CONTENTS 1 Men Failing at Feminism and the Exception of Condorcet 2 Misogyny of the Philosophes, Stewards of the Status Quo 3 Condorcet’s Feminist Writing 4 Condorcet’s Personal Relationships and Why He Became a Feminist 5 Condorcet’s Legacy Among the Philosophes    and the Value of His Feminism for Today’s Man   APPENDIX A Question of Terms: Feminist Over Pro-Feminist The 18th Century Clamor for Gender Equality: Forefathers and Foremothers of Contemporary Feminism The Early Struggle for Gender Equality: A Timeline About the Author/Works Cited

"Condorcet’s Legacy among the Philosophes and the Value of his Feminism for Today’s Man," Essays in the Philosophy of Humanism, 2008. (PDF article via essaysinhumanism.org)

Condorcet’s Personal Relationships and Why He Became a Feminist

Condorcet saw in woman his equal, capable of all that man was, if only given the requisite education and political freedoms. Diderot, Rousseau, Kant, Montesquieu, among others, saw in woman a weak creature, with a fraction of man’s propensity for genius, reason, and intellectual strength. Condorcet sought to rectify the wrongs he discerns from the facts, whereas even those with the most accurate notion of male and female equality left reform out of the equation. Condorcet, however, was not merely a feminist in theory. Indeed we find evidence of Condorcet’s dedication to women’s equality personified by not only his bold professions, which go so far as to assert woman’s right to refuse taxation until she is enfranchised, but also his personal relations with his wife and daughter.

Condorcet’s feminism penetrated beyond his politics down to the core of his person. Brookes writes that “The all-embracing nature of his mother’s love may well have been responsible for his ‘craving for intimacy’ which characterized the relationships of the mature Condorcet and for his sympathy with the plight of the female sex.”1 Beyond such speculation, Condorcet’s marriage to Sophie was indeed an expression of his feminism and maybe even a key ingredient to the development of an even more daring feminist mindset.

Condorcet’s personal relationship with his wife is perhaps the best proof of the revolutionary nature of his feminism. He met the politically astute twenty-two-year-old, 2 Marie-Louise-Sophie de Grouchy, in the mid 1780s.3 By December 28, 1786, the two were married.4 Interestingly, the very fact that he had married at all says something about Condorcet’s passionate mindset. Hitherto, the philosophes generally held the idea of marriage in contempt, believing it more becoming of a philosopher to live exclusively wedded to one’s work. 5 As a result most of these thinkers, with few exceptions, did not marry. They did, however, condone the taking of a mistress if deemed necessary; and most of them did so. Condorcet was a special exception to this general tendency. Not only did he marry, Condorcet found in his spouse an intellectual partner who probably had a tremendous impact on his intellectual and political thought. 6 Juxtaposing Condorcet’s marital life with the relationships of the other philosophes, Schapiro writes that Condorcet “was a man of austere morals, and his relations with women were dictated by a sense of honor that was puritanical rather than chivalrous.” Whereas most of the philosophes were known to have had mistresses, a common practice in France at the time, from what it is known Condorcet was the rare exception. At a time when women were objectified and appreciated as little more than beautiful distractions, Condorcet was uniquely devoted to his wife. 7   Similarly, Sophie loved her husband to the fullest at a time when women most certainly loathed the behavior, if not the person of their husbands. We find a glimpse of Sophie’s unconquerable love in a letter she wrote to her husband during the Reign of Terror. With her husband deemed an enemy of the government, Sophie had no choice but to divorce Condorcet in order to be spared persecution.8 “This apparent separation, while my attachment to you and the links which bind us are unbreakable, is the height of my misfortune,” writes Sophie as her husband hides from executioners. “I dare to believe that you know my heart well enough to feel that our mutual attachment is the bond uniting your life to mine. I cannot express how much this sacrifice is costing me. … It will leave a bitterness in my heart which only the justice of yours can soften.”9

