ADULTERY.

Theodore Beza relates, that on the 26th of March, 1563, the Sieur de Saint-Cyre, otherwise called Puy-Greffier, who had been appointed governor of Orleans from the time that the prince left that town, a good man, and a great enemy to vice, caused a new and remarkable execution to be made in the persons of Deslandes Sieur du Moulin, formerly secretary to the king, and of Godarde, the wife of John Godin, lieutenant to the provost-marshal of Blois. Whilst this Godin was in the army, du Moulin seduced his wife at Orleans, for which crime he was hanged with her in the square du Martroy. This story being told at court, appeared so strange, that many were not ashamed to say, that if there were nothing else in the reformed religion, they would be sure not to embrace it. The courtiers were in the right to say that Puy-Greffier’s severity was out of fashion; nay, the civilian Faber, quoted by Thuanus, expressly says, that it was never heard that any body had been punished for adultery in France. Few people were able to refrain saying in that respect, “ Let us beware of innovations.” It must also be granted that this severity was not of long continuance among the Protestants, according to the maxim, “ nullum violentum durabile.” It lasted longer at Geneva, but at last it vanished away: and it may be said in general, to the shame of Christians, that they have suffered the penal laws, which many Pagan nations had enacted against adultery, to be abolished time out of mind. There is hardly any crime which oftener escapes with impunity; for whoever prosecutes any person for it, must rather expect to be the talk of the town, and to be laughed at by every body, than to procure

any redress The English action for damages, so much laughed at by foreigners, is after all, possibly as effective a mode of checking this offence as any that could be devised with due chance of execution. The notion of money, as a compensation for dishonour, doubtless appears inconsistent; but in point of fact, this form of the case amounts to little more than a legal fiction, that favourite road through which English law reaches justice in almost all cases,—the shortest line between two points being any thing but aright line in the eyes of a lawyer. The only operative benefit of an action for damages, as regards society and morals, is punishment, not recompense; and damages paid as a fine would no longer appear incongruous. It must be confessed, however, that in this case the discrepancy between form and fact is of no great moment.—Ed. ¹⁵. I do not pretend to approve in every thing the penal laws of the heathens on this head; for what could be more horrid than the custom which Theodosius suppressed at Rome? Women guilty of adultery were condemned to live in little cells, and to prostitute themselves to all comers; and to make every one sensible that the punishment was executed, little bells were rung during the time of the execution Socrates, Hist. Eccles, lib. v. cap. xviii. ¹⁶.

Any one, who compares Thuanus’s words with the epistle dedicatory of Brissonius’s book, “ ad legem Juliam de adulteriis,” will wonder that this great historian should speak of the impunity of adultery, as he does; for it appears that Brissonius, dedicating his book, the 29th of November, 1557, to Christopher de Thou, president in the parliament of Paris, and the historian’s father, praises him for having caused some persons guilty of that sin to be punished; and adds, that this public example was applauded by all good men, which put the author upon writing a commentary on the law which that magistrate had revived. It is very probable, that notwithstanding all the applauses of good men, Christopher de Thou relaxed, and that

perceiving he could not put a stop to the corruption, he was obliged to let things take their usual course. Hence it is that his son took no notice of that short interruption of impunity. Brissonius intimates, that if there had been accusers in former times, the judges of France would have made it appear that they were not unwilling to punish adulterers. Indeed I believe that the accusers for this crime have been few; but the difficulty of proving such an accusation, and the shame that attends those who carry the cause, are more than sufficient to prevent most suits of that kind. Montaigne has been very explicit on this subject. It must be confessed, that it is not so much the connivance of the magistrates, or the silence of preachers, as the greatness of the evil, that prevents the execution of the laws. A professor of philosophy at Groningen published, in 1663, a collection of dissertations, wherein he says, that the divines of Strasbourg prevailed about thirty years before with the magistrates, to inflict a capital punishment on adulterers; and he wishes the reformed divines of the low countries would not express so much zeal against dancing, as against the too great indulgence for adultery. He fancies, that if they had thundered to purpose against that abuse, they would, with God’s blessing upon their endeavours, have engaged the magistrates to inflict a more severe punishment than a fine. Had he been a minister, he would not have found it so easy to follow his own advice.—Art.St Cyre.