National Education

The good effects resulting from attention to private education will ever be very confined, and the parent who really puts his own hand to the plow, will always, in some degree be disappointed, till education becomes a grand national concern. A man cannot retire into a desert with his child, and if he did, he could not bring himself back to childhood, and become the proper friend and play-fellow of an infant or youth. And when children are confined to the society of men and women, they very soon acquire that kind of premature manhood which stops the growth of every vigorous power of mind or body. In order to open their faculties they should be excited to think for themselves; and this can only be done by mixing a number of children together, and making them jointly pursue the same objects.

The benefits of attention to private education will always be very limited. A parent who takes an active role will always be disappointed to some degree until education becomes a major national concern. A man cannot retreat into a desert with his child. Even if he did, he could not become a child again and be a suitable friend and playmate for a young child or teenager. When children spend time only with adults, they soon develop a kind of premature maturity. This premature maturity stops their mental and physical powers from developing fully. To develop their abilities, children should be encouraged to think for themselves. This can only be done by bringing a number of children together and having them pursue the same goals.

A child very soon contracts a benumbing indolence of mind, which he has seldom sufficient vigour to shake off, when he only asks a question instead of seeking for information, and then relies implicitly on the answer he receives. With his equals in age this could never be the case, and the subjects of inquiry, though they might be influenced, would not be entirely under the direction of men, who frequently damp, if not destroy abilities, by bringing them forward too hastily: and too hastily they will infallibly be brought forward, if the child could be confined to the society of a man, however sagacious that man may be.

A child soon develops a numbing habit of mental laziness when he simply asks questions instead of seeking information. He then trusts the answers he receives without question. He seldom has enough energy to shake off this habit. This could never happen among children of his own age. Though men might influence the subjects he explores, they would not entirely direct them. Men often weaken, if not destroy, abilities by encouraging them to develop too quickly. And a child’s abilities will certainly be pushed forward too quickly if he is confined to the company of a man, however wise that man may be.

Besides, in youth the seeds of every affection should be sown, and the respectful regard, which is felt for a parent, is very different from the social affections that are to constitute the happiness of life as it advances. Of these, equality is the basis, and an intercourse of sentiments unclogged by that observant seriousness which prevents disputation, though it may not inforce submission. Let a child have ever such an affection for his parent, he will always languish to play and chat with children; and the very respect he entertains, for filial esteem always has a dash of fear mixed with it, will, if it do not teach him cunning, at least prevent him from pouring out the little secrets which first open the heart to friendship and confidence, gradually leading to more expansive benevolence. Added to this, he will never acquire that frank ingenuousness of behaviour, which young people can only attain by being frequently in society, where they dare to speak what they think; neither afraid of being reproved for their presumption, nor laughed at for their folly.

Besides, the seeds of every affection should be planted in youth. The respectful regard felt for a parent is very different from the social affections that bring happiness later in life. These social affections are based on equality and a free exchange of thoughts and feelings. They are not held back by the careful seriousness that prevents disagreement, even if it does not enforce obedience. However much a child loves his parent, he will always long to play and chat with other children. The respect he feels for his parent will hold him back, too. A child’s respect for a parent always has a touch of fear in it. If this respect does not teach him to be cunning, it will at least prevent him from sharing his little secrets. Sharing these secrets first opens the heart to friendship and trust, and gradually leads to a broader goodwill toward others. Moreover, he will never develop a frank and open manner. Young people can develop this manner only by often spending time with others among whom they dare to speak their minds. There, they need not fear being scolded for presuming too much or laughed at for their foolishness.

Forcibly impressed by the reflections which the sight of schools, as they are at present conducted, naturally suggested, I have formerly delivered my opinion rather warmly in favour of a private education; but further experience has led me to view the subject in a different light. I still, however, think schools, as they are now regulated, the hot-beds of vice and folly, and the knowledge of human nature, supposed to be attained there, merely cunning selfishness.

Seeing how schools are run deeply affected me and led me to argue strongly for private education. But further experience has led me to see the matter differently. I still think, however, that schools as they are now run breed vice and folly. The knowledge of human nature supposedly gained there is merely cunning selfishness.

At school, boys become gluttons and slovens, and, instead of cultivating domestic affections, very early rush into the libertinism which destroys the constitution before it is formed; hardening the heart as it weakens the understanding.

At school, boys become greedy and sloppy. Instead of developing affection for their families, they begin indulging in sexual excess very early. This destroys their health before their bodies are fully developed, hardening their hearts and weakening their minds.

I should, in fact, be averse to boarding-schools, if it were for no other reason than the unsettled state of mind which the expectation of the vacations produce. On these the children's thoughts are fixed with eager anticipating hopes, for, at least, to speak with moderation, half of the time, and when they arrive they are spent in total dissipation and beastly indulgence.

In fact, I would oppose boarding schools for one reason alone: the restless state of mind caused by expecting vacations. To put it mildly, children spend at least half their time eagerly looking forward to vacations. And when vacations arrive, the children spend them in complete idleness and animal-like indulgence.

But, on the contrary, when they are brought up at home, though they may pursue a plan of study in a more orderly manner than can be adopted, when near a fourth part of the year is actually spent in idleness, and as much more in regret and anticipation; yet they there acquire too high an opinion of their own importance, from being allowed to tyrannize over servants, and from the anxiety expressed by most mothers, on the score of manners, who, eager to teach the accomplishments of a gentleman, stifle, in their birth, the virtues of a man. Thus brought into company when they ought to be seriously employed, and treated like men when they are still boys, they become vain and effeminate.

But boys brought up at home may follow a more orderly course of study. At school, nearly a quarter of the year is spent in idleness, and another quarter in regret and anticipation. Yet boys educated at home develop too high an opinion of their own importance. They are allowed to bully servants, and most mothers worry about their manners. These mothers are eager to teach boys the accomplishments of a gentleman, but they stifle a man’s virtues before they can develop. As a result, the boys are brought into social company when they should be studying seriously. They are treated like men while they are still boys, and they become vain and effeminate.

The only way to avoid two extremes equally injurious to morality, would be to contrive some way of combining a public and private education. Thus to make men citizens, two natural steps might be taken, which seem directly to lead to the desired point; for the domestic affections, that first open the heart to the various modifications of humanity would be cultivated, whilst the children were nevertheless allowed to spend great part of their time, on terms of equality, with other children.

The only way to avoid two extremes that are equally harmful to morality would be to combine public and private education. This could involve two natural steps that seem to lead directly to the goal of making men into citizens. Children would develop family affections, which first open the heart to the many forms of human feeling. At the same time, they would be allowed to spend much of their time with other children as equals.

I still recollect, with pleasure, the country day school; where a boy trudged in the morning, wet or dry, carrying his books, and his dinner, if it were at a considerable distance; a servant did not then lead master by the hand, for, when he had once put on coat and breeches, he was allowed to shift for himself, and return alone in the evening to recount the feats of the day close at the parental knee. His father's house was his home, and was ever after fondly remembered; nay, I appeal to some superior men who were educated in this manner, whether the recollection of some shady lane where they conned their lesson; or, of some stile, where they sat making a kite, or mending a bat, has not endeared their country to them?

I still remember the country day school with pleasure. A boy trudged there each morning, rain or shine, carrying his books. If the school was a long way off, he carried his dinner too. In those days, a servant did not lead the young master by the hand. Once he had put on a coat and breeches, he was allowed to look after himself. He returned alone in the evening to tell his parents about the day’s adventures, sitting close beside them. His father’s house was his home, and he remembered it fondly ever afterward. Indeed, I ask some exceptional men who were educated this way: have memories of a shady lane where you studied your lessons not made your country dearer to you? Or memories of a stile where you sat making a kite or mending a bat?

But, what boy ever recollected with pleasure the years he spent in close confinement, at an academy near London? unless indeed he should by chance remember the poor scare-crow of an usher whom he tormented; or, the tartman, from whom he caught a cake, to devour it with the cattish appetite of selfishness. At boarding schools of every description, the relaxation of the junior boys is mischief; and of the senior, vice. Besides, in great schools what can be more prejudicial to the moral character, than the system of tyranny and abject slavery which is established amongst the boys, to say nothing of the slavery to forms, which makes religion worse than a farce? For what good can be expected from the youth who receives the sacrament of the Lord's supper, to avoid forfeiting half-a-guinea, which he probably afterwards spends in some sensual manner? Half the employment of the youths is to elude the necessity of attending public worship; and well they may, for such a constant repetition of the same thing must be a very irksome restraint on their natural vivacity. As these ceremonies have the most fatal effect on their morals, and as a ritual performed by the lips, when the heart and mind are far away, is not now stored up by our church as a bank to draw on for the fees of the poor souls in purgatory, why should they not be abolished?

But what boy ever remembered with pleasure the years he spent confined at an academy near London? Unless, perhaps, he remembered the poor scarecrow of an assistant teacher he tormented. Or the pastry seller he snatched a cake from, only to devour it with the catlike appetite of selfishness. At boarding schools of every kind, younger boys amuse themselves with mischief, and older boys with vice. Besides, what could be more damaging to moral character in large schools than the tyranny and abject slavery established among the boys? And that is to say nothing of their slavery to empty forms, which makes religion worse than a farce. What good can be expected of a young man who takes the Lord’s supper to avoid forfeiting half a guinea? He probably spends that same half guinea afterward on some sensual pleasure. The boys spend half their time trying to avoid attending public worship. And no wonder, for such constant repetition must be a very tiresome restraint on their natural liveliness. These ceremonies have the most disastrous effect on their morals. Our church no longer stores up rituals spoken with the lips while heart and mind are elsewhere. It no longer treats them as a bank to draw on for the fees of the poor souls in purgatory. So why should these ceremonies not be abolished?

