Image of annotated primary source.
Like many thinkers of the era, Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote extensively about the State of Nature. His conclusions, however, were fundamentally different than his peers. Unlike others who argued that government existed to limit humanity’s cruelty or preserve its dignity, Rousseau claimed that government and society corrupted humanity’s natural goodness. His ideal was the noble savage who was between the animalistic “brute” and the “civilized” person corrupted by rules and power.
Image source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Jean-Jacques_Rousseau_(painted_portrait).jpgDescription: A portrait of Jean-Jacques Rousseau by Maurice Quentin de La Tour, 1753
Alt text: A portrait of a man, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, with a powdered wig, a brown 18th century coat and a white shirt. He is looking at the viewer with a half-smile.
From https://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/rousseau-soccon.asp Man was born free, but everywhere he is in chains. This man believes that he is the master of others, and still he is more of a slave than they are. How did that transformation take place? I don't know. How may the restraints on man become legitimate? I do believe I can answer that question....
At a point in the state of nature when the obstacles to human preservation have become greater than each individual with his own strength can cope with . . ., an adequate combination of forces must be the result of men coming together. Still, each man's power and freedom are his main means of self-preservation. How is he to put them under the control of others without damaging himself . . . ?
This question might be rephrased: "How is a method of associating to be found which will defend and protect-using the power of all-the person and property of each member and still enable each member of the group to obey only himself and to remain as free as before?" This is the fundamental problem; the social contract offers a solution to it.
The very scope of the action dictates the terms of this contract and renders the least modification of them inadmissible, something making them null and void. Thus, although perhaps they have never been stated in so many words, they are the same everywhere and tacitly conceded and recognized everywhere. And so it follows that each individual immediately recovers his primitive rights and natural liberties whenever any violation of the social contract occurs and thereby loses the contractual freedom for which he renounced them.
The social contract's terms, when they are well understood, can be reduced to a single stipulation: the individual member alienates himself totally to the whole community together with all his rights. This is first because conditions will be the same for everyone when each individual gives himself totally, and secondly, because no one will be tempted to make that condition of shared equality worse for other men....
Jonathan Swift was a poet, novelist, and satirist in 18th century Britain. The excerpt below is from A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People From Being a [Burden] to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Publick. In A Modest Proposal, Swift uses irony and hyperbole to mock the treatment of the poor, but especially the treatment of the mostly Catholic poor in Ireland by the mostly Anglican English government.
Definition: Satirist: Someone who writes satire. Writer John Dryden defined satire as "the amendment of vice by correction", meaning that satire is an attempt to point out another's follies. Satire often relies on humour, irony, and hyperbole (exaggeration).
Image source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Jonathan_Swift_by_Charles_Jervas_detail.jpg
Description: A portrait of Jonathan Swift by Charles Jervas, 1709
Alt text: A portrait of a plump man, Jonathan Swift, with a large powdered wig, a white starched collar and he is looking to the viewer’s right with a pensive expression.
From faculty.kirkwood.edu/ryost/hist201/Revolutions/modestproposal.doc
It is a melancholy object to those who walk through this great town or travel in the country, when they see the streets, the roads, and cabin doors, crowded with beggars of the female sex, followed by three, four, or six children, all in rags and importuning every passenger for an alms. These mothers, instead of being able to work for their honest livelihood, are forced to employ all their time in strolling to beg sustenance for their helpless infants: who as they grow up either turn thieves for want of work, or leave their dear native country to fight for the Pretender in Spain, or sell themselves [into indentured servitude] to the Barbadoes.
I think it is agreed by all parties that this prodigious number of children in the arms, or on the backs, or at the heels of their mothers, and frequently of their fathers, is in the present deplorable state of the kingdom a very great additional grievance; and, therefore, whoever could find out a fair, cheap, and easy method of making these children sound, useful members of the commonwealth, would deserve so well of the public as to have his statue set up for a preserver of the nation.
I shall now therefore humbly propose my own thoughts, which I hope will not be liable to the least objection.
I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout [i.e., highly seasoned dish of meat and vegetables]
I do therefore humbly offer it to public consideration that of the hundred and twenty thousand children already computed, twenty thousand may be reserved for breed, whereof only one-fourth part to be males; which is more than we allow to sheep, black cattle or swine; and my reason is, that these children are seldom the fruits of marriage, a circumstance not much regarded by our savages, therefore one male will be sufficient to serve four females. That the remaining hundred thousand may, at a year old, be offered in the sale to the persons of quality and fortune through the kingdom; always advising the mother to let them suck plentifully in the last month, so as to render them plump and fat for a good table. A child will make two dishes at an entertainment for friends; and when the family dines alone, the fore or hind quarter will make a reasonable dish, and seasoned with a little pepper or salt will be very good boiled on the fourth day, especially in winter.
