FOOTNOTES:

Ici, loin du tumulte, aux devoirs les plus saintsTout un peuple naissant est formé par mes mains,

Ici, loin du tumulte, aux devoirs les plus saints

Tout un peuple naissant est formé par mes mains,

are a faithful reflection of her hope for the future. And so Madame de Maintenon declared war against convention and tradition and went the way she had marked out for herself. Her influence with the king enabled her to carry out her scheme to the minutest details and became the means of placing the vast establishment of St. Cyr at her disposal. The time had come to realise her dream of education. Two hundred and fifty girls of aristocratic families whom the endless wars had ruined, were entrusted to the care of a headmistress, Mme de Brinon, and her staff, under Madame de Maintenon's personal superintendance. It was her wish that they should constitute a large family and that the relation between teacher and pupil should be as nearly as possible that of mother to child, so as to make the reality differ as little as possible from what Fénelon's theory had considered the ideal form. The secular character of the establishment—on which the king had also insisted, holding that there were already more nuns than was strictly compatible with the interests of his kingdom—appeared from the fact that the teachers—"les dames de Saint Louis"—were called "madame" instead of "soeur" and wore dresses which, although simple, were different from those worn in the convent. They were not at first expected to take the vow for life, but their patroness expressed a distinct wish that they should always regard their pupils' interests before their own and show the greatest possible devotion to this task. In respect of this insistence upon the most absolute self-abnegation—involving a most unyielding sternness in taking what seemed the right moral course and a most complete subjection on the part of the pupil—Mme de Maintenon's ideas came dangerously near those of the Jansenists against whose severe methods she professed to be in revolt. The rules of discipline at St. Cyr were in some respects as strict as those practised at Port Royal and in both the motive was to shield the pupil against contamination. Realising the danger of influence from abroad at an age when the character was not sufficiently formed, and apt to take impressions too easily, Mme de Maintenon determined that all parental authority should cease. The girls were kept in the establishment until they were well out of their teens, and supposed to bemorally strong enough to resist temptation and to exercise influence on their surroundings instead of undergoing it. There were no holidays and the "demoiselles" were allowed to see their parents only four times a year for half an hour or so under the watchful eye of one of the mistresses. Even their correspondence with them was limited, and the tone of the letters had to be strictly formal, in fact they were mere exercises of style. Apart from these restrictions, the girls were treated with great kindness, if with little outward show of affection. Mme de Maintenon was too much devoted to Reason to approve of such demonstrations, and wished the emotions to be kept under strict control. On the other hand, punishments were few, the teacher took a liberal share in all recreations and amusements, and the necessary instruction was made as attractive and imparted in as unobtrusive a manner as possible, in accordance with Fénelon's precepts.

The sudden change in Mme de Maintenon's system of discipline which took place in the third year of St. Cyr and which narrowed down the comparative liberty which had been a fundamental principle to the absolute subjection described above, was a frank avowal of the failure of her original methods and at the same time a proof of the sincerity of her endeavour. It was due to a most unexpected development.

In the first years of St. Cyr—the establishment was opened in 1686—the study of literature had occupied an important place among the subjects of the curriculum. The girls were made to act little domestic scenes written by the headmistress. At the patroness's instigation an experiment was made with Racine's "Andromaque", which, in her opinion, "succeeded too well", for the girls so entered into the spirit of the play, and developed such histrionic talents, that their monitress, realising the danger, asked Racine to write another play specially for them. In accordance with this request the great dramatist wrote "Esther", which was performed several times before the king and a select audience with signal success, and results disastrous to the spirit prevailing among the girls of St. Cyr. Never before had the discipline of the institution been in greater jeopardy. The girls' heads were turned, and their vanity and conceit knew no bounds.

Mme de Maintenon saw that energetic measures were urgently called for, and did not hesitate to adopt them. With an earnestness and resolution greatly to her credit she undertook the necessary reform with the effect of radically removing whatever was liberal andreactionary in her system, and reducing St. Cyr to a slightly modified form of a convent, thus granting to her opponents the satisfaction of a great moral victory, which the latter deserved no more than Mme de Maintenon deserved her defeat.

One of the unfortunate consequences was that the instruction which the girls received, and which had never been abundant, was reduced to almost a minimum. "Il n'est point question de leur orner l'esprit", said Mme de Maintenon. The horrors of exaggerated preciosity were ever since before her eyes. Too much learning, she feared, might turn the girls into précieuses, and manual labour was introduced as an effective antidote. Fortunately the years tended to soften the severity which had prevailed immediately after the catastrophe, and upon the whole the institution, which enjoyed special protection and undiminished popularity until its suppression by the Convention in 1793, could boast excellent results, and turned out some real "ornaments of their sex".

It seems a pity that in Mme de Maintenon's schemes so secondary a place should have been given to that education of the mind which is so essential to lasting improvement. She inevitably suffers by comparison with her contemporary Mme de Sévigné, whose correspondence with her daughter Mme de Grignan contains a most enlightened scheme for the education of her granddaughter Pauline de Simiane. She recognises that it is by literature that the mind is fed, and since to the pure everything is pure, there is little to be feared even of the otherwise pernicious reading of novels, for a sound mind will not easily go astray. An optimistic view of education, taking its root in considerations of philosophy, for Mme de Sévigné, like her daughter, was a Cartesian. In comparing her contribution to the educational problem with that of Mme de Maintenon, it should be remembered, however, that an individual education within the family circle offers better opportunities for freedom and less danger of contamination than the collective system of St. Cyr. Mme de Sévigné's ideas, contained in private correspondence, intended only for her daughter's use and entirely without the militant spirit, exercised little influence and were of little direct value to the cause of feminism.

