它们的危害远不止于此,因为女性中比较贞洁那部分人的道德品质和心灵安宁都受到了这种女人的破坏,她们认为这些女人犯的罪行不可饶恕;她们坚决认为这些女人通过各种手段引诱她们的丈夫,导致她们的儿子放荡堕落,并且逼他们(正派的女人不要惊讶)也在某种程度上做同样的勾当。因为我将冒昧地声明,所有导致女性软弱和堕落(正如我刚才详细阐述)的因素,都是出自同样一个主要的原因——男人贞洁观念的匮乏。

这种放荡行为流毒甚广,使性欲堕落到只有靠淫荡的刺激才能使之兴奋的程度,但是他们辜负了造物主充满慈爱的良苦用心,一时脑子里完全被容貌占据。这些沉迷于美色的无耻之徒行为日渐放荡,甚至开始对女人的柔情吹毛求疵;在意大利和葡萄牙,男人甚至会穿梭于各种暧昧场所,去寻求比女性柔情更有吸引力的刺激。

为了让这类男人如意,女人整体变得日益放荡起来,尽管程度不同,但是她们心甘情愿和男人发生没有感情的性交,使两性都变得堕落,因为这种行为影响了男人的品位;而各个阶层的女人,必然会去为了满足男人已败坏的品位而调整自己的行为,以追求享乐和权势。女人因此在身体和心灵上都变得不堪一击,但是如果她们考虑到她们存在的重大目标之一——生育并抚养孩子,就不会变得如此软弱,她们现在已经没有足够的能力来履行做母亲的首要责任;父母之情使本能变得高贵,而女人却因为淫荡而愿意牺牲为人父母的权利,她们或是打掉腹中尚在发育的胎儿,或是在孩子出生之后将之抛弃。一切事物中的自然法则都值得尊重,很少有人能够破坏自然的法则而免于惩罚。那些特别吸引好色之徒的软弱女人是不配做母亲的,虽然她们可能会怀孕;那个有钱的淫荡之徒,在女人堆里寻欢作乐,到处散播堕落和痛苦,在他想要传宗接代时,却只能从妻子那里得到一个继承了两人缺点的发育不良的人。

人们将现代的人文精神和古代的野蛮行为对比时,总是强调古人有一种把养不起的孩子抛弃到野外的野蛮风俗;但是那些对此愤愤不平的情感丰富的男人,也许正因为自己混乱的男女关系造成了一种非常具有破坏性的不育现象和广为扩散的无耻风尚。毫无疑问,造物主从来无意让女人通过满足性欲而破坏他让人类拥有性欲的真正目的(即繁衍后代)!

我前面已经提过,男人应当对他们引诱过的女人负责;这将成为改善女人行为方式的一种手段,同时也可以阻止这种对人口和道德都有毁灭性打击的恶行进一步发展。还有一种同样明显的方法,就是将女人的注意力转移到贞洁这项真正的美德上来;因为这种一边对好色之徒放荡情欲的受害者和她们自己的愚蠢嗤之以鼻,一边又对他们笑脸相迎的女人,也许会有洁白如雪花的名声,但是就端庄来说,她们是不会赢得多少人尊重的。

另外,在她费尽心思打扮自己,只是为了吸引男人的眼球,得到他们尊敬的赞叹和称之为天真奉承的无聊崇拜时,也许她会自诩纯洁,但实际上她已经沾染了同样的愚蠢。因为如果女人真正因为美德本身而尊崇美德,她们就不会从虚荣中寻求补偿,以弥补为了保全名声而必须去履行的自我克制,她们也不会和蔑视名声的男人有任何来往。

男人和女人之间是相互腐化、共同进步的。我相信这是一个不容置疑的真理,适用于一切美德。贞洁、端庄、公德心以及一系列高贵的品德是社会道德和幸福得以建立的基础,应当得到所有人的认同和培养,否则培养这些品德就没有什么意义。为了不让邪恶或懒惰的人为自己破坏某种神圣的责任寻找托词(他们会称这种责任为女性的责任),更明智的办法就是让大家知道造物主并没有区分两性的品德,因此不贞的男人双重地违反了造物主的意图,他不仅让女人无法生育,而且伤害了自己的身体,虽然他不会像女人犯罪那样为世人所不齿。这些都是生理上的后果,道德上的危害就更令人警醒;因为公民、丈夫、妻子、父亲、母亲和一家之主的责任仅仅成为寻求一己私利的关系时,道德就已名存实亡。

既然如此,那为何哲学家们还要期待公德心呢?公德心必须靠私德来培育,要不然就会成为女人为保护名声,男人为维持荣誉而表现的虚情假意,这种感情没有道德和高尚品行的支撑,而高尚的品行就对违反某种责任的惯常性视为对整个道德法则的破坏。

社会上既定的不合理差别造成的有害影响

人们对财产的尊重,就像有毒的喷泉一样,带来了很多灾祸和罪恶,使这个世界在一个爱好思考的人眼里呈现出一派萧条荒凉的景象。因为正是在文明高度发达的社会里,害虫和毒蛇才会潜藏在茂密的丛林中;还有死气沉沉的气氛孕育的耽于享乐,使得一切优秀的性情在发展成为美德之前就夭折了。

一个阶级压迫另一个阶级,所有的人都指望凭借自己的财富获得尊重,一旦有了财富就可以拥有只有才能和美德才配享有的尊重。那些忽略了人类应当履行责任的人,却仍被当作半个神一样供着。宗教和美德被一层礼仪的幕布分开了,可是人们还在惊讶,这个世界严格意义上来说已经腐化成骗子和压迫者的巢穴了。

有一句朴实的格言精辟地道出了真理:魔鬼专门指使游手好闲的人为自己干活。世袭的财富和头衔除了带来习惯性的懒惰还能带来什么呢?因为人的天性如此,只有通过锻炼自己的天赋才会合理使用它们,可是只有某种需要首先迫使他采取行动,他才会运用自己的天赋。同样,美德也只有通过履行相关的责任才能获得;但是一个人听尽了甜言蜜语忘乎所以,甚至丧失人性的时候,他是不会感受到这些神圣责任的意义的。社会上必须建立更多的平等,否则道德将永远不会有进展;如果人类的一半因为命运而被困在深渊里,则即使这种道德的平等性以岩石为根基也不会有稳固的基础,因为这些人会不断通过无知或骄傲来将它毁坏。

在女人于某种程度上脱离男人而独立之前,指望女人有美德是徒劳无益的;同样,也不能指望女人拥有自然感情的力量,让她们成为贤妻良母。她们完全依赖丈夫时就会变得狡猾、卑鄙、自私;而那些因哈巴狗样逢迎奉承的爱情而满足的男人,也不会有什么细腻的情感,因为爱情不是商品;无论怎么来理解这句话的意义,如果寻求的爱情没有同样的感情作为回报,爱情的羽翼就会立即枯萎。但是,男人因为财富而变得软弱,而女人似乎是以个人魅力为生时,我们怎么能期待他们履行那些需要努力和自制才能使他们高尚的责任呢?世袭的财产使人心变得复杂,那些一出生就受财产牵绊的不幸受害者——如果我可以这么说的话——很少会运用他们身体或精神的力量,他们只能通过一个媒介来观察万物,而这个媒介还是假的,因此他们无法辨别真正的美德和幸福包括什么。一个人被地位的帷幕遮蔽了双眼,并且因此戴着面具耀武扬威,愚蠢而又无所事事地拖着没有知觉的四肢从一个放浪场所晃到另外一个,转动着茫然无神的眼珠,眼神明显告诉我们这是个没有思想的躯壳,这种人的观点必然是谬误的。

因此我想推导出下面的结论,如果社会不迫使男人和女人分别履行各自的责任,并使之成为人们获得同胞赞同的唯一途径(这种赞同是每一个人或多或少都希望得到的),则此社会一定组织得不够完善。结果对财富和美色的推崇成了真正的东北风,摧毁了爱情和美德的娇嫩花蕊。造物主英明地将感情和责任结合,从而使劳作变得甜蜜,并且赠与理智运用一种只有心灵才能给予的活力。但是,如果仅仅因为爱情是某种性格合适的标志而表现出虚情假意,却不去履行爱情应尽的责任,那么这种爱情不过是邪恶和愚蠢不得不向美德和事物的真正本质做出的空洞的恭维罢了。

为了证明我的观点,我只需要作如下陈述:一个女人因自己的美貌而受人追捧,而她又因为沉溺于这些赞美不能自拔,以致忽视了自己作为母亲不可推卸的职责时,她就是自甘堕落,因为她疏于培养一种同样能够让她有价值和幸福感的感情。真正的幸福,我指的是在目前不完善状态下能够得到的所有的满足感和道德上的幸福,必须来源于有节制的感情,而感情是包含责任的。男人没有意识到由于他们一味鼓励女人取悦他人,而给她们造成的深重苦难和因此纵容的可怕的软弱;他们没有考虑到他们的行为让女人为具有色情概念的美貌牺牲了一个女人生命中的幸福和尊严,让天然责任和人为责任走到了对立面,而实际上二者完全是和谐一致的。

如果一个男人看到自己的妻子在哺乳孩子时,觉得还不如淫荡的行为带给他的快乐多,而他也不是因为早年的不羁行径变得极不正常,那他一定就是铁石心肠;但是金钱让女人抛弃了哺乳孩子这种加强婚姻关系、融合尊严和爱慕的回忆的自然道路。女人为了保持容颜美丽,得到那顶使她短期内对异性有某种统治权的花环,而忽略了在丈夫心中留下深刻的印象,而当他们两鬓斑白,热情退却时,这种印象会比动人的处女魅力唤起更多的温柔回忆。一个通情达理感情丰富的女人具有的女性关怀是让人感动的,孩子的父亲一直兢兢业业地履行应尽的职责,而女人和她的孩子则以高尚的尊严来回报他的抚爱,这种景象让人肃然起敬,赏心悦目。当我看到无病呻吟的庄严和卑躬屈膝的礼节以炫耀代替家庭感情的时候,我深感厌恶,我的感情确实很奇怪(其实我已经竭力避免太做作的感情了),以至于我不得不转向其他的场面,将注意力转移到自然中随处可见的令人眼前一亮的绿色景致上,以获得解脱。于是我兴奋地看到了一个女人在照顾她的孩子,完成她应尽的责任,也许只有一个女仆替她承担辛劳的家务劳作。我看见她把自己和孩子都收拾得很整齐,迎接晚上归来的疲惫不堪的丈夫,他看到的是孩子微笑的脸庞和干净整洁的家。我的心俨然已经融入了这个家庭,在熟悉的脚步声引起一阵欢乐的骚动时,我的心甚至也会产生共鸣,怦怦跳动。

当我的善意因为凝视这幅不加任何修饰的图画而得到满足时,我曾经想,这样的一对夫妇因为各自都履行了自己应尽的责任,因此相互依存又各自独立,他们拥有了生活能够赋予他们的一切。如果他们积攒了一定的财富,脱离了赤贫状态,不必为他们花的每一笔钱左右掂量;有了足够的钱他们不必考虑让人心胸狭隘的拮据的家庭经济计划,我认为(其实我的想法很简单),我不知道这个家庭还需要什么才能成为世界上最幸福、最值得尊重的境况,除非需要有一点文学鉴赏的品位,为社交谈话增加一点变化和趣味,还额外需要一笔钱接济穷人、购买书籍。在人们内心充满怜悯之情,脑子里一直活跃着安排各种有用的计划时,却有一个一本正经的小人儿不停地拽着胳膊,不让伸手拿出那个几乎瘪下去的钱包,同时还耳语着一些关于正义第一的深谋远虑的大道理,实在让人不悦。

虽然财产和继承的荣誉对于人类的性格有毁灭性的打击,但是女人因此而受到的伤害和束缚比男人更大(如果她们确实受其影响),因为男人仍然可以通过成为军人和政客,在一定程度上展现他们的才能。

……

荒诞不经的等级制度让文明成为祸害,它把世人分成骄奢淫逸的暴君和狡猾嫉妒的寄生虫,这种区分让这两种人几乎同等地陷入堕落,因为尊重与履行人生的责任无关,却由地位决定,而人们在没有完成分内职责时,就不会有足够深厚的感情来巩固美德,有美德的人自然能够得到爱情作为回报。男人仍然可以悄悄地钻一些空子,为了自己敢于思考敢于行动;而女人的任务就艰巨得多,因为她要战胜很多女性特有的困难,而克服它们需要超出常人的力量。

一个真正仁慈的立法者总会努力使每一个品德高尚的人都能从中获益,这样私德就会促进公共幸福的建设,而有秩序的整体会因为所有的部分都趋向于一个共同的中心而得到加强。但是对女人来说,私德或公德的区分确是有问题的,因为卢梭和很多男性作家都坚决声称女人应当一生都受到礼法严格的约束。但是如果她完全有能力依照一个更高尚的动机行为处事,如果她是不朽灵魂的继承者,则她为何还需要屈从于礼法,而且是盲目的礼法呢?糖必须永远要用维持生命的血液来制造吗?当原则是更可靠的保证时,难道人类一半的人就注定要像悲惨的非洲黑奴一样,只是为了让男人的生命之杯更加甜蜜而屈从于残酷荼毒她们身心的偏见吗?这又何尝不是间接否认女人的理智呢?因为如果天赋不发挥任何作用,就只是嘲弄。

女人和男人一样,因财富带来的轻松享乐而变得软弱和奢侈;但是除此之外,她们还因此成了外貌的奴隶,她们必须把自己打扮得花枝招展,这样男人才可能把自己的理智施舍给她们,带领步履蹒跚的女人走向正途。如果她们胸怀大志,就必须用狠毒的伎俩来统治她们的暴君,因为她们没有权利,也就没有必须承担的义务。在本书下一部分我要讨论关于女性的法律,这些法律将男人和他妻子的结合视为荒谬之事;然后由于轻率转变为只认为男人是有责任的,女人就被置于无足轻重的位置。

