Page images
PDF
EPUB

in literal and express terms; or tion of marriage could not exist; families would become domestic brothels; and the world would hasten to antediluvian corruption. If we use strong language, our author's is still stronger; and what we are endeavouring to do is to give the substance of his argument.

that it were incontestibly made out by inference from the chapter and verse referred to, it is denied to be decisive. For the Levitical code as a system, has ceased to be of force. It is obligatory on us, our author avers, so far only as it agrees with our circumstances. In other words, if the reason of a particular Mosaic precept exists at the present day, the precept itself is binding; otherwise, it is among the things that have passed away. And this is to be determined by common sense; which is, in effect, to settle nothing by the authority of the Mosaic code, but to make that code itself subject to the decisions of human judgment.

Our author, then, professes not to regard at all the Mosaic law of incest, be its decisions what they may, touching the Jews; but he looks "at the reason of that code, and of every law of incest that answers the design of its institution.' Within certain degrees of affinity marriage is not permitted. Why? Because of the necessary intimacy of such relations, and the consequent danger to their morals, without the prohibition. If the male and female members of a family, dwelling together in the most familiar manner, were to regard each other in the light of future wedlock, improprieties would be the consequence; and the only way to guard against the evil is to make them sacred to each other. The very thought of crime must be shut out from their bosoms by making marriage itself, between them, an utter abomination. This then is the reason of the law of incest. It is designed to protect the purity of families; and it thus becomes the great safeguard of the institution of marriage, and the great preserver of general chastity. "It is an expedient for guarding against a species of criminality which would destroy society in its fountains." Without this expedient, the institu

Viewed in this light, the whole ground of the prohibition is resolved simply into a matter of general expediency: and the prohibition itself may be stated, as our author states it, in another form, thus ; "You shall not marry those with whom you are destined to hold con stant, tender, and familiar intercourse," whether they are related to you by blood or not. The objection arises solely from the degree of intimacy which, from the structure of human society, will necessarily subsist between the persons prohibited. Consanguinity is not the ground of the prohibition, and has nothing to do with the matter, except as it is the occasion of bringing the persons forbidden to marry, into that dangerous freedom of intercourse which renders the prohibition necessary. "It is not," says the author, "the consanguinity, but its effects,-the opportunities and temptations which flow from it, that the legislator has exclusively in his eye. Nothing therefore is more absurd than that minute comparison of degrees of proximity, that careful balancing and discrimination between the shades of blood relationship, by which many set about determining questions of this sort, as if there was a charm in blood, or other bodily secretions. I grant, consanguinity is a most useful guide to us, in framing our prohibitions; for this plain reason, that persons thus connected may be fairly presumed to live in a state of familiarity. It is a sign of the presence of those evils which we wish to guard against, and ought to be consulted. But it is not the evil itself, and therefore if the form and habits of society

give full reason to believe that the danger exists without the usual sign, the law, in all such cases, should be vigorously applied." Consequently, if the form of society were supposed to be changed, the law must undergo a corresponding modification. If for example, famies were composed of persons unrelated by blood, living together from childhood, by a mutual arrangement of parents; or if they were so many domestic corporations, formed by a public distribution of the people according to a principle which should bring strangers together, and separate near relations, then the law of incest would apply to the families thus artificially formed, while the separated children of the same parents might without impropriety, be united in wedlock. This is the principle of the author's reasoning; and "it is curious to observe," he remarks, "how the codes of different nations recognise this principle almost instinctively;"--of which he gives a number of examples. One is sufficient for the purpose of illustration.

Among the eastern nations the marriage of a sister by the mother's side was regarded as incestuous, while such a connexion with a sister by the father's side was not so regarded. This latter relation Sarah sustained to Abraham:-she was the daughter of his father, but not the daughter of his mother. The explanation given is the following. The women among those nations (as is still the case where polygamy prevails) had their separate apartments, each living with her own children. Between the son and daughter of the same mother, therefore, there was the intimacy of family intercourse, and hence they might not marry. If they were but half-brother and sister, that is, if either was the child of the former husband, it did not alter the case, since it did not remove them from the same domestic circle. But in

the case of a half-sister by the father's side, circumstances were different. She lived in the retirement of a separate apartment, or a separate tent; and in respect to freedom of intercourse, she was no more to her half-brother by another woman than a cousin, or a common acquaintance. Therefore they might marry.

Apply now the principle to the particular case under consideration.

A man may not marry his wife's sister. Why? Because, says one, I find such a connexion forbidden in the Bible, between those who sustain to each other a precisely similar relation, and hence I infer its unlawfulness in the present case.

But this, , says "Domesticus," is not the proper answer; for sameness of relation does not, fundamentally, concern the case. It is not a question of blood, but of intercourse.

