chosen for him by his friends, and Boccaccio, in describing the
miseries that attended, in this case,

"The form of an union where union is none,"


speaks as if these were inevitable to the connection, and as if the
scholar and poet, especially, could expect nothing but misery and
obstruction in a domestic partnership with Woman.

Centuries have passed since, but civilized Europe is still in a
transition state about marriage; not only in practice but in thought.
It is idle to speak with contempt of the nations where polygamy is an
institution, or seraglios a custom, while practices far more debasing
haunt, well-nigh fill, every city and every town, and so far as union
of one with one is believed to be the only pure form of marriage, a
great majority of societies and individuals are still doubtful whether
the earthly bond must be a meeting of souls, or only supposes a
contract of convenience and utility. Were Woman established in the
rights of an immortal being, this could not be. She would not, in some
countries, be given away by her father, with scarcely more respect for
her feelings than is shown by the Indian chief, who sells his daughter
for a horse, and beats her if she runs away from her new home. Nor, in
societies where her choice is left free, would she be perverted, by
the current of opinion that seizes her, into the belief that she must
marry, if it be only to find a protector, and a home of her own.
Neither would Man, if he thought the connection of permanent
importance, form it so lightly. He would not deem it a trifle, that he
was to enter into the closest relations with another soul, which, if
not eternal in themselves, must eternally affect his growth. Neither,