Essays, or discourses, vol. 2 (of 4) : $b Selected from the works of Feyjoo, and translated from the SpanishFeijoo, Benito Jerónimo
Philosophy
Essays, or discourses, vol. 2 (of 4) : $b Selected from the works of Feyjoo, and translated from the Spanish
Feijoo, Benito Jerónimo
Spanish essays -- Translations into English
X. But passing from the moral to the physical, which is more applicable
to our present purpose, we shall find the preference of the robust
over the delicate sex is a point settled, and any claim or pretensions
to equality on the part of the women is set aside, and treated with
contempt; and to such a length has depreciating the women been carried
by some, that they have not scrupled to call them imperfect, and even
monstrous animals, asserting, that Nature, in the work of generation,
never intended to produce any thing but males, and that it was only by
mistake, or in consequence of some defect in the matter or faculty,
that females were produced.
XI. O admirable adepts in physics! It would follow from hence, that
Nature conspired to work its own destruction, because, without the
concurrence of both sexes, the species cannot be preserved. It would
follow also, that Nature in this her principal work, is more frequently
mistaken than right; because it is allowed, that she produces more
women than men. Nor when we see females the offspring of parents who
are healthy, robust, and in the flower of their age, can we attribute
the formation of them to debility, want of vigour, or a defect in the
matter; nor is it probable, that if man had preserved his original
innocence, in which case there would have been none of these defects,
we should have had no women born, and that the human lineage would have
been kept up or continued without propagation.
XII. I know very well there was an author, who, for the sake of
indulging his malice, and supporting his envious insinuations against
the other sex, swallowed so palpable an absurdity. This was Almaricus,
a Parisian doctor of the twelfth century, who, among other errors,
asserts, that, if the state of innocence had continued, all the
individuals of our species would have been males, and that God would
have created them immediately himself as he did Adam.
XIII. Almaricus was a blind follower of Aristotle, insomuch that all,
or very near all his errors, were produced by conclusions, which
he had drawn from the doctrines of that philosopher; and, seeing
that Aristotle, in more than one part of his works, gives it to be
understood, that a female is a defective animal, its generation
accidental, and out of the design of nature, he concluded, that there
were no women in the state of innocence; and thus it comes to pass,
that an heretical theology is very frequently occasioned by a mistake
in physics.
XIV. But the great and avowed adherence of Almaricus to Aristotle, was
rather unfortunate to them both; because the errors of Almaricus were
condemned by a council held at Paris in 1209; and, in the same council,
the reading the books of Aristotle were prohibited, which prohibition
was afterwards confirmed by Pope Gregory IX. Almaricus had been dead a
year when his dogmas were proscribed; but his bones were afterwards dug
up, and thrown into a jake.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account