ilton nor any of his successors must look at the problem from his own
point of view alone. Laws are made, and ought to be, as he himself
says, for the "lump of men"; and the wisdom or {53} unwisdom of
facilities for divorce must be judged, not merely by the relief they
afford in unhappy marriages, but also by the danger of disturbance they
produce in the far more numerous marriages which, though experiencing
their days of doubt or difficulty, are on the whole happy or at least
not unhappy. Perhaps Milton himself might have hesitated if he could
have foreseen the consequences of an application of his theories.
Modern divorce laws have filled our newspapers with just that
"clamouring debate of utterless things" which he dreaded and abhorred,
while few will argue that they have increased the number of unions
which answer to his conception of "the true intent of marriage."

After all, Milton's own story illustrates the advantages of putting
delays and difficulties in the way of divorce. According to his nephew
he had planned to act upon his principles and marry "a very handsome
and witty gentlewoman"; but the lady had more regard than he to the
world's opinion. And she did Milton a service by her reluctance. For
the rumour of her, helped by their own misfortunes, brought the Powells
to their senses; and with the help of Milton's friends they managed the
well-known scene at a room in St. Martin's the Grand, in which he was
{54} surprised by the sight of his wife on her knees before him.

"Soon his heart relented
Towards her, his life so late, and sole delight,
Now at his feet submissive in distress."

So he glances back at the scene twenty years later when he was drawing
to the close of his great poem. Meanwhile he received back his wife,
who bore him three daughters and died in 1653 or 1654. He was to marry
again in 1656; but this second wife, the "espoused saint" of his
sonnet, lived little more than a year; and in 1663 he married his third
wife who long survived him. But to return to the house in the
Barbican, to which he removed with his wife in 1645. With him there
were also his father, two nephews and other boys whom it was his
principal occupation to teach. It is somewhat surprising that he found
pupils, as his views on the divorce question had naturally caused
scandal in all quarters and received little support in any. He could
now see that the Presbyterian Church discipline which he had advo