Denis Diderot was both a contributor to and editor of the Encyclopédie, which was published in the 1750s. Unlike modern encyclopedias that attempt to provide an objective understanding of the world, the Encyclopédie was highly contentious. Entries were often argumentative, and took issue with the political and religious authorities. At this time, there was an absolute monarchy in France, and the king was assumed to have Divine Right to do what he wished. Diderot and other enlightened thinkers liked constitutional monarchy as a form of government. The Encyclopédie was banned by the Catholic Church in 1759.
Diderot: Excerpts from the Definition of Intolerance
Source: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/d/did/did2222.0000.020/--intolerance?rgn=main;view=fulltext
Image source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/Denis_Diderot_111.PNG
Description: A portrait of Denis Diderot by Louis-Michel van Loo, 1767
Alt text: A portrait of a man, Denis Diderot, sitting at a desk, writing with a quill pen. He is wearing a blue silk jacket and a white shirt. His hair is grey and pulled back in a simple ponytail. He is looking to the viewer’s left, and appears dynamic, as if he were about to speak.
The word intolerance is generally understood to mean the savage passion that leads us to hate and persecute those in error. But, in order not to confuse very different things, we must distinguish between two kinds of intolerance – ecclesiastic and civil.
Ecclesiastic intolerance consists of considering as false all religions other than one's own; proclaiming it from the rooftops without being held back by terror, respect for humanity, or fear for the loss of one's life. This article will not address such heroism that has generated so many martyrs across the church’s centuries.
Definition: Ecclesiastic: relating to the Church or priests, bishops, and other clergy.
Civil intolerance consists in ceasing all relations, by all sorts of violent means, with those who have a way of thinking about God and his worship that is different from our own.
A few lines taken from the Holy Scriptures, the Church fathers, and Councils will suffice to show that the intolerant person, taken in this latter sense, is an evil man, a bad Christian, a dangerous subject, a poor statesman, and a bad citizen.
It is impious, even with the intention of bringing back those who previously strayed, to expose religion to the odious accusations of being tyrannical, harsh, unjust, and antisocial.
The mind can only acquiesce before that which it recognizes as true; the heart can only love that which seems good to it. Violence will turn a weak man into a hypocrite and a strong man into a martyr. Weak or brave, he will feel the injustice of persecution and resent it.
Education, persuasion, and prayer, these are the only legitimate means of spreading the faith.
Any means that provoke hate, indignation, and scorn are impious.
Any means that stir the passions and foster self-interest are impious.
Any means that loosen natural bonds and estrange fathers from children, brothers from brothers, sisters from sisters, are impious.
Any means that tend to incite men to rebel, bring nations to arms, and drench the earth with blood are impious.
It is impious to seek to coerce conscience, the universal determinant of behavior. Conscience must be enlightened, not constrained.
Men who err in good faith are to be pitied, never punished.
Neither men of good faith nor men of bad faith should be harassed, but rather left for God's judgement.
[...]
What did Christ ask of his disciples upon sending them among the nations? Was it to kill or die? Was it to persecute or suffer?
If you exclaim, "I have truth on my side," I would cry just as loudly, “it is I who have truth on my side” while adding, “what does it matter who is wrong so long as there is peace between us! If I am blind, need you strike a blind man across the face?”
François-Marie Arouet, known as Voltaire, was one of the most prolific writers of the 18th century. By his death in 1778, he had written thousands of letters, books, and pamphlets. Many of his writings focused on inequality, intolerance, and injustice; unlike others who hid their criticisms behind double-meanings and fictional accounts, Voltaire’s criticisms were often direct and unflinching. His willingness to challenge religious and political authority earned him considerable fame, but also put him at risk for prosecution and frequent exile from Paris.
Source: https://history.hanover.edu/texts/voltaire/volsuper.html
Description: A portrait of François-Marie Arouet, known as Voltaire, by Maurice Quentin de La Tour, 1735
Alt text: A pastel portrait of a man,Voltaire, with a powdered wig and a white shirt. He is looking at the viewer with a smile.
