mating to an equality with man; her appearance on the rostrum, manifesting her possession of intellect and speech, produces a paroxysm of this appalling disease. Those who are the subjects of this malady, cannot brook the idea that woman should be reckoned equal, in intellectual pursuits, with man! They are assiduous in endeavouring to impress her mind with the idea that it is far more becoming, and more in accordance with female etiquette and modesty, for her to be employed at some bodily labour; to wit, darning stockings, or washing shirts, or compounding a pudding! She is far more lovely and attractive when preparing a pudding than a poem. We rejoice to say that, from present indications, this disease is about to form a favourable crisis. In a short time, it will only be mentioned as matter of history that a disease of inveterate malignity had visited the sterner sex of the human family, and their abettors of our own sex. It is about to descend to the pit from whence it proceeded. Pride, selfishness, caste, and unhallowed ambition, are among the elements that produced it, and although its exit is at hand, it still continues to emit some of its pestilential exhalations, and will not depart until expelled by a thorough course of remedial agents. The pulpit, the rostrum, and our seats of learning, are peculiarly obnoxious to the calamity of woman-phobia, and call loudly for sanative measures to be adopted for their renovation. For an illustration of this, we will give an extract from a lecture, on the formation of female character, recently delivered at a commencement in a female institution in Steubenville, Ohio, by the superintendent. In comparing the intellectual faculties of male and female, he says, "The reasoning faculties are stronger; in one, there is more originality of thought, acuteness of perception, and patience of research; in the other, more taste, susceptibility, and readiness. It was never intended by the God of nature that woman should stand out in bold relief, as rising to the highest intellectual eminence, or be conspicuous among mankind for any mental force-it is contrary to her tendencies. It is beyond her power; she ought never to reach for it." When did the God of nature reveal this to him? What an invidious comparison of the intellect of the sexes, and fettering and prescribing the intellect, that emanation of the Deity, the ethereal part of our

nature! What benefit can result from such comparisons and proscriptions to either sex? They are calculated to inflate the one with pride and self-sufficiency, and crush and blight the other-prejudice the mind against any good she could effect in any situation; they are a direct libel on woman. What opportunity has there been of testing the respective intellects of the sexes? We believe woman would not lose in comparison with man in intellectual gifts, taking into view the obstacles that surround her. Man has, with few exceptions, till of late, monopolized education to himself. A learned woman was a contemptible epithet; whereas a learned man was a high encomium. Nor has she any inducements to stimulate her to cultivate her talents. Nay, it is held out to be positively sinful for her to have aspirations after high intellectual attainments. "It was never intended by the God of nature that woman should stand out in bold relief, as rising to the highest intellectual eminence, or be conspicuous among mankind for any mental force." Is it not a wonder that woman is not rendered idiotic when there is such a continual war carried on against her intellect? What a paralyzing influence such opinions will have on female intellect, or intellectual pursuits, emanating from such a source, from the superintendent of a popular literary institution! Supposing such harangues were given at male institutions to the pupils, sustained by a corrupt public sentiment, what would be the consequence? Does not God require of woman, as well as of man, the cultivation and exercise of her talents to the highest eminence in her power? Not for ostentatious display, nor for selfish, ambitious purposes, but for the glory of God and the benefit of her fellow man, and her own pursuit of happiness to the very utmost of her ability, be they one, five, or ten talents. She is to be judged by what talents she possesses, without any regard to superiority or inferiority to man.

It is not more unbecoming in her to show her superiority than it was wrong for an Abigail to show she was superior in intellect to a Nabal?-nor than it was wrong for a Priscilla to manifest that she was superior in Christian knowledge to an Apollos; or than it was wrong for the wise woman of Abel to take the lead of the men of her city, in civil or political negotiations; or than Queen Elizabeth

was wrong in showing herself superior to a majority of the kings, and inferior to none, in political sagacity; or “than Harriet Martineau was wrong in doing more good by her writings on political economy than any man in England.”