那些履行了应尽职责的人都是独立的人;我将详细阐述女人,她们的首要责任就是将自己视为理性的人;按重要性来排列,下一条就是把自己视作公民,公民的责任包含甚广,做母亲的责任也包括在内。女人生活中的地位免除了她们的这种责任,让她们仅仅变成一具玩偶,必然也导致她们堕落。或者她们把注意力从只为自己光滑的肉体寻找合体光鲜的衣服转移到更重要的事情上去时,她们的大脑也只会被某种温柔的柏拉图式的理想爱情占据;也许实际实施一起阴谋会保持她们思维的活跃;因为她们在忽略家庭责任之时,就没有能力像士兵一样占领阵地,前进或后撤,或者在议会中辩论以防自己的思维锈蚀倒退。

我知道,卢梭为了证明女性的低劣,曾经亢奋地高叫:她们怎么能离开育婴室奔赴战场呢!有些道德学家曾经证明军营是培养最英勇品质的地方;尽管我认为,要想证明很多造就了所谓英雄的战争是合理的,可能连最聪明的诡辩家也要感到为难吧。我无意批评性地看待这个问题,因为国家在被蚕食、树林被战火和刀枪夷为平地之时,我也会经常把这种野心勃勃的怪事当作是文明社会的首选自然方式,因此我也不将战争称为祸害;但是肯定的一点是,现在的战争体制与所有的美德都没有丝毫联系,战争再也不是培养坚强意志的学校,而是训练阴险手腕和软弱性格的地方。

但是如果在目前社会高度发达的状况下,防御型战争,唯一的无可非议的战争,被认为是正义和光荣的,在这类战争中,美德能够展现它的面貌,并且在净化山顶空气的呼啸寒风中日益成熟,则古代真正的英雄主义也许会再次激起女性内心的激情。但是公正儒雅的读者,无论您是男人还是女人,请不要惊慌,因为尽管我把现代军人的性格和有教养的女人对比,我并非规劝她们将手中的卷线杆换成火枪,虽然我真心希望看到刺刀能够变成修剪树枝的钩刀。我只是厌倦了财富浊流带来的罪恶和愚蠢,这支浊流玷污了自然感情的清澈溪流,所以我对未来重新设想了一番,希冀未来社会有一日可以达到这种构成:男人必须履行作为一个公民的责任,否则他就会遭到鄙视;他在公民生活的任何部门任职时,他的妻子也是一个积极的公民,她也应当集中精力来料理家务,教育子女,帮助邻居。

但是要使她真正成为道德高尚、有用的人,假如她履行了自己的公民责任,她就不需要民法的特别保护;她不要在丈夫在世时仰仗他的恩惠过活,或去世后指望他的遗产来赡养;因为如果一个人自己就身无分文,他如何能慷慨解囊?或是自己没有自由,如何能拥有高尚的道德?在目前的情况下,一个对丈夫忠贞不渝的妻子,如果她既不生育也不培养子女,她就不配称作妻子,也无权享有公民之名。但是既然自然权利被剥夺,责任当然也就无从谈起了。

女人的思想和身体都非常虚弱,以致只有在追求空虚的享乐或制作一些轻浮的时装时才能集中精力,这时女人将仅仅被看作是男人放荡的慰藉。一个勤于思索的人看到清晨无数的马车载着脸色苍白的女人在大都市的街道上飞快横冲直撞时,还有什么比这幅景象更让他郁闷呢!我一直和约翰逊博士的意见一样,希望把她们中的一些人放置在一个小工坊中,那里有半打的孩子仰望着她们倦怠的面容等着养活。如果某种不易察觉的力量不能很快让她们的眼睛充满健康的活力;她们以前只会浮现出笑靥现在却变得苍白的脸庞,因为运用理智也爬上了几道皱纹,如果这样的脸庞不能让她们恢复品质上业已丧失的尊严,更确切地说,无法让品德获得本质上真正的尊严的话,那我就确实是大错特错了。美德不是来源于空想,更不是来源于财富滋生的消极懈怠。

此外,贫穷甚至比罪恶还要可耻时,道德岂不是更加可耻吗?为了避免误解,尽管我认为平民阶层的普通女人是受宗教和理性的感召而履行妻子和母亲的责任,我仍然禁不住扼腕叹息:没有一条道路可供上流社会的女人选择,以追求更广泛的计划,实现有为和独立。我下文要讨论一个问题,在这里我只是提一下,这可能会招来大家的耻笑,因为我真的认为女性应该有自己的国会代表,而不是对专横的统治逆来顺受,在政府审议中没有任何直接参与的权利。

但是,因为这个国家现在的整个代议制度不过是专制者统治的便利手段,她们就无须抱怨,因为她们和很多辛勤工作的机械工阶层一样,被别人代表着,这些工人甚至在无法养活孩子的时候还要掏钱来维持王室奢侈的花销。至于那些用血汗维持太子的豪华马群,或是修饰那些目中无人、恬不知耻的贵妇人华盖的人,他们是如何被代表的呢?对生活必需品征收税,让一群无所事事的王子和公主带着愚蠢的炫耀,在目瞪口呆的群众面前招摇过市,这场检阅让他们付出了如此高昂的代价,而他们却以几乎崇敬的心情瞻仰着检阅队伍。这只是哥特般的奇观,有点像在白厅 [1] 前对骑马哨兵的检阅,野蛮而毫无意义,每当我看到这种情形,心中便不由轻蔑又愤怒。

一个人对这种景象印象深刻时,他的思维一定会是一种奇怪的迷惑状态!但是在美德将这些愚蠢行为的残留消除之前,类似的愚蠢行为还会毒害所有群众。因为同样性质的事情在一定程度上会在社会群体中盛行;富人的浮华奢靡,穷人心怀嫉恨的恶意抱怨,都会败坏代表一个文明社会的美德,或者仅仅允许美德作为文化人穿在身上的花哨衣服上的一条花纹出现。

在上层社会,一切责任都是由代理去执行的,就好像责任是可以放弃的一样,有钱人因此懒惰成性,不得不去追求虚荣的享乐,这一切对下层人民来说极有诱惑力,不计其数的拜金者不惜牺牲一切来步他们的后尘。最神圣的职务被看成是挂名的差事,因为它们是靠走关系得到的,并且只是为了使一个人能够结识好朋友。女人尤其如此,她们都希望能够成为贵妇人。而贵妇人就是成天无所事事,只是无精打采地到处游荡,去哪她们也不在意,因为她们自己也不知道。

也许有人会这样问:但是除了悠闲自得地到处闲逛,女人还需要在社会中做什么呢?你总不能罚他们去喂养傻瓜和记录那些无聊的琐事吧?不。女人当然可以去学习救死扶伤的本领,成为医生或护士。她们也可以去接生,这似乎是比较合乎礼法的,但是我担心我们词典中“接生婆”这个词很快就会被男助产士代替,因而我们语言中证明过去女性遵循礼法的证据也将会被抹去。

她们也可以钻研政治,把她们的仁慈建立在最广泛的基础上;因为如果把历史仅仅当作是一本传记来看,而不去关注时代的特征、政治上的进展和政治手腕,阅读历史就和看传奇小说一样毫无裨益。简单说来,如果不把历史当作人类的历史来读,那就毫无益处。历史也不是个别人物的专辑,他们被放在名誉殿堂的神龛里,被漆黑一片奔腾向前的时间洪流吞噬,这股洪流将面前的一切都卷入无形的空洞,这个空洞就是“永恒”。既然是“形”,那我们不妨称之为“无形之形”吧。

如果女人能够接受更加系统的教育,她们也可以从事各行各业的工作,也许这样就可以将很多女人从私下或合法的卖淫中解救出来。男人在政府中有了一官半职而无视其应尽的责任时,女人也不会因为无法自足而和他们结婚。她们更不会为了维持基本生计这种最值得称赞的目的,而堕落到像那些靠卖淫为生的被抛弃的可怜虫一样的地位。因为那些女帽商和女裁缝们,不就是被当作比娼妓略高一点的等级吗?现在接受女人的少数行业并非高尚的工作,而只是一些卑贱的行业;有的女人接受了高级点的教育,有能力担任教育孩子的女教师,但是她们没有受到作为孩子老师应有的待遇,虽然即使是牧师老师也不会永远受到应得的礼遇,成为孩子眼中可敬的人,因此也就无从谈起什么个人生活的舒适了。但问题是那些像上层女性一样受过教育的女人,从来没有计划过要去担任那些让她们感到羞辱的职位,即使是因生活所迫她们不得不去做;她们认为这些职位是对自己身份的侮辱;她们对人类感情知之甚少,因而有必要告诉她们,没有什么事情能比生活中的沦落这样加重她们痛苦的感受了。

这种女人中有一部分可能会因为一种恰到好处的谨慎态度而克制自己不去结婚,而另外一些人可能就没有能力以这种可悲的方法逃脱奴役;如果政府无力鼓励诚实、独立的女性从事体面的工作而养活她们,这个政府难道不是一个失职的政府,对它半数公民的幸福置之不理吗?但是为了让女人的个人品德服务于社会公益,则无论她们是单身或已婚,都必须能够在国家中过着文明的生活;否则我们将不断看到一些可敬的女人,因为受到不应得的鄙视,神经变得异常脆弱和痛苦,像“耕犁下夭折的百合花”一样枯萎。

这是一个可悲的事实;这也就是文明带来的“福祉”!最值得尊敬的女人受到的压迫最深重,她们因为一直被当作下贱的人对待,最终真的堕落成为下贱的人,除非她们拥有理智,拥有远高于一般人(两性都包括在内)的理智。有多少女人就这样悲惨地耗尽了光阴,本来她们可以成为医生、经营农场、管理商店,靠她们自己的勤劳谋生,而无须因多愁善感尝尽泪水的苦涩,抬不起头来,这种多愁善感最初增加了她们的风采,现在却消耗了她们的美貌;不仅如此,我还怀疑怜惜和爱情是不是像诗人宣扬的那样有密切的联系,因为我很少看到女人的无依无靠会激起很多人的同情,除非她们仍然秀色可餐;所以也许怜悯只是爱情的软弱侍女,否则它就是情欲的先兆。

依靠履行责任来自谋生计的女人,跟多才多艺的女人相比,多么令人尊敬啊!这才是我所说的美丽啊!我深深地体会到美德之魅力,和恰到好处的和谐,一个自律的人的情欲因为这种和谐得到规范,因此将这些美德和女人世俗的美进行对比时我感到很惭愧;但是又有多少女人愿意从令人晕眩的享乐的漩涡中退出,或是从使陷于其中的善良女子变得愚蠢和懒散的宁静中脱身呢?一想到愿意如此以求尊严的女人实在寥寥无几,我就不禁失望叹息。

然而,她们以自己的弱点为荣,她们必须永远受别人庇护,远离操劳和一切让心灵更加高贵的辛苦劳动。如果这是生命的安排,如果她们愿意自甘变得微不足道、受人鄙夷,轻松美妙地“虚度生命”的话,那她们也不要指望在自己容颜已老的时候,得到别人的重视,因为最鲜艳的花朵注定要受到赞美,然后被采摘它们的双手漫不经心地撕成碎片。我抱着最单纯的善意,曾经多么希望通过各种方式让我的女同胞牢记这个真理;但是我担心她们不会听从这个真理,虽然用昂贵代价换来的经验教训已经让很多内心焦躁急切的人明白了这个道理,她们也不会为了得到人类的权利而放弃地位和性别的特权,而那些不履行人生责任的人是没有资格获得这些权利的。

有些作家认为无论人身处何职,或者用什么样虚假的感情来保护自己,都应该对人类抱有同情心,我认为这样的作家值得称赞。我也因此愿意说服有理智的人,让他们意识到我的某些说法的重要性,并劝说他们冷静地衡量我的这些观点的整体要旨。我作为他们的同胞,以一个女性的名义,呼吁他们理性地思考,要求他们心中有一点同情心。我恳求他们伸出援手,解放他们的伴侣,使女性成为真正的配偶!

