faction to a judicious enquirer. If I mistake not, it may be determined upon folid principles; and as it is of importance in the history of man, the reader, I am hopeful, will not be difgufted at the length of the argument.

Many writers hold, that women were originally common; that animal love was gratified as among horfes and horned cattle; and that matrimony was not known till nations grew in fome degree to be orderly and refined. I felect Cicero as an author of authority: "Nam fuit quoddam tempus, cum in agris homines paffim, beftiarum more, vagabantur, et fibi victu ferino vitam "propagabant: nec ratione animi quicquam fed pleraque viribus

66

corporis adminiftrabant. Nondum divinæ religionis non humani officii ratio colebatur. Nemo legitimas viderat nuptias, non certos quifquam infpexerat liberos * (a)." Pliny, in support of that doctrine, informs us, that the Garamantes, an African nation, lived promiscuously together, without any notion of matrimony. Among the Aufes, a people of Libya, as Herodotus fays, matrimony was not known, and men cohabited with women indifferently, like other animals. A boy educated by his mother was at a certain age admitted to an affembly of the men, and the man he clung to was reputed his father. Juftin and other authors report, that before Cecrops, who reigned in Attica about 1600 years before Chrift, marriage was not known in Greece; and that the burden of children lay upon the mother.

For there was a time, when men, like the brutes, roamed abroad over the earth, and fed like wild beafts upon other animals. Then reafon bore no fway, "but all was ruled by fuperior ftrength. The ties of religion, and the obligations "of morality, were then unfelt. Lawful marriage was unknown, and no father "was certain of his offspring."

(a) De Inventione, lib. 1.

Before

171

Before entering directly into the matter, it is proper to remove, if poffible, the bias of these great names. The practice of the Garamantes and of the Aufes is mentioned by Pliny and Herodotus as fingular; and were it better vouched than it is, it would avail very little against the practice of all other nations. Little weight can be laid upon Pliny's evidence in particular, confidering what he reports in the fame chapter of the Blemmyans, that they had no head, and that the mouth and eyes were in the breast. Pliny at the fame time, as well as Herodotus, being very deficient in natural knowledge, were grofsly credulous; and cannot be rely'd on with refpect to any thing strange or uncommon. As to what is reported of ancient Greece, Cecrops poffibly prohibited polygamy, or introduced fome other matrimonial regulation, which by wri ters might be mistaken for a law appointing matrimony. However that be, one part of the report is undoubtedly falfe; for it will be made evident afterward, that in the hunter-ftate, or even in that of fhepherds, it is impracticable for any woman, by her own industry alone, to rear a numerous iffue. If this be at all poffible, it can only be in the torrid zone, where people live on fruits and roots, which are produced in plenty with very little labour. Upon that account Diodorus Siculus is lefs blameable for listening to a report, that the inhabitants of Taprobana, fuppofed to be the ifland of Ceylon, never marry, but that women are ufed promifcuously. But as there is no fuch practice known at present in the Eaft Indies, there is no juft ground to believe, that it ever was the practice; and the East Indies were fo little known to the ancient Greeks, that their authors cannot be much rely'd on in the accounts they give of that diftant region. The opinion of Cicero may seem to have more weight at first view; and yet a single obfervation will reduce it to nothing. The notions of that author upon the primitive ftate of man muft confeffedly be exceedingly crude, when he denies to favages any fenfe of religion or of moral Y 2 duty.

duty. Ought we to rely more on him, when he denies, that they have any notion of matrimony? Cæfar's account of the ancient Britons approaches the nearest to a loose commerce with women, tho' in the main it is good evidence against the opinion of Cicero. It was common, he fays, for a number of brothers, or other near relations, to use their wives promifcuoufly. The offspring however were not coinmon; for each man maintained the children that were produced by his own wife. Herodotus reports the fame of the Maffagetæ.

