We have now seen that the two modes of obtaining a living other than by working for it are, by forcibly or stealthily appropriating the proceeds of another’s labour, or else by seducing the more industrious or thrifty to part with a portion of their gains. Prostitution, professionally resorted to, belongs to the latter class, and consists, when adopted as a means of subsistence without labour, in inducing others, by the performance of some immoral act, to render up a portion of their possessions. Literally construed, prostitution is the putting of anything to a vile use; in this sense perjury is a species of prostitution, being an unworthy use of the faculty of speech; so, again, bribery is a prostitution of the right of voting; while prostitution, specially so called, is the using of her charms by a woman for immoral purposes. This, of course, may be done either from mercenary or voluptuous motives; be the cause, however, what it may, the act remains the same, and consists in the base perversion of a woman’s charms—the surrendering of her virtue to criminal indulgence. Prostitution has been defined to be the illicit intercourse of the sexes; but illicit is unlicensed, and the mere sanctioning of an immoral act could not dignify it into a moral one. Such a definition would make the criminality of the act to consist solely in the absence of the priest’s licence.

In Persia there are no professional prostitutes permitted; but though the priest’s sanction there precedes the surrendering of the woman’s virtue in every instance, still the same immoral perversion takes place—it being customary for couples to be wedded for a small sum by the priest in the evening, and divorced by him, for an equally small sum, in the morning. Here, then, we find the licensed intercourse assuming the same immoral cast as the unlicensed; for surely none will maintain that these nuptial ephemeræ are sanctified, because accompanied with a priestly licence. Nor can we, on the other hand, assert that the mere fact of continence in the association of the sexes, the persistence of the female to one male, or the continued endurance of an unsanctioned attachment, can ever be raised into anything purer than cohabitation, or the chastity of unchastity.

Prostitution, then, does not consist solely in promiscuous intercourse, for she who confines her favours to one may still be a prostitute; nor does it consist in illicit or unsanctioned intercourse, for, as we have seen, the intercourse may be sanctioned and still be prostitution to all intents and purposes. Nor can it be said to consist solely in the mercenary motives so often prompting to the commission of the act; for fornication is expressly that form of prostitution which is the result of illicit attachment.

In what, then, it may be asked, does prostitution consist? It consists, I answer, in what the word literally expresses—putting a woman’s charms to vile uses. The term whore has, strictly, the same signification as that of prostitute; though usually supposed to be from the Saxon verb hyrian, to hire, and, consequently, to mean a woman whose favours can be procured for a reward. But the Saxon substantive hure, is the same word as the first syllable of hor-cwen, which signifies literally a filthy quean, a har-lot. Now the term hor, in hor-cwen, is but another form of the Saxon adjective horig, filthy, dirty, the Latin equivalent of which is sor-didus; hence the substantive horines means filthiness, and horingas, adulterers (or filthy people), and hornung, adultery, fornication, whoredom (or filthy acts). Prostitution and whoredom, then, have both the same meaning, viz., perversion to vile or filthy uses; and consist in the surrendering of a woman’s virtue in a manner that excites our moral disgust. The offensiveness of the act of unchastity to the moral taste or sense constitutes the very essence of prostitution; and it is this moral offensiveness which often makes the licensed intercourse of the sexes, as in the marriage of a young girl to an old man, for the sake of his money, as much an act of prostitution as even the grossest libertinism.

The next question consequently becomes, what are the invariable antecedents which excite the moral disgust in every act of prostitution? or are there any such invariable antecedents characterizing each offensive perversion of a woman’s charms? Is the offensiveness a mere matter of taste, differing according as the moral palates of the individuals or races may differ one from the other, and ultimately referable to some peculiar form of organization, convention, fashion, or geography? or is it a part of the inherent constitution of things?—in a word, is there an abstract chastity and unchastity; an erotic τὸ καλὸν and τὸ κακὸν; an universal standard of moral beauty and ugliness in woman—that, go where you will, is the same to all natures and in all countries? or is the vice of one set of people the virtue of another, as this race admires white teeth and that black?

This is a matter lying, as it were, across the very threshold of the subject, and which must necessarily, according as one or other view be taken, give a wholly different cast, not only to all our thoughts in connection with the evil, but to all our plans for the remedy of it. If prostitution be loathsome to us, merely because it is the moral fashion of our people that it should be so, then by popularizing new forms of thought and feeling among us may we remove all opprobrium from the act, and so put an end to all the moral evil in connection with it; but if it be naturally and innately offensive to every healthy mind, then can it be remedied solely by improving the tone of the thoughts and feelings of the depraved, and restoring the lost moral sense, as well as directing the perverted taste to more wholesome and beautiful objects.

To solve this part of the problem, then, it will be necessary that we should take as comprehensive a view of the subject as possible, collecting a large and multifarious body of facts, and examining the matter from almost every conceivable point of view. It will be necessary that we should regard it by the light of the early ages of society—that we should contemplate it amid all the primitive rudeness of barbaric life—and ultimately that we should study it under the many varied phases that it assumes in civilized communities.

For the better performance of this task I have availed myself of the services and assistance of my friend, Mr. Horace St. John, whom I shall now leave to lay before the reader the many curious and interesting facts which he has collected at my request in connection with the ancient and foreign part of the subject, after which I shall return to the consideration of that branch of the general inquiry connected more immediately with the prostitution of this country.

Of Prostitution in Ancient States: General View.

In the following inquiry, though the chief object will be to ascertain the extent and character of the prostitute class of women, it will be necessary to indicate generally the condition of the sex in various ages, and among different nations. This will afford a comparative view of the subject. It is impossible to form a judgment on the condition of this class, and its influence on society, without learning in what degree of estimation morality is viewed by a people; what position in the social scale is occupied by their women; at what price chastity is held; and what are the relative stations of the sexes. To afford a correct idea of this, in plain, popular language, is the task to which we now apply ourselves; and we commence with the ancient states whose institutions have, in a greater or less degree, influenced those of all others, in every later age. It is necessary to maintain a distinction between those countries where marriage was an institution, and those—if they are not quite fabulous—at least savage communities where the intercourse of men with women is looser than that of beasts.