FOOTNOTES:[3]Cf. the two articles in "A Cambridge History of English Literature", by Prof. F. M. Padelford (Vol. 2 p. 384) and by Prof. H. V. Routh (vol. 3 p. 88).[4]Cf. p. 30.[5]See also page 32.[6]A very interesting article on "Le tiers Livre du Pantagruel et la Querelle des Femmes" by M. Abel Lefranc, containing an extensive list of contributions to the feminist and the anti-feminist literature of the time, may be found in the "Revue des Etudes Rabelaisiennes", (Tome II, 1904).[7]Heinrich Morf, in his "Geschichte der französischen Literatur im Zeitalter der Renaissance" relates that a number of ladies took to frequenting theAcadémie de poésie et de musiquefounded by Baïf under the auspices of Charles IX; especially after his successor Henry III had transferred its seat to an apartment in the Louvre, whence it came to be called "Académie du Palais".[8]P. Rousselot.Histoire de l'Education des Femmes en France.Poullain de la Barre owes his revival to an article by M. Henri Piéron in the "Revue de Synthèse historique" of 1902. The latter's judgment is based upon two works: "De l'Egalité des Sexes" and "De l'Education des Dames", which he found in the Bibliothèque Nationale. In 1913 the "Revue d'Histoire Littéraire de la France" contained an article by M. Henri Grappin, pointing out that some of Poullain's works had been overlooked, supplying a full list of his literary productions and fully discussing one, entitled: "De l'Excellence des Hommes, contre l'Egalité des Sexes." The above-named three are the only treatises by Poullain which bear upon the position of women.[9]Cf. Livet,Précieux et Précieuses, p. XXV.

[3]Cf. the two articles in "A Cambridge History of English Literature", by Prof. F. M. Padelford (Vol. 2 p. 384) and by Prof. H. V. Routh (vol. 3 p. 88).

[4]Cf. p. 30.

[5]See also page 32.

[6]A very interesting article on "Le tiers Livre du Pantagruel et la Querelle des Femmes" by M. Abel Lefranc, containing an extensive list of contributions to the feminist and the anti-feminist literature of the time, may be found in the "Revue des Etudes Rabelaisiennes", (Tome II, 1904).

[7]Heinrich Morf, in his "Geschichte der französischen Literatur im Zeitalter der Renaissance" relates that a number of ladies took to frequenting theAcadémie de poésie et de musiquefounded by Baïf under the auspices of Charles IX; especially after his successor Henry III had transferred its seat to an apartment in the Louvre, whence it came to be called "Académie du Palais".

[8]P. Rousselot.Histoire de l'Education des Femmes en France.Poullain de la Barre owes his revival to an article by M. Henri Piéron in the "Revue de Synthèse historique" of 1902. The latter's judgment is based upon two works: "De l'Egalité des Sexes" and "De l'Education des Dames", which he found in the Bibliothèque Nationale. In 1913 the "Revue d'Histoire Littéraire de la France" contained an article by M. Henri Grappin, pointing out that some of Poullain's works had been overlooked, supplying a full list of his literary productions and fully discussing one, entitled: "De l'Excellence des Hommes, contre l'Egalité des Sexes." The above-named three are the only treatises by Poullain which bear upon the position of women.

[8]P. Rousselot.Histoire de l'Education des Femmes en France.

Poullain de la Barre owes his revival to an article by M. Henri Piéron in the "Revue de Synthèse historique" of 1902. The latter's judgment is based upon two works: "De l'Egalité des Sexes" and "De l'Education des Dames", which he found in the Bibliothèque Nationale. In 1913 the "Revue d'Histoire Littéraire de la France" contained an article by M. Henri Grappin, pointing out that some of Poullain's works had been overlooked, supplying a full list of his literary productions and fully discussing one, entitled: "De l'Excellence des Hommes, contre l'Egalité des Sexes." The above-named three are the only treatises by Poullain which bear upon the position of women.

[9]Cf. Livet,Précieux et Précieuses, p. XXV.

In the earlier half of the eighteenth century, at a time when the inferiority of English women was so generally recognised as to leave no room at all for controversy, the Woman Question was attracting a good deal of notice in France, and scarcely a year passed without some kind of contribution to its literature.[10]It was by this timean acknowledged problem, and theoretically speaking it may be said that by the middle of the century feminism in France had carried the day, thanks mainly to the influence of modern philosophy, which the salons helped in propagating. The instruction-problem was also settled in theory in a manner satisfactory to feminists, and only that of female occupations remained as yet unbroached. The position of women in society not only became a favourite topic of conversation and controversy, but came to command a number of able pens in periodical literature and in the drama. In the latter branch of literature a number of pieces were written on the subject, some of which were hostile and sought the aid of ridicule, but of which the majority were of a more sympathetic tendency, showing that Molière's attack had failed. All the important theatres paid their tribute of attention to the cause of feminism. One of the earliest was Montchenay's "Cause des Femmes", a comedy performed at the Théâtre italien as early as 1687, while a more elaborate dramatic statement of the cause, entitled "l'Ile des Amazones" was composed in 1718 by Lesage and d'Orneval, and suggested the machinery of the "Amazones Modernes" of Legrand (1727), performed at the Théâtre français. This brings us to the field of Utopian literatureà laMrs. Manley, whose "New Atlantis" had appeared a few years previously. The Amazons, who had founded their own community in a remote island, having forsworn the society of men, made their return conditional on the acceptance of the following terms:

1stly, there was to be no subordination of the wife to the husband;

2ndly, the women were to be allowed to study, and to have their own universities;

3rdly, they were to be eligible to the highest positions in the army as in jurisdiction and finance; and finally it was to be considered as shameful an act on the part of a man to break the conjugal faith as on that of a woman, so that men might no longer boast of that which in a woman was deemed criminal. That the last was among the most rankling sores will be seen later on, when the "dual standard of morality" aroused the indignation of true "Blues" like Mrs. Chapone, and equally of radical feminists like Mary Wollstonecraft.

But the piece in which the question was best and most conclusively treated was a comedy, entitled "La Colonie", which Marivaux wrote about the middle of the century, and which, possibly owing to lack of success, was not included in the different editions of his works,so that it is at present accessible only in theMercure de Franceof 1750[11]. It was on the whole sympathetic to women, in spite of the failure of their effort—described in the play—to establish a feminine republic, and the pleasantries of which men and women alike are the object. Both the weak points of the female character, as vanity, coquetry, garrulity and frivolity, and those of the men, as envy and vainglory, are made the object of ridicule. But the feminist tendency of the whole appears from the fact that the speeches of the female leaders are more reasonable than those of the males who are worsted by them. The women of the island-state, bent upon vindicating their rights, and inflamed by the speeches of Arthenice and Madame Sorbin,—whose respective lover and husband occupy responsible positions on the male side—contemplate a final breach between the sexes. They experience their first disappointment when the young and pretty women refuse to give up their empire of coquetry, especially when told to make themselves ugly! An ultimatum is duly sent to the male leaders, demanding the admission of women to different occupations and equality between the sexes in matrimonial affairs, a refusal of which will mean instant dissolution of the social state. When the men, driven to despair, are on the point of surrendering, a philosopher's stratagem brings relief. Rumours are spread of a hostile attack upon the island, and the women, by virtue of the proposed compact, are called upon to swell the ranks of the defending army. This proves too much for the majority, who find that they prefer the worries of the daily household routine to the hardships of war, causing peace to be restored.