But the fear of innovation, in this country, extends to every thing. This is only a covert fear, the apprehensive timidity of indolent slugs, who guard, by sliming it over, the snug place, which they consider in the light of an hereditary estate; and eat, drink, and enjoy themselves, instead of fulfilling the duties, excepting a few empty forms, for which it was endowed. These are the people who most strenuously insist on the will of the founder being observed, crying out against all reformation, as if it were a violation of justice. I am now alluding particularly to the relicks of popery retained in our colleges, where the protestant members seem to be such sticklers for the established church; but their zeal never makes them lose sight of the spoil of ignorance, which rapacious priests of superstitious memory have scraped together. No, wise in their generation, they venerate the prescriptive right of possession, as a strong hold, and still let the sluggish bell tingle to prayers, as during the days, when the elevation of the host was supposed to atone for the sins of the people, lest one reformation should lead to another, and the spirit kill the letter. These Romish customs have the most baneful effect on the morals of our clergy; for the idle vermin who two or three times a day perform, in the most slovenly manner a service which they think useless, but call their duty, soon lose a sense of duty. At college, forced to attend or evade public worship, they acquire an habitual contempt for the very service, the performance of which is to enable them to live in idleness. It is mumbled over as an affair of business, as a stupid boy repeats his task, and frequently the college cant escapes from the preacher the moment after he has left the pulpit, and even whilst he is eating the dinner which he earned in such a dishonest manner.

But in this country, the fear of innovation extends to everything. It is really a concealed fear, the anxious timidity of lazy slugs. They guard their comfortable positions by covering them in slime, treating them as inherited property. They eat, drink, and enjoy themselves instead of carrying out the duties for which those positions were endowed. They perform only a few empty formalities. These are the people who insist most strongly that the founder's wishes must be observed. They cry out against all reform as if it violated justice. I am thinking particularly of the remnants of Catholicism kept in our colleges. The Protestant members of these colleges seem so determined to defend the established church. Yet their zeal never makes them forget the wealth taken from ignorance and amassed by greedy priests of a superstitious age. No, wise in their own interests, they revere the long established right of possession as a stronghold. They still let the sluggish bell sound for prayers, as it did in earlier days. Then, the elevation of the host was thought to atone for the people's sins. They keep these customs for fear that one reform might lead to another, and the spirit kill the letter. These Roman Catholic customs have the most harmful effect on the morals of our clergy. Two or three times a day, these idle vermin perform a service they think useless but call their duty. They perform it so carelessly that they soon lose their sense of duty. At college, they are forced either to attend public worship or to evade it. So they develop a habitual contempt for the very service that will enable them to live in idleness. They mumble through it as a business task, like a stupid boy repeating his lesson. And the preacher often falls into the empty talk of the college the moment he leaves the pulpit. He even does so while eating the dinner he earned so dishonestly.

Nothing, indeed, can be more irreverent than the cathedral service as it is now performed in this country, neither does it contain a set of weaker men than those who are the slaves of this childish routine. A disgusting skeleton of the former state is still exhibited; but all the solemnity, that interested the imagination, if it did not purify the heart, is stripped off. The performance of high mass on the continent must impress every mind, where a spark of fancy glows, with that awful melancholy, that sublime tenderness, so near a-kin to devotion. I do not say, that these devotional feelings are of more use, in a moral sense, than any other emotion of taste; but I contend, that the theatrical pomp which gratifies our senses, is to be preferred to the cold parade that insults the understanding without reaching the heart.

Nothing could be more irreverent than the cathedral service as it is now performed in this country. Nor could it have a weaker set of men than those enslaved to this childish routine. A repulsive skeleton of its former state is still on display. But all its solemnity has been stripped away, though that solemnity stirred the imagination, if it did not purify the heart. High mass on the continent must fill every mind with a spark of imagination with a sense of awe and melancholy. It must also inspire a sublime tenderness, so close to devotion. I do not claim that these devotional feelings are morally more useful than any other response to beauty. But I maintain that theatrical splendor that pleases our senses is better than a cold display that insults the understanding without reaching the heart.

Amongst remarks on national education, such observations cannot be misplaced, especially as the supporters of these establishments, degenerated into puerilities, affect to be the champions of religion. Religion, pure source of comfort in this vale of tears! how has thy clear stream been muddied by the dabblers, who have presumptuously endeavoured to confine in one narrow channel, the living waters that ever flow toward God— the sublime ocean of existence! What would life be without that peace which the love of God, when built on humanity, alone can impart? Every earthly affection turns back, at intervals, to prey upon the heart that feeds it; and the purest effusions of benevolence, often rudely damped by men, must mount as a free-will offering to Him who gave them birth, whose bright image they faintly reflect.

These observations belong in any discussion of national education. They are especially relevant because supporters of these institutions, which have degenerated into childishness, claim to be champions of religion. Religion, pure source of comfort in this valley of tears! How these meddlers have muddied your clear stream! They have presumed to confine your living waters to one narrow channel, though the waters flow forever toward God, the sublime ocean of existence! What would life be without the peace that only love of God, when founded on humanity, can give? Every earthly affection turns back from time to time to prey on the heart that nurtures it. Even the purest expressions of goodwill are often harshly discouraged by other people. They must rise as a willing offering to him who gave them life and whose shining image they faintly reflect.

In public schools, however, religion, confounded with irksome ceremonies and unreasonable restraints, assumes the most ungracious aspect: not the sober austere one that commands respect whilst it inspires fear; but a ludicrous cast, that serves to point a pun. For, in fact, most of the good stories and smart things which enliven the spirits that have been concentrated at whist, are manufactured out of the incidents to which the very men labour to give a droll turn who countenance the abuse to live on the spoil.

In public schools, however, religion is mixed up with tedious ceremonies and unreasonable restrictions. This gives religion a most unattractive appearance. It does not take on the sober, stern appearance that commands respect while inspiring fear. Instead, religion looks ridiculous and becomes the subject of puns. In fact, most of the amusing stories and clever remarks that revive spirits absorbed in whist come from such incidents. The very men who condone the abuse so they can live off the proceeds work to make these incidents funny.

There is not, perhaps, in the kingdom, a more dogmatical or luxurious set of men, than the pedantic tyrants who reside in colleges and preside at public schools. The vacations are equally injurious to the morals of the masters and pupils, and the intercourse, which the former keep up with the nobility, introduces the same vanity and extravagance into their families, which banish domestic duties and comforts from the lordly mansion, whose state is awkwardly aped on a smaller scale. The boys, who live at a great expence with the masters and assistants, are never domesticated, though placed there for that purpose; for, after a silent dinner, they swallow a hasty glass of wine, and retire to plan some mischievous trick, or to ridicule the person or manners of the very people they have just been cringing to, and whom they ought to consider as the representatives of their parents.

Perhaps no men in the kingdom are more dogmatic or given to luxury than the pedantic tyrants who rule colleges and public schools. Vacations are equally harmful to the morals of teachers and pupils. The teachers’ dealings with the nobility also bring vanity and extravagance into their families. These are the same habits that drive family duties and comforts from the grand houses of the nobility. The teachers’ families awkwardly imitate that grand style on a smaller scale. Boys live at great expense with the teachers and their assistants, though they are never made part of the household, which is why they are placed there. After a silent dinner, they gulp down a glass of wine and retire. Then they plan some mischievous trick or mock the appearance or manners of the very people they have just been fawning over. Yet they ought to regard those people as their parents’ representatives.

Can it then be a matter of surprise, that boys become selfish and vicious who are thus shut out from social converse? or that a mitre often graces the brow of one of these diligent pastors? The desire of living in the same style, as the rank just above them, infects each individual and every class of people, and meanness is the concomitant of this ignoble ambition; but those professions are most debasing whose ladder is patronage; yet out of one of these professions the tutors of youth are in general chosen. But, can they be expected to inspire independent sentiments, whose conduct must be regulated by the cautious prudence that is ever on the watch for preferment?

Is it surprising, then, that boys shut out from social conversation become selfish and vicious? Or that one of these diligent pastors often becomes a bishop? Every individual and every class of people is infected by the desire to live like those in the rank just above them. This low ambition goes hand in hand with petty behavior. But the most degrading professions are those in which advancement depends on patronage. Yet tutors for young people are generally chosen from one of these professions. Can they be expected to inspire independent thinking when their own conduct must be guided by a cautious prudence that is always on the lookout for promotion?

So far, however, from thinking of the morals of boys, I have heard several masters of schools argue, that they only undertook to teach Latin and Greek; and that they had fulfilled their duty, by sending some good scholars to college.

But rather than concern themselves with boys’ morals, several schoolmasters I have heard claimed they were only responsible for teaching Latin and Greek. They said they had done their duty by sending some good scholars to college.

A few good scholars, I grant, may have been formed by emulation and discipline; but, to bring forward these clever boys, the health and morals of a number have been sacrificed.

I admit that competition and discipline may have produced a few good scholars. But to develop these clever boys, the health and morals of many others have been sacrificed.

The sons of our gentry and wealthy commoners are mostly educated at these seminaries, and will any one pretend to assert, that the majority, making every allowance, come under the description of tolerable scholars?

The sons of the gentry and wealthy commoners are mostly educated at these schools. But even making every allowance, can anyone claim that most of them are reasonably well educated?

It is not for the benefit of society that a few brilliant men should be brought forward at the expence of the multitude. It is true, that great men seem to start up, as great revolutions occur, at proper intervals, to restore order, and to blow aside the clouds that thicken over the face of truth; but let more reason and virtue prevail in society, and these strong winds would not be necessary. Public education, of every denomination, should be directed to form citizens; but if you wish to make good citizens, you must first exercise the affections of a son and a brother. This is the only way to expand the heart; for public affections, as well as public virtues, must ever grow out of the private character, or they are merely meteors that shoot athwart a dark sky, and disappear as they are gazed at and admired.

Society does not benefit when a few brilliant men are promoted at the expense of the many. It is true that great men seem to appear at fitting intervals, as great revolutions occur. They restore order and blow away the clouds gathering over the face of truth. But if more reason and virtue prevailed in society, these strong winds would not be necessary. Public education of every kind should aim to form citizens. But if you want to make good citizens, you must first develop the affections of a son and a brother. This is the only way to expand the heart. Feelings for the public, like public virtues, must grow out of private character. Otherwise, they are merely meteors that shoot across a dark sky and disappear as people watch and admire them.

Few, I believe, have had much affection for mankind, who did not first love their parents, their brothers, sisters, and even the domestic brutes, whom they first played with. The exercise of youthful sympathies forms the moral temperature; and it is the recollection of these first affections and pursuits, that gives life to those that are afterwards more under the direction of reason. In youth, the fondest friendships are formed, the genial juices mounting at the same time, kindly mix; or, rather the heart, tempered for the reception of friendship, is accustomed to seek for pleasure in something more noble than the churlish gratification of appetite.

I believe few people have felt much affection for humanity without first loving their parents, brothers, sisters, and even the household animals they played with as children. Showing sympathy in youth shapes our moral character. The memory of these first affections and pursuits gives life to those that reason later guides more closely. In youth, we form our closest friendships. As warm feelings rise in us at the same time, they mingle naturally. Or rather, a heart prepared for friendship grows used to seeking pleasure in something nobler than the selfish satisfaction of appetite.

