CHAPTER VIII.

AFTER MARRIAGE.

He who fails in one thing fails in all-Magnitude and insignificance of the act do not change this rule-All sin alike, except as to example-Contract of marriage-No law of GOD or man can keep it inviolate if there is dislike-Its security depends on the homogeneal character of the sexes -Pride, and fear of public opinion sometimes keep them together-If woman superior to man, his self-pride is affected--Not so vice versâ— Don't know each other till after married-They should mutually forbear -Respect-And not contradict-Great change-Hard work-Plain domestic life, care, &c.-Should be no exercise of authority, but mutual concession--If disaffinities are irreconcilable, should part-For either to hold the other by force is brutal-No advantage should be allowed by either-Infidelity in love.

HE who faileth in one commandment, it is said, is as guilty as he who violates the whole law.

However this rule may not comport with man's tariff of retributions, it is clear that the moral or the pecuniary insignificance or magnitude of contracts does not increase or diminish the strength of the reason for or against their violations.

Strong inducements are offered, and severe punishments imposed for the inviolability of important duties, such as capital punishment for certain crimes, and the incorporation of the act of marriage with the ordinances of the church.

But it is difficult to define how one breach of faith is more inexcusable than another, except by its example and consequences.

A man in his own heart, at the bar of his own conscience, if he has one, can find no better excuse for the wanton and deliberate failure to pay a debt of one dollar than one thousand dollars-to forge a check for ten dollars than ten thousand dollars to desert his master before his apprenticeship is up, or his child while helpless, than to break the contract and condition for allegiance with which he took life, or to repudiate marriage.

So far as the heart of the delinquent is concerned, all sin is the same; married persons are on the same footing with their nuptial contract as they are with any other contract, and in no respect are they differently placed.

There is no religious sanction, no terror from public opinion or legal punishment that has any real secret influence; if they are dissatisfied, they may be influenced by pride, cupidity, or cowardice; their vanity, self-interest, and fear may induce them to bend their necks; but if, in their hearts, there is secret dislike, they will detest the yoke.

Perhaps there are instances in which concurring wants and mutual apathies allow neutrality of sentiment between them. In all such cases, if temper is controlled and true interest is consulted, harmony must follow.

This must be seldom; for rational beings are governed, in some measure, by sentiment, not wholly by instinct; so that it is a question of will, not duty-of fact, not right.

They do, or they do not love; they do, or they do not hate each other; or one loves, and the other hates.

Mere indifference is so rare as to almost make it an exception to the rule, that in marriage there is love or hatred; that is, that there is no medium between these two extremes; the tie is too close, the conjunctions of mental and physical affinities too exact and distinct to rest in harmony without concurrent sensibilities, and against discordant preferences, however unintelligible or inexplicable this fact may be.

There is, therefore, no sense of duty, or dread of punishment, that can create love or mutual assimilation; these are impulses of the heart, governed exclusively by the natural taste or the choice; and in this we are not answerable; for they are involuntary, however capricious they may appear to others.

So that, if it was not for the mysterious homogeneal character of the sexes, there would be but limited marital faith; and to this axiom, in physical and mental physiology, must be assigned the marvelous simulations of married life; for religion, law, and duty give them no secret help, when there is a settled dislike or natural aversion from any cause.

Pride, and the fear of public opinion, keep thousands together. The repugnance, whether mutual, or with one, is soon discovered; they cannot disguise aversion: if it is with both, self-interest avoids and prevents violence from either; if it is by the wife, and the husband loves her, his agony is unuttera

ble; and it is almost a certain prefix to despair. If it be he, and she loves him, her soul withers speedily away; but if she loves him not, and is artful, he will writhe under the most unsparing and remorseless persecution.

It requires a large stock of courage to induce separation; the parties will submit to severe discomforts rather than brook the horrors of an open rupture.

It is a perplexing question, which suffers most; whether they discover that their marriage has been had in treachery, for lust or gain, or their nuptial intimacy discloses latent and concealed delinquencies, the result to both is terrible. Aversion must follow; delicacy may revolt at literal explanations; coolness is rebuked and charged with fraud or infidelity, followed up by secret persecutions and threats of prosecutions by the law."

Few men have sufficient courage to brave the sneers of an unjust and ungenerous world, who take much delight to themselves in a gossip gratis for injured wives and faithless husbands.