The periodical essay was also made subservient to the propagation of feminist ideas when in 1750, while in London, Mme Leprince de Beaumont started the "Nouveau Magasin français", in which the rights of women were vindicated with great fervour. Nine years later, a second, even more pronounced attempt to adapt the periodical to the female interests was made in the "Bibliothèque des Femmes", which after a short run, was continued in the "Journal des Dames". This paper, which enjoyed great success, was continued for twenty years, during which it served the female interests and contained a number of articles written by women. The original intention of having only female contributors proved incapable of realisation. The paper sang the praisesof women in different keys, as an antidote to the daily revilings in other periodicals, and the original idea of promoting the female interests by stimulating the female intellect was gradually lost sight of.

But the greatest friends of woman and her cause, who fought and won her battles for her, and were willing to recognise her empire, were the philosophers of the Encyclopedia, with the emphatic exception of that most inconsistent of all geniuses: J. J. Rousseau. The Encyclopedian spirit is best reflected by d'Alembert's "Lettre à J. J. Rousseau", written in reply to the "Lettre sur les Spectacles" in the famous controversy on the drama. He protests against the latter's cynical views of womanhood. The human race would be indeed in a pitiable condition, he says, if the worthiest object of the male homage were indeed so rare an occurrence as Rousseau chooses to intimate. But supposing he should be right, to what cause would such a deplorable state of things be attributable? "L'esclavage et l'espèce d'avilissement où nous avons mis les femmes; les entraves que nous donnons à leur esprit et à leur âme, le jargon futile et humiliant pour elles et nous; auquel nous avons réduit notre commerce avec elles, comme si elles n'avaient pas une raison à cultiver, ou n'en étaient pas dignes; enfin, l'éducation funeste, je dirai presque meurtrière, que nous leur prescrivons, sans leur permettre d'en avoir d'autre; éducation ou elles apprennent presque uniquement à se contrefaire sans cesse, à n'avoir pas un sentiment qu'elles n'étouffent, une opinion qu'elles ne cachent, une pensée qu'elles ne déguisent. Nous traitons la nature en elles comme dans nos jardins, nous cherchons à l'orner en l'étouffant." And d'Alembert makes an appeal to the philosophers of the age to destroy so pernicious a prejudice, to shake off the barbarous yoke of custom and to set the example by giving their daughters the same education as their sons, that they may be saved from idleness and the evils that follow inevitably in its train. And the cause of woman thus became incorporated in the great scheme of Liberty and Equality which was slowly maturing in the master minds of the nation.

The gulf that yawned between the two opposing parties was widening every instant. On one side were those in possession of power and authority, leaning upon Custom and Tradition, drawing what inspiration animated them from the source of the Ancients and stubbornly opposing any change which might tend to undermine their position. Ranged on the other was the intellect of the nation, the devotees of a philosophy which held the promise of the millennium to be almost within immediate reach, firing the mind with their daringschemes for improvement and asserting the coming triumph of Modernism. Nothing could be more natural than that woman should throw in her lot with the latter and that her cause should become a subdivision of the great problem of humanity. The great sphere of activity, next to the wide field of literature, was the more modest compass of the eighteenth century salon.

Madame de Lambert herself draws a parallel somewhere between the salons of the seventeenth and those of the eighteenth century, more especially with regard to the prevailing codes of morality. Her conclusions, like those of M. Brunetière nearly two centuries later, are overwhelmingly in favour of Mme de Rambouillet and her contemporaries. She complains that the delicate intellectual amusements of the seventeenth century assemblies have been largely superseded by the grosser delights of the card-table and of a declining stage. The merest semblance of knowledge is regarded with disapproval,—this in consequence of Molière's furious onslaught in hisFemmes Savantes—and as a natural consequence of ignorance, the female morals have sadly decayed. Being thus deprived of the means of improving the mind, women are naturally driven to a life of pleasure-seeking. And she doubts whether society has derived any benefit from the change. "Les femmes ont mis la débauche à la place du savoir, le précieux qu'on leur a tant reproché, elles l'ont changé en indécence." In other words, Mme de Lambert wanted to return to the earlier preciosity, granting women the right to be instructed, and trying to steer clear of those excesses which had called forth the attacks of Molière and Boileau. She emphatically protests against the pernicious habit of making a pleasing appearance the sole aim of female education, and claims for her sex the blessings of an education which in cultivating the mind will improve the female morals.

It would be impossible to deny that the moral standard was considerably lower than it had been half a century earlier. The consequences entailed by the revocation of the Edict of Nantes and by the suppression of Port Royal had been equally disastrous. The chief bulwarks of Protestant and Catholic orthodox faith had been removed, leaving a free field to both libertinage and disbelief. The coarseness of manners which it had been the aim of the Rambouillet societies to suppress reasserted itself on the one hand, while on the other the rising spirit of philosophical inquiry and scientific research had degenerated into a scepticism which was no longer counteracted by that spirit of religious mysticism which had been a weapon of orthodoxy againstunbelief. The Encyclopedian spirit often spelt deism and atheism, both of which flourished in the salons. The very fact that their society was no longer exclusive, but freely admitted people of all class and opinions, and from different parts of the world, accounts for the enormous influence exercised by these "bureaux d'esprit" upon public opinion in the eighteenth century. Moreover, the monarchical power was declining, and the king, in establishing a barrier between himself and the society of the salons, was himself instrumental in raising opinions which more and more became the prevailing ones, and upon which he had no influence whatever. Rationalism began to gain ground rapidly and became a basis for speculations which soon came to include politics and economics.

