g sense, feminine in her manners." The fable was in this case
reversed. It was the sheep who had appeared in wolf's clothing.
In her own circle of friends and acquaintances she was lionized. Some of
her readers were converted into enthusiasts. One of these--a Mr. John
Henry Colls--a few years later addressed a poem to her. However, his
admiration unfortunately did not teach him justly to appreciate its
object, nor to write good poetry, and his verses have been deservedly
forgotten. The reputation she had won by her answer to Burke was now
firmly established. She was respected as an independent thinker and a
bold dealer with social problems. The "Analytical Review" praised her in
a long and leading criticism.
"The lesser wits," her critic writes, "will probably affect to make
themselves merry at the title and apparent object of this
publication; but we have no doubt, if even her contemporaries
should fail to do her justice, posterity will compensate the
defect; and have no hesitation in declaring that if the bulk of
the great truths which this publication contains were reduced to
practice, the nation would be better, wiser, and happier than it is
upon the wretched, trifling, useless, and absurd system of
education which is now prevalent."
But the conservative avoided her and her book as moral plagues. Many
people would not even look at what she had written. Satisfied with the
old-fashioned way of treating the subjects therein discussed, they would
not run the risk of finding out that they were wrong. Their attitude in
this respect was much the same as that of Cowper when he refused to read
Paine's "Rights of Man." "No man," he said, "shall convince me that I am
improperly governed, while I feel the contrary."
Women then, even the cleverest and most liberal, bowed to the decrees of
custom with a submission as servile as that of the Hindu to the laws of
caste. Like the latter, they were contented with their lot and had no
desire to change it. They dreaded the increase of knowledge which would
bring with it greater sorrow. Mrs. Barbauld, eloquent in her defence of
men's rights, could conceive no higher aim for women than the attainment
of sufficient knowledge to make them _agreeable_ companions to their
husbands and brothers. Should there be any deviation from the methods of
education which insured this end, they would, she feared, become like the
_Precieuses_ or _Femmes S
|