Far as we can trace the history of society we discover no state without the blemish of prostitution. In some it was more, in others less prevalent; but in all it existed in one form or another. In examining the manners of the ancient nations, Hebrews, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Celts, and Anglo Saxons, we find women who degraded themselves from vanity, lust, or for gain; and, among the old communities of the East, less known to us, public immorality was a characteristic. We shall show this to have been the case, and, basing our statements on the most creditable authority, indicate the principal features of each system. The information, it is true, which has been bequeathed to us, and elucidated by the learning and diligence of numerous scholars, is far from complete; but enough may be collected among the antiquities of Israel, Greece, Rome, and Egypt, to establish a fair opinion. The general design of this inquiry will be to draw a view of the position occupied by the female sex in different ages and countries, to measure the estimation in which it was held, to fix the accepted standard of morality, to ascertain the recognised significance of the marriage contract, the laws relating to polygamy and concubinage, the value at which feminine virtue and modesty were held, and thus to consider the prostitute in relation to the system of which she formed a part. She will be the particular object of investigation; but the others are by no means unimportant. They are, indeed, necessary to a just and comprehensive view of the question before us. In a society where men lived in brutal promiscuousness with the women, prostitution could scarcely exist; where chastity was lightly esteemed, and marriage held to be a loose contract for social purposes, adultery could hardly be very full of shame. In this, therefore, as in all other inquiries, it is necessary to view the actual object in relation to others which are invariably connected with it. There is no universal, unvarying standard, by which even prostitution can be measured. Circumstances, not belonging, yet not entirely foreign to it, are to be considered. Consequently, while we hold that in view as the main ground of research, we shall, where materials allow, draw a sketch of the situation occupied by the female sex, and of the other traits of civilization to which we have referred.

In a general view, Greece and Rome, with the great city of Babylon, stand most prominently forward with their system of prostitution. Closer inquiry, however, induces us to hesitate before assigning them that distinction. Of the two classical states especially, it is because our information is more immediate and complete, that their public immorality is more remarkable. The poets of the earlier, and the historians of the later, period, have transmitted to us numerous accounts of the manners and customs of Greece and Rome; their painters have left us views,—their architects and sculptors, monuments of their civilization. Their moralists and satirists have enlarged on the prevalent vices, and from all these sources we are enabled to derive clearer ideas of their women, and especially their prostitution. Besides, in a polished state, with pure manners the prostitute class will always be more distinct, and therefore more conspicuous.

Babylon, far more than a thousand years ago, was a proverb of immorality. Her name and the name of Whore have been associated ideas, not on account only of the idolatry practised by her people, but on account of their licentious manners. Concerning Egypt, though Diodorus and Herodotus wrote of it, little is known; of the marriage ceremony absolutely nothing. The prostitutes are not described; but, from every trace and record of their civilization which has been preserved, it is evident that a large class addicted itself to this calling. Who were the public musicians, disreputable in the eyes of all other persons?—who were the dancers who performed their wanton feats at the entertainments of the rich, and stripped themselves half, or entirely, naked before their couches?—who were the drunken women, who bared their bodies, and capered in that state on the Nile boats, during the festival of Bubastis?—who were they who assisted at the sacerdotal orgies, which defiled the temples of ancient Egypt?—who could they have been, but women of abandoned character, who prostituted themselves for vile purposes, for gain or pleasure?

Among the Jews, again, the continually reiterated allusions to harlots, in the Scriptures, the abominations perpetually charged to their account, the threats pronounced upon their wickedness, the frequent allusions to their licentious manners, indicate a wide prevalence of this system. Among a people so commonly guilty of nameless crimes, we cannot expect to find chastity a peculiar virtue. Indeed, it is seldom such vices are practised until all the inferior offences against decency have become insipid through satiety. The writers, therefore, who parade before us the civilization of the Jews, as an example of public morality, base their conclusions on a strange interpretation of facts. To contrast them with the manners of Attic Greece, is a pure satire on common sense. Sparta was licentious, but not in the low and gross manner of the Jews. Athens harboured a licentious class; but none like those bestial voluptuaries among the Hebrews, in whom lust became a loathsome passion. Although, therefore, the actual manners of ancient Israel have been less vividly described than those of Greece, it is evident from the tenour of Scripture history, that morality there was less pure than in the Attic state.

Rome, under the republic, was, perhaps, still farther removed from the charge of corruption. Prostitutes it had, and brothels; but its women were generally virtuous. The chastity of the Roman matron has passed into a proverb. It was, however, if we may credit the historian Tacitus, exceeded by the modesty of the women in ancient Germany. Among them morals appear purged of licentiousness. Polygamy was forbidden, and practised only by the petty kings who set themselves above the law. The manners of the people, rather than the enactments of their code, prohibited divorce. Adultery, rare as it was, ranked as an inexpiable crime; while seduction was condemned, and prostitution unknown. It was not, however, the severity of the law which enforced the virtue; it was the virtue that imparted its spirit to the law. From the morals of ancient Germany, the lawgivers of society might learn many useful lessons. Bars and bolts, multiplied walls, troops of eunuchs, jealous lattices, and the dread of punishment, failed to guard the harems of the East; while the hut of the German barbarian, open on all sides, was impregnable against the seducer. The poor toy of the Persian’s seraglio, protected by a hundred devices, often eluded them all; but the German women were the guardians of their own honour. They may be described as possessing all the virtues, without the vices, of the stern Spartan stock; and, living on terms of equality with the men, held their virtue at too dear a price to prostitute it for admiration, or lust, or money. Civilization, in this respect, has done the Germans a very ill office.

Allied to these fierce wanderers in the Hyrcynian wood were the Saxons, from whom our ancestors descended. We shall find among them, on their native soil, similar manners, especially in the circumstance of the adulteress being whipped without mercy through the village. Among them prevailed, however, an enlightened reverence for the female sex, which contrasted strongly with the ideas of many surrounding nations, who looked on a woman as a creature merely dedicated to the service and gratification of man. They brought over to England institutions susceptible of being moulded to a different form. They became more refined and less moral. Whenever, indeed, rude men, who have not given themselves up to the indulgence of their low physical appetites, turn from the chase, from war, and similar rough occupations, to the framing of laws, to the formation of society, to any intellectual exercise, it appears natural that other propensities should be awakened in them, and of these the sensual always form a part. It is, consequently, interesting to study the progress of manners from stage to stage of civilization, from the rudest tribe to the most refined community.

We shall occupy ourselves first with the Hebrew republic, and then with the monarchy which succeeded it. From Israel we proceed to Egypt, related to it in various ways. Thence our attention will be directed to Greece, which offered models to the statesmen and public economists of all time. The contrast between the Ionic and the Doric states will be presented. Then we shall proceed to Rome, which will lead us to the Anglo-Saxons, others being incidentally noticed by the way.

In all, as far as our limits and our materials will allow, a sketch of the condition of women, the national ideas of feminine virtue, the laws of marriage, and the extent of prostitution, will be given; and thus the reader will be prepared to enter on the wider field of modern society abroad. This will be divided into the barbarous and the civilized; and of the barbarous, the hunters, fishers, shepherds, and tillers of the soil, may be separately noticed.

The account of every ancient people will not be equally complete, because the sources of information are not so. Thus of Egypt, its marriage-customs are wholly unknown; of the Anglo-Saxons, although the learning and industry of Sharon Turner have been employed upon them, our knowledge is extremely imperfect. Even Rome and Greece, though they present us with the general features of their social systems, disappoint us when we search into details. Nevertheless, the reader may be enabled, as we have before said, to form a just idea of the condition of women in antiquity; for the researches of modern scholars have succeeded, at least, in laying bare the principal roots of the ancient system, upon which all the institutions of existing society are, in one form or another, established.

