_The Position of French Women in Eighteenth Century Society._
In the earlier half of the eighteenth century, at a time when the
inferiority of English women was so generally recognised as to leave
no room at all for controversy, the Woman Question was attracting a
good deal of notice in France, and scarcely a year passed without
some kind of contribution to its literature.[10] It was by this time
an acknowledged problem, and theoretically speaking it may be said
that by the middle of the century feminism in France had carried the
day, thanks mainly to the influence of modern philosophy, which the
salons helped in propagating. The instruction-problem was also settled
in theory in a manner satisfactory to feminists, and only that of
female occupations remained as yet unbroached. The position of women
in society not only became a favourite topic of conversation and
controversy, but came to command a number of able pens in periodical
literature and in the drama. In the latter branch of literature a
number of pieces were written on the subject, some of which were
hostile and sought the aid of ridicule, but of which the majority were
of a more sympathetic tendency, showing that Molière's attack had
failed. All the important theatres paid their tribute of attention to
the cause of feminism. One of the earliest was Montchenay's "_Cause
des Femmes_", a comedy performed at the Théâtre italien as early as
1687, while a more elaborate dramatic statement of the cause, entitled
"_l'Ile des Amazones_" was composed in 1718 by Lesage and d'Orneval,
and suggested the machinery of the "_Amazones Modernes_" of Legrand
(1727), performed at the Théâtre français. This brings us to the field
of Utopian literature _à la_ Mrs. Manley, whose "_New Atlantis_" had
appeared a few years previously. The Amazons, who had founded their own
community in a remote island, having forsworn the society of men, made
their return conditional on the acceptance of the following terms:
1stly, there was to be no subordination of the wife to the husband;
2ndly, the women were to be allowed to study, and to have their own
universities;
3rdly, they were to be eligible to the highest positions in the army
as in jurisdiction and finance; and finally it was to be considered as
shameful an act on the part of a man to break the conjugal faith as on
that of a woman, so that men might no longer boast of that which in a
woman was deemed criminal. That the last was among the most rankling
sores will be seen later on, when the "dual standard of morality"
aroused the indignation of true "Blues" like Mrs. Chapone, and equally
of radical feminists like Mary Wollstonecraft.
But the piece in which the question was best and most conclusively
treated was a comedy, entitled "_La Colonie_", which Marivaux wrote
about the middle of the century, and which, possibly owing to lack of
success, was not included in the different editions of his works,
so that it is at present accessible only in the _Mercure de France_
of 1750[11]. It was on the whole sympathetic to women, in spite of
the failure of their effort--described in the play--to establish a
feminine republic, and the pleasantries of which men and women alike
are the object. Both the weak points of the female character, as
vanity, coquetry, garrulity and frivolity, and those of the men, as
envy and vainglory, are made the object of ridicule. But the feminist
tendency of the whole appears from the fact that the speeches of the
female leaders are more reasonable than those of the males who are
worsted by them. The women of the island-state, bent upon vindicating
their rights, and inflamed by the speeches of Arthenice and Madame
Sorbin,--whose respective lover and husband occupy responsible
positions on the male side--contemplate a final breach between the
sexes. They experience their first disappointment when the young and
pretty women refuse to give up their empire of coquetry, especially
when told to make themselves ugly! An ultimatum is duly sent to the
male leaders, demanding the admission of women to different occupations
and equality between the sexes in matrimonial affairs, a refusal of
which will mean instant dissolution of the social state. When the men,
driven to despair, are on the point of surrendering, a philosopher's
stratagem brings relief. Rumours are spread of a hostile attack upon
the island, and the women, by virtue of the proposed compact, are
called upon to swell the ranks of the defending army. This proves too
much for the majority, who find that they prefer the worries of the
daily household routine to the hardships of war, causing peace to be
restored.
The periodical essay was also made subservient to the propagation of
feminist ideas when in 1750, while in London, Mme Leprince de Beaumont
started the "_Nouveau Magasin français_", in which the rights of women
were vindicated with great fervour. Nine years later, a second, even
more pronounced attempt to adapt the periodical to the female interests
was made in the "_Bibliothèque des Femmes_", which after a short run,
was continued in the "_Journal des Dames_". This paper, which enjoyed
great success, was continued for twenty years, during which it served
the female interests and contained a number of articles written by
women. The original intention of having only female contributors
proved incapable of realisation. The paper sang the praises of women
in different keys, as an antidote to the daily revilings in other
periodicals, and the original idea of promoting the female interests by
stimulating the female intellect was gradually lost sight of.
But the greatest friends of woman and her cause, who fought and won
her battles for her, and were willing to recognise her empire, were
the philosophers of the Encyclopedia, with the emphatic exception
of that most inconsistent of all geniuses: J. J. Rousseau. The
Encyclopedian spirit is best reflected by d'Alembert's "_Lettre à J.
J. Rousseau_", written in reply to the "_Lettre sur les Spectacles_"
in the famous controversy on the drama. He protests against the
latter's cynical views of womanhood. The human race would be indeed
in a pitiable condition, he says, if the worthiest object of the
male homage were indeed so rare an occurrence as Rousseau chooses to
intimate. But supposing he should be right, to what cause would such a
deplorable state of things be attributable? "L'esclavage et l'espèce
d'avilissement où nous avons mis les femmes; les entraves que nous
donnons à leur esprit et à leur âme, le jargon futile et humiliant pour
elles et nous; auquel nous avons réduit notre commerce avec elles,
comme si elles n'avaient pas une raison à cultiver, ou n'en étaient
pas dignes; enfin, l'éducation funeste, je dirai presque meurtrière,
que nous leur prescrivons, sans leur permettre d'en avoir d'autre;
éducation ou elles apprennent presque uniquement à se contrefaire sans
cesse, à n'avoir pas un sentiment qu'elles n'étouffent, une opinion
qu'elles ne cachent, une pensée qu'elles ne déguisent. Nous traitons
la nature en elles comme dans nos jardins, nous cherchons à l'orner en
l'étouffant." And d'Alembert makes an appeal to the philosophers of the
age to destroy so pernicious a prejudice, to shake off the barbarous
yoke of custom and to set the example by giving their daughters the
same education as their sons, that they may be saved from idleness and
the evils that follow inevitably in its train. And the cause of woman
thus became incorporated in the great scheme of Liberty and Equality
which was slowly maturing in the master minds of the nation.
