In the history of civilization, religion of this nature was the introduction of the often acts as a liberator of women. Some- Bacchanalia, or worship of Bacchus, in times, indeed, it acts in an opposite direc- 186 B.C. The historian Livy gives us tion, when, by false conceptions of human- details of this event, and his account is ity, it restricts the duties and privileges of confirmed by a contemporary tablet of women. But, on the other hand, religion brass, containing a decree or rather a letgenerally excites the mind to a wild state ter of the Senate, found in southern Italy of enthusiasm, and in this enthusiasm the in 1640. The narrative throws great light ideas and prescriptions of conventionality on the effects produced by the introducare set aside, the pleasures of liberty are tion of a new worship, and therefore I felt, and by degrees a permanent gain in will relate the circumstances with some freedom is established. We find this to minuteness. A Greek of low birth came be the case in Greece, where almost the to Etruria, offering to initiate the people only occasions on which the women came in the mysteries of Bacchus. The rites of in contact with the outer world were sup- that god were often celebrated in Greece plied by the observance of religious festi- by night, and were accompanied by feast, vals. The Roman religion was in many dance, and song. This was to some exrespects unlike the Greek. It was not tent a new feature of worship to the Italbrightened by genial fancies, it afforded ians, and the Etrurians were seized with a no scope for emotional outpourings, its fury for it as by a plague. It spread from prayers were confined to fixed formulas, Etruria to Rome. At first the worship and its ritual was strictly prescribed. It was carried on in secret, but at length the was, like the Romans themselves, solemn matter reached the ears of the consul. A and sedate. The Roman religion, there- woman who had been initiated, testified fore, did not contain those elements which that at first women alone were admitted to could contribute to enlarge the freedom of the celebration of the rites, that they met women. There were, indeed, various fes- in the daytime thrice in the year on fixed tivals which were celebrated by matrons | days, and that matrons were elected priestalone, into which it was death for a male esses. At length, however, a priestess, to intrude, and these afforded women op- acting as if by the advice of the god, inportunity to consult with each other. But itiated her sons, changed the festival from it may be doubted whether the Roman the daytime to night, and appointed the women ever used these meetings for any celebrations to take place five times every other than their purely religious purposes, month. At the rites the men leapt and and whether these gatherings were ever tossed their arms about in the most frantic characterized by fervor and frenzy. It manner, amidst the clashing of cymbals was in the introduction of foreign gods and the beating of drums, and they uttered and worships that the craving of the Ro- prophecies; while the women, dressed as man women for religious excitement was the worshippers of Bacchus, howled and gratified, and in the celebration of these yelled, rushed with dishevelled hair and worships we see that the women were blazing torches down to the river Tiber, sometimes as daring as in their poison- plunged their torches into the river, drew ings. They naturally took to the foreign them forth still blazing as if by miracle, gods whose worship was accompanied by and returned, still howling and yelling, to great elevation of the spirit and outward their celebrations. The woman also dedemonstrations. Thus we are told that clared that the frenzy had taken hold of a the worship of the Idæan mother, the god- large portion of the population, including dess whose priests danced wildly, cutting many of the nobility; but that for some their bodies until the blood streamed reason or other, very recently a resoludown, was introduced in 204 B.C., and that tion had been passed that none should be on that occasion the highest matrons of initiated who were above twenty years of the city went forth to receive the goddess, age. The consuls, on receiving this inand, amidst prayers and incense, and in formation from the woman, brought the the sight of the whole population, carried matter before the Senate, an inquiry was the goddess to her temple. In this case instituted, and it was discovered that there was no irregularity in the introduc- above seven thousand men and women tion of the new worship, for the act had had engaged in these secret celebrations. been ordered by the Senate at the insti- The feature in this case which interests gation of the College of Diviners. us, and at that time attracted the notice of the Senate, was that persons of both sexes and various ages met together at night and engaged in orgies, in which wine was But the women did not always wait for the sanction of the State, but acted on their own impulse. The most notable instance freely drunk. The Roman citizen was forbidden to practise any worship not sanctioned by the State; but here the women defied the law of their country and outraged the old Roman notions of propriety. Stories soon got abroad, as they always do in such matters, that it was not merely for the worship of the god that these nocturnal assemblies were held; that, in fact, these meetings were scenes of revelry, and that in them poisonings and fabrications of wills were concocted. The worship thus became, according to these reports, an immoral conspiracy, and all who had taken any part in it were searched out and punished. Many were thrown into prison; some were put to death. The women were handed over to their relatives to be punished in private, and if no relatives could be found, then they were punished in public. of women. It may be doubted whether the immoral character of this religious outburst was not grossly exaggerated, and whether the scandals attributed to it did not arise simply from the fact that it was the work "First of all," said the consul in his public harangue on the subject, "a great portion of the initiated