M. Brunetière, whose judgment on the salons of the eighteenth century is very severe, complains that the lofty artistic and moral ideals of the preceding generation had given way to scepticism and to cynicism of a kind which made Madame de Tencin refer to her guests as "ses bêtes". This statement, which no doubt is mainly correct, seems strange in consideration of the fact that it was by the new philosophy which the same salons helped in spreading, that the great problems of the future of the human race were put forward, which in broader minds gave rise to much idealism in what M. du Bled so finely calls: "le souci de la modernité." But eighteenth century society regarded philosophy as an intellectual pastime rather than as bringing the hope of relief to the oppressed millions, and if it occasionally dabbled in social problems, the misery of the multitude did not touch the majority of those who lived lives of comfort and luxury, and were utterly unacquainted with suffering, very deeply. No direct attempt at improvement, therefore, was to be expected from them, they were talking in theory about things of the practice of which they knew nothing. Brunetière calls the eighteenth century salon "le triomphe de l'universelle incompétence", with which its seventeenth century predecessor, with its more limited programme, compares favourably. It became habitual "to talk wittily of serious problems, while seriously discussing trifling subjects". It needed, indeed, the fiery imagination and fervent enthusiasm of a Rousseau to inspire the philosophical theories with the life of his genius. And yet, if the social problems of the time were not directly solved by eighteenth century society, they were at least formulated by it in such a manner as to make them the catchword of the period and to draw to them the attention of those who were better able to do themjustice. The very fact that the salons were ruled over by women and independent of court-influence made them the place where opinions were most freely uttered and most readily listened to.

Literature, which had been the chief occupation of the early salons, now found a powerful rival in science. The poetry of the eighteenth century "ruelles" became of an even lighter and more insipid kind. On the other hand, the latter half of the previous century had witnessed a growing interest in anatomy and surgery, and after the introduction (by Fontenelle) of astronomy as a fashionable science, Newton became the rage, and ladies of quality like the marquise du Châtelet were among his worshippers. The domination of the salons thus became extended to philosophy, science, economics and politics. When the Ancient and Modern controversy was re-introduced in the opening years of the century, nearly all the female philosophers were fervent partisans of the Moderns, believing in a future in which all human beings would be guided by the light of Reason.

Of this eighteenth century modernism, feminism is, in fact, only a subdivision. This appears from the work of Poullain de la Barre, and still more from the great defence of the Cause of Woman (when threatened by Boileau in Satire X "Sur les Femmes") by the great champion of modernism Perrault in his "Apologie des Femmes." The Moderns, indeed, saw in the prejudice against women a remnant of the servility of antiquity which was in flagrant contradiction with the dictates of Reason. Hence the close connection between feminist literature in the eighteenth century and life in the salons, of which the authors were mostly among the regular frequenters. The marquise de Lambert laid down her ideas of feminism in her "Réflexions sur les Femmes", and we have seen that both D'Alembert and Marivaux were among the staunch defenders of the right of the sex to equal consideration.

Boileau's death had left the "précieuses" in the undisputed possession of the field of light literature, to which now became added that of science. This new form of preciosity, "la préciosité scientifique", which made its appearance in the salon of Mme de Lambert, where it found an ardent worshipper in Fontenelle, grew so powerful that even Voltaire's efforts to crush it with ridicule were unavailing. So strong had the female dictatorship become, that three of the most influential men-of-letters in the kingdom had vainly tried to get the better of it. But unfortunately the platonic ideal to which the women of the preceding century had owed their ascendancy had degenerated,and in consequence of the altered circumstances women often had to buy with physical submission and degradation that worship of their beauty and deference to their opinion which made them at the same time the rulers and the slaves of men, and against which the moralists of the century, with the glaring exception of Rousseau, made it their business to protest loudly, but in vain.

Mme de Lambert merely wanted to restore the right sort of preciosity to its throne as an antidote to the evils of ignorance, in which she set herself the ideals of the Hôtel de Rambouillet, and advocated moderation in everything. Her salon thus became as much a protest against exaggeration and affectation as against the prevailing opinion that the education of women should only aim at teaching them how to please the opposite sex. An occasional frequenter calls it "l'hôtel de Rambouillet présidé par Fontenelle, et où les précieuses corrigées se souvenaient de Molière."

Being left a widow at a comparatively early age, Mme de Lambert opened her salon in the Palais Mazarin in the rue Colbert about 1700. She was at that time rather more than fifty, and reigned supreme over her circle of visitors for more than thirty years. She set herself to prove that it was possible to have a lively entertainment without the help of the card-table, relying chiefly on conversation and literature. Her Tuesdays and Wednesdays soon became famous, and attracted both the aristocracy and the literati. Among her regular visitors were Fontenelle, Marivaux, Mlle de Launay (Mme de Staal) and de la Motte, champion of the moderns, whilst Mme Dacier undertook the defence of the opposite cause. Mme de Lambert herself was the ruling spirit of the Académie, of which the way towards membership lay through her favour, and the chief literary productions previous to being published—if published they were—were read and criticised in her circle.

If Mme de Lambert deserves mention for having kept a salon which formed a link between the seventeenth and the eighteenth century, and exercised a beneficial influence on the tone of conversation, she is even more entitled to attention on account of the part played by her in the development of feminism. She was a moralist rather than educator, and followed in the steps of Fénelon. She had the Cartesian belief in the infallibility of Reason, with two exceptions, which do honour to the qualities of her heart, and saved her from the inevitable conclusions of logicà outrance: religion and honour. "Il y a deux préjugés auxquels il faut obéir: la religion et l'honneur",and a little further: "En fait de religion, il faut céder aux autorités. Sur tout autre sujet, il ne faut recevoir que celle de la raison et de l'évidence", excluding even honour. But her actions show that she realised the danger which lies in obeying the duties of reason while totally excluding the admonitions of the heart. Stronger than her love of logic was that exquisite form of sensibility which made her at least a real champion of the less fortunately situated. There is real concern for the welfare of her inferiors in the precept that "servants should be treated as unhappy friends", and a true love of humanity in the statement that "humanity suffers in consequence of the inequality which Fortune has introduced among men". Words which come from the heart and entitle her to sympathy and admiration.