男人只需要慷慨地折断我们的枷锁,愿意让我们享有合理的伙伴关系,而不是奴隶般的屈从,他们就会发现女人是更敏锐的女儿,更热情的姐妹,更忠贞的妻子,更理智的母亲——总之,更好的公民。这时我们一定会真心实意地爱他们,因为我们要学会尊重我们自己;而一个值得尊重的男人心灵的宁静也就不会被他无聊虚荣的妻子所打扰,也不会把一个从未享受过母爱的婴儿送到一个陌生人的怀抱。

注释

[1] 英国伦敦的一条宽阔大道,因为政府办公机构聚集而成名。——译者注

论国民教育

……

很明显,我对国民教育的评价都是一些提示而已;但是我希望能实现的主要是:有必要让两性在一起接受教育,使双方趋于完美;有必要让孩子住在家里,这样他们才能学会热爱家庭;不过为了支持而不是扼杀公共感情,他们应当被送到学校和同龄人呆在一起,因为只有和同龄人公平竞争,我们才能形成对自己的公正评价。

为了让人类更有道德,当然也是让人类更幸福,男女两性都必须依据同样的准则来行动;但是如果这种合理性只适用于一个性别,那又如何能期待实现这一点呢?同样,要想让社会契约真正达到公平状态,使这些本身就可以改善人类命运的富有启示的原则得到推广,我们就必须允许女人将她们的品德建立在知识的基础上,这几乎是不可能的,除非女人和男人拥有同样的抱负,接受同样的教育。现在女人因为愚昧和低级的欲望而沦于卑微的地位,她们并不配和男人相提并论;不然她们就像魔鬼一样,狡猾地蠕动着爬上智慧之树,得到的只是足以将男人引入歧途的东西。

各国的历史告诉我们,不能将女人局限在家庭琐事上面,因为除非她们的心胸比较开阔,否则她们是不会履行家庭责任的;她们处在无知状态时,同样会成为享乐的奴隶,正如她们是男人的奴隶一样。但是也不能把她们关在伟大事业的大门外,尽管她们无法理解这些事业,狭隘的心胸也经常使之遭受损失。

上层社会男人的玩乐思想,甚至他们的美德,总是会赋予某种女人支配他们的大权;这些软弱的女人,在幼稚的激情和自私的虚荣影响下,对很多事物抱有一种错误的认识,而那些本来应当启发她们见识的男人,却反而用她们的眼光来看待这些事物。那些充满幻想的男人,还有那些掌握着人类事务支配大权的乐观的男人,一般扎入女人堆里就没有了自持力;我实在没有必要为那些不了解历史的读者,引用无数因受宠的女人私下通奸而导致罪恶和压迫的例子,更不需要提那些虽然出于好意却笨拙又愚蠢的干涉行为所造成的危害了。因为在处理事情时,对付一个恶棍比敷衍一个傻瓜要好得多,因为这个恶棍行事有一定的计划;但任何有道理的计划都会比一时兴起的愚蠢更容易被人看穿。那些卑鄙愚蠢的女人对拥有理智的聪明男人有支配权,这是众所周知的;我只是举一个例子而已。

谁对女性性格的描绘比卢梭的更高尚?虽然就总体来看,他总是竭力贬低女性。他为何如此焦虑呢?当然是为了给他对愚蠢的特雷莎的爱情辩护,软弱和美德使卢梭对她心生爱慕。卢梭不能把她提升到女性的一般水平,所以他殚精竭虑将女人压低得跟她一样。他发现她是适合自己的卑微的伴侣,男人的傲慢驱使他决心在自己选择相处一辈子的人身上发现一些高贵的品质;但是她在他生前死后的行为难道不能清楚表明他称她为“神圣的天真的人”是个多么荒唐的错误吗?不仅如此,在他心里他也痛苦地悲叹,他由于身体虚弱再也不能把她当作一个女人来对待时,她对他的爱情也就消散了。她做出这样的行为也很正常,因为他们之间没有什么共同的感情,一旦性关系破裂了,还有什么能够留住她呢?她的感情是局限于男性,但不是仅限于一个男人的,要想挽留她的感情,需要理性把感觉转移到更广阔的人性渠道上去。很多女人并没有足够的心思去关心一个女人,或是跟一个男人交朋友。但是性别的弱点让女人必须依赖男人的才能,对男人产生了一种猫一样的感情,让妻子在丈夫身边满足地喵喵叫,其实对任何一个喂饱并抚摸她的男人,她都会做同样的事。

但是男人却经常对这种爱情很满足,并以一种野蛮的方式把它占为己有;但是如果他们能够拥有更加高尚的品德,他们在和情妇闹够了之后一定会希望在火炉旁和一位朋友促膝长谈。

除此之外,为了给感官享受增加多样性和趣味性,理智必不可少,因为如果在既无品德又无理智赋予兽欲一点人文特征时,一个人仍然拥有爱情,这个人一定处在智力标尺的下端;但是理智总会占主导地位;因此总体上来说,如果女人的智力不上升到与男人同等的水平上,有些优秀的女人就会像希腊的高级妓女一样,将有能力的男人聚集到她们周围,吸引很多公民背叛家庭,但是如果这些人的妻子更有理智,或者因为运用理智和想象力(它们是品位的合理源泉)更具魅力的话,他们也许不会这样做。一个有才能的女人,如果她不是非常丑陋的话,往往会获得很大的权利,她的地位因为同类的软弱而得到提升;男人经过理性思考,具有美德和谨慎时,他们也希望女人拥有这些品德,而女人只有通过和男人相同的方法才能获得它们。

法国和意大利的女人将自己局限在家庭生活中了吗?虽然她们至今也无权参与政治,但是难道她们没有通过不正当的方法获得巨大的控制权,使得她们曾经玩弄过的男人随同自己一同堕落吗?总之,不管我从哪个方面来看这个问题,理智和经验告诉我,唯一能够带领女人完成她们独特责任的方法,就是将她们从各种束缚中解放出来,允许她们享有人类与生俱来的权利。

女人一旦获得自由将会很快变得聪明和有德行,而男人也会更聪明更有道德,因为这种进展是相互的,否则人类一半的成员会因为自己被迫受到的不公而向压迫者展开报复,而男人的美德也会被他踩踏在自己脚下的虫蚁蚕食殆尽。

让男人做出自己的选择吧。男人和女人是天造地设的一对,虽然二者存在并不是为了合成一体,如果男人不让女人变得更好,女人就会让男人堕落。

我这里说的是提高和解放全体女性同胞,因为我知道少数女人出于偶然或是因为天生的兴趣爱好,获得了一些超越其他女人的知识,她们总是表现得傲慢自大;但仍有些女人,获得了知识,也没有摒弃谦逊,她们从来不会自恃有点学识而鄙视她们曾经努力在内心驱除的无知愚昧。而任何关于女性学习的忠告通常引起的尖叫,特别是那些漂亮女人发出的尖叫,往往是出于嫉妒。当一个比较有教养的女人竭力转向理性交谈时,那些漂亮女人就会发现,即使是她们含情脉脉的双眸和轻浮淫荡的卖弄风情,也不会在整个夜晚一直引起男人注意。在这种情况下大家的共同慰藉就是:这样的女人很少能找到丈夫。我见过愚蠢的女人用各种各样的挑逗手段——一个描写这种花招的意味深长的词语——来打断一段富有理性的谈话,正是这样的谈话让男人忘记了她们是美丽的女人。

我们承认,拥有非凡才能的人确实很容易产生令人讨厌的傲慢自负情绪,这也是人之常情;但是当那些被讥讽为学识渊博的女人学习了一点点知识就被认为是非凡之举时,女人的才能已经枯竭到何种低下的程度!何况这些女人的学识也只足够令她们沾沾自喜,同时让她的同代人和有些异性心生嫉妒而已。不仅如此,不是还有很多女人因为有一点理性而陷入最严厉的非难吗?我注意到了一些大家都知道的事实,我经常听到女人受人嘲弄,暴露了一切微不足道的缺点,仅仅因为她们在照顾婴儿的时候,采取了一些医生的建议,没有采用常规的方法。我甚至还听到有人对改革的残酷抨击更加严重,把一个通情达理的女人污蔑为不称职的母亲,她很聪明,一直关心着孩子们的健康,但是在她的照顾下,一个孩子因为婴儿期无论如何也避免不了的事故而夭折了。她的熟人指责她,认为这是新奇想法——关于舒适和清洁的新奇想法带来的后果。那些自命经验丰富的人,一直固守某种偏见,根据最明智的医生的观点,这种偏见曾让人类大量死亡,但是他们却对这个不幸事件幸灾乐祸,因为它证实了他们的偏见。

确实,如果仅仅从这个角度来考虑的话,对于女人的国民教育也是至关重要的,因为人类已经为莫洛克 [1] 偏见做出了多大的牺牲啊!而男人的放荡不羁又如何以各种不同的方式毁灭着孩子。很多女人因为男人的爱慕和他人的无知而放弃自己应尽的责任,她们缺乏天然的情感,这种缺乏让人的童年比野兽的幼年还更危险;但是男人至今还不情愿将女人放在合适的处境,使她们获得足够的理智,至少明白应当如何养育婴儿。

这个事实让我最受震撼,因此我下面大部分的讨论都将与此相关,因为任何剥夺女人母性特征的倾向都会让女人丧失其女性特征。

但是现在我们自然无法指望这些软弱的母亲能够合理照顾孩子的身体,如果孩子没有受到父亲罪恶的影响,为了给良好的体质奠定基础,这种照顾非常必要;同样也无法期待这些母亲明智地引导孩子的性情,这样他长大之后就不必努力挣脱他的母亲——他的第一任导师直接或间接教给他的东西。除非孩子的心灵具有超乎寻常的活力,否则他的性格将一生带有女人的愚蠢。母亲的弱点会遗传给她的孩子。如果女人受教育要依赖她们丈夫的判断力做决定,结果必然如此,因为提高理性不能半途而废,任何人都不可能总是靠模仿做出明智的举动,在每一种生活环境下都有特殊情况,这时候需要运用判断力来调整普遍规律。一个能在某一方面恰当思考的人很快就会拓展他的知识领域;而拥有足够判断力来管教孩子的女人也不会一味地屈从于丈夫,更不会安心屈从于将女人看得一文不名的社会律法。

在公立学校里,为了防止无知的错误,应当教给女人解剖学和药理学,不仅让她们能合理照顾自己的身体,同时还能让她们成为孩子、父母和丈夫的理性的护士;因为那些固执成性的老女人,对人体构造毫不知晓,就按照自己的所谓秘方给病人治疗,正是因为她们的错误,人类死亡数字不断攀升。如果仅仅从家庭角度来看,让女人熟知心理分析,也是很合适的,采取的方法可以是让男人和女人共同学习每一门课程,引导她们观察人文科学的发展过程中人类理智的进步,同时绝不能忽略学习道德学和人类政治史。

男人被称作小宇宙,每一个家庭都可以被称作一个国家。确实,很多国家都是靠侮辱人类品格的手段统治的,而那些深谙人事的贤德人士的观点也因为缺乏公正的宪法和平等的法律而纠缠不清,使这些人更加质疑竭力争取人权的合理性。这样,道德在国家的水库中受到了污染,它释放出罪恶的支流去腐蚀政体的各个组成部分;法律应当是统治社会的力量,而不是那些执行法律的人,如果用更高尚或者准确来说更加公平的原则来规范法律,则责任也许会成为每个人的行为准则。

另外,通过锻炼身体和心灵,女人会获得母性性格所必需的精神活力,这种活力和坚毅融为一体,而坚毅则是将坚决的行为和固执反常的弱点区分开来的品质。建议懒惰的人行事坚决是很危险的,因为他们很快就会变得很严厉,为了给自己减少麻烦,会严厉惩罚犯错的人,而如果他们有耐心、有毅力地运用理智,也许这些错误就可以避免了。

但是坚毅的前提是心智的力量,而心智的力量可以通过懒惰的顺从获得吗?通过寻求建议,而不是运用理智就获得吗?通过战战兢兢地服从而不是锻炼我们所有人都亟需的忍耐力获得吗?我想得到的结论很清楚。让女人成为理智的人和自由的公民,她们很快就会成为优秀的妻子和母亲——当然是在男人不忽略他们自己作为丈夫和父亲的责任的前提下。

正如我刚才简单提及的,在讨论结合公共教育和私立教育可能带来的好处时,我主要谈论那些和女性世界密切相关的观点,因为我觉得女人是受压迫的群体;但是因压迫产生的罪恶而滋生的坏疽不会仅局限于患病的部位,而是会蔓延到整个社会;所以每当我希望女人变成更有道德的人时,我的心就会因为期待伟大的事业在各地得到弘扬而激动不已,而只有美德才能把这种伟大的事业传播开来。

注释

[1] 莫洛克(Moloch)是古代腓尼基人信奉的火神,索要儿童作为祭品。——译者注

女人的无知导致的数例蠢行

结束语:论女性习俗的变革必然期望带来的道德进步

很多蠢行——无论是违反常理的越权还是渎职——在某种程度上都是女性所独有的,但这些蠢事都是因为无知或偏见导致的。我只指出那些看起来特别有损于她们道德品质的事情。在批评她们时,我特别希望能证明男人出于各种动机,竭力使女人在智力和身体上永远软弱下去,从而阻碍了女人履行她们特有的责任;当女人脆弱的身体使她们无法哺育自己的孩子,脆弱的心灵宠坏了孩子的性情时,女人的这种状态是自然状态吗?

……

第二节

狭隘的教育常常会导致女人软弱性格的另外一种情形,即心灵的浪漫扭曲,用多愁善感来形容最为贴切。

无知女人容易受她们感情的支配,她们接受的教育只是让她们从爱情中寻求幸福,提高感官享受,并且采取纯哲学的爱情观念,这种观念让她们不知羞耻地忽略人生的责任,并且在这种高尚的优雅中不断堕入真正的罪恶。

这些女人迷恋于愚蠢小说家们编造的白日梦,这些小说家们对人性知之甚少,却总是粗制滥造一些老掉牙的故事,描写一些淫荡的场面,文中堆砌着各种多愁善感的字眼,这些字眼同样也导致人们趣味低下,并且忽略日常的责任。我不谈理智,因为它从未被人利用,它沉睡的力量未被激发,就像潜伏着的火的微粒,虽然人们认为它存在于所有物质之中。

事实上,女人没有任何政治权利,而结了婚以后,除了在刑事案件中,她们不享有作为公民存在的权利,因此她们的注意力自然而然就从整个社会的利益转移到了琐碎的小事上,虽然任何社会成员如果不将个人责任和公共利益联系起来,就一定无法完美地履行他的个人责任。女人生活中的大事就是取悦于人,她们由于政治和法律上的压迫无法参与重要的事务,于是多愁善感成了大事,如果她们能够更广泛地运用理智,就不会在情感中越陷越深。

但是受困于无足轻重的琐事,她们自然而然地被那种为无知轻浮的人量身定制的庸俗读物中的观点所左右,她们无法把握任何重要的东西,所以如果她们发现读史非常枯燥,富于理智的演讲和论文非常无聊而且几乎无法理解,这又有什么值得惊奇的呢?她们必须依靠那些小说来消遣。不过我反对读小说,是把小说和那些锻炼理智、控制幻想的作品作对比来说的。我认为不论读什么都比什么都不读要好,因为稍微思考一下,心灵就一定会得到充实并获得一点力量;另外,即使是纯粹幻想的作品,也会让读者的情趣得到提升,超越粗俗的性欲满足,心灵对这种满足完全没有兴趣。

