quently been confounded with a knowledge of the human heart. But can the crude fruit of caſual obſervation, never brought to the teſt of judgment, formed by comparing ſpeculation and experience, deſerve ſuch a diſtinction? Soldiers, as well as women, practiſe the minor virtues with punctilious politeneſs. Where is then the ſexual difference, when the education has been the ſame? All the difference that I can diſcern, ariſes from the ſuperior advantage of liberty, which enables the former to ſee more of life.
It is wandering from my preſent ſubject, perhaps, to make a political remark; but, as it was produced naturally by the train of my reflections, I ſhall not paſs it ſilently over.
Standing armies can never conſiſt of reſolute, robuſt men; they may be well diſciplined machines, but they will ſeldom contain men under the influence of ſtrong paſſions, or with very vigorous faculties. And as for any depth of underſtanding, I will venture to affirm, that it is as rarely to be found in the army as amongſt women, and the cauſe, I maintain, is the ſame. It may be further obſerved, that officers are alſo particularly attentive to their perſons, fond of dancing, crowded rooms, adventures, and ridicule[1]. Like the fair ſex, the buſineſs of their lives is gallantry.—They were taught to pleaſe, and they only live to pleaſe. Yet they do not loſe their rank in the diſtinction of ſexes, for they are ſtill reckoned ſuperior to women, though in what their ſupe-
- ↑ Why ſhould women be cenſured with petulent acrimony, becauſe they ſeem to have a paſſion for a ſcarlet coat? Has not education placed them more on a level with ſoldiers than any other claſs of men?
