With regard to polygamy in
general, independently of the circumstances which may render it
tolerable, it is not of the least service to mankind, nor to either of
the two sexes, whether it be that which abuses or that which is abused.
Neither is it of service to the children; for one of its greatest
inconveniences is, that the father and mother cannot have the same
affection for their offspring; a father cannot love twenty children with
the same tenderness as a mother can love two. It is much worse when a
wife has many husbands; for then paternal love only is held by this
opinion, that a father may believe, if he will, or that others may
believe, that certain children belong to him.
They say that the Emperor of Morocco has women of all colours,
white, black, and tawny, in his seraglio. But the wretch has scarcely
need of a single colour.
Besides, the possession of so many wives does not always prevent
their entertaining desires for those of others;
[11]
it is with lust as
with avarice, whose thirst increases by the acquisition of treasure.
In the reign of Justinian, many philosophers, displeased with the
constraint of Christianity, retired into Persia. What struck them the
most, says Agathias,
[12]
was that polygamy was permitted amongst men who
did not even abstain from adultery.
May I not say that a plurality of wives leads to that passion which
nature disallows? for one depravation always draws on another. I
remember that in the revolution which happened at Constantinople, when
Sultan Achmet was deposed, history says that the people, having
plundered the Kiaya's house, found not a single woman; they tell us that
at Algiers,
[13]
in the greatest part of their seraglios, they have none
at all.