In order then to inspire a love of home and domestic pleasures, children ought to be educated at home, for riotous holidays only make them fond of home for their own sakes. Yet, the vacations, which do not foster domestic affections, continually disturb the course of study, and render any plan of improvement abortive which includes temperance; still, were they abolished, children would be entirely separated from their parents, and I question whether they would become better citizens by sacrificing the preparatory affections, by destroying the force of relationships that render the marriage state as necessary as respectable. But, if a private education produce self-importance, or insulates a man in his family, the evil is only shifted, not remedied.

To inspire a love of home and its pleasures, children should be educated at home. Rowdy holidays only make children fond of home for their own pleasure. Yet vacations that do not nurture family affection also continually interrupt study. They frustrate any plan for improvement that includes moderation. Still, if vacations were abolished, children would be completely separated from their parents. I doubt they would become better citizens by sacrificing these early affections. They would lose the strength of the family bonds that make marriage as necessary as it is respectable. But if education at home makes a man self-important or isolates him within his family, the problem has only been shifted, not solved.

This train of reasoning brings me back to a subject, on which I mean to dwell, the necessity of establishing proper day-schools.

This reasoning brings me back to a subject I intend to explore: the need to establish proper day schools.

But these should be national establishments, for whilst school-masters are dependent on the caprice of parents, little exertion can be expected from them, more than is necessary to please ignorant people. Indeed, the necessity of a master's giving the parents some sample of the boy's abilities, which during the vacation, is shown to every visiter, is productive of more mischief than would at first be supposed. For they are seldom done entirely, to speak with moderation, by the child itself; thus the master countenances falsehoods, or winds the poor machine up to some extraordinary exertion, that injures the wheels, and stops the progress of gradual improvement. The memory is loaded with unintelligible words, to make a show of, without the understanding's acquiring any distinct ideas: but only that education deserves emphatically to be termed cultivation of mind, which teaches young people how to begin to think. The imagination should not be allowed to debauch the understanding before it gained strength, or vanity will become the forerunner of vice: for every way of exhibiting the acquirements of a child is injurious to its moral character.

But these should be national institutions. As long as schoolteachers depend on the whims of parents, little effort can be expected from them beyond what pleases ignorant people. Indeed, a teacher must give parents some sample of their boy's abilities, which they show every visitor during the vacation. This does more harm than one might at first suppose. For, to put it mildly, the samples are seldom produced entirely by the child. The teacher thus condones falsehoods. Or he winds the poor machine up to some extraordinary effort that damages its wheels and stops its gradual improvement. The memory is loaded with words the child does not understand, just to make a show of them. The understanding gains no clear ideas. But only an education that teaches young people how to begin thinking truly deserves to be called cultivation of the mind. The imagination should not be allowed to corrupt the understanding before it has gained strength. Otherwise, vanity will lead the way to vice. For every way of displaying a child's accomplishments is harmful to the child's moral character.

How much time is lost in teaching them to recite what they do not understand! whilst, seated on benches, all in their best array, the mammas listen with astonishment to the parrot-like prattle, uttered in solemn cadences, with all the pomp of ignorance and folly. Such exhibitions only serve to strike the spreading fibres of vanity through the whole mind; for they neither teach children to speak fluently, nor behave gracefully. So far from it, that these frivolous pursuits might comprehensively be termed the study of affectation: for we now rarely see a simple, bashful boy, though few people of taste were ever disgusted by that awkward sheepishness so natural to the age, which schools and an early introduction into society, have changed into impudence and apish grimace.

How much time is wasted teaching them to recite words they do not understand! Meanwhile, their mothers sit on benches, dressed in their finest clothes. They listen in amazement to the parrot-like chatter, spoken in solemn tones with all the pomp of ignorance and foolishness. Such displays only spread the roots of vanity throughout the mind. They teach children neither to speak fluently nor to behave gracefully. Far from it, these pointless activities could all be called the study of pretension. We now rarely see a natural, shy boy, though few people of taste were ever repelled by the awkward shyness so natural at that age. Schools and early entry into society have turned that shyness into rudeness and silly, imitative expressions.

Yet, how can these things be remedied whilst schoolmasters depend entirely on parents for a subsistence; and when so many rival schools hang out their lures to catch the attention of vain fathers and mothers, whose parental affection only leads them to wish, that their children should outshine those of their neighbours?

Yet how can these things be remedied while schoolmasters depend entirely on parents for their living? And how can they be remedied when so many competing schools advertise to attract vain fathers and mothers? These parents love their children only enough to want them to outshine their neighbors' children.

Without great good luck, a sensible, conscientious man, would starve before he could raise a school, if he disdained to bubble weak parents, by practising the secret tricks of the craft.

Without great luck, a sensible, conscientious man would starve before he could establish a school if he refused to deceive gullible parents with the trade’s secret tricks.

In the best regulated schools, however, where swarms are not crammed together many bad habits must be acquired; but, at common schools, the body, heart, and understanding, are equally stunted, for parents are often only in quest of the cheapest school, and the master could not live, if he did not take a much greater number than he could manage himself; nor will the scanty pittance, allowed for each child, permit him to hire ushers sufficient to assist in the discharge of the mechanical part of the business. Besides, whatever appearance the house and garden may make, the children do not enjoy the comforts of either, for they are continually reminded, by irksome restrictions, that they are not at home, and the state-rooms, garden, etc. must be kept in order for the recreation of the parents; who, of a Sunday, visit the school, and are impressed by the very parade that renders the situation of their children uncomfortable.

Even in the best-run schools, where children are not packed together in crowds, they must pick up many bad habits. But in ordinary schools, their bodies, hearts, and minds are equally stunted. Parents are often looking only for the cheapest school. The schoolmaster could not earn a living unless he took in far more children than he could manage himself. Nor does the small sum paid for each child allow him to hire enough assistants to help with routine work. Besides, however impressive the house and garden may look, the children do not enjoy their comforts. Annoying restrictions constantly remind them that they are not at home. The formal rooms, garden, and other spaces must be kept in order for the parents’ enjoyment. Parents visit the school on Sundays and are impressed by the very display that makes their children uncomfortable.

With what disgust have I heard sensible women, for girls are more restrained and cowed than boys, speak of the wearisome confinement which they endured at school. Not allowed, perhaps, to step out of one broad walk in a superb garden, and obliged to pace with steady deportment stupidly backwards and forwards, holding up their heads, and turning out their toes, with shoulders braced back, instead of bounding, as nature directs to complete her own design, in the various attitudes so conducive to health. The pure animal spirits, which make both mind and body shoot out, and unfold the tender blossoms of hope are turned sour, and vented in vain wishes, or pert repinings, that contract the faculties and spoil the temper; else they mount to the brain and sharpening the understanding before it gains proportionable strength, produce that pitiful cunning which disgracefully characterizes the female mind—and I fear will ever characterize it whilst women remain the slaves of power!

How disgusted I have felt hearing sensible women speak of the exhausting confinement they endured at school. Girls are more restricted and intimidated than boys. Perhaps they were not allowed to leave a single broad path in a magnificent garden. They had to walk stiffly and mindlessly back and forth, holding their heads up, turning their toes out, and pulling their shoulders back. Instead, nature directs them to leap and move freely in all the ways that promote health and fulfill her own design. Their natural energy helps both mind and body grow and opens the tender blossoms of hope. But this energy turns sour and finds expression in useless wishes or petulant complaints. These narrow their abilities and spoil their tempers. Or else the energy rises to the brain and sharpens the understanding before it becomes strong enough. This produces the pitiful cunning that disgracefully characterizes the female mind. And I fear that cunning will always characterize it as long as women remain slaves to power!

The little respect which the male world pay to chastity is, I am persuaded, the grand source of many of the physical and moral evils that torment mankind, as well as of the vices and follies that degrade and destroy women; yet at school, boys infallibly lose that decent bashfulness, which might have ripened into modesty at home.

I am convinced that men’s lack of respect for chastity is the main source of many physical and moral evils that torment humanity. It is also the main source of the vices and follies that degrade and destroy women. Yet at school, boys inevitably lose the decent shyness that might have grown into modesty at home.

I have already animadverted on the bad habits which females acquire when they are shut up together; and I think that the observation may fairly be extended to the other sex, till the natural inference is drawn which I have had in view throughout—that to improve both sexes they ought, not only in private families, but in public schools, to be educated together. If marriage be the cement of society, mankind should all be educated after the same model, or the intercourse of the sexes will never deserve the name of fellowship, nor will women ever fulfil the peculiar duties of their sex, till they become enlightened citizens, till they become free, by being enabled to earn their own subsistence, independent of men; in the same manner, I mean, to prevent misconstruction, as one man is independent of another. Nay, marriage will never be held sacred till women by being brought up with men, are prepared to be their companions, rather than their mistresses; for the mean doublings of cunning will ever render them contemptible, whilst oppression renders them timid. So convinced am I of this truth, that I will venture to predict, that virtue will never prevail in society till the virtues of both sexes are founded on reason; and, till the affection common to both are allowed to gain their due strength by the discharge of mutual duties.

I have already criticized the bad habits women acquire when they are confined together. I think the same observation can fairly be extended to men. This leads to the conclusion I have had in mind throughout: to improve both sexes, we should educate them together, not only in families but also in public schools. If marriage holds society together, all people should be educated in the same way. Otherwise, relations between the sexes will never deserve to be called companionship. Nor will women fulfill the particular duties of their sex until they become enlightened citizens. They must become free by being able to earn their own living, independent of men. To avoid misunderstanding, I mean independent in the same way that one man is independent of another. Indeed, marriage will never be held sacred until women are brought up with men. Only then will they be prepared to be their companions rather than their mistresses. For as long as oppression makes women timid, their base tricks and cunning will make them contemptible. I am so convinced of this truth that I venture to predict that virtue will never prevail in society until the virtues of both sexes are founded on reason. The affections common to both must also be allowed to gain their proper strength through the performance of mutual duties.

