Dedicatory Letter

[This work appeared in 1792, when Talleyrand—as he is usually called today—was active in the higher levels of the developing French revolution. A Constitution establishing France as a constitutional monarchy had been established in 1791. The infamous ‘reign of terror’ was still a year away. Two years earlier, MW had published a defence of the revolution against Burke, entitled A Vindication of the Rights of Men.]

To M. Talleyrand-Périgord

former Bishop of Autun

Sir:

Having read with great pleasure a pamphlet on National Education that you recently published, I dedicate this volume to you, to induce you to reconsider the subject and maturely weigh what I shall say about the rights of woman and national education; and I’m calling with the firm tone of humanity. [‘National education’ is the topic of the penultimate chapter, starting here.] In these arguments, sir, I am not trying to get anything for myself; I plead not for myself but for my sex. ·My own personal wants, anyway, amount to very little·. For many years I have regarded independence as the great blessing of life, the basis of every virtue; and even if I end up living on a barren heath, I will always guarantee my independence by contracting my wants.

So it is my affection for the whole human race that •makes my pen speed along to support what I believe to be the cause of virtue, and •leads me to long to see woman’s place in the world enable her to advance the progress of the glorious principles that give a substance to morality, rather than holding them back. My opinion about the rights and duties of woman seems to flow so naturally from those simple principles that it seems almost inevitable that some of the enlarged minds who formed your admirable constitution will agree with me.

[In this next paragraph, ‘essence’ is used not in the customary philosophical sense, but in the sense involved in ‘essence of lavender’. A ‘voluptuary’ is someone devoted to the pursuit of luxury and sensual pleasure.]

Knowledge is spread more widely in France than in any ·other· part of Europe; and I attribute this in large measure to the social intercourse there has long been in France between the sexes. It is true (I’m going to speak freely) that in France the very essence of sensuality has been extracted for the pleasure of the voluptuary, and a kind of sentimental lust [see Glossary] has prevailed. This, together with the system of deceptiveness that the whole spirit of their political and civil government taught, have given a sinister sort of knowingness to the French character. . . .and a polish of manners that injures the substance by driving sincerity out of society. And modesty—the fairest garb of virtue—has been more grossly insulted in France than even in England; the ·minimal· attention to decency that ·even· brutes instinctively observe is regarded by French women as prudish!

Manners and morals are so closely related that they have often been confused with one another; but although manners should be only the natural reflection of morals, when various causes have produced unnatural and corrupt manners that infect even the young, morality becomes an empty name. Personal restraint and respect for cleanliness and delicacy in domestic life are the graceful pillars of modesty, but French women almost despise them. If the pure flame of patriotism has reached their hearts, they should work to improve the morals of their fellow-citizens by teaching men not only •to respect modesty in women but •to become modest themselves, as the only way to deserve women’s respect.

Fighting for the rights of women, my main argument is built on this simple principle: If woman isn’t fitted by education to become man’s companion, she will stop the progress of knowledge, because truth must be common to all; if it isn’t it won’t be able to influence how people in general behave. And how can woman be expected to cooperate if she doesn’t know why she ought to be virtuous? if freedom doesn’t strengthen her reason until she understands her •duty and sees how it is connected with her real •good? If children are to be brought up to understand the true principle of patriotism, their mother must be a patriot; and the love of mankind, from which an orderly sequence of virtues arises, can be produced only by attending to the moral and civil interest of mankind; but the upbringing and situation of woman at present shuts her out from such investigations.

In this work I have produced many arguments that I found conclusive, showing that the prevailing notion of ‘the female character’ is subversive of morality. I have contended that to make the human body and mind more perfect, chastity must more universally prevail; and that chastity will never be respected in the male world until the person of a woman is not virtually idolized while the woman has little virtue or sense. [see Glossary on ‘person’]. . . .

Consider these remarks dispassionately, Sir, for you seemed to have a glimpse of this truth when you said that ‘to see one half of the human race excluded by the other half from all participation of government is a political phenomenon that can’t possibly be explained according to abstract principles’. If that is so, what does your constitution rest on? If the abstract rights of man can stand discussion and explanation, those of woman—by a parity of reasoning— won’t shrink from the same test: though a different view prevails in this country, built on the very arguments that you use to justify the oppression of woman—prescription [see Glossary].

I address you as a legislator: When men fight for their freedom, fight to be allowed to judge for themselves concerning their own happiness, isn’t it inconsistent and unjust to hold women down? I know that you firmly believe you are acting in the manner most likely to promote women’s happiness; but who made man the exclusive judge ·of that· if woman shares with him the gift of reason?

Tyrants of every kind, from the weak king to the weak father of a family, use this same argument ·that ‘It is in your own best interests’·. They are all eager to crush reason, but they always say that they usurp reason’s throne only to be useful. Isn’t that what you are doing when you force all women, by denying them civil and political rights, to remain walled in by their families and groping in the dark? Surely, sir, you won’t say that a duty can be binding without being founded on reason! Arguments •for civil and political rights can be drawn •from reason; and with that splendid support, the more understanding women acquire the more they will be attached to their duty, understanding it. Unless they understand it—unless their morals are based on the same immutable principles as those of man—no authority can make them act virtuously. They may be convenient slaves, but slavery will have its constant effect, degrading the master and the abject dependent.

If you are going to exclude women, without consulting them, from sharing in the natural rights of mankind, then defend yourself against accusations of injustice and inconsistency by proving that women don’t have reason. If you don’t do that, then this flaw in your New Constitution—the first constitution based on reason—will show for all times that man must in some way act like a tyrant, and that tyranny, in whatever part of society it raises its arrogant head, will always undermine morality.

I have produced what seemed to me to be irrefutable arguments, drawn from matters of fact, to prove my often-repeated assertion that women cannot by force be confined to domestic concerns. However ignorant they are, they will get involved in more weighty affairs, neglecting private duties only to disturb by cunning tricks the orderly plans of reason that rise above their comprehension.

Also, while women are only made to acquire personal accomplishments [see Glossary], men will seek pleasure in variety, and faithless husbands will make faithless wives. Indeed, such ignorant beings as wives are in such a system will be very excusable when, not having been taught to respect public good or allowed any civil rights, they try to make things more fair by retaliation.

When the box of mischief has been thus opened in society, what is to preserve private virtue, the only security of public freedom and universal happiness?

·The answer is·: Let there be no coercion established in society—·no laws that force people into this or that social role or situation·. When that is achieved, the common law of gravity will hold sway and the sexes will fall into their proper places. With fairer laws forming your citizens, marriage can become more sacred; your young men can choose wives from motives of affection, and your maidens can allow love to root out vanity.

The father of a family won’t weaken his constitution and debase his sentiments by visiting prostitutes; he won’t in obeying the call of ·sexual· appetite forget the purpose for which it was implanted in him; and the mother won’t neglect her children to practise the arts of teasing and flirting when sense and modesty secure her the friendship of her husband.

But until men become attentive to the duty of a father, you can’t expect women to spend in their nursery the time that they. . . .choose to spend at their mirror; for this exercise in cunning is only a natural instinct to enable them to obtain indirectly a little of the power of which they are unjustly denied a share. If women aren’t permitted to enjoy legitimate rights, they will seek illicit privileges in ways that make both men and themselves vicious [see Glossary].

I wish, sir, to get some investigations of this kind going in France. If they lead to a confirmation of my principles, then when your constitution is revised the rights of woman may be •respected, if it has been fully proved that reason calls for this •respect and loudly demands justice for one half of the human race.

I am, sir,

Yours respectfully,

M. W.