(in general) and that he would surely confess his Mind; he will
tell you without doubt, That they were not made but for Man;
That they are fit for nothing, but to Nurse and Breed little
Children in their Low Ages; and to mind the House. It may be the
more Ingenious will add, That there are many Women that have
indeed Parts, and Conduct; but that even they who seem to have
most, when they are nearly examined, discover still some-what
that speaks their Sex: That they have neither Solidity, nor
Constancy; nor that depth of Judgment which they think to find in
themselves: And that it hath been an effect of Divine Providence,
and Wisdom of Men, to have barred them from Sciences, Government,
and Offices: That it would be a pleasant thing indeed, to
see a Lady in the Chair (in quality of a Professor) teaching
_Rhetorick_, or _Medicine_; marching along the Streets, followed
by Officers, and Sergeants; putting in Execution Laws: Playing
the part of a Counsellour; pleading before Judges: Seated on a
Bench, to Administer Justice in Supream Courts: Leading of an
Army; giving Battel; and Speaking before States, and Princes, as
the Head of an Embassy.
I do confess, such Practices would surprize us; but for no other
reason, but that of Novelty. For, if in modelling of states and
establishing the different Offices that compose them, Women had
been likewise called to Functions; we should have been as much
accustomed to have seen them in Dignity, as they are to see us.
And should have found it no more strange to have seen a Lady on a
Throne, than a Woman in a Shop.[404]
M. de la Barre admits that many women may properly be accused of
"Idleness, Softness, and Ignorance," but gives the astonishingly
modern explanation that no fair estimate of the ability of women
can be made until they have been trained by right education and
stimulated by public responsibility and opportunity. He believes that
if women "made it their business to study Law, they would succeed in
it (at least) as well as we." "Women seem born to practise Physick."
They would excel as "Pastour or Minister in the Church ... and
there can be nothing else but custome shewn, which remove _Women_
therefrom.... And if men were accustomed to see _Women_ in a Pulpit,
they would be no more startled thereat, than the _Women_ are at the
sight of men." Women if rightly educated would show peculiar aptitude
for teaching.
If _Women_ had studyed in the Universities with men, or in
others appointed for them in particular, they might have entered
into Degrees, and taken the title of Master of Arts, Doctor of
Divinity, Medicine, Civil, and Cannon Law: And their genius so
advantageously fitting them to learn, would dispose them to teach
with success. They would find methods, and insinuating biasses,
to instil their Doctrine; they would discover the strength and
weakness of their Schollars, to proportion themseves to their
reach, and the facility which they have to express themselves;
and, [this] which is one of the most excellent talents of a good
Master, would compleat and render them admirable Mistresses.[405]
There is no reason "why a _Woman_ of sound Judgment and
Understanding, might not take the chaire in a court of Justice, and
preside in all other companies." There are no positions of public
authority from the throne to the humblest office of state that should
not be open to women. Even "the military Art hath nothing beyond
others, whereof _Women_ are not capable."
That women may become learned is beyond dispute, and they are the
more to be praised because of the difficulties they have overcome:
How many Ladies have there been, and how many are there still,
who ought to be placed amongst the number of the Learned, if we
assigne them not a Higher Sphear? The Age wherein we live hath
produced more of these, than all the past. And as they have in
all things run parallel with _Men_, upon some Particular Reasons,
they ought more to be esteemed than they: For, it behoved them
to surmount the Softness wherein their Sex is bred, renounce
the Pleasures and Idleness, to which Custom had condemned them,
overcome certain public Impediments that removed them from
Study, and to get above those disadvantagious Notions, which the
Vulgar conceive of the Learned, besides, those of their own Sex
in general: All this they have performed. And whether it be,
that these Difficulties have rendered their Wit more quick and
penetrating, or that these Qualities are the peculiar of their
Nature, they have [proportionably] made Progress and Advancements
beyond _Men_.[406]
These may be regarded as exceptional women, but "there are infinite
numbers of _Women_, which could have done no less, had their
Advantages been Equal." But the training given to girls make them
believe that beauty and fine clothes should be their only interests.
Their education seldom goes beyond writing and reading, and their
library consists of a few little books of devotion.
In all that which is taught to _Women_, do we see anything that
tends to solid instruction? It seems, on the contrary, that men
have agreed on this sort of education, of purpose to abase their
courage, darken their mind, and to fill it only with vanity, and
fopperies.
It may be said that "Learning would render _Women_ more Wicked and
Proud." But only false knowledge can produce so bad an effect. True
knowledge makes a woman humble and virtuous. It actually "choaks"
some men to find women eager after knowledge. These men have "forged
to themselves that Women ought not to Study," and they "stand upon
their Points, when Women demand to be informed of that which is
Learned by Books." But since "Ignorance is the most irksome Slavery,"
and knowing the truth is a way out of it, all women who seek that way
should be praised, not blamed.
"We may [then] with Assurance, exhort Ladies to apply themselves
to Study; without having Respect to the little Reasons of those
who would undertake to divert them there-from. Since they have a
Mind (as well as We) capable of knowing of Truth ... they ought to
put themselves in condition of avoyding the Reproach, of having
stifled a Talent, which they might put to use." Learning cannot
be counted useless to women even if they do not publicly use it.
It is a personal right and necessity like "Felicity and Vertue."
"The Spring of reason is not limited; it hath in all men an equal
Jurisdiction.... Truth and Knowledge are goods that admit of no
prescription." And, finally, the economy of the world demands that
one half its mentality should not be debarred from the search after
Truth.
The sincerity of M. Poulain de la Barre might be put in question
by the fact that he wrote in 1675 a book entitled _De l'Excellence
des Hommes contre l'Egalité des Sexes_, but the earlier treatise
maintained its popularity, for it was republished in 1676, 1690,
1692. Of the English translation but one edition appeared, nor does
it seem to have been well known in the seventeenth century. Mary
Astell makes no use of it, perhaps because it was too radical and
uncompromising in its demand. Certainly no other defense of feminism
even approached the work of M. de la Barre in the relentless logic
with which it carried fundamental assumptions into the practical
affairs of life.
[Sidenote: Dr. George Hickes (1642-1715)]
From Marie de Jars to Anna van Schurman, and then to Bathsua Makin
is a regular and recognized progression of influence. I am unable
to trace any direct influence from Mrs. Makin, though her prestige
and the number of her aristocratic pupils must have made her school
one of the important factors in establishing new ideas. At any rate,
by whatever influences brought about, we have, after about 1680,
several significant discussions of liberal education for woman. One
of the earliest and most surprising of these comes in a sermon by Dr.
George Hickes. Its full title is, _A Sermon Preached at the Church
of St. Bridget, on Easter, Tuesday, being the first of April, 1684.
Before the Right Honourable Sir Henry Tulse, Lord Mayor of London
and Honourable Court of Alderman, Together with the Governors of the
Hospital, upon the Subject of Alms-giving. By George Hickes, D. D.
Dean of Worcester, and Chaplain in Ordinary to his Majesty._
At the close of this sermon on the reasons for alms-giving Dr. Hickes
emphasizes the great obligation resting on those "Who heap up Riches,
and can not tell who shall gather them, I mean those to whom God hath
given great Estates, and no Children." Such people seem to him set
apart by Providence for the endowing of works of public beneficence.