The author of this lecture very particularly cautions woman not to intrench on the province of man. He says it is as well his wish to confine her to her appropriate sphere, as to raise her views to her proper importance and responsibility! Mrs. Swisshelm's description of the sphere of woman is very significant of this gentleman's theory. She says, "Woman's sphere is round, round, round, like a blind horse on a mill-wheel. She is to exhibit the strength of a Hercules-the perseverance of a spider-the heroism of all the martyrs-the endurance of brass, and the softness of wax-the piety of a Paul and the wisdom of a Solomon, beautifully mingled with the subjection of a slave." He warns her against "pedantry, as it is doubly offensive in her sex, no matter how superior her talents or information, or experience, or age; she must have a marked diffidence, without which she cannot be agreeable." In short, she must be assiduous in concealing any superiority of intellect, or intellectual attainments, she may possess. Her light must not be put on a candlestick, that those who come in may see the light, but must be placed in some position where it will only flicker, not burn-particularly if it is of an extraordinary magnitude, lest, perchance, it might outshine or eclipse some of "the farthing candles of the lords of creation." Under these circumstances, it is peculiarly necessary that she should have "modesty of expression to mark her diffidence," or truckling sycophancy, to conciliate "the lords of creation," as the lecturer modestly styles them, or she cannot be agreeable; as he knows a great many of them" love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and to be called of men Rabbi, Rabbi!" woman is taught that it is her duty to please them, rather than her Creator. Indeed, a great many women do fear the invectives of men more than the requirements of their Creator. It is the special duty of man or woman to please his neighbour, for his good to edification; and it is entirely wrong for either man or woman to make a display of talents or attainments, in order to show superiority and

make others feel their inferiority; this is a direct way to subvert any good influence their superiority might have. To say that women should have more good manners, or Christian humility, than men, would be only claiming a superiority for them which we are not disposed to ask. As usual, the lecturer assigns to woman a monopoly of the Christian graces. The graces for which Christ was conspicuous, are designed for female Christians; but those graces that are designed for men are of the heroic character,—“ sterner, more rugged, and unyielding virtues belong to men. Like Job's horse, "his neck is clothed with thunder."

66

He says, "Domestic qualities and virtues constitute the peculiar recommendation of the female sex. If a woman does not consider it the perfection of the character of a wife to study household good, and good works in her husband to promote, she mistakes the most important branch of female duties." Good works in her husband to promote! It would be more likely that he would promote good works in her, as she is in her prominent and striking qualities most certainly inferior to man." "The tree is known by its fruit." He shows from the thirty-first chapter of Proverbs that industry and frugality were the chief ornaments of the female. in the days of Solomon, and an important source of family wealth, respectability, and distinction. If this is true, we wonder how a woman ought to feel her dependence on man, and look to him for support and guidance instead of her Creator. This is still the old song-woman is always represented as standing in the character of wife; and all her training is for the purpose of qualifying her for this station. Does not man, as husband, stand in a more important character according to the popular theory? Why is his training not designed to qualify him for the duties of a husband?

Solomon, or rather Solomon's mother, in the thirty-first chapter of Proverbs, was not defining all the duties devolving on woman as a moral and intellectual being; she said nothing about her duty to worship God in public. Are we to infer from this that woman is never to attend public worship? We believe if God has placed woman in a family, it is her special and particular duty to make the virtuous woman her model in her character as wife, and as one of the heads of a

family; but we hear of a woman in the days of Solomon that "came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear his wisdom, and prove him with hard questions." Christ tells us that" she is to rise up in judgment with that generation and condemn it," consequently he approves her conduct. It was not her domestic qualities and virtues that he commended, for in her own country she was at the head of "the affairs of state, both civil and political." And women are to be nursing mothers to the church in the character of queens.

Why is pedantry more offensive in woman than in man? It is nothing more than one would expect in a poor shallowbrained creature, when she receives a little learning she will act the pedant; but surely it is very much out of character for man, that "stands out in bold relief, rising to the highest intellectual eminence, and is so conspicuous for his mental force," to lower his dignity by acting the pedant. Guarding his pupils against pedantry reminds us of what a reverend gentleman (now a D. D.) told us some twenty-five years since. He said he had privately taught his sisters chemistry, with some other branches of science, but charged them strictly not to let it be known that they were in possession of this knowledge, lest people should laugh at the learned ladies and their "pedantry." Unreasonable man, in exactions, like a tyrant, denies to woman the right to be educated, as well as the means, and then reproaches and ridicules her for want of talents. Not only does he remove from her all incitements to exertion, but throws insuperable obstacles in her way; and now when facilities are opening to her for education, she is told she is not designed by her Creator to be conspicuous for any mental force, for fear it would hinder her from occupying her subordinate station. "Moreover, the powers of her intellect are suited to the use to which they are designed to be placed in the providence of God." Now we would wish to see this position tested. Let woman's intellect be brought fairly into competition with man's, and see what place the powers of woman's intellect are "designed for in the providence of God."

The Creator has given powers of instinct to the beast, for the use to which it is designed to be placed in this world, (as it was not designed for any other world,) but to man he has given higher intellectual powers than are barely necessary