Page images
PDF
EPUB

ADULTERY.

WE are not indebted for this expression to the Greeks; they called adultery moicheia, from which came the Latin machus, which we have not adopted. We owe it neither to the Syriac tongue nor to the Hebrew, a jargon of the Syriac, in which adultery is called niuph. In Latin, adulteratio signified alteration-adulteration, one thing put for another-a counterfeit, as false keys, false bargains, false signatures; thus he, who took possession of another's bed, was called adulter.

In a similar way, by antiphrasis, the name of coccyx, a cuckoo, was given to the poor husband into whose nest a stranger intruded. Pliny, the naturalist, says,' "Coccyx ova subdit in nidis alienis; ita plerique alienas uxores faciunt matres”- "the cuckoo deposits its eggs

in the nests of other birds; so the Romans not unfre quently make mothers of the wives of their friends." The comparison is not over just. Coccyx signifying a cuckoo, we have made of it cuckold. What a number of things do we owe to the Romans! But as the sense of all words is subject to change, the term applied to cuckold, which, according to good grammar, should be the gallant, is appropriated to the husband. Some of the learned assert, that it is to the Greeks we owe the emblem of the horns, and that they bestowed the appellation of goat + upon a husband, the disposition of whose wife resembled that of a female of the same species. Indeed, they used the epithet son of a goat in the same way as the modern vulgar do an appellation which is much more literal.

These vile terms are no longer made use of in good company. Even the word adultery is never pronounced. We do not now say "Madame la Duchesse lives in adultery with onsieur le Chevalier- Madame la Marquise has a criminal intimacy with Monsieur l'Abbé;" but we say, "Monsieur l'Abbé is this week the lover of Madame la Marquise." When ladies talk of their adul

*Book x, chap. 9.

+ See GOAT.

" I confess I

teries to their female friends, they say, have some inclination for him." They used formerly to confess that they felt some esteem; but since the time when a certain citizen's wife accused herself to her confessor of having esteem for a counsellor, and the confessor enquired as to the number of proofs of esteem afforded, ladies of quality have esteemed no one, and gone but little to confession.

In

The women of Lacedæmon, we are told, knew neither confession nor adultery. It is true that Menelaus had experienced the intractability of Helen; but Lycurgus set all right by making the women common, when the husbands were willing to lend them and the wives consented. Every one may dispose of his own. this case a husband had not to apprehend that he should foster in his house the offspring of a stranger; all children belonged to the republic, and not to any particular family, so that no one was injured. Adultery is an evil only in as much as it is a theft; but we do not steal that which is given to us. The Lacedæmonians, therefore, had good reason for saying that adultery was impossible among them.

It is otherwise in our modern nations, where every law is founded on the principle of meum and tuum.

It is the greatest wrong, the greatest injury, to give a poor fellow children which do not belong to him, and lay upon him a burden which he ought not to bear. Races of heroes have thus been utterly bastardised. The wives of the Astolphos and the Jocondos, through a depraved appetite, a momentary weakness, have become pregnant by some deformed dwarf-some little page, devoid alike of heart and mind: and both the bodies and souls of the offspring have borne testimony to the fact. In some countries of Europe the heirs to the greatest names are little insignificant apes, who have in their halls the portraits of their pretended fathers, six feet high, handsome, well-made, and carrying a broad-sword which their successors of the present day would scarcely be able to lift. Important offices are thus held by men who have no right to them, and

whose hearts, heads, and arms, are unequal to the burden.

In some provinces of Europe, the girls make love, without their afterwards becoming less prudent wives. In France, it is quite the contrary; the girls are shut up in convents, where, hitherto, they have received a most ridiculous education. Their mothers, in order to console them, teach them to look for liberty in marriage. Scarcely have they lived a year with their husbands when they become impatient to ascertain the force of their attractions. A young wife neither sits, nor eats, nor walks, nor goes to the play, but in company with women who have each their regular intrigue. If she has not her lover like the rest, she is said to be unpaired; and ashamed of being so, she is afraid to show herself.*

The Orientals proceed quite in another way. Girls are brought to them and warranted virgins on the word of a Circassian. They marry them, and shut them up as a measure of precaution, as we shut up our maids. No jokes there upon ladies and their husbands! no songs!-nothing resembling our grave quodlibets about horns and cuckoldom! We pity the great ladies of Turkey, Persia, and India; but they are a hundred times happier in their seraglios than our young women in their convents.+

It sometimes happens amongst us, that a dissatisfied husband, not choosing to institute a criminal process against his wife for adultery, which would subject him to the imputation of barbarity, contents himself with obtaining a separation of person and property.