In a comprehensive analysis of the practical ways in which they could
use their wealth we come upon the following remarkable suggestion:
I will also put you in mind of establishing a Found for Endowing
of poor Maids, who have lived so many years in Service, and of
building Schools, or Colleges for the Education of young Women,
much like unto those in the Universities, for the Education
of young Men, but with some alteration in the Discipline, and
Occonomy, as the nature of such an Institution would require.
Such Colleges might be so ordered, as to become security to your
Daughters against all the hazard to which they are exposed at
private Schools, and likewise a security to the Government,
that the Daughters of the Land should be bred up according
to the religion now established in it, to the unconceivable
advantage of the Publick, in rooting out _Enthusiasme_, with her
Daughter _Schisme_, both of which are upheld by nothing among
us as much, as by the Women, who are so silly and deceiveable
for want of Ingenious and Orthodox Education, and not for want
of Parts. Methinks the Rich and Honourable Ladies of the Church
of _England_, the _Elect Ladies_ of her Apostolical Communion
should be zealous to begin, and carry on such a work, as this;
which upon more accounts than I have mentioned, would make the
Daughters of _Israel_ be glad, and the Daughters of _Judah_ and
_Jerusalem_ rejoyce.
Had Dr. Hickes read Anna van Schurman's _May the Christian Maid be a
Scholar?_ Or had he seen the _Prospectus_ and _Essay_ of Mrs. Makin
which had appeared eleven years before he preached his Sermon to the
Lord Mayor?
Among the clergy of the English Church the Reverend George Hickes
must take rank as the earliest and one of the most important
defenders of higher education for women. His Easter sermon antedated
Mary Astell, and his claim was more generous and daring than hers. In
1710, when he published _Controversial Letters_, he included letters
from Susanna Hopton and Lady Gratiana Carew, and he considered them
valuable aids in the presentation of religious truth. It was he who
called Mrs. Bovey "the Christian Hypatia," and he was the chief
encourager of Elizabeth Elstob.
Besides these individual manifestations of approval Dr. Hickes
contributed to the cause of the right education of girls by a
translation of Fénelon's _Traité de l'éducation des filles_ (1688),
under the title _Instructions for the Education of a Daughter,
by the Author of Telemachus. To which is Added, A Small Tract of
Instructions for the Conduct of Young Ladies of the Highest Rank.
With Suitable Devotions Annexed. Done into English and Revised by
George Hicks._ In putting the French treatise into an English dress
Dr. Hickes has not hesitated to make such changes as would bring
the book closer to English needs. This book was so widely read and
so influential in England that rather full extracts may profitably
be given. But it should be noted in advance that the general tone
of this treatise is much more conventional, much less liberal, in
its ideas of education and of opportunity for self-expression than
was Dr. Hickes in his Easter sermon, and in his encouragement of
individual learned women. But it must be remembered that here he is
not writing for mature women with superior minds, but for young girls
of high social rank to whom he wishes to recommend the most exalted
ideals of character, behavior, and general culture. Modest indeed are
the requirements in exact learning:
Teach her to _Read_ and _Write_ correctly. It is shameful, but
ordinary, to see Gentlewomen, who have both Wit and Politeness,
not able yet to pronounce well what they read; they either
hesitate, or else chant, as it were, in reading; whereas they
ought to pronounce their Words with a plain and natural Tone,
such as is also firm and uniform. They are still more grossly
deficient in Orthography, or in Spelling right, and in the
manner of forming or connecting Letters in Writing. Accustom her
then, from the first, to make her Lines strait, and to have her
Character neat and legible.
It would also be requisite for her to understand a little
_Grammar_ of her Native Language; by which it is not meant,
she should be taught by Rule, as Boys are, _Latin_: Use her
only without Affectation, not to take one Tense for another; to
express herself in proper Terms; to explain clearly her Thoughts,
with Order, and after a short and concise manner. Thus will you
put her into a Method, by which she may teach her own Children
afterwards to speak well and truly, without any formal Study.
It is well known, that in Old Rome, Sempronia the Mother of the
_Gracchi_, contributed very much to the forming of the Eloquence
of her Sons, who became afterwards so great Men.
She ought also to understand the Four first great Rules of
Arithmetic; you may make good use of them, in teaching her
thereby to keep your Accompts. This is indeed a troublesome
Employment to a great many; but an Habit from her Childhood,
joyn'd with the Easiness of keeping readily, by the Help of these
Rules, all Sorts of Accompts, tho' never so intricate, will very
much diminish this Dislike. Now't is sufficiently known how much
Exactness of Accompts conduces to the good Order in Families.
After these instructions, which are to hold the first Rank, I
believe it will not be quite useless, to allow young Ladies
according to their Leisure, and their Capacity, the _reading_
of some select prophane Authors, that have nothing Dangerous in
them for the Passions. This is the Means to give them a Distaste
of most Plays and Romances; Give them therefore into their Hands
_Greek_ and _Roman_ Histories, in the best Translations; they
will see in them wonderful Instances of Courage, of Faithfulness,
of Generosity, and of the great Contempt of their own private
Advantage, whenever the Publick was in the Balance. Let them not
be ignorant of the History of _Britain_, which hath also some
very great Instances of Brave (no less than of Bad) Actions, that
hardly any thing in Antiquity will be found to exceed: Those
Illustrious Patterns which have been set by their own Nation and
by Persons too of their own Sex, will be apt more strongly to
influence them.
Though _Natural Philosophy_ seems not to be adapted to the
Understanding of Women, or at least not to fall within the Bounds
of what concerns their Duty; yet _Moral Philosophy_ is, upon both
Accounts, to be studied by them.[407] _Languages_ are next to
be considered. It is commonly believ'd in _France_, that a Lady
that would be well-bred, must learn _Italian_ and _Spanish_; as
with us, _French_ at least. I see nothing of less Benefit than
this Study, unless it be where the Lady is oblig'd to it on
account of Business.... Some, and those the farthest in the World
from all Pedantry, think it would not be unreasonable for this
End, to have them learn a little _Latin_. For which, there may
be a great deal more Reason in those Countries, where this is
look'd on as the Language of the Church; it being an inestimable
Fruit and Consolation, say they, to understand the Words of the
Divine Service, whereat one is oblig'd to attend so often. Yet
doubtless, every where the Advantages of it are not small, if but
accompanied with Humility, and season'd with Prudence.
To this restricted course of study is added most careful advice as to
general reading with a particular caution against romances. If Dr.
Hickes's advice had prevailed Steele's Biddy Tipkin and Mrs. Lennox's
Arabella would never have existed:
But, on the contrary, Young Persons, and Women especially,
without Instruction and Application, have always a roving
Imagination. For want of solid Nourishment, their Curiosity
violently turns them towards Vain and Dangerous Objects. Such
as have a little Capacity, are in Danger to set up for Wits;
they read, for this, all the Books that may feed their Vanity;
they are extremely affected with Romances, with Plays, with
the Relations of Chimerical Adventures, in which profane Love
bears a mighty Share; they fill their Minds with empty Notions;
and, using themselves to the Magnificent Language of Heroes, or
Heroins, in Romances, they spoil themselves hereby for Converse
in the World: For all these fine airy Sentiments, these generous
Passions, these strange Adventures, which the Author of the
Romance, or Play, hath invented merely for Pleasure, bear no sort
of proportion, either to the True _Motives_, which are generally
the Springs of our Actions in the World, and upon which all our
Affairs do turn; or to the _Mistakes_, which are commonly met
with in all that is here undertaken.
