_Question_. Col. Robert G. Ingersoll, the great Agnostic, has
always been an ardent defender of the sanctity of the home and of
the marriage relation. Apropos of the horrible account of a man's
tearing out the eyes of his wife at Far Rockaway last week, Colonel
Ingersoll was asked what recourse a woman had under such
circumstances?
_Answer_. I read the account, and I don't remember of ever having
read anything more perfectly horrible and cruel. It is impossible
for me to imagine such a monster, or to account for such an inhuman
human being. How a man could deprive a human being of sight, except
where some religious question is involved, is beyond my comprehension.
We know that for many centuries frightful punishments were inflicted,
and inflicted by the pious, by the theologians, by the spiritual
minded, and by those who "loved their neighbors as themselves."
We read the accounts of how the lids of men's eyes were cut off
and then the poor victims tied where the sum would shine upon their
lifeless orbs; of others who were buried alive; of others staked
out on the sands of the sea, to be drowned by the rising tide; of
others put in sacks filled with snakes. Yet these things appeared
far away, and we flattered ourselves that, to a great degree, the
world had outgrown these atrocities; and now, here, near the close
of the nineteenth century, we find a man--a husband--cruel enough
to put out the eyes of the woman he swore to love, protect and
cherish. This man has probably been taught that there is forgiveness
for every crime, and now imagines that when he repents there will
be more joy in heaven over him than over ninety and nine good and
loving husbands who have treated their wives in the best possible
manner, and who, instead of tearing out their eyes, have filled
their lives with content and covered their faces with kisses.
_Question_. You told me, last week, in a general way, what society
should do with the husband in such a case as that. I would like
to ask you to-day, what you think society ought to do with the wife
in such a case, or what ought the wife to be permitted to do for
herself?
_Answer_. When we take into consideration the crime of the man
who blinded his wife, it is impossible not to think of the right
of divorce. Many people insist that marriage is an indissoluble
tie; that nothing can break it, and that nothing can release either
party from the bond. Now, take this case at Far Rockaway. One
year ago the husband tore out one of his wife's eyes. Had she then
good cause for divorce? Is it possible that an infinitely wise
and good God would insist on this poor, helpless woman remaining
with the wild beast, her husband? Can anyone imagine that such a
course would add to the joy of Paradise, or even tend to keep one
harp in tune? Can the good of society require the woman to remain?
She did remain, and the result is that the other eye has been torn
from its socket by the hands of the husband. Is she entitled to
a divorce now? And if she is granted one, is virtue in danger,
and shall we lose the high ideal of home life? Can anything be
more infamous than to endeavor to make a woman, under such
circumstances, remain with such a man? It may be said that she
should leave him--that they should live separate and apart. That
is to say, that this woman should be deprived of a home; that she
should not be entitled to the love of man; that she should remain,
for the rest of her days, worse than a widow. That is to say, a
wife, hiding, keeping out of the way, secreting herself from the
hyena to whom she was married. Nothing, in my judgment, can exceed
the heartlessness of a law or of a creed that would compel this
woman to remain the wife of this monster. And it is not only cruel,
but it is immoral, low, vulgar.
The ground has been taken that woman would lose her dignity if
marriages were dissoluble. Is it necessary to lose your freedom
in order to retain your character, in order to be womanly or manly?
Must a woman in order to retain her womanhood become a slave, a
serf, with a wild beast for a master, or with society for a master,
or with a phantom for a master? Has not the married woman the
right of self-defence? Is it not the duty of society to protect
her from her husband? If she owes no duty to her husband; if it
is impossible for her to feel toward him any thrill of affection,
what is there of marriage left? What part of the contract remains
in force? She is not to live with him, because she abhors him.
She is not to remain in the same house with him, for fear he may
kill her. What, then, are their relations? Do they sustain any
relation except that of hunter and hunted--that is, of tyrant and
victim? And is it desirable that this relation should be rendered
sacred by a church? Is it desirable to have families raised under
such circumstances? Are we really in need of the children born of
such parents? If the woman is not in fault, does society insist
that her life should be wrecked? Can the virtue of others be
preserved only by the destruction of her happiness, and by what
might be called her perpetual imprisonment? I hope the clergy who
believe in the sacredness of marriage--in the indissolubility of
the marriage tie--will give their opinions on this case. I believe
that marriage is the most important contract that human beings can
make. I always believe that a man will keep his contract; that a
woman, in the highest sense, will keep hers, But suppose the man
does not. Is the woman still bound?
Is there no mutuality? What is a contract? It is where one party
promises to do something in consideration that the other party will
do something. That is to say, there is a consideration on both
sides, moving from one to the other. A contract without consideration
is null and void; and a contract duly entered into, where the
consideration of one party is withheld, is voidable, and can be
voided by the party who has kept, or who is willing to keep, the
contract. A marriage without love is bad enough. But what can we
say of a marriage where the parties hate each other? Is there any
morality in this--any virtue? Will any decent person say that a
woman, true, good and loving, should be compelled to live with a
man she detests, compelled to be the mother of his children? Is
there a woman in the world who would not shrink from this herself?
And is there a woman so heartless and so immoral that she would
force another to bear what she would shudderingly avoid? Let us
bring these questions home. In other words, let us have some sense,
some feeling, some heart--and just a little brain. Marriages are
made by men and women. They are not made by the State, and they
are not made by the gods. By this time people should learn that
human happiness is the foundation of virtue--the foundation of
morality. Nothing is moral that does not tend to the well-being
of sentient beings. Nothing is virtuous the result of which is
not a human good. The world has always been living for phantoms,
for ghosts, for monsters begotten by ignorance and fear. The world
should learn to live for itself. Man should, by this time, be
convinced that all the reasons for doing right, and all the reasons
for doing wrong, are right here in this world--all within the
horizon of this life. And besides, we should have imagination to
put ourselves in the place of another. Let a man suppose himself
a helpless wife, beaten by a brute who believes in the indissolubility
of marriage. Would he want a divorce?
