Thus far, our whole course of argument has been defensive and
explanatory. We have shown that woman's inferiority in special
achievements, so far as it exists, is a fact of small importance,
because it is merely a corollary from her historic position of
degradation. She has not excelled, because she has had no fair chance to
excel. Man, placing his foot upon her shoulder, has taunted her with not
rising. But the ulterior question remains behind,--How came she into
this attitude, originally? Explain the explanation, the logician fairly
demands. Granted that woman is weak because she has been systematically
degraded; but why was she degraded? This is a far deeper question,--one
to be met only by a profounder philosophy and a positive solution. We
are coming on ground almost wholly untrod, and must do the best we can.

We venture to assert, then, that woman's social inferiority, in
the past, has been, to a great extent, a legitimate thing. To all
appearance, history would have been impossible without it, just as it
would have been impossible without an epoch of war and slavery. It
is simply a matter of social progress, a part of the succession of
civilizations. The past has been, and inevitably, a period of ignorance,
of engrossing physical necessities, and of brute force,--not of
freedom, of philanthropy, and of culture. During that lower epoch, woman
was necessarily an inferior,--degraded by abject labor, even in time
of peace,--degraded uniformly by war, chivalry to the contrary
notwithstanding. Behind all the courtesies of Amadis and the Cid lay the
stern fact,--woman a child or a toy. The flattering troubadours chanted
her into a poet's paradise; but, alas! that kingdom of heaven suffered
violence, and the violent took it by force. The truth simply was, that
her time had not come. Physical strength must rule for a time, and she
was the weaker. She was very properly refused a feudal grant, because,