Were boys and girls permitted to pursue the same studies together, those graceful decencies might early be inculcated which produce modesty, without those sexual distinctions that taint the mind. Lessons of politeness, and that formulary of decorum, which treads on the heels of falsehood, would be rendered useless by habitual propriety of behaviour. Not, indeed put on for visiters like the courtly robe of politeness, but the sober effect of cleanliness of mind. Would not this simple elegance of sincerity be a chaste homage paid to domestic affections, far surpassing the meretricious compliments that shine with false lustre in the heartless intercourse of fashionable life? But, till more understanding preponderate in society, there will ever be a want of heart and taste, and the harlot's rouge will supply the place of that celestial suffusion which only virtuous affections can give to the face. Gallantry, and what is called love, may subsist without simplicity of character; but the main pillars of friendship, are respect and confidence—esteem is never founded on it cannot tell what.

If boys and girls were allowed to study together, they could learn graceful and proper behavior early on. This would produce modesty without the distinctions between the sexes that corrupt the mind. Habitually proper behavior would make lessons in politeness and rules of decorum unnecessary. Such rules are close companions of falsehood. Genuine propriety would not be put on for visitors like the elegant cloak of politeness. Instead, it would be the quiet result of a pure mind. Would not this simple elegance of sincerity be a pure tribute to family affections? It would far surpass the showy compliments that glitter falsely in the heartless dealings of fashionable life. But until greater understanding prevails in society, there will always be a lack of feeling and taste. A prostitute's rouge will take the place of the heavenly blush that only virtuous feelings can bring to the face. Gallantry and what is called love may exist without simplicity of character. But friendship rests chiefly on respect and confidence. Esteem is never founded on some mysterious quality no one can name.

A taste for the fine arts requires great cultivation; but not more than a taste for the virtuous affections: and both suppose that enlargement of mind which opens so many sources of mental pleasure. Why do people hurry to noisy scenes and crowded circles? I should answer, because they want activity of mind, because they have not cherished the virtues of the heart. They only, therefore, see and feel in the gross, and continually pine after variety, finding every thing that is simple, insipid.

An appreciation of the fine arts requires a great deal of cultivation. But so does an appreciation of virtuous feelings. Both require a broadening of the mind that opens up many sources of mental pleasure. Why do people rush to noisy places and crowded gatherings? I would say it is because their minds lack activity and they have not nurtured the virtues of the heart. As a result, they see and feel only in a coarse way. They constantly crave variety, finding everything simple dull.

This argument may be carried further than philosophers are aware of, for if nature destined woman, in particular, for the discharge of domestic duties, she made her susceptible of the attached affections in a great degree. Now women are notoriously fond of pleasure; and naturally must be so, according to my definition, because they cannot enter into the minutiae of domestic taste; lacking judgment the foundation of all taste. For the understanding, in spite of sensual cavillers, reserves to itself the privilege of conveying pure joy to the heart.

This argument may go further than philosophers realize. If nature intended women especially to carry out domestic duties, it also made them highly capable of deep affection. Now, women are famously fond of pleasure. According to my definition, they naturally must be, because they cannot appreciate the finer details of domestic taste. They lack judgment, which is the foundation of all taste. For the understanding, despite the objections of those who value sensual pleasure, reserves for itself the power to bring pure joy to the heart.

With what a languid yawn have I seen an admirable poem thrown down, that a man of true taste returns to, again and again with rapture; and, whilst melody has almost suspended respiration, a lady has asked me where I bought my gown. I have seen also an eye glanced coldly over a most exquisite picture, rest, sparkling with pleasure, on a caricature rudely sketched; and whilst some terrific feature in nature has spread a sublime stillness through my soul, I have been desired to observe the pretty tricks of a lap-dog, that my perverse fate forced me to travel with. Is it surprising, that such a tasteless being should rather caress this dog than her children? Or, that she should prefer the rant of flattery to the simple accents of sincerity?

I have seen a woman yawn listlessly and toss aside a wonderful poem. A man of true taste would return to that poem again and again with delight. And while music has almost taken my breath away, a lady has asked me where I bought my dress. I have also seen a woman glance coldly at an exquisite painting, then gaze with sparkling pleasure at a crudely drawn caricature. And while some terrifying sight in nature has filled my soul with a sublime stillness, I have been asked to admire the cute tricks of a lapdog. Perverse fate forced me to travel with that dog. Is it surprising that such a tasteless person would rather caress the dog than her children? Or that she would prefer extravagant flattery to the simple words of sincerity?

To illustrate this remark I must be allowed to observe, that men of the first genius, and most cultivated minds, have appeared to have the highest relish for the simple beauties of nature; and they must have forcibly felt, what they have so well described, the charm, which natural affections, and unsophisticated feelings spread round the human character. It is this power of looking into the heart, and responsively vibrating with each emotion, that enables the poet to personify each passion, and the painter to sketch with a pencil of fire.

To illustrate this point, I would observe that men of the greatest genius and most cultivated minds have seemed to take the greatest pleasure in the simple beauties of nature. They must also have felt deeply the charm that natural affections and genuine feelings give to human character, which they have described so well. This ability to look into the heart and respond to every emotion enables the poet to personify each passion and the painter to sketch with a pencil of fire.

True taste is ever the work of the understanding employed in observing natural effects; and till women have more understanding, it is vain to expect them to possess domestic taste. Their lively senses will ever be at work to harden their hearts, and the emotions struck out of them will continue to be vivid and transitory, unless a proper education stores their minds with knowledge.

True taste always comes from using understanding to observe the effects of nature. Until women have more understanding, it is pointless to expect them to have good taste in domestic matters. Unless a proper education fills their minds with knowledge, their lively senses will continue to harden their hearts. The emotions those senses arouse will continue to be vivid and fleeting.

It is the want of domestic taste, and not the acquirement of knowledge, that takes women out of their families, and tears the smiling babe from the breast that ought to afford it nourishment. Women have been allowed to remain in ignorance, and slavish dependence, many, very many years, and still we hear of nothing but their fondness of pleasure and sway, their preference of rakes and soldiers, their childish attachment to toys, and the vanity that makes them value accomplishments more than virtues.

It is a lack of interest in home life, not the pursuit of knowledge, that draws women away from their families. It tears the smiling baby from the breast that should nourish it. Women have been left in ignorance and servile dependence for many, many years. Yet we still hear only about their love of pleasure and power, their preference for rakes and soldiers, their childish attachment to toys, and the vanity that makes them value accomplishments more than virtues.

History brings forward a fearful catalogue of the crimes which their cunning has produced, when the weak slaves have had sufficient address to over-reach their masters. In France, and in how many other countries have men been the luxurious despots, and women the crafty ministers? Does this prove that ignorance and dependence domesticate them? Is not their folly the by-word of the libertines, who relax in their society; and do not men of sense continually lament, that an immoderate fondness for dress and dissipation carries the mother of a family for ever from home? Their hearts have not been debauched by knowledge, nor their minds led astray by scientific pursuits; yet, they do not fulfil the peculiar duties, which as women they are called upon by nature to fulfil. On the contrary, the state of warfare which subsists between the sexes, makes them employ those wiles, that frustrate the more open designs of force.

History presents a frightening list of crimes committed through cunning, when weak slaves have been clever enough to outwit their masters. In France, and in how many other countries, have men been luxury-loving tyrants and women their cunning advisers? Does this prove that ignorance and dependence make women devoted to their homes? Is their foolishness not a common joke among the libertines who relax in their company? And do sensible men not constantly complain that a mother's excessive love of dress and pleasure keeps her away from home? Knowledge has not corrupted their hearts, nor have scientific pursuits led their minds astray. Yet they do not fulfill the particular duties that nature calls them to fulfill as women. On the contrary, the warfare between the sexes leads women to use cunning to thwart men's more open use of force.

When, therefore, I call women slaves, I mean in a political and civil sense; for, indirectly they obtain too much power, and are debased by their exertions to obtain illicit sway.

So when I call women slaves, I mean they are slaves in their political and civil status. For indirectly, women gain too much power, and their efforts to gain improper influence degrade them.

Let an enlightened nation then try what effect reason would have to bring them back to nature, and their duty; and allowing them to share the advantages of education and government with man, see whether they will become better, as they grow wiser and become free. They cannot be injured by the experiment; for it is not in the power of man to render them more insignificant than they are at present.

Let an enlightened nation try to see whether reason can bring women back to nature and their duty. Let women share the benefits of education and government with men. Then let the nation see whether women become better as they grow wiser and become free. Women cannot be harmed by this experiment. Men have no power to make women more insignificant than they are now.

To render this practicable, day schools for particular ages should be established by government, in which boys and girls might be educated together. The school for the younger children, from five to nine years of age, ought to be absolutely free and open to all classes.* A sufficient number of masters should also be chosen by a select committee, in each parish, to whom any complaint of negligence, etc. might be made, if signed by six of the children's parents.

To make this possible, the government should establish day schools for different age groups. Boys and girls could be educated together in these schools. The school for children aged five to nine should be completely free and open to all classes.* A select committee in each parish should also choose enough teachers. Parents could complain to the committee about negligence or other concerns if six parents signed the complaint.

(*Footnote. Treating this part of the subject, I have borrowed some hints from a very sensible pamphlet written by the late bishop of Autun on public Education.)

(*Footnote. In discussing this part of the subject, I have borrowed some ideas from a very thoughtful pamphlet on public education by the late bishop of Autun.)

Ushers would then be unnecessary; for, I believe, experience will ever prove, that this kind of subordinate authority is particularly injurious to the morals of youth. What, indeed, can tend to deprave the character more than outward submission and inward contempt? Yet, how can boys be expected to treat an usher with respect when the master seems to consider him in the light of a servant, and almost to countenance the ridicule which becomes the chief amusement of the boys during the play hours?

Assistant teachers would then be unnecessary. I believe experience will always show that this kind of subordinate authority is especially harmful to young people's morals. What could corrupt their character more than outward obedience combined with inward contempt? Yet how can boys be expected to respect an assistant teacher when the headmaster seems to treat him like a servant? The headmaster almost seems to approve when the boys make fun of the assistant teacher, their chief amusement during playtime.

But nothing of this kind could occur in an elementary day-school, where boys and girls, the rich and poor, should meet together. And to prevent any of the distinctions of vanity, they should be dressed alike, and all obliged to submit to the same discipline, or leave the school. The school-room ought to be surrounded by a large piece of ground, in which the children might be usefully exercised, for at this age they should not be confined to any sedentary employment for more than an hour at a time. But these relaxations might all be rendered a part of elementary education, for many things improve and amuse the senses, when introduced as a kind of show, to the principles of which dryly laid down, children would turn a deaf ear. For instance, botany, mechanics, and astronomy. Reading, writing, arithmetic, natural history, and some simple experiments in natural philosophy, might fill up the day; but these pursuits should never encroach on gymnastic plays in the open air. The elements of religion, history, the history of man, and politics, might also be taught by conversations, in the socratic form.