I suppose that very few people have any adequate idea of the
sufferings of women and children; of the number of wives who tremble
when they hear the footsteps of a returning husband; of the number
of children who hide when they hear the voice of a father. Very
few people know the number of blows that fall on the flesh of the
helpless every day. Few know the nights of terror passed by mothers
holding young children at their breasts. Compared with this, the
hardships of poverty, borne by those who love each other, are
nothing. Men and women, truly married, bear the sufferings of
poverty. They console each other; their affection gives to the
heart of each perpetual sunshine. But think of the others! I have
said a thousand times that the home is the unit of good government.
When we have kind fathers and loving mothers, then we shall have
civilized nations, and not until then. Civilization commences at
the hearthstone. When intelligence rocks the cradle--when the
house is filled with philosophy and kindness--you will see a world
a peace. Justice will sit in the courts, wisdom in the legislative
halls, and over all, like the dome of heaven, will be the spirit
of Liberty!
_Question_. What is your idea with regard to divorce?
_Answer_. My idea is this: As I said before, marriage is the most
sacred contract--the most important contract--that human beings can
make. As a rule, the woman dowers the husband with her youth--with
all she has. From this contract the husband should never be released
unless the wife has broken a condition; that is to say, has failed
to fulfill the contract of marriage. On the other hand, the woman
should be allowed a divorce for the asking. This should be granted
in public, precisely as the marriage should be in public. Every
marriage should be known. There should be witnesses, to the end
that the character of the contract entered into should be understood;
and as all marriage records should be kept, so the divorce should
be open, public and known. The property should be divided by a
court of equity, under certain regulations of law. If there are
children, they should be provided for through the property and the
parents. People should understand that men and women are not
virtuous by law. They should comprehend the fact that law does
not create virtue--that law is not the foundation, the fountain,
of love. They should understand that love is in the human heart,
and that real love is virtuous. People who love each other will
be true to each other. The death of love is the commencement of
vice. Besides this, there is a public opinion that has great
weight. When that public opinion is right, it does a vast amount
of good, and when wrong, a great amount of harm. People marry, or
should marry, because it increases the happiness of each and all.
But where the marriage turns out to have been a mistake, and where
the result is misery, and not happiness, the quicker they are
divorced the better, not only for themselves, but for the community
at large. These arguments are generally answered by some donkey
braying about free love, and by "free love" he means a condition
of society in which there is no love. The persons who make this
cry are, in all probability, incapable of the sentiment, of the
feeling, known as love. They judge others by themselves, and they
imagine that without law there would be no restraint.
What do they say of natural modesty? Do they forget that people
have a choice? Do they not understand something of the human heart,
and that true love has always been as pure as the morning star?
Do they believe that by forcing people to remain together who
despise each other they are adding to the purity of the marriage
relation? Do they not know that all marriage is an outward act,
testifying to that which has happened in the heart? Still, I always
believe that words are wasted on such people. It is useless to
talk to anybody about music who is unable to distinguish one tune
from another. It is useless to argue with a man who regards his
wife as his property, and it is hardly worth while to suggest
anything to a gentleman who imagines that society is so constructed
that it really requires, for the protection of itself, that the
lives of good and noble women should be wrecked, I am a believer
in the virtue of women, in the honesty of man. The average woman
is virtuous; the average man is honest, and the history of the
world shows it. If it were not so, society would be impossible.
I don't mean by this that most men are perfect, but what I mean is
this: That there is far more good than evil in the average human
being, and that the natural tendency of most people is toward the
good and toward the right. And I most passionately deny that the
good of society demands that any good person should suffer. I do
not regard government as a Juggernaut, the wheels of which must,
of necessity, roll over and crush the virtuous, the self-denying
and the good. My doctrine is the exact opposite of what is known
as free love. I believe in the marriage of true minds and of true
hearts. But I believe that thousands of people are married who do
not love each other. That is the misfortune of our century. Other
things are taken into consideration--position, wealth, title and
the thousand things that have nothing to do with real affection.
Where men and women truly love each other, that love, in my judgment,
lasts as long as life. The greatest line that I know of in the
poetry of the world is in the 116th sonnet of Shakespeare: "Love
is not love which alters when it alteration finds."
_Question_. Why do you make such a distinction between the rights
of man and the rights of women?
_Answer_. The woman has, as her capital, her youth, her beauty.
We will say that she is married at twenty or twenty-five. In a
few years she has lost her beauty. During these years the man, so
far as capacity to make money is concerned--to do something--has
grown better and better. That is to say, his chances have improved;
hers have diminished. She has dowered him with the Spring of her
life, and as her life advances her chances decrease. Consequently,
I would give her the advantage, and I would not compel her to remain
with him against her will. It seems to me far worse to be a wife
upon compulsion than to be a husband upon compulsion. Besides
this, I have a feeling of infinite tenderness toward mothers. The
woman that bears children certainly should not be compelled to live
with a man whom she despises. The suffering is enough when the
father of the child is to her the one man of all the world. Many
people who have a mechanical apparatus in their breasts that assists
in the circulation of what they call blood, regard these views as
sentimental. But when you take sentiment out of the world nothing
is left worth living for, and when you get sentiment out of the
heart it is nothing more or less than a pump, an old piece of rubber
that has acquired the habit of contracting and dilating. But I
have this consolation: The people that do not agree with me are
those that do not understand me.
--_New York World_, 1888.