for a woman to contract a second marriage after her husband's death, and a lady of rank, by doing so, exposes herself to a penalty of eighty blows.' "As a faithful minister does not serve two lords, neither may a faithful woman marry a second husband "-this is to the Chinese a principle of life, a maxim generally received as gospel.2 Among so-called Aryan peoples the ancient custom which ordained sacrifice of widows survived in the prohibitions issued against their marrying a second time. Even now the bare mention of a second marriage for a Hindu woman would be considered the greatest of insults, and, if she married again, "she would be hunted out of society, and no decent person would venture at any time to have the slightest intercourse with her."4 In Greece and Rome a widow's remarriage was regarded as an insult to her former husband; and so it is still regarded among the Southern Slavs. The early Christians, especially the Montanists and Novatians, strongly disapproved of second marriages by persons of either sex; a second marriage was described by them as a "kind of fornication,'

"10

8

a "specious adultery.' It was looked upon as a manifest sign of incontinence, and also as inconsistent with the doctrine that marriage is an emblem of the union of Christ with the Church.11

Conjugal fidelity, whilst considered a stringent duty in the wife, is not generally considered so in the husband. This is obviously the rule among savage and barbarous tribes; but there are interesting exceptions to the rule. The Igorrotes of Luzon are so strictly monogamous that

1 Gray, China, i. 215.

2 de Groot, Religious System of China, (vol. ii. book) i. 745.

3 Schrader, Prehistoric Antiquities of the Aryan Peoples, p. 391.

Dubois, People of India, p. 132. 5 Pausanias, ii. 21. 7.

6 Rossbach, Römische Ehe, p. 262. Krauss, Sitte und Brauch der Südslaven, p. 578. Cf. Ralston, Songs of the Russian People, p. 115 (Bulgarians).

Mayer, Die Rechte der Israeliten,

Athener und Römer, ii. 290. Bingham, op. cit. vi. 427 sq.; viii. 13 sq.

Tertullian, De exhortatione castilatis, 9 (Migne, Patrologia cursus, ii. 924).

10 Athenagoras, Legatio pro Christianis, 33 (Migne, op. cit. Ser. Graeca, vi. 967).

11 Gibbon, History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ii. 187. Lecky, History of European Morals, ii. 326.

in case of adultery the guilty party can be compelled to leave the hut and the family for ever,' and among various other monogamous savages adultery is said to be unknown. The Dyak husband " preserves his vow of fidelity with a rectitude which makes jealousy a farce." The Toungtha, who marry only one wife, do not consider it right for a master to take advantage of his position even with regard to the female slaves in his house.* Nay, the duty of fidelity in the husband has been recognised even by some savage peoples who allow polygamy. The Abipones, we are told, thought it both wicked and disgraceful to have any illicit intercourse with other women than their wives; hence adultery was almost unheard of among them." Among the Omaha Indians, "if a woman's husband be guilty of adultery with another woman she may strike him or the guilty female in her anger," though she cannot claim damages. In several tribes of Western Victoria a wife whose husband has been unfaithful to her "may make a complaint to the chief, who can punish the man by sending him away from his tribe for two or three moons 7 and among some aborigines in New South Wales similar complaints may be made to the elders of the tribe, with the result that the adulterous husband may have to suffer for his conduct. The Kandhs of India deny the married man certain prerogatives which are granted to his wife whilst constancy to her husband is so far from being required in a wife, "that her pretensions do not, at least, suffer diminution in the eyes of either sex when fines are levied on her convicted lovers," infidelity in a married man is held to be highly dishonourable, and

is often punished with deprivation of privileges.1

many social

The duty which savages thus in certain instances have imposed on the husband is hardly at all recognised in the archaic State. The Mexicans "did not consider, nor did they punish, as adultery the trespass of a husband with any woman who was free, or not joined in matrimony; wherefore the husband was not bound to so much fidelity as was exacted from the wife," adultery in her being inevitably punished with death. In China, where adultery in a woman is branded as one of the vilest crimes and the