The superstitious man is to the rogue what the slave is to the tyrant. Further, the superstitious man is governed by the fanatic and becomes fanatic. Superstition born in Paganism, adopted by Judaism, infested the Christian Church from the earliest times. All the fathers of the Church, without exception, believed in the power of magic. The Church always condemned magic, but she always believed in it: she did not excommunicate sorcerers as madmen who were mistaken, but as men who were really in communication with the devil.
To-day one half of Europe thinks that the other half has long been and still is superstitious. The Protestants regard the relics, the indulgences, the mortifications, the prayers for the dead, the holy water, and almost all the rites of the Roman Church, as a superstitious dementia. Superstition, according to them, consists in taking useless practices for necessary practices. Among the Roman Catholics there are some more enlightened than their ancestors, who have renounced many of these usages formerly considered sacred; and they defend themselves against the others who have retained them, by saying: " They are indifferent, and what is merely indifferent cannot be an evil."
[...] It is [...] clear that it is the fundamentals of the religion of one sect which is considered as superstition by another sect.
The Moslems accuse all Christian societies of it, and are themselves accused. Who will judge this great matter? Will it be reason? But each sect claims to have reason on its side. It will therefore be force which will judge, while awaiting the time when reason will penetrate a sufficient number of heads to disarm force.
Up to what point does statecraft permit superstition to be destroyed? This is a very thorny question; it is like asking up to what point one should make an incision in a dropsical person, who may die under the operation. It is a matter for the doctor's discretion.
Can there exist a people free from all superstitious prejudices? That is to ask-Can there exist a nation of philosophers? It is said that there is no superstition in the magistrature of China. It is probable that none will remain in the magistrature of a few towns of Europe.
Then the magistrates will stop the superstition of the people from being dangerous. These magistrates' example will not enlighten the mob, but the principal persons of the middle-classes will hold the mob in check. There is not perhaps a single riot, a single religious outrage in which the middle-classes were not formerly imbrued, because these middle-classes were then the mob; but reason and time will have changed them. Their softened manners will soften those of the lowest and most savage populace; it is a thing of which we have striking examples in more than one country. In a word, less superstition, less fanaticism; and less fanaticism, less misery.
The events of Olaudah Equiano’s early life are unclear. He seems to contradict himself in his own writing, listing both Africa and America as his birthplace. However, historians have confirmed that he was sold to a Royal Navy officer in Virginia, and spent 20 years working on various ships that travelled around the world. Eventually, Equiano earned enough money to buy his freedom. In 1786, he became involved in an abolitionist movement in Britain, which led directly to the publication of his autobiography. Because Britain had a constitutional monarchy, it allowed for people and groups like the abolitionist movement to have input into the change of laws, such as those on slave trade.
Definition: Abolitionist movement - A movement that sought to eliminate or outlaw the slave trade at this time. In the 19th century, the movement would work to eliminate slavery altogether
Source: http://www.brycchancarey.com/equiano/extract5.htm
Image Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/EquianoExeterpainting.jpg
Caption: This may be a painting of Olaudah Equiano. It was created in the second half of the 18th century. While it has been used as a cover image for the Interesting Narrative, some art historians argue that the man in the image is not Equiano. Of all of the authors considered in this activity, Equiano is the only one whose appearance is disputed, which suggests that this uncertainty is at least partially due to to his status as a former slave.
Alt: This is a portrait of an African man wearing European clothing. He is wearing a red jacket and a white shirt and his hair is pulled back in a ponytail. He is looking directly at the viewer.
I hope to have the satisfaction of seeing the renovation of liberty and justice, resting on the British government, to vindicate the honour of our common nature. These are concerns which do not perhaps belong to any particular office: but, to speak more seriously to every man of sentiment, actions like these are the just and sure foundation of future fame; a reversion, though remote, is coveted by some noble minds as a substantial good. It is upon these grounds that I hope and expect the attention of gentlemen in power. These are designs consonant to the elevation of their rank, and the dignity of their stations; they are ends suitable to the nature of a free and generous government; and, connected with views of empire and dominion, suited to the benevolence and solid merit of the legislature. It is a pursuit of substantial greatness. - May the time come - at least the speculation to me is pleasing - when the sable people shall gratefully commemorate the auspicious aera of extensive freedom: then shall those persons particularly be named with praise and honour, who generously proposed and stood forth in the cause of humanity, liberty, and good policy; and brought to the ear of the legislature designs worthy of royal patronage and adoption. May Heaven make the British senators the dispersers of light, liberty and science, to the uttermost parts of the earth: then will be glory to God on the highest, on earth peace, and good-will to men. - Glory, honour, peace, &c. to every soul of man that worketh good; to the Britons first, (because to them the Gospel is preached), and also to the nations. “Those that honour their Maker have mercy on the poor.” “It is righteousness exalteth a nation; but sin is a reproach to any people: destruction shall be to the workers of iniquity, and the wicked shall fall by their own wickedness.” May the blessings of the Lord be upon the heads of all those who commiserate the cases of the oppressed negroes, and the fear of God prolong their days; and may their expectations be filled with gladness! “The liberal devise liberal things, and by liberal things shall stand,” Isaiah xxxii. They can say with pious Job, “Did not I weep for him that was in trouble; was not my soul grieved for the poor?” Job xxx. 25.
