DIFFERENCES OF BODY DO NOT IMPLY DIFFERENT

FACULTIES.

All the discussions about the relative value, and strength, and character of the sexes, have ended in confusion, and brought conviction to no one, because they have not begun at the beginning, nor ended at the end. There can be no clear convictions of truth when there are no clear ideas of elementary principles. When it is argued, that because women are, in the course of nature, mothers and nurses, and by reason of those offices, keepers at home, they are, from that fact, to be wholly engaged on inferior objects and inferior thoughts, and are incapable of the loftiest flights of the soul, it is a false conclusion. It does not follow from the premises. It is what logicians call a non sequitur. By way of testing it, let us apply a parallel argument to the avocations of men. At the same moment that women were ordained to become mothers in sorrow and suffering, man was also ordained to eat the herb of the field, and in the sweat of his brow to eat the bread of his labor. Suppose that, in conformity with this ordinance, man is assumed to be the peculiar and only laborer, and therefore, that his mind is never to ascend above the avocations of mere labor: he is never to inquire into the phenomena of the natural world; he is never to search the laws of motion in heavenly bodies; he is never to weave out the beautiful creations of fancy; never to wander through

the regions of philosophy in search of the causes, operations, and laws of that vast world, whose mys teries and harmonies delight his wondering spirit! Would this inert and unproductive existence be a just conclusion from the fact that he was ordained to be a laborer, eating his bread in the sweat of his brow? Surely not. Yet it is, logically, as correct a conclusion as that women are incapable of the highest intellectual efforts, because they are ordained to be mothers and nurses. The truth, I suppose, is, that the character and powers of the human soul -which is the being-do not depend upon avocations.

Men and women have been compared by the forms of their bodies, and by their special avocations and employments. In these are found varieties and differences - differences which are undeniable and

important. But these do not necessarily imply any difference in the fundamental character of the soul. To think, to inquire, to sympathize, are the same functions of life and spirit, whether exhibited in man or woman. What constitutes, then, the highest character, must, in its essential elements, be independent of sex or condition. It must depend on the strength, the culture, the direction, and the government of the individual soul. It is the soul which is the living being, and it is its immortal capacities which are to be developed in thought, feeling, senti ment, and principle-in all worthy culture, fitting it for a better life here, and immortal life hereafter.

THE EDUCATION OF MOTHERS.

I have now established two facts which are preliminary to any system of female education. The first is, that human nature is one; and the second, that differences of body do not imply differences of faculties. It is absolutely certain that on the question of whether these are or are not facts, must depend the whole system of female education. If these are not facts, then woman is essentially an inferior being, and her education should be adapted to that inferior condition; but if these are facts, then her education should be essentially the same, in all that relates to the culture and strengthening of the SOUL (which includes both the intellect and the affections), as that of man: that is, that the elementary, fundamental, and philosophical part of education which relates to the development of the faculties, and is independent of avocations and professions, should be the same, in reference to all individuals, according to their time and opportunities, in the order of Providence. I have protested in another place (Chap. II.) against the conclusion that, because the mass of mankind must be engaged in daily labor, that, therefore, they must not think of attaining the higher and nobler branches of education.* * For the same reason,

* There is probably no impediment to general education greater than the popular idea, that education is not necessary to the great mass of people engaged in common pursuits; and the popular idea,

I protest against the conclusion, from the domestic employments of women, that, therefore, they are incapable of attaining or enjoying a superior education. The existence of one Newton does not prove that all mankind can become Newtons; but it does prove that human nature has powers capable of such sublime exhibitions of strength and learning. Newton came into the world with the very feeblest of all bodies—the candle of life just flickering in the socket, and kept alive by the assiduous care of a wise and tender mother. How many other Newtons and how many other mothers may the world hold, whom such care and such culture would have reared to such illustrious powers!

So the existence of women remarkable for learning and intellectual eminence, does not prove that all women are capable of attaining that eminence; but it does prove that there is nothing peculiar in their nature and constitution which renders such eminence and attainments naturally impossible. The existence of Mrs. Somerville, of Miss Herschell, or of that Italian lady who was one of the most distinguished mathematicians of her age, does not, indeed, prove that all women may become astronomers and mathematicians, any more than it proves that such would be

also, that women not being legislators, divines, lawyers, and doctors, do not require a high education. Nothing can be more false than this idea, and if it remain among the masses of the people, we cannot hope for universal knowledge, or the perpetuity of freedom.

the most profitable employment for them; but it does prove that they are capable of such studies and acquirements. It comes to this, then, that women have the same faculties, and are capable of the same culture and acquisitions as men; they are not inferior, or opposite, or totally different from men in the essential elements of character.

We come now to the practical application of this principle. What reason is there why women should be highly educated, or as highly as the circumstances of their condition will admit? The first thing we observe is, that women are the mothers of mankind. As such, they are the first teachers. This fact cannot be avoided. There is no substitution possible. If an infant is taken from its mother, it must still be committed to a woman. For the first five years of its life, at least, and generally much longer, its sole teacher is a woman; but, in nine cases out of ten, so as to constitute a permanent law of the social condition, the mothers guide and influence their sons, as well as daughters, through the whole period of youth. Nay, their influence passes far beyond this, so as indirectly to direct, in no small degree, their pursuits in life. If they do not teach or influence the studies of science and literature, or govern in the selection of employments, they do what is more important: they impress their passions, their prejudices, their views and coloring of life and society on their children, with a strength and durability which all subsequent education and experience can scarcely