most superficial reader of history the numerous examples of vice and
oppression which the private intrigues of female favorites have produced;
not to dwell on the mischief that naturally arises from the blundering
interposition of well-meaning folly. For in the transactions of business it is
much better to have to deal with a knave than a fool, because a knave
adheres to some plan, and any plan of reason may be seen through sooner
than a sudden flight of folly. The power which vile and foolish women have
had over wise men who possessed sensibility is notorious. There is a notion commonly entertained among men that an instructed
woman, capable of having opinions, is likely to prove an unpracticable yoke-
fellow, always pulling one way when her husband wants to go the other, orac
ular in tone, and prone to give curtain lectures4 on metaphysics. But surely,
so far as obstinacy is concerned, your unreasoning animal is the most unman
ageable of creatures, where you are not allowed to settle the question by a
cudgel, a whip and bridle, or even a string to the leg. For our own parts, we
see no consistent or commodious medium between the old plan of corporal
discipline and that thorough education of women which will make them
rational beings in the highest sense of the word. Wherever weakness is not
harshly controlled it must govern, as you may see when a strong man holds a
little child by the hand, how he is pulled hither and thither, and wearied in
his walk by his submission to the whims and feeble movements of his com
panion. A really cultured woman, like a really cultured man, will be ready to
yield in trifles. So far as we see, there is no indissoluble connection between
infirmity of logic and infirmity of will, and a woman quite innocent of an
opinion in philosophy, is as likely as not to have an indomitable opinion about
the kitchen. As to airs of superiority, no woman ever had them in consequence
of true culture, but only because her culture was shallow or unreal, only as a
result of what Mrs. Malaprop well calls 'the ineffectual qualities in a
woman''?mere acquisitions carried about, and not knowledge thoroughly
assimilated so as to enter into the growth of the character. To return to Margaret Fuller, some of the best things she says are on the
folly of absolute definitions of woman's nature and absolute demarcations of
woman's mission. 'Nature,' she says, 'seems to delight in varying the arrange
ments, as if to show that she will be fettered by no rule; and we must admit
4. See Douglas Jerrold's comic sketches of a wife 3.2. In response to compliments about her 'intelwho delivers nightly lectures to her husband from lectual accomplishments,' Mrs. Malaprop?famed behind their bed curtains, Mrs. Caitdle's Curtain for her mistaken use of words?exclaims: 'Ah! few Lectures (1846). gentlemen, nowadays, know how to value the inef5. Richard Brinsley Sheridan, The Rivals (1775), fectual qualities in a woman!'
.
1340 / GEORGE ELIOT
the same varieties that she admits.' Again: 'If nature is never bound down,
nor the voice of inspiration stifled, that is enough. We are pleased that women
should write and speak, if they feel need of it, from having something to tell;
but silence for ages would be no misfortune, if that silence be from divine
command, and not from man's tradition.' And here is a passage, the beginning
of which has been often quoted: If you ask me what offices they [women] may fill, I reply?any. I do not
care what case you put; let them be sea-captains if you will. I do not doubt
there are women well fitted for such an office, and, if so, I should be as
glad as to welcome the Maid of Saragossa, or the Maid of Missolonghi,
or the Suliote heroine, or Emily Plater.6 I think women need, especially
at this juncture, a much greater range of occupation than they have, to
