for which she is noted, she was able to surrender to such an idea. In
stripping love, as I have, of everything liable to seduce you, in
making it out to be the effect of temperament, caprice, and vanity;
in a word, in undeceiving you concerning the metaphysics that lend it
grandeur and nobility, is it not evident that I have rendered it less
dangerous? Would it not be more dangerous, if, as pretends Madame de
Sévigné, it were to be transformed into a virtue? I would willingly
compare my sentiments with those of the celebrated legislator of
antiquity, who believed the best means of weakening the power of women
over his fellow citizens was to expose their nakedness. But I wish to
make one more effort in your favor. Since I am regarded as a woman
with a system, it will be better for me to submit to whatever such a
fine title exacts. Let us reason, therefore, for a moment upon
gallantry according to the method which appertains only to serious
matters.

Is love not a passion? Do not very strict minded people pretend that
the passions and vices mean the same things? Is vice ever more
seductive than when it wears the cloak of virtue? Wherefore in order
to corrupt virtuous souls it is sufficient for it to appear in a
potential form. This is the form in which the Platonicians deified it.
In all ages, in order to justify the passions, it was necessary to
apotheosize them. What am I saying? Am I so bold as to play the
iconoclast with an accredited superstition? What temerity! Do I not
deserve to be persecuted by all women for attacking their favorite
cult?

I am sorry for them; it was so lovely, when they felt the movements of
love, to be exempt from blushing, to be able even to congratulate
themselves, and lay the blame upon the operations of a god. But what