Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 3, No. 16, February, 1859 | Page 7

Elstob's grammar: "Our
earthly possessions are indeed our patrimony, as derived to us by the
industry of our fathers; but the language in which we speak is our
mother-tongue, and who so proper to play the critic in this as the
females?" But this particular female obtained the rudiments of her rare
education from her mother, before she was eight years old, in spite of
much opposition from her right reverend guardians.--Adelung, the
highest authority, declares that all modern philology is founded on the
translation of a Russian vocabulary into two hundred different dialects
by Catherine II. But Catherine shared, in childhood, the instructors of
her brother, Prince Frederick, and was subject to some reproach for
learning, though a girl, so much more rapidly than he did.--Christina of
Sweden ironically reproved Madame Dacier for her translation of
Callimachus: "Such a pretty girl as you are, are you not ashamed to be
so learned?" But Madame Dacier acquired Greek by contriving to do
her embroidery in the room where her father was teaching her stupid
brother; and her queenly critic had learned to read Thucydides, harder
Greek than Callimachus, before she was fourteen.--And so down to our
own day, who knows how many mute, inglorious Minervas may have
perished unenlightened, while Margaret Fuller and Elizabeth Barrett
Browning were being educated "like boys"?
This expression simply means that they had the most solid training
which the times afforded. Most persons would instantly take alarm at
the very words; that is, they have so little faith in the distinctions which
Nature has established, that they think, if you teach the alphabet, or
anything else, indiscriminately to both sexes, you annul all difference
between them. The common reasoning is thus: "Boys and girls are
acknowledged to be distinct beings. Now boys study Greek and algebra,

medicine and book-keeping. Therefore girls should not." As if one
should say: "Boys and girls are distinct beings. Now boys eat beef and
potatoes. Therefore, obviously, girls should not."
The analogy between physical and spiritual food is precisely in point.
The simple truth is, that, amid the vast range of human powers and
properties, the fact of sex is but one item. Vital and momentous in itself,
it does not constitute the whole organism, but only a small part of it.
The distinction of male and female is special, aimed at a certain end;
and apart from that end, it is, throughout all the kingdoms of Nature, of
minor importance. With but trifling exceptions, from infusorial up to
man, the female animal moves, breathes, looks, listens, runs, flies,
swims, pursues its food, eats it, digests it, in precisely the same manner
as the male; all instincts, all characteristics, are the same, except as to
the one solitary fact of parentage. Mr. Ten Broeck's race-horses, Pryor
and Prioress, were foaled alike, fed alike, trained alike, and finally ran
side by side, competing for the same prize. The eagle is not checked in
soaring by any consciousness of sex, nor askes the sex of the timid hare,
its quarry. Nature, for high purposes, creates and guards the sexual
distinction, but keeps it humbly subordinate to still more important
ones.
Now all this bears directly upon the alphabet. What sort of philosophy
is that which says, "John is a fool; Jane is a genius; nevertheless, John,
being a man, should learn, lead, make laws, make money; Jane, being a
woman, shall be ignorant, dependent, disfranchised, underpaid." Of
course, the time is past when one would state this so frankly, though
Comte comes quite near it, to say nothing of the Mormons; but this
formula really lies at the bottom of the reasoning one hears every day.
The answer is: Soul before sex. Give an equal chance, and let genius
and industry to the rest. _La carrière ouverte aux talens_. Every man
for himself, every woman for herself, and the alphabet for us all.
Thus far, our whole course of argument has been defensive and
explanatory. We have shown that woman's inferiority in special
achievements, so far as it exists, is a fact of small importance, because
it is merely a corollary from her historic position of degradation. She
has not excelled, because she has had no fair chance to excel. Man,
placing his foot upon her shoulder, has taunted her with not rising. But
the ulterior question remains behind,--How came she into this attitude,

originally? Explain the explanation, the logician fairly demands.
Granted that woman is weak because she has been systematically
degraded; but why was she degraded? This is a far deeper
question,--one to be met only by a profounder philosophy and a
positive solution. We are coming on ground almost wholly untrod, and
must do the best we can.
We venture to assert, then, that woman's social inferiority, in the past,
has