were women, and that was the source of this evil." Such ebullitions of women were regarded by the stern old-fashioned Romans as in the highest degree discreditable, and they must be repressed even by the severest measures. For a time the religious mania seems to have subsided, but in the later days of the republic and the commencement of the empire, the Roman matrons displayed the same rage for foreign worships. The temples of the Egyptian goddess Isis were crowded, and her priests were caressed and revered. Many women became adherents of the Jewish faith, and Eastern divinities had numerous devotees. In these cases the women claimed for themselves the right to worship whatever god pleased them. Often, in carrying out this worship, they had to break through the rules of conventionality, and they thus asserted for themselves a freedom which nothing but a religious impulse would have led many of the more sensitive to claim. The women of Rome were also roused to self-assertion by the interference of the laws with their special concerns, and they did not hesitate to step out of their usual routine to oppose such laws. Thus, for instance: A law had been proposed in 215 B.C. by Oppius, a tribune of the people, to the effect that no woman should be allowed to possess more than a half-ounce of gold, to wear a parti-colored garment, to ride in a chariot within the city of Rome or a town occupied by Roman citizens, or within a mile of these places, except for religious purposes. The exact object which this law had in view is not made clear to us. Long before this, at the time of the Gallic invasion 392, the liberty to ride in a chariot had been conferred on Roman matrons as a special privilege, because when the Roman State had not sufficient money to pay the ransom demanded by the Gauls, the Roman matrons came forward and presented their gold and other ornaments to the treasury. It is possible that Oppius may have thought that the Roman matrons in 215 B.C. were too slow in imitating the gen erosity of their ancestors, and the law may thus have implied an insulting rebuke. But there cannot be a doubt that the law was specially designed to put a curb on the extravagant expenditure of the women at a time when all the resources of the community were required to meet the dreadful emergencies which had befallen the State. It was therefore one of those sumptuary laws which make their appearance in early stages of government, examples of which are to be met with in Scottish legislation; as, for instance, when the Estates in 1567 passed a law that "no woman should adorn herself with dress above what was appropriate to her rank." But whatever may have been the object, the law became peculiarly galling to the matrons. They might submit patiently while distress prevailed, but the terrible Punic war had now ended glori ously, success crowned all the military expeditions of the Romans, wealth flowed in from the East, the men had taken advantage of the prosperity, and it seemed singularly hard that women alone should not share in the indulgences which riches had carried in their train. Probably many complaints had been uttered in private, but the full current of feeling did not come to light until two tribunes of the people proposed the abrogation of the Oppian law. Then the subject seized the public mind. It became the topic of conversation at the baths and the barbers' shops, at the public and the private gatherings of men. Some were for the abrogation, some were against it, and intense bitterness prevailed on both sides. It was not likely that the matrons would remain silent on such an occasion. They, no doubt, plied their husbands, sons, and other relatives with every possible argument, by every If men [he says] had retained their rights and dignity within the family, the women would never have broken out publicly in this manner. If women had only a proper sense of shame, they would know that it was not becoming in them to take any interest in the passing or annulling of laws. But now we allow them to take part in politics. If they succeed, who knows where they will end? As soon as they begin to be equal with us, they will have the advantage over us. And for what object are they now agitating? Merely to satisfy their inordinate craving for luxury and show, which will become only the more intense the more it is gratified. form of entreaty. But their ardor could | tempt for woman herself, mixed doubtless not be confined within the limits of the with a sneaking dread of her power. One house. They left housekeeping to take of his sayings handed down to us is: care of itself, and issued forth into the "Had there been no women in the world, streets and public places to waylay every the gods would still have been dwelling man that had a vote. They did not wait with us." But another is also attributed till they became acquainted with the men. to him a modification of a saying of They assailed strangers as well as friends. Themistocles: "All men rule their wives, They also held meetings among them- we rule all men, and we are ruled by our selves and had secret deliberations. Each wives." The speech in Livy shows little day their numbers swelled. Roman citi- of his ferocity. It contains the arguments zenesses from distant towns and villages that would have been used in the time of flocked in to help their sisters of the city. Livy, and for his time it is valuable :No stone was left unturned. They went to the nobles, they interviewed prætors and consuls. At length the day drew near when the vote was to be taken in the public assembly. A great meeting was held on the previous evening. One of the consuls, the obstinate red-haired Cato, delivered a savage speech against the matrons. Others joined in his resistance. The tribunes who had proposed the abrogation spoke in their favor, and they were well supported. But the matrons must have spent that night in great anxiety. They knew that two of the tribunes were ready to oppose the abrogation, and that their veto was sufficient to prevent the abroga tion passing. And therefore their resistance must be overcome. The women were determined. They rose early; they gathered in vast