Her ideas concerning female education are contained in the "Avis d'une mère à sa fille". She insists on the importance of cultivating the female mind to render woman an agreeable companion to her husband, who will then honour her and give her her due. And she places herself on the standpoint which Mary Wollstonecraft took after her, in basing upon this foundation her vindication of women'srightto be instructed. She complains of the tyranny of men, who condemn to ignorance the partners of their wedded lives, disregarding the pernicious consequences entailed thereby. For ignorance leads to vice, and the mind should be kept employed, were it only as a means of avoiding mischief. To Mme de Lambert the Muses were "l'asyle des moeurs". Her educational scheme contains more instruction than Fénelon's, as it includes philosophy, which is to reclaim women to virtue through the medium of Reason.

Of all the French female authors on the Woman Question it is Mme de Lambert whose ideas show the nearest approach to Mary Wollstonecraft. The essential difference between the two—the former's indifference to political emancipation—was due to a difference in social circumstances, which made her a ruler whose influence over men no political enfranchisement could have increased, and also to the condition of things in France, where the first steps towards the political equality of the stronger sex were yet to be taken. She believed the domestic circle to be the proper sphere of women, and her "metaphysics" of love—if less fantastic than the ideals of her 17th century predecessors, which, however, found some adherents among the regulars of her own circle in de la Motte and the Duchesse du Maine—were certainly more conducive to real happiness in thehigh moral principles out of which they arose. It was the marquis d'Argenson who said of her writings that they were "un résumé complet de la morale du monde et du temps présent la plus parfaite", and there seems no reason to doubt the truth of his judgment.

Unfortunately the good example set by the marquise de Lambert was not followed in other circles, where the increasing influence of the feminine element, instead of purifying the morals of the male sex, depraved them yet further. The great catastrophe of the end of the century was hastened by the vicious excesses of many females.

Goncourt says that the eighteenth century lady of quality represented the principle that governed society, the reason which directed it and the voice which commanded it; she was, in fact, "la cause universelle et fatale, l'origine des événements, la source des choses," and nothing could be achieved without her concurrence. Rousseau, when first arriving in Paris, was advised by a Jesuit to cultivate the acquaintance of women, "for nothing ever happened in Paris except through them".

The bulk of female influence upon the morals of the century was disastrous. The gross materialism amongst society-women found expression in a well-known utterance of the marquise du Châtelet: "We are here merely to procure ourselves the greatest possible variety of agreeable sensations." The most perverse code of morality came to reign in some of the most-frequented salons. One of the leading hostesses of Paris boasted that one of her reception-days was reserved for "gentlemen of a damaged reputation", the so-called "jour des coquins". Of the Englishmen who frequented these circles of appalling vice, Horace Walpole—who in a space of forty years paid six successive visits to Paris, and who was very far indeed from being a sentimentalist,—refers to the utter absence of any sense of decency among people whose chief occupation was the demolition of all authority, whether temporal or spiritual, including the Divine Authority itself.

One of the worst examples of the epicurian spirit was furnished by the salon of the notorious Mme de Tencin. She disdained even to keep up the appearance of quasi-platonic courtship and lived in open and shameless debauch. Her entire life was made up of political intrigues and adventures of gallantry, in which she turned the latter to account to promote the former. She possessed plenty of literary talent, and her two novels "Le Comte de Comminges" and "Le siègede Calais" rank among the best female productions of the century—but even Fontenelle thought her heartless. After a childhood spent in the very imperfect seclusion of a convent which was notorious for its nocturnal orgies, "la religieuse Tencin" came to Paris in 1712 to begin her siege of male hearts, directing her first attack against no less a person than the Regent himself, and ultimately contenting herself with one of his ministers, which gallant adventure was followed by many more. She gave birth to a child, whom she deposited on the steps of a church, to be found and brought up by strangers. This child afterwards became the famous d'Alembert.

In order to be able to pursue her political schemes she filled her salon on different days of the week with people of various occupations and interests; keeping philosophers and académiciens, politicians and ecclesiastics carefully separated, making herself their confidante, and possessing herself of their secrets, managing them all so cleverly that they became her tools without being aware of it, secretly despising her "bêtes" while openly flattering them. The visitors to her two weekly dinners were nearly all men, Bolingbroke and Matthew Prior being among her "habitués". Apart from Mme Geoffrin, who became her successor, and of whom she said that "she only came to see if there was anything among her inventory that she might have a use for", there were hardly any women, for Mme de Tencin would brook no possible rivals. Such was her degradation that she wrote a most indecent "Chronique scandaleuse" for the special delectation of the Regent. As Mme de Lambert's salon represents eighteenth century society at its best, so Mme de Tencin's foreshadowed some of the worst instances of female intriguing that were to follow.

A totally different salon was that kept by Mme Geoffrin. Mme de Tencin—whose own birth was not above suspicion—had all the pride of class, and looked down upon the Third Estate; Mme Geoffrin on the contrary was the daughter of a court-valet and consequently remained all her life a "bourgeoise", without any pretence to "préciosité" or anything but a kind and warm heart, a most remarkable wit, sound common sense and a natural delicacy which made her an ideal hostess. For Mme de Tencin's lofty disdain she substituted an almost maternal solicitude for the welfare of her "children", who, with the exception of Mlle de Lespinasse, were of the male sex. Besides d'Alembert, Diderot, Morellet and Grimm there were the ubiquitous Horace Walpole, David Hume the philosopher and Wraxall; the first-named of whom in his correspondence declaredher to be "a most extraordinary woman with more common sense than he had ever encountered in one of her sex."

The principles of the salon in the Rue St. Honoré were much the same as at Mme de Tencin's, but a milder spirit prevailed, and the demon of intrigue was absent. Mme Geoffrin kept fixed reception-days, her Mondays being devoted to artists, and her Wednesdays to men-of-letters and philosophers, while her intimates were made welcome on both days. The hostess presided over the assemblies without in any way obtruding her personal opinions or bringing her private interests into play, exercising an absolute authority which never became tyranny, and keeping peace among the more excitable of her guests[12]. She was much appreciated by them all, not least by the future king of Poland, Stanislas Augustus, her devoted "son", causing Walpole to refer to her as "the queen-mother of Poland". Her apotheosis came when in her sixty-eighth year she visited Warsaw, where she met with a royal reception. After her return her mental powers declined rapidly, and her daughter—fearing the influence of scepticism upon her mother—kept her favourite philosophers at a distance, eliciting from her the remark that she was, like Godfrey of Bouillon, "protecting her tomb against the infidels."

