SECT. XXIII.
CXLVIII. I am aware now, that against all I have said, it may be replied to me to this effect: If women are equal to men, in their aptitude for arts, sciences, political œconomy, and government, why has God established the mastery, and superiority in the men, by the sentence in the third chapter of Genesis, which says, Sub viri potestate eris? Because it is probable, he gave the government to that sex, which he knew to be most capable of executing it.
CXLIX. I answer first, that the specific meaning of the text is not certainly known, on account of the variation in the versions. The reading in the Septuagint is: Ad virum conversio tua. In the Aquilean: Ad virum societas tua. In the Samaritan: Ad virum appetitus, vel impetus tuus. And the learned Benedict Perceyra says, that by translating the Hebrew literally, the sentence will run thus: Ad virum desiderium, vel concupiscentia tua.
CL. I answer secondly, that it might be insisted, the political subjection of the woman was absolutely a punishment for her sin, and therefore, that in the state of innocence there was no such thing. The text at least does not contradict such an opinion; for it rather seems, that if it had been intended the woman should obey the man in the state of innocence, God would have intimated this subjection, at the time he formed her; and from these premises, it cannot so properly be inferred, that God gave the man the preference, on account of his possessing an understanding superior to the woman’s, as that it was done, because she gave the first occasion to sin.
CLI. I say thirdly, that admitting, God from the beginning gave the rule over the woman to the man, it does not follow from thence, that he endued him with an understanding superior to her’s; but it rather seems likely, this was done for the sake of maintaining family order and decorum, for allowing them to be equal in point of talents, unless the government and direction was vested in one, all would be anarchy and confusion. Among the probable species of governments, the moral philosophers, copying after Aristotle, have held or considered, that which is called the Timocracian, to be the worst and most exceptionable: for by this, all the individuals of the republic have equal authority, and an equal voice; but in the case of a man and his wife, this mode of directing, with respect to œconomical government, would not only be imperfect, but impossible; for among a multitude of people, where there is a variety of opinions, the dispute may be decided by a plurality of votes; which cannot be done between a man and his wife, for they are one, to one; and thus if they should happen to be of different sentiments, unless one of them had the superiority, the point could never be settled; but it may be said, why, if their capacities were equal, should God think fit to give the superiority to the men? Various reasons and motives may be assigned for this, such as his excelling the women in many other useful qualities, for example, constancy and courage; which virtues, are necessary for making proper determinations, and for supporting them after they are made, by subduing and bearing down all the obstacles, produced by vain and light fears; but we should do better, instead of reasoning in this way, to confess, we for the most part are ignorant of the motives of divine resolutions.