Of Prostitution among the Jews and other Ancient Nations.

A slight and rapid view of the subject in connection with the Jews, and more obscure nations of antiquity, is all that can here be attempted. With reference to the republic of the Hebrew race, though the ingenuity of modern writers has built up very pleasing theories, described as the manners and customs of the Jews, we can look nowhere for information except to the Bible, and, in a later age, to Josephus.

The position of woman among the Jews was by no means exalted. She was seldom consulted by her friends, when an union with her was desired by a wealthy suitor. Indeed, in the patriarchal times she was regarded more as her husband’s property than as his companion. Such must invariably be the case where polygamy and concubinage are institutions of society. At a still earlier period the customs of society were even more at variance with our ideas. Of course the sons of Adam must have married their sisters, and the practice continued after the necessity for it had ceased. Abraham formed such an union without exciting surprise. The patriarchs permitted men to wed two sisters at once, but the law of Moses brought a reform of marriage customs among the Jews[16]. They discontinued the intercourse between blood-relatives long before it was abandoned by the surrounding nations. Marriages with sisters not by the same mother were forbidden in the Mosaic code. Previously, however, none were unlawful except those of a man with his mother, or mother-in-law, or full sister. In the new dispensation the widow of a deceased brother was placed within the prohibited degree of consanguinity.

The laws against adultery were severe; death was ordained for both the guilty persons, and the punishment appears always to have been by stoning. Many victims, doubtless, perished under this cruel code; but the example of Jesus Christ gave a new lesson to mankind. The woman was brought before him, and the Jews claimed her condemnation. They asked him “should she be stoned.” Had he said no, they might have charged him with favouring adultery, and denying the Mosaic law; had he said yes, the Romans might have impeached him, for they had assumed the distribution of justice, and abolished the punishment of death for adultery. But he evaded their malice, and gave the law of mercy. “Let him that is without sin among you cast the first stone.” They all went out, and when he was alone with her he said, “Hath no man condemned thee?” She answered, “No man, Lord.” And he again said, “Neither do I condemn thee—go, and sin no more.”

That sentence should ever be in remembrance when we frame our moral code.

Adultery, however, was a crime only to be committed with a married woman, or one who was betrothed. The man’s marriage placed him under no obligation to abstain from intercourse with other than his wife. Wives to the number of four were allowed, while concubinage was unlimited. The first wife, however, was superior to the others. Jealousy, therefore, among the Jewish women could not have been a powerful feeling. Indeed we find strong proofs to the contrary. When Sarah found herself barren, she gave Hagar, her Egyptian maid, to Abraham, as a concubine or inferior wife. Other women, frequently, on discovering themselves to be sterile, begged their husbands to procure another companion of the bed, that they might not die childless. Similar instances are common in the social history of the East.

Marriage with an idolater was forbidden; but a man might marry a proselyte captive. When he saw a beautiful woman among his prisoners of war, he was to take her home, shave her head, pare her nails, change her raiment into that of a free person, and as he had humbled her, was forbidden to make merchandise of her again. The possession, nevertheless, of two wives by a private individual was a rare thing. Popular feeling was generally averse to it. The personages who most commonly practised it were the great men and kings, who were most expressly prohibited. In the Book of Deuteronomy, when the degraded Israelites had clamoured for a king, the law was given, “Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, so that his heart turn not away.” No command was more frequently broken in the palaces of Israel. David had an immense harem; it seemed to be reckoned among the regalia. Solomon, who married Pharaoh’s daughter, had seven hundred wives—princesses—and three hundred concubines; but we find that he “did evil in the sight of the Lord,” and that “his heart was turned away.”

Respecting the children born to these parents there was a change in the law. In Genesis a man was allowed to transfer the inheritance to a favourite child; but, probably from the many flagitious actions committed, it was in Deuteronomy ordained, that if a man had two wives, of whom he hated one and loved the other—each bearing a child, the first-born, whether of the loved or the hated woman, should enjoy the right of inheritance.

From all the passages in Scripture referring to this subject, it appears that women among the Jews held but an indifferent position, being made the subject of barter, and that marriage was not a sacred but a civil institution,—a legal bond, which might be broken by a legal act. Matches were usually made by the woman’s kindred, she herself being a secondary actor in the transaction.

Throughout the Bible, notwithstanding, we find women held by the inspired writers in great respect, their treatment by the rebellious Jews, as they sank through various degrees of corruption, being continually set forth among the abominations practised by that flagitious people.

In the Scriptures we discover innumerable references to women, and to prostitutes in particular; but, collecting and comparing them all, we find for our present purpose materials by no means abundant: there is no exact information. Prostitutes, we know, existed, and we are told in what estimation they were held; that they stood at the corners of streets, that they practised many seductive arts, and sold themselves at a very cheap rate: but how many they were, how they lived, what was the nature of their places of resort, we are left uninformed, or guided only by obscure allusions. Nevertheless, sufficient is known upon which to base a view of the condition of women, and the extent of morality among the most ancient nation recognised in history.

In the book of Genesis, whence we obtain our first glimpses of the social history of mankind, we find interesting, though imperfect, sketches of a curious state of society. We meet, even so early as this, with a woman wearing a veil, not taking her meals in company with men, living in separate apartments, and presenting a model of the system still prevalent in the East. Simplicity and luxury in strange combination characterized the manners of that remote age. Their morals appear to have been at all times gross; and one of the principal tasks of legislation was to restrain the licentiousness to which the people were so prone to abandon themselves. Many barbarous races present at this day social institutions similar to those of the Jews, whence many writers have traced them to that stock. It is more probable, however, that similar manners grow out of a similar condition.

Several writers, we know, contend for the purity of manners among the Jews, and point to the rigid laws which ruled them. The social history of mankind, however, if it proves anything, proves this, that it is not by any means the nation with the severest code which is the most virtuous. Examples of the contrary might be multiplied. No state, savage or civilized, could ever have more rigorous laws than Achin and Japan, and nowhere have the people been more flagitious. While the Draconic code was in force, morals in Greece went to rot. Consequently, if we are to consider the Jews to have been a moral people, it must certainly not be on the ground of their severe laws. Arguing from that, a contrary inference should be drawn. The direct evidence, however, tends the other way. Chastity appears to have been by no means a favourite virtue. Not to allude to the unnatural abominations mentioned in the Bible, it is certain that there existed a considerable class of public women, who prostituted themselves to any one for a certain reward.