这个观点来源于经验;因为我认识几个优秀的女性,特别是其中一个,她是非常优秀的女人——达到了她狭隘的心胸所允许的最优秀的状态,她关心她的女儿(她有三个女儿),不准她们看小说。她是一个富有的上层人物,所以她请了好几个老师来教孩子,还有一个家仆似的女教师来跟踪她们的一举一动。她们从老师那里学会了如何用法语和意大利语表达桌子、椅子等,但是因为摆在她们面前的几本书远远超过了她们的接受能力,或者说信仰的接受能力,所以她们既没有获得思想也没有获得情感,在她们不需要背诵单词的时候,就把时间消磨在穿着打扮、相互争吵或者是偷听女仆的谈话,直到她们到了出嫁的年龄,找到伴侣为止。

与此同时,她们的母亲——这位寡妇,也忙于和有头有脸的人保持联系,正如她所说的,要多认识一点人,以免她的几个女儿因缺少合适的人介绍而无法进入上层社会。这些年轻的淑女们,成了不折不扣的粗俗人,带着乖戾的脾性走入了社会,她们脑子里满是自命不凡的想法,鄙夷地看着那些穿着和排场比不上她们的人。

至于爱情,造物主或者说她们的育婴者已经费心教给她们这个词的自然含义;由于她们没有什么可谈论的话题,也缺乏优雅的感情,当她们自由谈论婚姻时,只能用一些很不优雅的词句来表达她们粗俗的愿望。

这些女孩也是受了小说的毒害吗?我差点忘了她们中间某个人性格上有阴影,她装出一种近乎愚蠢的单纯样,面带傻笑毫不害羞地说出极其粗俗无礼的评价和问题,她在与世隔绝的时候就已经完全明白了这些词的意义,只是不敢在施加高压的母亲面前谈起;正如她炫耀的那样,她们接受的是模范教育,每天早餐前背诵《圣经》中的章节,从来不会去读那些愚蠢的小说。

这只是一个例子而已;但是我还记得有很多其他的女人,没有适当接受循序渐进的教育,也不允许做出自由的选择,她们简直不过是畸形发展的孩子;或者有的女人在同社会接触中获得了一些所谓的常识,其实也就获得了她们独立生活时清楚看待平常事物的方法;但是那些称得上智力的本事,即获取普遍或抽象概念的能力,或者甚至是获得中间概念的能力,都谈不上。她们的思维处在沉睡状态,她们在没有受到那些感官事物或者事件刺激时就会情绪低落,或是痛哭或是睡觉。

可见,我劝告女性同胞们不要读那些肤浅的作品时,是想建议她们多读些更好的作品;我的这个想法恰好和一位智慧的男人吻合,受他管教的女儿和侄女,在他的照顾下采取了完全不同的教育方式。

他的侄女智力超群,在托给他照顾之前沉溺于各种读物。他努力并且成功地引导她阅读历史和道德文集;但是他的女儿,被软弱的溺爱母亲惯坏了,对每件需要努力用功的事情都很反感,于是他就让她读小说;他曾经这样解释自己的做法,只要她因读小说感受到了一点乐趣,他就能在这个基础上对她进行教育;错误的观点总比什么想法也没有好得多。

确实,女性的思维一直被人们完全忽视,这就使她们只能从这些污秽的源泉中获得知识,直到有些才能出众的女人从读小说中学会了鄙视这样的书籍为止。

我想,纠正女性对小说的偏爱的最好办法就是嘲弄它们:但不是没有取舍地嘲弄,因为这样效果不大;但是如果一个明智的人带着幽默感给年轻女孩子读上几篇,并同时用语调将之与历史中的动人故事和英雄气概作恰当对比,指出小说是如何愚蠢而可笑地丑化了人类的天性,也许公正的观点就能代替浪漫情怀了。

但是大部分男人和女人在一个方面是相似的,而且同样地缺乏品位和庄重。无知的女人为了名誉不得不保持贞操,因此任由想象力在当代小说家描绘的不合理的淫荡画面中尽情肆意,认为历史上严肃庄重的事迹和妇女的优美形象平淡无奇,对之不屑一顾;而男人干脆将腐朽的品位带入生活,抛弃质朴迷人的美德和庄重体面的理性,追求色情之乐。

此外,阅读小说还让女人,特别是上层社会的淑女,喜欢在谈话中用强烈的措辞和极端的表达;虽然她们放荡虚伪的生活让她们无法培养出任何强烈的真实情感,但是她们如簧的巧舌却总能用矫揉造作的声调蹦出热情的语言,而且芝麻粒大的事情都能带来突然的磷光,而这些磷光只不过是对黑暗中热情之火的模仿罢了。

第三节

造物主在弱者脑子里刻下的作为自卫原则的无知和错误的狡猾,让女人非常热衷于梳妆打扮,而这种热爱自然会导致各种虚荣,甚而超出了争强好胜和宽宏大量的限度。

卢梭认为取悦于人的手段的有形部分在于装饰美化,我同意他的看法,也正因如此,我要提防女孩子染上流传甚广的软弱女人常见的对于穿着的钟爱,让她们不要停留在有形部分。不过,女人们幻想她们可以长期受人宠爱,而不诉诸理智,或者换句话说,不诉诸取悦于人的道德艺术,她们是多么软弱啊。但是当这种道德艺术(如果使用艺术这个词不至于亵渎上帝的话)所指的优美并不是行为的动机,而是美德的结果时,这种道德艺术永远不可能和无知并存;两性中故作矜持的放荡之徒喜好的那种无知的调戏和这种高级的优雅在本质上有很大不同。

对于外表装饰的强烈爱好,在蛮荒时代就曾经出现过,不过当时打扮自己的是男人而不是女人;现在允许女人在这一方面和男人处在同一水平,社会至少已经在文明进展中前行了一步。

因此我认为,穿着打扮对于人类来说很自然,虽然人们一直认为这是女性的嗜好。但是我应该把我的观点说得更明确点。思维还未完全发展,不能从思考中获取快乐时,就会十分注意打扮自己的身体;而抱负也只会表现在文身或涂脂抹粉上面。

人类对这最初的爱好迷恋至深,甚至奴隶制度地狱般的枷锁都不能扼杀这些黑人英雄从他们父母那里继承下来的对于美貌的野蛮渴望,因为一个奴隶辛辛苦苦攒下的积蓄一般都花在便宜花哨的衣服上了。我还真没有见过哪个善良的男仆或女仆不爱修饰。他们的衣服就是他们的财产;而我用类比同理推证,女性过分爱好打扮也是出于同样的原因——心灵培养的匮乏。男人相遇会谈论事业、政治或者文学;但是正如斯威夫特 [1] 所言:“女人们多么自然地就会伸手去抚摸彼此衣服的裙摆和褶纹啊。”这也很自然,因为她们没有感兴趣的事业,没有文学的品位,而且她们认为政治枯燥无趣,没有把精力转到提升整个人类、增进共同幸福的伟大事业上来,因此缺乏对人类的博爱。

另外,男人出于偶然或选择而走上不同的追求权势和名誉的道路,虽然因为同行是冤家,他们相互争斗,但是他们还是不会和大多数男人发生冲突。可是女人之间的关系却与此大相径庭,因为女人总是相互竞争。

她们出嫁以前的任务就是取悦男人,结婚之后仍然本能地以锲而不舍的顽强精神做着同样的事情。即使是有道德的女人在社交中也从来不会忘记自己是女人,因为她们总是努力让自己讨人喜欢。女人的美貌和男人的才智似乎都同样急切地希望将人群的目光吸引到自己身上;而憎恨同代人的才智也是众所周知的。

女人把所有的志向局限于美貌上面,对美貌的兴趣又加重了她们的虚荣心,这些导致女人间无休止的争风吃醋,又有什么大惊小怪的呢?她们都在进行同一场竞争,如果她们不以怀疑甚至嫉妒的眼光对待彼此,也许她们就会拥有常人无法企及的德行。

对于打扮、享乐和权利的过度追捧,是野蛮人的欲望;这种欲望占据了他们尚未开化的心灵,他们没有开发智力,更没有学会如何思考,如何运用能力将一连串抽象的思维联系起来,进而总结出原则;而女人,从她们的教育和文化生活的现状来看,也处在同样的境地,我想,这是个无可争辩的事实。当一个人从来没有权利按照自己的理智自由行动时,嘲笑甚至是讥讽她们的愚蠢是既荒谬又残忍的;因为受教导要盲目服从权威的人都会努力巧妙地躲避权威,这是合情合理,也是必然的。

如果能证明女人应当完全服从男人,我就会立即承认,女人的责任就是培养对服饰的喜好,以取悦别人;并为了保全自己,养成狡猾的毛病。

但是建立在无知基础上的品德肯定会一直摇摇欲坠,正如沙滩上的房子无法经受暴风雨的捶打。做这个推断几乎都是毫无必要的。如果要用权威强迫女人变得有道德(这本身就是一个矛盾的说法),那就把她们禁闭在闺房,并用猜忌的眼光看待她们。不要担心她们的心灵会受到伤害,因为能够忍受如此待遇的心灵是用柔软材料做成的,这些材料拥有足够的活力使她们的身体拥有生命。



柔软的材料无法铭记永恒的记号,

最便于辨认的只是黑色、棕色或白色。



最痛苦的创伤当然很快就会愈合,女人仍旧可以生儿育女,让人类的世界得以生存,她仍会精心打扮去取悦男人——这就是某些著名的作者所认为的女人注定要实现的目标。

第四节

人们认为女人应当比男人更重感情、更仁慈,这可以从她们强烈的爱情和瞬间的同情心看出来;但是这种出于无知的依赖性爱情却没有任何高贵成分,而且很可能转变为自私的或是孩童或是野兽般原始的感情。我认识很多软弱的女人,她们把感情完全灌输到丈夫身上;而她们的仁慈实在微不足道,倒不如说是转瞬即逝的同情心而己。一个优秀的演说家说过,仁慈不仅需要“一个敏感的耳朵,还需要投入智慧和感情。”

但是这种独断排他的爱情虽然使人陷于堕落,但是却不能拿来当作证明女性低劣地位的证据,因为这是狭隘观点的必然结果;即使是拥有远见卓识的女人,如果她们把注意力集中在烦琐的小事和个人的计划上,也很少会做出什么英雄事迹,当然她受到爱情激励的时候除外!然而爱情是一种崇高的感情,就如天才一样,百年罕见。因此我同意一个道德学家的观点,他断言“女人很少能像男人那样慷慨大方”;而她们经常为了狭隘的感情而牺牲公正和仁慈,这种感情明显地让她们显得更为低劣,特别是因为这些感情通常都是由男人激起的,不过我仍然相信如果女人不是从出生起就饱受压迫的话,随着理智的发展,她们的心胸也会宽广起来。

我知道轻微的敏感加上极度的软弱就会对异性产生强烈的依恋,而理智可以促进友谊;因此我承认男人比女人拥有更多的友谊,而且男人的正义感更强。女人专断的爱情看起来确实很像加图 [2] 对他国家的那种极其没有正义感的感情。他主张消灭迦太基,不是为了挽救罗马,而是为了增强他的虚荣心;一般来说,仁慈也是为了同样的原则而牺牲的,因为真正的责任是相互支撑的。

此外,女人沦为不公正的奴隶时,她们怎么可能会公正或慷慨呢?

第五节

人们充满正义感地坚持认为,养育子女,为下一代的身心健康打下良好的基础,是女人独特的责任,因此让她们无能的愚蠢一定是有悖常理的。我坚信,她们的头脑可以,而且应当容纳更多的知识,否则她们将永远无法成为理智的母亲。很多人注重马匹的繁殖,却不管马厩的管理,这些人如此缺乏理智和感情,真是难以想象!他们认为对育婴室稍加留意就会降低自己的身份;可是有多少孩子完全是因为母亲的无知而夭折!但是如果他们能够有幸逃脱死亡的厄运,也没有因不人道的忽视或盲目的溺爱而毁灭,又有多少孩子的心灵能得到合理的培育呢?人们认为孩子在家就会变得乖戾暴躁,为了打消他的锐气,家长把他送到学校;而为了在一大群孩子中建立秩序,学校必须采取各种各样的措施,这些措施几乎将所有的罪恶种子都播撒到了这片强行开垦的土地上。

如果孩子受到合理的管教,他们永远不应该也不会感到受约束,我经常将这些可怜孩子的挣扎,和活泼的小马驹绝望的蹦跶作对比,我曾看到一匹小马在海滩上接受驯服,每当它试图甩掉骑马人的时候,它的双蹄只会在沙中越陷越深,直到它最后无可奈何地屈服。

我发现当我用仁慈和一贯的态度对待马——我喜爱的动物——的时候,它们常常都很驯服,因此我怀疑那些粗暴的驯马手段能不能真正伤到它们;但是我坚信绝不能在不理智地允许一个孩子放肆之后强制他听话;因为在对待孩子时,任何违反公正和理智的行为都会削弱他们的智力。经验让我做出推断,他们的性格塑成期非常早,甚至在七岁以前就形成了道德品行的基础,这期间孩子的母亲被认为是唯一的管教者。以后经常出现这样的情况,教育一半的责任就是纠正孩子们的错误,而如果过于急于求成,效果常常很不完满;其实如果他们的母亲更理智一些,他们就绝对不会犯这样的错误。

另一个表现妇女愚蠢的突出事例绝不能忽略。她们在孩子面前对待仆人的态度,让孩子们认为仆人应该伺候他们,应该忍受他们的臭脾气。孩子应当总是将接受男人或女人的帮助当作一种恩惠;作为独立的第一节课,应该以他们的母亲为榜样用事实教育他们,不要让别人服侍自己,因为在自己身体健康时让别人服侍自己是对人性的侮辱;不要引导他们表现出一副自命不凡的架子,让他们意识到,自己的弱点可以首先让他们意识到人类生来平等。可是我经常愤怒地听到家长趾高气昂地使唤仆人们过来伺候小孩子睡觉,又一次次地将他们打发走,因为少爷或小姐还想赖在妈妈身边多呆一会。这样奴隶般地伺候这个小祖宗,让孩子身上所有令人讨厌的脾气都发作了,就这样宠坏了这个孩子。

