Ricardo Hurtado Simó The Philosophy of Sophie de Grouchy: Theory of Knowledge, Ethical Theory, Political and Social Philosophy and Feminist Thought Abstract and Final conclusions 1 ABSTRACT Our research project is entitled “The Philosophy of Sophie De Grouchy: Theory of Knowledge, Ethical Theory, Political and Social Philosophy and Feminist Thought,” and our main objective is to become acquainted with her philosophical thought through her essential work, Letters on Sympathy, published in Paris in 1798. In this text De Grouchy, using The Theory of Moral Sentiments by Adam Smith, carries out a critical reading of the Scottish philosopher’s work, commenting and summarising his main contributions in the areas of gnoseology, morality, education, anthropology and political philosophy. Likewise, as we will see, the author offers her own positions using the concept of sympathy as a base and citing other authors from the history of philosophy to strengthen her positions. THE LIFE OF SOPHIE DE GROUCHY Firstly, we feel it is appropriate to summarise the most important events of De Grouchy’s life. Sophie De Grouchy was born in Meulan in 1764 in the heart of a wellto-do family with aristocratic heritage. Her mother, Henriette, was directly involved in Sophie De Grouchy’s education during her childhood, and in fact she was the main reason why De Grouchy received a profound and broad-based education, something very uncommon at that time for a woman. By her adolescence, she already knew English and Latin and could play the harp with ease. It is important to point out that her academic studies were also complemented by painting classes with Marie-AnneÉlisabeth Vigée-Lebrun, a famous portrait artist, a fact which will be of vital importance later in De Grouchy’s life. At the same time, her uncle, the liberal magistrate Dupaty, 2 facilitated her access to the most noteworthy works of Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, Rousseau or Condillac. In 1784, because of family tradition and the objective of receiving a proper Catholic education, De Grouchy was sent to the convent of Neuville les Dammes or Neuville en Bresse, a town with a thousand habitants situated fifty kilometres from Lyon; De Grouchy did not go to the convent to become a nun but rather to acquire religious values, sensibility and noble manners, and also to avoid a possible marriage of convenience. This convent was only for the elite and the nobility, and only a minority was able to pay the high associated costs. It was located in the centre of the town and had formerly been an abbey of Benedictine monks; during the period in which De Grouchy resided there, the convent consisted of forty-six women, twenty-six postulants and twenty nuns. In the convent, De Grouchy suffered eyesight problems as she read under bad conditions. Her eyes became irritated and the severe swelling in her eyelids bothered her at night. This situation, along with her reluctance to be in the convent, caused her to fall into a state of depression and loneliness. De Grouchy asked to return home, and her parents initially refused, but her condition continued to deteriorate and she returned home in the spring of 1786, on 20th April. In the development of her thinking, the stay at the convent had an effect quite contrary to what her Catholic mother had intended, as it awakened a spirit of enlightenment in the young woman and also led her to a convinced and militant atheism. The winters there were cold and longer than normal; De Grouchy soon tired of the contemplative life of the convent and turned to the profane books she had brought with her, mainly Rousseau and Voltaire. She began to think the world was a perverse place and thus, that God either does not exist or does not worry about His world. Her reading of the System of Nature by D`Holbach will strengthen these convictions. 3 In 1786, at the age of 22, Sophie De Grouchy married the philosopher, politician and mathematician Nicolas de Condorcet (1743-1794). While the union at first appeared to be a marriage of convenience, it soon became a relationship of love and mutual intellectual admiration. The couple’s daughter Eliza was born in 1790. There were twenty years of age difference between De Grouchy, who was still a young woman, and her husband, already a 42-year-old adult man. Her parents accepted Condorcet’s proposal, and the only inconvenience was the matter of dowry; although Condorcet came from nobility and was a famous man, he did not have very much money. After a night of reflection, De Grouchy accepted the proposal, no doubt because of the intellectual admiration she had for him and because of Condorcet’s good character. The wedding was held on 28th December 1786 in Villette, at the residence of De Grouchy’s family. The bride’s witnesses were her uncle the magistrate Dupaty and the Marquis of Mazancourt, captain of the regiment of the French Guard; Condorcet’s witnesses were the Marquis of Puy-Montbrun and the Marquis of La Fayette, an authentic national hero. The couple shared a passion for ideas and the need to transform the reality around them. In addition, Condorcet was already a defender of feminism, as indicated by E. and R. Badinter in Condorcet: Un intellectuel en Politique, he could very well be considered “the greatest feminist of that century”. There is no doubt that Sophie De Grouchy inspired Condorcet and contributed to the development of his ideas, although as T. Boisse points out in Sophie de Condorcet, femme des Lumières, De Grouchy was more enthusiastic and radical in her political stances. At the end of the 1780’s, Sophie De Grouchy established her own philosophical salon in the mezzanine of the Hôtel des Monnaies in Paris. At the beginning, the salon 4 was frequented by the judges in her family, Dupaty and Fréteau, and by many other relevant personages normally present in Auteuil, the house of Madame Helvétius. De Grouchy’s salon quickly began to rival the importance of the salon established by Madame Staël. One of the most beloved and popular participants in the Hôtel des Monnaies was Constantin Volney, who in the period of 1782-1785 travelled the Orient by foot, and had just published Travels through Syria and Egypt. This salon will carry out its activities in two periods: first from 1789 to 1793, when it was forced to close due to Jacobin persecution; then from 1799 until De Grouchy’s death in 1822. During its first stage, it became one of the great focal points of the Girondist movement and the defence of women’s rights. In the same manner, De Grouchy was aware of all the cultural movements of the time through her salon. In fact, it can clearly be observed that her work follows the trends of the Enlightenment. It was in this period when, under the influence of De Grouchy, Condorcet declared himself in favour of the liberty and equality of women, protecting their natural and inviolable rights. In mid 1787, he published Lettres d’un bourgeois de New Heaven, a work which shows the influence of De Grouchy. Six months later, he wrote his Essay on the Constitution and Functions of Provincial Assemblies, also encouraged by his wife In 1793, with the triumph of the Jacobins led by Robespierre, Condorcet began to face persecution for being an aristocrat, opposing the death of King Louis XVI and because he was considered too moderate; Condorcet fled and Sophie was interrogated many times about the whereabouts of her husband. On the first night, Condorcet took refuge in the house of the widow of philosopher Helvetius, and later his brother-in-law Cabanis found him a nearby hiding place, in the house of the painter Vernet. The purges of Girondists began on 4th November, and the day after hearing the news Condorcet 5 started to write Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind, and a small book about education dedicated to his daughter, where he exhorts her to immerse herself in knowledge, work and have autonomy in order not to depend on others. On 25th March 1794 with his Sketch almost complete, Condorcet abandoned his refuge as he no longer felt safe there. He attempted to escape from Paris, mentioning to the widow of Vernet that Sophie could still flee to England, to the house Lord Stanhope or to the United States, to the house of Franklin’s grandchildren or of Thomas Jefferson. After wandering for two days, Condorcet took refuge in an inn in Clamart, where he drew attention because of his poor appearance, and he was detained and thrown in jail on the 27th. Two days later, on 29th March, 1794, he was found dead in his cell, under circumstances which remain unclear. Most historians claim that he committed suicide with the collaboration of his brother-in-law Cabanis, with a poison used in the eighteenth century as pesticide. Months passed before Sophie learned of her husband’s death; she thought he had been able to flee to Switzerland. Because Condorcet was being persecuted, Sophie had already divorced him, taking advantage of the new legislative framework in order to emigrate and flee from danger. With the death of Condorcet and the arrival of the period known as the Terror, she lost her material goods and survived painting portraits and cameos, depicting the faces of the prisoners of the Terror who were awaiting execution, so that their families might have a memory of their image. With the money accumulated, she opened a small lingerie store in Paris, at number 352 of the street named Saint-Honoré, very near to where Robespierre “The Incorruptible” lived. Even in the worst moments of her life, De Grouchy was a woman ahead of her time and always fought to live autonomously, independently, and with dignity. 6 In April 1794, still unaware of her husband’s passing, she was hand delivered the manuscripts of Sketches and the Avis d’un proscrit a sa fille (text missing) and she initiated the work of translating The Theory of Moral Sentiments by Adam Smith. On 18th May, she received approval for the divorce which she had requested at the beginning of 1794. After the fall of Robespierre, her life returned to normality and she reestablished her salon, in her houses in Paris and Auteuil, which were important cultural centres during the French Directory. It was in this period, specifically in 1798, that she published Letters on Sympathy, the only text bearing her name From the end of the eighteenth century until her death in 1822, De Grouchy reduced her participation in French politics of the era and focused on maintaining debates in the Hôtel des Monnaies. She became interested in contemporary Greek popular poetry. On 8th September 1822, she died at the age of fifty-eight, and was buried in the cemetery of Père-Lachaise in a simple non-religious ceremony. Her remains lie between those of the physicist Edouard Branly and musical genius Chopin. In order to understand the intellectual evolution of De Grouchy, we must remember that her marriage to Condorcet marked her decisively. Both were friends of the Girondist political group and believed in the progress of humanity. But above all, the strongest connections were established in the areas of education and feminist thought. The works of Condorcet and De Grouchy share an interest in reforming the educational system to make it fairer, and the idea that women’s situation must be changed in order to achieve a real equality between the sexes. Another decisive figure in De Grouchy’s thought is Pierre Jean Georges Cabanis, her sister’s husband. He studied medicine and was a prominent member of the Ideologues group, which studied the human faculties and the different ideas which arise 7 because of these faculties. But his importance resides in the fact that he was the supposed recipient of the eight letters that compose the Letters on Sympathy. THE PHILOSOPHY OF SOPHIE DE GROUCHY 1. THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE The philosophical thought of Sophie De Grouchy is developed in the Letters on Sympathy, Love Letters to Maillia Garat and her work in the publication and editing of the Works of Condorcet, where, among other things, De Grouchy modified and expanded the introduction of Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind. In this chapter, we shall focus on the gnoseological contributions of this unknown thinker in her most important work, Letters on Sympathy. Through the eight letters on sympathy, we can see how De Grouchy, although she seems to propose her ideas in a confused superficial and disorganised manner, nonetheless follows a clear path in their exposition, finally showing their effects and consequences. Thus, she begins with a discussion of the epistemological basis of sympathy and then gradually shows its applications and the social consequences of distancing sympathy from culture and life. As we shall see, De Grouchy exposes her thoughts from the inside out, from the most profound depths to that which is empirically observable. Sophie De Grouchy, as a member of the majority school of thought in the second half of the eighteenth Century, adopted an empirical position much in the style of John