riority conſiſts, beyond what I have juſt mentioned, it is difficult to diſcover.
The great misfortune is this, that they both acquire manners before morals, and a knowledge of life before they have, from reflection, any acquaintance with the grand ideal outline of human nature. The conſequence is natural; ſatiſfied with common nature, they become a prey to prejudices, and taking all their opinions on credit, they blindly ſubmit to authority. So that, if they have any ſenſe, it is a kind of inſtinctive glance, that catches proportions, and decides with reſpect to manners; but fails when arguments are to be purſued below the ſurface, or opinions analyzed.
May not the ſame remark be applied to women? Nay, the argument may be carried ſtill further, for they are both thrown out of a uſeful ſtation by the unnatural diſtinctions eſtabliſhed in civilized life. Riches and hereditary honours have made cyphers of women to give conſequence to the numerical figure; and idleneſs has produced a mixture of gallantry and deſpotiſm into ſociety, which leads the very men who are the ſlaves of their miſtreſſes to tyrannize over their ſiſters, wives, and daughters. This is only keeping them in rank and file, it is true. Strengthen the female mind by enlarging it, and there will be an end to blind obedience; but, as blind obedience is ever ſought for by power, tyrants and ſenſualiſts are in the right when they endeavour to keep women in the dark, becauſe the former only want ſlaves, and the latter a play-thing. The ſenſualiſt, indeed, has been the