The story of Tamar is a curious illustration of this subject. To impose on Judah, and bear a child by him, and in spite of him, she assumes the habit and appearance of a regular prostitute. She then goes out, and sitting down by the highway covers her face. Judah thought her to be a harlot, “because she covered her face,” which, as the commentators tell us, it was the custom for such women to do, as among the same class of females in Persia, in mimicry of a shame they did not feel. Judah speaks to her, and says, “Go to, I pray thee, let me come in unto thee.” She answers, “What wilt thou give me, that thou mayest come in unto me!” He promises to give her a kid from his flock, but she demands a pledge; this he gave, and went with her.

The circumstance is related in a manner which seems to show that the practice was common with men, nor does any particular disgrace appear to attach to it. When, however, Judah learns that his daughter-in-law Tamar is “with child by whoredom,” he condemns her to the punishment of death by burning, on the secret being at length revealed to him[17]. We have here a singular illustration of manners among the primitive tribes of that great family of mankind. The corruption of manners reached, it is probable, a high degree before the laws were given.

Where concubinage was practised, feminine virtue could not be held as a precious possession. The intercourse accordingly of a married man with an unmarried woman was esteemed simply as a proof of deficient chastity. At the same time, the encouragement of prostitution, or “the feeding of whores,” is denounced as the conduct of foolish and profligate men, who unwisely waste their substance. The class of prostitutes was held in very low esteem; they were, in general, foreigners and heathens, and are spoken of usually as “strange women.” Delilah, who beguiled Sampson, was probably a Philistine, though it is not certain that she was not an Israelite. At any rate, there appear to have been many Jewish women, of the lowest order, who followed this degrading occupation. To render them as few as possible, a law was passed forbidding men, under severe penalties, from bringing up their daughters to prostitution for gain. Legislation, however, could not entirely restrain the vicious from such a course of life.

Apparently the prostitutes, among the Jews, sometimes obtained husbands. Priests, however, were forbidden on any account to marry a harlot, or indeed any woman with even a breath of imputation on her fame. For the daughter of a priest, who took to the calling of a prostitute, the punishment was death by burning. For any woman it was infamous, but in spite of what was laid down in the law, or by the public opinion of the Jews, cities never wanted prostitutes, and women walked the streets, or stood in groups at the corners, ready to entrap the young men who came forth in quest of pleasure. Among the exhortations of parents to their sons, and of patriarchs to youth, we always find an injunction to beware of strange women, which implies a considerable prevalence of the system. The readers of the Bible will at once remember the many passages of this kind contained in that volume[18].

With respect to prostitution among the Jews, an illustration is afforded by the story of the two mothers who came before Solomon for judgment. They were harlots, though bearing children, and they said they dwelt in one house, and “there was no stranger with us in the house.” Another is afforded by the account of the two men whom Joshua sent out as spies. They came into a harlot’s house at Rabbah—a brothel, in fact, where, as at Rome in the Imperial age, the woman sat impudently, without a veil, at the door, and solicited the passers by. They wore peculiar clothing. In addition to the vile customs of the East, we find, “Thou shalt not bring into the temple the price of a whore.” This was to guard against the introduction of a practice not uncommon among some ancient and modern nations, of the priests enriching themselves and their temple by hiring out prostitutes[19].

Another state, known to us from Scripture, is Babylon, surnamed the Whore, as well from its profligacy as its idolatry. The one, indeed, was accompanied by the other. Luxury and debauch were carried to the highest excess. The Temple of Venus,—a goddess known there as Mylitta,—was sacred to prostitution. The priests had, in immemorial time, invented a law that every woman should once in her life present herself at the temple, and prostitute her body to any stranger who might desire it. Consecrated by religion, this act appeared odious to few of the Babylonian citizens. The woman came, dressed brilliantly, and crowned with a garland of flowers; she sat down with her companions in a place where the strangers who filled the galleries might observe and make choice of their victims. Numbers were found always ready enough to enjoy the privilege procured for them by the priests. When a man had selected one of the women who pleased him most, he came down, and making her a present of money, which she was compelled to take, took her hand and said, “I implore in thy favour the goddess Mylitta!” He then led her to a retired spot and consummated the transaction. Having once entered the temple it was impossible for any ordinary woman to return home without having prostituted herself. Nevertheless, the priests allowed some ladies of rank and wealth to make a bargain for their chastity, which they probably desired to dispose of more agreeably to their own caprice. These few privileged persons went through the ceremonies without performing the usual act of prostitution. At the taking of Babylon by Cyrus, men were found ready to hire out their daughters and prostitute them for profit, while in the Alexandrian age men sent their wives to strangers for a sum of money[20].

Throughout the countries of the East, upon the history of which at that early period any light has been thrown, we discover the prevalence of similar customs. The most celebrated appear the most licentious, but probably only because they have been the most strictly investigated. The wealthy and luxurious capitals, in which the spoils of great conquests were piled up, never failed to supply a sufficient number of abandoned women, supported by the looser sort of men, in various degrees of position, from penury to splendour. Though circumstances of time and place, of religion and civilization, imparted peculiar characteristics to the prostitute class of each age and country, the general features of the system were invariably the same, and the prostitutes of Babylon resembled very much the prostitutes of New Orleans and London. We turn next to ancient Egypt, a country of whose laws and manners we have had interesting, if not complete, accounts bequeathed us.

Of Prostitution in Ancient Egypt.

Turning to ancient Egypt, we find, in the records of that singular people, little directly bearing on the question before us. Herodotus, and Diodorus the Sicilian, are almost the sole lights which guide us in our researches among them. Recently, the labours of a learned antiquarian have tended to increase our acquaintance with the people of old Egypt, by translating into language the volumes of information engraved or painted on the walls of tombs, temples, palaces, and monuments, so numerous in the cities on the banks of the Nile. We have thus had broad glimpses of the ancient history, the geography, population, government, the arts, the industry, and the manners of that country at that period; but the extent of the prostitute system has not been touched upon. Nevertheless, as one of the most ancient civilizations known to history, Egyptian society deserves some attention, and it is worth while to glance at the general condition of its women, especially as a few facts throw light on the especial point of our inquiry.

The position of a woman in ancient Egypt was in some respects remarkable. Entire mistress of the household, she exercised considerable influence over her husband, and was not subjected to any intolerable tyranny. In all countries, however, where concubinage is allowed, the condition of the sex must be in a degree degraded. Herodotus tells us that the Egyptians married only one wife, Diodorus that they married as many as they pleased, the restriction applying only to the sacerdotal order. The contradiction may be reconciled by supposing that the former writer described the general practice, and the latter the permission granted by the law; or, which is more probable, that he confounded concubinage with polygamy. From frequent allusions to this system we know it was tolerated. Wise laws, however, held a check upon the practice. Every child, the fruit of whatever union, was to be reared by its parents, infanticide being severely punished. Illegitimacy was a term not recognised. The son of the free, and the son of the bondwoman, had an equal right to inheritance, the father alone being referred to, since the mother was viewed as little more than a nurse to her own offspring. Women in Egypt bore numerous children, which rendered many concubines a burden too heavy for any but the wealthy to bear; nevertheless, some did indulge themselves in this manner, procuring young girls from the slave-merchants who came from abroad, or captives taken in the field.