Locke, David Hume, Condillac or Condorcet himself. In this aspect, her positions are not original, and as we will see when we analyze the essential concepts of our protagonist’s gnoseology, she remains very close to the doctrine exposed by Locke in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding, and to the ideas of Hume, specifically in 8 the Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, although she makes certain modifications based on her reading of sensualist authors. In this sense, De Grouchy is conscious of the need to establish an epistemological basis in the mechanism of sympathy, something which she felt Smith did not fully treat in spite of being an empiricist. For the continuation of our research on sympathy, we have centred on the concepts of sensation, reflection, and idea, the basis on which she elaborates her theory. Sensation We begin our study on sympathy with the sensations, which are the starting point of ever faculty or idea and of our contact with the outside world. The essential idea is to study sympathy starting with is fundamental roots, from an empirical viewpoint that does not arise from the use of intellectual faculties but rather from the sentient faculties of living beings. As we shall see later, De Grouchy uses Locke’s ideas as a foundation, but she builds on them developing the concept of compound sensation. Following Locke, De Grouchy confronts sensation and applies it to physical pain. In her study on sympathy, she splits it into two aspects. The sensation produced by physical pain is compound because it encompasses the local pain, that which is located in a specific part of the body, and subsequent, general pain which is characterized by a sensation which expands and is capable of creating a general state of discomfort. However, the general sensations of pleasure and pain are renewed when the memory updates them, thus refreshing the original impression by evoking it. Without the memory, each fact experienced would seem to be the first one in our lives, and no knowledge would be possible. Inevitably, the sensing faculty connects with the 9 intellectual dimension, whereas the memory plays a crucial role in the establishment of general sensations of both pleasure and pain. De Grouchy’s theory of sensation also shows the presence of Condillac, an empiricist like Locke who had read the Essay Concerning Human Understanding. However, De Grouchy distances herself from Condillac’s sensualist reductionism; she sees the importance of not only sensations, but also of impressions and reflection, in the cognitive process. The term of impression shows us to what point De Grouchy immerses herself in the main philosophical contributions of her time and shows that she knows not only the work of John Locke, but also that of Condillac and, as we shall see, that of another Briton, the philosopher David Hume from Edinburgh. In Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding, the term impression only appears once, and in reference to sensation. By turning to impression, De Grouchy not only attempts to avoid repetition, but rather wishes to show how Hume’s terms allow her to take one more step in her discourse and to achieve a more complete definition of the origin of ideas. Impression is not only a synonym, but can rather be characterised as an imprint or mark that external objects produce in us. Following Hume, but without forgetting Locke’s and Condillac’s legacies, De Grouchy’s discourse begins with the idea of sensations and impressions as the origin of knowledge. Impressions are immediate data from experience, much like sensations. Reflection If the first letter’s main theme is in-depth knowledge of the indispensable elements that make possible the sympathetic mechanisms of the human being, namely 10 sensation and impressions, the second letter delves into reflection, especially in its first pages. Sophie De Grouchy uses the foundation of John Locke’s contributions, mainly from the second book of his Essay Concerning Human Understanding, but she gives reflection a wider, more profound meaning. Once she establishes what she understands as impression and sensation and why they should be treated with priority, reflection plays an important role not only in the emergence and forms of sympathy but also in the origin of our ideas. In the interest of the possibility of reflection and sympathy, De Grouchy adds the unexpected element of temporality. The human capacity of remembering past actions and situations is what places humanity on a level superior to the rest of animal life. For De Grouchy, to speak of reflective capacity is to speak of the fact that events do not subside into oblivion but rather leave an undying legacy in our memory. Only in this manner is human coexistence possible, along with emotional ties and moral sensibility. Idea De Grouchy follows the thesis of John Locke and indicates how the repetition of painful experiences produces an idea, which remains in the memory and later becomes an abstract idea. Carrying out an empirical analysis, she suggests that understanding constructs ideas on the basis of specific elements thanks to the process of abstraction. De Grouchy argues that from specific instances we can come to develop abstract ideas. This fact is important for her philosophy, because it implies that the abstract idea of pain, a painful situation that we have never experienced, or the pain of other persons, are not enough to evoke our sympathy. The reflective capacity of human beings allows us to confront several simple or complex ideas and establish points in common, 11 comparisons, etc. Ideas, and specifically, abstract ideas, link theory of knowledge to morality, because thanks to these ideas our sympathy crosses the boundary of individuality in order to connect with others. Starting with ideas, De Grouchy advances to abstract ideas, which she understands as the concept that the understanding elaborates from simple ideas and general impressions. As we shall see, the main difference between Locke and Hume shall consist in the application and consequences derived from abstract ideas. The abstract idea is not a common idea closed to the understanding if each subject; to the contrary, its value resides less in its complexity than in its social value. 2. ETHICAL THEORY OF SOPHIE DE GROUCHY Basic questions of morality appear from the introductory affirmations to the eighth and final letter. This is partly due to the fact the primordial notion which inspires the work’s title, that is to say, sympathy, is the key to understanding all of the contributions of our protagonist. The theories of knowledge and morality are connected thanks to sympathy and the sympathetic mechanisms of the human being. Moral right and wrong In questions of moral doctrine, the focus is on where to locate the beginnings of morality, whether in the feelings, an idea which Hume most clearly supports, or in the reason. Our protagonist shall combine both stances in order to avoid a biased or partial view which leaves behind relevant aspects of the research. On one hand, thanks to the fact that all human beings have the capacity to feel with full force and vividity the kindness or evil of an action, we can speak of morality and ethics in general terms. Moral sentiment extends in humanity like something constitutive and previous to any 12 social determination. On the other hand, reflection is a condition which makes morality possible. It is an indispensable requirement in order to make that qualitative “leap” in the terrain of mental operations and actions toward others. In addition, reflective ability is, like affective capacity, universal; rationality and the resulting capacity to reflect encompass all of humanity. However, according to the Letters on Sympathy, Sophie De Grouchy maintains that moral ideas do not originate solely in two of the factors which we have just mentioned, reason and sentiment, and much less in selfishness. As Smith indicates, ideas of pleasure or pain, and resulting ideas or good and evil, are quite influenced by sympathy. Thus, for methodological reasons, we have considered studying this foundation after discovering how Smith established the origin of said ideas, rather than at the beginning of the section. This point of the sympathetic foundation, however, is not developed by De Grouchy in the same manner as by the British philosopher. She only hints at it in the beginning of the first letter, and she does not stop to analyse the role of sympathetic mechanisms in the emergence of concrete moral notions. If we focus on moral good, De Grouchy supports the existence of two ways of acting: haphazardly or, in the author’s words, reflectively. This thesis presents, although with slight changes, the famous Aristotelian distinction between a “voluntary act” and an “involuntary act”, even though De Grouchy does not include in her work the possibility of doing good by evil or coercion. In accordance with her position, the weight of distinction of moral actions depends on sympathy. Moreover, moral good is accompanied by the prolongation of a temporary well-being. In regard to moral evil, De Grouchy considers that moral evil sprouts from physical ills but is separated from the latter thanks to the intervention of reflection, thus achieving its abstraction and the “idea”. The definition of moral evil is born as 13 something opposed to reason and, most certainly, from good. We consider an action bad if reason, objectively and consistently inclined toward goodness and humanity, views it as contrary to its own stances. Regret Regret arises in close relation with moral good and bad, with that which we consider morally acceptable or reproachable; but what regret adds to concepts of good and bad is error, or consciousness that an error has been committed whether in connection to ourselves or to another person; this phenomenon occurs when the evil is committed involuntarily or in an unconscious manner, without evaluating the consequences of an imprudent action. De Grouchy’s position reveals how regrets and repentance appear as a whirlwind of bad sensations and painful feelings which accompany us and settle in our conscience after feeling guilty for having carried out a bad action or having done good only partially, hurting another person or compromising him or her in a complicated situation. However, and following De Grouchy’s arguments, two more aspects enter into regret and are decisive for its evolution: imagination and reflection. Both of these distinctively human faculties grant the idea of regret a greater depth and complexity and can, depending on certain circumstances, lessen or increase the impact of sadness. That having been said, we can establish three essential points of comparison between Smith and our protagonist: 1. De Grouchy provides an empirical explanation of moral emotions. If the fact that sympathy consists in feeling the pleasure or pain of another, then it follows that we feel an even more intense pleasure from having contributed to the 14 happiness of others, and an even more intense pain from hurting others. In reference to regret, for De Grouchy, the latter emerges first from the actual feeling of guilt and, later, from sympathy for the pain of victims. 2. A regret can turn into an abstract feeling which is not related to the specific action which motivated it. Regret becomes a learning instrument which through past errors shows us the most correct path to follow. It is, above all, instructive. 3. Both authors share the thesis that the power of imagination defines regret. What is more, imagination does not lessen the weight of guilt for the error committed but rather strengthens the ideas and sentiments that torment the conscience of the person who committed the offence as well as that of the people who judge and examine him or her. Selfishness The matter of selfishness has its origins in the study of the passions, a topic intensely treated at the moment in which De Grouchy wrote her works. Smith, like De Grouchy, considers that selfishness is one of the passions most contrary to happiness and perfect coexistence between human beings. However, for the Scottish thinker, the fact of thinking first of ourselves is something constitutive and perhaps even normal. However, De Grouchy will elaborate a more defensive and critical argument, maintaining, unlike Smith, that selfishness is not something universal and unconquerable and that it depends on certain factors. If the British philosopher situates selfishness at the heart of human nature, the thinker from Meulan considers it to be separate from the latter. In her opinion, it is a negative passion that survives in time and is reinforced by general social corruption. 