XI. O admirable adepts in physics! It would follow from hence, that Nature conspired to work its own destruction, because, without the concurrence of both sexes, the species cannot be preserved. It would follow also, that Nature in this her principal work, is more frequently mistaken than right; because it is allowed, that she produces more women than men. Nor when we see females the offspring of parents who are healthy, robust, and in the flower of their age, can we attribute the formation of them to debility, want of vigour, or a defect in the matter; nor is it probable, that if man had preserved his original innocence, in which case there would have been none of these defects, we should have had no women born, and that the human lineage would have been kept up or continued without propagation.
XII. I know very well there was an author, who, for the sake of indulging his malice, and supporting his envious insinuations against the other sex, swallowed so palpable an absurdity. This was Almaricus, a Parisian doctor of the twelfth century, who, among other errors, asserts, that, if the state of innocence had continued, all the individuals of our species would have been males, and that God would have created them immediately himself as he did Adam.
XIII. Almaricus was a blind follower of Aristotle, insomuch that all, or very near all his errors, were produced by conclusions, which he had drawn from the doctrines of that philosopher; and, seeing that Aristotle, in more than one part of his works, gives it to be understood, that a female is a defective animal, its generation accidental, and out of the design of nature, he concluded, that there were no women in the state of innocence; and thus it comes to pass, that an heretical theology is very frequently occasioned by a mistake in physics.
XIV. But the great and avowed adherence of Almaricus to Aristotle, was rather unfortunate to them both; because the errors of Almaricus were condemned by a council held at Paris in 1209; and, in the same council, the reading the books of Aristotle were prohibited, which prohibition was afterwards confirmed by Pope Gregory IX. Almaricus had been dead a year when his dogmas were proscribed; but his bones were afterwards dug up, and thrown into a jake.
XV. This shews, that we should not lay any great stress upon the opinion of a few doctors, who, though they were in other respects discreet men, have asserted, that the female sex is defective, for no other reason, than because Aristotle whose followers they were had declared so; but they did not however proceed so far, as to precipitate themselves into the error of Almaricus. It is certain, that Aristotle’s treatment of the women proceeded from spite; for he not only proclaimed with vehemence their physical defects, but was more vehement still in blazoning their moral ones; some instances of which, I shall point out in another place. Who would not suppose from all this, that his disposition inclined him to shun the sex? But nothing was so opposite to him, for he not only tenderly loved two wives which he married, but his affection for the first, named Pythais, who, as some say, was daughter, others niece of Hermias, tyrant of Atarneus, carried him so far beside himself, that he franticly offered incense to her as a deity. They also give us a relation of his loose amours with a little servant girl, though Plutarch does not incline to credit the tale; but in this business, the testimony of Theocritus Chio, who was contemporary with Aristotle, ought to have more weight than the opinion of Plutarch, who was much posterior to him; and Theocritus, in a lively epigram, lashed Aristotle for his obscenity. From this instance we may perceive, that men’s seeming malignity to, and inveterate abuse of women, is, as we have observed before, frequently accompanied with an inordinate inclination for them.
XVI. From the same physical error which condemned woman for an imperfect animal, there sprung another theological one, which is combated by St. Austin, in Lib. 22, de Civit. Dei cap. 17. The authors of this system say, that, at the universal resurrection, this imperfection is to be remedied, by converting all the women into men; and that then, grace is to compleat and finish the work which nature had only begun.
XVII. This error is very like that of the infatuated Alchymists, who, relying on the maxim, that nature in the formation of metals, never intended to produce any thing but gold, and that it was only from some obstruction, or from some defect of vigour and virtue, that she fabricated other imperfect metals; also pretend, that art is afterwards capable of carrying the work to perfection, and making gold of that which was originally produced iron. But, after all, this error is the most sufferable of the two, because it does not interfere with matters of faith; and because also, let the intention of nature in the formation of metals, and the imaginary capacity of art, be what they will, it is a fact, that gold is the most noble of metals, and that the others are of a much inferior quality compared to it. But, in our present question, the assertion, that Nature always intended the production of males, and that her producing females was the effect of a bastard operation, is all false and erroneous; and much more so is the affirming, that this is to be amended at the resurrection.
SECT. III.
XVIII. I would not, however, be understood to approve of what is thrown out by Zacuto Lusitano, in the introduction to his Treatise De Morbis Mulierum, where, with frivolous reasons, he attempts to give the preference to the women, and to persuade us, that their physical perfections greatly exceed those of the men. Such an opinion, might be supported by much more plausible arguments than are used by him; but my view is not to persuade a superiority, but only an equality.
XIX. And to begin, setting aside the question of their understandings, which I mean to discuss separately and more at large in this discourse, let us consider the three endowments, in which the men seem manifestly to have the advantage of the women, to wit, robustness, constancy, and prudence; but, although this should be granted by the women, they might pretend to a competition, by pointing out other three qualities, in which they excel the male sex, to wit, beauty, gentleness, and simplicity.