In a country where the marriage of brother and sister was allowed, we might expect to find curious laws relating to the subject before us. But they were not curious, in any particular degree. Adultery was punished in the woman by the amputation of her nose, in the man by a thousand blows with a stick. The wealthier men were extremely jealous, forcing their wives to go barefooted, that they might not wander in the streets. Eunuchs, also, were maintained by some. Among classes of a lower grade, the women enjoyed peculiar freedom, being allowed to take part in certain public festivals, on which occasions they wore a transparent veil. Among all sorts and conditions of the sex, the drinking of wine was permitted, as it was by the Greeks, though not by the Romans; and ladies are occasionally represented on the monuments, exhibiting all the evidences of excess.

These observations apply to the respectable female society of ancient Egypt. There existed, however, another class, nowhere indeed indicated under the term harlot, or prostitute, but evidently such from the accounts we have received. If the descriptions transmitted to us of the ordinary female society be correct, the women to whom we allude could have been no other than public prostitutes. Such were, in all probability, those who enlivened the festival of Bubastis, and danced at the private entertainments. What ideas of decency prevailed among them, may be imagined from the brief though curious account afforded by Herodotus. When the time of the festival arrived, men and women embarked promiscuously, and in great numbers, on board the vessels which conveyed them up or down the river. During the voyage, they played on various instruments, and whenever they arrived at a city moored the boats. Then some of the women, who could have been no other than the Almé of those days[21], played furiously all kinds of music, flung off their garments, challenged the women of the town with gross insulting language, and outraged decency by their gestures and postures. An immense concourse of people assembled on the occasion, and a large proportion of them belonged to the female sex. “Some of them” only, according to our author, took part in the exhibitions of profligacy we have noticed.

The public dancers and musicians of the female sex were also, in all probability, members of the sisterhood we allude to. They were, it is well known, held in extremely low estimation: they were clothed, like the prostitutes of ancient Greece, in a single light garment; indeed, from the monuments, it is questionable whether they did not, like those in the Roman saturnalia of Flora, dance entirely naked at some of the more dissolute private festivals of the wealthy. At any rate, their forms are represented so completely undraped, that any garment they wore must have been a light veil which clung to the skin, and was transparent. But from what we are told of the festival of Bubastis, it is by no means improbable that they were actually nude.

In that remote period, fancifully called the age of Sesostris, chastity does not appear to have been the capital virtue of society among the Egyptians. At least, we must draw this inference if we are to attach any significance to traditions or fables, which generally reflect some phase of truth. Sesostris, it is said, having offended the gods, was struck blind, and ordered to find a woman who had been strictly faithful to her husband. He was very long in performing the task, being furnished with an unerring rule of judgment. Of course the account is an idle fable, yet it is not altogether unworthy of notice, for it indicates an opinion as to the chastity of that period[22].

Of Prostitution in ancient Greece.

In the heroic ages of Greece, we find women—on the authority, indeed, of poets, the sole historians of those times—enjoying a considerable share of liberty, held in much respect, accustomed to self-reliance, and allowed freely to mingle with others of their own sex and with men. A modest simplicity of manners is ascribed to them, which is wholly foreign to modern ideas of refinement. What education they received is not well known, though they appear to have been trained to practise many of the useful as well as the elegant arts of life; but with respect to the morality prevalent among them little exact information can be gained. As in the Bible, however, frequent allusion is made to harlots and strange women, waiting at the corners of the streets, so in the poets of antiquity, passages occur which point to the existence of a class, dedicating itself to serve, for gain, the passions of men who could not afford marriage, or would not be bound by its restrictions. The science of statistics, however, does not seem to have been cultivated in those days. We are not told with certainty of the population of cities, or even whole countries, and men were not then found to calculate how many in a hundred were immoral, or to compare the prostitute with the honourable classes of women.

With the commencement of the strictly historical age, though statistics are still wanting, there have been collected materials from which we may gather fair ideas of the status of women, and the position and extent of the prostitute class among them. Beginning with Sparta, a very peculiar system displays itself. Among the citizens of that celebrated Doric state, women were regarded as little more than agencies for the production of other citizens. The handsome bull-stranglers of Lacedæmon held exceedingly lax notions of morality, and would have considered a delicately chaste woman as one characterized by a singular natural weakness. Taught to consider themselves more in their capacity of citizens than of women, their duty to their husbands, or to their own virtue, occupied always the second place. Their education inculcated the practice of immorality. All ideas of modesty were by a deliberate public training obliterated from their minds. Scourged with the whip when young, taught to wrestle, box, and race naked before assemblages of men, their wantonness and licentiousness passed every bound. Marriage, indeed, was an institution of the state; but no man could call his wife his own. On occasions when the male population was away in the field, the women complained that there was no chance of children being born, and young men were sent back from the camp, to become the husbands of the whole female population, married and single.

In times of peace, also, the public laws gave every woman a chance of becoming what we should in these days term a public prostitute. A man without a wife might insist on borrowing for a certain time the wife of another. Should her husband resist, the law was called in to enforce the demand. It is asserted, indeed, by some, that adultery was unknown in Sparta. There was no such offence, in truth, recognised in the code. It was common, legal, and occurred every day. At the same time, however, it is to be remembered, that the severe laws of Sparta, recognising no concessions to the weaker passions of men, allowed these things only for state purposes, that citizens might be brought forth. There appears to have been no class of prostitutes gaining a livelihood by selling their persons to the pleasures of men: the rigorous code of the state forbade such sensual indulgences. Women were not allowed, apparently, to walk the streets. The young were strictly watched by the elders, the elders jealously observed by the young; and any proneness to a practice subversive of that vigorous health in the population, considered essential to preserve the manhood of Sparta, would have been denounced as an attempt to introduce luxury and effeminacy—the vices, in their eyes, of slaves. To assert that in the whole state no virtuous women, and no public prostitutes, in our sense of the word, could be found, would be rash; but it is certain that no authority which has come down to us represents chastity as a Spartan virtue, or prostitution for money, or from predilection, one of their social institutions.

In Athens a wholly different picture is presented. There, and generally among the Ionians, the duty of the wife was to preserve a chastity as delicate and pure as any which is required in our strictest social circle. There, at the same time, the courtezan class existed, and men of all descriptions and all ages encouraged prostitution, to which a considerable class of women devoted themselves. This is a complete contrast with Sparta.

