X. But passing from the moral to the physical, which is more applicable
to our present purpose, we shall find the preference of the robust
over the delicate sex is a point settled, and any claim or pretensions
to equality on the part of the women is set aside, and treated with
contempt; and to such a length has depreciating the women been carried
by some, that they have not scrupled to call them imperfect, and even
monstrous animals, asserting, that Nature, in the work of generation,
never intended to produce any thing but males, and that it was only by
mistake, or in consequence of some defect in the matter or faculty,
that females were produced.
XI. O admirable adepts in physics! It would follow from hence, that
Nature conspired to work its own destruction, because, without the
concurrence of both sexes, the species cannot be preserved. It would
follow also, that Nature in this her principal work, is more frequently
mistaken than right; because it is allowed, that she produces more
women than men. Nor when we see females the offspring of parents who
are healthy, robust, and in the flower of their age, can we attribute
the formation of them to debility, want of vigour, or a defect in the
matter; nor is it probable, that if man had preserved his original
innocence, in which case there would have been none of these defects,
we should have had no women born, and that the human lineage would have
been kept up or continued without propagation.
XII. I know very well there was an author, who, for the sake of
indulging his malice, and supporting his envious insinuations against
the other sex, swallowed so palpable an absurdity. This was Almaricus,
a Parisian doctor of the twelfth century, who, among other errors,
asserts, that, if the state of innocence had continued, all the
individuals of our species would have been males, and that God would
have created them immediately himself as he did Adam.
XIII. Almaricus was a blind follower of Aristotle, insomuch that all,
or very near all his errors, were produced by conclusions, which
he had drawn from the doctrines of that philosopher; and, seeing
that Aristotle, in more than one part of his works, gives it to be
understood, that a female is a defective animal, its generation
accidental, and out of the design of nature, he concluded, that there
were no women in the state of innocence; and thus it comes to pass,
that an heretical theology is very frequently occasioned by a mistake
in physics.
XIV. But the great and avowed adherence of Almaricus to Aristotle, was
rather unfortunate to them both; because the errors of Almaricus were
condemned by a council held at Paris in 1209; and, in the same council,
the reading the books of Aristotle were prohibited, which prohibition
was afterwards confirmed by Pope Gregory IX. Almaricus had been dead a
year when his dogmas were proscribed; but his bones were afterwards dug
up, and thrown into a jake.
XV. This shews, that we should not lay any great stress upon the
opinion of a few doctors, who, though they were in other respects
discreet men, have asserted, that the female sex is defective, for no
other reason, than because Aristotle whose followers they were had
declared so; but they did not however proceed so far, as to precipitate
themselves into the error of Almaricus. It is certain, that Aristotle’s
treatment of the women proceeded from spite; for he not only proclaimed
with vehemence their physical defects, but was more vehement still in
blazoning their moral ones; some instances of which, I shall point
out in another place. Who would not suppose from all this, that his
disposition inclined him to shun the sex? But nothing was so opposite
to him, for he not only tenderly loved two wives which he married,
but his affection for the first, named Pythais, who, as some say,
was daughter, others niece of Hermias, tyrant of Atarneus, carried
him so far beside himself, that he franticly offered incense to her
as a deity. They also give us a relation of his loose amours with a
little servant girl, though Plutarch does not incline to credit the
tale; but in this business, the testimony of Theocritus Chio, who was
contemporary with Aristotle, ought to have more weight than the opinion
of Plutarch, who was much posterior to him; and Theocritus, in a lively
epigram, lashed Aristotle for his obscenity. From this instance we may
perceive, that men’s seeming malignity to, and inveterate abuse of
women, is, as we have observed before, frequently accompanied with an
inordinate inclination for them.
XVI. From the same physical error which condemned woman for an
imperfect animal, there sprung another theological one, which is
combated by St. Austin, in Lib. 22, de Civit. Dei cap. 17. The
authors of this system say, that, at the universal resurrection, this
imperfection is to be remedied, by converting all the women into men;
and that then, grace is to compleat and finish the work which nature
had only begun.
XVII. This error is very like that of the infatuated Alchymists, who,
relying on the maxim, that nature in the formation of metals, never
intended to produce any thing but gold, and that it was only from
some obstruction, or from some defect of vigour and virtue, that she
fabricated other imperfect metals; also pretend, that art is afterwards
capable of carrying the work to perfection, and making gold of that
which was originally produced iron. But, after all, this error is
the most sufferable of the two, because it does not interfere with
matters of faith; and because also, let the intention of nature in
the formation of metals, and the imaginary capacity of art, be what
they will, it is a fact, that gold is the most noble of metals, and
that the others are of a much inferior quality compared to it. But, in
our present question, the assertion, that Nature always intended the
production of males, and that her producing females was the effect of a
bastard operation, is all false and erroneous; and much more so is the
affirming, that this is to be amended at the resurrection.