Page images
PDF
EPUB

is a sort of metaphysical punch, made up of intellect and affections; only for the misfortune of our comparison, he says, the intellect is dry, and the sweets of the affections should predominate over the acidity of the intellect. Now we can form no conception of such characteristics, distinguishing the writings of women, only so far as they are the result of altogether different circumstances. When a woman writes, she writes as her intellect enables her. The affections are a constant quantity, or nearly so, and her productions will be more or less valuable, as they are the result of greater or less intellectual power. Affections never penned a sentence or uttered a truth, and they never will. All that is valuable in writing or instruction must be the result of intellect, and that alone. The affections may give a tone or direction to it; but just in proportion to the power of intellect will be the value, in any point of view, of the production. With no intellect the affections would never move the tongue; they could never frame a sentence, and in proportion to the intellect will the promptings of the affections become powerful for good.

To give the affections any exhibition in writing requires cultivated intellect. The basis of all must be mind. The hues may be imparted by extraneous circumstances, as the mind itself may determine. But to talk of the productions of females being the "blended result of the intellect and affections," is uniting causes that ducing a common result.

have no possible relation in proWe might, with more propriety, say that the steam and the helm sent the steamship across the ocean, placing the helm as a part of the power of propulsion. The steam drives the vessel and produces the result, the helm is held by another power, but in the mind, it is not only the power, that drives, but it judges of the controlling agent it will allow to act upon it, and impress upon it its direction.

Prof. S. says, "If the instances referred to, of an excessive cultivation of the intellect, are extreme cases of the operation of a general principle, they serve well to indicate the general effect of the principle, and its entire unsoundness. They show, that the system of education applicable to the male

mind, and which looks chiefly to the development and discipline of the intellectual faculties, is unsuited to females." Now allowing all that Prof. S. demands, no such conclusions can be drawn from the cases of Misses Fuller and Martineau, unless they are shown to be the only really intellectually cultivated women known. They should be regarded rather as exceptions, than as the general result of any system. For if a system operating for a quarter of a century on millions, only produces two as the legitimate result of its operation, it is certainly not a system to be feared from its appropriate working, but only by its exceptions, and them Prof. S. approves. All that this flourish of logic gains to his position, he is certainly entitled to.

Now for the system by which these affections are to be developed. The object to be aimed at is shown by the following question, which the Professor calls "the true question," and is this, "What course is best calculated to secure a right development of all the affections proper to woman?" He says in explanation, "that this necessarily involves the cultivation of the intellect, as far as such cultivation may conduce to this result, which is its legitimate extent and object. The above may mean much, or it may mean nothing at all. If it mean that so much intellect is required, and so much only as is requisite to develope the affections, then it means nothing in relation to this subject. This is the strict interpretation of the language; it requires no cultivation of intellect to develope the affections, enough will be spontaneously produced; they are stamped in the constitution of our nature and need but the appropriate objects to call them forth as powerfully in the ignorant and uncultivated as in the most carefully educated. But, in the same paragraph, he denies his interrogatory, statement and explanation, and says that to bring out the affections rightly they "require intellect, and cultivated intellect." This is good, and it throws to the winds all his fine spun theory. The highest powers of intellect are required to carry out rightly the promptings of the affections. It needs the closest training, the most refined analysis, the keenest per

ceptions, the highest development of strength and power never to waver and ever to conquer.

"In determining this question," says the Prof. "the first remark is, that the home circle is God's own appointed school for females." Prof. S. has perhaps a much deeper insight into the intentions of Deity, than other people, or such an assertion ought to have been accompanied by some attempt at proof. But there is no such thing; he asserts as true, in many cases, in this article, things about which he can affirm nothing, and decides with the most positive certainty in other cases, points that have been discussed by the ablest in past time.