The young girls of Attica were early trained to all the offices of religion; they acquired considerable knowledge; their intellectual qualities were to some degree developed: they were educated to become housekeepers, wives, and mothers, such as we describe under those heads. Exercising considerable influence over their male relatives, they possessed consequently considerable weight in the community, and altogether held a higher position than the women of Sparta. They led secluded lives, yet they enjoyed many opportunities of intercourse with the other sex; and though, in their theatres, and in their temples, indecency of the grossest description was frequently displayed to their sight, they seem otherwise to have been somewhat refined in this respect. In Sparta, the virgins never hesitated to expose themselves naked before any circle of spectators: in Athens they observed at least the public forms of decorum, and, with the exception of the Hetairæ or prostitute class, were sufficiently modest in their conversation and in their behaviour.

Accustomed to be present at public spectacles, to converse with men, to share in the performance of ceremonies at religious or civic festivals, the women of Athens occupied a position somewhat approaching that which we believe is proper to their sex. Marriages, as among us, were contracted, some from sentiment, others from interest. We are led to form a high idea of the general morality prevailing in the Attic states of Greece at an early period, from the exalted view of love, of chastity, of matronly duties, urged in the writers of the time. This seems a fair measure to employ, since, in a later age, when morals were more corrupt, and the regular class of prostitutes might be confounded with the general society, the style and sentiment of poets and others formed an exact reflex of the prevailing state of morality.

Traditions point to a period in the social history of Greece, when men and women dispensed altogether with the ceremony of marriage, living not only out of wedlock, but promiscuously, without an idea of any permanent compact between two individuals of opposite sexes. If such a state of things ever existed, it must have been before any regular society was formed, and it is therefore vain to dwell upon it. Polygamy, we know, long continued in practice among the Greeks, though it was a privilege and a propensity chiefly followed by the powerful and rich. In Athens marriage was held sacred. The character of a bachelor was disreputable. So, indeed, was it in Sparta, where young men remaining single after a certain period might be punished for the neglect of a duty exacted from them by the severe laws of the state. In both states, but in different degrees, the prohibition of marriage within certain limits of consanguinity extended; but when once the union took place, it was, in Athens, a crime of great enormity to defile its sanctity. The influence of the wife was, in the household, powerful; and commanding, as she did, the respect of men, the advantages of her position were so great, that to risk their loss by a transgression of the moral law, was not a common occurrence. We may therefore assign to the women of Athens a high average of morality, and consider them as having been held in remarkable estimation.

An important point in the manners of every people is the institution of marriage. From an inquiry into its estimation, whether it be held a religious rite, or a civil contract, or both, with various other circumstances in connection with these, we are aided in forming a just idea of the prevalent civilization. In the Doric states of Greece, it was esteemed as little more than a prudent ceremony, binding man and woman together for purposes of state. As among the savages of Australasia, it was the custom for a man to bear a woman forcibly from among her companions, when he took her to the bridesmaid’s house, and, her hair being cut short and her clothes changed, she was delivered to him as wife. His intercourse with her however, was, for some time clandestine, and he shunned being seen in her society. This was the case with the wealthier maidens. The portionless girls were, from time to time, shut up in a dark edifice, and the youths, being introduced, accepted each the woman he happened to seize upon. A penalty was imposed on any one refusing to abide by the decision of chance.

Occasionally public ceremonies were enacted at the marriages of the rich; but from all testimony it appears certain that the union of man with woman at Sparta was entirely of a civil, and by no means of a sacred character. Private interest, sentiment, and happiness were indeed, in this, as in all other matters, subordinate to the public exigencies. When a woman had no children by her own husband, she was not only allowed, but required by the law to cohabit with another man. Anaxandrides, to procure an heir, had, contrary to all custom, two wives. The state excused no licentiousness for its own sake, but any amount for a public object[23].

In Attic Greece, the ceremony of marriage was viewed in a more poetical light, and divinity was supposed to preside over it. We have already alluded to the notion of the promiscuous intercourse among them at a remote period; but, passing from this fable, we find traces of polygamy long discernible. Heracles maintained a regular seraglio. Egeus, Pallas, Priam, Agamemnon, and nearly all the chiefs, possessed harems, but these were irregularities, contrary to law and custom, and only in fashion among royal personages. The story of the two wives of Socrates seems a pure invention.

In the Athenian Republic, marriage, being held in reverence, was protected by the law. In the later and better known ages, consanguinity within certain limits was a bar to such union. Men, however, might marry half-sisters by the fathers’ side, though few availed themselves of the permission. Betrothed long before marriage by their parents, the young man and woman were nevertheless allowed on most occasions to consult their own inclinations. Numerous religious rites preceded the actual ceremony, and heavenly favour was invoked upon it. The marriage was performed at the altar in the temple, where sacrifice was made, and a mutual oath of fidelity strengthened by every sacred pledge. Adultery was held a debasing crime, and divorce discreditable to man and wife[24].

In connection with the subject of marriage is that of infanticide. It prevailed among the Greeks, under the sanction of philosophy. Among the Thebans and the Tyrrhenians it was, however, unknown. Why? Because they were more humane, or moral? Not by any means. They were among the most profligate societies of antiquity. It is generally shame which induces to child-murder women bearing offspring from illicit intercourse with men. Where no disgrace attaches to illegitimate offspring, the principal incentive to destroy them is taken away; and in Tyre, where female slaves served naked at the table of the rich, and even ladies joined the orgies in that condition, modesty was by no means a common grace of their sex.

The Thebans, a very gross people, made infanticide a capital crime; but allowed the poor to impose on the state, under certain circumstances, the burden of their children. In Thrace, the infant, placed in an earthen pot, was left to be devoured by wild beasts, or to perish of cold and hunger[25].

In Sparta, clandestine infanticide was a crime; but the state often performed what it declared a duty, by condemning weakly and delicate infants to be flung into a pit. In Athens, on the contrary, it was left for desperate women, and cold-blooded men, privately to accomplish the act, exposing their children in public places to perish, or to claim charity from some wayfarer. Frequently the rich had recourse to this, for concealing an intrigue, and left a costly dowry of gold and jewels in the earthen jar where they deposited the victim. The temple steps sometimes received the foundling; but occasionally they were left to die in desert places.

In the flourishing period of the Republic, however, poverty was so rare, indeed so unknown, that it seldom exacted these sacrifices from the humbler people. Infanticide was then left to the wholly unnatural who refused the burden, or the guilty who dreaded the shame, of a child.

But in the female society of that state, there was, as we have said, a sisterhood which exercised no inconsiderable influence on public manners. These were the Hetairæ, or prostitutes, who occupied much the same position which the same class does in most civilized communities of modern times. The youthful, beautiful, elegant, polished, and graceful, commanded, while their attractions lasted, the favours and the deference of wealthy and profligate young men, and, when their persons had faded, sank by degrees, until they dragged themselves in misery through the streets, glad to procure a meal by indiscriminate prostitution, with all who accepted their company. When children were born to them, infanticide usually—especially in the case of girls—relieved them of the burden.

