for them by the profound thinker, ought not to be diſguſted, if they find the former choleric, and the latter moroſe; becauſe livelineſs of fancy, and a tenacious comprehenſion of mind, are ſcarcely compatible with that pliant urbanity which leads a man, at leaſt, to bend to the opinions and prejudices of others, inſtead of roughly confronting them.
But, treating of education or manners, minds of a ſuperior claſs are not to be conſidered, they may be left to chance; it is the multitude, with moderate abilities, who call for inſtruction, and catch the colour of the atmoſphere they breathe. This reſpectable concourſe, I contend, men and women, ſhould not have their ſenſations heightened in the hot-bed of luxurious indolence, at the expenſe of their underſtanding; for, unleſs there be a ballaſt of underſtanding, they will never become either virtuous or free: ariſtocracy, founded on property, or ſterling talents, will ever ſweep before it, the alternately timid, and ferocious ſlaves of feeling.
Numberleſs are the arguments, to take another view of the ſubject, brought forward with a ſhew of reaſon: becauſe ſuppoſed to be deduced from nature, that men have uſed morally and phyſically, to degrade the ſex. I muſt notice a few.
The female underſtanding has often been ſpoken of with contempt, as arriving ſooner at maturity than the male. I ſhall not anſwer this argument by alluding to the early proofs of reaſon, as well as genius, in Cowley, Milton, and Pope[1], but only appeal to experience to decide whether young men, who are early introduced
- ↑ Many other names might be added.
