“More vigorous measures than the above might be productive of much mischief.”
[28]. One of the English kings, Edward III., in the year 1344, picked up from the floor of a ball-room, an embroidered garter, belonging to a lady of rank. In returning it to her, he checked the rising smile of his courtiers with the words, “Honi soit qui mal y pense!” or, paraphrased in English, “Shame on him who invidiously interprets it!” The sentiment was so greatly approved, that it has become the motto of the English national arms. It is one which might be not inaptly nor unfrequently applied in rebuking the mawkish, skin-deep, and intolerant morality of this hypocritical and profligate age.
[29]. It may perhaps be argued, that all married persons have this power already, seeing that they are no more obliged to become parents than the unmarried; they may live as the brethren and sisters among the Shakers do. But this Shaker remedy is, in the first place, utterly impracticable, as a general rule; and, secondly, it would chill and embitter domestic life, even if it were practicable.
[30]. Will our sensitive fine ladies blush at the plain good sense and simplicity of such an observation? Let me tell them, the indelicacy is in their own minds, not in the words of the French mother.
[31]. For a vice so unnatural as onanism there could be no possible temptation, and therefore no existence, were not men unnaturally and mischievously situated. It first appeared, probably in monasteries; and has been perpetuated by the more or less anti-social and demoralizing relation in which the sexes stand to each other, in almost all countries. In estimating the consequences of the present false situation of society, we must set down to the black account the wretched consequences (terminating not unfrequently in incurable insanity) of this vice, the preposterous offspring of modern civilization. Physicians say that onanism at present prevails, to a lamentable extent, both in this country and in England. If the recommendations contained in these pages were generally followed, it would probably totally disappear in a single generation.
[32]. See letter of Percy Bysshe Shelley, published in the “Lion,” of December 5, 1828.
[33]. Every reflecting mind will distinguish between the unreasoning—sometimes even generous, imprudence of youthful passion, and the calculating selfishness of the matured and heartless libertine. It is a melancholy truth, that pseudo-civilization produces thousands of seducers by profession, who, while daily calling the heavens to witness their eternal affections, have no affection for anything on earth but their own precious and profligate selves. It is to characters so utterly worthless as these that my observations apply.
[34]. Jesus said unto her, “Neither do I condemn thee.” John viii., 11.
[35]. I should like to hear these gentlemen explain, according to what principle they imagine the chastity of their wives to grow out of a fear of offspring; so that, if released from such fear, prostitution would follow. I can readily comprehend that the unmarried may be supposed carefully to avoid that situation to which no legal cause can be assigned; but a wife must be especially dull, if she cannot assign, in all cases, a legal cause; and a husband must be especially sagacious, if he can tell whether the true cause be assigned or not. This safeguard to married chastity, therefore, to which the gentlemen of the Committee alluded to seem to look with so implicit a confidence, is a mere broken reed; and has been so ever since the days of Bethsheba.
Yet conjugal chastity is that which is especially valued. The inconstancy of a wife commonly cuts much deeper than the dishonour of a sister. In that case, then, which the world usually considers of the highest importance, the fear of offspring imposes no check whatever. It cannot make one iota of difference whether a married woman be knowing in physiology or not; except perhaps, indeed, to the husband’s advantage; in cases where the wife’s conscience induces her at least to guard against the possibility of burthening her legal lord with the care and support of children that are not his. Constancy, where it actually exists, is the offspring of something more efficacious than ignorance. And if in the wife’s case, men must and do trust to something else, why not in all other cases, where restraint may be considered desirable? Shall men trust in the greater, and fear to trust in the less? Whatever any one may choose to assert regarding his relatives’ secret inclinations to profligacy, these arguments may convince him that if he has any safeguard at present, a perusal of these pages will not destroy it.