A poor raw Girl, whose Head is fill'd with the moving and
surprising Strains, which have charmed her in her Reading, is
astonished, not to find in the World real Persons, who may
answer to these Romantick Heroes. Fain would she live like those
imaginary Princesses, who are in the Romances, that is, always
charming, always adored, always above all kind of Want: What a
Disgust must it be then, for her to descend from this Heroical
State, down to the meanest Parts and Offices of Housewifery.
A second limit is set in cases where the roving imagination may carry
young women to subjects too high for them:
Some carry their Curiosity yet much farther still, and set
themselves even to decide Matters of Religion, as much as if
they had studied in the Schools of Divinity twice Seven Years;
and with a Magisterial Air, are for determining some of the
most Knotty Questions that divide Men of the greatest Learning
and Capacity; and for settling the Bounds of Truth betwixt the
several contending Parties, as if they were capable of the
Employment.
From "An Address to the Right Honourable the Lady ----, From the
Translator," we get a list of books considered by Dr. Hickes as
advisable reading for English girls:
It must be acknowledg'd, that there is not less difficulty in
the Chusing good Books to busy one's self withal in _Solitude_,
than good Friends to Entertain one in _Conversation_. Those
which I would recommend to a Young Lady, next to the HOLY
SCRIPTURES, are, THE WHOLE DUTY OF MAN; THE LADY'S CALLING;
and THE GOVERNMENT OF THE TONGUE. After these let her read
Dr. Cave's PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY, to give her an Idea of the
Lives and Manners of the Ancient Christians; with which she
may join his LIVES OF THE APOSTLES, and, A COMPANION FOR THE
FESTIVALS OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, by Robert Nelson, Esq. She
ought not likewise to be unacquainted with A SERIOUS PROPOSAL
TO THE LADIES, FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF THEIR TRUEST AND GREATEST
INTEREST, in TWO PARTS; nor with THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION AS
PROFESS'D BY A DAUGHTER OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND: These Two,
being written by one of her own Sex, may probably serve to make
a deeper Impression upon her, and will be both Instructive and
Delightful. To these, if you please, you may add, THE LADY'S
NEW YEARS GIFT; and, JUST MEASURES OF THE PIOUS INSTITUTION
OF YOUTH, by Mr. Monro. But, chiefly, the Two Volumes of THE
CHRISTIAN PATTERN, may very Profitably be recommended to her;
the Christian Exercises and Entertainments, in the Second, she
will find of very peculiar Service and Consolation to her, in
all the several Stages of Life; and if she can be brought to be
in love with the Character herein of _Philothea_, the Work is
soon done. The _Meditations_ and _Soliloquies_ of St. Augustine,
deserve likewise to be of the Number of her more intimate
Companions; together with the DEVOTIONS IN THE ANCIENT WAY OF
OFFICES, WITH PSALMS, AND HYMNS, AND PRAYERS FOR EVERY DAY IN
THE WEEK, publish'd by Dr. Hickes: Nothing can be ever sweeter
or finer than some of the _Meditations_, and particularly the
_Hymns_. To these let her add a most excellent Book, called,
THE OLD RELIGION; with the WINTER EVENING CONFERENCES; which,
together with solid Instruction, will be very divertive: Both by
Dr. Goodman. That when she approaches the Solemn Assemblies, she
may do it with that Understanding and Devotion which she ought,
let her read _Comber_ or _Bennet_ upon the _Liturgy_. That she
may read the _Scriptures_ in her Closet with a greater Relish,
let her peruse Mr. _Boyle's Considerations_ on their _Stile_.
For the _Psalms_, wherein I must needs suppose her particularly
conversant, she may have _Hatton's Psalter_, or _Patrick's
Paraphrase_, which are very plain, and will be of excellent Use.
The rest of the Practical Works of this last Author, will not
be unworthy her Acquaintance, but especially THE PARABLE OF THE
PILGRIM, the Pleasantness and Easiness of which will incite her
to read forward, and will much help to inspire a lovely Idea of
Religion. For the same Reason, that I recommend the last, I would
likewise THE MARTYRDOM OF THEODORA, with some few Pieces of like
Nature. And the TELEMACHUS of our Author will be better, sure,
for her, than any Romance or Novel besides: This, though written
in Prose, is perhaps the most compleat Poem that several Ages
have produced, for the Subject and Disposition of it. She may
be directed likewise to the _Psyche_ of Dr. _Beaumont_; to Dr.
_Woodford's Poetical Paraphrases_ on the Psalms and Canticles;
Sir _Richard Blackmore's Paraphrase_ on Job; the _Davideis_ and
some of the _Pindaricks_ of Mr. _Cowley_. If she be Curious, her
Time will not be lost in turning over the best Histories and
Memoirs. For _Plays_, there is great Danger in giving her but a
Taste of them, tho' there should be some few that may be read,
not only Innocently, but Usefully: And great Caution will be
required, not to be hurt by some that are the best Written, and
not to fall by them into sundry Inconveniences and Temptations,
which may not so presently, perhaps, appear; which the Principles
laid down in this Treatise of _Education_ do sufficiently evince.
For _Sermons_, at her leisure Hours, when she is disposed to
read them, there is abundant Choice. Let her not affect to read
such as are too Learned, or above her Capacity; and especially,
let her avoid all such as savour of a Party, and that may tend
to sowre her with Disputes either Civil or Religious. For the
Study of _Morality_, SENECA'S MORALS, Abstracted by _L'Estrange_,
is almost the only Piece, that I should offer to her, besides
the Incomparable Essays of Mr. _Collier_, and his ANTONINUS. I
mention but a few, among many others excellent in this kind,
because I would not have her distracted by too great Variety of
Reading.
The final admonition implies the danger always in the background of
the most liberal eighteenth-century mind, and that is that learning,
even hedged-in and expurgated learning, might make girls bold and
unfeminine:
That which remains next, is to win young ladies to beware of the
Reputation of being _Witty_; such a Reputation being constantly
attended with very great Perils and Inconveniences to them. For
if you take not Care hereof, they that are of a brisk lively
Spirit, will continually be intriguing, will be forward to
speak of everything, and be criticising on Matters beyond their
Capacity; while they affect to shew their Wit, and study to be
applauded when they are but troublesome by their Niceness. If
you can but give them a Relish for the true Delicacy, they will
presently be asham'd of this Affectation of Wit and Humour; and
so will avoid splitting upon those dangerous Shelves, which such
a Temper is ordinarily exposed to. Show them sweetly that the
Virgin Delicacy, the less it is touched, is the more admired....
A Maid ought not to speak but for Necessity; nor then but with an
Air of Diffidence and Deference: she ought not likewise to talk
of things which are above the common reach of Young Women, even
though she, herself, may, perhaps, be instructed in them.
