did any one, till nearly the end of the republic, imagine how suddenly the floodgates of licentiousness would be opened. It is a satisfaction to know that for several centuries very little mischief arose from so universal a defiance of law. The marvel is, that the people should not have changed the law, when it was so universally judged to be bad and intolerable. We must suppose, that the Romans, like the English, asked only, whether the system "worked well; and finding no inconvenience from the systematic evasion of law, were contented to leave things alone. Moreover it must never be forgotten, that there was nothing clandestine in their marriages, but they were entered into with the heartiest interest by the families on each side. Formal marriage contracts with certain arrangements of dowry were made out. The husband had the use of his wife's money, but never became possessor of it. A wife not without private fortune and protected by her whole clan (for the families were organized into clans) had a better moral position than our law gives her; for, in case of gross misconduct on his part, she could leave him at once. It is true, she then left her children in his power; but so she does with us: and this is often the overwhelming cause, for which a mother submits to a life of misery from a bad husband. The Roman law also gave a weight to the tribunals of kinsfolk, to which we are total strangers. Therefore on the whole their illegal marriages have a rough likeness to the marriages of the early Quakers. Nevertheless, Gibbon (certainly no bigot) in a few emphatic words, tells the results of this freedom, in the later development of things (ch. 44): When the Roman matrons became the equal and voluntary companions of their lords, a new jurisprudence (?) was introduced-that marriage, like other partnerships, might be dissolved by the abdication of one of the associates. In three centuries of prosperity and corruption, this principle was enlarged to frequent practice and pernicious abuse. Passion, interest, or caprice suggested daily motives for the dissolution of marriage. A word, a sign, a message, a letter, the mandate of a freedman, declared the separation. The most tender of human connections was degraded to a transient society of profit or pleasure. According to the various conditions of life, both sexes felt the disgrace and injury. It is a favorite notion with some fervent spirits, that the world is very dogmatic morality premature and thereyoung, our experience very small, our fore preposterous; and that a large freedom of new experiments" in marriage, or no marriage, is a prerequisite to any healthy and stable condition. Thus, highest morality consists, in society in our present stage (it seems), the declining to censure individuals, and repenting of its conceit and bigotry. Let it be recognized, that in all relations between the sexes, each man and woman is justified by good intentions; and, as long as they think they are doing right, let no one censure them. (We are not quoting any one writer, but the substance of what we hear urged, in comments writers.) The truth, herein mixed with upon certain the error, makes it plausible. Most true is it, that the world is young and in a vast number of departments is inexperienced; but equally true is it, that in domestic and popular morality the world is old; and its earliest wisdom is still by far the most valuable. Peculiarly in the cardinal matter on which all human communities depend for existence,— the family relation,-we have an abundant stock of experience: yet even here we admit, and maintain, that through the lamentable obstinacy of conservatism, which has either refused all change or perhaps strained the bow till it broke, -we have far less ample experience than we ought to have. If the laws of marriage (in which we include the law and fathers) are too severe, a time of divorce and the rights of husbands comes at which submission is flatly refused. Enforcement of the law against deliberate and (let us say) fanatical offenders is impossible, it profligate offenders go unpunished; and, unhappily, profligacy has never ceased to stain lators. Thus profligates and pure-minded many of the kinsfolk of nobles and legisrebels are in effect a mutual defence, and the law becomes helpless. A great majority among us, from habit, from political conservatism, or from religious belief, are averse to any tampering (as they call it) with the laws of marriage: but the aspect of the world and the course of events give warning of a great break-down, perhaps with consequences peculiarly disastrous in our present career, if changes are not made of a grave and decisive kind, yet such as to uphold all the main principles on which the sanctity of marriage depends. Peculiarly disastrous, we say, in our present career. These words may first require to be explained. The English race has become preeminently migratory. Our enterprise, which has traversed the seas and planted colonies; our active internal trade and constant migration ever increasing, separate even the members of one family, and that in early life; much more does it totally break up the moral influence of cousins and clanship and neighborhood. This is no place to discuss worthily, why it was that the illegal marriages of the Latin race turned out so full of immorality, after having been harmless for several centuries. As partial causes, we must certainly count, 1. the demoralization from civil war; 