But nothing of this kind could happen in an elementary day school where boys and girls, rich and poor, learn together. To prevent vain distinctions, the children should dress alike. All should be required to follow the same rules or leave the school. The schoolroom should be surrounded by a large area where children can exercise usefully. At this age, children should not be made to sit still for more than an hour at a time. But these breaks could all be made part of elementary education. Many things can develop and entertain the senses when presented as a kind of show. Children would turn a deaf ear to the same principles if they were presented dryly. Botany, mechanics, and astronomy are examples. Reading, writing, arithmetic, natural history, and some simple experiments in natural science could fill the day. But these studies should never take time away from active games outdoors. The basics of religion, history, human history, and politics could also be taught through Socratic conversations.

After the age of nine, girls and boys, intended for domestic employments, or mechanical trades, ought to be removed to other schools, and receive instruction, in some measure appropriated to the destination of each individual, the two sexes being still together in the morning; but in the afternoon, the girls should attend a school, where plain work, mantua-making, millinery, etc. would be their employment.

After age nine, girls and boys intended for domestic work or trades should move to other schools. Their instruction should be tailored to some extent to each person's future occupation. Girls and boys should still study together in the morning. But in the afternoon, girls should attend a school where they would do plain sewing, dressmaking, hatmaking, and similar work.

The young people of superior abilities, or fortune, might now be taught, in another school, the dead and living languages, the elements of science, and continue the study of history and politics, on a more extensive scale, which would not exclude polite literature. Girls and boys still together? I hear some readers ask: yes. And I should not fear any other consequence, than that some early attachment might take place; which, whilst it had the best effect on the moral character of the young people, might not perfectly agree with the views of the parents, for it will be a long time, I fear, before the world is so enlightened, that parents, only anxious to render their children virtuous, will let them choose companions for life themselves.

Young people with exceptional abilities or wealth could now attend another school. There they could learn ancient and modern languages and the basics of science. They could also study history and politics more broadly, without neglecting literature. Girls and boys still together? I hear some readers ask. Yes. I would fear only one consequence: some young people might form attachments early in life. These attachments could have the best effect on their moral character, but might not quite suit their parents’ plans. For I fear it will be a long time before the world is enlightened enough for parents to care only about making their children virtuous and let them choose their own lifelong companions.

Besides, this would be a sure way to promote early marriages, and from early marriages the most salutary physical and moral effects naturally flow. What a different character does a married citizen assume from the selfish coxcomb, who lives but for himself, and who is often afraid to marry lest he should not be able to live in a certain style. Great emergencies excepted, which would rarely occur in a society of which equality was the basis, a man could only be prepared to discharge the duties of public life, by the habitual practice of those inferior ones which form the man.

Besides, this would surely encourage people to marry young. Early marriages naturally bring the greatest benefits to physical and moral health. How different a married citizen is from a selfish dandy who lives only for himself. Such a man is often afraid to marry because he might not be able to maintain a certain lifestyle. Except in great emergencies, a man could prepare for the duties of public life only by regularly practicing the lesser duties that shape his character. Such emergencies would rarely occur in a society founded on equality.

In this plan of education, the constitution of boys would not be ruined by the early debaucheries, which now make men so selfish, nor girls rendered weak and vain, by indolence and frivolous pursuits. But, I presuppose, that such a degree of equality should be established between the sexes as would shut out gallantry and coquetry, yet allow friendship and love to temper the heart for the discharge of higher duties.

Under this plan of education, boys’ health would not be ruined by the early excesses that now make men so selfish. Nor would girls be made weak and vain by idleness and frivolous pursuits. But I assume that enough equality would be established between the sexes to rule out gallantry and flirtation. Friendship and love would still be allowed to prepare the heart for higher duties.

These would be schools of morality—and the happiness of man, allowed to flow from the pure springs of duty and affection, what advances might not the human mind make? Society can only be happy and free in proportion as it is virtuous; but the present distinctions, established in society, corrode all private, and blast all public virtue.

These would be schools of morality. If human happiness were allowed to flow from the pure sources of duty and affection, how much might the human mind advance? Society can only be happy and free to the extent that it is virtuous. But the distinctions now established in society corrode all private virtue and destroy all public virtue.

I have already inveighed against the custom of confining girls to their needle, and shutting them out from all political and civil employments; for by thus narrowing their minds they are rendered unfit to fulfil the peculiar duties which nature has assigned them.

I have already strongly criticized the practice of limiting girls to sewing and excluding them from all political and civil work. This narrows their minds and makes them unfit to carry out the particular duties nature has assigned them.

Only employed about the little incidents of the day, they necessarily grow up cunning. My very soul has often sickened at observing the sly tricks practised by women to gain some foolish thing on which their silly hearts were set. Not allowed to dispose of money, or call any thing their own, they learn to turn the market penny; or, should a husband offend, by staying from home, or give rise to some emotions of jealousy—a new gown, or any pretty bauble, smooths Juno's angry brow.

Occupied only with the little events of the day, women inevitably grow up cunning. My very soul has often sickened at seeing the sly tricks women use to get some foolish thing their silly hearts desire. Because they are not allowed to manage money or call anything their own, they learn to save small amounts from the household shopping. Or a husband may offend his wife by staying away from home or making her jealous. Then a new dress or some pretty trinket smooths Juno's angry brow.

But these LITTLENESSES would not degrade their character, if women were led to respect themselves, if political and moral subjects were opened to them; and I will venture to affirm, that this is the only way to make them properly attentive to their domestic duties. An active mind embraces the whole circle of its duties, and finds time enough for all. It is not, I assert, a bold attempt to emulate masculine virtues; it is not the enchantment of literary pursuits, or the steady investigation of scientific subjects, that lead women astray from duty. No, it is indolence and vanity —the love of pleasure and the love of sway, that will reign paramount in an empty mind. I say empty, emphatically, because the education which women now receive scarcely deserves the name. For the little knowledge they are led to acquire during the important years of youth, is merely relative to accomplishments; and accomplishments without a bottom, for unless the understanding be cultivated, superficial and monotonous is every grace. Like the charms of a made-up face, they only strike the senses in a crowd; but at home, wanting mind, they want variety. The consequence is obvious; in gay scenes of dissipation we meet the artificial mind and face, for those who fly from solitude dread next to solitude, the domestic circle; not having it in their power to amuse or interest, they feel their own insignificance, or find nothing to amuse or interest themselves.

But these petty habits would not degrade women’s character if women were taught to respect themselves and given access to political and moral subjects. I venture to say that this is the only way to make them properly attentive to their domestic duties. An active mind takes in the full range of its duties and finds enough time for all of them. I assert that it is not a bold attempt to equal men in virtue that leads women away from their duties. Nor is it the fascination of literary pursuits or the steady study of science. No, it is laziness and vanity, the love of pleasure and the love of power, that will rule an empty mind. I say empty, emphatically, because the education women now receive hardly deserves the name. The little knowledge they are taught to acquire during the important years of youth is concerned only with accomplishments. And these accomplishments have no foundation. Unless the understanding is cultivated, every grace is superficial and monotonous. Like the charms of a made-up face, such graces appeal only to the senses in a crowd. But at home, without a cultivated mind, they lack variety. The consequence is obvious. We meet artificial minds and faces in lively scenes of pleasure-seeking. For those who flee solitude dread home life almost as much as solitude itself. Unable to amuse or interest others, they feel their own insignificance, or find nothing to amuse or interest themselves.

Besides, what can be more indelicate than a girl's coming out in the fashionable world? Which, in other words, is to bring to market a marriageable miss, whose person is taken from one public place to another, richly caparisoned. Yet, mixing in the giddy circle under restraint, these butterflies long to flutter at large, for the first affection of their souls is their own persons, to which their attention has been called with the most sedulous care, whilst they were preparing for the period that decides their fate for life. Instead of pursuing this idle routine, sighing for tasteless show, and heartless state, with what dignity would the youths of both sexes form attachments in the schools that I have cursorily pointed out; in which, as life advanced, dancing, music, and drawing, might be admitted as relaxations, for at these schools young people of fortune ought to remain, more or less, till they were of age. Those, who were designed for particular professions, might attend, three or four mornings in the week, the schools appropriated for their immediate instruction.

Besides, what could be more indecent than a girl's debut in fashionable society? In other words, a young woman of marriageable age is brought to market, richly dressed and taken from one public place to another. Yet these butterflies, constrained as they mingle in that dizzy social whirl, long to flutter freely. They care above all for their own appearance. Their attention has been drawn to it with the greatest care while they prepared for the occasion that decides their fate for life. Instead of following this idle routine and longing for tasteless display and hollow grandeur, young people of both sexes could form attachments with dignity in the schools I have briefly described. As they grew older, dancing, music, and drawing could be allowed as recreation. Young people of wealth should remain at these schools, at least some of the time, until they come of age. Those intended for particular professions could attend schools devoted to their professional instruction three or four mornings a week.

I only drop these observations at present, as hints; rather, indeed as an outline of the plan I mean, than a digested one; but I must add, that I highly approve of one regulation mentioned in the pamphlet already alluded to (The Bishop of Autun), that of making the children and youths independent of the masters respecting punishments. They should be tried by their peers, which would be an admirable method of fixing sound principles of justice in the mind, and might have the happiest effect on the temper, which is very early soured or irritated by tyranny, till it becomes peevishly cunning, or ferociously overbearing.

For now, I offer these observations only as hints. They are more an outline of the plan I have in mind than a fully developed plan. But I must add that I strongly approve of one rule mentioned in the pamphlet I referred to earlier (The Bishop of Autun). Under this rule, children and young people would not be subject to their teachers’ decisions about punishment. They should be tried by their peers. This would be an excellent way to establish sound principles of justice in their minds. It could also have a very beneficial effect on their temper. Tyranny sours or irritates the temper from a very early age, until a person becomes spitefully cunning or fiercely domineering.

My imagination darts forward with benevolent fervour to greet these amiable and respectable groups, in spite of the sneering of cold hearts, who are at liberty to utter, with frigid self-importance, the damning epithet— romantic; the force of which I shall endeavour to blunt by repeating the words of an eloquent moralist. "I know not whether the allusions of a truly humane heart, whose zeal renders every thing easy, is not preferable to that rough and repulsing reason, which always finds in indifference for the public good, the first obstacle to whatever would promote it."

