CXLVIII. I am aware now, that against all I have said, it may be
replied to me to this effect: If women are equal to men, in their
aptitude for arts, sciences, political œconomy, and government, why
has God established the mastery, and superiority in the men, by the
sentence in the third chapter of Genesis, which says, _Sub viri
potestate eris?_ Because it is probable, he gave the government to that
sex, which he knew to be most capable of executing it.
CXLIX. I answer first, that the specific meaning of the text is
not certainly known, on account of the variation in the versions.
The reading in the Septuagint is: _Ad virum conversio tua._ In the
Aquilean: _Ad virum societas tua._ In the Samaritan: _Ad virum
appetitus, vel impetus tuus._ And the learned Benedict Perceyra says,
that by translating the Hebrew literally, the sentence will run thus:
_Ad virum desiderium, vel concupiscentia tua._
CL. I answer secondly, that it might be insisted, the political
subjection of the woman was absolutely a punishment for her sin, and
therefore, that in the state of innocence there was no such thing. The
text at least does not contradict such an opinion; for it rather seems,
that if it had been intended the woman should obey the man in the state
of innocence, God would have intimated this subjection, at the time he
formed her; and from these premises, it cannot so properly be inferred,
that God gave the man the preference, on account of his possessing an
understanding superior to the woman’s, as that it was done, because she
gave the first occasion to sin.
CLI. I say thirdly, that admitting, God from the beginning gave the
rule over the woman to the man, it does not follow from thence, that
he endued him with an understanding superior to her’s; but it rather
seems likely, this was done for the sake of maintaining family order
and decorum, for allowing them to be equal in point of talents,
unless the government and direction was vested in one, all would be
anarchy and confusion. Among the probable species of governments, the
moral philosophers, copying after Aristotle, have held or considered,
that which is called the Timocracian, to be the worst and most
exceptionable: for by this, all the individuals of the republic have
equal authority, and an equal voice; but in the case of a man and his
wife, this mode of directing, with respect to œconomical government,
would not only be imperfect, but impossible; for among a multitude
of people, where there is a variety of opinions, the dispute may be
decided by a plurality of votes; which cannot be done between a man
and his wife, for they are one, to one; and thus if they should happen
to be of different sentiments, unless one of them had the superiority,
the point could never be settled; but it may be said, why, if their
capacities were equal, should God think fit to give the superiority
to the men? Various reasons and motives may be assigned for this,
such as his excelling the women in many other useful qualities, for
example, constancy and courage; which virtues, are necessary for making
proper determinations, and for supporting them after they are made, by
subduing and bearing down all the obstacles, produced by vain and light
fears; but we should do better, instead of reasoning in this way, to
confess, we for the most part are ignorant of the motives of divine
resolutions.