2. the packing of the Senate by Sulla with political partisans, unscrupulous men, often sanguinary, avaricious, and profligate; 3. as a necessary concomitant, his overthrow of the censor's power, which never again became vigorous under the republic. But the enormous destruction of the aristocratic families (which did not become complete until the defeat of Brutus and Cassius), was perhaps the finally decisive blow: this broke up both the organization of clans and the family influences which had protected the sanctity of marriage with all the upper classes. Under Augustus, we know that among the remaining nobility the unwillingness to have children, when they could not inherit the freedom into which the father had been born, was too stubborn for the emperor to overcome. We ought rather to look below the nobility, to see the causes really at work. The newly risen men, those enriched by trade, by jobberies, by spoil, by office, by farming the taxes or other state possessions, came from many parts, and were seldom in any relation to old families, much less clans, of powerful social influence. When the few aristocracy prevalently disdained marriage, and their example was much rather bad than good to the commonalty, the marriages of this commonalty had no longer any support at all; resting neither on law nor on family opinion. They became really affairs between the two persons alone. If a Bruttian or an Etruscan, who had made a fortune in Rome as a builder or merchant, chose to take a wife to-day, and divorce her next month from some whim; what was there to restrain him, or make him ashamed? The law could not touch him, if he had not detained her money; her kinsfolk he could afford to despise; the new aristocracy and officials would not refuse him business on any such ground; and as for his own kinsfolk,— perhaps he did not count on ever seeing them again. In this migratory state of population the influence of collateral families is all but annihilated; and therefore it is, that the loss of legal sanction to marriage becomes more than ever felt. Such perhaps was the main immediate cause of that demoralization which has made imperial Rome detestable even to memory beyond anything which modern Christendom has yet displayed. Yet are we not ourselves, if not on the verge, yet within sight, of the same frightful abyss? It is not necessary to speak of Paris, the most fascinating city in Europe, and to ask, what moral influence can thence be diffused to sanctify the union of man and woman. It suffices to cast the eye on London, and on the English peerage; to reflect on notorious facts, which assure us, that of our upper ten thousand" too many are implicated in Parisian licentiousness, to allow any vigorous legislation against it. Forsooth, their "free love" from the very first deliberately intends to abandon the loved object, as an inconvenience and an obstacle to ambition. No effective moral restraint can come from the example and social influence of an aristocracy, which without a struggle has allowed such a system to grow up for the convenience of its younger kinsfolk. Nor can social restraint or selfish libertinism come from collateral family influence where the members of families scatter and migrate as with us. What then is to happen, if law be totally renounced, 66 even by the virtuous ? Can it be reasonably and soberly thought, that practical licentiousness will not immensely increase when even they set aside all restraint of law? It avails not to reply, that "human nature will make a few blunders, and come right at last." That topic was as true, as valuable, and as much to the purpose, in the reigns of Augustus and Nero, as now; but it did not suffice to work off the impurities of Rome. The urgent doubt is, through how many blunders, through how much misery, through how much degradation and ruin will men have to pass, before the time called "at last" comes. In Rome, it came only by foreign conquest, and by a total break-up of society. Those who thus reason about "freedom," shut their eyes to the moral influences and moral duties of the State; perhaps dogmatically deny its moral duties, and here are diametrically at variance both with the theory and with the practice alike of every known civilized State and of every English Parliament. Suppose for a moment that this theory of freedom were acted on, even without the very mischievous addition of secrecy; and that (the law remaining as it is) persons of the highest virtue declined to legalize their marriages: what must be expected to follow? It is worth while to trace the inevitable consequences. When persons of high goodness and purity live in conjugal union illegally, but faithfully, and display practically that they are a law to themselves, and need no restraint of law, moral honor is given to this state of freedom. Numbers besides enter it, with less noble principles and lower self-control. Those who took up the new position with something of the martyr spirit, krew that they were a mark for aspersion, and had some aid in the high-strung tone which conscious self-sacrifice gives to the defiant enthusiast. Those who follow, when the public odium is past, have no such secondary bracing; and the majority of men have not hitherto risen above law, but prevalently interpret duty from law. It is notorious, that the mercantile class do not feel against various swindlings, nor the political class against briberies tord other malpractices, any grave