Peter Daunerabout's Notions on Marriage. my "And Adam said, this is bone of my bones, and flesh of flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh."* Whatever may have been the cause, we do not find in the early history of nations any very striking adherence to a custom so solemnly enjoined, and so necessary as a political regulation for the well-being of society. The Jews to whom these commands were peculiarly entrusted, admitted polygamy, and appear to have entertained but a very loose opinion of connubial fidelity. Jacob had two wives, and his handmaid was his concubine; and in aftertimes David and his son became remarkable for their partiality to the fair, and the dissoluteness of their habits. Amongst the American Indians polygamy is common, and generally leads among wandering tribes to lamentable domestic feuds. The Spanish Missionaries who first laboured to introduce Christianity among them, have preserved records of the sufferings of these unfortunate females, which for eloquence and pathos may rival any thing which modern oratory has produced. The Greeks and Romans were extremely loose in their ideas of matrimonial chastity, and possessed none of that delicacy of feeling which the purity of modern manners has produced. Socrates and Pericles were much in the company of the Athenian courtezans, who enjoyed many advantages denied to women of character, by being allowed to mix with the world, and to cultivate the sciences which they did with success. Married females were not allowed to mix with society at Athens, whilst their husbands with the libertinism of men of the world paid court to those whose habits excluded them from the pale of the virtuous, and who are alledged to have lived with much splendour. Cicero and even Cato are known to have possessed very little delicacy on the subject of matrimony; and ladies of accommodating manners at Rome, (probably however by way of holding them up to public detestation) wore a toga indicative of their occupation. Hence the expression of the poet, "Bonam deperdere famam Genesis ii. 23, 24. Emile, tom. ii: 304. Peter Daunerabout's Notions on Marriage. Rem patris oblimare, malum est ubicunque. Quid inter There can be nothing more revolting than the picture of Roman morals given by Juvenal in his second satire, where, after all due allowance for the severity of a critic, practices are glanced at which are degrading to human nature. There ap pears indeed to have been no medium in the moral feeling of the Greeks and Romans. They were either heroically virtu ous or absolutely depraved, and I am disposed to look on these two extremes as the natural result of their warlike and tumultuary habits. They had literally no time for the cultivation of the lesser virtues, and consequently offer to the contemplation of mankind either such examples of delicate feeling, as the history of Lucretia, who killed herself in consequence of invol untary pollution; or that of Vistilla, a lady of Prætorian family, who solicited in the court of the Ædiles a licence to exercise her calling as a prostitute. The men, as long as they remained gallant soldiers, uncorrupted politicians, and staunch republicans, inspired into the public morals a spirit of purity, which had a reciprocal influence on the fair sex: but when the luxuries of Asia and the knowledge of universal conquest had made them insignificant warriors, and bad citizens, the chaste feeling of the fair suffered a severe shock, and immorality with its attendant evils became the characteristic of Roman matrons.† I cannot help observing of the sages of antiquity, that however extraordinary they may appear as men of enlarged minds, they are generally speaking unamiable when tried by the test of morality. If modern philosophy has done nothing else, it has brought us back to a state of nature. It has taught us to des pise those sophisticated sentiments, which under the disguise of Stoical forbearance, destroyed the finest feelings of the human soul, and rendered man, the image of his Maker, the mere tool of ambition, the absolute statue of party. Wherever Society is so constituted that men live in a state of separation from women, they are vindictive, cruel and capricious; and utterly devoid of all those passions and relations Hor. Sat. II. Lib. i. 61. + When Severus mounted the throne, he found on the roll of causes to be tried, no less than 3000 prosecutions for adultery! He had formed a scheme of reformation, but from that moment be abandoned it as imposible. Alexander's History of Women, vol. i. $83. Peter Daunerabout's Notions on Marriage. which social intercourse gives birth to, become a burden to the earth which bears them, and a disgrace to their race by acts of violence and tyranny. But to return to my subject. Marriage has been celebrated in various manners by the people of different countries. The Jews and Babylonians gave feasts on these occasions; and the ancient Scandinavians indulged so liberally that their marriage-meetings exhibited a scene of drunkenness and revelry, such we may presume as a Highland funeral sometimes now presents, where remembrance of the dead, and veneration for his virtues are alike forgotten in powerful potation. When Cæsar visited Britain, the Aborigines had no distinct idea of a compact betwixt two individuals, but lived in a state of promiscuous intercourse. The account of this very singular fact is given below in the historians words, and so far as my knowledge goes, is unique in the history of nations.* The Germans who were as remarkable for their moral virtues as their civil governmant, celebrated their marriages with a simplicity and solemnity worthy of the most cultivated age. They were strict monogamists, and only admitted a plurality of wives when more than one was conceived necessary to add splendour to the ducal state. Singulis uxoribus contenti sunt, exceptis admodum paucis, qui non libidine, sed ob nobilitatem plurimis nuptiis ambiuntur."