The third of the "Muses of the philosophical Decameron", whose salon was much in vogue, was Julie de Lespinasse, whose attractive personality and brilliant conversational and epistolary powers account for her success. She combined the warmth of heart of Mme Geoffrin with the ardent temperament of Mme de Tencin, but without the latter's brazen-facedness. She possessed a degree of sensibility which made her succumb to different lovers "for each of whom she cherished a passion which it was beyond her power to resist." Her youth had been fed with Richardson, "Clarissa Harlowe" being her favourite. She had entered the employ of the famous marquise du Deffand, herself a prominent hostess, in the capacity of reader. Her wit and the natural buoyancy of her character soon made her more popular than her mistress, whose guests took to visiting her in her room, while her mistress was still asleep. Mme du Deffand in her jealousy accused her of "skimming off the cream of her visitors' conversation"; a breach followed, and Julie was enabled by somesupporters to set up a small salon in the rue St. Dominique, which flourished from 1764 till the year of her death in 1776. She could not afford sumptuous dinners, but her guests were sure of a warm welcome and of some interesting conversation, which she conducted so tactfully, effacing herself completely and making her guests feel at home by always appearing interested, that her lack of personal beauty was quite forgotten in the charm of her manner. Politics were a frequent topic, and Mlle de Lespinasse was among the professed admirers of the British Constitution. D'Alembert, Condorcet, Turgot and also Mme Geoffrin belonged to her circle, and that Walpole knew her also, appears from the correspondence between him and Mme du Deffand, who at Julie's death complained that the rupture with her had robbed her of the friendship of d'Alembert.

While the women of society were celebrating their triumphs in the salons, philosophy was trying to do something for the female multitude. We have seen that it was Fénelon who caused education to be included among the subjects of moral philosophy, but it was the diffusive power of Rousseau's writings that made it one of the most frequently discussed themes of the century. His "Emile, ou de l'Education", which appeared in 1762—curiously enough, the year of the suppression of Jesuitism in France—marked a new era in the history of education, if not in that of feminism. Of Rousseau it might have been reasonably expected as the champion of liberty and equality to carry to their full extent the philosophical venturings of Fénelon and thus to usher in a new era of female emancipation. However, with an inconsistency which is one of his chief characteristics, Rousseau not only deliberately left the female half of mankind out of his scheme for political enfranchisement, but ranged himself among the anti-feminists by the great emphasis he laid on the consideration of a sexual character, which he construed into evidence of female inferiority, by arguing that it makes the subjection of woman a natural law, which is to be respected according to the theory that "whatever is in Nature, must be right." Owing to the contradictory nature of his views, however, while directly opposing the movement, he indirectly furthered it in two ways. In the first place, his social theories were adopted without reserve and without restrictions by some of his followers, who thus repaired the omission which had left Woman out of the scheme; and secondly it was Rousseau who once for all broke the back of the monastic system of education by continuing the campaign which Fénelon in theory, and Mme de Maintenon in practice, had entered uponbefore him, and bringing it to a happy conclusion. The reduction and ultimate abolition of the education of religion, which was one of the great victories of the philosophical school, became manifest in the latter half of the century. It was a signal success, achieved over an unwilling government and crowned by the expulsion of the Jesuits, who had formed one of the chief bulwarks against the growing revolutionary spirit.

The Cartesian principles, which had been a beacon-light to seventeenth century philosophy, were supplemented in the next by a new element: that ofutility. In John Locke's "Treatises of Government" and also in "Some Thoughts concerning Education", he let himself be guided chiefly by considerations of usefulness, thus becoming the founder of that doctrine of Utilitarianism which, after influencing the French Encyclopedians, was to return to England a century later and to find a fervent champion in William Godwin. In deciding upon a course of action, the inevitable question was: "What is the use?" and this guiding principle became paramount also in matters of education. To Locke, who was a man of practical sense and not a mere theorist, the problem was how to make people understand their real interests, and to make them act in accordance with them, which must necessarily lead to happiness. His educational system, therefore, is based upon the communication of such useful knowledge as will most contribute to the total amount of happiness to be found on this globe[13]. Locke insisted on the necessity for a physical education which increases the mental and moral capacity by rendering the body less subject to fatigue. Simplicity and effectiveness in dress and food, and plenty of outdoor exercise are recommended, and in this important matter, as indeed in a great many others, Locke may be said to have struck the keynote of the philosophical tendencies of the eighteenth century, anticipating the famous Nature-theory of Rousseau. Many important questions were mooted by him. He introduced the ethical problem of reward and punishment, and discussed the advisability of reasoning with a child and of making him learn a trade, which became a part of the educational programme of the next generations.

The French philosophers became Locke's immediate heirs, andafterwards repaid their debt to England with interest. Where Locke gave his "young gentleman" a tutor, his views were adopted by the opponents of the monastic education. It could hardly be expected of Locke, who lived in a time when the female fortunes in his own country were at a very low ebb, to have paid much attention to the possibility of making women share in the obvious advantages of the new system. However, if he did little or nothing for British women, his theories were turned to account for the benefit of their French sisters, whose position in the lower walks of life was not very much better than theirs. His French disciples, carrying the theory of utility to its fullest extent, included the female sex in their reflections. The first in point of time was the Abbé de St. Pierre, of whom Rousseau contemptuously said that he was "a man of great schemes and narrow views". Seen from a feminist standpoint this judgment is cruelly unjust. For, even granting that the Abbé's schemes were too Utopian to be capable of full realisation—a circumstance he himself sadly recognised—the fact remains that he was responsible for the first project of female educationon a national basis, making wholesale education a state-concern and thus wanting to extend the benefit of instruction to many who would otherwise be deprived of it. He stands at the beginning of the lane that leads via Bernardin de St. Pierre and Talleyrand to the great Condorcet.