总之,大多数的母亲都会把自己的孩子完全交给仆人照顾;不然就因为他们是自己的孩子把他们当神仙似的供着,但是据我一贯的观察,那些把自己的孩子奉为神仙的女人很少对仆人表现出一般的仁慈,或是对其他人的孩子表现出哪怕是一丁点疼爱。

这些无知专断的感情和个人看待事物的方式,使女人在发展方面总是停滞不前,还让很多女人为了孩子呕心沥血,结果却削弱了他们的体质,宠坏了他们的脾气,同时还让一个比较理性的父亲可能采用的任何教育方案无效,因为如果没有母亲的合作,一个管教孩子的父亲总是会被当成暴君。

一个体格健全的女人在履行母亲的责任时,仍然可以一丝不苟地保持个人容貌的整洁,必要时帮助管理家庭,或用读书和毫无区别地同男人和女人交谈的方法来提升自己的理智。因为造物主非常英明地将一切事情安排得井井有条,如果女人哺乳她们的孩子,她们就会保持自身的健康,并且不同孩子出生期之间会有一段间隔,因此我们很少会见到满屋子都是孩子的状况。如果她们遵循行为规划,不将光阴虚度在追求时髦服装的奇怪念头上面,照料家务和孩子不会让她们和文学作品完全隔离,也不会妨碍她们以一种有助于加强心智的坚定态度爱好一门科学,或者学习一种能够培养情操的优雅艺术。

但是,为了炫耀华丽服饰的走亲访友、打牌和舞会,更不要提清晨无聊地奔忙于琐事,女人忽略了她们的责任,并因此变得微不足道,还因此变得讨人喜欢,按照这个词目前的意义来说,是讨所有男人的喜欢,除了自己的丈夫。因为提到一场没有运用什么感情的享乐,我们不能说它促进了理智的发展,虽然人们错误地称这种享乐为见过世面;这种毫无意义的交际,让人的内心变得冷漠和逃避责任,甚至当这种交际不再能带给人快乐的时候,由于习惯它仍旧必不可少。

除非更多的公平得以在社会上建立,等级得以废除、女人得以解放,否则我们是不会看到女人拥有深厚感情的,我们也不会看到高尚的家庭幸福,无知和堕落的人无法体味到这种幸福质朴的庄严;同样只有在人们更看重女人的思想而不是容貌之时,教育的艰巨任务才能真正有序地开始。因为指望愚蠢无知的女人成为优秀的母亲,就如同盼望莠草上结出谷粒,或是荆棘上长出无花果一样愚蠢。

第六节

现在我的讨论进入结束语阶段了,我没有必要告诉聪明的读者,关于这个话题的探讨仅仅局限于提出一些简单的原则,并扫除那些让这些简单的原则变得晦涩难懂的废话。但是,因为并不是所有的读者都是洞悉一切的人,所以必须允许我稍加解释,以便让那些有理性的人完全明白这个问题——我说的是那些怠惰的有理性的人,这些人轻信别人的意见,并且为了免去自己思索的麻烦而顽固地坚信不疑。

道德学家曾达成一致意见,品德若没有自由来培育就永远得不到应有的力量,这是他们针对男人的评论,我把它拓展到整个人类,我坚持认为,在一切情形下,道德都应当固定在不变的基础上;而一个服从除了理性以外其他任何权威的人,就不能称之为理性或是有道德的人。

为了让女人成为社会上真正有用的人,我主张应当大范围培养她们的理智,引导她们获得一种建立在知识基础上的合理的爱国之情,因为很明显,我们很少会对自己不了解的东西感兴趣。为了让这种一般性的知识得到应有的重视,我已经努力说明除非理智让心胸开阔,否则个人的责任永远不可能合理履行,而公德不过是私德的整体而已。但是社会上既定的各种区别,把品德的坚固黄金捶打得仅仅成为掩盖罪恶的金箔而让公德和私德受到了伤害;因为财富比美德更能为人赢得尊重时,人们就会追求财富而不是道德;女人的外表受到抚爱,幼稚的傻笑表现了她内心的空虚时,女人的心灵就会荒芜。然而真正的感官之乐是来源于心灵的——有什么感情能和起源于相互爱慕、并由相互尊重而维持的感情相媲美呢?那些冷酷或狂热的肉欲爱抚,相对于纯洁感情和崇高想象的适度表露相比,不是孕育着死亡的罪恶又是什么呢?是的,充满幻想的放荡之徒鄙视女人的理智时,让我告诉他正是他漠视的心灵赋予一切热烈的感情以生命,只有这种感情才能带来快乐,虽然这种快乐转瞬即逝。我还要告诉他没有道德的性爱关系,正如烛台上的蜡烛一样,必然会熄灭,产生让人难以忍受的厌恶。为了证明这一点我只需指出,那些把人生大部分时间浪费在和女人厮混、带着强烈的饥渴与她们寻欢作乐的男人,对女人怀着最粗鄙的看法。道德,你是快乐真正的提炼者!如果愚蠢的人要把你从地球上吓走,以便毫无节制地放任他们的肉欲,那些懂得情趣的好色之徒为了给激情增添一点趣味,一定会爬上天堂把你请回来!

现在的女人因为无知而变得愚蠢恶毒,我想这是无须争辩的事实;似乎从我的论述之中可以得到以下结论:人们也许可以期待,一场妇女作风的“变革”会带来有助于提高整个人类的最有益的效果,至少是有这种可能性。因为婚姻被称作使人类区别于禽兽的那些可爱的慈悲之源,而财富、懒惰和愚蠢在两性之间造成的腐败交往对道德造成了普遍的危害,这种危害比人类所有其他的罪恶共同对道德造成的危害还大。最圣洁的责任因淫乱的情欲而牺牲,男人在婚前同女人过多的亲密接触,学会了将爱情当作一种自私的满足——不仅将爱情和尊重分开,而且把爱情和仅仅以掺杂了一点点人性的习惯为基础的感情分开。正义和友情也公然受到挑战,纯洁的感情受到破坏,这种感情自然而然地引导人们享受毫不做作的感情表露而不是矫揉造作的姿态。但是那些敢于毫不掩饰地出现的高贵质朴的感情,对好色之徒没有任何吸引力,尽管这种感情是一种魅力,通过加强婚姻的纽带,让温暖爱情的结晶得到来自父母的关注;在父母拥有友情之前,孩子是永远不可能得到恰当教育的。品德会飞离一个内部分崩离析的家庭,任由一群魔鬼驻留。

丈夫和妻子之间没有什么共同情感,家庭里面无法建立相互信任时,男人和女人之间就不可能拥有纯粹的感情,他们的追求不同时必然也会出现这种情况。那种孕育柔情的亲密关系不会,也不可能存在于邪恶人之间。

所以我坚决认为,那种男人们强烈坚持的男女之间的差别是很武断的,我一直在思考一个观点,几个我曾与之谈论过这个话题的理智的男人承认,这个观点是有理有据的;简单说来就是这样,很少存在于男性群体的贞洁和他们对廉耻之心的抛弃,很可能造成两性的共同堕落;不仅如此,成为女性特征的端庄的品质,经常不过是掩盖放荡之心的虚伪面纱,而不是纯洁的自然反应,除非廉耻之心普遍得到尊重。

我坚信,大部分女人的愚蠢行为产生于男人的专制,而狡猾(我承认狡猾目前是女性性格的一部分)是由压迫造成的,我也曾多次努力证明这个论点。

举个例子,异教徒不也千真万确地被刻画成是一伙奸诈的人吗?我是否可以强调这个事实以证明:理智以外的任何力量遏制了人类的自由精神时,人们就会弄虚作假,自然也就会出现各种形形色色的伎俩?巴特勒 [3] 对异教徒的讽刺将这样一幅景象摆在我们面前:对礼法的苛求已经到了让人拘谨的程度,而所有关于琐事的幼稚忙碌和自命不凡的庄严嘴脸,把他们的外貌和内心都塑造成一副呆板的卑鄙小人形象。我是针对整体而言的,因为我知道在各个宗教派系里,有不少教徒拥有能为人性增光的优秀品质;但是我敢断言,如同女人对家庭持有偏见一样,在异教徒社区一定会流行一种对于自己教派的狭隘偏见,虽然他们在其他方面值得敬佩;而且我认为他们和女人一样胆怯谨慎,鲁莽顽固,这些特质经常为异教徒和女人的努力蒙羞。压迫让他们在性格上形成了很多特点,和人类中受压迫的半数人的特点完全吻合;因为异教徒就像女人一样,喜欢聚在一起思考,相互征求意见,直到通过一些错综复杂的小伎俩,来达到一些琐碎的目的,这难道不是人人皆知的吗?在异教徒和女人的世界里,他们同样注意保护自己的名声,并且是出于同样的原因。

我主张女人应该和男人一样争取权利,但是我并未试图掩盖她们的过失;我只是证明这些过失是她们接受的教育和社会地位产生的自然结果。因此我们有理由相信,她们在身体、道德和公民地位上获得自由时,就会改变自己的性情,并且避免自己的罪恶和愚蠢。

让女人享受权利,她就可在品德上效仿男人;她得以解放的时候,就一定会变得更加完美,否则就证实了将软弱的女人束缚在她职责上的权威是正确的。如果是后者的话,同俄国一起开辟一个贩卖鞭子的新行业倒是权宜之计:这将是一位父亲在女婿成婚之日送给他的礼物,而丈夫也需要通过这种方法维持家庭的秩序;他只要挥舞这根权杖,就拥有了统治权,不会违反任何公正,他是家庭唯一的主人,因为家中只有他拥有理智:这是宇宙的主人赋予人神圣不容废除的尘世间的统治权。如果女人承认了自己的这种地位,就不享有任何天生的权利;而根据同样的规则,也无须承担任何义务,因为权利和义务是不可分割的。

哦,你们这些有理智的男人,何不变得公正起来?不要关注女人犯的错比关注你们所饲养的马或驴的恶习还要严厉——既然你们剥夺了女人理性的权利,那就允许她们有无知的特权吧;否则如果你们期待从造物主没有给予理智的人身上寻找美德,那你们真是连埃及的监工都比不上。

注释

[1] 乔纳森·斯威夫特(Jonathan Swift, 1667—1745),英国著名的讽刺作家。——译者注

[2] 加图(Cato,公元前234—前149),古罗马政治家、爱国者。公元前175年出使迦太基,发现迦太基的强大,故主张消灭这个城市。——译者注

[3] 巴特勒(Alban Butler,1711—1773),天主教徒,传记作家。——译者注

Mary Wollstonecraft

A Vindication of the Rights

of Woman









PENGUIN BOOKS — GREAT IDEAS

英文目录

Contents

Introduction to the Chinese Editions of Great Ideas

Author’s Introduction

The Prevailing Opinion of a Sexual Character Discussed

The Same Subject Continued

Observations on the State of Degradation to which Woman is Reduced by Various Causes

Morality Undermined by Sexual Notions of the Importance of a Good Reputation

Of the Pernicious Effects which Arise from the Unnatural Distinctions Established in Society

On National Education

Some Instances of the Folly which the Ignorance of Women Generates; with Concluding Reflections on the Moral Improvement that a Revolution in Female Manners Might Naturally Be Expected to Produce

返回分册总目录

Author's Introduction

After considering the historic page, and viewing the living world with anxious solicitude, the most melancholy emotions of sorrowful indignation have depressed my spirits, and I have sighed when obliged to confess that either Nature has made a great difference between man and man, or that the civilization which has hitherto taken place in the world has been very partial. I have turned over various books written on the subject of education, and patiently observed the conduct of parents and the management of schools; but what has been the result? — a profound conviction that the neglected education of my fellow-creatures is the grand source of the misery I deplore, and that women, in particular, are rendered weak and wretched by a variety of concurring causes, originating from one hasty conclusion. The conduct and manners of women, in fact, evidently prove that their minds are not in a healthy state; for, like the flowers which are planted in too rich a soil, strength and usefulness are sacrificed to beauty; and the flaunting leaves, after having pleased a fastidious eye, fade, disregarded on the stalk, long before the season when they ought to have arrived at maturity. One cause of this barren blooming I attribute to a false system of education, gathered from the books written on this subject by men who, considering females rather as women than human creatures, have been more anxious to make them alluring mistresses than affectionate wives and rational mothers; and the understanding of the sex has been so bubbled by this specious homage, that the civilized women of the present century, with a few exceptions, are only anxious to inspire love, when they ought to cherish a nobler ambition, and by their abilities and virtues exact respect.

In a treatise, therefore, on female rights and manners, the works which have been particularly written for their improvement must not be overlooked, especially when it is asserted, in direct terms, that the minds of women are enfeebled by false refinement; that the books of instruction, written by men of genius, have had the same tendency as more frivolous productions; and that, in the true style of Mahometanism, they are treated as a kind of subordinate beings, and not as a part of the human species, when improvable reason is allowed to be the dignified distinction which raises men above the brute creation, and puts a natural sceptre in a feeble hand.

Yet, because I am a woman, I would not lead my readers to suppose that I mean violently to agitate the contested question respecting the quality or inferiority of the sex; but as the subject lies in my way, and I cannot pass it over without subjecting the main tendency of my reasoning to misconstruction, I shall stop a moment to deliver, in a few words, my opinion. In the government of the physical world it is observable that the female in point of strength is, in general, inferior to the male. This is the law of Nature; and it does not appear to be suspended or abrogated in favour of woman. A degree of physical superiority cannot, therefore, be denied, and it is a noble prerogative! But not content with this natural pre-eminence, men endeavour to sink us still lower, merely to render us alluring objects for a moment; and women, intoxicated by the adoration which men, under the influence of their senses, pay them, do not seek to obtain a durable interest in their hearts, or to become the friends of the fellow-creatures who find amusement in their society.