We are to look, then, at the degree of intimacy which, as society is constituted, is likely to subsist between the husband and sister-in-law. This is shown to be unrestrained. When a man enters into the marriage connexion he becomes identified with the family of his wife. He visits the home of her sisters with all the freedom of one belonging to the their own domestic circle. His house is equally familiar to them. They enter it at all times without restraint or cere. mony, and for months and weeks together are its most familiar guests. But this is not all. In thousands of instances they actually become members of his family, Bereavement or adversity has de prived them of a parental home, and they have come to him for protection. They spend their days in quietness beneath his roof. They become identified with the wife herself in all the offices and interests of the domestic circle. They are her assistants in health, her at tendants in sickness, the nursingmothers of her children. And on all this scene of affection and con

fidence the shadows of suspicion never fall. But why is it thus ?

What is it in the first place, can persuade the wife to receive into the family, a stranger to her husband, of whose unconquerable virtue to say the least she has no proof, induces her to put this stranger at once on a footing of perfect familiarity, repose in her unlimited confidence, leave the house to her sole direction for weeks and months, while she is lying on her sick bed, confident that all is going well on each side of her, the thought never crossing her imagination, that her husband (the man perhaps whom she suspects of weekly visiting a brothel) may seize the opportunity for executing an infamous design? What is it in the next place, enables the sister-in-law to throw herself with confidence in this new circle, to become domesticated in it, -to feel pure and happy and affection ate,-to love all, and to love more and more, till her very soul is melted into the souls of those around her?-What lastly, enables the husband, no matter how young and fair the object that is continually flitting before him, employ; ed in offices of kindness,-to regard her with love indeed, but with the love of Plato's disembodied spirits,-as pure, as fervent, and as seraphic? Talk not to me of a natural sense of propriety. It is idle. The true Guardian Genius is the Law of Incest, which unknown to the parties themselves, is watching and casting its ample shield about them, in their sleeping and wakingin their eating and drinking,-in their public walks, and in the darkest retreats of the family mansion. Abolish this law; expel this household god: Let it be publickly and distinctly understood that the body of a sister-inlaw, is no more than any other female body, and to do this, you need only let the parties understand that after the death of the present wife they may marry; what will follow?-pp. 32-33.

We have now endeavoured to exhibit, correctly we hope, though very briefly, our author's theory of the law of incest, and its application to the case under consideration. In running hastily over his pamphlet, we have noted down queries and suggestions miscellaneously, as they occurred to us.

Hav

ing no time to examine or digest them we shall let them stand as they are; since queries and suggestions may be safely made in haste, while theories and opinions demand maturity of reflection.

In the first place then, our queries have respect to the ground taken by the author in reference to the Bible. If the Bible be clos

ed on the subject, argument, we apprehend, will be fruitless. The deductions of philosophy will not bind the consciences of men, nor control their practice. Every one will be his own judge in the case. Let us therefore look at the passage in Scripture which is denied to contain the alleged prohibition. In the xviii. chapter of Leviticus we find it forbidden a man to marry his grand-daughter, his aunt, his daughter-in-law, &c. But nothing is said concerning a woman's marrying her grand-son, her uncle, or her son-inlaw. Were connexions of this latter class, then, lawful, according to the Jewish code? Our author an

swers, yes. At least, his principle leads to this conclusion. Indeed he says expressly (p. 23,) that a niece might marry her uncle, while such a connexion between a nephew and aunt was positively forbidden. And the philosophical reason which he gives, for this apparent inconsistency, is, that according to Jewish manners, there was not the same degree of intimacy to be guarded against in the one case as in the other.

But others are not prepared to go along with him in his exegetical code. conclusions respecting the Jewish

For however correct his theory may be, abstractly considered, it does not properly enter into a critical examination of the code in question; because, though the theory may be just, in a philosophical view of the subject, it does not af fect the reason which is actually assigned for the prohibitions specified in the Levitical law. The reason there assigned is nearness

of kindred. There might be another reason back of this, but the lawgiver did not see fit to make it the guide in practice. If then, to take the case in debate, a certain degree of affinity existed between a man and his brother's widow, and this affinity-not the degree of intimacy which might pertain to such arelationship-was made the ground of the prohibition respecting them, the same affinity subsisting between the man and his wife's sister, created the same reason for extending the prohibition to them. So in regard to each of the other instances mentioned. A specific case was given and the reason assigned; its application to a parallel case was obvious, and it was inexpedient to encumber the code by needless repetitions. This we take to be a legitimate view of the subject. But admitting that the prohibition under consideration is fairly shown to be contained in the Jewish code, it is denied to be decisive, inasmuch as that code has become antiquated. The shortest answer we can frame to this objection, in our short time and space, is, that that code does at least contain such a record of the will of God on the subject as makes it applicable to all mankind. He enforces it on the Jews, by telling them that he abhorred the nations which practised what was here forbidden. And however the prohibition of such marriages may be averred to have been ceremonial in respect to the Jews, it cannot be so considered in its application to the gentiles.

