XI. Second Marriages. But loved he never after? Came there none THEORY AND PRACTICE. HERE is a very general theoretical opposition to second marriages on the part of those who look upon the union of husband and wife from the standpoint of sentiment alone. "It is a union of souls," they say, as well as of bodies, and as these souls are immortal, death can not dissolve it. We can love but once · 66 If the love of the heart be blighted, it buddeth not again; If that pleasant song be forgotten, it is to be learned no more." Marriage may be a union of souls-we believe it is such in its highest phase, and that it may, in a certain sense, link to each other in heaven those whom it bound on earth; but as they there “neither marry nor are given in marriage,” we infer that the spiritual tie which will there unite congenial souls has little in common with our earthly relations, and may be entirely consistent with several mortal loves and marriages; for it is not true, as experience daily proves, that men and women love but once; and a second love, or even a third love, may be as strong, as pure, and as constant, if not so ardent, as a first love. A circumstance which tells with more force, perhaps, than any argument we can urge against the opponents of second marriages is the fact that the most eminent of them have indorsed such unions practically, thus repudiating their own teachings; and it may be fair to claim that those who, rejoic ing in a first marriage or anticipating one, write able articles or cutting philippics against second marriages, utterly neutralize their own writings, not to say repudiate and disapprove them, when they enter a second time into the marriage relation, especially if that second marriage prove a happy one. HISTORICAL FACTS. Among the ancient Greeks a widow seldom contracted a second marriage, although not expressly forbidden to do so. When one did so, she waited at least five years or more in widowhood. It is possible that they did not generally find matrimony so pleasant a state as to be anxious to return to it. In India, according to Madame Ida Pfeiffer, the girls of every family are betrothed when they are only a few months old; and should the bridegroom that is to be die immediately after, the child is considered a widow, and can not marry again. The estate of widowhood is considered a great misfortune, since it is believed that only those women are placed in it who in some state of pre-existence had deserved such punishment. The suttee, or immolation of the widow on the funeral pile of her husband, was formerly common, but has been abolished through the influence of the British Govern ment. The laws of Moses encouraged and regulated the marriage of widows. If a man died childless, his brother was expected to marry his widow, and thus perpetuate the family name. The Apostle Paul, too, while he exhorts the churches to honor them who are "widows indeed," also exhorts the younger widows to marry. (1 Tim. v. 4.) At the present time, among civilized nations, second marriages are almost universally allowed, if not always approved; so that the verdict of the world is certainly in their favor. A CASE SUPPOSED. Suppose a man and a woman marry for companionship and for love; if they have offspring, they generally have pleasure in the protection, rearing, maintenance, and education of that offspring, for the parentive pleasure does not end with the parental act, but follows the offspring through all its development, culture, establishment, and life. If by some accident or disease one of the parties be removed at the end of the first month of the first year of the marriage, and to make the case strong, we will suppose that no fruit of the marriage has resulted,-what shall the surviving companion do? Let us still further suppose two persons widowed in the same manner, one a male, the other a female-shall they wander solitary through life? Who will they serve by so doing? In the life to come they neither marry nor are given in marriage,” and the one who has gone hence will have no occasion to complain; and if this widowed husband and widowed wife are adapted to each other, and might have formed an appropriate first marriage, whom do they wrong by being married? and if by marriage each can be rendered happy in companionship and in the parental relation, as well as in the conjugal, why hsall they not marry? Are there any scientific or moral objections? We do not see any; and it is not complimentary to the institution for those who have had experience in it to refuse a favorable opportunity to re-enter its sacred halls. Such conduct is calculated to give the impression that they have not found the marriage relation a pleasant one. SECOND LOVE. Who shall say that a well-organized man or woman can not love a second time? If there be any such, let them live singly. There are some who marry unwisely at first, and, having lost their yoke-fellow-we can not say mate-may pos sibly, yea, probably, marry a second time happily. It is true that some marry well once, but make a bad second marriage; but this result is simply incidental to human or finite action. If all first marriages could be shown to be happy, and all, or nearly all, second marriages unhappy, we would say a case was made against second marriages; but we venture an opinion, and have better reason than we may state for believing the opinion to be true, that second marriages, arranged according to more mature judgment, are quite as likely to be happy as the first. When persons marry who are igno rant of the organization and real disposition of each other, each expects unalloyed happiness; all the ills of life are to be left behind at the altar. In time they awake to their disappointment, find themselves mated to a frail mortal like themselves, with ill-temper and perverse tendencies; and this frets them. Each expects more from the other than is reasonable under the circumstances, and not receiving it, the courtship, with all its gentleness and self-sacrifice, is not made perennial, as had been hoped. Mutual recrimination is the result, and sometimes a whole lifetime is embittered by this mutual disappointment, mutual ill-nature, and foolish fault-finding. PROFITING BY EXPERIENCE. Should either one of these persons be left in widowhood and re-marry, no sublime expectations of unalloyed bliss are entertained, and the person resolves to avoid the errors of the first marriage, viz., the first sharp word, the first unkind remark, the first ungenerous inference or exaction. Let us suppose a widower marries a widow, and each enters the relation with this idea-"I will not fall into the errors of my first marriage," and for ten, twenty, thirty, or forty years there is not so much disagreement between them as either had in the first marriage in a single year, who shall say that the last marriage did not bring any better conditions for happiness than the first? but the experience of the first taught each forbearance and self-control. Indeed, many persons marry a worse companion than their first, and live ten times more agreeably, because more reasonable in their own conduct. LATE SECOND MARRIAGES. But it may be asked, What of persons who have lived in one marriage until a family has been raised and settled, and when the ardor of youthful love and the promptings of nature to obey the first commandment, to "replenish the earth," have passed? In regard to such marriages, companionship may be a sufficient reason. Why should a man and his wife remain together in the marriage relation after they have raised a family and sent it forth into the world? It would be an swered, for companionship. If raising a family is the only ob ject served by marriage, then, when the family is raised, why not separate? This is true with wolves,—their mating continues until the whelps can take care of themselves; while the lion and eagle, nobler than the wolf, remain through life constantly in companionship. If after a family be raised one of the companions die, and if companionship be desirable, why may not the surviving one marry for the sake of that serene companionship which belongs to marriage in middle or advanced life? We can see no valid objection. We have seen very many second and even third marriages, men and women, fifty-five or sixty years old, living ten or twenty years together, a kind of happy "Indian summer," and seeming to enjoy each other's society quite as well as they who have "clam the hill thegither." THE MEDDLING OF RELATIVES. It will generally be found that second marriages in which there is difficulty, disagreement, or disturbance, owe such disturbance to their children, who feel themselves interested in their parent's estate, or the disagreement is fomented by the friends of the children outside of the family respecting property. There is nothing more common than for a pert miss of fifteen or a beardless boy of eighteen, who have been cradled in parental affection, setting up their raw will and judgment against a father in the prime of manhood, who is left lonely, because he chooses to marry again. Four or five years at most will generally send the daughter to a home of her own; another year or two makes a man of the boy, when he will marry as he chooses, possibly without the advice of either father or friends. These children may fear, perchance, that another brood of children will divide the property, no dollar of which they ever earned, while the father, who has strong love for his children, has carefully educated, reared, guided, and sustained them to maturity. Such children are much to blame for calling in question such a father in reference to any honorable course of his; and public sentiment |