and Accordingt reprobation, until the law stigmatizes them as criminal; and if we look but a little way back and ask what our fathers thought of the slavetrade, and of lotteries, we shall see how valuable is the aid of law to sustain national sentiment. So soon as marriage is free from legal control, divorce becomes possible at the will of either party; and if once illegal unions become prevalent and thereby respectable, numberless cases will soon occur, in a migratory nation, in which no family influence can act against arbitrary divorce. With a great majority of the married, even those who have no high principles, divorce will not be desired. Fondness for the common offspring, mere habituation, the inconvenience of losing a wife's portion, the difficulty of a new courtship, the chance of being rejected in it if the divorce have seemed arbitrary, will keep most couples together. But if only one of a thousand married homes were broken up every year by a causeless and unjustifiable divorce, it would be a formi dable addition to all our moral difficulties. And in two or three generations the progress would be downhill; for the facility of divorce would lead to greater facility of experimental marriage. As old Simo in Terence represents, there can be no great harm if a young man, where it seems to be convenient, marry a lady whom he does not love: Nempe incommoditas denique huc omnis redit,— Si eveniat (quod Dî prohibeant!) discessio. That is: "You need not be afraid to take her. If you find you do not like her, you will only have to give her up." Parents never make bad marriages for their children now on such a computation; it would be a pure addition to existing evil. And the hundred divorces of this year might become a thousand five years hence, because the stigma upon a wanton use of the power would be weakened perpetually by the frequency of use. But consider more closely what the power of arbitrary divorce, unchecked even by the opinion of kinsfolk, means. It means that a man shall be able to get rid of one woman because he is more attracted by another. Now, this temptation is the more subtle and dangerous, expressly because it is not necessarily or principally addressed to the sensual part of our nature. Especially if a man marry when young, before his own character is fully developed, it is unlikely that the choice of his youth will be the partner whom he would have chosen in his manhood. He may have been unduly attracted by a beauty which does not last, or he may find his wife's mind to be incapable of moving on with his own. In the very proportion of his capacity, versatility, and late expanding powers, it may become impossible for one woman to satisfy his mental desires. At present, such a case is more easily borne, because a married man is able to have close and tender friendships with any number of women; in fact, the more numerous they are, the less danger there is of jealousy. This is now one of the marked privileges of marriage; it gives to a man not only one wife, but many sisters; and the mental attraction between the sexes is great and signal. The advantage would be largely lost if he could divorce his wife at pleasure. Close friendships with other women would no longer be honorable, or free from suspicion. A wife's jealousy would almost necessarily be incurred, and unhappiness thence arise. Thus, the power of arbitrary divorce would lessen the freedom of the married and the happiness of the married state. Out of such unhappiness divorces would arise: and again, the more frequent divorce, the more rife must jealousies become, and the greater the slavery of marriage. The evil, like a snow-ball, grows as it rolls on. Already a part of this mischief shows itself in Prussia, from the too great facility of the divorce courts. A single example will explain what things are even now possible. A married lady, mother of several children, living in entire harmony with her husband, an amiable easy gentleman, hears at church an enthusiastic young preacher, and is enraptured by his eloquence. On her return home, she tells her husband how thoroughly the preacher's words have come to her heart; and that she is quite persuaded it would conduce to her spiritual perfection to be married to him; and if she can get his consent, she hopes that her husband will not oppose a divorce. What amount of urgency sufficed to disgust the husband into agreement is not a public fact. No man can like to feel that he is keeping a wife against her will, and to be reproached with hindering her spiritual improvement. That the husband did consent, and that the court thereupon did without further inquiry sanction the divorce, is a public fact; also, that the preacher made no difficulty about accepting the enthusiastic lady, with her dowry and children. We have since heard, but from one informant only, that, after many years of union, the preacher in turn sought and gained divorce from his wife, and that she is now gone back-into the bosom of her first husband! If An unlimited power of divorce necessarily draws after it the possibility of marrying with the premeditated intention of terminating the union after a limited time. This touches the point which of all is most cardinal. The sanctity of marriage is not necessarily invaded by its not being in the result a union for life; but unless, when the union is formed, it is intended and fully expected to be a life-union, its sanctity receives a fatal wound. Not to