always; therefore they should not have the guardianship of their children under any circumstances whatever.  The vanity of women, even if it should not be greater than that of men, has this evil in it, that it is directed on material things—­that is to say, on their personal beauty and then on tinsel, pomp, and show.  This is why they are in their right element in society.  This it is which makes them inclined to be extravagant, especially since they possess little reasoning power.  Accordingly, an ancient writer says, [Greek:  Gunae to synolon esti dapanaeron physei].[10] Men’s vanity, on the other hand, is often directed on non-material advantages, such as intellect, learning, courage, and the like.  Aristotle explains in the Politics[11] the great disadvantages which the Spartans brought upon themselves by granting too much to their women, by allowing them the right of inheritance and dowry, and a great amount of freedom; and how this contributed greatly to the fall of Sparta.  May it not be that the influence of women in France, which has been increasing since Louis XIII.’s time, was to blame for that gradual corruption of the court and government which led to the first Revolution, of which all subsequent disturbances have been the result?  In any case, the false position of the female sex, so conspicuously exposed by the existence of the “lady,” is a fundamental defect in our social condition, and this defect, proceeding from the very heart of it, must extend its harmful influence in every direction.  That woman is by nature intended to obey is shown by the fact that every woman who is placed in the unnatural position of absolute independence at once attaches herself to some kind of man, by whom she is controlled and governed; this is because she requires a master.  If she, is young, the man is a lover; if she is old, a priest.

FOOTNOTES: 

[9] Let me refer to what I have said in my treatise on The Foundation of Morals, Sec.71.

[10] Brunck’s Gnomici poetae graeci v. 115.

[11] Bk.  I., ch. 9.

THINKING FOR ONESELF.

The largest library in disorder is not so useful as a smaller but orderly one; in the same way the greatest amount of knowledge, if it has not been worked out in one’s own mind, is of less value than a much smaller amount that has been fully considered.  For it is only when a man combines what he knows from all sides, and compares one truth with another, that he completely realises his own knowledge and gets it into his power.  A man can only think over what he knows, therefore he should learn something; but a man only knows what he has pondered.

A man can apply himself of his own free will to reading and learning, while he cannot to thinking.  Thinking must be kindled like a fire by a draught and sustained by some kind of interest in the subject.  This interest may be either of a purely objective nature or it may be merely subjective.  The latter exists in matters concerning us personally, but objective interest is only to be found in heads that think by nature, and to whom thinking is as natural as breathing; but they are very rare.  This is why there is so little of it in most men of learning.