pride, will dread the spuriousness of his offspring,
and so storm most lustily on both male and female
sinner, till revenge be fully gratified. The difference
of opinion about this matter, in different nations
and ages, is immense and embarrassing. Some people,
we know, had their wives in common, as related of
our own ancestors by Caesar, and of the Massagetae
by Herodotus. The Greeks and Romans thought it
more convenient to lend them out occasionally to a
friend or acquaintance, in which they seem to have
imitated the Spartans. In certain countries, the
offer of a wife is a common civility to strangers,
who cannot be expected to carry their own about with
them constantly. The Indians of North Carolina,
we are told by Lawson, never punish a woman for adultery,
because, say they, she is a weakly creature, and easily
drawn away by the man’s persuasion. That
people, however, take good care to recover damages
from the man, in which one might think the inhabitants
of Britain now-a-days would conceive they acted wisely,
and might only envy them the power they allow to the
husband of assessing the offender, and levying the
fine; for, says Lawson, “he that strives to
evade such satisfaction as the husband demands lives
daily in danger of his life; yet, when discharged,
all animosity is laid aside, and the cuckold is very
well pleased with his bargain, whilst the rival is
laughed at by the whole nation, for carrying on his
intrigue with no better conduct, than to be discovered,
and pay so dear for his pleasure.” In this,
however, we differ; our cuckolds are laughed
at as fools, which is monstrously absurd, whilst the
transgressor is denominated a fine fellow, no
less monstrously unjust. How far the laws of
England may be accessary to such glaring perversity
of sentiment, it is difficult to say; but if one were
disposed to fear with Mr Christian, (see his notes
on Blackstone, lib. 1, ch. 16.) “that there
is little reason to pay a compliment to them for their
respect and favour to the female sex,” he might
not hesitate to suspect some radical vice in their
constitution, which could so far debase female honour
as to leave it problematical, whether or not the violaters
of it, in any sense or degree, were capable of any
thing but infamy. ’Twere too puritanical,
perhaps, to join Cowper in his ironical commendation;—
“But
now, yes, now,
We are become so candid and so fair,
So liberal in construction, and
so rich
In Christian charity (good-natured
age!)
That they are safe, sinners of either
sex,
Transgress what laws they may.”
But surely it is desirable, that a nation professing supreme regard to a divine revelation, should shew something of its abhorrence, at a crime which strikes at the root of all social comfort and happiness.—E.]