Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1886-10-28
OPINIONS ON MARRIAGE
st. Paul Daniel Webster-WedlOck Among
the Acknowledgements Notes.

Paul. amd the same opinion has been ex-
pressed in much the same words by in
Vulnerable authors from Seneca down
ward. It is curious, however, to note
how writer's have differed in the testi-
mony they have borne to this, the most
sacred of human relationships. "a man
finds himself seven years older the day
after his marriage" says Bacon; and, &C
cording to lady writer, marriage is "the
metempsychosis of women-it turns them
into different creatures from what they
were before" The reading that comes
between the lines here is capable of more
than one Interpretation, and it must be
left to the initiated to take the view which
most answers to their own circumstances.
There are no two meanings, however, in
the Johnsonian declaration that marriage
is the best state for man in general, and
every man is a worse man in proportion
as he is unfit for the marriage state"
Nor, although he looks at the matter in
two aspects, is there any ambiguity in
Daniel Webster's opinion that in mar
riage there is no purgatory-''it locally
contains heaven or hell; there is no third
place in it," Nevertheless the relation
ship is good for the chief uphold
ers of the doctrine of third state, for
we have distinguished wearer of the
ring OF the Fisherman (Pius III preach
ing that marriage is better for the clergy
than a single life" And even VOltaire,
with all his doubts and speculations, has
this to say with regard to the sacred tie:
"The more married men you have the
fewer crimes there Will be-" inasmuch as
marriage re--ders man more yirtuOus
and more WISE" Cotton put in that
marriage is feast where the grace is
sometimes better than the dinner"
Melancthon agrees with Voltaire on this
question his opinion being "feW I'M
married people are affected as they ought
to be toward the public good and per-
ceive what are really the most important
objects in life" Montague is inclined
to be ironical on the subject, saying that
''the land of marriage has this popularity,
that strangers are DESTROYS of inhabiting
it, while it's natural inhabitants would
willingly be banished from thence" IF
there is irony also in Sidney Smiths OBJ
servation on the subject, it is softened
with a delightful touch of humor. We
have the genial divine comparing
married couples to a pair of shears.
$50 Joined that they can not
be separated, often moving in opposite
directions, yet always Furnishing any one
who comes between them" We have one
noted author intimating that even at the
worse there is a certain measure of bene-
fit in marriage. Eve are not very much
to blame for our bad marriages" says
Emerson; "we live amid Authorizations,
and this especial trap is laid to trip up
our feet with, and all are tripped up first
or last but the mighty mother who had
been so sly with US, IS if she felt she
owed rs some Indemnity, insinuates into
the Pandora box of marriage some deep
and serious benefits and some great joys"
There is the same difference in the YER
diet on the married state in the poetic as
in the prose references to it. The testi-
mOny on both aspects of marriage is in
fact voluminous, and it could not we'll be
otherwise, seeing that it deals with what
bears chiefly on human joy and sorrow.
But there is no question as to which way
the balance turns.
To begin with, however, it is impossi-
bic, of course, to say whether a marriage
will realize all the happiness the two per-
sons chiefly concerned may NATURALLY be
supposed to anticipate from it. And it
is not surprising that, as it is choice
''for better or worse" even matter-of- fact
people are disposed on such occasions to
pay some little attention to usages and
omens appertaining to such choice.
The bride is sure to rejoice if the sun
shines on her, and is as likely to be de-
pressed should the marriage take place
in a thunderstorm She does not trouble
herself for the moment that the light or
shade she has most reason to look for or
dread depends entirely on the way in
which she and her husband are deter
mined to bear and forbear with each
other.
Here there is no mention of Sunday-a
favorable marrying day in the humber
walks of life in some parts of England
and Ireland. In Scotland, Sunday is not
known as a marriage day, nor is Monday
in any great favor, owing probably to an
old law, passed early in the eighteenth
century, directing that for the better
observance of the Sabbath no wedding
should take place on Monday. Tuesday
and Fridays however are considered good
marrying days north of the border. In
Wales the preference seems to be for
Saturday. In Roman Catholic countries
important ventures are seldom begun on
a Friday, and it is rather curious, there
fore, to find that in France the last Friday
in the month is regarded as fortunate
day for weddings, excepting, of course,
all the Fridays and all the other days in
Lent, during which period marriages are
forbidden. Generally May is looked up
on as month to be avoided for marriage
purposes. It is not very clear why the
merry month should be in ill-repute in
this connection. Probably 1t is q super
stitious notion that has come down to US
from Roman times, but on the other
hand the Romans objected to February
for marrying as well as May, while Feb
ruary with US is as much in favor for we'd
dings as any other month except June.
The Jews used to set apart certain
days for betrothal and marriage, and APP
pointed che fourth day for spinsters and
the fifth day for widows. The custom
prevails among modern Jews, but with
a modification as pointed for spinsters,
and Thursday for widows. Here, how
ever the arrangement is one of conyen-
fence and not of superstition; But it is
altogether superstition which prevents
marriages in Scandinavia on Thursday,
that being the day of Thor, and, there
fore to the Morse mind Pagan day, on