Definition: Sable: very dark or black, as in the fur of a sable or marten.
Catherine was a German princess who, at the age of fifteen, married the future Emperor of Russia in 1774. By 1761, she was much more popular with the military and the people than her husband; the disparity was so great, in fact, that this former German princess was proclaimed Empress of Russia, and her husband was assassinated days later. Russia was a monarchy, and Catherine was an autocratic ruler who had some interest in enlightened values. During her reign, Catherine brought Enlightenment and European values to the Russian Court, attempted to modernize Russia and refocused the empire on the West.
Source: A Source Book for Russian History, G. Vernadsky, trans. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972), Vol. 2, pp. 453-454
Image source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/Catherine_II_by_J.B.Lampi_%281780s%2C_Kunsthistorisches_Museum%29.jpg
Description: A portrait of Catherine II of Russia by Johann Baptist von Lampi the Elder, 1780s.
Alt: A portrait of a plump woman, Catherine the Great. She has grey hair styled high with a crown on her head. She is wearing very rich furs, silks and velvet with a decorative silver chain around her shoulders. She appears powerful and with a half-smile as she gazes at the viewer.
9. The Sovereign is absolute; for there is no other Authority but that which centers in his single Person, that can act with a Vigour proportionate to the Extent of such a vast Dominion.
10. The Extent of the Dominion requires an absolute Power to be vested in that Person who rules over it. It is expedient so to be, that the quick Dispatch of Affairs, sent from distant Parts, might make ample Amends for the Delay occasioned by the great Distance of the Places.
11. Every other Form of Government whatsoever would not only have been prejudicial to Russia, but would even have proved its entire Ruin.
12. Another Reason is: That it is better to be subject to the Laws under one Master, than to be subservient to many.
13. What is the true End of Monarchy? Not to deprive People of their natural Liberty; but to correct their Actions, in order to attain the supreme Good.
14. The Form of Government, therefore, which best attains this End, and at the same Time sets less Bounds than others to natural Liberty, is that which coincides with the Views and Purposes of rational Creatures, and answers the End, upon which we ought to fix a steadfast Eye in the Regulations of civil Polity.
38. A Man ought to form in his own Mind an exact and clear Idea of what Liberty is. Liberty is the Right of doing whatsoever the Laws allow: And if any one Citizen could do what the Laws forbid, there would be no more Liberty; because others would have an equal Power of doing the same.
(criticism of Britain not allowing Americans their British liberties)
Thomas Paine was born in Britain in 1737, and moved to Pennsylvania at the age of 37. Despite having limited formal education, Paine became one of the most influential writers of his era. He wrote about numerous topics, including the injustice and the immorality of slavery. His most famous work, Common Sense, swayed many colonialists who were uncertain about their allegiances to Britain, and thus played a pivotal role in the start of the American War of Independence. Paine was directly commenting on constitutional monarchy, the form of government in Britain at the time.
Source: http://www.bartleby.com/133/1.html
Image source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Thomas_Paine_rev1.jpg
Description: Description: A portrait of Thomas Paine by Auguste Millière, 1876
Alt text: A portrait of a man, Thomas Paine, with a brown 18th century coat and a white shirt. He is looking at the viewer with a half-smile. His hair is pulled back from his face.
Of the origin and design of government in general, with concise remarks on the English Constitution.
I know it is difficult to get over local or long sta
nding prejudices, yet if we will suffer ourselves to examine the component parts of the English constitution, we shall find them to be the base remains of two ancient tyrannies, compounded with some new republican materials. First.—The remains of monarchical tyranny in the person of the king. Secondly.—The remains of aristocratical tyranny in the persons of the peers [House of Lords]. Thirdly.—The new republican materials, in the persons of the commons [House of Commons], on whose virtue depends the freedom of Britain. The two first, by being hereditary, are independent of the people; wherefore in a constitutional sense they contribute nothing towards the freedom of the state. To say that the constitution of Britain is a union of three powers reciprocally checking each other, is farcical, either the words have no meaning, or they are flat contradictions.
Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession
Source: http://www.bartleby.com/133/2.html
To the evil of monarchy we have added that of hereditary succession; and as the first is a degradation and lessening of ourselves, so the second, claimed as a matter of right, is an insult and an imposition on posterity. For all men being originally equals, no one by birth could have a right to set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others for ever, and though himself might deserve some decent degree of honors of his contemporaries, yet his descendants might be far too unworthy to inherit them. One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of hereditary right in kings, is, that nature disapproves it, otherwise, she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind an ass for a lion. …
The nearer any government approaches to a republic the less business there is for a king.
Thoughts on the present state of American affairs.
Source: http://www.bartleby.com/133/3.html
Alas, we have been long led away by ancient prejudices, and made large sacrifices to superstition. We have boasted the protection of Great-Britain, without considering, that her motive was interest not attachment; that she did not protect us from our enemies on our account, but from her enemies on her own account, from those who had no quarrel with us on any other account, and who will always be our enemies on the same account. …
But admitting, that we were all of English descent, what does it amount to? Nothing. Britain, being now an open enemy, extinguishes every other name and title: And to say that reconciliation is our duty, is truly farcical. …
Europe is too thickly planted with kingdoms to be long at peace, and whenever a war breaks out between Britain and any foreign power, the trade of America goes to ruin, because of her connection with Britain. … but there is something very absurd, in supposing a continent to be perpetually governed by an island. …
Thomas Jefferson was one of the founding fathers of American democracy. During his career, he served as both Vice-President and as President; still, he is perhaps most known for his contributions to key American documents, such as the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson’s enlightened values prompted him to advocate for the formation of a republic, a form of government without a monarchy. In this document, he provides a series of arguments in an attempt to establish the rights of the individual and to justify the American colonies’ independence from Britain.
Source: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.htmlDescription: A portrait of Thomas Jefferson by Rembrandt Peale, 1799.
Alt text: A portrait of a man, Thomas Jefferson, with grey hair pulled back. He is wearing a black coat and a white shirt. He is looking at the viewer with a confident, powerful expression.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. …
…
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
…
We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare.
That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
Frederick the Great, the Emperor of Prussia, was a complex man. He was a brilliant military strategist and a shrewd politician. At the same time, he was also an aspiring musician and an enlightened despot. That is, Prussia maintained an absolute monarchy, but Frederick changed many laws in Prussia to align with Enlightenment values. He corresponded regularly with the greatest minds in Europe, including Voltaire, one of the most influential thinkers of the century. He outlawed torture, modernized the legal code, and protected both the freedom of press and religion.
Definition: Absolute Monarchy - A form of government where the king or queen has absolute power and cannot be questioned.
Source: The Foundations of Germany, J. Ellis Barker, trans. (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1916), pp. 22-23.Image source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Friedrich_ii_campenhausen.jpg
Description: A portrait of Frederick the Great, painted by Wilhelm Camphausen,1869. It was painted 100 years after his death, at a time when he was seen largely as a great hero in Prussia (now Germany).
Alt: This is a portrait of a man in a tricorn hat, Frederick the Great, wearing a powdered wig and a military coat. He is carrying a staff or cane in his gloved hands. His eyes are open wide and he appears to be about to leap into military action.
A sovereign must possess an exact and detailed knowledge of the strong and of the weak points of his country. He must be thoroughly acquainted with its resources, the character of the people, and the national commerce.... Rulers should always remind themselves that they are men like the least of their subjects. The sovereign is the foremost judge, general, financier, and minister of his country, not merely for the sake of his prestige. Therefore, he should perform with care the duties connected with these offices. He is merely the principal servant of the State. Hence, he must act with honesty, wisdom, and complete disinterestedness in such a way that he can render an account of his stewardship to the citizens at any moment. Consequently, he is guilty if he wastes the money of the people, the taxes which they have paid, in luxury, pomp and debauchery. He who should improve the morals of the people, be the guardian of the law, and improve their education should not pervert them by his bad example. Princes, sovereigns, and king have not been given supreme authority in order to live in luxurious self-indulgence and debauchery. They have not been elevated by their fellow-men to enable them to strut about and to insult with their pride the simple-mannered, the poor and the suffering. They have not been placed at the head of the State to keep around themselves a crowd of idle loafers whose uselessness drives them towards vice. The bad administration which may be found in monarchies springs from many different causes, but their principal cause lies in the character of the sovereign. ... The sovereign is the representative of his State. He and his people form a single body. Ruler and ruled can be happy only if they are firmly united. The sovereign stands to his people in the same relation in which the head stands to the body. He must use his eyes and his brain for the whole community, and act on its behalf to the common advantage. If we wish to elevate monarchical above republican government, the duty of sovereigns is clear. They must be active, hard-working, upright and honest, and concentrate all their strength upon filling their office worthily. That is my idea of the duties of sovereigns.