The gulf that yawned between the two opposing parties was widening
every instant. On one side were those in possession of power and
authority, leaning upon Custom and Tradition, drawing what inspiration
animated them from the source of the Ancients and stubbornly opposing
any change which might tend to undermine their position. Ranged on the
other was the intellect of the nation, the devotees of a philosophy
which held the promise of the millennium to be almost within immediate
reach, firing the mind with their daring schemes for improvement
and asserting the coming triumph of Modernism. Nothing could be more
natural than that woman should throw in her lot with the latter and
that her cause should become a subdivision of the great problem of
humanity. The great sphere of activity, next to the wide field of
literature, was the more modest compass of the eighteenth century salon.
Madame de Lambert herself draws a parallel somewhere between the salons
of the seventeenth and those of the eighteenth century, more especially
with regard to the prevailing codes of morality. Her conclusions, like
those of M. Brunetière nearly two centuries later, are overwhelmingly
in favour of Mme de Rambouillet and her contemporaries. She complains
that the delicate intellectual amusements of the seventeenth century
assemblies have been largely superseded by the grosser delights of the
card-table and of a declining stage. The merest semblance of knowledge
is regarded with disapproval,--this in consequence of Molière's furious
onslaught in his _Femmes Savantes_--and as a natural consequence of
ignorance, the female morals have sadly decayed. Being thus deprived
of the means of improving the mind, women are naturally driven to a
life of pleasure-seeking. And she doubts whether society has derived
any benefit from the change. "Les femmes ont mis la débauche à la
place du savoir, le précieux qu'on leur a tant reproché, elles l'ont
changé en indécence." In other words, Mme de Lambert wanted to return
to the earlier preciosity, granting women the right to be instructed,
and trying to steer clear of those excesses which had called forth the
attacks of Molière and Boileau. She emphatically protests against the
pernicious habit of making a pleasing appearance the sole aim of female
education, and claims for her sex the blessings of an education which
in cultivating the mind will improve the female morals.
It would be impossible to deny that the moral standard was considerably
lower than it had been half a century earlier. The consequences
entailed by the revocation of the Edict of Nantes and by the
suppression of Port Royal had been equally disastrous. The chief
bulwarks of Protestant and Catholic orthodox faith had been removed,
leaving a free field to both libertinage and disbelief. The coarseness
of manners which it had been the aim of the Rambouillet societies to
suppress reasserted itself on the one hand, while on the other the
rising spirit of philosophical inquiry and scientific research had
degenerated into a scepticism which was no longer counteracted by that
spirit of religious mysticism which had been a weapon of orthodoxy
against unbelief. The Encyclopedian spirit often spelt deism and
atheism, both of which flourished in the salons. The very fact that
their society was no longer exclusive, but freely admitted people of
all class and opinions, and from different parts of the world, accounts
for the enormous influence exercised by these "bureaux d'esprit" upon
public opinion in the eighteenth century. Moreover, the monarchical
power was declining, and the king, in establishing a barrier between
himself and the society of the salons, was himself instrumental in
raising opinions which more and more became the prevailing ones, and
upon which he had no influence whatever. Rationalism began to gain
ground rapidly and became a basis for speculations which soon came to
include politics and economics.
M. Brunetière, whose judgment on the salons of the eighteenth century
is very severe, complains that the lofty artistic and moral ideals of
the preceding generation had given way to scepticism and to cynicism of
a kind which made Madame de Tencin refer to her guests as "ses bêtes".
This statement, which no doubt is mainly correct, seems strange in
consideration of the fact that it was by the new philosophy which the
same salons helped in spreading, that the great problems of the future
of the human race were put forward, which in broader minds gave rise
to much idealism in what M. du Bled so finely calls: "le souci de la
modernité." But eighteenth century society regarded philosophy as an
intellectual pastime rather than as bringing the hope of relief to the
oppressed millions, and if it occasionally dabbled in social problems,
the misery of the multitude did not touch the majority of those who
lived lives of comfort and luxury, and were utterly unacquainted with
suffering, very deeply. No direct attempt at improvement, therefore,
was to be expected from them, they were talking in theory about things
of the practice of which they knew nothing. Brunetière calls the
eighteenth century salon "le triomphe de l'universelle incompétence",
with which its seventeenth century predecessor, with its more limited
programme, compares favourably. It became habitual "to talk wittily
of serious problems, while seriously discussing trifling subjects".
It needed, indeed, the fiery imagination and fervent enthusiasm of a
Rousseau to inspire the philosophical theories with the life of his
genius. And yet, if the social problems of the time were not directly
solved by eighteenth century society, they were at least formulated by
it in such a manner as to make them the catchword of the period and to
draw to them the attention of those who were better able to do them
justice. The very fact that the salons were ruled over by women and
independent of court-influence made them the place where opinions were
most freely uttered and most readily listened to.
Literature, which had been the chief occupation of the early salons,
now found a powerful rival in science. The poetry of the eighteenth
century "ruelles" became of an even lighter and more insipid kind. On
the other hand, the latter half of the previous century had witnessed a
growing interest in anatomy and surgery, and after the introduction (by
Fontenelle) of astronomy as a fashionable science, Newton became the
rage, and ladies of quality like the marquise du Châtelet were among
his worshippers. The domination of the salons thus became extended
to philosophy, science, economics and politics. When the Ancient and
Modern controversy was re-introduced in the opening years of the
century, nearly all the female philosophers were fervent partisans of
the Moderns, believing in a future in which all human beings would be
guided by the light of Reason.