[Sidenote: Mary Astell (1666-1739)]
It would be interesting to know whether the next and most pronounced
advocate of higher education, Mary Astell, had read Dr. Hickes's
sermon. Miss Astell[408] was born in Newcastle in 1666. Her father
died when she was twelve; the uncle who is supposed to have educated
her died when she was thirteen; her mother died when she was
eighteen. Beyond these facts nothing is known of her early life. A
record of the education of Anne Killegrew, Anne Kingsmill, and Mary
Astell would be a social document of great significance for the
reign of Charles II. But it was a record too slight to be kept. Of
the books these young ladies read, the studies they pursued, of the
schools they may have attended, of the tutors they had, we get no
hint. Of the early influences that led them to achievements unusual
in their day and circle we know nothing. When we first meet them
their formal education is complete and we can surmise its details
only by doubtful inferences based on later attainments.
At about twenty Mary Astell went to London and there she lived
till her death in 1731, Chelsea being the part of the city with
which she was most definitely associated. There is no available
record of the first seven years of her London life. But during this
time she must have been doing thorough and consecutive reading in
history, philosophy, theology, and politics. And she must have read
analytically, critically, with vigorous independent judgment, for
at twenty-seven she was well ready for the era of controversy on
which she then entered. Her style was also so matured in her first
published work as to indicate a disciplined mind and pen.
In 1693-94 she was in correspondence with John Norris concerning his
theory that God should be the sole object of human love. So acute, so
devout, so ably expressed, were Miss Astell's letters that Mr. Norris
won her consent to an anonymous publication of the correspondence
in 1695 under the title, _Letters concerning the love of God_. In
his Preface Dr. Norris said that he could not express the value he
set upon Miss Astell's letters either as to their ingenuity or their
piety, "the former of which might make them an entertainment for an
angel, and the latter sufficient (if possible) to make a saint of the
blackest devil." He said he had never met any discourses that had so
enlightened his mind and enlarged his heart, had so taken possession
of his spirit, and had exerted such "a general and commanding
influence over his whole soul."
While carrying on this discussion with Mr. Norris another subject had
been more definitely occupying Miss Astell's active mind, and in 1694
she had published her most original and important work, _A Serious
Proposal to the Ladies for the Advancement of their true and greatest
interest_. This appeared in July, 1694, and by 1697 the fourth
edition came out. "By a Lover of her Sex" was the only indication of
authorship. In 1700 she published _Some Reflections upon Marriage_,
a discussion based on the unhappy experiences of her neighbor in
Chelsea, the Duchess of Mazarine. The years 1704-05 show her greatest
activity. In _Moderation Truly Stated_ (1704) she answered Owen's
_Moderation a Virtue_, and in the Preface discussed Davenant's
recently published _Essays on Peace and War_. In _A Fair Way with
Dissenters and their Patrons_ (1704) she attempted to answer Defoe's
_Shortest Way with Dissenters_, while in a Postscript she carried on
her analysis of Owen's views on Moderation. In _An Impartial Enquiry
into the Causes of Rebellion and Civil War in this Kingdom_ she took
up another phase of politics--religious controversy, showing herself
a believer in Stuart doctrines of Church and State. _The Christian
Religion as Profess'd by a Daughter of the Church of England_ (1705)
showed the insidious dangers of latitudinarianism and deism within
the Church, and defended the Christian religion as reasonable and
resulting in moral excellence. In 1709 appeared her last pamphlet,
_Bart'lemy Fair, or an Enquiry after Wit_, an attack on Shaftesbury's
_Letter Concerning Enthusiasm_, which she, however, wrongly
attributed to Swift. The Preface to _Bart'lemy Fair_ is a bitter
invective against the Kit-Kat Club.
The pamphlets thus briefly listed are sufficient to show with
what sustained energy Mary Astell entered into the discussions
most vital in her day. Education, religion, politics, and social
questions held her entire attention. She was never side-tracked
into anything light or gay. We find no indications that she had
any interest in art or general literature, that she had any of the
recognized accomplishments, that she put any stress on scientific or
linguistic attainments. She was temperamentally a controversialist,
a propagandist. She was too serious, too much in earnest, to play
with a subject. Her disapprovals were never softened by any humorous
recognition of human foibles. For the graces and amenities of style
she had slight regard. But she was beyond any woman and most men
of her day in her command of the weapons of satire and irony. She
could pierce to the heart of a sham or a sophistry, and she was
merciless in her analysis of a trifling, corrupt, or irreligious
life. She stands as a new type of learned woman. No other woman had
ideas so rigorously thought-out or so firmly expressed. She taught
with authority, not with the timidity, self-distrust, or reticence
supposedly feminine in her time. She did not, write for money or for
fame. She wrote because she had a message.
Many of the actual causes championed by Mary Astell are now dead
issues, but her ideas concerning women, their education, their
increased freedom of action, even in some measure their economic
independence, led her into a field of controversy the problems of
which are even yet but imperfectly solved. In the cause of feminism
she did pioneer work quite amazing in its challenge of contemporary
opinion and in its tempered wisdom. Her fundamental assumption was
that the potentialities of women must be considered undetermined
until they have been given full opportunities for preparation, and
tested by real tasks. "Women are from their very Infancy," she says,
"debarr'd those advantages with the want of which they are afterwards
reproached, and nursed up in those vices which will hereafter be
upbraided to them. So partial are Men to Expect Bricks when they
afford no Straw."
Eleven years later in the Preface to _Reflections on Marriage_, in
the edition of 1706, she wrote with greater bitterness:
In the first place, Boys have much Time and Pains, Care and Cost
bestowed on their education, Girls have little or none. The
former are early initiated in the Sciences, are made acquainted
with Antient and Modern Discoveries, they Study Books and
Men, have all imaginable encouragement; not only Fame, a dry
reward now-a-days, But also Title, Authority, Power, and Riches
themselves which purchase all things, are the reward of their
improvement. The latter are restricted, frown'd upon, beat,
not _for_ but _from_ the Muses; Laughter and Ridicule that
never-failing Scare-Crow is set up to drive them from the Tree of
Knowledge. But if in spite of all difficulties Nature prevails,
and they can't be kept so ignorant as their masters would have
them, they are stared upon as Monsters, Censur'd, Envyd and every
way discouraged, or at the best they have the Fate the Proverb
assigns them: _Virtue is praised and starved_.
Even more caustic is her outburst against the women who accept the
theory of their inferiority and hug their chains:
She's a Fool who would attempt their Deliverance or Improvements.