The position the prostitute class of Athens occupied in relation to the other women in the community was peculiar. They entered the temples during the period of one particular festival—and in modern countries the church is never closed against them; but they were not, as among us, allowed to occupy the same place at the theatre with the Athenian female citizen. Yet this was not altogether to protect the virtue of the woman; it was to satisfy the pride of the citizen, since every stranger suffered an equal exclusion from these “reserved seats.” Notwithstanding this, however, the courtezans occasionally visited the ladies in their own houses, to instruct them in those accomplishments in which, from the peculiar tenor of their lives, they were most practised, while it appears that both classes mingled at the public baths.

The Hetairæ, or prostitute class, exercised undoubtedly an evil influence on the society of Athens. They indulged the sensual tastes and the vanity of the young, encouraged among them a dissolute manner of life, and, while the power of their attractions lasted, led them into expensive luxury, which could not fail of an injurious effect on the community. The career of the prostitute was, as it is in all countries, short, and miserable at its close. While their beauty remained unfaded they were puffed up with vanity, carried along by perpetual excitement, flattered by the compliments of young men, and by the conversation of even the greatest philosophers, and maintained in opulence by the gifts of their admirers. Premature age, however, always, except in a few celebrated cases, assailed them. They became old, ugly, wrinkled, deformed, and full of disease, and might be seen crawling through the market places, haggling for morsels of provision, amid the jeers and insults of the populace.

In some instances, indeed, there occurred in Athens what occasionally happens in all countries. Men took as wives the prostitutes with whom they had associated. Even the wise Plato became enamoured of Archæanassa, an Hetaira of Ctesiphon. For many of these women were no less renowned for the brilliancy of their intellectual qualities than for their personal charms. Of Phryne, whose bosom was bared before the judges by her advocate, and who sat as a model to the greatest of ancient sculptors, all the world has heard. Her statue, of pure gold, was placed on a pillar of white marble at Delphi. Aspasia exercised at Athens influence equal to that of a queen, attracting round her all the characters of the day, as Madame Roland was wont to do in Paris. Socrates confessed to have learned from her much in the art of rhetoric. Yet these women, harsh as the judgment may appear, were common whores, though outwardly refined, and mentally cultivated. Instances, indeed, of high public virtue displayed by members of that sisterhood, distinguished among the Hetairæ of ancient Greece, are on record, and sufficient accounts of them have been transmitted to us to show that they were among the male society a recognised and respected class, while by the women they were neither abhorred nor considered as a pollution to the community. Still, prostitutes they were, to all intents and purposes.

The mean, the poor, and faded, were chiefly despised for their ugliness and indigence, not for their incontinence. It was, in the Homeric ages, as we learn from the Odyssey, held disgraceful for “a noble maiden” to lose her chastity. But in Athens, at a later time, chastity in an unmarried woman was not held a virtue, the loss of which degraded her utterly below the consideration of all other classes, or debarred her for ever from any intercourse with the honourable of her own sex. The Hetaira was not, it is true, admitted to mingle freely in the society of young women; but she was not shut out from all communication with them; while among men, if her natural attractions or accomplishments were great, she exercised peculiar influence. Consequently, it appears that in Athens the superior public prostitute had a status higher than that of any woman of similar character in our own day. If we look for a comparison to illustrate our meaning, we may find it in many of the ladies who at various periods have frequented our court—known but not acknowledged prostitutes[26].

In the public judgments of Athens we find, it is true, a penalty or fine imposed on “whoredom,”[27] from which, however, the people escaped by a variation of terms, calling a whore a mistress, as Plutarch tells us. Solon, however, recognised prostitution as a necessary, or at least an inevitable evil, for he first built a temple to Aphrodite Pandemos, which, truly rendered, means Venus the Prostitute; and his view was justified by the declaration that the existence of a prostitute class was necessary, in order, as Cato also thought, that the wives and daughters of citizens might be safe from the passion which young men would, in one way or the other, satiate upon the other sex. Though procurers, therefore, were punishable by law, and the Hetairæ were obliged to wear coloured or flowered garments, it was enacted in the civil code of Athens, that “persons keeping company with common strumpets shall not be deemed adulterers, for such shall be common for the satiating of lust.”

Brothels, consequently, existed in moderate numbers at Athens, and the young men were not discouraged from attending them occasionally. There were also particular places in the city where the prostitutes congregated, and a Temple of Venus, which was their peculiar resort. We find in the poets passages, indeed, advocating the support of whores[28].

Still, respected and beloved as the Hetairæ were among their friends and lovers, recognised by the law, and protected by it, general public respect was denied them, for the Athenians estimated above their brilliant charms the modest virtues of inferior women[29].

One of the most remarkable features in the public economy of Athens was the tax upon prostitutes, introduced also in Rome by Caligula. It was annually farmed out by the Senate to individuals who knew accurately the names of all who followed this calling. It is to be regretted that their statistics have not been furnished to us. Every woman, it appears, had a fixed price, which she might charge to the men to whom she prostituted her person, and the amount of the tax varied according to their profits. Apparently, they were principally “strangers” who filled the ranks of the Hetairæ, for we find that if persons enjoying the rank and privilege of citizens took to the occupation, a tax was imposed on them as on the ordinary prostitutes, and they were punished by exclusion from the public sacrifices, and from the honourable offices of state. The same writer informs us, on the authority of Demosthenes, that a citizen who cohabited with an alien paid a penalty, in case he was convicted, of a thousand drachmas, but the penalty could not often have been enforced, as the laws of Solon recognised prostitution; it was a feature in the manners of the city, and brothels were fearlessly kept, and entered without shame. Numerous evidences of this have been supplied us[30]. To preserve a respect for chastity, however, and to inculcate a horror for the prostitute’s occupation, the same code allowed men to sell their sisters or daughters when convicted of an act of fornication, which, in Athens, as elsewhere, frequently was the first step in the regular career of these women[31].

The dishonour thus accruing to the general body of prostitutes, though a small class of them enjoyed many superior advantages from their wealth, and the polish of their manners, served at Athens, in some degree, to preserve public morality. The system never seems to have reached the height which it has gained in many of our modern cities, where married women often follow the occupation, and live upon its gains[32].

In Corinth, however, prostitutes abounded, and the Temple of Venus in that city was sometimes thronged by a thousand of them. They were usually the most beautiful women of the state, presented or sold to the temple, who prostituted themselves for hire. They were of a superior kind, admitting to their embraces none but men who would pay munificently, and in this manner many of them are said to have accumulated large fortunes[33].

Tabular statements, and numerical estimates, have been wanting to complete this glance at the system in ancient Greece; but it may, nevertheless, afford a just idea of the extent and character of the prostitute class there.

Of Prostitution in ancient Rome.