Though it is difficult to know with certainty how responsible Sophie was for increasing Condorcet’s dedication to feminism it is worth noting that in his work, “On the Influence of the American Revolution on Europe,” written just one year before his marriage, Condorcet regrets the continuation of “Negro slavery” in the United States, but does not mention women.10 In the year following his marriage Condorcet authors a powerful statement for gender equality found in the second letter of “Letters from a Freeman of New Haven.” While one must acknowledge that Condorcet’s feminism had first shown itself earlier, in “Note J” written sometime between 1782 and 1785, the 1787 work uniquely calls for woman’s enfranchisement. Moreover, as has been argued, this letter also has the unique feature of arguing that women would be justified in refusing to pay taxes until they are truly represented in government. Schapiro writes: “Condorcet was in constant intellectual communion with his wife, who stimulated his thoughts and who aided him in his writings. In Sophie he beheld the realization of the potential abilities of woman.” 11 If not the main cause, Sophie, as a staunch supporter of democratic liberalism and a mind greatly respected by her husband, was at least an important ingredient in the fomentation of such ideas. Indeed we do know that the couple’s marriage of the minds endured even Condorcet’s death. Sophie was responsible for helping to produce the first collection of his works. 12 Maintaining the Condorcet’s defiant legacy, in 1799 it is said that Napoleon told Sophie, “I do not like women who meddle in politics.” She purportedly replied, “All the same, in a country where they may have their heads cut off it is quite natural that they should wish to know why.”13 Her will, written in 1820, had only nine clauses including a request “to be buried like the poor” as well as the naming of a literary executor tasked to create another edition of her husband’s complete works.14

Whereas Diderot’s 1772 letter to his daughter Angelique is perhaps the most damning evidence against his purported feminism, Condorcet's seemingly innocuous 1794 letter to his daughter Eliza is arguably the most significant manifestation of his feminism. In Diderot’s letter we learn that Angelique had not even become two-years-old before her father had chosen her future spouse.15 Rather than planning his daughter’s marriage, Condorcet composed a letter offering sage advice to his young child, only four-years-old at the time, on how best to live without worry for the constraints of codependence. In these two letters we find an incredible juxtaposition, proving just how radically advanced Condorcet’s feminism is in comparison to his fellow philosophes.

As mentioned before, Diderot’s letter focuses on reminding his daughter that her happiness is bound up in the happiness of her new husband. Condorcet’s letter, by contrast, is principally concerned with urging Eliza to realize that happiness comes through self-sufficiency. Condorcet begins by stressing to her the importance of learning a skill so that she will be financially independent. He also urges her to realize wealth does not guarantee happiness and, as a matter of fact, can be the cause of much discontent in those who “fear of losing it.”16 A poor, independent person, according to Condorcet, is better off than a rich person who depends on others. “Work will provide for your needs; and though you may become poor, you will never become dependent on others.”17 The renunciation of unnecessary bondage is one of the main themes of Condorcet’s letter. Beyond seeking to free his daughter of being bound-up in the opinions and companionship of other, and the unrequited desire for greater wealth, Condorcet urges his daughter to look inward for joy: “Enjoy the feelings of the people you love; but above all, enjoy your own.”18

In Diderot’s letter one cannot help but notice that he makes more than a few references to what is expected of the female sex. Condorcet’s letter, however, offers non-gendered advice that could have just as easily been given to a son. He makes no remark of woman’s “place” or role in society, whereas Diderot specifically notes that women should be occupied with “interior” affairs while men are to be concerned with “exterior affairs.”19 Condorcet speaks only of what he believes lessens and increases the happiness of all men, that is men and women.

Significantly, Condorcet mentions nothing to his daughter about marriage. Instead of urging her to take up a domesticated life in servitude to a husband, Condorcet warns against relying on others to alleviate boredom. While the company of others may succeed in occupying “empty moments,” one is nevertheless “subject to their tastes and desires,” quickly lessoning the luster of such company.20 One’s happiness, Condorcet assures his daughter, is achieved by being capable of independently “filing your empty time, staving off boredom.”21 Diderot advises his daughter that women wishing to alleviate themselves of boredom need look no further than “domestic occupations” which “[f]ortify your soul.”22 Condorcet’s remedy for boredom is the acquisition and application of “some skill in the arts and crafts or in exercising your mind.”23 Here we have one of the most telling comparisons of all: Diderot advices his daughter to busy herself with housework while Condorcet urges his daughter to enrich her life with some skill or, better yet, to exercise her mind. Diderot seems to forget his daughter has a mind to exercise. Condorcet not only wishes that his daughter stay busy to avoid boredom but he also sees such an activity as the gateway to her autonomy:

...do not forget that your aim must be the daily pleasure of being busy, of doing something which ensures your independence, protects you from boredom, and prevents the vague distaste for existence and unexplained depression which affect otherwise peaceful and successful lives.24  

Finally, while Diderot’s advice centers round his view that women are prone to boredom, Condorcet’s advice implies that boredom and depression plague both sexes.

Condorcet offers no moralizing on the subject of “the pleasures and perils of vanity.” While Diderot urges his daughter to invest in her appearance of virtue, Condorcet urges his daughter to avoid being caught in the frivolity of vanity. He urges restraint so that vanity “does not dominate you, that its pleasures do not become your reward, nor the pain it causes prevent you from making an effort.”25 His advice is astonishingly gender-neutral particularly when we consider how most of his contemporaries assume women are most moved by “passions” and pleasures.