rooms till their muſcles are relaxed, and their powers of digeſtion deſtroyed. To carry the remark ſtill further, if fear in girls, inſtead of being cheriſhed, perhaps, created, was treated in the ſame manner as cowardice in boys, we ſhould quickly ſee women with more dignified aſpects. It is true, they could not then with equal propriety be termed the ſweet flowers that ſmile in the walk of man; but they would be more reſpectable members of ſociety, and diſcharge the important duties of life by the light of their own reaſon. 'Educate women like men,' ſays Rouſſeau, 'and the more they reſemble our ſex the leſs power will they have over us.' This is the very point I aim at. I do not wiſh them to have power over men; but over themſelves.
In the ſame ſtrain have I heard men argue againſt inſtructing the poor; for many are the forms that ariſtocracy aſſumes. 'Teach them to read and write,' ſay they, 'and you take them out of the ſtation aſſigned them by nature.' An eloquent Frenchman has anſwered them, I will borrow his ſentiments. But they know not, when they make man a brute, that they may expect every inſtant to ſee him transformed into a ferocious beaſt. Without knowledge there can be no morality!
Ignorance is a frail baſe for virtue! Yet, that it is the condition for which woman was organized, has been inſiſted upon by the writers who have moſt vehemently argued in favour of the ſuperiority of man; a ſuperiority not in degree, but eſſence; though, to ſoften the argument, they have laboured to prove, with chivalrous