15 Love If in the previous point we delved into one of the most noteworthy antisocial passions, selfishness, a passion distant from and in fact contrary to social bonds, in this section we shall study a concept totally opposite to this individualist and solitary sentiment: that of love. Love, whether understood as a passion, a tendency or a necessity, connects us necessarily to others, to the people who surround us. An understanding De Grouchy’s doctrine on love will bring us into contact with another notion inevitably linked to it, that of friendship. Our starting point in speaking of De Grouchy’s arguments is rooted in an optimistic and naturalistic view of human nature. To speak of affection, love and friendship, is a synonym of bringing to light the natural human tendency to live in communities and establish strong ties with others. The human being, constitutively good, is made for feelings of love, in order for social passions to flourish in him or her. Enamorment is never, according to De Grouchy, something immediate. It is not the result of what we colloquially express as love at first sight, that is to say, the contemplation of a person who seduces us immediately without the intervention of any previous knowledge, producing in us an overwhelming amorous ecstasy. We said at the beginning of this section that to speak of love was also to speak of friendship. This is true not only because both passions share many aspects: De Grouchy reveals that friendship is a previous and more or less necessary state in order for true love to occur. Love, if it is to be pure and strong, is not only maintained on the visual level of what our sensibility considers attractive but rather also requires something that seduces us intellectually. De Grouchy considers that love needs a basis which only previous friendship can provide. The trust which the author demands is only possible if we know the loved person well enough, if we know what he or she is like, what are his or her 16 virtues and defects and how he or she can fill our emotional needs. Her contributions defend a balanced and mature conceptualization of love which leaves behind all ideas of mad passion. This mature and balanced love is capable of overcoming the fragile barriers of inconsistency and, measured not by blind passion but rather by established feelings, allows us to reflect on its content without losing objectivity. Authentic love is that which remains grounded in reality, where the lovers never lose their point of reference and value their relationship from an inter-subjective and consistent point of view. The great enemy of this pleasant relationship is inconstancy and futility in romantic relationships. When these obstacles have been overcome, and the relationship is stable, the couple’s pleasure is greater and can come to provide even the most sublime and delicate passions. Mutual friendship is reinforced and we see the loved one as “another self” with whom we share interests and inclinations. Virtue Until now, we have seen how Sophie De Grouchy elaborates a moral theory and remains very near to the affirmations of noteworthy authors of British sensualism, mainly David Hume and Adam Smith, but making some modifications in order to avoid one-dimensional positions and creating a balance between rationalism and empiricism. De Grouchy also attempts to turn morality into a critical and to a certain extent a subversive element, such that it may be capable of breaking established barriers and allowing human beings’ natural and inherent kindness to come to the surface. Thus, in treating the concept of virtue, we attempt to consolidate our thesis that De Grouchy is an eclectic philosopher who transforms that which has been said by others into something new and original. 17 In De Grouchy’s philosophy, to speak of virtue will also imply speaking of her pessimistic vision of the world of her time and the overwhelming need to reverse this situation in order to achieve the triumph of good and of love. Virtue is a transversal concept. It appears from the first to the last of the Letters as fundamental to achieving triumph of sympathy. The novelty of this section lies in the fact that her doctrine on virtue distances her from the authors we have already seen and brings her closer to one of the most noteworthy figures of the French Enlightenment, Jean Jacques Rousseau. Thanks to the influence of Rousseau, De Grouchy’s philosophy acquires a novel character. The thinker from Geneva will make it possible for De Grouchy to be seen from the point of view of her philosophy as a nonconformist woman in the moral and political planes. For De Grouchy, virtue is a notion composed of many other notions; it is a habit which is only possible under a series of conditions. The first of those is autonomy; virtue occurs in those subjects who are autonomous enough to guide themselves in their actions. De Grouchy establishes firm ties with humanity understood as a whole. The virtuous individual is not a solitary and purely rational person but is rather something more. Appealing to those “profound and strong sentiments”, De Grouchy tells us that virtue is interacting with others. It is friendship, it is love and it is certainly sympathy. Virtue is a moral attribute which improves the person who achieves it as well as those around him or her; the virtuous person is surely blessed, emanates goodness, and perfects those near to him or her. When we know ourselves better, we know the strengths and weaknesses of humankind and we attempt to live the best life possible, distancing ourselves from evil and selfishness, a passion which, as we saw, is in the opinion of the author the most pernicious of all. Regarding the presence of Marcus 18 Aurelius’ thought in the work of De Grouchy. De Grouchy knew the work of this Roman emperor generally situated in modern stoicism since his youth. In addition, we defend the influence of stoicism in her notion of virtue; specifically, Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations was one of her staple readings throughout her life. Another great influence on De Grouchy is that which J. J. Rousseau exerts on her moral doctrine, captured principally in her theory on virtue. We have seen that De Grouchy establishes virtue on the basis of sensibility and reflection, a position which places her in an intermediate point between emotivism and intellectualism, but the characteristic trait that defines her consists in her defence of a return to nature, in order to rediscover true virtue, hidden by the artifices of social life. This position connects her strongly with the thinker from Geneva, to such an extent that De Grouchy is not only close to his positions, but also carries out a passionate defence of the style in which Rousseau presents his ideas. For De Grouchy, only Voltaire comes close to the Genevan’s genius. However, Voltaire presents a more ironic, lax and intellectualist morality, in comparison with Rousseau. De Grouchy prefers Rousseau because his fiery defence of virtue and morality is ultimately as poetic as it is demanding. But De Grouchy diverges from these other authors and develops her own concept of virtue. Her philosophy does not exude the naturalist melancholy which Rousseau exhibits in his Discourses and even in Émile. For our protagonist, the human being, and namely the virtuous human being, is not only a rational subject; sensibility gives humanity sentiments, inclinations and affections that are necessary for virtue. Fundamentally, sensibility is what makes our emotional connection with others possible. Thanks to the fact that we are sensible beings, we love, hate and sympathise with what our fellow human beings enjoy or suffer. 19 Sympathy We must close our research on the moral ideas of Sophie De Grouchy with the concept of sympathy; sympathy inspires the titles of the author’s most noteworthy work, the aforementioned Letters on Sympathy. This title was not chosen in a frivolous or random manner; sympathy is the fundamental notion of De Grouchy’s philosophy; it is the term which provides a backbone for all of her thought and unifies apparently disparate ideas and opinions. As we shall see, sympathy will not be something exclusively philosophical and speculative, as it will also reveal a unique way of understanding life. Specifically, we will discover how De Grouchy understands human life, and how she decided to put these ideas in practice in first person. It is impossible to forget that her “sympathetic” theory is permeated by vital experiences: her marriage with Condorcet, the education of her daughter, and the events taking place from the fall of the monarchy to the death of Robespierre form a work in which theory and praxis become interwoven, where sympathy mixes with the reality of the political and everyday context in which De Grouchy worked. As E. L. Forget1 points out, the concept of sympathy is the most complete and thorough expression of how De Grouchy’s main work combines the moral philosophy of Adam Smith and other well-known authors of the British Enlightenment with the reality of post-revolutionary France at the end of the 1790s. According to De Grouchy, sympathy is to be understood as a calculation between pain and pleasure, as a natural consequence of the human cognitive process which in large measure makes social life and harmonious coexistence between humans possible. But the importance of sympathy increases as we analyse the morality of FORGET, Evelin, L., “Cultivating sympathy: Sophie Condorcet`s Letters on sympathy”, Journal of the Historic of Economic Thought, vol. 23, issue 03, 2001, pp. 319-337. 1 20 advanced societies; material progress and the complexity of the political system have created a clash between what “is” and what “should be”, between the natural sympathetic tendency and the emergence of numerous trends which distance human beings from peaceful life and virtue. Sympathy is a moral concept that encompasses the aforesaid: the practice of good, the love of our fellow human beings and the virtuous life depend on this fundamental mechanism; it is the condition which makes all the rest possible. For this reason, sympathy is conceived as a basic element in modern societies. We could say that for De Grouchy, sympathy is the social “glue” that creates adherence in both good and bad moments. For De Grouchy, Smith did not sufficiently treat the topic of the foundation of morality, and she opens her first letter criticising Smith for not providing an argument on the origin of sympathy. She points out that Smith is capable of affirming that sympathy necessarily exists and is always present, but without offering any related arguments. Likewise, the heart of the controversy shall centre on Smith’s incapacity to connect emotionally and philosophically with human passions; for our author, Smith reveals himself as a speculative philosopher insensitive to more specifically human problems concerning feelings, joy and pain. According to De Grouchy, sympathetic mechanisms allow us to put ourselves in the place of another person, and to feel, in an analogous manner, what the other experiences. De Grouchy stands out for the insistence with which she affirms that our capacity to sympathise is much stronger toward pain than toward pleasure. The philosopher born in Meulan maintains that pain affects us more than joy and, specifically, physical pain more than moral or intellectual pain. According to De Grouchy, we feel a notably intense sympathy for the physical pain of others, a feeling which inserts us in the real world, humanises us, and allows us to establish ties with those who suffer. 21 Continuing with the theory of French philosophy on sympathy, we enter into one of De Grouchy’s most novel contributions, the distinction she makes between individual and general sympathy. Individual sympathy is more direct than general sympathy. Likewise, the topic of individual sympathy is linked to existing emotional relationships between human beings. We can say that individual sympathy is that which is born when we feel attraction toward another person, whether that be for his or her physical features, opinions, knowledge, etc.; thus, it is linked to what we stated before about friendship and love. According to De Grouchy, this sympathy is the consequence of natural human moral sensibility. An essential base in this individual sympathy is esteem, necessary in order for affection toward others to emerge. Through the strength of individual sympathy, we reach the state of love and friendship with another person, which in turn provides happiness while we are with the loved one. Thus, love is the consequence of individual sympathy, but also of an educative process since birth which allows for the cultivation of sensibility toward others, to the point where individual sympathy can sometimes be confused with attraction. In relation to individual sympathy, general sympathy can be distinguished by what we will call its “coldness”. Whereas the first is moved by the strength of affection, the second is much more measured by the moral subject’s reflective capacity. General sympathy breaks with the wilful selfishness of individual sympathy, characterised by specific ties. It shows a wider dimension, capable of holding all humanity in its heart. Only thanks to this form of philosophy is it possible for human beings to have feelings such as mercy, benevolence and solidarity with the most disadvantaged, because general sympathy projects on the whole of humanity what individual sympathy focuses on one person or a reduced group of individuals. In this 22 process, though a part of the intensity toward te other person may be lost, it is compensated by a new global projection; we can say that the strength of feelings is distributed among the subjects of general sympathy. In distinguishing between types of sympathy, Sophie De Grouchy situates herself in a mediating position between rationalism and moral emotivism. Her differentiation between individual and general sympathy has nothing to do with the distinction made by Adam Smith between direct and indirect sympathy. De Grouchy’s philosophy is a consistent and balanced moral proposal which begins with the first forms of knowledge and expands to its most complex manifestations. If individual sympathy is affected by impressions received and affection toward certain persons, general sympathy depends on abstract ideas, a concept as essential as it is original to the gnoseology of the French thinker. After having studied the definition and causes of sympathy, our research now moves on to the effects of sympathy. By “effects of sympathy”, we mean under what circumstances or persons or groups sympathy acts with greatest strength. This definition follows De Grouchy’s terminology. 