No, let them enjoy the great Honour and Felicity of their tame,
submissive and depending Temper! Let the Men applaud, and let
them glory in this wonderful Humility! Let them receive the
Flatteries and Grimaces of the other Sex, live unenvied by their
own, and be as much belov'd as one such Woman can afford to love
another! Let them enjoy the Glory of treading in the Footsteps
of their Predecessors, and of having the Prudence to avoid that
audacious attempt of soaring beyond their Sphere! Let them
Houswife or Play, Dress and be pretty entertaining Company! Or,
which is better, relieve the Poor to ease their own Compassions,
read pious Books, say their Prayers, and go to Church, because
they have been taught and us'd to do so, without being able to
give a better Reason for their Faith and Practice! Let them not
by any means aspire to being Women of Understanding, because
no Man can endure a Woman of Superior Sense, or would treat a
reasonable Woman civilly, but that he thinks he stands on higher
Ground, and that she is so wise as to make Exceptions, in his
Favour, and to take her Measures by his Directions; they may
pretend to Sense, indeed, since meer Pretences only render one
the more ridiculous! Let them, in short, be what is call'd
_very_ Women, for this is most acceptable to all sorts of Men;
or let them aim at the Title of _good devout_ Women, since Men
can bear with this; but let them not judge of the Sex by their
own Scantling: For the great Author of Nature and Fountain of all
Perfection, never design'd that the Mean and Imperfect, but that
the most Compleat and Excellent of his Creatures in every Kind,
should be the Standard to the rest.[409]
In spite of these very real elements of discouragement Mary Astell
proposed a remedy. The basic assumptions of her _Serious Proposal_ in
1694 are nearly identical with those of Bathsua Makin's _Prospectus_,
twenty-one years earlier. They agree that girls have minds worth
training, that education is their natural right, their most reliable
safeguard, and a permanent source of strength and happiness. But here
the likeness ends. Mrs. Makin's inchoate plans contemplated little
more than the ordinary school for housewifery and accomplishments,
with the addition of solid learning for those who could be lured into
it. The total training did not extend beyond the years a girl would
ordinarily spend in a boarding-school, hence the genuine learning she
could gain would be almost negligible. Mary Astell's plan was much
more comprehensive. It was for women as well as for girls. To her
"Religious Retirement" might go women tired of the world, young women
waiting the arrangement of a suitable marriage, heiresses desiring to
escape pursuit, spinsters anxious for some honorable retreat from a
derisive world. All would find a serene and ordered life. But no vows
were to be taken. In fact, one important purpose of the college was
to provide England with virtuous and accomplished wives, through whom
social regeneration might be brought about.
In thus educating wives, however, Mary Astell had no iconoclastic
or alarming notions of female dominance. She is as positive as
the author of _The Ladies Calling_, or of Halifax himself, in her
conception of the husband as the head of the house. She says:
She then who Marries, ought to lay it down for an indisputable
Maxim, that her Husband must govern absolutely and intirely,
and that she has nothing else to do but to Please and Obey. She
must not attempt to divide his Authority, or so much as dispute
it; to struggle with her Yoke will only make it gall the more,
but must believe him Wise and Good in all respects the best,
at least he must be so to her. She who can't do this is no way
fit to be a Wife, she may set up for that peculiar Coronet the
antient Fathers talk'd of, but is not qualified to receive the
great Reward which attends the eminent Exercise of Humility and
Self-denial, Patience and Resignation, the duties that a Wife is
call'd to.[410]
Education can fortify and guide married women and can give them
unending private satisfaction, but can in no way alter their status
or secure them any freedom.
To the unmarried woman the college offered the only means so far
devised whereby they could not only escape from the odium of a single
life, but could have a chance for activity along lines chosen in
accordance with their tastes and capacities.
The aims of the college and the plans as outlined were so reasonable
and put forward with so much eloquence that they attracted
favorable attention. Part II of the _Proposal_ was dedicated to the
Princess Anne, and it is to her that we must give the credit for a
subscription of £10,000 for the necessary buildings.[411] And it is
practically certain that Bishop Burnet, at this time tutor to the
young Duke of Gloucester and so of easy access to Anne, is the one to
whom we must ascribe the withdrawal of that subscription and along
with it the royal sanction so essential an element in the success of
the plan. Bishop Burnet saw in this proposed "Lay Monastery" a source
of plots and cabals dangerous to the Church. And Anne was too devout
and narrow-minded a churchwoman to run any such risks. So the plan
came to no practical realization.
Though the time was probably not ripe for such a college, it is
significant that in the aristocratic circle where Mary Astell moved
there was apparently considerable favorable discussion of the
project. In 1697 Thomas Burnet wrote to the Electress Sophia of Mary
Astell as "a young Ladie of extraordinary piety and knowledge as any
of the age" and comments on her "two little books of proposals to
the Ladies" as showing "both her zeal and judgment in thee advyces
given to her sex, for the reformation of manners, living, studies,
and conversations of the ladies."[412] In the same year Defoe, in his
_Essay on Projects_, referred with praise to Mary Astell, though not
agreeing with her plans in detail. In 1697, also, Evelyn commented
favorably on Mary Astell: He said that he could not omit some
acknowledgment of the satisfaction he had received from her "most
sublime" writings, and he adds concerning her college, "Besides what
lately she has proposed to the Virtuous of her Sex, to shew by her
own Example, what great Things, and Excellencies it is Capable of,
and which calls to mind the Lady of that _Protestant Monastery_, Mrs.
_Farrer_, not long since at _Geding_ in _Huntington-shire_."[413]
George Wheler, in _A Protestant Nunnery_, refers to "_A Serious
Proposal_ written by an ingenious Lady" and gives it the further
compliment of adopting some of its ideas.[414] George Hickes, in
his _Instructions for the Education of a Daughter_ (1708), gives _A
Serious Proposal_ and _The Christian Religion_, by Mary Astell, in
the list of books which he commends to young women. Robert Nelson, in
an _Address to Persons of Quality_ (1715), also praised the _Proposal
to Ladies_ as made "by a very Ingenious Gentlewoman, which was then
well approved by several ladies and others."[415]
The wits of the time are usually accredited with derisive laughter
at the female college. But the chief attacks were from Swift in
_The Tatler_ in 1709, fifteen years after the _Proposal_, Part I,
and twelve years after the second part. Swift's _Tatler_ articles
followed immediately on Mary Astell's _Bart'lemy Fair_, and were
really not so much an attack on a college for women as an attempt to
answer Mary Astell's satiric commentary on the Kit-Kat Club, and on
Steele and Swift in particular. It was a sort of _quid pro quo_ in
which Swift seized upon the weapons most available. The coarseness
of the description of the college must have been very offensive to
Mary Astell as a similar vulgarity of attack in _Three Hours after
Marriage_ must have offended Lady Winchilsea. Swift represents the
professors of the college to be Madonella (Mary Astell), Epicene
(Mrs. Manley), and Mrs. Elstob, a union that would probably have been
as irritating to Mrs. Manley as it was to her virtuous co-adjutors in
academic chairs. The break-up of the college is due to a company of
rakes to whom the ladies collegiate give joyous welcome.
Steele's attacks on Mary Astell are much milder. He represents her as
"Mrs. Comma, the great Scholar," who defends her desired seclusion
by herself announcing to would-be callers that she is "not at home."
Again, she is put in as the foreman of a jury in a Court of Honour,
and is described as a "professed Platonist that had spent much of her
time in exhorting the sex to set a just value upon their persons, and
to make the men know themselves."
That the attention attracted by Mary Astell's writings was not all
contemptuous has been already indicated. Her books were, however,
but one source of her influence. In her later life not only was she
of sufficient repute to make her home in Chelsea a sort of minor
learned salon, but she had considerable personal influence among
younger women of like aspirations. Of three of her friendships with
learned women we have some knowledge. The most intimate of these
was with Lady Elizabeth Hastings, twenty-two years her junior. Lady
Betty went to Ledstone to live in about 1705 and was thereafter only
occasionally in London, so they could not have had much continuous
personal association, but they apparently found themselves in
immediate accord on vital subjects. Lady Betty and her sisters on the
remote Yorkshire estate almost realized in a small way Mary Astell's
ideal of a religious retirement. If the correspondence between them
were only extant it would be invaluable. Elizabeth Elstob is also
given as one of Mary Astell's friends. Miss Elstob was in London
from 1709 to 1715 and came to know Miss Astell during this period.