Of this eighteenth century modernism, feminism is, in fact, only a
subdivision. This appears from the work of Poullain de la Barre,
and still more from the great defence of the Cause of Woman (when
threatened by Boileau in Satire X "_Sur les Femmes_") by the great
champion of modernism Perrault in his "_Apologie des Femmes_." The
Moderns, indeed, saw in the prejudice against women a remnant of
the servility of antiquity which was in flagrant contradiction with
the dictates of Reason. Hence the close connection between feminist
literature in the eighteenth century and life in the salons, of which
the authors were mostly among the regular frequenters. The marquise de
Lambert laid down her ideas of feminism in her "_Réflexions sur les
Femmes_", and we have seen that both D'Alembert and Marivaux were among
the staunch defenders of the right of the sex to equal consideration.
Boileau's death had left the "précieuses" in the undisputed possession
of the field of light literature, to which now became added that of
science. This new form of preciosity, "la préciosité scientifique",
which made its appearance in the salon of Mme de Lambert, where it
found an ardent worshipper in Fontenelle, grew so powerful that even
Voltaire's efforts to crush it with ridicule were unavailing. So strong
had the female dictatorship become, that three of the most influential
men-of-letters in the kingdom had vainly tried to get the better of
it. But unfortunately the platonic ideal to which the women of the
preceding century had owed their ascendancy had degenerated, and in
consequence of the altered circumstances women often had to buy with
physical submission and degradation that worship of their beauty and
deference to their opinion which made them at the same time the rulers
and the slaves of men, and against which the moralists of the century,
with the glaring exception of Rousseau, made it their business to
protest loudly, but in vain.
Mme de Lambert merely wanted to restore the right sort of preciosity
to its throne as an antidote to the evils of ignorance, in which she
set herself the ideals of the Hôtel de Rambouillet, and advocated
moderation in everything. Her salon thus became as much a protest
against exaggeration and affectation as against the prevailing opinion
that the education of women should only aim at teaching them how to
please the opposite sex. An occasional frequenter calls it "l'hôtel de
Rambouillet présidé par Fontenelle, et où les précieuses corrigées se
souvenaient de Molière."
Being left a widow at a comparatively early age, Mme de Lambert opened
her salon in the Palais Mazarin in the rue Colbert about 1700. She
was at that time rather more than fifty, and reigned supreme over her
circle of visitors for more than thirty years. She set herself to prove
that it was possible to have a lively entertainment without the help
of the card-table, relying chiefly on conversation and literature.
Her Tuesdays and Wednesdays soon became famous, and attracted both
the aristocracy and the literati. Among her regular visitors were
Fontenelle, Marivaux, Mlle de Launay (Mme de Staal) and de la Motte,
champion of the moderns, whilst Mme Dacier undertook the defence of the
opposite cause. Mme de Lambert herself was the ruling spirit of the
Académie, of which the way towards membership lay through her favour,
and the chief literary productions previous to being published--if
published they were--were read and criticised in her circle.
If Mme de Lambert deserves mention for having kept a salon which
formed a link between the seventeenth and the eighteenth century, and
exercised a beneficial influence on the tone of conversation, she
is even more entitled to attention on account of the part played by
her in the development of feminism. She was a moralist rather than
educator, and followed in the steps of Fénelon. She had the Cartesian
belief in the infallibility of Reason, with two exceptions, which do
honour to the qualities of her heart, and saved her from the inevitable
conclusions of logic _à outrance_: religion and honour. "Il y a deux
préjugés auxquels il faut obéir: la religion et l'honneur", and a
little further: "En fait de religion, il faut céder aux autorités.
Sur tout autre sujet, il ne faut recevoir que celle de la raison et
de l'évidence", excluding even honour. But her actions show that she
realised the danger which lies in obeying the duties of reason while
totally excluding the admonitions of the heart. Stronger than her love
of logic was that exquisite form of sensibility which made her at least
a real champion of the less fortunately situated. There is real concern
for the welfare of her inferiors in the precept that "servants should
be treated as unhappy friends", and a true love of humanity in the
statement that "humanity suffers in consequence of the inequality which
Fortune has introduced among men". Words which come from the heart and
entitle her to sympathy and admiration.
Her ideas concerning female education are contained in the "_Avis d'une
mère à sa fille_". She insists on the importance of cultivating the
female mind to render woman an agreeable companion to her husband, who
will then honour her and give her her due. And she places herself on
the standpoint which Mary Wollstonecraft took after her, in basing upon
this foundation her vindication of women's _right_ to be instructed.
She complains of the tyranny of men, who condemn to ignorance
the partners of their wedded lives, disregarding the pernicious
consequences entailed thereby. For ignorance leads to vice, and the
mind should be kept employed, were it only as a means of avoiding
mischief. To Mme de Lambert the Muses were "l'asyle des moeurs". Her
educational scheme contains more instruction than Fénelon's, as it
includes philosophy, which is to reclaim women to virtue through the
medium of Reason.
Of all the French female authors on the Woman Question it is Mme de
Lambert whose ideas show the nearest approach to Mary Wollstonecraft.
The essential difference between the two--the former's indifference
to political emancipation--was due to a difference in social
circumstances, which made her a ruler whose influence over men no
political enfranchisement could have increased, and also to the
condition of things in France, where the first steps towards the
political equality of the stronger sex were yet to be taken. She
believed the domestic circle to be the proper sphere of women, and
her "metaphysics" of love--if less fantastic than the ideals of her
17th century predecessors, which, however, found some adherents among
the regulars of her own circle in de la Motte and the Duchesse du
Maine--were certainly more conducive to real happiness in the high
moral principles out of which they arose. It was the marquis d'Argenson
who said of her writings that they were "un résumé complet de la morale
du monde et du temps présent la plus parfaite", and there seems no
reason to doubt the truth of his judgment.
