in a country where men are permitted to speak and write without restraint on the measures of government; where almost every citizen may flatter himself with the hopes of becoming a part of the legislature; where eloquence, popular talents, and political intrigues, lead to honours, and open a broad road to wealth and power; men, after the first glow of youth is past, are more obedient to the loud voice of ambition than to the whispers of love. but in despotic states, and in monarchies which verge towards despotism, where the will of the prince is law; or, which amounts nearly to the same thing, where the law yields to the will of the prince; where it is dangerous to speak or write on general politics, and[399] death or imprisonment to censure the particular measures of government; love becomes a first, instead of being a secondary object; for ambition is, generally speaking, a more powerful passion than love; and on this account women are the objects of greater attention and respect in despotic than in free countries. that species of address to women which is now called gallantry, was, if i am not mistaken, unknown to the ancient greeks and romans; nothing like it appears in any of terence’s comedies, where one would naturally expert to find it, if any such thing had existed when they were written. it now prevails, in some degree, in every country of europe, but appears in different forms according to the different characters, customs, and manners, of the various countries.
in the courts of germany it is a formal piece of business; etiquette governs the arrows of cupid, as well as the torch of[400] hymen. mistresses are chosen from the number of quarters on their family coats of arms, as well as from the number of their personal charms; and those ladies who are well provided in the first, seldom are without lovers, however deficient they may be in the second. but though many avenues, which in england lead to power and distinction, are shut up in germany, and the whole power of government is vested in the sovereign, yet the young nobility cannot bestow a great deal of their time in gallantry. the military profession, which in the time of peace is perfect idleness in france and england, is a very serious, unremitting employment in germany. men who are continually drilling soldiers, and whose fortunes and reputations depend on the expertness of the troops under their command, cannot pay a great deal of attention to the ladies.
every french gentleman must be a soldier; but fighting is the only part of the business[401] they go through with spirit; they cannot submit to the german precision in discipline, their souls sink under the tediousness of a campaign, and they languish for a battle from the impetuosity of their disposition, and impatience to have the matter decided one way or the other. this, with many particular exceptions, is the general style of the french noblesse; they all serve an apprenticeship to war, but gallantry is the profession they follow for life. in england, the spirit of play and of party draws the minds of the young men of fortune from love or gallantry; those who spend their evenings at a gaming house, or in parliament, seldom think of any kind of women but such as may be had without trouble; and, of course, women of character are less attended to than in some other countries. when i was last at paris, the marquis de f—— found an english newspaper on my table; it contained a long and particular account of a debate which had[402] happened in both houses of parliament; he read it with great attention while i finished a letter, and then throwing down the paper, he said to me, “mais, mon ami, pendant que vos messieurs s’amusent a jaser comme cela dans votre chambre des pairs et votre parlement[11], parbleu un etranger auroit beau jeu avec leurs femmes.”
intrigues of gallantry, comparatively speaking, occur seldom in england; and when they do, they generally proceed from a violent passion, to which every consideration of fortune and reputation is sacrificed, and the business concludes in a flight to the continent, or a divorce.
they manage matters otherwise in france; you hardly ever hear of flights or divorces in that country; a hundred new arrangements are made, and as many old ones broken, in a week at paris,[403] without noise or scandal; all is conducted quietly et felon les régles; the fair sex are the universal objects of respect and adoration, and yet there is no such thing as constancy in the nation. wit, beauty, and every accomplishment united in one woman, could not fix the volatility of a frenchman; the love of variety, and the vanity of new conquests, would make him abandon this ph?nix for birds far less rare and estimable. the women in france, who are full of spirit and sensibility, could never endure such usage, if they were not as fickle and as fond of new conquests as their lovers.
in italy, such levity is viewed with contempt, and constancy is, by both sexes, still classed among the virtues.
that high veneration for the fair sex which prevailed in the ages of chivalry, continued long after in the form of a sentimental platonic kind of gallantry. every man of ingenuity chose unto himself a mistress, and directly proclaimed her beauty and[404] her cruelty in love ditties, madrigals, and elegies, without expecting any other recompence than the reputation of a constant lover and a good poet. by the mere force of imagination, and the eloquence of their own metaphysical sonnets, they became persuaded that their mistresses were possessed of every accomplishment of face and mind, and that themselves were dying for love.
as in those days women were constantly guarded by their fathers and brothers before marriage, and watched and confined by their husbands for the rest of their lives; the refined passions above described were not exposed to the same accidents which so frequently befal those of modern lovers; they could neither fall into a decay from a more perfect knowledge of the ladies character, nor were they liable to sudden death from enjoyment. but whilst the women were adored in song, they were miserable in reality; confinement and distrust made them detest their husbands, and they endeavoured[405] to form connections with men more to their taste than either jealous husbands or metaphysical lovers. to treat a woman of character as if she were an unprincipled wanton, is the most likely way to make her one. in those days of jealousy, a continual trial of skill seems to have subsisted between husband and wife, as if every lord, soon after marriage, had told his lady, “now, madam, i know perfectly well what you would be at; but it is my business to prevent you: i’ll guard you so well, and watch you so closely, that it shall never be in your power to gratify your inclinations.” “you are perfectly in the right, my lord,” replied the lady, with all meekness, “pray guard and watch as your wisdom shall direct; i, also, shall be vigilant on my part, and we shall see how the business will end.” the business generally did end as might have been expected; and the only consolation left the[406] husband was, to endeavour to assassinate the happy lover.
but when french manners began to spread over europe, and to insinuate themselves among nations the most opposite in character to the french, jealousy was first held up as the most detestable of all the passions. the law had long declared against its dismal effects, and awful denunciations had been pronounced from the pulpit against those who were inflamed by its bloody spirit; but without effect, till ridicule joined in the argument, and exposed those husbands to the contempt and derision of every fashionable society, who harboured the gloomy d?mon in their bosoms.
as in england, after the restoration, people, to shew their aversion to the puritans, turned every appearance of religion into ridicule, and from the extreme of hypocrisy flew at once to that of profligacy;[407] so in italy, from the custom of secluding the wife from all mankind but her husband, it became the fashion that she should never be seen with her husband, and yet always have a man at her elbow.
i shall conclude what i have to say on this subject in my next.
[11] the french in general are apt to make the same mistake with the marquis; they often speak of the house of peers and the parliament as two distinct assemblies.