If our knowledge of ancient Greece, with reference to its moral economy, is slight, ancient Rome is still less understood. Nothing, indeed, like a detailed account of its social institutions has been preserved; its scheme of manners is incompletely comprehended; and only an outline picture of its private life can be formed from passages supplied by hundreds of authors, from allusions in the poets and in the satirical writers. German scholars have laboured industriously in the field of classical politics; but the social economy of Rome has been neglected, or, which is worse, obscured by them. We are, therefore, enabled only to afford a general sketch of the subject in connection with the great Republic, and the imperial system which grew out of its decay.

Examining the condition of the female sex, especially with reference to prostitutes, we must in Rome, as in all other states, distribute our observations over several distinct periods—for such there were in the social history of the nation.

In the more honourable days of the Republic, women occupied a high status. While the state was extremely young we find them, indeed, in perpetual tutelage; but gradually, as institutions were improved and manners refined, they rose to independence, and formed an influential element in society. The matron, in particular, stood in her due position. Respected, accomplished, allowed to converse with men, she was, in the most flourishing era of Roman history, a model for her sex. She presided over the whole household, superintended the education of the children, while they remained in tender years, and shared the honours of her husband. Instead of confined apartments being allotted to her as a domestic prison, the best chambers in the house were assigned, while the whole of it was free to her. Other circumstances in her condition combined to invest her with dignity; and the consequence was, that the Roman matron seldom or never transgressed against the moral or social law. No divorce is recorded before the year 234 B.C.; and that instance was on account of the woman’s barrenness—a plea allowed by the law, but universally reprobated by the people. Yet the obstacles to this dissolution of the marriage compact were by no means formidable. Under the imperial régime, when there was less facility, divorces were more frequent.

The Roman law of marriage was strict. Degrees of consanguinity were marked, though within narrower limits than among us, within which marriage was not only illegal, but wholly void, and any intercourse, by virtue of it, denounced as incest by the law. Public infamy attached to it—not only the odium of opinion, but a formal decree by the prætor. Adultery was held as a base, inexpiable crime. It was interdicted under every penalty short of death, and even this was allowed under certain circumstances to be inflicted by the husband. Wedded life, indeed, was held sacred by every class from the knights to the slaves, though among these social aliens actual marriage could not take place. Celibacy was not only disreputable, but, in a particular degree, criminal; while barrenness brought shame upon the woman who was cursed with it. In an equal, or a greater ratio, was parentage honourable. Polygamy was illegal; but the social code allowed one wife and several concubines, occupying a medium position, finely described by Gibbon, as below the honours of a wife, and above the infamy of a prostitute. Such institutions were licensed that common whoredom might be checked; though the children born of such intercourse were refused the rank of citizens. Often, indeed, they were a burden to the guilty as well as to the poor; and infanticide, which was declared in 374 B.C. a capital crime, was resorted to as a means of relief.

If we examine our question in connection with marriage among the ancient Romans we find a curious system. First, there were certain conditions to constitute connubium, without which no legal union could be formed. There was only connubium between Roman citizens[34]; there was none where either of the parties possessed it already with another; none between parent and child, natural or by adoption; none between grandparents and grandchildren; none between brothers and sisters, of whole or half blood; none between uncle and niece, or aunt and nephew: though Claudius legalized it by his marriage with Agrippina, the practice never went beyond the example. Unions of this kind taking place were void, and the father could claim no authority over his children. Mutual consent was essential—of the persons themselves, and of their friends. One wife only was allowed, though marriage after full divorce was permitted.

There were two kinds of marriage,—that cum, and that sine conventione. In the former the wife passed into her husband’s family, and became subject to him; in the latter she abdicated none of her old relations, and was equal to her husband. There was no ceremony absolutely essential to constitute a marriage. Cohabitation during a whole year made a legal and lasting union; but the woman’s absence during three nights annually released her from the submission entailed by the marriage cum conventione. Certain words, also, with religious rites, performed in presence of ten witnesses, completed a marriage; but certain priestly offices, such as those of the flamen dialis, could only be performed for those whose parents had been wedded in a similar way[35]. The sponsalia, or contracts between the man and his wife’s friends, were usual, but not essential, and could be dissolved by mutual consent. The Roman idea of marriage was, in a word, the union of male and female for life, bringing a community of fortune, by a civil, not a sacred contract. Yet from the ceremonies generally observed, it is evident that an idea, though unrecognised, of a religious union, existed among the Romans in their more pious age.

With respect to property, its arrangement depended on settlements made before hand. Divorce was at one time procured by mutual consent, though afterwards it became more difficult, but never impossible.

There was in Rome a legal concubinage between unmarried persons, resembling the morganatic or “left-handed” marriage, giving neither the woman nor her children any rights acquired from the husband. Widowers often took a concubine, without infamy[36].

The law of Romulus, enacting that no male child should be exposed, and that the first daughter should always be preserved, while every other should be brought up, or live on trial, as it were, for three years, has misled some writers into giving the Romans credit for a loftier humanity. No parent, it is argued, would destroy a three years’ old child. Nevertheless, it is certain that, in the imperial age, at least, infanticide and child-dropping were frequent occurrences. Deformed or mutilated infants, having been shown to five witnesses, might be destroyed at once. The Milky Column, in the Herb-market, was a place where public nurses sat to suckle or otherwise tend the foundlings picked up in various parts of the city. In the early Christian age it was a reproach to the Romans that they cast forth their sons, as Tertullian expresses it, to be picked up and nourished by the fisherwomen who passed. Mothers would deny their children when brought home to their houses. Some strangled them at once. Various devices were adopted among them, as among other nations of antiquity, to check the overflow of population, as well as to hide the crimes of the guilty. Thus the Phœnicians passed children through fire, as a sacrifice; the Carthaginians offered them up at the altar; the Syrians flung them from the lofty propylæa of a temple[37]. One observation, however, applies to the Romans, and, we believe, to every other nation, savage or civilized, in every age of the world—exceptions being invariably allowed. Cruel as may have been the laws sanctioning infanticide, when once the child was received into the bosom of the family it was cared for with tenderness, and, generally, with discretion. It is not sentiment, but justice, which induces us to say that the mother, having once accepted her charge, has seldom been guilty of wilful neglect. The abandoned and dissolute, especially in those societies where fashion has made the performance of maternal duty ridiculous, if not disreputable, have consigned their offspring to others; but women in their natural state usually fulfil this obligation.

In Rome, from various causes, public decency was, at least during the republican period, more rigidly observed, and licentiousness less common and less tolerated than in Sparta or even the later age of Athens. None of its institutions rivalled the dissolute manners of Crete or Corinth. One cause of prostitution being less common was the licence of concubinage, which was to the rich a preferable and a safer plan of self-indulgence. It existed, however, in the State, and employed a considerable class of women, though we are told the accomplished prostitute was known as a Grecian import. Nevertheless, the frequent allusions of the laws to these women prove that they formed no insignificant element in the society of the capital.