To M. Talleyrand Perigord, Former Bishop of Autun

8 min

Sir:—

Sir:

Having read with great pleasure a pamphlet, which you have lately published, on National Education, I dedicate this volume to you, the first dedication that I have ever written, to induce you to read it with attention; and, because I think that you will understand me, which I do not suppose many pert witlings will, who may ridicule the arguments they are unable to answer. But, sir, I carry my respect for your understanding still farther: so far, that I am confident you will not throw my work aside, and hastily conclude that I am in the wrong because you did not view the subject in the same light yourself. And pardon my frankness, but I must observe, that you treated it in too cursory a manner, contented to consider it as it had been considered formerly, when the rights of man, not to advert to woman, were trampled on as chimerical. I call upon you, therefore, now to weigh what I have advanced respecting the rights of woman, and national education; and I call with the firm tone of humanity. For my arguments, sir, are dictated by a disinterested spirit: I plead for my sex, not for myself. Independence I have long considered as the grand blessing of life, the basis of every virtue; and independence I will ever secure by contracting my wants, though I were to live on a barren heath.

I read your recent pamphlet on National Education with great pleasure. I dedicate this volume to you, the first dedication I have ever written, to encourage you to read it carefully. I also dedicate it to you because I think you will understand me. I do not expect many clever little fools to understand me. They may ridicule arguments they cannot answer. But, sir, my respect for your understanding goes even further. I am confident that you will not dismiss my work and hastily conclude that I am wrong simply because you have not seen the subject in the same light. Please forgive my frankness, but I must say that you treated the subject too briefly. You were content to consider it as it had been considered in the past. At that time, the rights of man, not to mention those of woman, were trampled on as mere fantasies. I therefore call on you now to weigh what I have said about the rights of woman and national education. I make this appeal in the firm voice of humanity. For my arguments, sir, come from a selfless spirit. I plead for my sex, not for myself. I have long considered independence the greatest blessing in life and the foundation of every virtue. I will always secure my independence by reducing my needs, even if I must live on a barren heath.

It is, then, an affection for the whole human race that makes my pen dart rapidly along to support what I believe to be the cause of virtue: and the same motive leads me earnestly to wish to see woman placed in a station in which she would advance, instead of retarding, the progress of those glorious principles that give a substance to morality. My opinion, indeed, respecting the rights and duties of woman, seems to flow so naturally from these simple principles, that I think it scarcely possible, but that some of the enlarged minds who formed your admirable constitution, will coincide with me.

It is my love for the whole human race that makes me write so swiftly. I write to support what I believe is the cause of virtue. The same motive makes me earnestly wish to see women given a position in which they can advance, rather than hold back, the glorious principles that give morality substance. Indeed, my views on women’s rights and duties seem to follow so naturally from these simple principles that I think some of the broad-minded people who formed your admirable constitution can hardly fail to agree with me.

In France, there is undoubtedly a more general diffusion of knowledge than in any part of the European world, and I attribute it, in a great measure, to the social intercourse which has long subsisted between the sexes. It is true, I utter my sentiments with freedom, that in France the very essence of sensuality has been extracted to regale the voluptuary, and a kind of sentimental lust has prevailed, which, together with the system of duplicity that the whole tenor of their political and civil government taught, have given a sinister sort of sagacity to the French character, properly termed finesse; and a polish of manners that injures the substance, by hunting sincerity out of society. And, modesty, the fairest garb of virtue has been more grossly insulted in France than even in England, till their women have treated as PRUDISH that attention to decency which brutes instinctively observe.

In France, knowledge is undoubtedly more widely spread than anywhere else in Europe. I attribute this largely to the long-standing social interaction between men and women. Yet I will speak freely. In France, sensuality has been refined to its very essence to delight those devoted to pleasure. A kind of sentimental lust has prevailed. Along with this, the entire system of political and civil government has taught people to be deceitful. Together, these have given the French character a sinister kind of shrewdness, rightly called finesse. They have also produced polished manners that damage substance by driving sincerity out of society. And modesty, the fairest clothing of virtue, has been more grossly offended in France than even in England. As a result, French women have come to treat as PRUDISH the regard for decency that even animals instinctively show.

Manners and morals are so nearly allied, that they have often been confounded; but, though the former should only be the natural reflection of the latter, yet, when various causes have produced factitious and corrupt manners, which are very early caught, morality becomes an empty name. The personal reserve, and sacred respect for cleanliness and delicacy in domestic life, which French women almost despise, are the graceful pillars of modesty; but, far from despising them, if the pure flame of patriotism have reached their bosoms, they should labour to improve the morals of their fellow-citizens, by teaching men, not only to respect modesty in women, but to acquire it themselves, as the only way to merit their esteem.

