ii. 123

Wine, forbidden to women, i. 93, 94, _note_

Witchcraft, belief in the reality of, i. 363. Suicide common among witches, ii. 54

Wollaston, his analysis of moral judgments, i. 76

Women, law of the Romans forbidding women to taste wine, i. 93, 94, _note_. Standards of female morality of the Jews, Greeks, and Romans, 103, 104. Virtues and vices growing out of the relations of the sexes, 143. Female virtue, 143. Effects of climate on this virtue, 144. Of large towns, 146. And of early marriages, 145. Reason for Plato’s advocacy of community of wives, 200. Plutarch’s high sense of female excellence, 244. Female gladiators at Rome, 281, and _note_. Relations of female devotees with the anchorites, ii. 120, 128, 150. Their condition in savage life, 276. Cessation of the sale of wives, 276. Rise of the dowry, 277. Establishment of monogamy, 278. Doctrine of the Fathers as to concupiscence, 281. Nature of the problem of the relations of the sexes, 282. Prostitution, 282-284. Recognition in Greece of two distinct orders of womanhood—the wife and the hetæra, 287. Condition of Roman women, 297, _et seq._ Legal emancipation of women in Rome, 304. Unbounded liberty of divorce, 306. Amount of female virtue in Imperial Rome, 308-312. Legislative measures to repress sensuality, 312. To enforce the reciprocity of obligation in marriage, 312. And to censure prostitution, 315. Influence of Christianity on the position of women, 316, _et seq._ Marriages, 320. Second marriages, 324. Low opinion of women, produced by asceticism, 338. The canon law unfavourable to their proprietary rights, 338, 339. Barbarian heroines and laws, 341-344. Doctrine of equality of obligation in marriage, 346. The duty of man towards woman, 347. Condemnation of transitory connections, 350. Roman concubines, 351. The sinfulness of divorce maintained by the Church, 350-353. Abolition of compulsory marriages, 353. Condemnation of mixed marriages, 353, 354. Education of women, 355. Relation of Christianity to the female virtues, 358. Comparison of male and female characteristics, 358. The Pagan and Christian ideal of woman contrasted, 361-363. Conspicuous part of woman in the early Church, 363-365. Care of widows, 367. Worship of the Virgin, 368, 369. Effect of the suppression of the conventual system on women, 369. Revolution going on in the employments of women, 373

Xenocrates, his tenderness, ii. 163

Xenophanes, his scepticism, i. 162

Xenophon, his picture of Greek married life, ii. 288

Zadok, the founder of the Sadducees, i. 183, _note_

Zeno, vast place occupied by his system in the moral history of man, i. 171. His suicide, 212. His inculcation of the practice of self-examination, 248

Zeus, universal providence attributed by the Greeks to, i. 161

FOOTNOTES

1 There is a remarkable passage of Celsus, on the impossibility of restoring a nature once thoroughly depraved, quoted by Origen in his answer to him.

2 This is well shown by Pressensé in his _Hist. des Trois premiers Siècles_.

3 See a great deal of information on this subject in Bingham’s _Antiquities of the Christian Church_ (Oxford, 1853), vol. v. pp. 370-378. It is curious that those very noisy contemporary divines who profess to resuscitate the manners of the primitive Church, and who lay so much stress on the minutest ceremonial observances, have left unpractised what was undoubtedly one of the most universal, and was believed to be one of the most important, of the institutions of early Christianity. Bingham shows that the administration of the Eucharist to infants continued in France till the twelfth century.

4 See Cave’s _Primitive Christianity_, part i. ch. xi. At first the Sacrament was usually received every day; but this custom soon declined in the Eastern Church, and at last passed away in the West.

5 Plin. _Ep._ x. 97.

6 The whole subject of the penitential discipline is treated minutely in Marshall’s _Penitential Discipline of the Primitive Church_ (first published in 1714, and reprinted in the library of Anglo-Catholic Theology), and also in Bingham, vol. vii. Tertullian gives a graphic description of the public penances, _De Pudicit._ v. 13.

7 Eusebius, _H. E._ viii, 7.

8 St. Chrysostom tells this of St. Babylas. See Tillemont, _Mém. pour servir à l’Hist. eccl._ tome iii. p. 403.

9 In the preface to a very ancient Milanese missal it is said of St. Agatha that as she lay in the prison cell, torn by the instruments of torture, St. Peter came to her in the form of a Christian physician, and offered to dress her wounds; but she refused, saying that she wished for no physician but Christ. St. Peter, in the name of that Celestial Physician, commanded her wounds to close, and her body became whole as before. (Tillemont, tome iii. p. 412.)

10 See her acts in Ruinart.

11 St. Jerome, _Ep._ xxxix.

12 “Definitio brevis et vera virtutis: ordo est amoris.”—_De Civ. Dei_, xv. 22.