1. One of the first effects is the sympathy produced by great happiness and small woes of others. Moral sensibility does not attend to levels of pleasure of pain; our moral sensibility is always aroused, although obviously our sympathy toward another person depends on what he or she experiences. For De Grouchy, sympathy is always present; there is no “sympathy threshold” below or above which we cannot identify with others. However, Smith denies that we are capable of sympathising with the success of others, even our own friends. Others’ glory, recognition, and money provoke our rejection and, above all, envy. For Smith, at least in these cases, our self-love and hard feelings prevail 23 over sympathetic altruism. De Grouchy’s response shall focus on noting that our human nature is good, and that sympathy comes before selfishness. In addition, these sympathetic bonds are reinforced with those closest to us, our loved ones. 2. Another effect of sympathy is the fact that we focus our attentions on children and the elderly. Beginning with sympathy toward children, we shall observe that the theses of both authors can be summarised in the following manner: because of their fragile constitution and their nature, we are naturally inclined to sympathise with children. This inclination is especially strong in De Grouchy, doubtless because along with these philosophical affirmations, she is also the mother of a daughter, and when she wrote the Letters on Sympathy, Eliza was no more than six years old. Likewise, sympathy with children is reciprocal, because due to their dependence, they establish their first sympathetic bonds with their parents, siblings and caretakers. Sympathy, a natural mechanism, begins to emerge in childhood. We human beings, because of our social nature, need our peers in order to survive and grow. It is in this early moment as the child forms his or her first ties that he or she begins to love or prefer certain persons more than others. This phenomenon, combined with the fact that his or her caretakers are aware that the child’s survivor depends on them and their love towards such a fragile, helpless creature, provokes at the same time a movement opposite to sympathy: a union is established between the caretakers and the child. In regard to the elderly, our elders are, above all, human beings characterised by their ability to feel sensations, pleasurable and painful, regardless of the fact that the passing of time has affected their faculties. The capacity to laugh, cry and feel, is something that affects the entirety of humanity, and cannot be forgotten. 24 3. The third effect relates to sympathy toward the powerful. Here, De Grouchy clearly diverges from the ideas of Smith, who says that society suffers before the disgraces of kings and enjoys their happiness. De Grouchy, a political republican, will reject this thesis, considering that our sympathy with the disgraces of kings is a result of the fact that their elevated status makes them almost insensitive to the disgraces which are so common to the rest of us: poverty, sickness and ridicule are unknown experiences for a person at that level. We sympathise with them because we are surprised to see that at times they are as susceptible as the majority, but not because their happiness pleases us nor because we see extraordinary qualities in them. This distancing of De Grouchy from Smith is not due to the fact she attributes feelings of envy to the commoners toward their kings, but rather to the fact she sees monarchs as the figure causing poverty in humanity. 4. De Grouchy also stops to analyse our sympathy toward the disgraced, the unfavoured social groups. The sympathy of our author has neither borders nor prejudices, and what is more, it makes twice the effort to connect with the one suffering, to help the person truly in need. Sympathising with kings and the powerful becomes frivolous, something incoherent and contrary to the natural equality and feelings of humanity. Sympathy is drawn inexorably toward pain, and one of its objectives is the relief of those who suffer or who know first-hand the trouble of life. Behind this position is J.J. Rousseau; we specifically assert that De Grouchy assimilates Rousseau’s concept of “mercy” to reinforce her doctrine on the sympathetic inclination toward the pain of our fellow humans. Mercy appears as one of the bases of the foundations of morality. Mercy is the only unique natural virtue. It is the manifestation of love and solidarity 25 between men, which makes it possible for the moral subject to connect with them in both good and bad moments; in sum, to sympathise naturally with the sufferer. 3. SOPHIE DE GROUCHY’S SOCIAL THEORY AND POLITICS Until now, we have seen our protagonist’s most important philosophical contributions in the area of theory of knowledge and ethics. Our next step, following a logical order, leads us to the contributions De Grouchy makes in questions of political and social philosophy. For the purposes of our research, as well as for De Grouchy herself, it was crucial to establish the building blocks necessary for the development of her moral theory. Only after showing how the cognitive process works, how moral ideas arise and, above all, how sympathy works in our relations with others, is it possible treat social and political matters. Justice A primarily moral concept such as justice is the result of two previous operations, with two levels of complexity. Firstly, the faculties of sensation and reflection are required, as well as our capacity to experience new feelings and emotions. In second place, the process of abstraction carried out by reflection, which transforms sensations into ideas and abstract ideas, makes it possible for us to conceive certain concepts as general and universally applicable. The causes that allow humanity to share a common framework of justice are reason and sympathy. On one hand, reason, a human faculty par excellence, is understood to be the author of a “source of abstraction”, in other words, a shared instance universally capable of elaborating certain evident, general and commonly accepted principles. On the other hand, as occurred in the preceding chapter, 26 sympathetic mechanisms work as a connecting thread between the subject and his or her peers; sympathy, applied to justice, causes us to become interested in the condition of others. Once we have seen the foundations which make justice possible, it is of interest to find out why we act in pursuit of justice. A concept appears which we already saw earlier: regret. The regret from situations in which we should have acted in another manner also appears in the practice of justice. When we are conscious that we have acted unjustly, we feel affected by guilt, by an error we shouldn’t have committed and which can carry disastrous consequences. What is new here is that regret from injustice is stronger than regret from having done wrong; this is because acting unjustly is something that not only affects those who suffer, but also goes against the common sense that dictates reason. Following Rousseau, De Grouchy considers that society and its institutions have corrupted human beings, creating a system which favours injustice and selfishness. Injustices are committed in the social environment and caused by that same setting, and because they are committed many times over again, they become an endemic ill that affects the entire social and political mechanism: law, the application of rules, the distribution of land and the antagonistic separation between the rich and the poor. Rights This concept may be the most ambiguous and complex one which we have confronted in our research; not only does De Grouchy not make a linear and systematic exposition of her political and social ideas, but one discourse also sometimes includes two different meanings. Depending on the context, the author uses the term rights to refer to two different things; she sees two different though not separate realities. 27 Specifically, she distinguishes between rights in a strict sense, which is related to jurisprudence and legal order, which she understands as preference, and natural rights specific to human beings given their specific nature and, above all, their reason. De Grouchy’s concept of natural rights allows us to establish clear and strong links with the authors who are present in her thought. Her affirmations on the rights of men show the presence of Condorcet and the master plans of enlightened thought which are summarised in the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man. If we stop to contemplate the foundations of the concept, as with the notion of justice, De Grouchy affirms that must be based on reason, on the capacity that human beings have to reflect and, mainly, to have some general and evident ideas applicable to all. Rights, by this first definition, are a preference, a decision in favour of a person which has been established by reason. Reason, according to the author, acts justly, defending right regardless of circumstances, such that it chooses one subject or another without consideration for economic aspects or power. At the same time, reason brings universality, the capacity to evaluate situations without dwelling on specifics. But rights also have an emotional foundation; reason is not the only factor that determines the establishment of rights. Feelings play an essential role: they add to rational evidence the weight of emotions that we experience in just and unjust situations. Rights, based on the sum of reason and feelings, are closely connected to justice because they consist in putting justice into practice. Rights are nothing other than the realisation of justice on a collective level, at the heart of social life. To comply with rights means simply to do justice, to protect the poor and weak and guarantee their dignity. 