Further, if relationship be in any sense the ground of the prohibitory law, the law is equally extensive as the ties of kindred. But from this our author dissents. He supposes, as we understand him, that there is no natural aversion in men to the kind of connexions forbidden. "The only horror felt is generated by the law." But this conclusion we think demands a query. As to the general reason which existed

in the divine mind for instituting this class of prohibitions, the author's theory may, and probably does, involve the right one. But as to the motive which acts, and was designed to act, immediately upon the minds of men, it may be questioned whether the theory does not exclude it. The law under consideration was designed to perform a most important and difficult office. It must be of sufficient power to annihilate, within certain limits, one of the strongest propensities of human nature, and must exercise its control, unceasingly, universally, and over every description of moral character. Now is it probable that the Father of the human family would leave so important an interest to the efficiency of human reason? or even to the unaided authority of his own positive injunc tions ? Reason alone would teach a parent the duty of educating his offspring; but in how great a proportion of instances would reason secure obedience, even in view of a divine precept? It was necessary, therefore, to place within him a more efficient motive, in those instinctive feelings which bind him to his kindred. For it cannot be denied, we think, that what is termed natural affection is a part of our original nature. Is it not then a very probable hypothesis, that with those mysterious ties of kindred which exist in every human bosom, the author of our nature has closely associated certain other instinctive feelings in reference to the subject we have been considering. And how do facts corroborate this hypothesis. How rare is transgression of the kind alluded to. It is a monstrous anomaly in crime-abhorred even by the lowest, as a wrong done to nature! But it will be asked how this principle applies to brothers and sisters in law? There are no such ties of nature between them. The relationship is merely artificial. Our answer is, the instinctive feeling operates

through the relative that is connect. ed by birth, with one or the other of the parties. This feeling, thus operating, seems to have been regarded by the Jewish lawgiver; and the fact accounts perhaps for the peculiarity of his language. We regard this hypothesis as of great practical importance. For if men can once bring themselves to view the prohibited connexions as only the transgression of a general law of expediency, the crime will in a great measure lose it horribleness.

But we cannot enlarge. Other suggestions we had in mind, but having beforehand limited ourselves to a given space, we are compelled to stop. We are already trenching on matter in type. Respecting the treatise of Domesticus we will say in a word, that it is novel, ingenious, and able; and that whoever reads it will be strengthened in the opinion that the marriage of a wife's sister is not lawful. We regret that the language of the pamphlet had not been more select and delicate.

LITERARY AND PHILOSOPHICAL INTELLIGENCE.

PROESSOR UPHAM, of Bowdoin Col lege, translator of Jahn's Archaeology, has in press a new work on Intellectual Philosophy, intended as a text book for colleges and academies.

Twenty-five thousand dollars have been obtained by subscription for the of erecting a new college edipurpose fice, and endowing a Professorship at Williams College. The edifice is to include a chapel, and rooms for recitation, the library, cabinet, &c. Professor Porter, of the University of Vermont, is elected to the Professorship.

The Rev. James Marsh, late Professor at Hampden Sidney, has been inaugurated as President of Vermont University.

The Rev. Francis Wayland, Professsor at Union College, has been elected to the Presidency of Brown University, and is expected to enter on the duties of that office in the Spring.

Mr. Madison, successor to Mr. Jefferson as Rector of the University of Virginia, in his Annual Report states,

that since the Report last made, the acquisition of a Professor of Law has completed the number required for the existing arrangement, and the matriculated students have increased to 177; the state of the schools being,-In the school of Ancient Languages,90; Mathematics, 98; Natural Philosophy, 43; Natural History, 45; Anatomy and Medicine, 16; Moral Philosophy, 28: Law, (opened in July) 26; The next session will commence Feb. 1st, and terminate July 4th. All future sessions will commence Aug. 20th, and terminate July 4th; with one recess from the 15th to the 31st of December.

Kenyon College, Ohio, founded by Bishop Chase, has commenced its course of literary and theological instruction with thirty students.

Washington Irving is said to have discovered some important documents after some discouragement, he is now relative to his life of Columbus, which prosecuting with fresh diligence. He is attached to the family of Mr. Everett, American minister at Madrid.

LIST OF NEW PUBLICATIONS.

RELIGIOUS.

A Sermon, delivered before the Vermont Colonization Society, at Montpelier, October 18, 1826. By John

Hough, Professor of Languages in
Middlebury College. Published by
request of the Society. Montpelier.
A Sermon, preached before the Ver-

« PreviousContinue »