the ſmalleſt burthens, and would bluſh to be thought robuſt and ſtrong. To what purpoſe is all this? Not merely for the ſake of appearing delicate, but through an artful precaution: it is thus they provide an excuſe beforehand, and a right to be feeble when they think it expedient[1].'
I have quoted this paſſage, leſt my readers ſhould ſuſpect that I warped the author's reaſoning to ſupport my own arguments. I have already aſſerted that in educating women theſe fundamental principles lead to a ſyſtem of cunning and laſciviouſneſs.
Suppoſing woman to have been formed only to pleaſe, and be ſubject to man, the concluſion is juſt, ſhe ought to ſacrifice every other conſideration to render herſelf agreeable to him: and let this brutal deſire of ſelf-preſervation be the grand ſpring of all her actions, when it is proved to be the iron bed of fate, to fit which her character ſhould be ſtretched or contracted, regardleſs of all moral or phyſical diſtinctions. But, if, as I think, may be demonſtrated, the purpoſes, of even this life, viewing the whole, are ſubverted by practical rules built upon this ignoble baſe, I may be allowed to doubt whether woman was created for man: and, though the cry of irreligion, or even atheiſm, be raiſed againſt me, I will ſimply declare, that were an angel from heaven to tell me that Moſes's beautiful, poetical coſmogony, and the account of the fall of man, were literally true, I could not believe what my reaſon told me was derogatory to the character of
- ↑ Rouſſeau's Emilius, Vol. III. p. 168.
