So clear is this, that some of the very coarsest writers in all literature, and those who have been severest upon women, have yet been obliged to acknowledge it.  Take, for instance, Dean Swift, who writes:—­

“I am ignorant of any one quality that is amiable in a woman, which is not equally so in a man.  I do not except even modesty and gentleness of nature; nor do I know one vice or folly which is not equally detestable in both.”

Mrs. Jameson, in her delightful “Commonplace Book,” illustrates this admirably by one or two test cases.  She takes, for instance, from one of Humboldt’s letters a much-admired passage on manly character:—­

“Masculine independence of mind I hold to be in reality the first requisite for the formation of a character of real manly worth.  The man who allows himself to be deceived and carried away by his own weakness may be a very amiable person in other respects, but cannot be called a good man:  such beings should not find favor in the eyes of a woman, for a truly beautiful and purely feminine nature should be attracted only by what is highest and noblest in the character of man.”

“Take now this same bit of moral philosophy,” she says, “and apply it to the feminine character, and it reads quite as well:—­

“’Feminine independence of mind I hold to be in reality the first requisite for the formation of a character of real feminine worth.  The woman who allows herself to be deceived and carried away by her own weakness may be a very amiable person in other respects, but cannot be called a good woman; such beings should not find favor in the eyes of a man, for a truly beautiful and purely manly nature should be attracted only by what is highest and noblest in the character of woman.’”

I have never been able to perceive that there was a quality or grace of character which really belonged exclusively to either sex, or which failed to win honor when wisely exercised by either.  It is not thought necessary to have separate editions of books on ethical science, the one for man, the other for woman, like almanacs calculated for different latitudes.  The books that vary are not the scientific works, but little manuals of practical application,—­“Duties of Men,” “Duties of Women.”  These vary with times and places:  where women do not know how to read, no advice on reading will be found in the women’s manuals; where it is held wrong for women to uncover the face, it will be laid down in these manuals as a sin.  But ethics are ethics:  the great principles of morals, as proclaimed either by science or by religion, do not fluctuate for sex; their basis is in the very foundations of right itself.