reement or dislike, either of mind or body,
whereby he could not cheerfully perform the duty of a husband without
the perpetual dissembling of offense and disturbance to his
spirit,--rather than to live uncomfortably and unhappy both to himself
and to his wife, rather than to continue undertaking a duty which he
could not possibly discharge, he might dismiss her whom he could not
tolerably, and so not conscionably, retain. And this law the Spirit of
God by the mouth of Solomon, Prov. xxx. 21, 23, testifies to be a good
and a necessary law, by granting it that 'a hated woman' (for so the
Hebrew word signifies, rather than 'odious,' though it come all to
one),--that 'a hated woman, when she is married, is a thing that the
earth cannot bear.'"

And he complains that the civil law of modern states interferes with
the "domestical prerogative of the husband."

His notion would seem to have been that a husband was bound not to
dismiss his wife, except for a reason really sufficient; such as a
thoroughly incompatible temper, an incorrigible "muteness," and a
desertion like that of Mrs. Milton. But he scarcely liked to admit
that in the use of this power he should be subject to the correction of
human tribunals. He thought that the circumstances of each case
depended upon "utterless facts"; and that it was practically impossible
for a civil court to decide on a subject so delicate in its essence,
and so imperceptible in its data. But though amiable men doubtless
suffer much from the deficiencies of their wives, we should hardly like
to intrust them, in their own cases, with a jurisdiction so prompt and
summary.

We are far from being concerned, however, just now, with the doctrine
of divorce on its intrinsic merits: we were only intending to give such
an account of Milton's opinions upon it as might serve to illustrate
his character. We think we have shown that it is possible there may
have been in his domestic relations, a little overweening pride; a
tendency to overrate the true extent of masculine rights, and to dwell
on his wife's duty to be social towards him rather than on his duty to
be social towards her,--to be rather sullen whenever she was not quite
cheerful. Still, we are not defending a lady for leaving her husband
for defects of such inferior magnitude. Few households would be kept
together, if the right of transition were exercised on such trifling
occasions. We are but suggesting that she may share the