Now, how does Prof. S. know that God intended the home circle any more for the scene of education of the powers of the female than of the male? It is the proper school for both, in early childhood and youth, and no more for one than the other. The best affections of men are as much centered in the home circle as those of women. Woman, it is true, by her intellect, devises and arranges the condition of its loveliness and attractions, and when thus devised and arranged, both enjoy it together. If the home is such as to afford the proper mental training, be it so. Let the daughters be trained at home. But there is not one in a thousand, that is so, and from the very nature of the case, never can be so. Prof. S. need not have written his article, laying out a new field of effort. His field is already open and cultivated. What does he ask more than is already done? All our females are not blessed, or he thinks, half cursed, with the privileges of colleges. They are trained at home, and with intellect enough for the full development of all the affections, as far as circumstances demand. Thousands of such females are scattered all over the land, and form the great masss of the people. Not one in fifty ever recites a lesson in a college, much less gains any intellectual power. Will Prof. S. tell us that the intellect is not enough cultivated in these cases? Then he gives up the whole ground, and his "Theory of Female Education," vanishes into thin air. But he tells us, perhaps, his conditions are not complied with, as to a "rightly regulated

family circle;" that "there exists among all the parties right mutual respect, confidence and love." We admit it, and there never will be such a state of things in general, until religion and proper intellectual training produce it.

Prof. S. draws a picture sad enough, and in some of its delineations too true; but he ascribes it entirely to the wrong cause. He says, speaking of the effects of public education, "Some of the effects are a mortifying ignorance of the actual duties incumbent upon them in domestic life, and of the modes of their performance; a want of a warm, affectionate devotion to home friends; a spirit of discontent with home; a disposition to rove in search of amusement and occupation; a desire to mingle with the external world incompatible with domestic ties and obligations, and a general unfitness for the quiet, retirement and sober responsibilities of their own proper sphere of action." Does Prof. S. suppose that these are the results of intellectual training? No, he cannot suppose it. They are the most glaring testimonies against any proper training at all. We confess too, that many of our female schools foster such lamentable exhibitions of human depravity; but it is the fault of particular institutions and their departure from thorough and severe mental training, that leads to these disastrous results. A mind properly balanced and properly furnished with all that a thorough education implies, would never answer to the picture drawn by Prof. S. Far from it. True learning, and enough of it, is ever humble. It is the smatterer, whose mouth is ever open, and the empty mind, that must wander from home because there is not enough of interest there; and she must be involved in the grossest ignorance, that cannot find about her family a field for the noblest exercise of all her powers. We hold it to be utterly impossible for a well trained and well furnished mind, with the heart under the control of Christianity, not to be under all circumstances, a pattern of all that is lovely in female character; and the more powerful her intellect, the less of anything styled masculine will there appear in her conduct. VOL. VII.-23

Even men, with the best trained minds and the most powerful intellects, are more often than other men, childlike in their familiar intercourse. The more we are like our Saviour in knowledge, so shall we be like him in humility. We are not disposed to attack Prof. S.'s mode of teaching. It is open to much comment, but we let it pass, and proceed to the consideration of the advantages of public and private teaching.

"The reasons," he says, "which make public schools better for males, than private schools, are chiefly these:-First, they are more favorable to emulation, and consequently secure more of the benefits resulting from ambition. Second, they bring the mind more in contact with the outward world and consequently are more favorable to the acquisition of such knowledge as is in demand in public life, and to the development of principles, that are brought into exercise in its common affairs. But neither of these reasons apply to females." The reasons assigned above, are minor reasons for the establishment of public schools. There are two reasons vastly more prominent than those adduced. First, the resources that can be commanded to supply for a public school all the means of instruction, such as apparatus, libraries and cabinets, cannot be afforded by small private institutions or families. Second, a division of labor, by having a greater number of teachers, so that each may devote his time to the high cultivation of his particular department, and give his pupils the fruits of his labors which he could not do, through a great many subjects. Does Prof. S. condemn all emulation in females? Is there any thing wrong in a desire for a high degree of excellence? Is it unfeminine in them to aim to equal or even surpass their associates in the acquisition of knowledge or in the perfect performance of appropriate duties? We think not. The Bible, nature, common sense, give no indication that it is wrong. But placing it on any ground, the Prof. pleases, will it destroy emulation by banishing it from our schools. We must take human nature as it is and not as we might wish it to be.

Prof. S. would make us believe that the human heart, especially that of females, is a very simple machine, that needed

« PreviousContinue »