It was to Miss Elstob that Ballard wrote for information about Miss
Astell when he wished to write her biography, which might seem to
argue a known friendship between the two. But against any theory of
real intimacy is the fact that Miss Astell, a woman of substance and
wide influence, did not exert herself in Miss Elstob's behalf when
she was left penniless and driven into obscurity. The most noted
of Mary Astell's literary friends was Lady Mary Wortley Montagu.
The culmination of that friendship in the indignant championship by
Mary Astell of Lady Mary's _Turkish Letters_ appears in an essay
dated 1724, but the friendship was of much earlier date. It was not
by wealth or position or beauty or social charm that Mary Astell
gained and held her friends. In person she was "ill-favoured and
forbidding," in manner she was abrupt and even rough in repelling
what displeased her. She defended her own leisure and followed her
own plans with defiance of all social conventions. She had the
instincts of a recluse. She was deeply religious, austere to the
point of asceticism, and her friendships were no matter of mutual
admiration and easy compliances. She was a flaming advocate of Lady
Mary against all detractors, but she stoutly combated Lady Mary's
religious indifferentism. It was by sheer force of intellectual
ability, moral earnestness, and profound convictions that Mary Astell
gained her general repute and by sincerity and an unexpected ardor of
devotion that she held her friends.
[Sidenote: An Essay in Defence of the Female Sex (1696)]
Mary Astell's _Serious Proposal_ appeared in 1694 with a second
edition in 1695. In 1696 there appeared another feminist pamphlet
the full title of which was _An Essay in Defence of the Female Sex
in which are inserted the characters of A Pedant, A Squire, A Beau,
A Vertuoso, A Poetaster, A City-critick. C. In a Letter to a Lady
by a Lady._ A second edition in 1696, a third in 1697, a fourth in
1791, and an undated but later edition, testify to its popularity.
This pamphlet was long attributed to Mary Astell, but both internal
and external evidence are against her authorship. There seem to
be reasons for ascribing it to Mrs. Drake, the sister of the Mr.
James Drake who wrote the commendatory poem and essay published
with the _Defence of the Female Sex_.[416] Whoever the author was
she certainly deserves the credit of being the most brilliant woman
writer of her period. In her Preface she says:
There have been women in all Ages, whose Writings might vie
with those of the greatest Men, as the Present Age as well as
past can testifie.... Their names are already too well known,
and celebrated to receive any additional Lustre from so weak
Encomiums as mine.... I pretend not to imitate, much less to
Rival those Illustrious Ladies who have done so much Honour to
their Sex, and are unanswerable Proofs of what I contend for.
I only wish, that some Ladies now living among us (whose names
I forbear to mention in regard to their Modesty) wou'd exert
themselves, and give us more recent Instances, who are both by
Nature and Education sufficiently qualified to do it, which I
pretend not to.
The _Essay_ opens with a statement that women must plead their own
cause, since men no longer enter the lists in their behalf. The most
recent woman's advocate, William Walsh, she dismisses with scant
praise:
Those Romantick days are over, and there is not so much as a _Don
Quixote_ of the Quill left to succor the distressed Damsels. 'T
is true a Feint of something of this Nature was made three or
four years since by one; but how much soever his Eugenia may
be oblig'd to him, I am of Opinion the rest of her Sex are but
little beholding to him. For as you rightly observ'd, _Madam_,
he has taken more care to give an Edge to his Satyr, than force
to his Apology; he has play'd a sham Prize, and receives more
thrusts than he makes.... He levels his Scandals at the whole
Sex, and thinks us sufficiently fortified, if out of the Story
of Two Thousand Years he has been able to pick up a few Examples
of Women illustrious for their Wit, Learning or Vertue.... I
have neither Learning nor Inclination to make a Precedent, or
indeed any use of Mr. W's labour'd Common Place Book; and shall
leave Pedents and School-Boys to rake and tumble the Rubbish of
Antiquity, and muster all the _Heroes_ and _Heroins_ they can
find.
The _Essay_ takes up no such serious and practical topics as Mary
Astell discusses. The curious question proposed is, "Whether the
time an ingenious Gentleman spends in the Company of Women, may
justly be said to be misemploy'd, or not." The opinion to be combated
is that of men who declare the company of women to be irksome and
unprofitable. The author gives the old argument that in souls there
is no male and female, and brings Scripture proof that woman was
expressly created as a companion for man. If the divine plan has been
interfered with by the disqualification of women the cause is to be
found not in their minds or natures but in their lack of education.
Men should no more exult over being wiser than women than they would
congratulate themselves on conquering a man whose hands were tied.
But women, even without regular education, know more than they are
supposed to know. At boarding-schools, to be sure, they learn only
needlework, dancing, singing, music, drawing, painting, and other
accomplishments; and of languages they know only their mother tongue
and French, "now very fashionable and almost as familiar amongst
Women of Quality as Men." But after school days they have abundant
leisure and the world of classic literature is open to them in
translations. Ovid, Tibullus, Juvenal, Horace, Plutarch, Seneca, and
Cicero may be read by the woman who knows only her mother tongue,
and Dryden has already given "Divine Samples" of the sweetness
and majesty of Virgil. The graces of France and Italy are equally
at woman's command. Following this account of foreign, especially
classic literature, is an energetic passage, very modern in tone,
attacking the conception dominant in the Augustan age that the term
"learning" applied only to a knowledge of the dead languages.
Nor can I imagine for what good Reason a Man skill'd in Latin
and Greek, and vers'd in the Authors of Ancient Times shall be
call'd Learned; yet another who perfectly understands _Italian_,
_French_, _High Dutch_, and the rest of the _European_ Languages,
is acquainted with the Modern History of all those Countries
... shall after all this be thought Unlearned for want of those
two Languages. Nay, though he be never so well vers'd in the
Modern Philosophy, Astronomy, Geometry, and Algebra, he shall
notwithstanding never be allow'd that honourable Title....
Thus you shall have 'em allow a Man to be a wise Man, a good
Naturalist, a good Mathematician, Politician, or Poet, but not
a Scholar, a learned Man, that is no Philologer. For my part I
think these Gentlemen have just inverted the use of the Term, and
given that to the knowledge of words, which belongs more properly
to Things. I take Nature to be the great Book of Universal
Learning, which he that reads best in all, or in any of its
Parts, is the greatest Scholar, the most learned Man.
Furthermore, ignorance of Latin is no such drawback when one
considers the English language and its riches. Who is nobler than Mr.
Shakespeare? Whose grief more awful than Mr. Otway's? What tenderer
Passion than in the _Maid's Tragedy_? Whose thoughts more beautiful
and gallant than Mr. Dryden's? Her "Indignation, Compassion, Grief,
are all at the Beck of these dramatists." Who can rival Sir George
Etheredge, Sir Charles Sedley, for "neat Raillery and Gallantry"?