crowds; they surrounded the houses of the obstinate tribunes; they coaxed, they threatened, they employed every form of womanly persuasiveness on these two tribunes, and at last the tribunes gave way. The abrogation of the law was formally put to the meeting; there was no opposition, and the women gained their point. One historian asserts that, on hearing the news, they burst into the assembly, donned their ornaments once more, and celebrated their victory by a spirited dance within the legislative buildings. The historian Livy, to whom we owe the most vivid account of this outbreak of the matrons, furnishes us with a report of the public meeting held on the day before the vote was taken. Especially he supplies us with the speeches of the prin cipal opponent, Cato the consul, and of L. Valerius the tribune, who proposed the abrogation. We can have no hesitation in believing that these speeches are the productions of the historian himself. Cato, we may be sure, did speak on the occasion, and the speech which Livy puts in his mouth is in harmony with his character. The stern lover of old ways had a detestation of woman's rights and a con of the replies of men in behalf of women, The reply of L. Valerius was, like many I am afraid, far from satisfactory to them: Cato is wrong in asserting that women make a public appearance on this occasion for the first time. The wives of the first Romans stepped publicly between fathers-in-law and sons-in-law. Roman matrons went on deputa tion to Coriolanus, they interfered at the Gallic invasion, they performed public services in religious matters. Then the prosperity following the Punic Wars has brought advantages to all classes of the community; why should the matrons alone be excepted from this good fortune? And why should men grudge them their ornaments and dress? Women cannot hold public offices or priesthoods, or gain triumphs; they have no public occupations. What, then, can they do but devote their time to adornment and dress? Surely then men ought to let them have their own way in these matters. On another occasion the women of Rome gathered in numbers and made a public appeal. The circumstances were these: The triumvirs, Octavianus, Antony, and Lepidus, had proscribed a large number of citizens, and they confiscated and sold their estates in order to meet the expenses of a war then going on. But land was a drug in the market, and, besides, people were unwilling to purchase property exposed to sale in consequence of violent acts. The sum, therefore, ob tained from the sales fell far short of the amount required, and the triumvirs had to look to other sources of revenue. They accordingly passed a decree that fourteen hundred of the richest women in the city should lay before them an exact statement of their means, with severe penalties against concealment or undervaluation; and they claimed the power to employ any portion of the wealth thus reported to them for paying the expenses of the war. The women were thrown into the utmost perplexity and distress, but they could find no man daring enough to plead their cause before the triumvirs. Left to their own resources, they went first of all to the sister of Octavianus and the mother and wife of Antony. The sister of Octavianus and the mother of Antony gave them a kindly reception, but Fulvia, the wife of Antony, drove them from her door. Thus insulted, they turned to the tribunal of the triumvirs. Hortensia, the daughter of the famous orator Hortensius, spoke in their name. She delivered a powerful speech, which is highly praised by the great Latin critic Quintilian, and she succeeded in getting the demands of the triumvirs reduced to a comparatively small sum. These public appearances of women were, of course, only occasional; but they were frequent enough to show that women had interests of their own, and had resolution enough to assert them when such a course was necessary. Perhaps the cause which altered the position of women most of all, next to their goodness, was the change in the circumstances of the Romans, brought about by the extension of their empire and the increase of wealth. I have already said that it was held as a maxim that woman could do nothing of herself; that she must be under the guardianship of her father, her husband, or some tutor; and that in the earliest period the girl, on being married, passed from the power of her father into the hands of the husband. It has been inferred by some, from one form of the Roman marriage rite, that there was a time when the Roman bought his wife from her father or guardian, and thus acquired full power over her. He did not treat her as a slave. His own respect for Roman citizenship and the mother of Roman citizens would prevent this; but his power over his slaves could scarcely be greater than that over the wife for whom he had paid. Then there was a time when religion required that the wife should pass into the hands of her husband. Every family in Rome had special gods of its own, who were supposed to protect it, and these gods could be worshipped properly only when the sacrifices were offered by members of the family. It was profanation for others to attempt this service. So if the wife had not been taken into the family of her husband, she could not have shared in his worship, she would not be present at the family festivals, and she would be bound to go to the worship of the gods and celebrate the festivals of her father, to whose family she would still belong. Thus pecuniary and religious considerations would create a transference of the wife into the family of her husband. But when we come to historical times we find both of these influences dying out or dead. The pecuniary influence was gone. The wife was no longer bought. And the religious influence existed only in a few families whose members might attain to the highest priesthoods of the State. In fact, the Romans had given up, to a large extent, their special family gods, and therefore transference of the wife into the family of the husband became unnecessary. What, then, took the place of this transference into the family? To answer that we must look into the condition of the Romans