28 Law Once we understand what Sophie De Grouchy considers to be a right, we must take another step in her social and political philosophy and delve into the concept of law. It is important to point out that in our discourse, we had to start from the author’s notion of rights in order to later discuss law. This is because law will be the realization of the just rights which she supports, of the union of preference and natural rights. After having recognised that laws do not help the most disadvantaged, that they generally do not impart justice and that they are corrupted due to a selfish and elitist system, we must urgently demand a full reform making laws just, rational and founded on natural rights. And as we shall see, this is what De Grouchy does in her treatment of the legislative system: denounce the corruption of the laws and promote a new legal and penal future. The thinker from Meulan begins with a realistic view of the legal framework that existed at this historical moment; De Grouchy does not specify any country, mainly because she considers that the situation is the same in the entire world: injustice has its strongest ally in the law, which helps to perpetuate a corrupt and exclusive system. We pointed out that according to De Grouchy justice and the law only protected a small minority, and something similar happens with laws. The disadvantaged classes contemplate how laws reinforce their horrible situation and protect the rich, and this causes them to have feelings of limitless hatred and transgression. Legal degeneration and the idea that justice does not and will not exist have extended to such a degree that there is no social group that does not routinely break the law. In this summary, it is important to point out that the author makes a distinction between criminal and civil law. The first regulates penalties and punishments whereas the second regulates people’s relations. For De Grouchy, civil laws are those which incite transgression and offences, because they expressly show their weakness and later 29 open the door to criminal laws that are unjust, excessive and counterproductive: instead of teaching, they explicitly show injustice and favouritism toward the powerful. A manifest form of transgression of the law occurs when a subject occupying a relevant post elevates his own will above the law which should take priority; when individual interest comes before general interest, it is clear that a violation of the law is being committed. De Grouchy considers that this is one more example of how the legislative system is designed to favour the powerful and give them carte blanche in their selfish actions. The subjects who occupy these posts and whose offenses go unpunished perpetuate their power and transmit their inviolability to their children, transforming something which should protect the good of the community into a job which only protects personal interests and privileges. In the area of law, we maintain that certain insuperable differences exist between Smith and De Grouchy. We already exposed these differences in the chapter dedicated to morality and specifically, to the study of sympathy. In sum, we affirm that Sophie De Grouchy is deeply concerned with the situation of the disadvantaged classes in both the moral and the psychological dimensions, understanding that they are a result of of injustice, neglect and rejection of the powerful. Thus, the same thing happens now in the political and social areas; Smith’s denunciation of the injustice suffered by an innocent person remains just that, a specific and isolated case. The Theory of Moral Sentiments does not show a specific concern with the causes that lead to this disgrace, and there is no consciousness of the oppressed masses of society; Smith’s text exudes nonchalance toward the reasons that lead a person to commit crimes, and there is no mention of the possibility that the legislative system may be a fundamental motive. After examining De Grouchy’s criticism of the existing laws in her historical context, their constitution and application and the work of judges, we will reveal the 30 philosopher’s proposal; until now, we have been working with her critical and destructive doctrine, and now we will move on to her constructive proposal, to find out how the author intends to turn the laws into a truly useful instrument for the whole of society. As we shall see, personal interest must be eliminated in order to carry out this proposal and to establish a simple body of laws accessible to all, so that their interpretation cannot be misunderstood or selfishly interpreted. Transforming the system and achieving a spirit of solidarity and community between human beings requires a radical reform. Only starting from the foundations of the laws is it possible to guide them toward the common good. This is the only way in which we can establish a justice that does not allow exceptions and cannot be moulded to the taste of the person administering it. De Grouchy’s objective is simple, for the laws as such to acquire their specific proper weight and to be impartial and separate from the interested hand of the rich. The main question posed is the following: What pillars does the author use as support in carrying out this change? What foundation or principle can achieve a universal and equal legislative system for all social groups? We already saw the answer to these questions: reasons. Only a body of laws established under the light of reason can guarantee that justice will be applied equally to all and that laws rather than human whims judge personal actions. This principle is also present in the work of Condorcet, paradigm of enlightened writers and confident in the emancipating power of reason. De Grouchy is perfectly versed in all of the works of Condorcet (let us not forget that she prepared the complete edition of his texts and edited the introduction to the Sketch) and his affirmations are no doubt very present in her work. However, De Grouchy establishes a decisive divergence from the man who was her husband for eight years. Whereas De Grouchy, as we have seen, maintains a critical position in regard to the 31 laws of her time, Condorcet envisions the history of humanity as a firm and unstoppable march toward progress and the establishment of an adequate legislative system. Whereas for De Grouchy the reforms have yet to be made, for Condorcet, this event is very close to taking place. A difference which will always be very present in the two authors is the fact that Sophie De Grouchy shares no part of Condorcet’s progressive optimism. But De Grouchy is also immersed in the philosophy of Rousseau, and she makes the Genevan’s affirmations her own when she argues that laws, in order to be just, must come from the people, or from the popular will, if we are to be strict with the terminology of the author of The Social Contract. Property One of the most important and novel contributions of Sophie De Grouchy’s political and social philosophy is that which has to do with property. The author makes important contributions on property and its importance in achieving a more just world; for our research, we feel that this concept should be situated at the end of this chapter because only thus will we be able to show more easily in what how it fits ion with her concepts of justice, rights, and the law. Until now, we have seen how De Grouchy attempts to make a profound change in the legislative system and in the universal natural rights with a view to implementing a real justice which does not consider personal circumstances and preferences; yet this reform, following her arguments, also requires radical subversion of our way of understanding property and, above all, the distribution of said property and the riches that accompany it. 32 Our protagonist, aligning herself with the reigning current of thought in the eighteenth century, maintains that property is above all a right, understanding right to be the preference that someone has over something and which is clearly founded on reason. For De Grouchy, property is an evident and universally valid right because its starting point is located in reason. Consequently, it is reason that originates the idea that the possession of something is a right, in other words, that it is something which belongs to someone. And it is a positive right in juxtaposition with a negative right, since it is the capacity to do something; it is the possibility of doing something, or in this case, of possessing something. Closely following Condorcet’s doctrine on property, De Grouchy establishes that the latter is founded on three bases; on one hand, it is universal, objective and uninterested reason which dictates the existence of an individual’s preference for something. However, the question asked is the following: For what motives does reason dictate that property is a right? For De Grouchy, the reason is simple: work. Human reason easily comprehends that it is the work carried out by a person or persons on arable land or another reality which makes it possible for us to consider that something belongs to the person or persons; reason considers it to be evident that work justifies property. It is thus that the right to property emerges. And this appeal to work as a judge of what belongs to a person is also present in two authors known by Sophie De Grouchy: John Locke and J.J. Rousseau. Following the combative tone of all of her work, De Grouchy will assimilate Rousseau’s criticism of society and will raise her voice in the name of the oppressed and the most unfavoured social groups. Specifically, the author affirms that poor distribution increases social differences and, if possible, creates more motives for those who have nothing to commit crimes. If we saw before that rights and laws were seen as 33 an enemy in the service of the rich, now property aggravates this situation; natural human goodness and conscience are degraded in the presence of such unequal distribution. De Grouchy considers that the unequal distribution of riches is negative for all social groups, since it creates in them a feeling of insecurity and instability which is shared by the rich and the poor. The solution proposed by De Grouchy is an appeal for material equality, for what we can call economic mediocrity, in the sense that she considers that the only way out of this social rupture is to make both extreme riches and extreme inequality disappear; only the freedom and equality of all before the law and an economically middle class regime can overcome the existing schism. Likewise, one of the aspects which De Grouchy most dwells upon in her reflections on the distribution of riches and property is land. From her point of view, to speak of riches and property is to employ land as a synonym; land is the main source of riches and the ownership of land is disproportionately concentrated in the hands of a few. Only possessing land is it possible to add a value to it resulting from work, from cultivation, sowing and harvesting. Only he who owns the land can establish a small factory or business which brings him benefits. It is for this reason that the author of the Letters on Sympathy considers that the poor distribution of riches and the absence of property condemn the masses to poverty, thieving and mistrust. In De Grouchy’s point of view, it is necessary for all members of society to possess something, for them to have a property. He or she, who possesses something, has something to lose; if he commits an offence, his property may be seized and he may be condemned to a miserable situation. Thus, the possession of a land or something else generates a series of values in the person, including respect, work and the fear of losing what he has. 34 Avoiding the concentration of riches in the hands of a few is decisive in achieving a more prosperous and egalitarian society, which in turn means a spreading of peace and security. 4. FEMINIST CONTRIBUTIONS The last chapter of our research deals with Sophie De Grouchy’s contributions to feminist thought and gender studies. We have decided to leave this section for last because the in the whole of our protagonist’s philosophy, the vindication of the equality of the sexes are a consequence of all of the aforesaid. Only after having established a gnoseological groundwork based on the union of feeling and reason, a moral theory which revolves around the concept of sympathy, and a transformative and defensive political and social doctrine, is it possible to understand the scope of De Grouchy’s feminist affirmations. Likewise, this chapter must be placed here because De Grouchy herself exposes her thought in a sequential manner. She begins with individual human knowledge, studies interpersonal relationships and finally critically analyses life in communities. Thus, in this order, the analysis of women’s reality appears in the moral social and political areas, since both sexes share the same human nature, meaning that their access to knowledge is identical. This allows us to highlight one of essential traits of the French philosopher’s thought: because man and woman are essentially equal, the existing inequality can only stem from a social inequality. Lastly, these feminist themes practically close the work because it is in this context that the author’s voice reaches its full defensive power. The question we propose before entering into detail on Sophie De Grouchy’s feminist contributions is the following: Why can she be considered a feminist thinker? The life and work of Sophie De Grouchy allow us to establish several responses to this 35 question. The political philosophy that she defends, progressive and non-conformist, leads her to reflect on the situation which her own sex suffers, a situation of which she is aware in spite of being privileged. Her philosophy attempts to encompass all human beings without exception, thus including women. Also, she maintains that human beings are essentially free and we lack any previous determination that can limit our natural and unalienable rights. And this freedom is rooted in the fact that regardless of sex, race, or social status, we are all rational beings. Finally, the life story of De Grouchy leaves no doubts about her active involvement in the pursuit of improvement in women’s conditions. Her mother, of conservative mentality but nonetheless concerned about her daughter receiving a good education, opened the door for her to be a fortunate woman, intellectually on the same level as men. Inheriting this legacy from her mother, De Grouchy was an educated and schooled woman, sensitive at all moments to injustices and to traditionally excluded groups. In addition, the Hôtel des Monnaies was the hub of philosophical and political debates on the situation of women and De Grouchy led many of the debates on this subject. Her salon hosted