My imagination eagerly and warmly reaches forward to welcome these lovable and respectable groups. I do this despite the sneers of cold-hearted people, who are free to dismiss them as romantic with chilly self-importance. I will try to blunt the force of that damning label by repeating the words of an eloquent moralist. "I do not know whether the visions of a truly humane heart, whose zeal makes everything easy, are not preferable to harsh and repellent reason. Such reason always finds its first obstacle to anything that would promote the public good in indifference to that good."

I know that libertines will also exclaim, that woman would be unsexed by acquiring strength of body and mind, and that beauty, soft bewitching beauty! would no longer adorn the daughters of men. I am of a very different opinion, for I think, that, on the contrary, we should then see dignified beauty, and true grace; to produce which, many powerful physical and moral causes would concur. Not relaxed beauty, it is true, nor the graces of helplessness; but such as appears to make us respect the human body as a majestic pile, fit to receive a noble inhabitant, in the relics of antiquity.

I know that libertines will also protest that women would become unfeminine by gaining strength of body and mind. They will say that beauty, soft, enchanting beauty! would no longer adorn the daughters of men. I think very differently. On the contrary, I believe we would then see dignified beauty and true grace. Many powerful physical and moral forces would work together to produce them. This would not be a languid beauty, it is true, nor the grace of helplessness. Instead, it would be like the beauty we see in ancient sculptures. These make us respect the human body as a majestic structure, fit to house a noble soul.

I do not forget the popular opinion, that the Grecian statues were not modelled after nature. I mean, not according to the proportions of a particular man; but that beautiful limbs and features were selected from various bodies to form an harmonious whole. This might, in some degree, be true. The fine ideal picture of an exalted imagination might be superior to the materials which the painter found in nature, and thus it might with propriety be termed rather the model of mankind than of a man. It was not, however, the mechanical selection of limbs and features, but the ebullition of an heated fancy that burst forth; and the fine senses and enlarged understanding of the artist selected the solid matter, which he drew into this glowing focus.

I have not forgotten the popular belief that Greek statues were not modeled directly on nature. By this, I mean that they were not modeled on the proportions of one particular man. Instead, beautiful limbs and features were chosen from different bodies to form a harmonious whole. This may have been true to some extent. The beautiful ideal image created by a lofty imagination might have surpassed the materials the artist found in nature. It could therefore rightly be called a model of mankind rather than of one man. But the result did not come from mechanically selecting limbs and features. It sprang from the outpouring of a heated imagination. The artist's refined senses and broad understanding selected the solid material that he drew into this glowing focus.

I observed that it was not mechanical, because a whole was produced—a model of that grand simplicity, of those concurring energies, which arrest our attention and command our reverence. For only insipid lifeless beauty is produced by a servile copy of even beautiful nature. Yet, independent of these observations, I believe, that the human form must have been far more beautiful than it is at present, because extreme indolence, barbarous ligatures, and many causes, which forcibly act on it, in our luxurious state of society, did not retard its expansion, or render it deformed. Exercise and cleanliness appear to be not only the surest means of preserving health, but of promoting beauty, the physical causes only considered; yet, this is not sufficient, moral ones must concur, or beauty will be merely of that rustic kind which blooms on the innocent, wholesome countenances of some country people, whose minds have not been exercised. To render the person perfect, physical and moral beauty ought to be attained at the same time; each lending and receiving force by the combination. Judgment must reside on the brow, affection and fancy beam in the eye, and humanity curve the cheek, or vain is the sparkling of the finest eye or the elegantly turned finish of the fairest features; whilst in every motion that displays the active limbs and well-knit joints, grace and modesty should appear. But this fair assemblage is not to be brought together by chance; it is the reward of exertions met to support each other; for judgment can only be acquired by reflection, affection, by the discharge of duties, and humanity by the exercise of compassion to every living creature.

I observed that it was not mechanical because it produced a unified whole. That whole was a model of grand simplicity and combined energies that capture our attention and command our reverence. Merely copying even beautiful nature slavishly produces only bland, lifeless beauty. Yet, apart from these observations, I believe that the human form must once have been far more beautiful than it is now. Extreme inactivity, cruel restraints, and many other forces in our luxurious society did not then hinder its growth or deform it. Exercise and cleanliness seem to be the surest ways not only to preserve health but also to promote beauty, if we consider only physical causes. Yet these are not enough. Moral causes must also play a part. Otherwise, beauty will be merely the rustic kind seen in the innocent, healthy faces of some country people whose minds have not been exercised. To make a person perfect, physical and moral beauty should develop together. Each strengthens the other through their union. Judgment must show on the brow, affection and imagination must shine in the eyes, and humanity must shape the cheek. Without these, even the finest sparkling eyes and the most elegantly shaped features are of no use. Grace and modesty should also appear in every movement that displays active limbs and strong, well-formed joints. But this beautiful combination cannot come together by chance. It is the reward of efforts suited to supporting one another. Judgment can be acquired only through reflection, affection through carrying out our duties, and humanity through showing compassion to every living creature.

Humanity to animals should be particularly inculcated as a part of national education, for it is not at present one of our national virtues. Tenderness for their humble dumb domestics, amongst the lower class, is oftener to be found in a savage than a civilized state. For civilization prevents that intercourse which creates affection in the rude hut, or mud cabin, and leads uncultivated minds who are only depraved by the refinements which prevail in the society, where they are trodden under foot by the rich, to domineer over them to revenge the insults that they are obliged to bear from their superiours.

Kindness to animals should be taught as a central part of national education, because it is not currently one of our national virtues. Among the lower classes, tenderness toward their humble, speechless domestic animals is more often found in a savage state than in a civilized one. Civilization prevents the close contact that creates affection in a crude hut or mud cabin. In civilized society, the rich trample the lower classes underfoot. The refinements of that society only corrupt their uneducated minds. As a result, they dominate their animals to take revenge for the insults they must endure from their superiors.

This habitual cruelty is first caught at school, where it is one of the rare sports of the boys to torment the miserable brutes that fall in their way. The transition, as they grow up, from barbarity to brutes to domestic tyranny over wives, children, and servants, is very easy. Justice, or even benevolence, will not be a powerful spring of action, unless it extend to the whole creation; nay, I believe that it may be delivered as an axiom, that those who can see pain, unmoved, will soon learn to inflict it.

This habit of cruelty first develops at school. There, one of the boys’ favorite games is tormenting the unfortunate animals they come across. As the boys grow up, it is very easy for cruelty to animals to become tyranny over wives, children, and servants at home. Justice, or even kindness, will not strongly motivate people unless it extends to all living creatures. Indeed, I believe we may take this as a rule: those who can watch suffering without being moved will soon learn to cause it.

The vulgar are swayed by present feelings, and the habits which they have accidentally acquired; but on partial feelings much dependence cannot be placed, though they be just; for, when they are not invigorated by reflection, custom weakens them, till they are scarcely felt. The sympathies of our nature are strengthened by pondering cogitations, and deadened by thoughtless use. Macbeth's heart smote him more for one murder, the first, than for a hundred subsequent ones, which were necessary to back it. But, when I used the epithet vulgar, I did not mean to confine my remark to the poor, for partial humanity, founded on present sensations or whim, is quite as conspicuous, if not more so, amongst the rich.

Ordinary people are swayed by their immediate feelings and by habits they have acquired by chance. But little reliance can be placed on feelings directed toward particular people, even when those feelings are just. Unless strengthened by reflection, they are weakened by habit until they are scarcely felt. Our natural sympathies grow stronger when we think deeply, but they are dulled by thoughtless habit. Macbeth felt more guilt over his first murder than over the hundred later murders needed to support it. But by “ordinary people” I did not mean only the poor. Compassion for particular people, based on immediate feelings or whim, is just as noticeable among the rich, if not more so.

The lady who sheds tears for the bird starved in a snare, and execrates the devils in the shape of men, who goad to madness the poor ox, or whip the patient ass, tottering under a burden above its strength, will, nevertheless, keep her coachman and horses whole hours waiting for her, when the sharp frost bites, or the rain beats against the well-closed windows which do not admit a breath of air to tell her how roughly the wind blows without. And she who takes her dogs to bed, and nurses them with a parade of sensibility, when sick, will suffer her babes to grow up crooked in a nursery. This illustration of my argument is drawn from a matter of fact. The woman whom I allude to was handsome, reckoned very handsome, by those who do not miss the mind when the face is plump and fair; but her understanding had not been led from female duties by literature, nor her innocence debauched by knowledge. No, she was quite feminine, according to the masculine acceptation of the word; and, so far from loving these spoiled brutes that filled the place which her children ought to have occupied, she only lisped out a pretty mixture of French and English nonsense, to please the men who flocked round her. The wife, mother, and human creature, were all swallowed up by the factitious character, which an improper education, and the selfish vanity of beauty, had produced.

A woman may weep for a bird starving in a trap. She may curse the men she calls devils for driving a poor ox mad or whipping a patient donkey staggering under a load too heavy for it. Yet she will keep her coachman and horses waiting for hours in bitter frost or driving rain. Her windows are tightly closed, and not a breath of air gets in to tell her how fiercely the wind is blowing outside. Another woman may take her dogs to bed and make a show of tender feeling as she nurses them when they are sick. Yet she will let her babies grow up with crooked bodies in the nursery. This example of my argument comes from a real case. The woman I mean was handsome, considered very handsome by people who do not miss intelligence when a face is plump and fair. But literature had not led her mind away from female duties, nor had knowledge corrupted her innocence. No, she was entirely feminine, according to the male understanding of the word. And far from loving the spoiled animals that took the place her children should have held, she merely lisped a pretty mixture of French and English nonsense to please the men who flocked around her. The wife, the mother, and the human being were all swallowed up by an artificial character. An improper education and the selfish vanity of beauty had produced that character.

I do not like to make a distinction without a difference, and I own that I have been as much disgusted by the fine lady who took her lap-dog to her bosom, instead of her child; as by the ferocity of a man, who, beating his horse, declared, that he knew as well when he did wrong as a Christian.

I do not like to draw distinctions where there is no real difference. I admit that I was equally disgusted by a fashionable lady who cuddled her lapdog instead of her child. I was just as disgusted by the cruelty of a man who beat his horse. He declared that the horse knew when it did wrong as well as a Christian did.

