and those works, which inftruct the mind by the experience of former ages, or trace its exertions in different circumstances; we allude to hiftory and travels, for we, at prefent, exclude the more elegant works of entertainment.

If we examine the fciences to be taught, it will be neceffary to confider a previous queftion, how far there is a sexual difference in minds. Phyficians have told us, and we have reason to think their account, as it is derived from the observation of fucceeding ages, true, that different bodily conftitutions are connected with minds of different faculties and powers. They have distinguished the volatile, choleric, tem perament from the flower and more fteady melancholic, the one which rapidly attains and foon lofes, from the other more capable of attention, requiring greater diligence, and more carefully retaining the ideas acquired. Even a poet, no common obferver of men and manners (we mean Horace), has diftinguished the volatile youth from the more steady adult. If then there are fimilar conftitutional differences in women, must we deny that there is not fome difference in their minds? To examine facts: France boasts the marquife de Chatelet, and Mademoiselle Keralio; England Mrs. Carter, and Mrs. Macaulay; in criticism each nation has produced a madame Dacier and Mrs. Montague. Their works deserve praise; but we seek in vain that profound fpirit of investigation, thofe deep comprehenfive views, that calm intuitive penetration, which have dif tinguished the works of many men on fimilar fubjects. It is ufual, we know, on the ftrength of these names, to challenge the men; but they need not fear the conteft. If thofe, who have spent their lives in their peculiar ftudies, do not rife to fuperior excellence, unlefs compared with women, we must fuppofe fome conftitutional defect; if we cannot blame the culture, the foil must be lefs fruitful. If mifs Wollstonecraft means only that the understandings and intellectual attainments of fome men are fuperior to those of fome women, the conteft is at an end, and we freely confess that we know women who would excel in the office of premier, even (with deference be it fpoken) fome members of the houfe of commons. But this forms no exception; for, if the general change, which our author recommends in national education were to take effect, the ftate would lofe 10,000 ufeful domestic wives, in purfuit of one very indifferent philofopher or statesman. With thefe premises then before us, we fhall proceed to examine our author's work, and let us only add, in excufe of the ludicrous turn we have given to fome of this lady's fentences, that the has herfelf a little too freely alluded to the communication of fexes. Even in the Dedication, the fpeaks of the effence of C. R. N. AR. (IV.) April, 1792. E e fenfuality,

fenfuality' having been extracted in France' to regale the vo luptuary, and that a kind of fentimental luft has prevailed;' of the calls of appetite, &c. Nor is this fault confined to the Dedication: it pervades the whole. Surely Mrs. Cowley did not tacitly allude to thefe improprieties, when, in the preface to her latt comedy, the fpoke of the work before us as containing a body of mind.'

In the Introduction mifs Wollstonecraft explains more par ticularly her object. She allows the phyfical fuperiority of the males, but wifhes to give the ladies ftrength of body and mind, to induce them to look on refinement of taste,' 'delicate fentiments,' and 'fufceptibility of heart' a: weakness and the means of flavish dependence. Such beings the thinks objects of pity, and the kind of love which thefe qualities infpire, contemptible. To acquire habits of reflection, felf-command, firmness, and refolution, are undoubtedly proper: to discard the fofter feelings, refinement of tafte, and delicacy of fentiment is, we think, to be no longer women. We are fure we fpeak the fenfe of mankind, when we fay it is to be no longer amiable, attractive, or interesting.

The first chapter contains the confideration of the rights and involved duties of mankind. Its object is to show the dif advantages which flow from the fuperiority of diftinction, from monarchy and hereditary honours. Mifs Wollstonecraft falls into the error which we noticed in our review of her firft pamphlet, viz. vague inconclufive reafoning from imperfect ideas, and the want of a well-digested plan. The obfervations we fhall transcribe relate to Rouffeau's defence of a state of folitude; and the following is the reafoning, and the language, that is to defend the Rights of Women.

