gradual improvement, and true melioration of temper, the ſex is not much benefited by ſacrificing ſolid virtues to the attainment of ſuperficial graces, though for a few years they may procure the individuals regal ſway.
As a philoſopher, I read with indignation the plauſible epithets which men uſe to ſoften their inſults; and, as a moraliſt, aſk what is meant by ſuch heterogeneous aſſociations, as fair defects, amiable weakneſſes, &c.? If there is but one criterion of morals, but one archetype for man, women appear to be ſuſpended by deſtiny, according to the vulgar tale of Mahomet's coffin; they have neither the unerring inſtinct of brutes; nor are allowed to fix the eye of reaſon on a perfect model. They were made to be loved, and muſt not aim at reſpect, leſt they ſhould be hunted out of ſociety as maſculine.
But to view the ſubject in another point of view. Do paſſive indolent women make the beſt wives? Confining our diſcuſſion to the preſent moment of exiſtence, let us ſee how ſuch weak creatures perform their part? Do the women, who, by the attainment of a few ſuperficial accompliſhments, have ſtrengthened the prevailing prejudice, merely contribute to the happineſs of their huſbands? Do they diſplay their charms merely to amuſe them? And have women, who have early imbibed notions of paſſive obedience, ſufficient character to manage a family or educate children? So far from it, that, after ſurveying the hiſtory of woman, I cannot help agreeing with the ſevereſt ſatiriſt, conſidering the ſex as the weakeſt as well as the moſt oppreſſed half of the ſpecies. What does hiſtory diſcloſe but marks