The Abbé de St. Pierre was willing to grant womenas a classthat equality which the better-class women had actually attained, and he believed in their instruction, holding that on the instruction given to the young, whether male or female, depended the happiness of the coming race. But he believed still more in the necessity for a moral education, for his utilitarianism is not of this earth, but of eternity. With him the ever recurring question is: "What will it profit the soul?", and the fear of punishment in Hell is rather stronger with him than the sense of moral duty. He thus laid himself open to attack from the notorious Mme de Puysieux, who believed in reputation and the preservation of appearances, informing him that it was silly to let the fear of Hell withhold people from seeking happiness by cultivating the good opinion of others,whether deserved or not! The final clause sums up what moralists found most objectionable in the inclinations of a depraved age.

The real aim of women, according to the Abbé, should be to please God, and not men, so as to gain eternal life. He has no ambition for women beyond that of making them devout Christians andgood housekeepers, and his educational efforts are accordingly directed towards these two accomplishments. Girls are to dress simply, to eschew cards—that curse of the age—and to learn useful needlework, the keeping of accounts and in general such things as will be of the greatest use to them in the performance of their domestic duties. But he very unaccountably refuses their youth the advantages and innocent enjoyments of home-life, wishing them to be brought up in colleges, in which they are to be kept immured until such time as their education will be completed, when they will be ready for matrimony! At college girls may learn to be good citizenesses, but they will scarcely gain the necessary experience for managing a home of their own. The comprehensiveness of his scheme, however, and his recognition of the female equality entitles him to a place in the history of feminism above Rousseau.

The latter's attitude towards the feminist movement is so complicated as to demand careful analysis. Where women were concerned the strong individuality of the female genius would not allow him to side fully either with "those who wished to condemn them to a life of household-drudgery, making of them a sort of superior slaves, or those who, not satisfied to vindicate woman's rights, made her usurp those of the stronger sex", for the former have too low a notion of the duties of womanhood, whilst the latter overlook the considerations of a sexual character by which, according to Rousseau, the relations between the sexes are exclusively determined. Rousseau's opinion of the depth to which women had sunk appears from his "Lettre à d'Alembert sur les Spectacles," which contains a fierce onslaught upon their moral perversity, which has caused the drama, too feeble to rise to worthier themes, to fall back upon erotics of a most despicable kind. Rousseau judged women capable of becoming something better than what eighteenth century society had made of them, but in his demands for them and in his schemes for perfecting their moral education he was extremely modest. Next to the salons he held the education of the convents, "ces véritables écoles de coquetterie", to be chiefly responsible for the degradation of the female character. The young women who, on leaving them, enter society, carry into instant practice the lessons of vanity and coquetry which the convents have supplied. For convent and salon Rousseau wanted to substitute the blessings of true domesticity—painted in glowing colours in the pages of the "Nouvelle Héloise." His sympathies went out, not to that college-life of which the Abbé de St. Pierre hadsuch sanguine expectations, but to the intimacies of the family-circle, presided over by loving parents, an ideal which he reintroduced in the fifth book of his treatise on education, where, circumstances rendering it advisable to provide the finished male product with a suitable partner for life, the principles of Sophie's education are elaborately described[14].

Where he recommends making the duties of life as pleasant as possible to the young pupil, protesting against that austere conception which allowed her no other diversion than studies and prayers, Rousseau sides with Fénelon. In his opinion girls enjoy too little freedom, whilst grown-up women are left too much liberty. Let the young girls have an opportunity to enjoy life, he says, or they will take it when they are older. Nor does the notion of making them at an early age acquainted with the world inspire him with terror, for he trusts with Mme de Sévigné that the sight of noisy gatherings will only fill them with disgust instead of tempting them to imitation.

So far there is nothing anti-feminist in Rousseau's ideas. But unfortunately we have come to the end of what is positive and his further utterances rather advocate woman's subjection than her enfranchisement. The habit of reverting to first principles which is so dominant a characteristic of his Nature-theory makes him draw a parallel between the sexes upon the foundation of those innate qualities which constitute the sexual character. Men and women are the same in whatever is independent of sex, and radically different, almost diametrically opposed, in all that pertains to it. Thus all disputes regarding equality are vain, for "in what the sexes have in common they are naturally equal, and in that in which they differ no comparison is possible". And woman is to be congratulated upon this diversity, for in it lies the great secret of her subtle power. Where woman asserts the natural rights which arise from this difference she is superior to man; where she tries to usurp the natural rights of the opposite sex she remains hopelessly below their level. The two sexes have different spheres of activity, and each sex can do well only in its own sharply-defined sphere.

Reason itself demands this stress laid on the contrast between the sexes. For, says Rousseau, once women are brought up to be as like men as possible, their authority and influence,which are rootedin their being essentially different, will be lost without a substitute. This remark is one of great wisdom and psychological insight. Rousseau saw what many extreme feminists are so apt to forget, that those who wish to develop in women those qualities which naturally belong to man, and to suppress in them what is proper to their own sex, are in reality doing them irreparable harm.

There are, according to Rousseau, a male empire and a female one. The former rests upon a foundation of superior physical strength and mental superiority; but although the stronger sex are masters in appearance, they in reality depend on the weaker. For the female empire,established by Nature herself, derives its strength from those delicate feminine charms which command the worship of that gallantry which Nature again has instilled into the hearts of men.

In giving this interpretation of female power and influence Rousseau exposed himself to attack. The platonic worship, we have seen, had sadly degenerated, and what remained was a worthless, hypocritical imitation which was felt by well-meaning women as an insult rather than a compliment. But what called down a storm of feminist indignation upon his head was the sweeping conclusion he drew from the natural law that man, having physical strength on his side, must always play the active part in the intercourse between people of different sexes, while woman has to be always content with the passive rôle. "The sole object of women," says Rousseau, "ought consequently to beto pleasemen, on whom their relative weakness has made them dependent", and goes on to assert that all female education should as a natural consequence be "relative to men".

There is in the above passage, which shows that on the subject of feminism Rousseau, instead of a revolutionary, was rather a conservative, nothing to suggest the bold and daring vindication of female rights that was so soon to resound in the philosophical world like a mighty trumpet-blast. His ideas about the position of Woman are characteristic of his want of equilibrium in presenting a bewildering chaos of judicious observations and unaccountable oversights. It is not so much that some of his statements are untrue, as that they are incomplete. In drawing sweeping conclusions from the physical inferiority of the sex he deliberately closes his eyes to their moral and mental possibilities. It is true that he insists upon a moral education for women, but whatever of merit may be contained in this claim is instantly neutralised by its only object: making women more acceptable companions to their husbands, contributing to thehappiness of the latter by unwearying devotion and unalterable constancy. There are undoubtedly many women to whom the above would seem the most acceptable task, as there are others whose consciousness of their talents would make them indignantly reject so subordinate a part. As long as women are not cut after the same pattern, allowance will have to be made for individual propensities and any theory, however cleverly put together, will succeed with some types of womanhood and hopelessly fail with others.

