Literary cadet and Rhode-Island statesman. [volume] (Providence, R.I.) 1827-1829, 1828-04-19

80 q" 'e'' VI B"'"'syt e"o I" HS "SAo ~AsS"se
would, we doubt not, be received with enthu-
siam by all the ladies from Nova Scotia, TO
Cape Horn.
Our limits will not admit OF our copying the
whole article, and we must content ourselves
with making one or two extracts, and in doing
so, we believe that we shall crafty our read
ers, The first extract we shall make, contains
many curious historical facts, for tho which,
the author of the article, has overhauled foil
os, which have long been food for the book
worm, and afforded the scholar fine feast
whilst they have been wormwood to the dul'
and tasteless literary student.
We commend the extracts to the ladies in
an especial manner, and hope, that whilst they
applaud the champion Of the North American,
they will not forget TO utter kind word in our
behalf, or TO give US an encouraging smile.
Wills, we too, undertake their defence, In our
well meant, but humble manner.
"The relaxation OF the primitive rigor Of
marriage rights at Rome, favorable as it was to
the penurious condition Of woman, was unfor-
tuna,ely brought about by means, which intro
duced perncious facility Of divorce. We
say pernicous, because, notwithstanding tho
specious reasoning Of Milton and some other
writer's who have maint aimed the contrary. it
seems to be conceded by the soundest lawyers
and moralisis, that the experience Of republi-
can Rome and ofrepublican France settles tho
dispute. a Jhns, C.. r. 1877, sos; I Hog-
gard, 36.) The fluctuations which the Ro-
man law underwent are remark BILE. Orig
inally it may be supposed, when the pa,ernal
power existed in all its rigor, the husband
might sell his wife as well as his children, or
harshly expel her from his bed and house
(Gidbon, ch. 49, Romulus permitted the lib
erty Of divorce to the husband, if his wife vio-
lated the conjugal faith, used false keys, or
drank wine without his knowledge The right
was denied TO the wife, but if abused BY the
husband, he forfeited his goods, one half TO his
injured wife, and the other half TO the goddess
Ceres (PIutarch. Romuius) Divorce, it
Is supposed, was also sanctioned .,and the priv
llegc of II extended to both sexes, by tie
Twelve Tabes. (Cie. Philip, ii. C 2s)-
But, TO the honor OF Roman domestic charac-
ter be 1t said, no example occurs Of the exer- ,
else of this privilege hy husband until tho
year 523 A L. G. when S2urius Curvilius Ruaa
remembered only torrhis act ,repudiateda a fair,
a good, ard as our authors affirm, a beloved
wiie, because Of her baroness IN. Geiii,.s,
". 3; PGL .for. ii. l.) For this lie was
Questioned by ihc ccnsors,' 10 use the language
OF Gibbon, and hated by the people; but his d.
vorce stood unin ched in law But in no.
cess OF time, the right was greatly abused, 40
passion, caprice, or interest suggested motives
to the husband or Tic wife for the dissolution
OF their union.
A man.age con racted m the most solemn
forms could be terminated by some correspond
ing so!eInnI,y; for coniaueaiion, there was the
opposite sacrament Of difiarrcatien; and tley
who were united by mutual purchase could be
separated by emancipation. And in later
tunes, when marriage was nearly a voluntary
union by consent, II could be dissolved, lke
any other c0mmunHy, and ~ the slightest act
word, or wiring, that distinctly signi.i,d the
VIII of the parties. Tie MARI aye contract
might be torn in the presence of witnesses, or
the keys taken from the wife, er The words
Res tuas tibt tha5eto,' pronounced by freed
m'n, oc despat chcd in n written message; and
the most tender and solemn Of human conex-
ions was thEs lightly thrown off at will (4d.
ans Rom .qntiq. 5lI Irtbe divorce was
made without any fault Of the wife's, -sho
received back all her property; but if she was
cu!pablc, tie husband retained part of her
dowry, us a consideration for his remaining
subject 10 provide for the support ard eduea-
ton of ther children; and # she was ropud-
ated for iniideliiy, che was punished by the
loss Of all her dowry. ID Hrnay, 1881 Such
Il consequence might sometimes prove no, UNI
acceptable to a mercenary husband and
that entertaining old gossip. Plutarch mentions
one 1nnus, WHO married Fannia, n woman OF
notoriousy bad character and then divorced
her, as i; seems 10 have been suspe cted out Of
speculation, in order 10 secure her dowry.--
(PIut .ndrius.l When the exercise Of tho
right ofrepudiation had grown lcss odious than
at frs, the facility Uf divorce gave rise IN
many cases of the deepest individual affection.
The great 1Emilius Paulrs dive, ced his wifo
Paprla, the mother of family Of heroes with
out any ass gned cause, or any reason wha,ey.
er. which his friends could divine. (PIufayrh.
Pdulus,) &. Sulpicius Galus rcpuGia,ed b..
wife because she app.~rcI IN public with ler
head uncovered. Sempronus Sophus repu,!,.
atcd his, because she went TO the theatre with.
out his knowledge. Q. Antisiius vetus did u q
same, because his wife conversed in public
with IA woman os low condition. (TaI Mar
vi. 3, no. 10, II, l2) julius Caesar divorced
his third VIE, Pohpeia, the niece of S,lln.
because Clodius gained admission into her
house, IN the disguise of a female musician
while she was celebrating the mysteries of the
Bona Dca; yet, wien questioned on the sub,
Ject, lie admitted that he did not believe Pom.
pcia to be guilty. but that Cesar's wife mus,
no' even DC suspected. (PMtdreh C0eso,,
suction. JuL 6.) Cicero divorced his wifo
Iercn''a, at the close of the civil war, amer
iv'rg w'ih her more than thirty years, slleg,
ing that her temper was overbea ring. and ,Ls,
she had deranged his domestic affairs by wan,
Of economy Ere long, however, he married
pubiiiia, young heress Of whom he was
guardian, as Teren,ia said, on account Of her
beauty; but his freedman, T,ro, affirmed thu,
II was because Of her wealth which he needed
to d'scharge his debts. But after he lost h,,
daughter Tnlliola. Cicero repudiaied bi. new
bride because hc thought she rejoiced a,
iu'Io'as death. (Pivtarch. Cie) Angus.