This brood of folly shows how mistaken they are who, if they allow women to leave their harams, do not cultivate their understanding, in order to plant virtues in their hearts. For had they sense, they might acquire that domestic taste which would lead them to love with reasonable subordination their whole family, from the husband to the house-dog; nor would they ever insult humanity in the person of the most menial servant, by paying more attention to the comfort of a brute, than to that of a fellow-creature.

This crop of foolishness shows how mistaken some people are. They may allow women to leave their harems, but they do not educate their minds to develop virtue in their hearts. If women had good sense, they might develop a love of home life. This would lead them to love their whole family, from the husband to the household dog, with each given due importance. Nor would they insult humanity by paying more attention to an animal’s comfort than to that of a fellow human being, even the lowliest servant.

My observations on national education are obviously hints; but I principally wish to enforce the necessity of educating the sexes together to perfect both, and of making children sleep at home, that they may learn to love home; yet to make private support instead of smothering public affections, they should be sent to school to mix with a number of equals, for only by the jostlings of equality can we form a just opinion of ourselves.

My observations on national education are obviously only suggestions. But I especially want to stress the need to educate boys and girls together, so that both can develop fully. Children should also sleep at home, so they can learn to love it. Yet family affection should support rather than smother affection for the wider community. Children should therefore be sent to school to mix with many equals. Only through the give-and-take of equality can we form a fair opinion of ourselves.

To render mankind more virtuous, and happier of course, both sexes must act from the same principle; but how can that be expected when only one is allowed to see the reasonableness of it? To render also the social compact truly equitable, and in order to spread those enlightening principles, which alone can meliorate the fate of man, women must be allowed to found their virtue on knowledge, which is scarcely possible unless they be educated by the same pursuits as men. For they are now made so inferiour by ignorance and low desires, as not to deserve to be ranked with them; or, by the serpentine wrigglings of cunning they mount the tree of knowledge and only acquire sufficient to lead men astray.

To make humanity more virtuous, and therefore happier, both sexes must act on the same principle. But how can we expect that when only one sex is allowed to understand why the principle is reasonable? Women must be allowed to base their virtue on knowledge. This is necessary to make the social compact truly fair and to spread the enlightening principles that alone can improve humanity’s fate. But women can hardly base their virtue on knowledge unless they are educated through the same pursuits as men. For now, ignorance and low desires make women so inferior that they do not deserve to rank alongside men. Or, through the snakelike wrigglings of cunning, women climb the tree of knowledge. There, they gain only enough knowledge to lead men astray.

It is plain from the history of all nations, that women cannot be confined to merely domestic pursuits, for they will not fulfil family duties, unless their minds take a wider range, and whilst they are kept in ignorance, they become in the same proportion, the slaves of pleasure as they are the slaves of man. Nor can they be shut out of great enterprises, though the narrowness of their minds often make them mar what they are unable to comprehend.

The history of all nations makes it clear that women cannot be confined to domestic pursuits alone. They will not fulfill their family duties unless their minds can range more widely. And as long as women are kept ignorant, they become slaves to pleasure to the same degree that they are slaves to men. Nor can women be shut out of great enterprises, though their narrow minds often lead them to spoil what they cannot understand.

The libertinism, and even the virtues of superior men, will always give women, of some description, great power over them; and these weak women, under the influence of childish passions and selfish vanity, will throw a false light over the objects which the very men view with their eyes, who ought to enlighten their judgment. Men of fancy, and those sanguine characters who mostly hold the helm of human affairs, in general, relax in the society of women; and surely I need not cite to the most superficial reader of history, the numerous examples of vice and oppression which the private intrigues of female favourites have produced; not to dwell on the mischief that naturally arises from the blundering interposition of well-meaning folly. For in the transactions of business it is much better to have to deal with a knave than a fool, because a knave adheres to some plan; and any plan of reason may be seen through much sooner than a sudden flight of folly. The power which vile and foolish women have had over wise men, who possessed sensibility, is notorious; I shall only mention one instance.

The sexual freedom and even the virtues of superior men will always give certain women great power over them. These weak women are influenced by childish passions and selfish vanity. They distort how these men see things, though the men ought to enlighten the women’s judgment. Men of imagination, and the confident, hopeful types who mostly direct human affairs, generally relax in women’s company. Surely even a reader with a superficial knowledge of history knows the many examples of vice and oppression caused by the private intrigues of favored women. I will not dwell on the harm that naturally comes from the clumsy interference of well-meaning fools. In business, it is much better to deal with a rogue than a fool, because a rogue follows some plan. Any rational plan is much easier to see through than a sudden outburst of folly. It is well known that vile and foolish women have held power over wise men with keen feelings. I shall mention only one example.

Whoever drew a more exalted female character than Rousseau? though in the lump he constantly endeavoured to degrade the sex. And why was he thus anxious? Truly to justify to himself the affection which weakness and virtue had made him cherish for that fool Theresa. He could not raise her to the common level of her sex; and therefore he laboured to bring woman down to her's. He found her a convenient humble companion, and pride made him determine to find some superior virtues in the being whom he chose to live with; but did not her conduct during his life, and after his death, clearly show how grossly he was mistaken who called her a celestial innocent. Nay, in the bitterness of his heart, he himself laments, that when his bodily infirmities made him no longer treat her like a woman, she ceased to have an affection for him. And it was very natural that she should, for having so few sentiments in common, when the sexual tie was broken, what was to hold her? To hold her affection whose sensibility was confined to one sex, nay, to one man, it requires sense to turn sensibility into the broad channel of humanity: many women have not mind enough to have an affection for a woman, or a friendship for a man. But the sexual weakness that makes woman depend on man for a subsistence, produces a kind of cattish affection, which leads a wife to purr about her husband, as she would about any man who fed and caressed her.

Who has ever portrayed a more exalted female character than Rousseau? Yet he constantly tried to degrade women as a whole. And why was he so anxious to do that? Simply to justify to himself the affection that weakness and virtue had led him to feel for that fool Theresa. He could not raise her to the ordinary level of women. So he worked to bring women down to her level. He found her a convenient, humble companion. Pride made him determined to find superior virtues in the person he had chosen to live with. But didn’t her conduct during his life and after his death clearly show how badly he was mistaken? He had called her a heavenly innocent. Indeed, in his bitterness, he himself complained that she stopped loving him when his physical ailments prevented him from treating her like a woman. And it was very natural that she should stop loving him. They had so few feelings in common. Once the sexual bond was broken, what was there to hold her? What could hold the affection of a woman whose capacity for feeling was confined to one sex, indeed, to one man? It takes understanding to broaden that capacity into a feeling for humanity. Many women do not have enough understanding to feel affection for a woman or friendship for a man. But the weakness that makes a woman depend on a man for her livelihood produces a kind of catlike affection. It leads a wife to purr around her husband, just as she would around any man who fed and caressed her.

Men, are however, often gratified by this kind of fondness which is confined in a beastly manner to themselves, but should they ever become more virtuous, they will wish to converse at their fire-side with a friend, after they cease to play with a mistress. Besides, understanding is necessary to give variety and interest to sensual enjoyments, for low, indeed, in the intellectual scale, is the mind that can continue to love when neither virtue nor sense give a human appearance to an animal appetite. But sense will always preponderate; and if women are not, in general, brought more on a level with men, some superior women, like the Greek courtezans will assemble the men of abilities around them, and draw from their families many citizens, who would have stayed at home, had their wives had more sense, or the graces which result from the exercise of the understanding and fancy, the legitimate parents of taste. A woman of talents, if she be not absolutely ugly, will always obtain great power, raised by the weakness of her sex; and in proportion as men acquire virtue and delicacy: by the exertion of reason, they will look for both in women, but they can only acquire them in the same way that men do.

Men, however, are often pleased by this kind of affection, which is directed at them alone in an animal-like way. But if they ever become more virtuous, they will want a friend to talk with by the fireside after they stop playing with a mistress. Besides, understanding is necessary to give variety and interest to sensual pleasures. A mind is indeed low on the intellectual scale if it can keep loving when neither virtue nor good sense lends an animal appetite a human aspect. But good sense will always prevail. If women are not generally brought closer to equality with men, some exceptional women will gather capable men around them, as Greek courtesans did. They will draw many citizens away from their families who would have stayed home if their wives had more good sense. Those men would also have stayed home if their wives had the social graces that come from exercising understanding and imagination. Understanding and imagination are the rightful parents of taste. A talented woman, if she is not completely ugly, will always gain great power from the weakness of her sex. And as men develop virtue and refinement by using reason, they will look for both qualities in women. But women can acquire virtue and refinement only in the same way men do.

In France or Italy have the women confined themselves to domestic life? though they have not hitherto had a political existence, yet, have they not illicitly had great sway? corrupting themselves and the men with whose passions they played? In short, in whatever light I view the subject, reason and experience convince me, that the only method of leading women to fulfil their peculiar duties, is to free them from all restraint by allowing them to participate the inherent rights of mankind.

In France or Italy, have women confined themselves to domestic life? Although they have not yet had a political existence, have they not exercised great influence illegitimately? Have they not corrupted themselves and the men whose passions they played with? In short, however I look at the subject, reason and experience convince me of one thing. The only way to lead women to fulfill their particular duties is to free them from all restraint. They must be allowed to share in the inherent rights of humanity.

Make them free, and they will quickly become wise and virtuous, as men become more so; for the improvement must be mutual, or the justice which one half of the human race are obliged to submit to, retorting on their oppressors, the virtue of man will be worm-eaten by the insect whom he keeps under his feet.

Make women free, and they will quickly become wise and virtuous, as men also become wiser and more virtuous. For both must improve together. Otherwise, the injustice that half the human race is forced to endure will turn back on their oppressors. Man's virtue will be eaten away by the insect he keeps under his foot.

Let men take their choice, man and woman were made for each other, though not to become one being; and if they will not improve women, they will deprave them!

Let men choose. Men and women were made for each other, though not to become one being. And if men do not improve women, they will corrupt them!