debates on the feminist theses of Condorcet and other Enlightenment thinkers and encyclopédistes, as well as those of women who were pioneers in this area, such as Madame Helvetius, Madame Stäel, Mary Wollstonecraft or Olympe de Gouges. Many of them even established friendship with our protagonist. Human nature If Sophie De Grouchy can elaborate a defensive doctrine on the situation of women, it is because she assumes a theory about human nature where the similarities between the sexes come before the differences. Our protagonist begins her arguments taking for granted the equality between men and women and thus assuming that women 36 are capable of enjoying the same rights and freedom as men. With the gnoseological and social principles stated, her way of understanding human nature does not distinguish between sexes, and it is for that reason that her philosophical discourse is directed at both men and women. Thanks to her rationalist naturalism which extends to all human beings, she is capable of situating herself in an ethical universalism which encompasses all of humanity. Her theory of human nature, while undeniably rooted in an empirical view and the affirmation that all humans are sensitive beings, is characterised by a rational dimension which has more weight that the sensitive one. In this chapter, we are going to defend the idea that this fact makes possible the creation of discourse in defence of a universal human nature and that it opens the possibility of connecting De Grouchy’s theses with other similar feminist proclamations of her time; she sustains that the human being is the result of a combination of sensation and reflection, but that it is reflection which makes us truly human and creates in us the capacity to create moral realities and collective rights. Thanks to the affirmation of the superiority of the rational dimension over the emotional one and over the physical denominations of each sex, De Grouchy will be able to employ the term “man” referring to both men and women, and maintain that the equality between the two is total and is based on the fact that their powers of reasoning and discourse are the same. The inequality between men and women, a result of social corruption The thinker from Meulan will resume the critical discourse which she maintained on society and its institutions while reflecting on justice and political and social organization. Just as society, through corruption and selfishness, favours the 37 privileges of a minority, while oppressing the rest, the same happens with women. According to De Grouchy, tracking the origin of discrimination leads to a denouncement of society’s creation of a system advantageous to men and harmful to women. This discourse, critical with established society, is the result of the appropriation of Rousseau’s naturalist theories with the new idea of applying them to feminist the defence of women’s rights. However, De Grouchy diverges from Rousseau in the sense that her theses about women are totally contrary to those of the atypical Enlightment thinker, even as she maintains the basis of his critical philosophy on society. De Grouchy, much like Wollstonecraft, admires Rousseau’s social democracy but is not willing to exclude women from the new order which he proposes; De Grouchy’s experience is similar to that of the author of the Vindication of the Rights of Women, Mary Wollstonecraft. Rousseau, in his Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality Among Men, denounces how the establishment of society has created an environment marked by appearance and interest, and De Grouchy, like Wollstonecraft, writes about women in both the Letters on Sympathy and the letters to her husband, describing maledominated society as the main cause of discrimination against women. Society, which has progressively distanced itself from nature and from that which is originally uncontaminated, has created a form of life where individualism and the survival of the fittest prevail. This social context leads irremediably to inequality at all levels, including the notable example of the transversal discrimination which extends to all social groups, even the excluded ones: discrimination against women. For our protagonist the most costly consequence of this social order is not so much the fact that it changes and modifies naturally good and “sympathetic” human conduct, but rather the fact that its power of corruption reaches the deepest part of the human being, the 38 conscience, and consequently, moral decision-making. A two-fold process of alienation takes place in women. On one hand, men reduce women to a mere physical presence, limiting the scope of women’s actions to the private and domestic sphere. Similarly, masculine influence causes women to participate irremediably in their own process of objectification, limiting their capacities to the visual and the sensual. These ideas, very present in the Letters on Sympathy also appear in the letters that De Grouchy sends to Maillia Garat. From an egalitarian stance based on human nature and reason, De Grouchy focuses her criticisms on amorous passion. We already pointed out in our research that love, a sublime and elevated thing which by definition pleases and strengthens emotional ties between people, has been corrupted by social degeneration; selfishness has triumphed over altruistic love and has transformed amorous passion into an impersonal relationship dominated by men. Marriage Sophie De Grouchy raises her voice in defence of women’s rights and denouncing the corruption of traditions, centring her criticism on the establishment of marriage; the French philosopher is not against this social convention but categorically rejects those unions in which the woman is discriminated against or in which her will is not considered. Once more, De Grouchy’s ideas on how marriage affects women allow us to connect her positions to other authors of her time. If the social framework prevents true love from emerging and if romantic passion and reciprocity barely exist, De Grouchy feels compelled to make harsh criticisms of marriage, and specifically marriage which is contracted for interests other than love. De Grouchy focuses her attacks on the fact that the voluntary union between 39 persons has been commercialised to the point of becoming a mere question of economics. In rejecting the degeneration of marriage, De Grouchy once more rejects a social system which objectifies passions and relations between both sexes. For the French philosopher, love has become a market, or in her own words “a very vulgar trafficking”1 in which the person with the most to lose is the woman, as she has not been educated to be on the same level as a man. Divorce Sophie De Grouchy uses human beings’ changing character as her justification for the need to legalise divorce. De Grouchy, who expresses her theses in a way much less radical than that of many of her feminist contemporaries, considers that love is as changing as it is ephemeral. In general, human beings feel amorous passion several times during their lives, and it is very difficult to find cases in which the romantic reciprocity has remained intact since early youth; in addition, this volatility feeds off a system that encourages “liquid love”, that is, sporadic and frugal relationships, above all in the case of men. Thus the French philosopher maintains that the indissolubility of marriage goes against the nature of human passions and, above all, freedom. The legalisation of divorce would constitute, in De Grouchy’s opinion, a step forward in the emancipating process of the Enlightenment. In her opinion, divorce should be recognised without obstacles and limitations, as a right equally valid for men and for women. She believes that as a matter of coherency, laws should include this type of rights. 1 DE GROUCHY, S., Cartas sobre la simpatía, Sevilla, Padilla libros, 2011, p. 161. Translation to english. 40 However the most noteworthy part of De Grouchy’s position on divorce is her affirmation that divorce would be advancement for both sexes for different reasons. Men, who are more susceptible to bodily passions, would have a more open law which reinforced their natural dispositions. Women, condemned by marriage to permit their husbands’ offenses and to occupy a secondary role, would obtain through divorce a solution that would in great measure re-establish a situation of equality. Sophie De Grouchy is an atypical feminist author. Her proclamations and ideas are similar to those of her time, but with the difference that she defends many of her theses from the point of view of moderation and tranquillity. At the same time, it should be noted that many of her feminist affirmations are expressed in a universalising language; her discourse rarely employs the word “woman” when speaking of marriage, divorce and equal rights. Yet a close reading of her work and an acquaintance with her frenetic life during the revolutionary period give us proof of her egalitarian and reformist philosophy. One of the areas in which De Grouchy defends the rights of all human beings, and inevitably of women, is in the right to make our own choices. Once more, De Grouchy speaks from a neuter concept of her subject, referring to the whole of humanity. However, these affirmations acquire new meaning after studying her defence of divorce. She understood that women’s lives must be governed by the women themselves, without anyone else’s interference. The affirmations of De Grouchy on female autonomy and independence are also very present in Condorcet’s philosophy. The latter’s feminism points out that equality of rights will allow women to depend on themselves and to determine their destiny without the interference of others. 41 Woman and her beauty One of the central questions in feminist debates is the traditional problem of reducing women to their physical and bodily dimension, juxtaposing this point of view with men’s supposedly superior strength and intelligence. De Grouchy herself represents that which she wishes to break; a charismatic figure in her salon, a noteworthy member of the Girondists and a beautiful woman, she wishes to be seen above all as an intellectual who works in the service of reason and fights for liberty and universal equality under the concept of sympathy. De Grouchy links the beginning of her thesis on feminine beauty with love or, better said, with that which the love between two persons should be. True love consists in attraction toward the other person resulting from admiration, friendship and physical attraction. Thus, the material side of love is just one more aspect, not the only one. But obviously De Grouchy is aware that physical attraction is a decisive aspect, a fact which she treats in detail in her third letter. Both men and women feel a considerable physical sympathy in contemplating the facial and bodily features of the loved one, as well as the singular characteristics which make someone attractive from a material point of view. However, the masculine sex reduces its interest in the woman to the physical dimension, forgetting in the process her intellectual qualities. This is the main cause of female objectification and the mere reduction of women to physical pleasure. But De Grouchy goes beyond this denouncement and states that the alienation that women feel on a material plane hides an even more flagrant hypocrisy. On one hand, men focus their view of women on appearance and physical attraction; on the other, women are taught not to reduce men to the physical, thus protecting unattractive men from falling into disgrace. Also, in evaluating man without such emphasis on beauty, they are 42 encouraged to seek moral meaning in them. For De Grouchy, the disparity in criteria for attraction only accentuates the differences between the sexes and the lack of communication between men and women. If a man seeks physical pleasure above all and a woman looks for values and moral conventions, they no longer share a common idea of what love is. To fight physical objectification, the thinker born in Meulan exhorts women to emancipate and enlighten themselves, as knowledge leads to virtue and places women on the same level as men; this is the pleasure that makes all human beings equal, that of science and knowing. The education of women One of the central themes of feminist debates in the eighteenth century is education. For egalitarian justice, the chance to create a world in which women and men are on the same level would require for both sexes to have the same initial conditions. The natural starting point was already established: basic equality and universal rationality. Now, the work consists in constructing a social and cultural starting point free of discrimination, and this will be equal education. The French philosopher’s educational proposal fully assumes the sympathetic message of her entire work. An education that instils equality, freedom and fraternity, revolutionary notions present in her philosophy, is only possible if a feeling of reciprocity is