13 Besides the obvious points of resemblance in the common, though not universal, belief that Christians should abstain from all weapons and from all oaths, the whole teaching of the early Christians about the duty of simplicity, and the wickedness of ornaments in dress (see especially the writings of Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Chrysostom, on this subject), is exceedingly like that of the Quakers. The scruple of Tertullian (_De Coronâ_) about Christians wearing laurel wreaths in the festivals, because laurel was called after Daphne, the lover of Apollo, was much of the same kind as that which led the Quakers to refuse to speak of Tuesday or Wednesday, lest they should recognise the gods Tuesco or Woden. On the other hand, the ecclesiastical aspects and the sacramental doctrines of the Church were the extreme opposites of Quakerism.

14 See the masterly description of the relations of the English to the Irish in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, in Froude’s _History of England_, ch. xxiv.; and also Lord Macaulay’s description of the feelings of the Master of Stair towards the Highlanders. (_History of England_, ch. xviii.)

15 See on the views of Aristotle, Labourt, _Recherches historiques sur les Enfanstrouvés_ (Paris, 1848), p. 9.

16 See Gravina, _De Ortu et Progressu Juris Civilis_, lib. i. 44.

17 “Nunc uterum vitiat quæ vult formosa videci, Raraque in hoc ævo est, quæ velit esse parens.”

Ovid, _De Nuce_, 22-23.

The same writer has devoted one of his elegies (ii. 14) to reproaching his mistress Corinna with having been guilty of this act. It was not without danger, and Ovid says,

“Sæpe suos utero quæ necit ipsa perit.”

A niece of Domitian is said to have died in consequence of having, at the command of the emperor, practised it (Sueton. _Domit._ xxii.). Plutarch notices the custom (_De Sanitate tuenda_), and Seneca eulogises Helvia (_Ad Helv._ xvi.) for being exempt from vanity and having never destroyed her unborn offspring. Favorinus, in a remarkable passage (Aulus Gellius, _Noct. Att._ xii. 1), speaks of the act as “publica detestatione communique odio dignum,” and proceeds to argue that it is only a degree less criminal for mothers to put out their children to nurse. Juvenal has some well-known and emphatic lines on the subject:—

“Sed jacet aurato vix ulla puerpera lecto; Tantum artes hujus, tantum medicamina possunt, Quæ steriles facit, atque homines in ventre necandos Conducit.”

_Sat._ vi. 592-595.

There are also many allusions to it in the Christian writers. Thus Minucius Felix (_Octavius_, xxx.): “Vos enim video procreatos filios nunc feris et avibus exponere, nunc adstrangulatos misero mortis genere elidere. Sunt quæ in ipsis visceribus, medicaminibus epotis, originem futuri hominis extinguant, et parricidium faciant antequam pariant.”

18 See Labourt, _Recherches sur les Enfans trouvés_, p. 25.

19 Among the barbarian laws there is a very curious one about a daily compensation for children who had been killed in the womb on account of the daily suffering of those children in hell. “Propterea diuturnam judicaverunt antecessores nostri compositionem et judices postquam religio Christianitatis inolevit in mundo. Quia diuturnam postquam incarnationem suscepit anima, quamvis ad nativitatis lucem minima pervenisset, patitur pœnam, quia sine sacramento regenerationis abortivo modo tradita est ad inferos.”—_Leges Bajuvariorum_, tit. vii. cap. xx. in Canciani, _Leges Barbar._ vol. ii. p. 374. The first foundling hospital of which we have undoubted record is that founded at Milan, by a man named Datheus, in A.D. 789. Muratori has preserved (_Antich. Ital._ Diss. xxxvii.) the charter embodying the motives of the founder, in which the following sentences occur: “Quia frequenter per luxuriam hominum genus decipitur, et exinde malum homicidii generatur, dum concipientes ex adulterio, ne prodantur in publico, fetos teneros necant, _et absque baptismatis lavacro parvulos ad Tartara mittunt_, quia nullum reperiunt locum, quo servare vivos valeant,” &c. Henry II. of France, 1556, made a long law against women who, “advenant le temps de leur part et délivrance de leur enfant, occultement s’en délivrent, puis le suffoquent et autrement suppriment _sans leur avoir fait empartir le Saint Sacrement du Baptême_.”—Labourt, _Recherches sur les Enfans trouvés_, p. 47. There is a story told of a Queen of Portugal (sister to Henry V. of England, and mother of St. Ferdinand) that, being in childbirth, her life was despaired of unless she took a medicine which would accelerate the birth but probably sacrifice the life of the child. She answered that “she would not purchase her temporal life by sacrificing the eternal salvation of her son.”—Bollandists, _Act. Sanctor._, June 5th.

20 Tillemont, _Mémoires pour servir à l’Histoire ecclésiastique_ (Paris, 1701), tome x. p. 41. St. Clem. Alexand. says that infants in the womb and exposed infants have guardian angels to watch over them. (_Strom._ v.)

