The disciples of Comte are divided into two schools: that of the Positivist Philosophers, and that of the Priesthood.
The first reject the religious organization of Comte, and are in reality nothing but the children of modern Philosophy, and very estimable adversaries of that nebulous thing which is called Metaphysics. We could not therefore have them in sight in this article; so, let not M. Littré and his honorable friends frown in reading us: we are about to find fault only with the high priest and his priesthood.
The doctrine of Comte concerning woman being connected with the whole of his religious system, let us first say a word about this system.
There is no God; there is no soul: the object of our adoration should be Humanity, represented by the best of our species....
There are three social elements: woman, priest, and man.
Woman is the moral providence, the guardian of morals.
Had it not been for the wholly mystical love, I willingly believe, that Comte had for Madame Clotilde de Vaux, it is probable that woman would not have been the moral Providence; thanks to this love, she is nothing less than this. We will see that neither is she anything more.
Of a nature superior to that of man (in the opinion of Comte), she is nevertheless subject to him, in consequence of a philosophical paradox which we need not refute here.
The function of woman is to render man moral; a task which she can perform well only in private life; all social and sacerdotal functions are therefore interdicted her.
She should be preserved from labor, should renounce dowry and inheritance; man is charged with maintaining her; daughter, she is supported by her father or her brothers; wife, by her husband; widow, by her sons. In default of her natural maintainers, the state, on the requisition of the priesthood, provides for her wants.