Who has such strong "Wit and pointed Satyr" as Mr. Wicherley? Who
can offer such "sprightly, gentile, easie Wit" as Mr. Congreve? For
critics, who can more justly point out beauties and defects than
Mr. Dennis and Mr. Rymer? If for poetry we are inclined, what more
ravishing than the fancy of Cowley and the gallantry of Waller? For
elevation of soul and reverence are there not the _Fairy Queen_ and
_Paradise Lost_? Then as for "satyrists," there are Mr. Butler and
Mr. Oldham. For morals there are sermons, pious, solid, eloquent. For
essays, Lord Bacon, Sir Walter Raleigh, Mr. Osborn, Sir Wm. Temple,
Sir George Mackenzie, Sir Roger L'Estrange.
The second portion of the _Essay_ answers those who accuse women of
inconstancy, dissimulation, impertinence, and vanity. These, the
author maintains, are imperfections of human nature, not especially
of women; and her method of proof is to show typical masculine
exemplifications of these defects. Under vanity are a "Bully," a
"Scourer," a "Fop Poet," a "Beau," a "Sloven"; these being men who
disqualify themselves for agreeable social intercourse by a too
emphatic and egregious desire to bring themselves into notice.
Of these the most voluminous Fool is the Fop Poet who ... has
always more Wit in his Pockets than any where else, yet seldom
or never any of his own there. _Esop's Daw_ was a _Type_ of him;
for he makes himself fine with the Plunder of all Parties. He is
a Smuggler of Wit, and steals French Fancies without paying the
customary Duties. Verse is his _Manufacture_; For it is more the
labour of his Finger than his brain.... He talks much of _Jack
Dryden_ and _Will Wycherley_, and the rest of that Set, and
protests he can't help having some respect for 'em, because they
have so much for him, and his Writings.... Once a Month he fits
out a small _Poetical Smack_ at the charge of his Bookseller,
which he lades with _French Plunder_ new vampt in English, small
Ventures of _Translated Odes_, _Elegies_ and _Epigrams_ of Young
Traders, and ballasts with heavy Prose, of his own.... He is the
Oracle of those that want Wit and the Plague of those that have
it.... Men avoid him for the same Reason they avoid the Pillory,
the security of their Ears.
The "Pedant" and the "Country Squire" are both blockheads, and thus
unfitted for rational society. "For my part, I think the Learned and
Unlearned Blockhead pretty equal; for 't is all one to me, whether
a Man talk Nonsense, or unintelligible Sense." These characters are
especially effective. Not Pope himself has a more trenchant and
sharply antithetic picture of the "Vertuoso." Contemporary public
opinion as to the uselessness of the students of grasses, flies,
bugs, shells, coins, etc., received concise and picturesque statement
in the _Defence_.
What improvements of _Physick_, or any useful Arts, what noble
Remedies, what serviceable Instruments have these Mushrome, and
Cockel-shell Hunters oblig'd the World with? For I am ready to
recant if they can shew so good a Med'cine as Stew'd _Prunes_,
or so necessary an Instrument as a _Flye Flop_ of their own
Invention and Discovery.... I wou'd not have any Body mistake
me so far, as to think I wou'd in the least reflect upon any
sincere, and intelligent Enquirers into Nature, of which I as
heartily wish a better knowledge, as any _Vertuoso_ of 'em all.
You can be my Witness, Madam, that I us'd to say, I thought Mr.
_Boyle_ more honourable for his learned Labours, than for his
Noble Birth; and that the _Royal Society_, by their great and
celebrated Performances, were an Illustrious Argument of the
Wisdom of the August Prince, their Founder of Happy _Memory_; and
that they highly merited the _Esteem_, _Respect_ and _Honour_
paid 'em by the Lovers of Learning all _Europe_ over. But though
I have a very great Veneration for the _Society_ in general, I
can't but put a vast difference between the particular Members
that compose it.
The character of a "Beau" is keen and minute in observation. No
coquette was more admirably dissected. The later _Tatler_ pictures
are inferior in brightness and pointed detail. The whole account
is readable, laughable. Impertinence is defined as the quality of
busying one's self with the trivial, and forcing these petty affairs
on the attention of the uninterested. The author responds in lively
fashion to those who count this a peculiarly feminine trait:
Thus, when they hear us talking to, and advising one another
about the Order, Distribution, and Contrivance of _Household
Affairs_, about the _Regulation_ of the _Family_, the
_Government_ of _Children_ and _Servants_, the provident
management of a Kitchin, and the decent ordering of a _Table_,
the suitable _Matching_ and convenient disposition of
_Furniture_, and the like, they condemn us for impertinence.
Yet they may be pleased to consider, that as the affairs of
the World are now divided betwixt us, the _Domestick_ are our
share, and out of which we are rarely suffer'd to interpose our
Sense. They may be pleased to consider likewise, that as light
and inconsiderable as these things seem, they are capable of no
Pleasures of Sense higher, or more refin'd than those of _Brutes_
without our care of 'em. For were it not for that, their Houses
wou'd be meer _Bedlums_, their most luxurious Treats, but a rude
confusion of ill Digested, ill mixt Scents and Relishes, and the
fine Furniture, they bestow so much cost on, but an expensive
Heap of glittering Rubbish. Thus they are beholding to us for the
comfortable enjoyment of what their labour, or good Fortune hath
acquir'd or bestow'd, and think meanly of our care only, because
they understand not the value of it.
The _Essay_ is, in reality, hardly more than a frame for the
"Characters." It defends the female sex, by the method of denouncing
the "Adversaries of the Sex." Its result as argument is, therefore,
on the whole, negative. But the positive value of the book is
great in its spirited exemplification of a woman's power to form
independent judgments and to write vigorous English.
[Sidenote: Daniel Defoe (1661-1731)]
In 1697, the year in which the fourth edition of Mary Astell's _A
Serious Proposal to the Ladies_ appeared, Defoe published his _Essay
on Projects_. Among plans for joint-stock banks, repairing and
widening of highways, assurance societies, sick clubs, pensions for
widows, etc., comes "An Academy for Women":
I have often thought of it as one of the most barbarous customs
in the world, considering us as a civilized and a Christian
country, that we deny the advantages of learning to our women.
We reproach the sex every day with folly and impertinence, while
I am confident, had they the advantages of education equal to
us, they would be guilty of less than ourselves. One would
wonder indeed how it should happen that women are conversible
at all, since they are only beholden to natural parts for all
their knowledge. Their youth is spent to teach them to stitch
and sew, or make baubles; they are taught to read, indeed, and
perhaps to write their names, or so, and that is the height of
a woman's education; and I would but ask those who slight the
sex for their understanding, what is a man (a gentleman I mean)
good for, that is taught no more?... The soul is placed in the
body like a rough diamond, and must be polished, or the lustre of
it will never appear; and 't is manifest that, as the rational
soul distinguishes us from brutes, so education carries on the
distinction, and makes some less brutish than others. This is
too evident to need any demonstration. But why, then, should
women be denied the benefit of instruction?... I would ask any
such, what they can see in ignorance that they should think it a
necessary ornament to a woman? Or how much worse is a wise woman
than a fool? Or what has the woman done to forfeit the privilege
of being taught?... Shall we upbraid women with folly, when 't
is only the error of this inhuman custom that hindered them from
being made wiser?