A proto-feminist, Mary Wollstonecraft wrote extensively about the treatment of women in English society. Her works critiqued the lack of education for women and social expectations that relegated women to limited roles in their homes. In her most famous work, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, written in 1792, she calls for equal education for both men and women. In the excerpt below, she addresses the impact of discrimination on women.
Source: Agonito, Rosemary. History of Ideas of Woman: A Source Book. New York: Paragon, 1979. Print.Image source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Mary_Wollstonecraft_by_John_Opie_%28c._1797%29.jpg
Description: A portrait of Mary Wollstonecraft by John Opie, 1797
Alt: A portrait of a young woman with brown hair under a black cap, Mary Wollstonecraft. She is wearing a simple, white dress, and has a pensive expression as she is gazing to the viewer’s left.
The Effects of Discrimination on Women
Men, in general, seem to employ their reason to justify prejudices, which they have imbibed, they cannot trace how, rather than to root them out. The mind must be strong that resolutely forms its own principles; for a kind of intellectual cowardice prevails which makes many men shrink from the task, or only do it by halves. Yet the imperfect conclusions thus drawn, are frequently very plausible, because they are built on partial experience, on just, though narrow, views.
That the society is formed in the wisest manner, whose constitution is founded on the nature of man, strikes, in the abstract, every thinking being so forcibly, that it looks like presumption to endeavour to bring forward proofs; though proof must be brought, or the strong hold of prescription will never be forced by reason; yet to urge prescription as an argument to justify the depriving men (or women) of their natural rights, is one of the absurd sophisms which daily insult common sense.
But one power should not be thrown down to exalt another—for all power intoxicates weak man; and its abuse proves, that the more equality there is established among men, the more virtue and happiness will reign in society.
De La Cruz was born in Mexico in 1651. She openly disregarded many traditions through the content and structure of her writing; despite becoming a nun, for example, she wrote poems about courtship and love, and even penned thrillers designed to entertain her readers. However, she is most remembered for her writings espousing the education of women, in which she often drew upon Biblical and classical sources to support her arguments.
Source: http://www.encyclopedia.com/article-1G2-3441600047/juana-ins-de-la.htmlImage source: https://www.biography.com/.image/t_share/MTE5NDg0MDU0NjE2NTA3OTE5/sor-juana-ines-de-la-cruz-38178-1-402.jpg
Description: A portrait of Juana Inés de la Cruz as a young woman
Alt: A portrait of a young woman, Juana Inés de la Cruz wearing a richly decorated golden dress. She has long black hair with red flowers in it cascading over her shoulders. She is sitting with a book in one hand, and the other hand raised as if she will speak.
If studies, my Lady, be merits (for indeed I see them extolled as such in men), in me they are no such thing: I study because I must. If they be a failing, I believe for the same reason that the fault is none of mine. Yet withal, I live always so wary of myself that neither in this nor in anything else do I trust my own judgment. And so I entrust the decision to your supreme skill and straightway submit to whatever sentence you may pass, posing no objection or reluctance, for this has been no more than a simple account of my inclination to letters.
I confess also that, while in truth this inclination has been such that, as I said before, I had no need of exemplars, nevertheless the many books that I have read have not failed to help me, both in sacred as well as secular letters. For there I see a Deborah issuing laws, military as well as political, and governing the people among whom there were so many learned men. I see the exceedingly knowledgeable Queen of Sheba, so learned she dares to test the wisdom of the wisest of all wise men with riddles, without being rebuked for it; indeed, on this very account she is to become judge of the unbelievers. I see so many and such significant women: some adorned with the gift of prophecy, like an Abigail; others, of persuasion, like Esther; others, of piety, like Rahab; others, of perseverance, like Anna [Hannah] the mother of Samuel; and others, infinitely more, with other kinds of qualities and virtues.
.jpg){kind=link}
_avec_agrandissement.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