Manners and morals are so closely connected that people have often confused them. Manners should simply reflect morals. But when various causes produce artificial and corrupt manners, which people pick up very early, morality becomes an empty word. Personal reserve and a deep respect for cleanliness and delicacy in domestic life are the graceful pillars of modesty. French women almost despise these qualities. But far from despising them, French women should work to improve their fellow citizens’ morals, if the pure flame of patriotism has reached their hearts. They should teach men not only to respect modesty in women, but to develop it themselves. Only then can men deserve women’s esteem.

Contending for the rights of women, my main argument is built on this simple principle, that if she be not prepared by education to become the companion of man, she will stop the progress of knowledge, for truth must be common to all, or it will be inefficacious with respect to its influence on general practice. And how can woman be expected to co-operate, unless she know why she ought to be virtuous? Unless freedom strengthen her reason till she comprehend her duty, and see in what manner it is connected with her real good? If children are to be educated to understand the true principle of patriotism, their mother must be a patriot; and the love of mankind, from which an orderly train of virtues spring, can only be produced by considering the moral and civil interest of mankind; but the education and situation of woman, at present, shuts her out from such investigations.

In arguing for women’s rights, I base my main argument on a simple principle. If a woman is not educated to be a companion to a man, she will hold back the progress of knowledge. For truth must be shared by all, or it will have no effective influence on how people generally behave. And how can a woman be expected to cooperate unless she knows why she ought to be virtuous? How can she cooperate unless freedom strengthens her reason enough to understand her duty and how it serves her true good? If children are to be taught the true meaning of patriotism, their mother must be a patriot. And love of humanity, from which a whole range of virtues follows, can arise only by considering humanity’s moral and civil interests. But women’s education and circumstances currently shut them out from exploring such matters.

In this work I have produced many arguments, which to me were conclusive, to prove, that the prevailing notion respecting a sexual character was subversive of morality, and I have contended, that to render the human body and mind more perfect, chastity must more universally prevail, and that chastity will never be respected in the male world till the person of a woman is not, as it were, idolized when little virtue or sense embellish it with the grand traces of mental beauty, or the interesting simplicity of affection.

In this work, I have offered many arguments that I find conclusive. They show that the prevailing idea of a distinct character for each sex undermines morality. I have argued that chastity must become more widespread if human bodies and minds are to become more perfect. I have also argued that men will never respect chastity while they virtually idolize a woman's body, even when little virtue or good sense adorns it with the noble marks of mental beauty or the appealing simplicity of affection.

Consider, Sir, dispassionately, these observations, for a glimpse of this truth seemed to open before you when you observed, "that to see one half of the human race excluded by the other from all participation of government, was a political phenomenon that, according to abstract principles, it was impossible to explain." If so, on what does your constitution rest? If the abstract rights of man will bear discussion and explanation, those of woman, by a parity of reasoning, will not shrink from the same test: though a different opinion prevails in this country, built on the very arguments which you use to justify the oppression of woman, prescription.

Sir, consider these observations calmly. You seemed to glimpse this truth when you observed that "seeing one half of the human race excluded by the other from all participation in government was a political phenomenon that, according to abstract principles, was impossible to explain." If so, what is your constitution based on? If the abstract rights of man can withstand discussion and explanation, then, by the same reasoning, so can those of woman. Yet a different opinion prevails in this country. It is based on the very argument you use to justify the oppression of woman: long-established custom.

Consider, I address you as a legislator, whether, when men contend for their freedom, and to be allowed to judge for themselves, respecting their own happiness, it be not inconsistent and unjust to subjugate women, even though you firmly believe that you are acting in the manner best calculated to promote their happiness? Who made man the exclusive judge, if woman partake with him the gift of reason?

I ask you, as a legislator, to consider this. Men fight for their freedom and for the right to judge their own happiness for themselves. Is it not inconsistent and unjust, then, to subject women to men's control? Is it not unjust even if you firmly believe that doing so will best promote women's happiness? Who made men the sole judges, if women share the gift of reason with them?

In this style, argue tyrants of every denomination from the weak king to the weak father of a family; they are all eager to crush reason; yet always assert that they usurp its throne only to be useful. Do you not act a similar part, when you FORCE all women, by denying them civil and political rights, to remain immured in their families groping in the dark? For surely, sir, you will not assert, that a duty can be binding which is not founded on reason? If, indeed, this be their destination, arguments may be drawn from reason; and thus augustly supported, the more understanding women acquire, the more they will be attached to their duty, comprehending it, for unless they comprehend it, unless their morals be fixed on the same immutable principles as those of man, no authority can make them discharge it in a virtuous manner. They may be convenient slaves, but slavery will have its constant effect, degrading the master and the abject dependent.

