Chapter LIV: Section I: Why Matrimony is a Duty

Matrimony is a subject of high importance and interest. It is _important_, because it was among the earliest institutions of the great Creator; because it has always existed in some form or other, and must continue to exist, or society cannot be sustained; and because in proportion as the ends of the Creator are answered by its establishment, just in the same proportion does the happiness of society rise or fall. It points out the condition of society in this respect as accurately as a thermometer shows the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere. I might even go farther, and say, that in proportion as the original and real ends of marriage are answered, do the interests of religion also rise or sink.[11]

This institution is peculiarly interesting from the fact that it involves so many items of human happiness. We often speak of the value of _friendship_. What friendship like that which results from a happy union of the sexes? We talk of _education_. What school so favorable to improvement as the domestic circle may be rendered? Whether we consider education in a physical, mental or moral point of view, all its plans are imperfect without this. No man or woman is, as a general rule, fully prepared for the humblest sphere of action on earth, without the advantages which are peculiar to this institution. Nor has any man done his whole duty to God, who has left this subject out of consideration.

It has sometimes been said, and with much truth, that 'no unmarried person was ever thoroughly and completely educated.' It appears to me that were we to consider the intellectual and physical departments of education, merely, this would be true; but how much more so when we take in morals? Parents,--teachers,--what are they? Their labors are indeed of infinite value, in themselves considered; but it is only in a state of matrimony, it is only when we are called to the discharge of those multiplied duties which are involved in the endearing relations of husband, wife, parent and guardian, that our characters are fully tested and established. Late in life as these relations commence, the circumstances which they involve are so peculiar that they modify the character of the parties much more than has usually been considered.

I am fond, therefore, of contemplating the married state as a school;--not merely for a short term, but for _life_;--not one whose teachers are liable to be changed once or twice a year to the great disadvantage of all who are concerned, but whose instructors are as permanent as the school itself. It is true, that like other schools, it may result in the formation of bad character; but in proportion to its power to accomplish either good or bad results, will be its value, if wisely improved.

It is not to be denied that this view of the subject is in favor of _early_ marriage. And I can truly say, indeed, that every thing considered, early marriage does appear to me highly desirable. And it would require stronger arguments than any which I have yet seen adduced, even by some of our political economists, to make me surrender this opinion.

The only serious objection, of a popular kind, to early marriage, arises from the difficulty of supporting a family. But the parties themselves must be supported at all events, whether married or single. 'But the consequences'--And what are the consequences? An _earlier_ family, indeed; but not of necessity a larger. I believe that facts will bear me out in stating that the sum total of the progeny of every thousand families who commence at from twenty-five to thirty, is as great as that of one thousand who begin at from twenty to twenty-five. I have even seen pretty large families where the eldest was thirty-five years younger than both the parents; and one or two instances of numerous families where marriage did not take place till the age of forty. Physiologists have long observed this singular fact, and it has sometimes been explained by saying, if indeed it be an explanation, that Nature, in these cases, unwilling to be cheated out of her rights, endeavors to make up in energy and activity what has been lost in time.

The question, however, will recur, whether families, though equally large, cannot be better maintained when marriage is deferred to a later period. And it certainly is a question of immense importance; For nothing is more painful than to see large families, whose parents, whether young or more advanced, have not the means of educating them properly. It is also not a little painful to find instances of poverty so extreme that there is absolute suffering, for want of food and clothing.

But the question must be determined by facts. And it would be greatly aiding the cause of humanity if extensive comparisons were made between the pecuniary condition of those who marry early and those who defer the subject to a later period. But from my own limited observation I am fully of opinion that the result of the comparison would be greatly in favor of early marriages. Should this prove to be true, the position which I have assumed is, I think, established; for it appears to me that no other argument for delay has any claim to our notice.

On the other hand, the following, among other evils, are the results of deferring marriage.

1. The temper and habits of the parties become stiff and unyielding when advanced in life, and they learn to adapt themselves to each other with difficulty. In the view which I have taken above they become miserable as teachers, and still more miserable as scholars.

2. Youth are thus exposed to the danger of forming habits of criminal indulgence, as fatal to the health and the character, as they are ruinous to the soul.