+ The ceremony was performed in the presence of parents and relations, when an interchange of presents took place. "Not, says the historian, "such as would inflate female vanity, or decorate a female person, but oxen, bridled horses, a shield, a spear, or a sword.‡ It would be foreign to my purpose to review in detail the various changes which took place in this ceremony amongst European nations. When their intercourse with the world was extended, and their ancient habits in some measure forgotten, they naturally became assimilated to the manners of those nations, which they had conquered, or with whom the spirit of military or mercantile enterprise produced communication; and in the same manner, as the usages of the Germans when trans * Uxores habent deni duodenique inter se communes, et maxime fratres cum fratribus, et parentes cum liberes; sed si qui sunt ex his nati, corum habentur liberi, a qui bus primum virgines quæque ductæ sint. De Bell. Gall. Lib. v. Tacitus de Mor. German. + Ibid. Peter Daunerabout's Notions on Marriage. ported to Italian or Gaulish soil gave rise to the ceremonies of Feudality, so did the remnant of their primitive customs give birth to those regulations which, in aftertimes, assigned to women their proper station, and their due importance in society. It is not, perhaps, generally known, that after various arrangements females were admitted to the privileges of fiefs, and performed its duties by delegation. They enjoyed all the honours and prerogatives of feudality, and continued long to sit as Peers in all the great councils of the states of Europe. The following translation from a French record preserved by that indefat igable author Gilbert Stuart, will be sufficient proof of this very extraordinary and interesting fact. "Matilda, Countess of Artois, had a seat and deliberative voice, like the other Peers of France, in the criminal prosecution against Robert, Count of Flanders." "Jane, daughter of Raymond, Count of Toulouse, took the oath of allegiance, and did homage to the king for that Peerdom." "Jane, daughter of Baldouix, took the oath of fidelity for the Peerdom of Flanders; Margaret her sister, inherited it, and assisted as a Peer at the celebrated judgment of the Peers of France given by the Count of Clermont in Beauvoisis.”* In concluding this very long discussion on the history of women, I cannot pass unnoticed a practice which has given rise to much debate in the philosophical world-I mean the purchase of wives. Some historians are opinion that they were actually bought with a piece of money, like any other moveable; whilst others imagine that the Dos or dower, which was the name given to the purchase money, was a mere settlement in case of widowhood, or other domestic calamity, and by no means implied the servitude which a purchase would give a title to. It is to be feared, however, that the history of mankind does not warrant this pleasing conclusion, and when we recollect that this disgraceful motive still stigmatizes the English code, I can see no very just reason for doubting that it was at one time prevalent among all nations. Certain it is that Abraham bought Rebekah for his son Israel,† and Jacob having nothing of sufficient value to give, served his father in law, Laban, fourteen View of society in Europe-p. 210. + Gen. xxiv. 53. Peter Dnunerabout's Notions on Marriage. years. The sale of a wife in England is not a very uncommon occurrence, though it generally happens amongst the lower orders. Yet the practice is strictly legal. The following very extraordinary transfer is altogether unparalleled. I am indebted to the industry of the celebrated Stuart for the example: "John Camois", says Cambden, "son of Lord Ralph Camois (a precedent not to be paralleled in that or our own age), out of his own free will (I speak from the parliament rolls themselves, Parl. 30-Ed. 1.) Gave and demised his own wife, Margaret, daughter and heir of John de Gaidesden, to Sir William Paniel, Knight; and to the same (William) voluntarily gave, granted, released, and quitclaimed, all the goods and chattels which she had, or otherwise hereafter might have, and also whatever was in his hands of the aforesaid Margaret's goods and chattels, with their appurtenances. So as neither himself, nor any other in his name, might, nor for ever after ought to claim or challenge any interest in the aforesaid Margaret, from henceforth, or in the goods or chattels of the said Margaret: which is what the ancients said in one word, ut omnia sua secum haberet, that they should take away with her all that was her's. By occasion of which grant, when she demanded her dower in the manor of Torpull, an estate of John Camois, her first husband, there commenced a memorable suit. But she was last in it, and sentence passed, that she ought to have no dower from thence.”* The opinions of an individual so little known as myself, can have no great influence on the sentiments which are entertained by the old and young on the subject of matrimony. It is the grand cement of civilized society, and the most distinctive mark betwixt man and the brutes which perish. It is that state in which a man may be happy, but in which it is perfectly possible for him to be miserable, and it is evidently a vuglar error to attribute to this mode of life perfect bliss, or necessary wretchedMuch depends on choice, much on circumstances, much on the habits of the husband. If a man is correct in his general deportment, there is a chance that even female petulance may yield to gentle admonition, and rational attention: but if he forgets the respect which is due to himself, and that which he owes to his wife, he must not expect unmixed happiness, or ness. * View of Society, p: 200. |