Unfortunately the good example set by the marquise de Lambert was
not followed in other circles, where the increasing influence of the
feminine element, instead of purifying the morals of the male sex,
depraved them yet further. The great catastrophe of the end of the
century was hastened by the vicious excesses of many females.
Goncourt says that the eighteenth century lady of quality represented
the principle that governed society, the reason which directed it and
the voice which commanded it; she was, in fact, "la cause universelle
et fatale, l'origine des événements, la source des choses," and
nothing could be achieved without her concurrence. Rousseau, when
first arriving in Paris, was advised by a Jesuit to cultivate the
acquaintance of women, "for nothing ever happened in Paris except
through them".
The bulk of female influence upon the morals of the century was
disastrous. The gross materialism amongst society-women found
expression in a well-known utterance of the marquise du Châtelet:
"We are here merely to procure ourselves the greatest possible
variety of agreeable sensations." The most perverse code of morality
came to reign in some of the most-frequented salons. One of the
leading hostesses of Paris boasted that one of her reception-days
was reserved for "gentlemen of a damaged reputation", the so-called
"jour des coquins". Of the Englishmen who frequented these circles of
appalling vice, Horace Walpole--who in a space of forty years paid
six successive visits to Paris, and who was very far indeed from
being a sentimentalist,--refers to the utter absence of any sense of
decency among people whose chief occupation was the demolition of
all authority, whether temporal or spiritual, including the Divine
Authority itself.
One of the worst examples of the epicurian spirit was furnished by
the salon of the notorious Mme de Tencin. She disdained even to keep
up the appearance of quasi-platonic courtship and lived in open and
shameless debauch. Her entire life was made up of political intrigues
and adventures of gallantry, in which she turned the latter to account
to promote the former. She possessed plenty of literary talent, and her
two novels "_Le Comte de Comminges_" and "_Le siège_ _de Calais_" rank
among the best female productions of the century--but even Fontenelle
thought her heartless. After a childhood spent in the very imperfect
seclusion of a convent which was notorious for its nocturnal orgies,
"la religieuse Tencin" came to Paris in 1712 to begin her siege of
male hearts, directing her first attack against no less a person than
the Regent himself, and ultimately contenting herself with one of his
ministers, which gallant adventure was followed by many more. She gave
birth to a child, whom she deposited on the steps of a church, to be
found and brought up by strangers. This child afterwards became the
famous d'Alembert.
In order to be able to pursue her political schemes she filled her
salon on different days of the week with people of various occupations
and interests; keeping philosophers and académiciens, politicians and
ecclesiastics carefully separated, making herself their confidante, and
possessing herself of their secrets, managing them all so cleverly that
they became her tools without being aware of it, secretly despising her
"bêtes" while openly flattering them. The visitors to her two weekly
dinners were nearly all men, Bolingbroke and Matthew Prior being among
her "habitués". Apart from Mme Geoffrin, who became her successor, and
of whom she said that "she only came to see if there was anything among
her inventory that she might have a use for", there were hardly any
women, for Mme de Tencin would brook no possible rivals. Such was her
degradation that she wrote a most indecent "_Chronique scandaleuse_"
for the special delectation of the Regent. As Mme de Lambert's salon
represents eighteenth century society at its best, so Mme de Tencin's
foreshadowed some of the worst instances of female intriguing that were
to follow.
A totally different salon was that kept by Mme Geoffrin. Mme de
Tencin--whose own birth was not above suspicion--had all the pride
of class, and looked down upon the Third Estate; Mme Geoffrin on the
contrary was the daughter of a court-valet and consequently remained
all her life a "bourgeoise", without any pretence to "préciosité" or
anything but a kind and warm heart, a most remarkable wit, sound common
sense and a natural delicacy which made her an ideal hostess. For Mme
de Tencin's lofty disdain she substituted an almost maternal solicitude
for the welfare of her "children", who, with the exception of Mlle de
Lespinasse, were of the male sex. Besides d'Alembert, Diderot, Morellet
and Grimm there were the ubiquitous Horace Walpole, David Hume the
philosopher and Wraxall; the first-named of whom in his correspondence
declared her to be "a most extraordinary woman with more common sense
than he had ever encountered in one of her sex."
The principles of the salon in the Rue St. Honoré were much the same
as at Mme de Tencin's, but a milder spirit prevailed, and the demon
of intrigue was absent. Mme Geoffrin kept fixed reception-days, her
Mondays being devoted to artists, and her Wednesdays to men-of-letters
and philosophers, while her intimates were made welcome on both days.
The hostess presided over the assemblies without in any way obtruding
her personal opinions or bringing her private interests into play,
exercising an absolute authority which never became tyranny, and
keeping peace among the more excitable of her guests[12]. She was
much appreciated by them all, not least by the future king of Poland,
Stanislas Augustus, her devoted "son", causing Walpole to refer to
her as "the queen-mother of Poland". Her apotheosis came when in her
sixty-eighth year she visited Warsaw, where she met with a royal
reception. After her return her mental powers declined rapidly, and her
daughter--fearing the influence of scepticism upon her mother--kept her
favourite philosophers at a distance, eliciting from her the remark
that she was, like Godfrey of Bouillon, "protecting her tomb against
the infidels."
The third of the "Muses of the philosophical Decameron", whose
salon was much in vogue, was Julie de Lespinasse, whose attractive
personality and brilliant conversational and epistolary powers account
for her success. She combined the warmth of heart of Mme Geoffrin with
the ardent temperament of Mme de Tencin, but without the latter's
brazen-facedness. She possessed a degree of sensibility which made her
succumb to different lovers "for each of whom she cherished a passion
which it was beyond her power to resist." Her youth had been fed with
Richardson, "_Clarissa Harlowe_" being her favourite. She had entered
the employ of the famous marquise du Deffand, herself a prominent
hostess, in the capacity of reader. Her wit and the natural buoyancy
of her character soon made her more popular than her mistress, whose
guests took to visiting her in her room, while her mistress was still
asleep. Mme du Deffand in her jealousy accused her of "skimming off
the cream of her visitors' conversation"; a breach followed, and Julie
was enabled by some supporters to set up a small salon in the rue
St. Dominique, which flourished from 1764 till the year of her death
in 1776. She could not afford sumptuous dinners, but her guests were
sure of a warm welcome and of some interesting conversation, which
she conducted so tactfully, effacing herself completely and making
her guests feel at home by always appearing interested, that her lack
of personal beauty was quite forgotten in the charm of her manner.