3. Or if they proceed not so far, they at least acquire the habit of spending time in vain or pernicious amusements. All mankind must and will seek for gratifications of some sort or other. And aside from religious principle, there is no certain security against those amusements and indulgences which are pernicious and destructive, but early and virtuous attachments, and the pleasures afforded by domestic life. He can never want for amusement or rational gratification who is surrounded by a rising family for whom he has a genuine affection.

4. Long continued celibacy _contracts_ the mind, if it does not enfeeble it. For one openhearted liberal old bachelor, you will find ten who are parsimonious, avaricious, cold-hearted, and too often destitute of those sympathies for their fellow beings which the married life has a tendency to elicit and perpetuate.[12]

5. Franklin says that late marriages are attended with another inconvenience, viz.; that the chance of living to see our children educated, is greatly diminished.

6. But I go much farther than I have hitherto done, and insist that other things being equal, the young married man has the advantage in a _pecuniary_ point of view. This is a natural result from the fact that he is compelled to acquire habits of industry, frugality, and economy; and is under less temptation to waste his time in trifling or pernicious amusements. But I may appeal to facts, even here. Look around you in the world, and see if out of a given number of single persons, say one thousand, of the age of thirty-five, there be not a greater number in poverty, than of the same number who settled in life at twenty.

Perhaps I ought barely to notice another objection to these views. It is said that neither the mind nor the body come to full maturity so early as we are apt to suppose. But is complete maturity of body or mind indispensable? I am not advocating the practice of marrying in childhood. It takes sometime for the affections toward an individual to ripen and become settled. This is a matter involving too high responsibilities to justify haste. The consequences, speaking generally, are not confined to this life; they extend to eternity.

[11] Some of the topics of this section have been anticipated, in
part, in a previous chapter; but their importance entitles them
to a farther consideration.

[12] I know this principle is sometimes disputed. A late English
writer, in a Treatise on Happiness, at page 251 of Vol. II,
maintains the contrary. He quotes from Lord Bacon, that
'Unmarried men are the best friends, best masters, and best
servants,' and that 'The best _works_, and of greatest merit for
the public, have proceeded from unmarried or childless men.' He
also introduces Jeremy Taylor, as saying that 'Celibacy, like a
fly in the heart of an apple, dwells in perpetual sweetness.'

In commenting upon these remarks, this writer says, 'One half of
the most eminent persons that have ever lived in the world of
science and literature, have remained unmarried,' and 'in the
connubial state, too frequently, the sympathies are connected
within the family circle, while there is little generosity or
philanthropy beyond.' And lastly, that 'Unmarried men possess
many natural excellences, which if not engrossed by a family will
be directed towards their fellow creatures.'

Now it is admitted that many eminent men, especially in science
and literature, have been bachelors; and that among them were
Newton and Locke. But this only proves that while thousands and
tens of thousands of their fellow beings spent their lives in
insignificance, for want of a definite object to live for, these
men, having an _object_ before them, _accomplished_ something.
And if you could induce _one_ single man in a _thousand_, nay,
one in ten thousand, to make a similar use of his exemption from
the cares of a family, much might be expected from celibacy; or
at least, the results of their labors might be a partial
compensation to society for the evil tendency of their example.
For marriage cannot be denied to be an institution of God, and
indispensable to the existence of society. And who can say that
he has purchased an indulgence to disobey a law which is in some
respects paramount to every other, however great the price he may
have paid?

That marriage tends to concentrate our sympathies within the
family circle, I do not believe. A proper investigation of the
subject will, I am certain, prove this assumption unfounded.
Facts do _not_ show unmarried men to be 'best friends, masters,
servants' &c.; and I am sorry to find such a _theory_ maintained
by any sensible writer. Some of the illustrious examples of
celibacy which are usually brought, were by no means estimable
for their social feelings or habits. What would become of
mankind, if they were all to immure themselves in dungeons, or
what is nearly the same thing to social life, among books and
papers? Better, by far, to remain in ignorance of the material
laws which govern the universe, than to become recluses in a
world like this. Better even dispense with some of the lights
which genius has struck out to enable us to read suns and stars,
than to understand attraction in the material world, while we are
insensible to all attractions of a moral and social kind. God has
made us to _feel_, to _sympathize_, and to _love_,--as well as to
_know_.