why is a woman, if she may have but œ1,500, undone? If she be
unmarried, what nobleman allows his daughter in that case a
greater revenue than so much money may command? And if she marry,
no nobleman can give his daughter a greater portion than she has.
Who is hurt in this case? -- nay, who is not benefited? If the
agrarian gives us the sweat of our brows without diminution; if
it prepares our table; if it makes our cup to overflow, and above
all this, in providing for our children, anoints our heads with
that oil which takes away the greatest of worldly cares; what
man, that is not besotted with a covetousness as vain as endless,
can imagine such a constitution to be his poverty? Seeing where
no woman can be considerable for her portion, no portion will be
considerable with a woman; and so his children will not only find
better preferments without his brokage, but more freedom of their
own affections.
"We are wonderful severe in laws, that they shall not marry
without our consent, as if it were care and tenderness over them;
but is it not lest we should not have the other œ1,000 with this
son, or the other œ100 a year more in jointure for that daughter?
These, when we are crossed in them, are the sins for which we
water our couch with tears, but not of penitence. Seeing whereas
it is a mischief beyond any that we can do to our enemies, we
persist to make nothing of breaking the affection of our
children. But there is in this agrarian a homage to pure and
spotless love, the consequence whereof I will not give for all
your romances. An alderman makes not his daughter a countess till
he has given her œ20,000, nor a romance a considerable mistress
till she be a princess; these are characters of bastard love. But
if our agrarian excludes ambition and covetousness, we shall at
length have the care of our own breed, in which we have been