Politics were a frequent topic, and Mlle de Lespinasse was among the
professed admirers of the British Constitution. D'Alembert, Condorcet,
Turgot and also Mme Geoffrin belonged to her circle, and that Walpole
knew her also, appears from the correspondence between him and Mme du
Deffand, who at Julie's death complained that the rupture with her had
robbed her of the friendship of d'Alembert.
While the women of society were celebrating their triumphs in the
salons, philosophy was trying to do something for the female multitude.
We have seen that it was Fénelon who caused education to be included
among the subjects of moral philosophy, but it was the diffusive
power of Rousseau's writings that made it one of the most frequently
discussed themes of the century. His "_Emile, ou de l'Education_",
which appeared in 1762--curiously enough, the year of the suppression
of Jesuitism in France--marked a new era in the history of education,
if not in that of feminism. Of Rousseau it might have been reasonably
expected as the champion of liberty and equality to carry to their full
extent the philosophical venturings of Fénelon and thus to usher in a
new era of female emancipation. However, with an inconsistency which
is one of his chief characteristics, Rousseau not only deliberately
left the female half of mankind out of his scheme for political
enfranchisement, but ranged himself among the anti-feminists by the
great emphasis he laid on the consideration of a sexual character,
which he construed into evidence of female inferiority, by arguing
that it makes the subjection of woman a natural law, which is to be
respected according to the theory that "whatever is in Nature, must be
right." Owing to the contradictory nature of his views, however, while
directly opposing the movement, he indirectly furthered it in two ways.
In the first place, his social theories were adopted without reserve
and without restrictions by some of his followers, who thus repaired
the omission which had left Woman out of the scheme; and secondly it
was Rousseau who once for all broke the back of the monastic system of
education by continuing the campaign which Fénelon in theory, and Mme
de Maintenon in practice, had entered upon before him, and bringing
it to a happy conclusion. The reduction and ultimate abolition of
the education of religion, which was one of the great victories of
the philosophical school, became manifest in the latter half of the
century. It was a signal success, achieved over an unwilling government
and crowned by the expulsion of the Jesuits, who had formed one of the
chief bulwarks against the growing revolutionary spirit.
The Cartesian principles, which had been a beacon-light to seventeenth
century philosophy, were supplemented in the next by a new element:
that of _utility_. In John Locke's "_Treatises of Government_" and
also in "_Some Thoughts concerning Education_", he let himself be
guided chiefly by considerations of usefulness, thus becoming the
founder of that doctrine of Utilitarianism which, after influencing
the French Encyclopedians, was to return to England a century later
and to find a fervent champion in William Godwin. In deciding upon a
course of action, the inevitable question was: "What is the use?" and
this guiding principle became paramount also in matters of education.
To Locke, who was a man of practical sense and not a mere theorist,
the problem was how to make people understand their real interests,
and to make them act in accordance with them, which must necessarily
lead to happiness. His educational system, therefore, is based upon the
communication of such useful knowledge as will most contribute to the
total amount of happiness to be found on this globe[13]. Locke insisted
on the necessity for a physical education which increases the mental
and moral capacity by rendering the body less subject to fatigue.
Simplicity and effectiveness in dress and food, and plenty of outdoor
exercise are recommended, and in this important matter, as indeed in a
great many others, Locke may be said to have struck the keynote of the
philosophical tendencies of the eighteenth century, anticipating the
famous Nature-theory of Rousseau. Many important questions were mooted
by him. He introduced the ethical problem of reward and punishment, and
discussed the advisability of reasoning with a child and of making him
learn a trade, which became a part of the educational programme of the
next generations.
The French philosophers became Locke's immediate heirs, and afterwards
repaid their debt to England with interest. Where Locke gave his "young
gentleman" a tutor, his views were adopted by the opponents of the
monastic education. It could hardly be expected of Locke, who lived
in a time when the female fortunes in his own country were at a very
low ebb, to have paid much attention to the possibility of making
women share in the obvious advantages of the new system. However, if
he did little or nothing for British women, his theories were turned
to account for the benefit of their French sisters, whose position
in the lower walks of life was not very much better than theirs. His
French disciples, carrying the theory of utility to its fullest extent,
included the female sex in their reflections. The first in point of
time was the Abbé de St. Pierre, of whom Rousseau contemptuously said
that he was "a man of great schemes and narrow views". Seen from
a feminist standpoint this judgment is cruelly unjust. For, even
granting that the Abbé's schemes were too Utopian to be capable of
full realisation--a circumstance he himself sadly recognised--the
fact remains that he was responsible for the first project of female
education _on a national basis_, making wholesale education a
state-concern and thus wanting to extend the benefit of instruction to
many who would otherwise be deprived of it. He stands at the beginning
of the lane that leads via Bernardin de St. Pierre and Talleyrand to
the great Condorcet.
The Abbé de St. Pierre was willing to grant women _as a class_ that
equality which the better-class women had actually attained, and he
believed in their instruction, holding that on the instruction given
to the young, whether male or female, depended the happiness of
the coming race. But he believed still more in the necessity for a
moral education, for his utilitarianism is not of this earth, but of
eternity. With him the ever recurring question is: "What will it profit
the soul?", and the fear of punishment in Hell is rather stronger with
him than the sense of moral duty. He thus laid himself open to attack
from the notorious Mme de Puysieux, who believed in reputation and the
preservation of appearances, informing him that it was silly to let the
fear of Hell withhold people from seeking happiness by cultivating the
good opinion of others, _whether deserved or not_! The final clause
sums up what moralists found most objectionable in the inclinations of
a depraved age.