The capacities of women are supposed to be greater, and their
senses quicker, than those of the men; and what they might
have been capable of being bred to, is plain from instances of
female wit, which this age is not without; which upbraids us
with injustice, and looks as if we denied women the advantage
of education for fear they should vie with the men in their
improvements. To remove this objection, and that women might
have at least a needful opportunity of education in all sorts of
useful learning, I propose the draught of an academy for that
purpose.... I doubt a method proposed by an ingenious lady, in
a little book called _Advice to the Ladies_, would be found
impracticable.... When I talk, therefore, of an academy for
women, I mean both the model, the teaching, and the government
different from what is proposed by that ingenious lady for whose
proposal I have a very great esteem, and also a great opinion of
her wit; different, too, from all sorts of religious confinement,
and, above all, from vows of celibacy.
Wherefore the academy I propose should differ but little from
public schools, wherein such ladies as were willing to study,
should have all the advantages of learning suitable to their
genius....
The building should be of three plain fronts, without any
jettings or bearing work, that the eye might at a glance see from
one coin to the other; the gardens walled in the same triangular
figure, with a large moat, and but one entrance.
Having thus provided against intrigues and escapades he would have no
guards, no eyes, no spies, set over the ladies, but would expect them
to be tried by the principles of honor and strict virtue.
Defoe's arguments in favor of the higher education of women represent
the most advanced thought of his age.
Methinks mankind, for their own sakes, since, say what we will
of the women, we all think fit one time or other to be concerned
with them, should take some care to breed them up to be suitable
and serviceable, if they expected no such thing as delight from
them. Bless us! what care do we take to breed up a good horse,
and to break him well! And why not a woman?...
But to come closer to the business. The great distinguishing
difference which is seen in the world between men and women, is
in their education; and this is manifested by comparing it with
the difference between one man or woman and another.
And herein is it I take upon me to make such a bold assertion,
that all the world are mistaken in their practice about women;
for I can not think that God Almighty ever made them so delicate,
so glorious creatures, and furnished them with such charms, so
agreeable and delightful to man, with souls capable of the same
accomplishments with men, and all only to be stewards of our
houses, cooks, and slaves.
Not that I am for exalting the female government in the least;
but, in short, I would have men take women for companions, and
educate them to be fit for it....
I need not enlarge on the loss the defect of education is to
the sex, nor argue the benefit of the contrary practice: it is
a thing will be more easily granted than remedied. This chapter
is but an essay at the thing; and I refer the practice to these
happy days, if ever they shall be, when men shall be wise enough
to mend it.
Defoe asserts that his ideas on this subject were not derived from
Mary Astell, and is even slightly irritated that she was ahead of
him in publication, since he had long before mentally elaborated the
scheme he suggests.
[Sidenote: "Sophia Pamphlets" (1739-40)]
The feminist argument was carried on in what are known as the "Sophia
Pamphlets." The first of these appeared in 1739 and was entitled
_Woman not inferior to Man: or a short and modest vindication of the
natural right of the fair sex to a perfect equality of power, dignity
and esteem with the men. By Sophia a person of Quality._ There was an
immediate answer under the title, _Man superior to Woman; containing
a plain confutation of the fallacious arguments of Sophia in her
late Treatise intitled Woman not Inferior to Man_. In 1740 Sophia
responded with, _Woman's superior excellence over Man or a reply to
the author of a late treatise entitled Man superior to Woman. In
which the excessive weakness of that Gentleman's answer to Woman
not inferior to Man is exposed._ The three pamphlets were published
together in 1757 under the collective title _Beauty's Triumph_.
These pamphlets give an interesting little passage at arms in the
feminist controversy. The subjects taken up in the first pamphlet are
closely modeled on _The Woman as Good as the Man_. "In what esteem
the women are held by the men and how justly"; "Whether women are
inferior to men in this intellectual capacity, or not"; "Whether the
men are better qualified to govern than women, or not"; "Whether the
women are fit for public offices, or not"; "Whether the women are
naturally capable of teaching sciences, or not"; "Whether women are
naturally qualified for military offices, or not,"--these are the
topics discussed. With regard to the education of women Sophia says:
Men, by thinking us incapable of improving our intellects, have
entirely thrown us out of the advantages of education, and
thereby contributed as much as possible to make us the senseless
creatures they imagine us. So that for want of education, we are
rendered subject to all the follies they dislike in us.... And
as our sex, when it applies to learning, may be said at least to
keep pace with the men, so are they more to be esteemed for their
learning than the latter: Since they are under a necessity of
surmounting the softness they were educated in; of renouncing the
pleasure and indolence to which cruel custom seem'd to condemn
them to overcome the external impediments in their way of study;
and to conquer the disadvantageous notions, which the vulgar of
both sexes entertain of learning in women. And whether it be
these difficulties add any keenness to a female understanding, or
that nature has given women, a quicker more penetrating genius
than to men, it is self-evident that many of our sex have far
out-stript the men. Why then are we not as fit to learn and teach
the sciences, at least to our own sex, as they fancy themselves
to be.... We may easily conclude then, that if our sex, as it
hitherto appears, have all the talents requisite to learn and
teach these sciences, which qualify men for power and dignity,
they are equally capable of applying their knowledge to practice
in exercising that power and dignity. And since, as we have said,
this nation has seen many glorious instances of Women, severally
qualified to have all public authority center'd in them, why may
they not be as qualified at least for the subordinate offices of
ministers of state, vice-queens, governesses, etc.?
Sophia has, however, one reservation. Women may not enter the
ministry:
Thus far I insist there is no _science_ or _public office_ in a
state which women are not as much qualified for by Nature as the
ablest of Men. With regard to divinity, our natural capacity has
been restrain'd by a positive law of God: and therefore we know
better than to lay claim to what we could not practice without
sacrilegious intrusion.
The Gentleman, in his answer to Sophia, takes up her claims
_seriatim_ and disposes of them to his own satisfaction.
Neither Juvenal nor I [he says] deny that Women may acquire some
superficial Learning. All we contend for is that it is ever evil
bestowed upon them, inasmuch as it renders them useless to their
own sex, and a nuisance to ours.... I grant Greece has shewn its
Sappho, Rome her Cornelia, France has produced a Dacier; Holland
has brought forth a Schurman; Italy a Doctress; and England now
boasts an Eliza and a Sophia.
But the whole serio-comic tone of the Gentleman's _Essay_ makes it
difficult of interpretation. Sophia writes as if she were in genuine
earnest in her protest and propaganda. But it seems much less certain
that the Gentleman is not merely playing with the situation.[417] The
identity of the writers has not been discovered. Miss McIlquham[418]
believes Lady Mary Wortley Montagu to be Sophia. But this is hardly
likely, since 1739 is the year Lady Mary went to Italy. A writer
signing himself "Medley," in _Notes and Queries_, suggests that
"Sophia" was Lady Sophia Fermor, the second wife of Lord Cararet,
and thinks she may also have been the "Sophia" of _Letters of Portia
to her Daughter Sophia_, though these were not published till years
later.[419]