This is how tyrants of every kind argue, from the weak king to the weak father of a family. They are all eager to crush reason. Yet they always claim to take its place only to be useful. Do you not do the same when you deny all women civil and political rights? You FORCE them to remain shut away in their families, groping in the dark. Surely, sir, you will not claim that a duty can be binding unless it is founded on reason? If this is indeed women's destined role, reason can provide arguments for it. With such noble support, the more understanding women gain, the more devoted they will be to their duty. They will understand it. For unless they understand their duty, no authority can make them fulfill it virtuously. Their morals must also rest on the same unchanging principles as men's. They may be convenient slaves, but slavery will have its usual effect. It will degrade both the master and the helpless dependent.

But, if women are to be excluded, without having a voice, from a participation of the natural rights of mankind, prove first, to ward off the charge of injustice and inconsistency, that they want reason, else this flaw in your NEW CONSTITUTION, the first constitution founded on reason, will ever show that man must, in some shape, act like a tyrant, and tyranny, in whatever part of society it rears its brazen front, will ever undermine morality.

But if women are to be denied a voice and excluded from the natural rights of humanity, first prove that they lack reason. Otherwise, you cannot avoid the charge of injustice and inconsistency. This flaw in your NEW CONSTITUTION, the first constitution founded on reason, will always show that men must act like tyrants in some way. And tyranny, wherever it boldly raises its head in society, will always undermine morality.

I have repeatedly asserted, and produced what appeared to me irrefragable arguments drawn from matters of fact, to prove my assertion, that women cannot, by force, be confined to domestic concerns; for they will however ignorant, intermeddle with more weighty affairs, neglecting private duties only to disturb, by cunning tricks, the orderly plans of reason which rise above their comprehension.

I have repeatedly argued that women cannot be forced to concern themselves only with domestic matters. I have offered arguments based on facts that seemed to me impossible to refute. For however ignorant women may be, they will interfere in more important affairs. They will neglect their private duties only to disrupt the orderly plans of reason through cunning tricks, though those plans are beyond their understanding.

Besides, whilst they are only made to acquire personal accomplishments, men will seek for pleasure in variety, and faithless husbands will make faithless wives; such ignorant beings, indeed, will be very excusable when, not taught to respect public good, nor allowed any civil right, they attempt to do themselves justice by retaliation.

Besides, as long as women are taught only personal accomplishments, men will seek pleasure in variety. Unfaithful husbands will make their wives unfaithful too. Indeed, such ignorant women will be quite excusable if they try to get justice by retaliating. After all, they are not taught to respect the public good or allowed any civil rights.

The box of mischief thus opened in society, what is to preserve private virtue, the only security of public freedom and universal happiness?

Now that this box of mischief has been opened in society, what will preserve private virtue? Private virtue is the only safeguard of public freedom and universal happiness.

Let there be then no coercion ESTABLISHED in society, and the common law of gravity prevailing, the sexes will fall into their proper places. And, now that more equitable laws are forming your citizens, marriage may become more sacred; your young men may choose wives from motives of affection, and your maidens allow love to root out vanity.

Let society establish no coercion. Then, under the common law of gravity, the sexes will fall into their proper places. And now that fairer laws are shaping your citizens, marriage may become more sacred. Your young men may choose wives out of affection, and your young women may let love root out vanity.

The father of a family will not then weaken his constitution and debase his sentiments, by visiting the harlot, nor forget, in obeying the call of appetite, the purpose for which it was implanted; and the mother will not neglect her children to practise the arts of coquetry, when sense and modesty secure her the friendship of her husband.

The father of a family will no longer weaken his health and corrupt his feelings by visiting a prostitute. Nor will he forget the purpose of sexual desire when he gives in to it. And the mother will not neglect her children to flirt when her good sense and modesty secure her husband's friendship.

But, till men become attentive to the duty of a father, it is vain to expect women to spend that time in their nursery which they, "wise in their generation," choose to spend at their glass; for this exertion of cunning is only an instinct of nature to enable them to obtain indirectly a little of that power of which they are unjustly denied a share; for, if women are not permitted to enjoy legitimate rights, they will render both men and themselves vicious, to obtain illicit privileges.

But until men pay attention to their duties as fathers, it is useless to expect women to spend their time in the nursery. Instead, being "wise in their generation," women choose to spend that time looking in the mirror. This cunning is only a natural instinct that allows women to gain indirectly a little of the power unjustly denied to them. For if women are not allowed their legitimate rights, they will make both men and themselves morally corrupt in order to obtain privileges they have no right to.

I wish, sir, to set some investigations of this kind afloat in France; and should they lead to a confirmation of my principles, when your constitution is revised, the rights of woman may be respected, if it be fully proved that reason calls for this respect, and loudly demands JUSTICE for one half of the human race.

Sir, I want to start some investigations of this kind in France. If they confirm my principles, the rights of women may be respected when your constitution is revised. This may happen if it is fully proved that reason calls for this respect and loudly demands JUSTICE for half the human race.

I am, sir,

Yours respectfully,

M. W.