The real aim of women, according to the Abbé, should be to please God,
and not men, so as to gain eternal life. He has no ambition for women
beyond that of making them devout Christians and good housekeepers,
and his educational efforts are accordingly directed towards these two
accomplishments. Girls are to dress simply, to eschew cards--that curse
of the age--and to learn useful needlework, the keeping of accounts and
in general such things as will be of the greatest use to them in the
performance of their domestic duties. But he very unaccountably refuses
their youth the advantages and innocent enjoyments of home-life,
wishing them to be brought up in colleges, in which they are to be kept
immured until such time as their education will be completed, when they
will be ready for matrimony! At college girls may learn to be good
citizenesses, but they will scarcely gain the necessary experience for
managing a home of their own. The comprehensiveness of his scheme,
however, and his recognition of the female equality entitles him to a
place in the history of feminism above Rousseau.
The latter's attitude towards the feminist movement is so complicated
as to demand careful analysis. Where women were concerned the strong
individuality of the female genius would not allow him to side
fully either with "those who wished to condemn them to a life of
household-drudgery, making of them a sort of superior slaves, or those
who, not satisfied to vindicate woman's rights, made her usurp those
of the stronger sex", for the former have too low a notion of the
duties of womanhood, whilst the latter overlook the considerations
of a sexual character by which, according to Rousseau, the relations
between the sexes are exclusively determined. Rousseau's opinion of the
depth to which women had sunk appears from his "_Lettre à d'Alembert
sur les Spectacles_," which contains a fierce onslaught upon their
moral perversity, which has caused the drama, too feeble to rise
to worthier themes, to fall back upon erotics of a most despicable
kind. Rousseau judged women capable of becoming something better than
what eighteenth century society had made of them, but in his demands
for them and in his schemes for perfecting their moral education he
was extremely modest. Next to the salons he held the education of
the convents, "ces véritables écoles de coquetterie", to be chiefly
responsible for the degradation of the female character. The young
women who, on leaving them, enter society, carry into instant practice
the lessons of vanity and coquetry which the convents have supplied.
For convent and salon Rousseau wanted to substitute the blessings
of true domesticity--painted in glowing colours in the pages of the
"_Nouvelle Héloise_." His sympathies went out, not to that college-life
of which the Abbé de St. Pierre had such sanguine expectations, but to
the intimacies of the family-circle, presided over by loving parents,
an ideal which he reintroduced in the fifth book of his treatise on
education, where, circumstances rendering it advisable to provide the
finished male product with a suitable partner for life, the principles
of Sophie's education are elaborately described[14].
Where he recommends making the duties of life as pleasant as possible
to the young pupil, protesting against that austere conception which
allowed her no other diversion than studies and prayers, Rousseau sides
with Fénelon. In his opinion girls enjoy too little freedom, whilst
grown-up women are left too much liberty. Let the young girls have an
opportunity to enjoy life, he says, or they will take it when they are
older. Nor does the notion of making them at an early age acquainted
with the world inspire him with terror, for he trusts with Mme de
Sévigné that the sight of noisy gatherings will only fill them with
disgust instead of tempting them to imitation.
So far there is nothing anti-feminist in Rousseau's ideas. But
unfortunately we have come to the end of what is positive and his
further utterances rather advocate woman's subjection than her
enfranchisement. The habit of reverting to first principles which
is so dominant a characteristic of his Nature-theory makes him draw
a parallel between the sexes upon the foundation of those innate
qualities which constitute the sexual character. Men and women are the
same in whatever is independent of sex, and radically different, almost
diametrically opposed, in all that pertains to it. Thus all disputes
regarding equality are vain, for "in what the sexes have in common they
are naturally equal, and in that in which they differ no comparison is
possible". And woman is to be congratulated upon this diversity, for
in it lies the great secret of her subtle power. Where woman asserts
the natural rights which arise from this difference she is superior
to man; where she tries to usurp the natural rights of the opposite
sex she remains hopelessly below their level. The two sexes have
different spheres of activity, and each sex can do well only in its own
sharply-defined sphere.
Reason itself demands this stress laid on the contrast between the
sexes. For, says Rousseau, once women are brought up to be as like men
as possible, their authority and influence, _which are rooted_ _in
their being essentially different_, will be lost without a substitute.
This remark is one of great wisdom and psychological insight. Rousseau
saw what many extreme feminists are so apt to forget, that those who
wish to develop in women those qualities which naturally belong to man,
and to suppress in them what is proper to their own sex, are in reality
doing them irreparable harm.
There are, according to Rousseau, a male empire and a female one. The
former rests upon a foundation of superior physical strength and mental
superiority; but although the stronger sex are masters in appearance,
they in reality depend on the weaker. For the female empire,
_established by Nature herself_, derives its strength from those
delicate feminine charms which command the worship of that gallantry
which Nature again has instilled into the hearts of men.
In giving this interpretation of female power and influence Rousseau
exposed himself to attack. The platonic worship, we have seen, had
sadly degenerated, and what remained was a worthless, hypocritical
imitation which was felt by well-meaning women as an insult rather than
a compliment. But what called down a storm of feminist indignation upon
his head was the sweeping conclusion he drew from the natural law that
man, having physical strength on his side, must always play the active
part in the intercourse between people of different sexes, while woman
has to be always content with the passive rôle. "The sole object of
women," says Rousseau, "ought consequently to be _to please_ men, on
whom their relative weakness has made them dependent", and goes on to
assert that all female education should as a natural consequence be
"relative to men".
