You inform me that M. Proudhon will not reply to the questions that I have put to him; I have neither the means nor the wish to constrain him to do so. I shall not inquire into the motives of his determination; my business now is only to make an exposition of his creed, which may be summed up in this wise: "I believe that between man and woman, there is a separation of the same nature as that which the difference of race places between animals; "I believe that, by nature and by destination, woman is neither associate, nor functionary, nor citizen; "I believe that, in the social workshop, she is, until her marriage, only apprentice, at most under-superintendent; "I believe that she is a minor in the family, art, science, manufactures, and philosophy, and that she is _nothing_ in the commonwealth; "I believe that she can only be housewife or courtesan; "I believe that she is incapable of understanding and of governing herself; "I believe firmly that the basis of the equality of rights is in the simple quality of being human; now, woman being unable to have rights equal to those of man, I affirm that she does not belong to the human species." Is Proudhon conscious how far his creed is in opposition to science, to facts, to the law of progress, to the tendencies of our own age, and does he dare to attempt to justify it by proofs? Does he feel that this creed classes him among the abettors of the dogmatism of the Middle Age, and does he recoil before such a responsibility? If this were the case, I should praise him for his prudent silence, and it would be my warmest desire that he should keep it forever on the question that divides us. To treat a subject, it is necessary to love and understand it; I dare not say that Proudhon does not love woman, but I do affirm that he does not understand her; he sees in her nothing more than the female of man; his peculiar organization seems to render him unfit for the investigation of such a subject. He promises, in the work that he is preparing, to treat of the sphere and the rights of women; if his doctrine has for its basis the paradoxical affirmations of his creed, I hope that he will this time take pains to rest them at least upon the semblances of proofs, which I shall examine with all the attention of which I am capable. By shrinking from discussion, he cannot escape my criticism. The two studies of Proudhon are simply the development of this creed. I promised to dissect the author; therefore, I shall do so. Let me not be reproached with being pitiless; Proudhon has deserved it. Let me not be reproached with being a reasoning machine; with such an adversary, one should be nothing else. Let me not be reproached with being harsh; Proudhon has shown a harshness and injustice with respect to women, even the most illustrious, that exceed all bounds. If I am harsh, I will endeavor on my part not to be unjust. I.