I am aware of an obvious inference. From every quarter have I heard exclamations against masculine women, but where are they to be found? If by this appellation men mean to inveigh against their ardour in hunting, shooting, and gaming, I shall most cordially join in the cry; but if it be against the imitation of manly virtues, or, more properly speaking, the attainment of those talents and virtues, the exercise of which ennobles the human character, and which raise females in the scale of animal being, when they are comprehensively termed mankind, all those who view them with a philosophic eye must, I should think, wish with me, that they may every day grow more and more masculine.

This discussion naturally divides the subject. I shall first consider women in the grand light of human creatures, who, in common with men, are placed on this earth to unfold their faculties; and afterwards I shall more particularly point out their peculiar designation.

I wish also to steer clear of an error which many respectable writers have fallen into; for the instruction which has hitherto been addressed to women, has rather been applicable to ladies, if the little indirect advice that is scattered through ‘sandford and Merton'be excepted; but, addressing my sex in a firmer tone, I pay particular attention to those in the middle class, because they appear to be in the most natural state. Perhaps the seeds of false refinement, immorality, and vanity, have ever been shed by the great. Weak, artificial beings, raised above the common wants and affections of their race, in a premature unnatural manner, undermine the very foundation of virtue, and spread corruption through the whole mass of society! As a class of mankind they have the strongest claim to pity; the education of the rich tends to render them vain and helpless, and the unfolding mind is not strengthened by the practice of those duties which dignify the human character. They only live to amuse themselves, and by the same law which in Nature invariably produces certain effects, they soon only afford barren amusement.

But as I purpose taking a separate view of the different ranks of society, and of the moral character of women in each, this hint is for the present sufficient; and I have only alluded to the subject, because it appears to me to be the very essence of an introduction to give a cursory account of the contents of the work it introduces.

My own sex, I hope, will excuse me, if I treat them like rational creatures, instead of flattering their fascinating graces, and viewing them as if they were in a state of perpetual childhood, unable to stand alone. I earnestly wish to point out in what true dignity and human happiness consists. I wish to persuade women to endeavour to acquire strength, both of mind and body, and to convince them that the soft phrases, susceptibility of heart, delicacy of sentiment, and refinement of taste, are almost synonymous with epithets of weakness, and that those beings who are only the objects of pity, and that kind of love, which has been termed its sister, will soon become objects of contempt.

Dismissing, then, those pretty feminine phrases, which the men condescendingly use to soften our slavish dependence, and despising that weak elegancy of mind, exquisite sensibility, and sweet docility of manners, supposed to be the sexual characteristics of the weaker vessel, I wish to show that elegance is inferior to virtue, that the first object of laudable ambition is to obtain a character as a human being, regardless of the distinction of sex; and that secondary views should be brought to this simple touchstone.

This is a rough sketch of my plan; and should I express my conviction with the energetic emotions that I feel whenever I think of the subject, the dictates of experience and reflection will be felt by some of my readers. Animated by this important object, I shall disdain to cull my phrases or polish my style. I aim at being useful, and sincerity will render me unaffected; for wishing rather to persuade by the force of my arguments, than dazzle by the elegance of my language, I shall not waste my time in rounding periods, or in fabricating the turgid bombast of artificial feelings, which, coming from the head, never reach the heart. I shall be employed about things, not words! and, anxious to render my sex more respectable members of society, I shall try to avoid that flowery diction which has slided from essays into novels, and from novels into familiar letters and conversations.

These pretty superlatives, dropping glibly from the tongue, vitiate the taste, and create a kind of sickly delicacy that turns away from simple unadorned truth; and a deluge of false sentiments and over stretched feelings, stifling the natural emotions of the heart, render the domestic pleasures insipid, that ought to sweeten the exercise of those severe duties, which educate a rational and immortal being for a nobler field of action.

The education of women has of late been more attended to than formerly; yet they are still reckoned a frivolous sex, and ridiculed or pitied by the writers who endeavour by satire or instruction to improve them. It is acknowledged that they spend many of the first years of their lives in acquiring a smattering of accomplishments: meanwhile, strength of body and mind are sacrificed to libertine notions of beauty, to the desire of establishing themselves – the only way women can rise in the world – by marriage. And this desire making mere animals of them, when they marry they act as such children may be expected to act – they dress; they paint, and nickname God's creatures. Surely these weak beings are only fit a the seraglio! Can they be expected to govern a family with judgement, or take care of the poor babes whom they bring into the world?

If, then, it can be fairly deduced from the present conduct of the sex, from the prevalent fondness for pleasure, which takes place of ambition and those nobler passions that open and enlarge the soul, that the instruction which women have hitherto received has only tended, with the constitution of civil society, to render them insignificant objects of desire – mere propagators of fools! – if it can be proved that in aiming to accomplish them, without cultivating their understandings, they are taken out of their sphere of duties, and made ridiculous and useless when the short – lived bloom of beauty is over, I presume that rational men will excuse me for endeavouring to persuade them to become more masculine and respectable.

Indeed the word masculine is only a bugbear; there is little reason to fear that women will acquire too much courage or fortitude, for their apparent inferiority with respect to bodily strength, must render them in some degree dependent on men in the various relations of life; but why should it be increased by prejudices that give a sex to virtue, and confound simple truths with sensual reveries?

Women are, in fact, so much degraded by mistaken notions of female excellence, that I do not mean to add a paradox when I assert that this artificial weakness produces a propensity to tyrannize, and gives birth to cunning, the natural opponent of strength, which leads them to play off those contemptible infantile airs that undermine esteem even whilst they excite desire. Let men become more chaste and modest, and if women do not grow wiser in the same ratio it will be clear that they have weaker understandings. It seems scarcely necessary to say that I now speak of the sex in general. Many individuals have more sense than their male relatives; and, as nothing preponderates where there is a constant struggle for an equilibrium without it has naturally more gravity, some women govern their husbands without degrading themselves, because intellect will always govern.

The Prevailing Opinion of a Sexual Character Discussed

To account for, and excuse the tyranny of man, many ingenious arguments have been brought forward to prove, that the two sexes, in the acquirement of virtue, ought to aim at attaining a very different character; or, to speak explicitly, women are not allowed to have sufficient strength of mind to acquire what really deserves the name of virtue. Yet it should seem, allowing them to have souls, that there is but one way appointed by Providence to lead mankind to either virtue or happiness.

If then women are not a swarm of ephemeron triflers, why should they be kept in ignorance under the specious name of innocence? Men complain, and with reason, of the follies and caprices of our sex, when they do not keenly satirise our headstrong passions and grovelling vices. Behold, I should answer, the natural effect of ignorance! The mind will ever be unstable that has only prejudices to rest on, and the current will run with destructive fury when there are no barriers to break its force. Women are told from their infancy, and taught by the example of their mothers, that a little knowledge of human weakness, justly termed cunning, softness of temper, outward obedience, and a scrupulous attention to a puerile kind of propriety, will obtain for them the protection of man; and should they be beautiful, everything else is needless, for at least twenty years of their lives.

Thus Milton describes our first frail mother; though when he tells us that women are formed for softness and sweet attractive grace, I cannot comprehend his meaning, unless, in the true Mahometan strain, he meant to deprive us of souls, and insinuate that we were beings only designed by sweet attractive grace, and docile blind obedience, to gratify the senses of man when he can no longer soar on the wing of contemplation.

How grossly do they insult us who thus advise us only to render ourselves gentle, domestic brutes! For instance, the winning softness so warmly and frequently recommended, that governs by obeying. What childish expressions, and how insignificant is the being – can it be an immortal one? – who will condescend to govern by such sinister methods? ‘Certainly,' says Lord Bacon,‘man is of kin to the beasts by his body; and if he be not of kin to God by his spirit, he is a base and ignoble creature!' Men, indeed, appear to me to act in a very unphilosophical manner, when they try to secure the good conduct of women by attempting to keep them always in a state of childhood. Rousseau was more consistent when he wished to stop the progress of reason in both sexes, for if men eat of the tree of knowledge, women will come in for a taste; but, from the imperfect cultivation which their understandings now receive, they only attain a knowledge of evil.

Children, I grant, should be innocent; but when the epithet is applied to men, or women, it is but a civil term for weakness. For if it be allowed that women were destined by Providence to acquire human virtues, and, by the exercise of their understandings, that stability of character which is the firmest ground to rest our future hopes upon, they must be permitted to turn to the fountain of light, and not forced to shape their course by the twinkling of a mere satellite. Milton, I grant, was of a very different opinion; for he only bends to the indefeasible right of beauty, though it would be difficult to render two passages which I now mean to contrast, consistent. But into similar inconsistencies are great men often led by their senses:



To whom thus Eve with perfect beauty adorn'd.

My author and disposer, what thou bid'st

Unargued I obey; so God ordains;

God is thy law, thou mine: to know no more

Is woman's happiest knowledge and her praise.



These are exactly the arguments that I have used to children; but I have added, your reason is now gaining strength, and, till it arrives at some degree of maturity, you must look up to me for advice, – then you ought to think, and only rely on God [...]

In treating therefore of the manners of women, let us, disregarding sensual arguments, trace what we should endeavour to make them in order to co-operate, if the expression be not too bold, with the Supreme Being.

By individual education, I mean, for the sense of the word is not precisely defined, such an attention to a child as will slowly sharpen the senses, form the temper, regulate the passions as they begin to ferment, and set the understanding to work before the body arrives at maturity; so that the man may only have to proceed, not to begin, the important task of learning to think and reason.

To prevent any misconstruction, I must add, that I do not believe that a private education can work the wonders which some sanguine writers have attributed to it. Men and women must be educated, in a great degree, by the opinions and manners of the society they live in. In every age there has been a stream of popular opinion that has carried all before it, and given a family character, as it were, to the century. It may then fairly be inferred, that, till society be differently constituted, much cannot be expected from education. It is, however, sufficient for my present purpose to assert that, whatever effect circumstances have on the abilities, every being may become virtuous by the exercise of its own reason; for if but one being was created with vicious inclinations, that is positively bad, what can save us from atheism? or if we worship a God, is not that God a devil?

Consequently, the most perfect education, in my opinion, is such an exercise of the understanding as is best calculated to strengthen the body and form the heart. Or, in other words, to enable the individual to attain such habits of virtue as will render it independent. In fact, it is a farce to call any being virtuous whose virtues do not result from the exercise of its own reason. This was Rousseau's opinion respecting men; I extend it to women, and confidently assert that they have been drawn out of their sphere by false refinement, and not by an endeavour to acquire masculine qualities. Still the regal homage which they receive is so intoxicating, that until the manners of the times are changed, and formed on more reasonable principles, it may be impossible to convince them that the illegitimate power which they obtain by degrading themselves is a curse, and that they must return to nature and equality if they wish to secure the placid satisfaction that unsophisticated affections impart. But for this epoch we must wait – wait perhaps till kings and nobles, enlightened by reason, and, preferring the real dignity of man to childish state, throw off their gaudy hereditary trappings; and if then women do not resign the arbitrary power of beauty – they will prove that they have less mind than man.

I may be accused of arrogance; still I must declare what I firmly believe, that all the writers who have written on the subject of female education and manners, from Rousseau to Dr Gregory, have contributed to render women more artificial, weak characters, than they would otherwise have been; and consequently, more useless members of society. I might have expressed this conviction in a lower key, but I am afraid it would have been the whine of affectation, and not the faithful expression of my feelings, of the clear result which experience and reflection have led me to draw[...] My objection extends to the whole purport of those books, which tend, in my opinion, to degrade one-half of the human species, and render women pleasing at the expense of every solid virtue.

Though, to reason on Rousseau's ground, if man did attain a degree of perfection of mind when his body arrived at maturity, it might be proper, in order to make a man and his wife one, that she should rely entirely on his understanding; and the graceful ivy, clasping the oak that supported it, would form a whole in which strength and beauty would be equally conspicuous. But, alas! husbands, as well as their helpmates, are often only overgrown children, – nay, thanks to early debauchery, scarcely men in their outward form, – and if the blind lead the blind, one need not come from heaven to tell us the consequence.

Many are the causes that, in the present corrupt state of society, contribute to enslave women by cramping their understandings and sharpening their senses. One, perhaps, that silently does more mischief than all the rest, is their disregard of order.

To do everything in an orderly manner is a most important precept, which women, who, generally speaking, receive only a disorderly kind of education, seldom attend to with that degree of exactness that men, who from their infancy are broken into method, observe. This negligent kind of guesswork – for what other epithet can be used to point out the random exertions of a sort of instinctive common sense never brought to the test of reason? – prevents their generalizing matters of fact; so they do today what they did yesterday, merely because they did it yesterday.

This contempt of the understanding in early life has more baneful consequences than is commonly supposed; for the little knowledge which women of strong minds attain is, from various circumstances, of a more desultory kind than the knowledge of men, and it is acquired more by sheer observations on real life than from comparing what has been individually observed with the results of experience generalized by speculation. Led by their dependent situation and domestic employments more into society, what they learn is rather by snatches; and as learning is with them in general only a secondary thing, they do not pursue any one branch with that persevering ardour necessary to give vigour to the faculties and dearness to the judgement. In the present state of society a little learning is required to support the character of a gentleman, and boys are obliged to submit to a few years of discipline. But in the education of women, the cultivation of the understanding is always subordinate to the acquirement of some corporeal accomplishment. Even when enervated by confinement and false notions of modesty, the body is prevented from attaining that grace and beauty which relaxed half – formed limbs never exhibit. Besides, in youth, their faculties are not brought forward by emulation; and having no serious scientific study, if they have natural sagacity, it is turned too soon on life and manners. They dwell on effects and modifications, without tracing them back to causes; and complicated rules to adjust behaviour are a weak substitute for simple principles.