Laying thus afide the great names of Cicero, Herodotus, and Pliny, the field lies open to a fair and impartial investigation. And as the means provided by nature for continuing the race of other animals may probably throw light upon the œconomy of nature with respect to man, I begin with that article, which has not engaged the attention of naturalifts fo much as it ought to do. With respect to animals whofe nourishment is grafs, pairing would be of no ufe: the female feeds herself and her young at the fame inftant, and the male has nothing to do. On the other hand, all brute animals whofe young require the nurfing care of both parents, are directed by nature to pair; nor is that connection diffolved till the young can provide for themselves. Pairing is indifpenfable to wild birds that build on trees; because the male ▾ must provide food for his mate while fhe is hatching the eggs. And as they have commonly a numerous iffue, it requires the labour of both to pick up food for themselves and for their young. Upon that account it is fo ordered, that the young are fufficiently vigorous to provide for themfelves, before a new brood is produced.

What I have now opened fuggefts the following queftion, Whether, according to the animal œconomy above difplay'd, are we to prefume, or not, that man is directed by nature to matrimony? If analogy can be rely'd on, the affirmative must be held, as there is

no

no other creature in the known world to which pairing is so neceffary. Man is a long-lived animal, and is proportionally flow in growing to maturity: he is a helpless being before the age of fifteen or fixteen, and there may be in a family ten or twelve children of different births before the eldest can fhift for itself. Now in the original ftate of hunting and fishing, which are laborious occupations, and not always fuccessful, a woman fuckling her infant is not able to provide food even for herself, far less for ten or twelve voracious children. Matrimony therefore, or pairing, is fo neceffary to the human race, that it must be natural and inftinctive. When fuch ample means are provided for continuing every other animal race, is it fuppofable that the chief race would be neglected? Providential care defcends even to vegetable life: every plant bears a profufion of feed; and in order to cover the earth with vegetables, fome feeds have wings, fome are scattered by means of a spring, and fome are fo light as to be carried about by the wind. Brute animals which do not pair, have grafs and other food in plenty, enabling the female to feed her young without needing any help from the male. But where the young require the nursing care of both parents, pairing is a law of nature. When other races are fo amply provided for, can it be seriously thought, that Providence is lefs attentive to the human race? If men and women were not impelled by nature to matrimony, they would be lefs fitted for continuing their fpecies than even the humblest plant. Have we not reafon fairly to conclude, that matrimony in the human race is an appointment of nature? Can that conclufion be refifted by any one who believes in Providence, and in final caufes *.

To

It appears a wife appointment of Providence, that women give over child-bearing at fifty, while they are ftill in vigour of mind and body to take care of their offfpring. Did the power of procreation continue in women to old age as in men,

children

To confirm this doctrine, let the confequences of a loose commerce between the fexes be examined. The carnal appetite, when confined to one object, feldom tranfgreffes the bounds of temperance. But were it encouraged to roam like a bee fucking honey from every flower, every new object would inflame the imagination; and fatiety with refpect to one, would give new vigour with respect to others: a generic habit would be formed of intemperance in fruition (a); and animal love would become the ruling paffion. Men, like the hart in rutting-time, would all the year round fly with impetuofity from object to object, giving no quarter even to women fuckling their infants: and women, abandoning themselves to the fame paffion, would become altogether regardless of their offspring. In that ftate, the continuance of the human race would be a miracle. In the favage ftate, as mentioned above, it is beyond the power of any woman to provide food for a family of children; and now it appears, that intemperance in animal love would render a woman careless of her family, however.eafy it might be to provide for it *.

children would often be left in the wide world, without a mortal to look after them.

* I have often been tempted to find fault with Providence in bringing fo early to perfection the carnal appetite, while a man, fill in early youth, has acquired no degree of prudence nor of felf-command. It rages indeed the most when young men should be employ'd in acquiring knowledge, and in fitting themselves for living comfortably in the world. I have fet this thought in various lights; but I now perceive that the cenfure is without foundation. The early ripeness of this appetite proves it to be the intention of Providence that people fhould early settle in matrimony. In that state the appetite is abundantly moderate, and gives no obstruction to education. It never becomes unruly, till one, forgetting the matrimonial tie, wanders from object to object. It is pride and luxury that dictate late marriages: induiry never fails to afford the means of living comfortably, provided men confine themselves to the demands of nature.

(a) Elements of Criticifm, chap. 14.