[Footnote 1:  Translator’s Note.—­The Mormons have recently given up polygamy, and received the American franchise in its stead.]

Moreover, the bestowal of unnatural rights upon women has imposed upon them unnatural duties, and, nevertheless, a breach of these duties makes them unhappy.  Let me explain.  A man may often think that his social or financial position will suffer if he marries, unless he makes some brilliant alliance.  His desire will then be to win a woman of his own choice under conditions other than those of marriage, such as will secure her position and that of the children.  However fair, reasonable, fit and proper these conditions may be, and the woman consents by foregoing that undue amount of privilege which marriage alone can bestow, she to some extent loses her honor, because marriage is the basis of civic society; and she will lead an unhappy life, since human nature is so constituted that we pay an attention to the opinion of other people which is out of all proportion to its value.  On the other hand, if she does not consent, she runs the risk either of having to be given in marriage to a man whom she does not like, or of being landed high and dry as an old maid; for the period during which she has a chance of being settled for life is very short.  And in view of this aspect of the institution of monogamy, Thomasius’ profoundly learned treatise, de Concubinatu, is well worth reading; for it shows that, amongst all nations and in all ages, down to the Lutheran Reformation, concubinage was permitted; nay, that it was an institution which was to a certain extent actually recognized by law, and attended with no dishonor.  It was only the Lutheran Reformation that degraded it from this position.  It was seen to be a further justification for the marriage of the clergy; and then, after that, the Catholic Church did not dare to remain behind-hand in the matter.

There is no use arguing about polygamy; it must be taken as de facto existing everywhere, and the only question is as to how it shall be regulated.  Where are there, then, any real monogamists?  We all live, at any rate, for a time, and most of us, always, in polygamy.  And so, since every man needs many women, there is nothing fairer than to allow him, nay, to make it incumbent upon him, to provide for many women.  This will reduce woman to her true and natural position as a subordinate being; and the lady—­that monster of European civilization and Teutonico-Christian stupidity—­will disappear from the world, leaving only women, but no more unhappy women, of whom Europe is now full.

In India, no woman is ever independent, but in accordance with the law of Mamu,[1] she stands under the control of her father, her husband, her brother or her son.  It is, to be sure, a revolting thing that a widow should immolate herself upon her husband’s funeral pyre; but it is also revolting that she should spend her husband’s money with her paramours—­the money for which he toiled his whole life long, in the consoling belief that he was providing for his children.  Happy are those who have kept the middle course—­medium tenuere beati.