And here we must insert an abstract of a memorial, drawn up by a good man who finds himself in this situation. These are his complaints; are they just or not?

This is a lively and by no means an exaggerated picture of the French domesticity under the old regime.-T.

So says Lady Mary Wortley Montague, who extends the assertion to wives. The Persian Letters of Montesquieu tell a different tale.-T.

A Memorial, written by a Magistrate, about the year 1764.

A principal magistrate of a town in France is so unfortunate as to have a wife who was debauched by a priest before her marriage, and has since brought herself to public shame; he has, however, contented himself with a private separation. This man, who is forty years old, healthy, and of a pleasing figure, has need of female society. He is too scrupulous to seek to seduce the wife of another; he even fears to contract an illicit intimacy with a maid or a widow. In this state of sorrow and perplexity, he addresses the following complaints to the Church, of which he is a member:

"My wife is criminal; and I suffer the punishment. A female is necessary to the comfort of my life—nay, even to the preservation of my virtue; yet she is refused me by the Church, which forbids me to marry an honest woman. The civil law of the present day, which is, unhappily, founded on the canon law, deprives me of the rights of humanity. The Church compels me to seek either pleasures which she reprobates, or shameful consolations which she condemns ; she forces me to be criminal.

[ocr errors]

"If I look round among the nations of the earth, I see no religion, except the Roman Catholic, which does not recognize divorce and second marriage as a natural right. What inversion of order, then, has made it a virtue in Catholics to suffer adultery, and a duty to live without wives when their wives have thus shamefully injured them? Why is a cankered tie indissoluble, notwithstanding the great maxim adopted by the Code, Quicquid ligatur dissolubile est ? A separation of person and property is granted me, but not a divorce! The law takes from me my wife, and leaves me the word sacrament! I no longer enjoy matrimony, but still I am married! What contradiction! What slavery!

"Nor is it less strange that this law of the Church is directly contrary to the words which she believes to have been pronounced by Jesus Christ: "Whosoever

shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery."*

"I have no wish here to enquire whether the pontiffs of Rome have a right to violate at pleasure the law of him whom they regard as their master; whether, when a kingdom wants an heir, it is allowable to repudiate the woman who is incapable of giving one; nor whether a turbulent wife, one attacked by lunacy, or one guilty of murder, should not be divorced as well as an adultress I confine myself to what concerns my own sad situation. God permits me to marry again; but the bishop of Rome forbids me!

"Divorce was customary among Catholics under all the Emperors, as well as in all the disjointed members of the Roman Empire. Almost all those kings of France who are called of the first race, repudiated their wives and took fresh ones. At length came one Gregory IX. an enemy to emperors and kings, who, by a decree, made the bonds of marriage indissoluble; and his decretal became the law of Europe. Hence, when a king wished to repudiate an adulterous wife, according to the law of Jesus Christ, he could not do so without first seeking some ridiculous pretext. Saint Louis was obliged, in order to effect his unfortunate divorce from Eleonora of Guienne, to allege a relationship which did not exist; and Henry IV., to repudiate Margaret of Valois, brought forward a still more unfounded pretence-a want of consent. Thus a lawful divorce was to be obtained only by falsehood. "What! may a sovereign abdicate his crown, and shall he not, without the Pope's permission, abdicate his faithless wife? And is it possible that men, enlightened in other things, have so long submitted to this absurd and abject slavery!

"Let our priests and our monks abstain from women, if it must be so; they have my consent. It is detri mental to the progress of population, and a misfortune for them; but they deserve that misfortune which they have contrived for themselves. They are the victims

* Matthew, chap. xix,

« EelmineJätka »