As a proof that education gives this appearance of weakness to females, we may instance the example of military men, who are, like them, sent into the world before their minds have been stored with knowledge, or fortified by principles. The consequences are similar; soldiers acquire a little superficial knowledge, snatched from the muddy current of conversation, and from continually mixing with society, they gain what is termed a knowledge of the world; and this acquaintance with manners and customs has frequently been confounded with a knowledge of the human heart. But can the crude fruit of casual observation, never brought to the test of judgement, formed by comparing speculation and experience, deserve such a distinction? Soldiers, as well as women, practise the minor virtues with punctilious politeness. Where is then the sexual difference, when the education has been the same? All the difference that I can discern arises from the superior advantage of liberty which enables the former to see more of life.

It is wandering from my present subject, perhaps, to make a political remark; but as it was produced naturally by the train of my reflections, I shall not pass it silently over.

Standing armies can never consist of resolute robust men; they may be well-disciplined machines, but they will seldom contain men under the influence of strong passions, or with very vigorous faculties; and as for any depth of understanding, I will venture to affirm that it is as rarely to be found in the army as amongst women. And the cause, I maintain, is the same. It may be further observed that officers are also particularly attentive to their persons, fond of dancing, crowded rooms, adventures, and ridicule. Like the fair sex, the business of their lives is gallantry; they were taught to please, and they only live to please. Yet they do not lose their rank in the distinction of sexes, for they are still reckoned superior to women, though in what their superiority consists, beyond what I have just mentioned, it is difficult to discover.

The great misfortune is this, that they both acquire manners before morals, and a knowledge of life before they have from reflection any acquaintance with the grand ideal outline of human nature. The consequence is natural. Satisfied with common nature, they become a prey to prejudices, and taking all their opinions on credit, they blindly submit to authority. So that if they have any sense, it is a kind of instinctive glance that catches proportions, and decides with respect to manners, but fails when arguments are to be pursued below the surface, or opinions analysed.

May not the same remark be applied to women? Nay, the argument may be carried still further, for they are both thrown out of a useful station by the unnatural distinctions established in civilized life. Riches and hereditary honours have made cyphers of women to give consequence to the numerical figure; and idleness has produced a mixture of gallantry and despotism into society, which leads the very men who are the slaves of their mistresses to tyrannize over their sisters, wives, and daughters. This is only keeping them in rank and file, it is true. Strengthen the female mind by enlarging it, and there will be an end to blind obedience; but as blind obedience is ever sought for by power, tyrants and sensualists are in the right when they endeavour to keep woman in the dark, because the former only want slaves, and the latter a plaything. The sensualist, indeed, has been the most dangerous of tyrants, and women have been duped by their lovers, as princes by their ministers, whilst dreaming that they reigned over them.

I now principally allude to Rousseau, for his character of Sophia is undoubtedly a captivating one, though it appears to me grossly unnatural. However, it is not the superstructure, but the foundation of her character, the principles on which her education was built, that I mean to attack; nay, warmly as I admire the genius of that able writer, whose opinions I shall often have occasion to cite, indignation always takes place of admiration, and the rigid frown of insulted virtue effaces the smile of complacency which his eloquent periods are wont to raise when I read his voluptuous reveries. Is this the man who, in his ardour for virtue, would banish all the soft arts of peace, and almost carry us back to Spartan discipline? Is this the man who delights to paint the useful struggles of passion, the triumphs of good dispositions, and the heroic flights which carry the glowing soul out of itself? How are these mighty sentiments lowered when he describes the pretty foot and enticing airs of his little favourite! But for the present I waive the subject, and instead of severely reprehending the transient effusions of overweening sensibility, I shall only observe that whoever has cast a benevolent eye on society must often have been gratified by the sight of humble mutual love not dignified by sentiment, or strengthened by a union in intellectual pursuits. The domestic trifles of the day have afforded matters for cheerful converse, and innocent caresses have softened toils which did not require great exercise of mind or stretch of thought; yet has not the sight of this moderate felicity excited more tenderness than respect? – an emotion similar to what we feel when children are playing or animals sporting; whilst the contemplation of the noble struggles of suffering merit has raised admiration, and carried our thoughts to that world where sensation will give place to reason.

Women are therefore to be considered either as moral beings, or so weak that they must be entirely subjected to the superior faculties of men.

Let us examine this question. Rousseau declares that a woman should never for a moment feel herself independent, that she should be governed by fear to exercise her natural cunning, and made a coquettish slave in order to render her a more alluring object of desire, a sweeter companion to man, whenever he chose to relax himself. He carries the arguments, which he pretends to draw from the indications of nature, still further, and insinuates that truth and fortitude, the corner-stones of all human virtue, should be cultivated with certain restrictions, because, with respect to the female character, obedience is the grand lesson which ought to be impressed with unrelenting rigour.

What nonsense! When will a great man arise with sufficient strength of mind to puff away the fumes which pride and sensuality have thus spread over the subject? If women are by nature inferior to men, their virtues must be the same in quality, if not in degree, or virtue is a relative idea; consequently their conduct should be founded on the same principles, and have the same aim.

Connected with man as daughters, wives, and mothers, their moral character may be estimated by their manner of fulfilling those simple duties; but the end, the grand end, of their exertions should be to unfold their own faculties, and acquire the dignity of conscious virtue. They may try to render their road pleasant; but ought never to forget, in common with man, that life yields not the felicity which can satisfy an immortal soul. I do not mean to insinuate that either sex should be so lost in abstract reflections or distant views as to forget the affections and duties that lie before them, and are, in truth, the means appointed to produce the fruit of life; on the contrary, I would warmly recommend them, even while I assert that they afford most satisfaction when they are considered in their true sober light.

Probably the prevailing opinion that woman was created for man, may have taken its rise from Moses'poetical story; yet as very few, it is presumed, who have bestowed any serious thought on the subject ever supposed that Eve was, literally speaking, one of Adam's ribs, the deduction must be allowed to fall to the ground, or only be so far admitted as it proves that man, from the remotest antiquity, found it convenient to exert his strength to subjugate his companion, and his invention to show that she ought to have her neck bent under the yoke, because the whole creation was only created for his convenience or pleasure.

Let it not be concluded that I wish to invert the order of things. I have already granted that, from the constitution of their bodies, men seemed to be designed by Providence to attain a greater degree of virtue. I speak collectively of the whole sex; but I see not the shadow of a reason to conclude that their virtues should differ in respect to their nature. In fact, how can they, if virtue has only one eternal standard? I must therefore, if I reason consequentially, as strenuously maintain that they have the same simple direction as that there is a God.

It follows then that cunning should not be opposed to wisdom, little cares to great exertions, or insipid softness, varnished over with the name of gentleness, to that fortitude which grand views alone can inspire.

I shall be told that woman would then lose many of her peculiar graces, and the opinion of a well-known poet might be quoted to refute my unqualified assertion. For Pope has said, in the name of the whole male sex:



Yet ne'er so sure our passion to create,

As when she touch'd the brink of all we hate.



In what light this sally places men and women I shall leave to the judicious to determine. Meanwhile, I shall content myself with observing, that I cannot discover why, unless they are mortal, females should always be degraded by being made subservient to love or lust.

To speak disrespectfully of love is, I know, high treason against sentiment and fine feelings; but I wish to speak the simple language of truth, and rather to address the head than the heart. To endeavour to reason love out of the world would be to out-Quixote Cervantes, and equally offend against common sense; but an endeav our to restrain this tumultuous passion, and to prove that it should not be allowed to dethrone superior powers, or to usurp the sceptre which the understanding should ever coolly wield, appears less wild.

Youth is the season for love in both sexes; but in those days of thoughtless enjoyment provision should be made for the more important years of life, when reflection takes place of sensation. But Rousseau, and most of the male writers who have followed his steps, have warmly indicated that the whole tendency of female education ought to be directed to one point – to render them pleasing.

Let me reason with the supporters of this opinion who have any knowledge of human nature. Do they imagine that marriage can eradicate the habitude of life? The woman who has only been taught to please will soon find that her charms are oblique sunbeams, and that they cannot have much effect on her husband's heart when they are seen every day, when the summer is passed and gone. Will she then have sufficient native energy to look into herself for comfort, and cultivate her dormant faculties? or is it not more rational to expect that she will try to please other men, and, in the emotions raised by the experience of new conquests, endeavour to forget the mortification her love or pride has received? When the husband ceases to be a lover, and the time will inevitably come, her desire of pleasing will then grow languid, or become a spring of bitterness; and love, perhaps, the most evanescent of all passions, gives place to jealousy or vanity.

I now speak of women who are restrained by principle or prejudice. Such women, though they would shrink from an intrigue with real abhorrence, yet, nevertheless, wish to be convinced by the homage of gallantry that they are cruelly neglected by their husbands; or, days and weeks are spent in dreaming of the happiness enjoyed by congenial souls, till their health is undermined and their spirits broken by discontent. How then can the great art of pleasing be such a necessary study? it is only useful to a mistress. The chaste wife and serious mother should only consider her power to please as the polish of her virtues, and the affection of her husband as one of the comforts that render her task less difficult, and her life happier. But, whether she be loved or neglected, her first wish should be to make herself respectable, and not to rely for all her happiness on a being subject to like infirmities with herself.

The worthy Dr Gregory fell into a similar error. I respect his heart, but entirely disapprove of his celebrated Legacy to his Daughters.

He advises them to cultivate a fondness for dress, because a fondness for dress, he asserts, is natural to them. I am unable to comprehend what either he or Rousseau mean when they frequently use this indefinite term. If they told us that in a pre-existent state the soul was fond of dress, and brought this inclination with it into a new body, I should listen to them with a half- smile, as I often do when I hear a rant about innate elegance. But if he only meant to say that the exercise of the faculties will produce this fondness, I deny it. It is not natural; but arises, like false ambition in men, from a love of power.

Dr Gregory goes much further; he actually recommends dissimulation, and advises an innocent girl to give the lie to her feelings, and not dance with spirit, when gaiety of heart would make her feet eloquent without making her gestures immodest. In the name of truth and common sense, why should not one woman acknowledge that she can take more exercise than another? or, in other words, that she has a sound constitution; and why, to damp innocent vivacity, is she darkly to be told that men will draw conclusions which she little thinks of? Let the libertine draw what inference he pleases; but, I hope, that no sensible mother will restrain the natural frankness of youth by instilling such indecent cautions. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh; and a wiser than Solomon hath said that the heart should be made clean, and not trivial ceremonies observed, which it is not very difficult to fulfil with scrupulous exactness when vice reigns in the heart.

Women ought to endeavour to purify their hearts; but can they do so when their uncultivated understandings make them entirely dependent on their senses for employment and amusement, when no noble pursuits set them above the little vanities of the day, or enable them to curb the wild emotions that agitate a reed, over which every passing breeze has power? To gain the affections of a virtuous man, is affectation necessary? Nature has given woman a weaker frame than man; but, to ensure her husband's affections, must a wife, who, by the exercise of her mind and body whilst she was discharging the duties of a daughter, wife, and mother, has allowed her constitution to retain its natural strength, and her nerves a healthy tone, – is she, I say, to condescend to use art, and feign a sickly delicacy, in order to secure her husband's affection? Weakness may excite tenderness, and gratify the arrogant pride of man, but the lordly caresses of a protector will not gratify a noble mind that pants for and deserves to be respected. Fondness is a poor substitute for friendship!

In a seraglio, I grant, that all these arts are necessary; the epicure must have his palate tickled, or he will sink into apathy; but have women so little ambition as to be satisfied with such a condition? Can they supinely dream life away in the lap of pleasure, or the languor of weariness, rather than assert their claim to pursue reasonable pleasures, and render themselves conspicuous by practising the virtues which dignify mankind? Surely she has not an immortal soul who can loiter life away merely employed to adorn her person, that she may amuse the languid hours, and soften the cares of a fellow-creature who is willing to be enlivened by her smiles and tricks, when the serious business of life is over.

Besides, the woman who strengthens her body and exercises her mind will, by managing her family and practising various virtues, become the friend, and not the humble dependent of her husband; and if she, by possessing such substantial qualities, merit his regard, she will not find it necessary to conceal her affection, nor to pretend to an unnatural coldness of constitution to excite her husband's passions. In fact, if we revert to history, we shall find that the women who have distinguished themselves have neither been the most beautiful nor the most gentle of their sex.

Nature, or, to speak with strict propriety, God, has made all things right; but man has sought him out many inventions to mar the work. I now allude to that part of Dr Gregory's treatise, where he advises a wife never to let her husband know the extent of her sensibility or affection. Voluptuous precaution, and as ineffectual as absurd. Love, from its very nature, must be transitory. To seek for a secret that would render it constant, would be as wild a search as for the philosopher's stone, or the grand panacea; and the discovery would be equally useless, or rather pernicious, to mankind. The most holy band of society is friendship. It has been well said, by a shrewd satirist,‘that rare as true love is, true friendship is still rarer'.

This is an obvious truth, and, the cause not lying deep, will not elude a slight glance of inquiry.

Love, the common passion, in which chance and sensation take place of choice and reason, is, in some degree, felt by the mass of mankind; for it is not necessary to speak, at present, of the emotions that rise above or sink below love. This passion, naturally increased by suspense and difficulties, draws the mind out of its accustomed state, and exalts the affections; but the security of marriage allowing the fever of love to subside, a healthy temperature is thought insipid only by those who have not sufficient intellect to substitute the calm tenderness of friendship, the confidence of respect, instead of blind admiration, and the sensual emotions of fondness.

This is, must be, the course of nature. Friendship or indifference inevitably succeeds love. And this constitution seems perfectly to harmonize with the system of government which prevails in the moral world. Passions are spurs to action, and open the mind; but they sink into mere appetites, become a personal and momentary gratification when the object is gained, and the satisfied mind rests in enjoyment. The man who had some virtue whilst he was struggling for a crown often becomes a voluptuous tyrant when it graces his brow; and, when the lover is not lost in the husband, the dotard, a prey to childish caprices and fond jealousies, neglects the serious duties of life, and the caresses which should excite confidence in his children are lavished on the overgrown child, his wife.

