“Now, I am far from willing to affirm that women are imperfect creatures, and consequently of less dignity than men, and not capable of those virtues that men are,—because these ladies’ worth would suffice to prove me wrong:[[340]] but I do say that very learned men have left it in writing that since nature always aims and designs to make things most perfect, she would continually bring forth men if she could; and when a woman is born, it is a defect or mistake of nature, and contrary to that which she would wish to do: as is seen also in the case of one who is born blind or halt or with some other defect; and in trees, many fruits that never ripen. Thus woman may be said to be a creature produced by chance and accident; and that this is so, mark a man’s acts and a woman’s, and judge therefrom the perfection of both. Yet, as these imperfections of women are the fault of nature who has made them so, we ought not on that account to hate them or fail to show them that respect which is their due. But to esteem them above what they are, seems to me plain errour.”
12.—The Magnifico Giuliano waited for my lord Gaspar to continue further, but seeing that he kept silent, said:
“As to women’s imperfection, methinks you have adduced a very weak argument; to which, although perhaps it be not timely to enter upon these subtleties now, I reply (according to the opinion of one who knows and according to truth) that the substance of anything you please cannot receive into itself more or less. For just as no one stone can be more perfectly stone than another as regards the essence of a stone, nor one piece of wood more perfectly wood than another,—so one man cannot be more perfectly man than another; and consequently the male will not be more perfect than the female as regards its essential substance, because both are included in the species man, and that wherein the one differs from the other is an accidental matter and not essential. In case you then tell me that man is more perfect than woman, if not in essence, at least in non-essentials, I reply that these non-essentials must pertain either to the body or to the mind; if to the body (as in that man is more robust, more agile, lighter, or more capable of toil), I say that this is proof of very slight perfection, because even among men, they who have these qualities more than others have, are not more esteemed therefor; and even in wars, where the greater part of the work is laborious and a matter of strength, the strongest are yet not the most prized; if to the mind, I say that all the things that men can understand, the same can women understand too; and where the intellect of the one penetrates, there also can that of the other penetrate.”
13.—Having here made a little pause, the Magnifico Giuliano added, laughing:
“Do you not know that in philosophy this proposition is maintained, that those who are tender in flesh are apt in mind? So there is no doubt that women, being tenderer in flesh, are apter in mind, and of capacity better fitted for speculation than men are.” Then he continued:
“But leaving this aside, since you have told me to argue concerning the perfection of both from their acts, I say that if you will consider the workings of nature, you will find that she makes women what they are, not by chance, but adapted to the necessary end: for although she makes them not strong in body and of placid spirit, with many other qualities opposed to those of men, yet the characters of both tend to one single end conducive to the same use. For just as by reason of that feebleness of theirs women are less courageous, so for the same reason they are also more cautious: thus the mother nourishes her children, the father instructs them and with his strength earns abroad that which she with anxious care preserves at home, which is not the lesser merit.
“Again, if you examine the ancient histories (albeit men have ever been very chary of writing women’s praises) and the modern ones, you will find that worth has continually existed among women as well as among men; and that there have even been those who waged wars and won glorious victories therein, governed kingdoms with the highest prudence and justice, and did everything that men have done. As for the sciences, do you not remember having read of many women who were learned in philosophy? Others who were very excellent in poetry? Others who conducted suits, and accused and defended most eloquently before judges? Of handicrafts it would be too long to tell, nor is there need to bring proof regarding that.
“Therefore, if in essential substance man is not more perfect than woman, nor in non-essentials either (and of this, quite apart from argument, the effects are seen), I do not know in what consists this perfection of his.
14.—“And since you said that nature’s aim is always to bring forth the most perfect things, and that she therefore would always bring forth man if she could, and that the bringing forth of woman is rather an errour or defect in nature than of purpose,—I reply that this is totally denied; nor do I see how you can say that nature does not aim to bring forth women, without whom the human species cannot be preserved, whereof this same nature is more desirous than of everything else. For by means of this union of male and female she brings forth children, who repay the benefits received in childhood by maintaining their parents when old; then in turn they beget other children of their own, from whom they look to receive in old age that which they in their youth bestowed upon their parents; thus nature, moving as it were in a circle, fills out eternity and in this way grants immortality to mortals. Woman being therefore as necessary in this as man, I do not see how the one was made more by chance than the other.
“It is very true that nature aims always to bring forth the most perfect things, and hence means to bring forth man after his kind, but not male rather than female. Nay, if she were always to bring forth male, she would be working imperfection; for just as from body and soul there results a compound more noble than its parts, which is man,—so from the union of male and female there results a compound which preserves the human species, and without which its members would perish. And hence male and female are by nature always together, nor can the one exist without the other; thus that ought not to be called male which has no female, according to the definition of each; nor female, that which has no male. And as one sex alone shows imperfection, the theologians of old attribute both the one and the other to God:[[341]] wherefore Orpheus said that Jove was male and female; and we read in Holy Writ that God formed men male and female in his own likeness; and often the poets, speaking of the gods, confuse the sex.”