When that wife Being who created us and placed us here, faw the fair idea, willed, by allowing it to be fo, that the paffions fhould unfold our reafon, because he could fee that present evil would produce future good. Could the helpless creature whom he called from nothing break loofe from his providence, and boldly learn to know good by practifing evil, without his permiffion? No.-How could that egernetic advocate for immortality argue fo inconfiftently? Had mankind remained for ever in the brutal state of nature, which even his magic pen cannot paint as a state in which a fingle virtue took root, it would have been clear, though not to the fenfitive unreflecting wanderer, that man was born to run the circle of life and death, and adorn God's garden for fome purpose which could not easily be reconciled with his attributes.

· But if, to crown the whole, there were to be rational creatures produced, allowed to rife in excellence by the exercise of powers implanted for that purpofe; if benignity itfelf thought

At to call into existence a creature above the brutes, who could think and improve himself, why should that inestimable gift, for a gift it was, if man was fo created as to have a capacity to rife above the state in which fenfation produced brutal eafe, be called, in direct terms, a curfe? A curse it might be reckoned, if all our existence was bounded by our continuance in this world; for why thould the gracious fountain of life give us paffions, and the power of reflecting, only to imbitter our days and infpire us with mistaken notions of dignity?. Why should he lead us from love of ourfelves to the fublime emotions which the discovery of his wif dom and goodness excites, if these feelings were not fet in motion to improve our nature, of which they make a part, and render us capable of enjoying a more godlike portion of happiness? Firmly perfuaded that no evil exifts in the world that God did not defign to take place, I build my belief on the perfection of God.'

First, the creature produced is not rational, and yet he is to reflect, and to discover what is within the powers of reason only. Next he is rational, and what does his reafon lead him to? to a future ftate: certainly, but what is the connection of this part of the fubject with the gregarious nature of animals, or the focial qualities of man? The philofopher will smile at the note, when he perceives that animals, not gregarious, are fuppofed not to pair, fince to pair is mentioned as the diftinction of being gregarious. Might we venture? No, we dare not hint at the unpaired state of this advocate of the focial nature of man. The comparison between the weak, infipid minds of fome officers (our author muft allow us to limit her pofition) and fashionable women, is very juft: fimilar causes will generally produce fimilar effects, and the boasted strength of mind, even of lordly man, is not proof against the enervating caufes; the lion, that has been ftinted in his growth, either by accident or defign, will never become the terror of the foreft.

Our author next difcuffes the prevailing opinion of sexual character. This title does not convey a proper idea of the two chapters in which the subject is contained. The object is to fhow that women have been unfairly treated. Instead of the sweet attractive grace, mild, docile, blind obedience, tenderness, affection, and all the fofter paffions of the mind, the feverer ftudies fhould have been inculcated, and the firmer vir

Contrary to the opinion of anatomifts, who argue by analogy from the formation of the teeth, ftomach, and inteftines, Rouffeau will not allow a man to be a carnivorous animal. And carried away from nature by a love of system, he difputes whether man be a gregarious animal, though the long and helpless state of infancy feems to point him out as particularly impelled to pair.'

Mifs Wollstonecraft has not been explicit in defining the meaning of fexual character; and we therefore do not fully understand the meaning of her affection in the Summary,' that there are no fexual virtues, not even modefty !

E e 2

tues

tues cherished. To a certain extent, we can agree with our fair author. Women have been confidered too frequently as the idols of the senses, as the objects of amusement in the moments of pleasure. Their minds have been looked on as barren waftes, the culivation of which would be useless, or unprofitable. This conduct is undoubtedly erroneous: women are the companions of man, and the companions of a rational creature should poffefs reafon not totally uncultivated. Yet, on the other hand, man is not merely rational: fense and judg ment are requifite for his conduct, and the fofter affections claim their fhare; affections which women feel more acutely, in which their fenfibility is more refined, and their tafte more exquifite. Thefe affections are equally a part of man, and, in thefe, if we understand mifs Wollftonecraft rightly, woman is to have no fhare. Reafon and virtue are to form the whole of both characters. As we have already stated our opinion of the fexual differences of mind, we may venture to produce the following attack on Rouffeau, with commendation. The few exceptions we should make will be eafily perceived; and thefe are certainly not against the moral virtues, of which women in general feel the force more acutely, and even practise more feverely than men.