In order to fulfil the duties of life, and to be able to pursue with vigour the various employments which form the moral character, a master and mistress of a family ought not to continue to love each other with passion. I mean to say that they ought not to indulge those emotions which disturb the order of society, and engross the thoughts that should be otherwise employed. The mind that has never been engrossed by one object wants vigour, – if it can long be so, it is weak.

A mistaken education, a narrow uncultivated mind, and many sexual prejudices, tend to make women more constant than men; but, for the present, I shall not touch on this branch of the subject. I will go still further, and advance, without dreaming of a paradox, that an unhappy marriage is often very advantageous to a family, and that the neglected wife is, in general, the best mother. And this would almost always be the consequence if the female mind were more enlarged; for, it seems to be the common dispensation of Providence, that what we gain in present enjoyment should be deducted from the treasure of life, experience; and that when we are gathering the flowers of the day, and revelling in pleasure, the solid fruit of toil and wisdom should not be caught at the same time. The way lies before us, we must turn to the right or left; and he who will pass life away in bounding from one pleasure to another, must not complain if he acquire neither wisdom nor respectability of character.

Supposing, for a moment, that the soul is not immortal, and that man was only created for the present scene, – I think we should have reason to complain that love, infantine fondness, ever grew insipid and palled upon the sense. Let us eat, drink, and love, for tomorrow we die, would be, in fact, the language of reason, the morality of life; and who but a fool would part with a reality for a fleeting shadow? But, if awed by observing the improbable powers of the mind, we disdain to confine our wishes or thoughts to such a comparatively mean field of action, that only appears grand and important, as it is connected with a bound-less prospect and sublime hopes, what necessity is there for falsehood in conduct, and why must the sacred majesty of truth be violated to detain a deceitful good that saps the very foundation of virtue? Why must the female mind be tainted by coquettish arts to gratify the sensualist, and prevent love from subsiding into friendship, or compassionate tenderness, when these are not qualities on which friendship can be built? Let the honest heart show itself, and reason teach passion to submit to necessity; or, let the dignified pursuit of virtue and knowledge raise the mind above those emotions which rather embitter than sweeten the cup of life, when they are not restrained within due bounds.

I do not mean to allude to the romantic passion, which is the concomitant of genius. Who can clip its wing? But that grand passion not proportioned to the puny enjoyments of life, is only true to the sentiment, and feeds on itself. The passions which have been celebrated for their durability have always been unfortunate. They have acquired strength by absence and constitutional melancholy. The fancy has hovered round a form of beauty dimly seen; but familiarity might have turned admiration into disgust, or, at least, into indifference, and allowed the imagination leisure to start fresh game. With perfect propriety, according to this view of things, does Rousseau make the mistress of his soul, Eloisa, love St Preux, when life was fading before her; but this is no proof of the immortality of the passion.

Of the same complexion is Dr Gregory's advice respecting delicacy of sentiment, which he advises a woman not to acquire, if she have determined to marry. This determination, however, perfectly consistent with his former advice, he calls indelicate, and earnestly persuades his daughters to conceal it, though it may govern their conduct, as if it were indelicate to have the common appetites of human nature.

Noble morality! and consistent with the cautious prudence of a little soul that cannot extend its views beyond the present minute division of existence. If all the faculties of woman's mind are only to be cultivated as they respect her dependence on man; if, when a husband be obtained, she have arrived at her goal, and meanly proud, rests satisfied with such a paltry crown, let her grovel contentedly, scarcely raised by her employments above the animal kingdom; but, if struggling for the prize of her high calling, she look beyond the present scene, let her cultivate her understanding without stopping to consider what character the husband may have whom she is destined to marry. Let her only determine, without being too anxious about present happiness, to acquire the qualities that ennoble a rational being, and a rough inelegant husband may shock her taste without destroying her peace of mind. She will not model her soul to suit the frailties of her companion, but to bear with them; his character may be a trial, but not an impediment to virtue.

If Dr Gregory confined his remark to romantic expectations of constant love and congenial feelings, he should have recollected that experience will banish what advice can never make us cease to wish for, when the imagination is kept alive at the expense of reason.

I own it frequently happens, that women who have fostered a romantic unnatural delicacy of feeling, waste their lives in imagining how happy they should have been with a husband who could love them with a fervid increasing affection every day, and all day. But they might as well pine married as single, and would not be a jot more unhappy with a bad husband than longing for a good one. That a proper education, or, to speak with more precision, a well-stored mind, would enable a woman to support a single life with dignity, I grant; but that she should avoid cultivating her taste, lest her husband should occasionally shock it, is quitting a substance for a shadow. To say the truth, I do not know of what use is an improved taste, if the individual be not rendered more independent of the casualties of life; if new sources of enjoyment, only dependent on the solitary operations of the mind, are not opened. People of taste, married or single, without distinction, will ever be disgusted by various things that touch not less observing minds. On this conclusion the argument must not be allowed to hinge; but in the whole sum of enjoyment is taste to be denominated a blessing?

The question is, whether it procures most pain or pleasure? The answer will decide the propriety of Dr Gregory's advice, and show how absurd and tyrannic it is thus to lay down a system of slavery, or to attempt to educate moral beings by any other rules than those deduced from pure reason, which apply to the whole species.

Gentleness of manners, forbearance and long suffering, are such amiable Godlike qualities, that in sublime poetic strains the Deity has been invested with them; and, perhaps, no representation of His goodness so strongly fastens on the human affections as those that represent Him abundant in mercy and willing to pardon. Gentleness, considered in this point of view, bears on its front all the characteristics of grandeur, combined with the winning graces of condescension; but what a different aspect it assumes when it is the submissive demeanour of dependence, the support of weakness that loves, because it wants protection; and is forbearing, because it must silently endure injuries; smiling under the lash at which it dare not snarl. Abject as this picture appears, it is the portrait of an accomplished woman, according to the received opinion of female excellence, separated by specious reasoners from human excellence. Or, they kindly restore the rib, and make one moral being of a man and woman; not forgetting to give her all the‘submissive charms' .

How women are to exist in that state where there is neither to be marrying nor giving in marriage, we are not told. For though moralists have agreed that the tenor of life seems to prove that man is prepared by various circumstances for a future state, they constantly concur in advising woman only to provide for the present. Gentleness, docility, and a spaniellike affection are, on this ground, consistently recommended as the cardinal virtues of the sex; and, disregarding the arbitrary economy of nature, one writer has declared that it is masculine for a woman to be melancholy. She was created to be the toy of man, his rattle, and it must jingle in his ears whenever, dismissing reason, he chooses to be amused.

To recommend gentleness, indeed, on a broad basis is strictly philosophical. A frail being should labour to be gentle. But when forbearance confounds right and wrong, it ceases to be a virtue; and, however convenient it may be found in a companion – that companion will ever be considered as an inferior, and only inspire a vapid tenderness, which easily degenerates into contempt. Still, if advice could really make a being gentle, whose natural disposition admitted not of such a fine polish, something towards the advancement of order would be attained; but if as might quickly be demonstrated, only affection be produced by this indiscriminate counsel, which throws a stumblingblock in the way of gradual improvement, and true melioration of temper, the sex is not much benefited by sacrificing solid virtues to the attainment of superficial graces, though for a few years they may procure the individuals regal sway.

As a philosopher, I read with indignation the plausible epithets which men use to soften their insults; and, as a moralist, I ask what is meant by such heterogeneous associations, as fair defects, amiable weaknesses, etc.? If there be but one criterion of morals, but one architype for man, women appear to be suspended by destiny, according to the vulgar tale of Mahomet's coffin; they have neither the unerring instinct of brutes, nor are allowed to fix the eye of reason on a perfect model. They were made to be loved, and must not aim at respect, lest they should be hunted out of society as masculine.

But to view the subject in another point of view. Do passive indolent women make the best wives? Confining our discussion to the present moment of existence, let us see how such weak creatures perform their part. Do the women who, by the attainment of a few superficial accomplishments, have strengthened the prevailing prejudice, merely contribute to the happiness of their husbands? Do they display their charms merely to amuse them? And have women who have early imbibed notions of passive obedience, sufficient character to manage a family or educate children? So far from it, that, after surveying the history of woman, I cannot help agreeing with the severest satirist, considering the sex as the weakest as well as the most oppressed half of the species. What does history disclose but marks of inferiority, and how few women have emancipated themselves from the galling yoke of sovereign man? So few that the exceptions remind me of an ingenious conjecture respecting Newton – that he was probably a being of superior order accidentally caged in a human body. Following the same train of thinking, I have been led to imagine that the few extraordinary women who have rushed in eccentrical directions out of the orbit prescribed to their sex, were male spirits, confined by mistake in female frames. But if it be not philosophical to think of sex when the soul is mentioned, the inferiority must depend on the organs; or the heavenly fire, which is to ferment the clay, is not given in equal portions.

But avoiding, as I have hitherto done, any direct comparison of the two sexes collectively, or frankly acknowledging the inferiority of woman, according to the present appearance of things, I shall only insist that men have increased that inferiority till women are almost sunk below the standard of rational creatures. Let their faculties have room to unfold, and their virtues to gain strength, and then determine where the whole sex must stand in the intellectual scale. Yet let it be remembered that for a small number of distinguished women I do not ask a place.

It is difficult for us purblind mortals to say to what height human discoveries and improvements may arrive, when the gloom of despotism subsides, which makes us stumble at every step; but, when morality shall be settled on a more solid basis, then, without being gifted with a prophetic spirit, I will venture to predict that woman will be either the friend or slave of man. We shall not, as at present, doubt whether she is a moral agent, or the link which unites man with brutes. But should it then appear that like the brutes they were principally created for the use of man, he will let them patiently bite the bridle, and not mock them with empty praise; or, should their rationality be proved, he will not impede their improvement merely to gratify his sensual appetites. He will not, with all the graces of rhetoric, advise them to submit implicitly their understanding to the guidance of man. He will not, when he treats of the education of women, assert that they ought never to have the free use of reason, nor would he recommend cunning and dissimulation to beings who are acquiring, in like manner as himself, the virtues of humanity.

Surely there can be but one rule of right, if morality has an eternal foundation, and whoever sacrifices virtue, strictly so called, to present convenience, or whose duty it is to act in such a manner, lives only for the passing day, and cannot be an accountable creature.

The poet then should have dropped his sneer when he says:



If weak women go astray,

The stars are more in fault than they.



For that they are bound by the adamantine chain of destiny is most certain, if it be proved that they are never to exercise their own reason, never to be independent, never to rise above opinion, or to feel the dignity of a rational will that only bows to God, and often forgets that the universe contains any being but itself and the model of perfection to which its ardent gaze is turned, to adore attributes that, softened into virtues, may be imitated in kind, though the degree overwhelms the enraptured mind.

If, I say, for I would not impress by declamation when Reason offers her sober light, if they be really capable of acting like rational creatures, let them not be treated like slaves; or, like the brutes who are dependent on the reason of man, when they associate with him; but cultivate their minds, give them the salutary sublime curb of principle, and let them attain conscious dignity by feeling themselves only dependent on God. Teach them, in common with man, to submit to necessity, instead of giving, to render them more pleasing, a sex to morals.

Further, should experience prove that they cannot attain the same degree of strength of mind, perseverance, and fortitude, let their virtues be the same in kind, though they may vainly struggle for the same degree; and the superiority of man will be equally clear, if not clearer; and truth, as it is a simple principle, which admits of no modification, would be common to both. Nay the order of society, as it is at present regulated, would not be inverted, for woman would then only have the rank that reason assigned her, and arts could not be practised to bring the balance even, much less to turn it.

These may be termed Utopian dreams. Thanks to that Being who impressed them on my soul, and gave me sufficient strength of mind to dare to exert my own reason, till, becoming dependent only on Him for the support of my virtue, I view, with indignation, the mistaken notions that enslave my sex.

I love man as my fellow; but his sceptre, real or usurped, extends not to me, unless the reason of an individual demands my homage; and even then the submission is to reason, and not to man. In fact, the conduct of an account able being must be regulated by the operations of its own reason; or on what foundation rests the throne of God?

It appears to me necessary to dwell on these obvious truths, because females have been insulated, as it were; and while they have been stripped of the virtues that should clothe humanity, they have been decked with artificial graces that enable them to exercise a shortlived tyranny. Love, in their bosoms, taking place of every nobler passion, their sole ambition is to be fair, to raise emotion instead of inspiring respect; and this ignoble desire, like the servility in absolute monarchies, destroys all strength of character. Liberty is the mother of virtue, and if women be, by their very constitution, slaves, and not allowed to breathe the sharp invigorating air of freedom, they must ever languish like exotics, and be reckoned beautiful flaws in nature. Let it also be remembered, that they are the only flaw.

As to the argument respecting the subjection in which the sex has ever been held, it retorts on man. The many have always been enthralled by the few; and monsters, who scarcely have shown any discernment of human excellence, have tyrannized over thousands of their fellow-creatures. Why have men of superior endowments submitted to such degradation? For, is it not universally acknowledged that kings, viewed collectively, have ever been inferior, in abilities and virtue, to the same number of men taken from the common mass of mankind – yet have they not, and are they not still treated with a degree of reverence that is an insult to reason? China is not the only country where a living man has been made a God. Men have submitted to superior strength to enjoy with impunity the pleasure of the moment; women have only done the same, and therefore till it is proved that the courtier, who servilely resigns the birthright of a man, is not a moral agent, it cannot be demonstrated that woman is essentially inferior to man because she has always been subjugated.

Brutal force has hitherto governed the world, and that the science of politics is in its infancy, is evident from philosophers scrupling to give the knowledge most useful to man that determinate distinction.

I shall not pursue this argument any further than to establish an obvious inference, that as sound politics diffuse liberty, mankind, including woman, will become more wise and virtuous.