reprobate and detest such pretended marriages, is to justify the sensualism of every libertine. Else, why may not a young student marry a girl of low birth for a few years, knowing that he will be ashamed of such a partner for a permanence; and divorce her, as soon as ambition and the hope of a better match prompts? such conduct be not reprobated, will not the girl on her part be justified in extorting the utmost of money which she can, in order to support her possible children? And if such a mode of getting a livelihood be respectable, while it is vastly easier than the industry of maidens who refuse to sell their persons, we shall not be far off from the state of the Lydians and Etruscans, among whom every good-looking young woman, without reproach, earned a dowry for her more permanent marriage by gratifying any number of successive lovers until the requisite sum was made up. No persons of high and pure mind can ever intend not to reprobate, not to detest, not to express disgust, at "temporary unions," intended to be temporary from the first; but if unlimited divorce is to be permitted, and is not to be resented, we lose all right to reprove any union which covers itself by the mere word "mar * Among the Persians, the principle of "temporary unions" has been organized into religion, and the ceremonial is performed by the Mohammedan priests. Merchants, who come from a distant city, suppose to Ispahân,-often reside there for two or three months, while waiting for goods. Finding it rather tedious, they beguile the time by marrying a wife for a number of months specified in the marriage contract. The process is straightforward and business-like. The merchant calls in the priest, and tells what he wants. The priest examines his book, and finds therein registered the names of women who are willing, for a consideration, to enter into temporary marriage; and ascertains how many of them are disengaged. What further is done, we do not know, but, we believe, he assembles them veiled, and lets the merchant pick out one: however, it ends with his drawing out a regular marriagecertificate, and pocketing his fee. An estimable Scotch military officer, who had for some years the charge of the Persian arsenal at Tabreez, under the treaty of the East India Company with the king of Persia, assured the writer of these lines that he had seen and read such marriage contracts, and could testify as eye-witness that a single day was not too short a duration of marriage to receive the priest's blessing and license! Of course those who first authorized this wonderful system, had no foresight of the monstrosity into which it would run. They must have believed that they would lessen existing evil, and act against the loathsome system of prostitution. But when once the fatal idea is admitted that a union which is intended to last some time shorter than life is marriage at all, and deserves honorable recognition; instead of curing the evil which exists, it does but degrade and pollute the ministers of the new system. It is upon this point that a stand must firmly be made, or we are swamped in the pool of dissoluteness. A sincere in *Nearly thus the proceeding is described by Morier in Hajji Baba in Ispahan. tention, a fervent desire, a full belief, that the union is to be and shall be perpetual, is essential to any true and honorable love, to any true and honorable marriage. In order to uphold marriage as a social institution, the power of divorce must not rest with the parties themselves, but with some judge, or some court (perhaps of kinsfolk) presided over by a public officer; and rightly to prescribe beforehand the grounds and con ditions of divorce, is a critical duty for the legislator. In the opening of this discussion, it was shown, that the neces sity of deciding what rights over chil dren, and what duties toward children, each parent had, in itself necessitated State inference in the matter of marriage. We now add, that care for the public morality is, if not a more urgent, yet on the whole a far more important and wide-reaching argument. It is needless to occupy these pages by replying to that extreme theory, which forbids the State to care for the public virtue. We do not yet believe that its advocates would themselves justify the legalizing of lotteries, betting-houses, and gambling-tables. But it suffices to point out the astonishing vigor, quickness, and unanimity, with which the late Lord Campbell's bill against impure pictures was carried through both Houses; although it authorized and commanded the officer to intrude forcibly into houses in search of them, in a manner quite un-English. This shows how profound, how vehement, how unanimous is the conviction in the English Parliament, that corrup tion of this sort is a formidable evil, which must be summarily put down, even by despotic measures, and that the the ory which denies to the State the right and duty of caring for the public virtue is without any support whatever in the legislature. Truly Parliament is painfully sensible of the evil of a criminal class of children cast on the world either without ostensible parents or with parents who can only corrupt them; and is fully aware that loose marriages, and frequent divorces, would rapidly multiply this dan gerous population. When the legisla ture becomes more alive to its duty, it will study more deeply the causes of the deplorable evil which exists. It does not really need peculiar sharpness of 薊 |
