of the queſtion, for then it is brutality. Reſpect for man, as man, is the foundation of every noble ſentiment. How much more modeſt is the libertine who obeys the call of appetite or fancy, than the lewd joker who ſets the table in a roar!
This is one of the many inſtances in which the ſexual diſtinction reſpecting modeſty has proved fatal to virtue and happineſs. It is, however, carried ſtill further, and woman, weak woman! made by her education the ſlave of ſenſibility, is required, on the moſt trying occaſions, to reſiſt that ſenſibility. ‘Can any thing,’ ſays Knox, ‘be more abſurd than keeping women in a ſtate of ignorance, and yet ſo vehemently to inſiſt on their reſiſting temptation?’—Thus when virtue or honour make it proper to check a paſſion, the burden is thrown on the weaker ſhoulders, contrary to reaſon and true modeſty, which, at leaſt, ſhould render the ſelf-denial mutual, to ſay nothing of the generoſity of bravery, ſuppoſed to be a manly virtue.
In the ſame ſtrain runs Rouſſeau's and Dr. Gregory's advice reſpecting modeſty, ſtrangely miſcalled! for they both deſire a wife to leave it in doubt whether ſenſibility or weakneſs led her to her huſband's arms.—The woman is immodeſt who can let the ſhadow of ſuch a doubt remain on her huſband's mind a moment.
But to ſtate the ſubject in a different light.—The want of modeſty, which I principally deplore as ſubverſive of morality, ariſes from the ſtate of warfare ſo ſtrenuouſly ſupported by voluptuous men as the very eſſence of modeſty, though, in fact, its bane; becauſe it is a refine-