in respect of wealth. At the earliest stage the Romans lived in humble cottages. The consul might command armies, but he dwelt within a house of few chambers, and might often be seen ploughing his own land. The household lived on the produce of its own farm. In these circumstances the wife could be nothing else than an economic housekeeper, working with her hands and entirely dependent on her husband for her maintenance. Probably her father would not wish to have her sent back to him, as he might have enough to do for the rest of his family, and he would be very unwilling to pay back the sum which he had received for her, and so the wife had to make up her mind to submit. But a change in her position took place when wealth began to flow into Rome. Then the men obtained ample means, and money would be to them no consideration. The fathers scorned in such circumstances to sell their daughters; but, on the contrary, came to feel that it was their duty to provide for them for life. The daughters would thus no longer wish to be in the power of their husbands but in that of their fathers. A further development took place when the women themselves came to possess wealth. Fathers left large sums to their daughters, husbands left large sums to their widows, and thus arose a class of rich women. This seemed such an anomaly to some of the Romans that they tried to check it. A law was passed (the Lex Voconia) in 169 B.C., by which it was illegal to make a woman heir to a fortune above one hundred thousand asses, and she was never to get more than the heir appointed in the will. But the necessity of the law might have proved its futility. Throughout Roman history a marked feature is the strong affection of fathers for their daughters and of husbands for their wives, and no law could effectively restrain them from contriving to give the most part of their goods to those whom they loved. Accordingly, the fathers and husbands invented devices by which all such laws might be evaded. A father, for instance, named as his heir some man who had solemnly promised that he would hand over all the fortune to the daughter. The heir thus became a mere trustee, and the Roman law at length sanctioned such trusteeships. And thus, although the woman was nominally under the power of a guardian, she had yet full liberty to do with her property as she liked, and she gained the importance and influence which belong to wealth. These changes produced a revolution in the nature of marriage. Marriage now became a contract. It was the invariable custom for the father to give a dowry with his daughter. The interest of this dowry was sufficient to support her, so that she could be no burden on her husband. In fact, the husband was not liable for her support except remotely; the duty fell on the father first and then on various kinsmen, coming only at a late stage on the husband. The husband had the right to the use of the dowry while the marriage continued, but if it was dissolved, without blame on the wife's part, he had to return the entire dowry. Of course the wife might have money of her own besides the dowry. That remained entirely in her own power, or the power of her father or guardian; the husband could not meddle with it. He might persuade her to bestow some of it on him, but he had no legal control over it. Marriage was thus a contract which came into full force when the woman was led to the house of the man. It was a contract which must be made in the presence of witnesses, and it could be dissolved; but, again, the dissolution of it must be carried out legally-i.e., in the presence of competent witnesses. Religious ceremonies accompanied the marriage, but the religious ceremonies had nothing to do with the contract, and therefore were not essential to the marriage. It was necessary in this contract that hus. band and wife should give their consent, and when they were under control, that their parents or guardians also should consent. Generally each family had a family council, consisting of friends and relatives, and this council would be summoned to decide on the terms of the contract, and it was deemed disreputable in a man to dissolve his marriage without invoking this council. Husband or wife might dissolve the marriage for any reason, but precipitation was guarded against by the necessity of legal forms and by the practice of asking the advice of this council, at the head of which was the father of the husband or wife. Such, then, was the position of woman in respect to marriage in the last centuries of the Roman republic, and it will be seen that she was on a practical equality with man. This state of matters sometimes caused curious combinations in life. The most singular case, one throwing much light on the ideas of marriage prev alent among the nobility of Rome, is that of Hortensius, which has been related by Plutarch. Hortensius, the great Roman orator, was anxious to be allied to Cato, the champion of Roman liberty, who died at Utica, and to marry Cato's daughter. There was one difficulty in the way. Cato's daughter, by name Porcia, was already married to Bibulus. But Hortensius did not regard this as a serious obstacle. He went to Bibulus, told him his wish, and begged him to dissolve his marriage with Porcia, and thus afford himself an opportunity of marrying her. He stated that after she had borne him two children he would relinquish his marriage claims, and she might remarry Bibulus. Cato, the father, was consulted, and refused his consent. But Cato suggested a way out of the difficulty. He himself would yield up his own wife Marcia to Hortensius on condition that her father did not object. Her father agreed, but on one stipulation, that her former husband should be present at the marriage. Cato accepted this stipulation, and Marcia was married to Hortensius. Hortensius died and Marcia became a widow. But she did not remain a widow long, for she soon married her former husband, bringing with her the fortune of Hortensius. In this case there is no constraint of any one and no illegality. Cato and Marcia dissolve their marriage voluntarily and legally; Hortensius and Marcia marry voluntarily and legally; and |