21 There is an extremely large literature devoted to the subject of infanticide, exposition, foundlings, &c. The books I have chiefly followed are Terme et Monfalcon, _Histoire des Enfans trouvés_ (Paris, 1840); Remacle, _Des Hospices d’Enfans trouvés_ (1838); Labourt, _Recherches historiques sur les Enfans trouvés_ (Paris, 1848); Kœnigswarter, _Essai sur la Législation des Peuples anciens et modernes relative aux Enfans nés hors Mariage_ (Paris, 1842). There are also many details on the subject in Godefroy’s Commentary to the laws about children in the Theodosian Code, in Malthus, _On Population_, in Edward’s tract _On the State of Slavery in the Early and Middle Ages of Christianity_, and in most ecclesiastical histories.

22 It must not; however, be inferred from this that infanticide increases in direct proportion to the unchastity of a nation. Probably the condition of civilised society in which it is most common, is where a large amount of actual unchastity coexists with very strong social condemnation of the sinner, and where, in consequence, there is an intense anxiety to conceal the fall. A recent writer on Spain has noticed the almost complete absence of infanticide in that country, and has ascribed it to the great leniency of public opinion towards female frailty. Foundling hospitals, also, greatly influence the history of infanticide; but the mortality in them was long so great that it may be questioned whether they have diminished the number of the deaths, though they have, as I believe, greatly diminished the number of the murders of children. Lord Kames, writing in the last half of the eighteenth century, says: “In Wales, even at present, and in the Highlands of Scotland, it is scarce a disgrace for a young woman to have a bastard. In the country last mentioned, the first instance known of a bastard child being destroyed by its mother through shame is a late one. The virtue of chastity appears to be thus gaining ground, as the only temptation a woman can have to destroy her child is to conceal her frailty.”—_Sketches of the History of Man—On the Progress of the Female Sex._ The last clause is clearly inaccurate, but there seems reason for believing that maternal affection is generally stronger than want, but weaker than shame.

23 See Warburton’s _Divine Legation_, vii. 2.

24 Ælian, _Varia Hist._ ii. 7. Passages from the Greek imaginative writers, representing exposition as the avowed and habitual practice of poor parents, are collected by Terme et Monfalcon, _Hist. des Enfans trouvés_, pp. 39-45. Tacitus notices with praise (_Germania_, xix.) that the Germans did not allow infanticide. He also notices (_Hist._ v. 5) the prohibition of infanticide among the Jews, and ascribes it to their desire to increase the population.

25 Dion. Halic. ii.

_ 26 Ad Nat._ i. 15.

27 The well-known jurisconsult Paulus had laid down the proposition, “Necare videtur non tantum is qui partum perfocat sed et is qui abjicit et qui alimonia denegat et qui publicis locis misericordiæ causa exponit quam ipse non habet.” (_Dig._ lib. xxv. tit. iii. 1. 4.) These words have given rise to a famous controversy between two Dutch professors, named Noodt and Bynkershoek, conducted on both sides with great learning, and on the side of Noodt with great passion. Noodt maintained that these words are simply the expression of a moral truth, not a judicial decision, and that exposition was never illegal in Rome till some time after the establishment of Christianity. His opponent argued that exposition was legally identical with infanticide, and became, therefore, illegal when the power of life and death was withdrawn from the father. (See the works of Noodt (Cologne, 1763) and of Bynkershoek (Cologne, 1761)). It was at least certain that exposition was notorious and avowed, and the law against it, if it existed, inoperative. Gibbon (_Decline and Fall_, ch. xliv.) thinks the law censured but did not punish exposition. See, too, Troplong, _Influence du Christianisme sur le Droit_, p. 271.

28 Quintilian speaks in a tone of apology, if not justification, of the exposition of the children of destitute parents (_Decl._ cccvi.), and even Plutarch speaks of it without censure. (_De Amor. Prolis._) There are several curious illustrations in Latin literature of the different feelings of fathers and mothers on this matter. Terence (_Heauton._ Act. iii. Scene 5) represents Chremes as having, as a matter of course, charged his pregnant wife to have her child killed provided it was a girl. The mother, overcome by pity, shrank from doing so, and secretly gave it to an old woman to expose it, in hopes that it might be preserved. Chremes, on hearing what had been done, reproached his wife for her womanly pity, and told her she had been not only disobedient but irrational, for she was only consigning her daughter to the life of a prostitute. In Apuleius (_Metam._ lib. x.) we have a similar picture of a father starting for a journey, leaving his wife in childbirth, and giving her his parting command to kill her child if it should be a girl, which she could not bring herself to do. The girl was brought up secretly. In the case of weak or deformed infants infanticide seems to have been habitual. “Portentosos fœtus extinguimus, liberos quoque, si debiles monstrosique editi sunt, mergimus. Non ira, sed ratio est, a sanis inutilia secernere.”—Seneca, _De Ira_, i. 15. Terence has introduced a picture of the exposition of an infant into his _Andria_, Act. iv.