To the wife the calamity is not so severe; she is spared the severities of popular odium, which always falls upon the husband's head, even though she is wholly in the wrong.

When, from any cause, these lamentable disasters occur, the parties owe to each other a solemn duty for quiet and absolute divorce.

The refusal by either of this obvious act of natural justice is malignant treachery.

By this means they may have a chance for future usefulness; time and new relations in life, as if one had died, wear away past recollections; but, without release, their days must pass in secret sorrow and public disgrace.

If there is reciprocal confidence with man and wife in each other's constancy, still there may not be a mutual reliance in their respective discretion and judgment as to other matters, although there is mutual love.

The old and the young, the ignorant and the wise, the strong and the weak intellect, may hold most warm, ardent, and mutual attachments; but these mental differences necessarily place one above the other.

If the superiority is with the woman, the inherent desire with man for "rule" is nettled, even if the sound good sense of the wife most carefully eschews every possible occasion of excite

ment.

There is no power can overcome this natural element of his nature; his self-pride is mortified, and he unconsciously and involuntarily becomes unhappy; however warmed and caressed by her kindness and love, and however high the power she holds over his heart, it will not triumph against this natural instinct of his nature.

She had at the beginning greater influence with him than the king of all art, who did not dare to tempt man; while she did eat the fruit; and although man was then perfect, she beguiled him to violate the only limitation put upon his will.

A woman, therefore, always suffers in this respect, under the most favorable circumstances, by a marriage with a man beneath her; besides the risk of his fret, from envy, bad breeding, or vulgar origin, being turned to rude and brutal hate.

If the superiority is with the husband, and there is warm reciprocal love, her willing submission to his "rule over her" creates the highest imaginable complacency with her.

Sweet and holy woman sometimes mars this brilliant picture; when she is selfish, sinister, and proud, she, too, ensnares for speculation, not love, not faith, but revolt.

Before marriage the parties have slender opportunities to discover each other's faults.

Courtship is often commenced without much previous acquaintance; delicacy, it is supposed, forbids familiar personal inquiries and explanations, and both maintain the best appearances; inquiries usual upon subjects of business are held as violations of good taste; the parties, without much information or suitable reflection, mutually rely upon each other's truth, hope for the best, and for better and for worse precipitate themselves into marriage.

Afterwards the sober judgment is wakened up.

Now comes the test of affection: if the attachment is sincere and mutual, discrepancies of age, health, nation, morals, or complexion will not break the charm.

If one only has this unction, by soft forbearance and tenderness, the other must yield, unless there is some great repugnance.

If there be no love with either, and their hearts are not astray, the concurring reciprocalities of their common wants. and impulses in almost every instance will make them mutually useful, and perhaps contented. Great allowances should

be cheerfully conceded by both.

There should now be an absolute and mutual surrender to the dictates of duty, and a resolute renunciation by both of all sinister, selfish, or sordid thoughts.

When courtship begins, there is an implied understanding that the parties will be governed in their intercourse by the laws of good breeding; and if either should detect in the other a moral or physical defect too delicate too name, this would authorize either party to withdraw without explanation; the same rule should apply after marriage.

A disagreeable, repugnant, or revolting explanation should. not be asked for before marriage, or looked for or accepted after marriage.

There is an immense range of thoughts and impulses between them, which cannot properly and without serious embarrassments be made the subject of free and familiar conversation; in all which implicit dependence for sincerity (however inexplicable the unexplained thing may be) must be mutually accorded.

If this were not so, the chaste and beautiful relation of love would be degraded by gross impurities.

Nothing would be left for the bright conceptions of virtuous and honorable thought.

These chaste and harmless secrets belong perhaps exclusively to the timid lover.

Nor should either insist upon urging themselves or their tender attachments on the other, when an aversion is discovered before or after marriage.

If the conduct of the retiring party is respectful, the inference is that there is some good cause; and the other is bound upon every principle of reciprocity so to presume.

In the common intercourse of life, no one with true spirit will obtrude himself upon a mere friend against his will; and to expect a reason for a refusal to a proposed intimacy is impertinent and rude.

Acquaintance should not be desired, except for some good qualities, which we thus concede, and are therefore bound to believe there is good reason for the waiver, and to respect the motives of the person declining our acquaintance.

There may be some objection to us on account of character, behavior, or person, which we do not see, and may be repugnant to others; and to tell us of which would be in bad taste.