the Supreme Being: and, having no fear of the devil before mine eyes, I venture to call this a ſuggeſtion of reaſon, inſtead of reſting my weakneſs on the broad ſhoulders of the firſt ſeducer of my frail ſex.
'It being once demonſtrated,' continues Rouſſeau, 'that man and woman are not, nor ought to be, conſtituted alike in temperament and character, it follows of courſe that they ſhould not be educated in the ſame manner. In purſuing the directions of nature, they ought indeed to act in concert, but they ſhould not be engaged in the ſame employments: the end of their purſuits ſhould be the ſame, but the means they ſhould take to accompliſh them, and of conſequence their taſtes and inclinations, ſhould be different[1].'
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
'Whether I conſider the peculiar deſtination of the ſex, obſerve their inclinations, or remark their duties, all things equally concur to point out the peculiar method of education beſt adapted to them. Woman and man were made for each other, but their mutual dependence is not the ſame. The men depend on the women only on account of their deſires; the women on the men both on account of their deſires and their neceſſities: we could ſubſiſt better without them than they without us[2].'
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
‘For