There is in the above passage, which shows that on the subject
of feminism Rousseau, instead of a revolutionary, was rather a
conservative, nothing to suggest the bold and daring vindication of
female rights that was so soon to resound in the philosophical world
like a mighty trumpet-blast. His ideas about the position of Woman are
characteristic of his want of equilibrium in presenting a bewildering
chaos of judicious observations and unaccountable oversights. It is
not so much that some of his statements are untrue, as that they
are incomplete. In drawing sweeping conclusions from the physical
inferiority of the sex he deliberately closes his eyes to their moral
and mental possibilities. It is true that he insists upon a moral
education for women, but whatever of merit may be contained in this
claim is instantly neutralised by its only object: making women more
acceptable companions to their husbands, contributing to the happiness
of the latter by unwearying devotion and unalterable constancy. There
are undoubtedly many women to whom the above would seem the most
acceptable task, as there are others whose consciousness of their
talents would make them indignantly reject so subordinate a part. As
long as women are not cut after the same pattern, allowance will have
to be made for individual propensities and any theory, however cleverly
put together, will succeed with some types of womanhood and hopelessly
fail with others.
St. Marc Girardin indignantly remarks that the condition of the women
in Rousseau's Nature-scheme suggests the oriental seraglio. This is an
exaggeration, for the "relative education" is qualified by Rousseau to
such an extent that the harem-picture which it may at first conjure up
is considerably modified. He wished the term "made to please men" to be
understood in a far wider meaning than the merely sensual, for no one
realised better than he that in the absence of a spiritual element no
love based upon the grosser passions can possibly endure.
Where the female weaknesses and vanities are concerned Rousseau's
discernment even surpasses that of Fénelon. The task of woman being to
please, Nature has made her regard above all things the opinion of the
opposite sex. And the moralist who teaches men to ignore the opinion of
others as destructive of individuality, goes so far as to prescribe for
women an unlimited deference to opinion and reputation. "Opinion, which
is the grave of virtue among men, ought to be among women its high
throne". The utilitarian question: "A quoi cela est-il bon?", which
is to be the guiding principle in Emile's case, changes its character
where Sophie is concerned, and becomes: "Quel effet cela fera-t-il?"
The question what impression a thing will produce naturally leads to
putting the shadow before the substance, and appearance before reality,
and as such may have a most disastrous effect.
Sophie's love of needlework is accounted for not so much by
considerations of usefulness as by the reflection that this delicate
occupation will make her appear to advantage to her admirer. The same
train of thoughts makes her abominate the useful occupation of cooking,
by which her hands might become soiled. Did Rousseau actually imagine
that his much-recommended simplicity in dress would hold out against
the innate love of finery which was to help in the accomplishment of
what he considered the chief aim of womanhood?
Rousseau certainly did not mean to imply that woman must of necessity
be morally inferior to man, but simply that Nature had ordained that
she shall be subjected to his superior strength, to his cooler judgment
and to his superior common sense. He was certainly capable of imagining
an ideal female, and of worshipping in her the essentially sexual
qualities which make her differ from man. That portion of the fifth
book of _Emile_ which deals with the first meeting between the lovers
leaves little doubt as to how he pictured to himself his ideal of
womanhood. The philosophical treatise is more than once in danger of
becoming a romance, embodying the slightly sobered ideals of courtship
of the author of "_Julie_". It cannot be denied that Sophie has charm
and that her subjection to Emile is not oppressive. But to form a
correct notion of Rousseau's ideas regarding the social position of
women we must strip the story of its lyrical element and glance at
the purely philosophical portion of the treatise. It is there that we
must look for an answer to the question: "Did Rousseau look upon women
as partakers of the faculty of Reason?" And he gives his reply in the
following words: "L'art de penser n'est pas étranger aux femmes, mais
elles ne doivent faire qu'effleurer les sciences de raisonnement." He
would not even object to a system by which the functions of women were
strictly limited to the performance of sexual duties, if it were not
that utter ignorance would make them fall a too easy prey to rascally
adventurers! The subsequent statement that, after all, it being the
task of woman to get herself esteemed, _so as to justify her husband's
choice_, a little knowledge would not come amiss, does not mend matters
in its re-introduction of the relativity-principle. Here indeed,
Rousseau "pitches the pipe too low".
Woman's special domain is that of sentiment. But the very "sensibility"
which renders her more alluring by contrast, prevents her from forming
a sound judgment. This appreciation of women appears clearly in the
passages of _Emile_ in which the choice of a religion is discussed.
Emile is not allowed to decide until he has completed his eighteenth
year, when he is made to judge for himself, uninfluenced by his tutor.
Sophie's religious notions, on the contrary, are carefully instilled
by her parents at an early age, it being silently taken for granted
that she will never arrive at a degree of understanding which will
enable her to form her own convictions. "The female reason is of a
practical nature, which renders them very quick to find the means of
arriving at a fixed conclusion, but _does not enable them_ _to form
that conclusion independently of others_". Again that utter dependence,
that total lack of individuality which characterises Rousseau's female
ideal. "My daughter", says Sophie's father, "knowledge does not belong
to your age; when the time has come, your husband will instruct you."
The amount of actual instruction in Rousseau's scheme is reduced to a
minimum. There is no knowing what damage may be done to the unstable
female imagination by the dangerous literature of the time. Here
we recognise the author of the Dijon prize-essay with its crushing
conclusion. Rousseau frankly hated the "femme bel esprit". Sophie's
mind is to be formed by observation and reflection, and not by books.
But how can Sophie be supposed to reflect, one might ask, unless she
had certain fundamental truths pointed out to her, the instilment of
which is not the work of every parent, however well-intentioned? It
is Rousseau's fatal mistake that he cannot bring himself to realise
that moral culture simply cannot exist without a certain amount of
intellectual culture. He wanted to have both granted to men, and his
conclusions tended to withhold both from women. The march of humanity
finds him in the first rank of those who were pioneers; the feminist
movement, while recognising his cleverness, looks upon him as a
dangerous, and sometimes does him the injustice of calling him an
hypocritical enemy.
