[Footnote 453: "Il y avait même un tel mélange de la religion à toutes les circonstances de la vie civile, que la législation, en certaines matières, en référait à la Bible qui était, pour ainsi dire, le _corpus juris_ des émigrants dans la Nouvelle-Angleterre. La famille, où ils avaient puisé le sentiment religieux, était forte parce qu'elle était unie; et le père, qui ressemblait en quelque sorte au patriarche d'autrefois, avait une autorité incontestée qu'on aimait, car elle était composée de bienveillance et de justice."--CARLIER, _Le mariage aux États-Unis_, 7, 8.]
[Footnote 454: "Between these two extreme views--that of marriage as merely a civil contract and marriage as a sacrament--stands that of the Jewish law. The act of concluding marriage is there certainly also considered as a contract, which requires the consent of both parties and the performance of certain formalities, similar to other contracts, and which, under certain circumstances, can be dissolved. But, inasmuch as marriage concerns a relation which is based on morality and implies the most sacred duties, it is more than a mere civil contract."--MIELZINER, _The Jewish Law of Marriage and Divorce_, 25, 26. But "the presence of a rabbi or minister is, according to the Talmudic Law, not required at the betrothal or the nuptials. The prescribed benedictions were pronounced either by the bridegroom or by any of the friends present. Such was also the Jewish custom during the Middle Ages."--_Ibid._, 84. _Cf._ AMRAM, _The Jewish Law of Divorce_, 39.]
[Footnote 455: See SHIRLEY'S comments on the Cutt Code, "Early Jurisprudence of New Hampshire," _Procds. New Hamp. Hist. Soc._ (1876-84), 273 ff.]
Thus "old bachelors," though rare in early New England, were looked upon with disfavor. They were regarded almost as "suspected criminals."[456] Connecticut "in 1636 would not allow any young unmarried man to keep house."[457] A special order of the town of Windsor was necessary, in 1682, to permit "Isaac Sheldon and Samuel Rockwell to keep house together, 'so they carry themselves soberly and do not entertain idle persons to the evil expense of time by day or night.'"[458] Hartford taxed "lone-men" twenty shillings a week "for the selfish luxury of solitary living."[459] Even in the eighteenth century a general statute of Connecticut, under the same penalty of twenty shillings a week, forbade any "house-keeper" or "master of a family," without "allowance of the selectmen," to give "entertainment or habitation" to a single person; and "such Bourders, Sojourners, and Young persons" are required to "attend to the Worship of God" in the families where they live and "to be subject to the domestick Government of the same," or else forfeit five shillings for every breach of the law.[460] In Rhode Island in one instance "single persons of three months' residence paid five shillings, while the 'rate of faculties and personal abilities' was left at the discretion of the assessors."[461] According to a New Haven law, in order to "suppress inconvenience" and disorders inconsistent with the "mind of God in the fifth commandment," single persons, not in service or dwelling with their relatives, are forbidden to diet or lodge alone; but they are required to live in "licensed" families; and the "governors" of such families are ordered to "observe the course, carriage, and behaviour, of every such single person, whether he or she walk diligently in a constant lawful imployment, attending both family duties and the publick worship of God, and keeping good order day and night or otherwise."[462]