St. Marc Girardin indignantly remarks that the condition of the women in Rousseau's Nature-scheme suggests the oriental seraglio. This is an exaggeration, for the "relative education" is qualified by Rousseau to such an extent that the harem-picture which it may at first conjure up is considerably modified. He wished the term "made to please men" to be understood in a far wider meaning than the merely sensual, for no one realised better than he that in the absence of a spiritual element no love based upon the grosser passions can possibly endure.

Where the female weaknesses and vanities are concerned Rousseau's discernment even surpasses that of Fénelon. The task of woman being to please, Nature has made her regard above all things the opinion of the opposite sex. And the moralist who teaches men to ignore the opinion of others as destructive of individuality, goes so far as to prescribe for women an unlimited deference to opinion and reputation. "Opinion, which is the grave of virtue among men, ought to be among women its high throne". The utilitarian question: "A quoi cela est-il bon?", which is to be the guiding principle in Emile's case, changes its character where Sophie is concerned, and becomes: "Quel effet cela fera-t-il?" The question what impression a thing will produce naturally leads to putting the shadow before the substance, and appearance before reality, and as such may have a most disastrous effect.

Sophie's love of needlework is accounted for not so much by considerations of usefulness as by the reflection that this delicate occupation will make her appear to advantage to her admirer. The same train of thoughts makes her abominate the useful occupation of cooking, by which her hands might become soiled. Did Rousseau actually imagine that his much-recommended simplicity in dress would hold out against the innate love of finery which was to help in the accomplishment of what he considered the chief aim of womanhood?

Rousseau certainly did not mean to imply that woman must of necessity be morally inferior to man, but simply that Nature had ordained that she shall be subjected to his superior strength, to his cooler judgment and to his superior common sense. He was certainly capable of imagining an ideal female, and of worshipping in her the essentially sexual qualities which make her differ from man. That portion of the fifth book ofEmilewhich deals with the first meeting between the lovers leaves little doubt as to how he pictured to himself his ideal of womanhood. The philosophical treatise is more than once in danger of becoming a romance, embodying the slightly sobered ideals of courtship of the author of "Julie". It cannot be denied that Sophie has charm and that her subjection to Emile is not oppressive. But to form a correct notion of Rousseau's ideas regarding the social position of women we must strip the story of its lyrical element and glance at the purely philosophical portion of the treatise. It is there that we must look for an answer to the question: "Did Rousseau look upon women as partakers of the faculty of Reason?" And he gives his reply in the following words: "L'art de penser n'est pas étranger aux femmes, mais elles ne doivent faire qu'effleurer les sciences de raisonnement." He would not even object to a system by which the functions of women were strictly limited to the performance of sexual duties, if it were not that utter ignorance would make them fall a too easy prey to rascally adventurers! The subsequent statement that, after all, it being the task of woman to get herself esteemed,so as to justify her husband's choice, a little knowledge would not come amiss, does not mend matters in its re-introduction of the relativity-principle. Here indeed, Rousseau "pitches the pipe too low".

Woman's special domain is that of sentiment. But the very "sensibility" which renders her more alluring by contrast, prevents her from forming a sound judgment. This appreciation of women appears clearly in the passages ofEmilein which the choice of a religion is discussed. Emile is not allowed to decide until he has completed his eighteenth year, when he is made to judge for himself, uninfluenced by his tutor. Sophie's religious notions, on the contrary, are carefully instilled by her parents at an early age, it being silently taken for granted that she will never arrive at a degree of understanding which will enable her to form her own convictions. "The female reason is of a practical nature, which renders them very quick to find the means of arriving at a fixed conclusion, butdoes not enable themto form that conclusion independently of others". Again that utter dependence, that total lack of individuality which characterises Rousseau's female ideal. "My daughter", says Sophie's father, "knowledge does not belong to your age; when the time has come, your husband will instruct you."

The amount of actual instruction in Rousseau's scheme is reduced to a minimum. There is no knowing what damage may be done to the unstable female imagination by the dangerous literature of the time. Here we recognise the author of the Dijon prize-essay with its crushing conclusion. Rousseau frankly hated the "femme bel esprit". Sophie's mind is to be formed by observation and reflection, and not by books. But how can Sophie be supposed to reflect, one might ask, unless she had certain fundamental truths pointed out to her, the instilment of which is not the work of every parent, however well-intentioned? It is Rousseau's fatal mistake that he cannot bring himself to realise that moral culture simply cannot exist without a certain amount of intellectual culture. He wanted to have both granted to men, and his conclusions tended to withhold both from women. The march of humanity finds him in the first rank of those who were pioneers; the feminist movement, while recognising his cleverness, looks upon him as a dangerous, and sometimes does him the injustice of calling him an hypocritical enemy.

The charge of insincerity has, indeed, been often brought against him, although he has found some defenders also. However, he is condemned by most women. Mrs. Fawcett, in her introduction to Mary Wollstonecraft'sVindication, opines that a man who made so light of his duties towards his own children, and whose married life was so full of blame has no right to pronounce on problems which require the disinterestedness and self-abnegation of the pure idealist. Where Rousseau points out the shortcomings of the women, of his time and regrets them, he is with Mary Wollstonecraft; where he fails to show the way by which improvement may be attained, he remains hopelessly behind one who, with considerably less genius, had a great deal more moral courage and a far wider conception of the ideals of woman.

Of the disciples and opponents of Rousseau, some of whom, like Mme de Staël, Mme de Genlis, and Mme de Necker de Saussure were of the female sex, little need be said here, as their writings either did not throw any new light on the problem under consideration, or belong to a period following that of Mary Wollstonecraft. When theRevolution came, bringing with it an increased demand for a public education, some of its theorists, who like Condorcet, showed an interest in the female part of the problem, will call for mention.

Back to Index Next