The charge of insincerity has, indeed, been often brought against
him, although he has found some defenders also. However, he is
condemned by most women. Mrs. Fawcett, in her introduction to Mary
Wollstonecraft's _Vindication_, opines that a man who made so light
of his duties towards his own children, and whose married life was
so full of blame has no right to pronounce on problems which require
the disinterestedness and self-abnegation of the pure idealist. Where
Rousseau points out the shortcomings of the women, of his time and
regrets them, he is with Mary Wollstonecraft; where he fails to show
the way by which improvement may be attained, he remains hopelessly
behind one who, with considerably less genius, had a great deal more
moral courage and a far wider conception of the ideals of woman.
Of the disciples and opponents of Rousseau, some of whom, like Mme de
Staël, Mme de Genlis, and Mme de Necker de Saussure were of the female
sex, little need be said here, as their writings either did not throw
any new light on the problem under consideration, or belong to a period
following that of Mary Wollstonecraft. When the Revolution came,
bringing with it an increased demand for a public education, some of
its theorists, who like Condorcet, showed an interest in the female
part of the problem, will call for mention.
FOOTNOTES:
[10] The "_Revue d'Histoire Littéraire de la France_" (Tome XXIII,
XXIV and XXV) contains a contribution by M. Raymond Toinet entitled:
"Les Ecrivains moralistes au 17ième siècle"; being an alphabetical
nomenclature of moral writings published during the age of Louis
the Fourteenth (1638-1715). In this list works of a feminist or an
anti-feminist nature figure so largely that little doubt can be
entertained as to the interest taken in the topic under discussion.
They may be conveniently classified as follows:
_1._ _Assertions of female superiority_, including a. o. two French
translations of Agrippa, three pieces entitled: "_Le Triomphe des
Dames_", and one by Mlle. Jacquette Guillaume, entitled: "_Les Dames
Illustres_". They were frequently combined with attacks on the male
half of humanity, as in the case of Regnard's "_Satire contre les
Maris_".
_2._ _Apologies for the female sex_, including Perrault's "_Apologie
des Femmes_", Poullain de la Barre's "_Egalité des deux Sexes_", and
a Latin translation of Anna Maria Schuurman. Some were meant as a
refutation of some male attack. To this class belong Ninon de l'Enclos'
"_Coquette Vengee_" and a number of replies to Boileau's satire.
_3._ _Attacks on the female sex_, which are gradually diminishing in
number, or rather changing from the direct invective to the moral essay
with a didactic purpose, busying itself with the female morals and the
female character. A collection of pieces dealing with the problem of
sexual preference was published in 1698 by de Vertron under the name of
"_La nouvelle Pandore, ou les femmes illustres du siècle de Louis le
Grand_".
_4._ _Rules of female conduct_, for the use of young ladies "about to
enter the world", insisting chiefly on the feminine duty of preserving
the reputation. A translation of Lord Halifax's "_Advice_" (see page
83), "_Etrennes ou conseils d'un homme de qualité à sa fille_" seems to
have attracted some notice.
_5._ _Pieces dealing with the relations between the sexes in daily
intercourse_, including the subjects of love and gallantry, and of
marriage. Some are directly favourable to the state of matrimony,
pointing to the reciprocal duties of the partners in the contract, and
instructing them in the readiest way to happiness; others, frequently
deriving their inspiration from Boileau, arguing about marriage as a
social institution and enumerating its advantages and its drawbacks.
To the period under discussion belongs a translation of Erasmus'
"_Christian Marriage_".
_6._ _Treatises of female education_, containing a plea for the
development of the female intellect. They are, as yet, remarkably few.
Beyond the contributions by Poullain de la Barre and Fénelon there
are some half-dozen pieces dealing with the education of girls on a
religious basis, and a few in which the question of the pursuit of
science and philosophy by women is stated and answered favourably.
There was an "_Apologie de la science des Dames, par Cléante_", (1662);
a treatise entitled: "_Avantages que les femmes peuvent recevoir de la
philosophie et principalement de la morale_", (1667); another by René
Bary bearing the somewhat questionable title of "_La fine philosophie
accommodée à l'intelligence des dames_", and, in conclusion, one by
Guillaume Colletet, headed: "_Question célèbre, s'il est nécessaire ou
non que les filles soient savantes, agitée de part et d'autre par Mlle
Anne Marie de Schurmann, hollandoise, et André Rivet, poictevin, le
tout mis en françois par le sieur Colletet_" (1646)
[11] "_La Nouvelle Colonie, ou la Ligue des Femmes_", first presented
in the Théâtre italien on the 18th of April 1729, a three-act comedy,
afterwards reduced to one single act to be performed in the "théâtres
de société", and published in this form in the _Mercure_. (Cf.
Larroumet; _Marivaux, sa Vie et ses Oeuvres_, Paris 1882).
[12] Such, at least, is the description of Mme Geoffrin's character in
M. E. Pilon's "_Portraits français_". M. G. Lanson, in his "_Lettres du
dix-huitième siècle_", accuses her of vanity and consequent despotic
leanings. "Elle aimait à conseiller ses amis, et les régentait en
mère un peu despotique; elle n'aimait pas les indépendants, les âmes
indociles et fières qui ne se laissent pas protéger, et veulent être
consultés dans le bien qu'on leur fait".
[13] That a great many of the Utilitarian ideas of John Locke may be
traced to their origin in the works of Montaigne has been demonstrated
by M. Pierre Villey in his "_L'influence de Montaigne sur les Idées
pédagogiques de Locke et de Rousseau_", who thus claims for the
literature of his own country an honour which was commonly granted to
that of England.
[14] The education recommended for Emile is not domestic. He was to
be kept carefully isolated from the world, so as to escape its taint,
until such time as his character would be fully matured, placing him
above the reach of disastrous influences. A similar principle had
prevailed at Mme de Maintenon's establishment of St. Cyr.