established with our fellow human beings. Once more, we cannot overlook a characteristic trait of De Grouchy’s feminism. A reading of her texts and a knowledge of her life show that she is a feminist thinker very much in the line of other feminists of her time; her themes are the same ones treated by Olympe de Gouges, Wollstonecraft or even Condorcet. However, what differentiates 43 De Grouchy from other feminist authors of her time is the fact that her written expression almost always transmits serenity and even neutrality; on numerous occasions, De Grouchy writes of women’s situation without naming women, employing a discourse which does not distinguish between men and women. Something similar occurs in her treatment of education. De Grouchy speaks of education without referring explicitly to men and women; she does not establish differentiation because her message is directed at both sexes, another manifestation of her defence of an egalitarian education. De Grouchy follows very closely Condorcet’s theses on education, though her affirmations are not as profound as those of Condorcet. As proof, we have a number of writings by Condorcet on exclusively pedagogical and educational themes, as well as his project for the French educational system. Thus, Sophie De Grouchy's theses are secondary to those of her once-husband; nonetheless, it is important to bring them to light because they are the culmination of her philosophical proposal, and they describe an equal educational system. The start of her affirmations on education is nothing short of a rejection of established society. Society, corruptor of human passions and relations, also leaves its mark on the instruction of its subjects and citizens as it introduces from childhood to a selfish and discriminatory model of behaviour. Her transforming vision is also the result of an enlightened rejection of customs and tradition, which have settled into the educational system turning knowledge into something repetitive and insubstantial. We maintain that the author’s educational proposal is revolutionary in the sense that it begins from the destruction of the establishment in order to propose a completely new, naturalist and egalitarian model. Let us not forget that her discourse on education is very concerned with women, and all calls for equality are implicit calls for the right 44 of women to an education similar to that of men. Education should break the chains which have been placed upon women in men’s interest; equality implies a return to the natural, to the simplicity of benevolent and altruistic human actions. Her view of education assumes not only the philosophical discourse predominant in the eighteenth century, but also the declarations of rights, which transmit an universalist message that makes no exceptions. Through Condorcet and the presence of enlightened persons in the British, American, and French cultural panorama, De Grouchy immerses herself in the new discourse of the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights and the 1791 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. In this way, her discourse is critical and progressive at the same time. It rejects past discrimination and projects a cosmopolitan and egalitarian model. 45 FINAL CONCLUSIONS Throughout this study we have seen the most noteworthy aspects of Sophie De Grouchy’s life and thought. From a biographical point of view, De Grouchy stands out for her elevated cultural level. In spite of her condition as a woman, which at that time condemned her to ostracism, she received a painstaking education thanks to the efforts made by her mother, who spared no efforts in procuring her daughter the best private tutors and teachers in all disciplines. We cannot forget the presence of De Grouchy in the historical events that shook France at the end of the eighteenth century. Of the great Enlightenment thinkers, only her husband Nicolas de Condorcet witnessed the revolution and the fall of the monarchy, although he succumbed to the Robespierre’s Terror. In contrast, De Grouchy was able to survive the Jacobin repression because of her charisma and political ability, and she could thus reflect on all of the events of that decade. Within her cultural activity, she gained fame in the Hôtel des Monnaies which she had founded and organised; it became one of the most important hubs in Paris during the pre-Revolutionary period, hosting debates and intellectual gatherings with the most relevant personalities of the time. With the French Revolution, De Grouchy emerged as a firm defender of the republic, democracy, human rights and equality between the sexes, which did not exempt her from suffering persecution at the hands of the “Incorruptible” Robespierre and his followers. After he was condemned to execution, De Grouchy reopened her philosophical salon, orienting it toward criticism of totalitarianism and a rejection of Napoleonic pretensions of power. De Grouchy is 46 certainly far from the vulgar view of a philosopher as a speculative recluse distanced from the praxis; her life was a continual attempt to turn the ideas she captured on paper into a reality. Following the work carried out in our research project, we will dedicate time to De Grouchy’s theory of knowledge. We have centred our study in this chapter on three concepts: sensation, reflection and the idea. Though it may be true that De Grouchy assumes positions and theses already exposed by empiricists such as Locke and Condillac, she is capable of synthesising what has already been said with some important contributions of her own. In regard to sensation, De Grouchy articulates this concept with a term that appears in the philosophy of David Hume, that of the common ideas of sensation, and she makes it possible for there to be no leaps in the cognitive process from its beginnings to abstract thoughts. Reflection shows what distinguishes us from the rest of living beings. Thanks to this faculty, sensations and impressions require complexity and, on entering into contact with the memory and the imagination, acquire temporality and meaning for human beings. This idea culminates the cognitive process by crystallising the sensations and impressions obtained by the senses. In this section, De Grouchy introduces the novel concept of the abstract idea which has allowed us to relate her philosophy to that of David Hume. It was important to begin the analysis of the philosophy of De Grouchy because it is the foundation on which the author will support her moral and social proposal. Individual knowledge opens the door to social knowledge and the interaction between people. 47 Having established her theory of knowledge and its possibilities of expanding into social themes, we have revealed De Grouchy’s moral theory, where she proves to be an innovative and original thinker ahead of her time. Sophie knows first hand the contributions of the British moralists and especially of Adam Smith, but she elaborates a true system based on sympathy. De Grouchy takes on fundamental problems of morality such as the origin of moral ideas. In coherence with her theory of knowledge, she affirms that morality is born in sensations and in ideas of pleasure and pain. Subsequently, she delves into notions of right and wrong, which are in her opinion concepts that provide the backbone to ethical reflection. It is to be noted that De Grouchy barely spends time on moral wrong, as she maintains that in most cases it is the result of an involuntary act because human nature is essentially good and few people consciously do wrong. Assuming the legacy of modernity, Sophie De Grouchy becomes interested in the study of the passions, which is the reason why we have looked in-depth at the concepts of regret, love, and selfishness. For De Grouchy, regret is the consequence of our natural goodness, which immerses us in pain and keeps us from causing future harm for the fear of feeling tormented. Love is one of the most elevated and pleasant passions. In relation to friendship, it awakens benevolent and uninterested attitudes and feelings in human beings. For De Grouchy, love is physical attraction but, above all, intellectual admiration for the loved one. In this regard, we link her affirmations on love and friendship to the idyll which she maintained with Maillia Garat as she wrote the Letters on Sympathy. The other great passion which we have analysed in this work is selfishness. Within human passions, De Grouchy considers selfishness or self-love to be the most dangerous of all. Unlike envy and hate, selfishness is a socially accepted passion, which 48 makes it more difficult to eliminate. Here we see one of the most profound differences between De Grouchy and Smith, because the Scottish thinker considers that in certain situations selfishness is positive as it facilitates the initiative for carrying out certain actions. The notion virtue shows De Grouchy’s reading of Smith but also of stoic authors and, above all, of Jean Jacques Rousseau. The Genevan thinker decisively affects her work. De Grouchy will take from Rousseau the idea that true virtues reside in simplicity and in our natural benevolent tendencies. However, De Grouchy will distance herself from Rousseau’s primitivism and will place virtue within the social framework. The last moral concept we studied is the most important in all of De Grouchy’s though: sympathy. Sympathy forms the backbone to her philosophy and provides the title of the only work published by De Grouchy. Using as a starting point the definition, cause and forms of sympathy, we have seen how it diverges from the liberal individualism of Smith and offers us a social doctrine that strongly proclaims the triumph over selfishness in order to defend a natural, original and cosmopolitan morality. Sympathy, understood by the French thinker as our capacity to feel in a similar way to others, is decisive in creating a socially conscious and supportive world which does not forget excluded subjects such as the elderly, children, and the poor. After having delved into the moral ideas of De Grouchy, our next step was to discover her social and political theory. This chapter took on new meaning because it is the result of applying De Grouchy’s moral ideas to the area of relations between people. Here, we underscore how De Grouchy made a radical criticism of the social system as an environment which encourages corruption and abuse of power. Beginning with justice, we say that this notion allows us to link morality to social philosophy. Justice is a moral concept of De Grouchy that can be applied 49 pragmatically; to think of justice is to think of the injustices committed by a privileged minority against the suffering majority in the political sphere. In analysing what De Grouchy considers to be a right, we have emphasised that the author distinguishes between two aspects: on one hand, rights as natural rights based on equality and reason, where De Grouchy follows the basic lines of Condorcet’s proposal and the declarations of rights of her time; and on the other hand, rights understood as a preference a subject has over something. As a consequence of having made a theory about rights, we have learned what De Grouchy interprets to be law. The most noteworthy part of this aspect is the fact that our protagonist is very critical of the existing legislative system at her time and supports a radical change. The laws protect and facilitate the violation of the law by the powerful, incite the poor to transgression and create a general environment of ambition and mistrust. De Grouchy’s ideas on the law and its application show the influence of Rousseau but separate her from Adam Smith; we point out that De Grouchy defends fair laws and light punishments whereas Adam Smith affirms that the laws’ exemplary nature is rooted in their usefulness. The criticism of the social system ends in our work with the concept of property. In a society based on selfishness and injustice, property is badly distributed. De Grouchy will establish her theory on property on the rights that a person acquires as a result of his or her work. Property is a natural right founded on reason and the effort made to achieve benefits. Following with small nuances the ideas of Locke, Rousseau, the physiocrats like Turgot and Condorcet, we show how De Grouchy defends a redistribution of riches and property in order to make it possible for a middle class to emerge and for the opposition between the rich and the poor to end. It has been noted as 50 relevant that De Grouchy is more sceptical and defends carrying out a reform to this end. Closing our synthesis of the work carried out, we affirm that probably if the history of philosophy has remembered the figure of Sophie De Grouchy, this is due to the fact that during many years she was the wife of Nicolas de Condorcet, specifically from 1786 until1794. This fact is another example of how the history of thought is written according to men, with women considered as something secondary and a mere addition. In regard to this fact, in