Women are, therefore, to be confidered either as moral beings, or fo weak that they must be entirely fubjected to the fuperior faculties of men.

Let us examine this question. Rouffeau declares that a woman fhould never, for a moment, feel herself independent, that the fhould be governed by fear to exercife her natural cunning, and made a coquettish flave in order to render her a more alluring ob'je&t of defire, a fweeter companion to man, whenever he choofes to relax himself. He carries the arguments, which he pretends to draw from the indications of nature, ft further, and infinu. ates that truth and fortitude, the corner ftones of all human virtoe, fhould be cultivated with cer ain restrictions, becaufe, with respect to the female character, obedience is the grand leffon which ought to be impressed with unrelenting rigour.

What nonfenfe! when will a great man arife with fufficient ftrength of mind to puff away the fumes which pride and fenfuality have thus fpread over the fubject! if women are by nature inferior to men, their virtues must be the fame in quality, if not in degree, or virtue is a relative idea; confequently, their conduct fhould be founded on the fame principles, and have the fame

a m.

Connected with man as daughters, wives, and mothers, their moral character may be eftimated by their manner of fulfilling thofe fimple duties; but the end, the grand end of their exertions -should be to unfold their own faculties and acquire the dignity of

coníciou s

confcious virtue. They may try to render their road pleasant; bat ought never to forget, in common with man, that life yields not the felicity which can fatisfy an immortal foul. I do not mean to infinuate, that either fex fhould be so lost in abstract reflections or distant views, as to forget the affections and duties that lie before them, and are, in truth, the means appointed to produce the fruit of life; on the contrary, I would warmly recommend them, even while I affert, that they afford most fatisfaction when they are confidered in their true fubordinate light.'

Mifs Wollstonecraft attacks Dr. Gregory alfo with some fuccefs. His fyftem of referve and diffimulation we think evidently wrong; and, though Dr. Gregory poffeffed the more amiable virtues in the highest degree, his fyftem of female excellence was formed in confequence of confined views, and a ftate of fociety, neither the best, nor the most eligible. Two paffages of a different nature we fhall transcribe.

Of the fame complexion is Dr. Gregory's advice respecting delicacy of fentiment, which he advifes a woman not to acquire, if he has determined to marry. This determination, however,

perfectly confiftent with his former advice, he calls indelicate, and earnestly perfuades his daughters to conceal it, though it may govern their conduct: as if it were indelicate to have the common appetites of human nature.'

'How women are to exift in that ftate where there is to be neither marrying nor giving in marriage, we are not told. though moralifts have agreed that the tenor of life feems to prove that man is prepared by various circumstances for a future state, they constantly concur in advising woman only to provide for the prefent. Gentlenefs, docility, and a spaniel-like affection are, on this ground, confiftently recommended as the cardinal virtues of the fex; and, difregarding the arbitrary economy of nature, one writer has declared that it is masculine for a woman to be melancholy. She was created to be the toy of man, his rattle, and it muft jingle in his ears whenever, difmiffing reafon, he chooses to be amused.'

Of fuch vague inconclufive reafoning, ftrung together with little art, and no apparent plan, do thefe chapters confift. The whole is an indignant invective against treating women merely as toys, as the amufement of an idle moment, and as gratifying (our author fets the example of the language), the calls of appetite. We might cull fome paffages, fo inconfiftent is our author, in which the fupports our opinions; and fome writers, particularly Shakspeare, whose nervous mind she commends, might be adduced, as by no means agreeing with this author in his opinion of women. But this would be a petty warfare.

Ee 3