guilty wife is oftentimes "cut oftentimes "cut into small into small pieces," concubinage is a recognised institution of the country.3 In Corea "conjugal fidelity-obligatory on the womanis not required of the husband. . . . Among the nobles, the young bridegroom spends three or four days with his bride, and then absents himself from her for a considerable time, to prove that he does not esteem her too highly. Etiquette dooms her to a species of widowhood, while he spends his hours of relaxation in the society of his concubines. To act otherwise would be considered in very bad taste, and highly unfashionable." In Japan, "while the man is allowed a loose foot, the woman is expected not only to be absolutely spotless, but also never to show any jealousy, however wide the husband. may roam, or however numerous may be the concubines in his family.". According to Hebrew law adultery was a capital offence, but it presupposed that the guilty woman was another man's wife. The "Aryan" nations in early times generally saw nothing objectionable in the unfaithfulness of a married man, whereas an adulterous wife was subject to the severest penalties. Until some time after the introduction of Christianity among the Teutons their

1 Macpherson, Memorials of Service in India, p. 133.

2

356.

Clavigero, History of Mexico, i.

Doolittle, op. cit. i. 339. Griffis, Religions of Japan, p. 149.

+ Griffis, Corea, p. 251 sq.

Idem, Religions of Japan, p. 320. 6 Leviticus, xx. 10. Deuteronomy, xxii. 22.

7 Schrader, Prehistoric Antiquities of the Ayran Peoples, p. 388.

law-books made no mention of the infidelity of husbands, because it was permitted by custom.1 The Romans defined adultery as sexual intercourse with another man's wife; on the other hand, the intercourse of a married man with an unmarried woman was not regarded as adultery.2 The ordinary Greek feeling on the subject is expressed in the oration against Neæra, ascribed to Demosthenes, where the licence accorded to husbands is spoken of as a matter of course :-" We keep mistresses for our pleasures, concubines for constant attendance, and wives to bear us legitimate children and to be our faithful housekeepers."

At the same time the idea that fidelity in marriage ought to be reciprocal was not altogether unknown in classical antiquity. In a lost chapter of his Economics,' which has come to us only through a Latin translation, Aristotle points out that it for various reasons is prudent for a man to be faithful to his wife, but that nothing is so peculiarly the property of a wife as a chaste and hallowed intercourse." Plutarch condemns the man who, lustful and dissolute, goes astray with a courtesan or maid-servant; though at the same time he admonishes the wife not to be vexed or impatient, considering that "it is out of respect to her that he bestows upon another all his wanton depravity.' Plautus argues that it is unjust of a husband to exact a fidelity which he does not keep himself.7

6

In its condemnation of adultery Christianity made no distinction between husband and wife. If continence is a stringent duty for unmarried persons independently of

their the observance of the sacred marriage vow must be so in a still higher degree. But here again there is a considerable discrepancy between the actual feelings of Christian peoples and the standard of their religion. Even in the laws of various European countries relating to divorce or judicial judicial separation we find an echo of the popular notion that adultery is a smaller offence in a husband than in a wife.1

The judgment pronounced upon an unfaithful husband is of course influenced by the opinion about extramatrimonial connections in general. Where it is considered wrong for a man to have intercourse with either an unmarried woman or another man's wife, adultery in a husband is eo ipso condemned. But whether, or how far, infidelity on his part is stigmatised as an offence against his wife, chiefly depends upon the degree of regard which is paid to the feelings of women. That a married man generally enjoys more liberty than a married woman is largely due to the same causes as make him the more privileged partner in other respects; but there are also special reasons for this inequality between the sexes. was a doctrine of the Roman jurists that adultery is a crime in the wife, and in the wife only, on account of the danger of introducing strange children to the husband.2 Moreover, the temptation to infidelity and the facility in indulging in it are commonly greater in the case of the husband than in that of the wife; and, as we have often noticed before, actual practice is always apt to influence moral opinion. And a still more important reason for the inequality in question is undoubtedly the general notion that unchastity of any kind is more discreditable for a woman than for a man.

1 See supra, ii. 397.

It

2 Hunter, Exposition of Roman Law, p. 1071.