I speak of the improvement and emancipation of the whole sex, for I know that the behaviour of a few women, who by accident, or following a strong bent of nature, have acquired a portion of knowledge superior to that of the rest of their sex, has often been over-bearing; but there have been instances of women who, attaining knowledge, have not discarded modesty, nor have they always pedantically appeared to despise the ignorance which they laboured to disperse in their own minds. The exclamations then which any advice respecting female learning, commonly produces, especially from pretty women, often arise from envy. When they chance to see that even the lustre of their eyes, and the flippant sportiveness of refined coquetry will not always secure them attention, during a whole evening, should a woman of a more cultivated understanding endeavour to give a rational turn to the conversation, the common source of consolation is, that such women seldom get husbands. What arts have I not seen silly women use to interrupt by FLIRTATION, (a very significant word to describe such a manoeuvre) a rational conversation, which made the men forget that they were pretty women.

I speak of the improvement and liberation of all women. I know that a few women have acquired more knowledge than others of their sex, whether by chance or by following a strong natural inclination. Their behavior has often been overbearing. But some women have gained knowledge without abandoning modesty. Nor have they always shown pedantic contempt for the ignorance they worked to overcome in themselves. So the objections that advice about women’s education usually provokes, especially from pretty women, often arise from envy. Sometimes a woman with a more cultivated mind tries to steer the conversation toward rational subjects. Then pretty women may discover that even their sparkling eyes and the playful wit of polished coquetry cannot always secure attention for an entire evening. Their usual consolation is that such educated women seldom get husbands. I have seen silly women use so many tricks to interrupt rational conversation through FLIRTATION, a very telling word for such a maneuver. The conversation had made the men forget that the women were pretty.

But, allowing what is very natural to man—that the possession of rare abilities is really calculated to excite over-weening pride, disgusting in both men and women—in what a state of inferiority must the female faculties have rusted when such a small portion of knowledge as those women attained, who have sneeringly been termed learned women, could be singular? Sufficiently so to puff up the possessor, and excite envy in her contemporaries, and some of the other sex. Nay, has not a little rationality exposed many women to the severest censure? I advert to well known-facts, for I have frequently heard women ridiculed, and every little weakness exposed, only because they adopted the advice of some medical men, and deviated from the beaten track in their mode of treating their infants. I have actually heard this barbarous aversion to innovation carried still further, and a sensible woman stigmatized as an unnatural mother, who has thus been wisely solicitous to preserve the health of her children, when in the midst of her care she has lost one by some of the casualties of infancy which no prudence can ward off. Her acquaintance have observed, that this was the consequence of new-fangled notions—the new-fangled notions of ease and cleanliness. And those who, pretending to experience, though they have long adhered to prejudices that have, according to the opinion of the most sagacious physicians, thinned the human race, almost rejoiced at the disaster that gave a kind of sanction to prescription.

Let us grant that rare abilities can naturally make people excessively proud, a quality that is repulsive in both men and women. Even so, how neglected and inferior must women’s minds have become for such limited knowledge to seem remarkable? That was all the knowledge possessed by those mockingly called learned women. Yet it was remarkable enough to make these women proud and to arouse envy among their contemporaries, including some men. Indeed, has not even a little rational thinking exposed many women to the harshest criticism? I refer to well known facts. I have often heard women ridiculed and their every little weakness exposed, simply because they followed the advice of some doctors and departed from customary ways of caring for their infants. I have even heard this barbaric hatred of change taken further. A sensible woman, wisely concerned to protect her children’s health, lost one of them despite her care. The child died from one of the accidents of infancy that no amount of care can prevent. Yet the woman was branded an unnatural mother. Her acquaintances said the death was the result of newfangled ideas, those newfangled ideas of comfort and cleanliness. Others claimed to speak from experience, though they had long clung to prejudices that, in the opinion of the wisest doctors, had reduced the human population. These people almost rejoiced at the tragedy because it seemed to justify established custom.

Indeed, if it were only on this account, the national education of women is of the utmost consequence; for what a number of human sacrifices are made to that moloch, prejudice! And in how many ways are children destroyed by the lasciviousness of man? The want of natural affection in many women, who are drawn from their duty by the admiration of men, and the ignorance of others, render the infancy of man a much more perilous state than that of brutes; yet men are unwilling to place women in situations proper to enable them to acquire sufficient understanding to know how even to nurse their babes.

Indeed, even if this were the only reason, educating women across the nation would be of the utmost importance. How many human sacrifices are made to that moloch, prejudice! And in how many ways are children destroyed by men’s lust? Many women lack natural affection because men’s admiration draws them away from their duty. Other women are ignorant. As a result, human infancy is far more dangerous than the infancy of animals. Yet men are unwilling to give women the opportunities they need to learn even how to care for their babies.

So forcibly does this truth strike me, that I would rest the whole tendency of my reasoning upon it; for whatever tends to incapacitate the maternal character, takes woman out of her sphere.

This truth strikes me so strongly that I would base my entire argument on it. For anything that makes a woman less capable as a mother takes her out of her sphere.

But it is vain to expect the present race of weak mothers either to take that reasonable care of a child's body, which is necessary to lay the foundation of a good constitution, supposing that it do not suffer for the sins of its fathers; or to manage its temper so judiciously that the child will not have, as it grows up, to throw off all that its mother, its first instructor, directly or indirectly taught, and unless the mind have uncommon vigour, womanish follies will stick to the character throughout life. The weakness of the mother will be visited on the children! And whilst women are educated to rely on their husbands for judgment, this must ever be the consequence, for there is no improving an understanding by halves, nor can any being act wisely from imitation, because in every circumstance of life there is a kind of individuality, which requires an exertion of judgment to modify general rules. The being who can think justly in one track, will soon extend its intellectual empire; and she who has sufficient judgment to manage her children, will not submit right or wrong, to her husband, or patiently to the social laws which makes a nonentity of a wife.

But it is useless to expect today's weak mothers to take reasonable care of a child's body. Such care is needed to lay the foundation for good health, assuming the child does not suffer for the sins of its fathers. Nor can we expect these mothers to guide a child's temperament wisely. As the child grows up, it will have to cast off everything its mother, its first teacher, taught it directly or indirectly. Unless the child has an unusually strong mind, womanish follies will cling to its character throughout life. The mother's weakness will be passed on to her children! And this must always be the result as long as women are educated to rely on their husbands for judgment. For the mind cannot be developed halfway. Nor can anyone act wisely by imitation, because every situation in life is individual in some way. Each requires judgment to adapt general rules to it. Anyone who can think soundly in one area will soon extend that power to others. And a woman with enough judgment to manage her children will not submit to her husband, whether he is right or wrong. Nor will she patiently accept the social laws that make a wife a nonentity.

In public schools women, to guard against the errors of ignorance, should be taught the elements of anatomy and medicine, not only to enable them to take proper care of their own health, but to make them rational nurses of their infants, parents, and husbands; for the bills of mortality are swelled by the blunders of self-willed old women, who give nostrums of their own, without knowing any thing of the human frame. It is likewise proper, only in a domestic view, to make women, acquainted with the anatomy of the mind, by allowing the sexes to associate together in every pursuit; and by leading them to observe the progress of the human understanding in the improvement of the sciences and arts; never forgetting the science of morality, nor the study of the political history of mankind.

In public schools, women should learn the basics of anatomy and medicine to guard against the mistakes caused by ignorance. This knowledge would help them care properly for their own health. It would also help them nurse their infants, parents, and husbands with sound judgment. Deaths are increased by the mistakes of self-willed old women who give their own remedies without understanding the human body. Even for domestic purposes alone, women should also be taught how the mind works. Men and women should be allowed to pursue every activity together. Women should also be encouraged to observe how human understanding develops as the sciences and arts advance. They should never neglect the study of morality or the political history of humanity.

A man has been termed a microcosm; and every family might also be called a state. States, it is true, have mostly been governed by arts that disgrace the character of man; and the want of a just constitution, and equal laws, have so perplexed the notions of the worldly wise, that they more than question the reasonableness of contending for the rights of humanity. Thus morality, polluted in the national reservoir, sends off streams of vice to corrupt the constituent parts of the body politic; but should more noble, or rather more just principles regulate the laws, which ought to be the government of society, and not those who execute them, duty might become the rule of private conduct.

A man has been called a miniature world, and every family could also be called a state. True, states have mostly been governed by methods that disgrace human character. The lack of a just constitution and equal laws has so confused the worldly wise that they do more than question whether fighting for human rights is reasonable. Morality is thus polluted at its national source, sending streams of vice to corrupt the individual parts of society. But laws should govern society, not the people who enforce them. If nobler, or rather more just, principles guided those laws, duty might become the rule for private conduct.

Besides, by the exercise of their bodies and minds, women would acquire that mental activity so necessary in the maternal character, united with the fortitude that distinguishes steadiness of conduct from the obstinate perverseness of weakness. For it is dangerous to advise the indolent to be steady, because they instantly become rigorous, and to save themselves trouble, punish with severity faults that the patient fortitude of reason might have prevented.

Besides, by exercising their bodies and minds, women would develop the mental energy so necessary for mothers. They would also gain the strength of character that separates steady conduct from the stubborn perversity of weakness. For it is dangerous to advise lazy people to be steady, because they immediately become strict. To save themselves trouble, they punish faults severely when patient, rational strength might have prevented those faults.

But fortitude presupposes strength of mind, and is strength of mind to be acquired by indolent acquiescence? By asking advice instead of exerting the judgment? By obeying through fear, instead of practising the forbearance, which we all stand in need of ourselves? The conclusion which I wish to draw is obvious; make women rational creatures and free citizens, and they will quickly become good wives, and mothers; that is—if men do not neglect the duties of husbands and fathers.

But courage requires strength of mind. Can anyone develop strength of mind by lazily going along with others? By asking for advice instead of using their own judgment? By obeying out of fear instead of showing the patience we all need from others? The conclusion I want to draw is obvious. Make women rational beings and free citizens, and they will quickly become good wives and mothers. That is, if men do not neglect their duties as husbands and fathers.

Discussing the advantages which a public and private education combined, as I have sketched, might rationally be expected to produce, I have dwelt most on such as are particularly relative to the female world, because I think the female world oppressed; yet the gangrene which the vices, engendered by oppression have produced, is not confined to the morbid part, but pervades society at large; so that when I wish to see my sex become more like moral agents, my heart bounds with the anticipation of the general diffusion of that sublime contentment which only morality can diffuse.

In discussing the benefits we might reasonably expect from the combined public and private education I have outlined, I have focused mostly on those concerning women. This is because I believe women are oppressed. Yet the vices bred by oppression have caused a gangrene that spreads beyond the diseased part and infects society as a whole. So when I hope to see women become more like moral agents, my heart leaps at the thought of the profound contentment that morality alone can spread throughout society.