our work we have defended the idea that the neglect of female philosophers is not to be permitted in the union between Condorcet and De Grouchy. Both shared a passion for knowledge, full confidence in the ability of humans to perfect themselves, and the possibility of achieving a society without exclusions nor any persons excluded for racial, cultural, economical or sexual reasons. Thus, the union enriched both of the spouses and reinforced their philosophical positions. It is no coincidence that beginning in 1786, the year of De Grouchy’s marriage with Condorcet, he began to write numerous articles and essays aimed at rejecting the traditional arguments that limit the power of women, both in public and private spheres; De Grouchy, from the shadows, in close collaboration with Condorcet, inspires him and suggests a great number of ideas and arguments to defend divorce, the importance of the woman’s free will in choosing a husband, natural equality and universal suffrage. These affirmations are present in the work of Condorcet as well as that of De Grouchy, and thus one of the purposes of our investigation has been to study in-depth De Grouchy’s theses on these issues, unknown in our language. It is for this reason that the last chapter deals with the feminist contributions of Sophie De Grouchy. We have affirmed that within the history of feminism, De Grouchy may be considered a moderate feminist who does not delve too deeply into the situation of 51 women. Her feminist ideas are a consequence of her notion of sympathy, her criticisms of society and her relationships with Nicolas de Condorcet. De Grouchy bases her feminist contributions on the defence of the natural equality between men and women. What characterises human beings is their rational capacity and, from this point of view, no differences exist. In addition, this fully enlightened position allows us to connect her thesis with other noteworthy figures such as Olympe de Gouges and Condorcet himself. Following the author’s arguments, it is demonstrated that society rather than nature has created sexual segregation. Customs and traditions have reduced and objectified women, depriving them illegitimately of their rightful place. This fact is captured in selfishness and the corruption of passions. Like other authors such as D´Holbach, De Grouchy will defend a new view of marriage. The relationship between a man and a woman must be a relationship between equals, resulting from free and conscious choice by both parties. However, there are frequent cases in which economic interest prevails and the woman’s will is not taken into account. The next step will be the defence of divorce. If marriages of convenience exist where love is drowned in favour of interest and if feelings are fleeting, there must be a law permitting the dissolution of marriages. It has been shown that De Grouchy is convinced that divorce would grant women a greater autonomy and would not reduce them to a domestic life serving their husbands. One of the most noteworthy aspects of De Grouchy’s feminism is the denouncement of the custom of reducing women to beautiful objects. If a woman is viewed as a mere physical appearance, she is eliminated from the intellectual sphere. We have pointed out that De Grouchy supports equal treatment of men and women, 52 which requires us to understand their value beyond beauty, a secondary and ephemeral characteristic in human beings. In the chapter dedicated to De Grouchy’s feminist theses we emphasised the importance she attributes to education. De Grouchy does not elaborate an educational doctrine from a feminine perspective as exhaustive as that of Condorcet, but she does point out that education is the starting point if we wish to achieve a fairer and more egalitarian society. In her judgment, the educational system must include all persons with the goal of transmitting the values of criticism, free thinking and liberty. Only if a woman receives an education similar to that of a man and if non-sexist virtues are taught, can we make progress toward a society formed by equal men and women. * In the conclusions to our research project on Sophie De Grouchy we should reflect on what contribution we are making to the history of philosophy, and how to define its originality and its limits. In the first place, we consider that this research project, which we have entitled “The Philosophy of Sophie De Grouchy: Gnoseology, Ethics, Politics and Feminism”, lends to the whole of knowledge the new contribution of carrying out an exhaustive study on a woman nearly unknown in our language. The preparation of the thesis and the publication of two texts of De Grouchy in Spanish, the Letters on Sympathy and the Love Letters to Maillia Garat, facilitate access to the life and thought of this very interesting figure from eighteenth century French philosophy. In carrying out an exhaustive analysis of De Grouchy’s most interesting contributions in various branches of philosophy, we ease the way for future investigations on De Grouchy which will not face the difficulty of having no references in Spanish. However, we have faced certain 53 limitations in our translation and comparison of texts in order to publish De Grouchy’s writing. On one hand, as we have pointed out throughout the work, the lack of research on the philosophy of De Grouchy in our language initially limited the thesis. It was necessary to use works in other languages and translate them. Secondly, one of the greatest limitations we have confronted is the lack of bibliography on Sophie De Grouchy. There are barely a dozen publications on her, mainly by French and American authors. The majority of these publications deal with the most important information of her childhood, her marriage with Condorcet, the Hôtel des Monnaies, her political activism and her romantic relationships. However, only a few texts take the time to describe facets of her philosophy, and most of them in a superficial manner. Only the study preceding the American edition of the Letters on Sympathy analyses some relevant aspects such as her distancing herself from Smith or the feminist contributions of the author. This bibliographical barrier reveals, in our opinion, that this research is groundbreaking because it is centred on getting to know aspects unknown in the current philosophical panorama and it forms a compendium of the few existing studies on Sophie De Grouchy. We know of no publication which takes the time to carry out an in-depth analysis of her gnoseological, political and social ideas, nor any which tracks in her works the influences of Adam Smith and Condorcet. Likewise, the fact that the works on the French philosopher focus on her life and her personal relationships reveals how the intellectual facet of such an atypical and relevant woman is reduced to anecdotes and stories of love and heartbreak. Consequently, our thesis has proposed from its beginnings the challenge of breaking down partial and discriminatory views of the most important women in history and showing that their value resides fundamentally in their work rather than in their lives. 54 The thesis shows De Grouchy to be an outstanding woman because she broke through many of the sexual barriers of her time, she dedicated a large part of her life to knowledge and she developed interesting ideas in many branches of knowledge. Also, the different editions of the Letters on Sympathy with which we have work show notable changes in terminology. The current existing editions, in French, English and Italian, have substantially modified the original text, largely because they were based on other translations. For our work, we have compared them and we have decided to work mainly with the first edition, from 1798, edition on which we base our translation and publication in Spanish of the Letters on Sympathy. We then based our study of Sophie De Grouchy’s philosophy on this translation. But our thesis has encountered limitations inherent to Sophie De Grouchy’s figure. The thinker born in the town of Meulan shows to be a woman capable of synthesising in a relatively concise work the great lines of Enlightened thought in the eighteenth century; she assimilates the philosophical legacy of the British and French Enlightenment and she adapts it to lend it a certain originality and to make an original contribution through her notion of sympathy. De Grouchy confronts questions related to the theory of knowledge, morality, social organisation and the situation of women from an eclectic point of view but also from her own perspective which straddles the Enlightenment, romanticism and nineteenth century socialism. However, we maintain that Sophie De Grouchy’s philosophy is often revealed as a line of thought lacking profundity. Her most personal and innovative contributions do not receive sufficient attention. The theory of abstract ideas, her proposal for reforming the legislative system, the theory of property which she promotes, her defence of an emerging social class (the proletariat) and her reflections on feminine beauty are her 55 most original ideas but they prove to be rather superficial; they are announced but not developed very extensively. On occasion, De Grouchy introduces concepts and ideas of her own but does not stop to explore their content. We consider that her moral doctrine and her sympathetic theory are novel themes for the history of thought and those to which the author dedicates the most attention in her writings. Sophie De Grouchy proves to be a philosopher with a great capacity for synthesising and making compatible very diverse affirmations in areas as disparate as theory of knowledge and the distribution of land; she is capable of immersing herself critically in authors such as Rousseau, Locke or Condorcet and creating an original line of thought; at the same time, she writes a very modern work at that time which adapts enlightened philosophy to the historical events of Revolutionary France. On the other hand, her only published philosophical text, the Letters on Sympathy, treats a wide range of questions but its shortness and the author’s pedagogical intentions give way to an image of the author as a philosopher whose work shows eclecticism and a lack of originality. Despite the latter philosophical limitations, we maintain that Sophie De Grouchy deserves a place in the history of philosophy for her theory on sympathy in the moral sphere, because she anticipates political and social theses which will be treated in the nineteenth century by socialist authors and because she is one of the first women to direct her life and to write her ideas from a feminist perspective, defending freedom and autonomy for women. Fundamentally, our purpose is none other than that of bringing an unknown thinker to light, justifying that she deserves to emerge from anonymity and granting her the place that she deserves. In the same way, the thesis opens to door for subsequent research: One of the most relevant questions that may be investigated is an exhaustive analysis of the presence of De Grouchy in the texts of Condorcet, especially those of 56 feminist content. Though it may be true that the couple shared ideals and concerns, the influence of De Grouchy in the texts written from 1786 on, or in the time of their marriage, is worth being mentioned. Articles like On the Admission of Women to the Rights of Citizenship or Lettres d’un Bourgeois de New Heaven a un Citoyen de Virginie show that as a result of his marriage with De Grouchy, Condorcet begins to focus on the critical treatment of women’s situation and their lack of rights and freedoms. Thus, we still have the possibility of studying in what way the writings of Condorcet are imbued with Sophie De Grouchy’s feminism and to propose that their elaboration was a result of the marriage between the two thinkers. If we focus on the biographical point of view, we must emphasise that there are large gaps in Sophie De Grouchy’s life starting at the time at which she abandoned her relationship with Maillia Garat in 1800 and left us the testimony of her letters. From then until her death in 1822, information on her life and presence in the French cultural panorama is almost nonexistent. Scholars in this area lose track of her activity starting with the ascent of Napoleon and they barely provide secondary data about De Grouchy’s subsequent romantic relationships or her physical ailments. Lastly, we recognise that this thesis is the first work that carries out an in-depth study on Sophie De Grouchy’s thought, which is the reason why we understand that for future research on her gnoseological theory, her system of sympathy and her feminist contributions will considerably enrich our knowledge of the author in more concrete concepts and influences. Our thesis is a humble but novel work which brings to light the life and philosophy of a very interesting woman and opens many possibilities for future 57 research. We trust that this will be the first step toward subsequent publications related to Sophie De Grouchy. 58