The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1899-05-18
ABSOLUTELY PURE
sox. a.ana so.osa Is.

'NpER CO., NEW YORK
| that monogamy was, at least noninally,
upheld in Rome, especially during the ear
lier days of the Republic. But while the
wife was summary punished for the vio-
lation of the marriage vows, the husband
martial transgressions were committed
with IMMUNITY
Toward the end of the republic. and dur
ing the empire the disorders nupIiai life
increased to an alarming extent. There
was fearful rebound on the part of Ro-
man wives, particularly among the upper
classes, from the restraints of former days
to the most unlimited license. They rIvallel
the wantonness of the Steiner sex.
SO notorious were their morals in the
time Of Augustus that men preferred The
unfettered life of celibacy to an alliance
with partners bereft of every trace Of fe-
male virtue. The strict form of marriage
became almost obsolete, AMI a iaxer one
destitute Of religious or civil ceremony,
and resting solely on mutual agreement.
became general. Each party could dis
solve the marriage bond at will and under
the most triling pretext, and both were
Marriage was accordingly treated with
extreme levity. Cicero repudiated his wife
Terentia that he might obtain a coveted
dowry with another; and he discarded the
latter because she did not lament the
death of his daughter by the former.
Cato was divorced from his wife Attilla
after she had borne him two children, and
he transferred his second wife to his friend
Hortensius, after whose death he married
her again.
Augustus compelled the husband of Livia
to abandon her that she might become his
own wife. Sempronius Sophus was divorced
from his wife because she went once to the
public games without his knowledge
Paulus AemiIlus dismissed his wife, the
mother of Scipio. without any reason
whatever. Pompey was divorced and re-
married a number of times. Sylla repu-
dated his wife during her illness, when he
had her conveyed to another house.
If moral censors, philosophers and
statesmen such as Cato, Cicero and Au-
gustus discarded their wives with so much
levity, how lax must have been the mar
rage bond among the humber members Of
society, with examples so pernicious con-
stantly before their eyes!
Wives emulated husbands in the career
of divorces. Martial speaks of woman
who had marrTed her tenth husband Ju-
venal refers to one who had eight hus-
bands in five years.
st. Jerome declares that there dwelt in
Rome a wife who had married her twenty
third husband, she being his twenty-1rst
wife.
There is not a woman left" says SEN
eca, who is ashamed of being divorced,
now that the most distinguished ladies
count their years not by the consuls but
by their husbands"
It was a part of the mission Of Christ
ianity to change all this. By indicating
the unity, the sanctty and the indissol-
utility of marriage the church has con-
ferred the greatest boon on the female sex
The holiness of the marriage bond is the
palladium of womans dignity, while po-
lygamy and divorce involve her in bond
age and degradation.
The church has ever maintained in ac-
cordance with the teachings of our Savior,
that no man can lawfully have more than
one wife, and no woman more than one
husband. The rights and obligations of
both consorts are correlative. To give TO
the husband the license OF two or more
wives would be an injustice to his spouse
and destructive Of domestic peace. The
church has also invariably taught that
the marriage compact, once validly formed,
can be dissolved only by death: for what
God hath Joined together man cannot put
asunder.
While admitting that there may be legit-
innate cause for separation, she never al
lows any pretext for the the absolute dis
solution of the marriage bond.
For SO strong and violent are the pas
sion of love and its opposite passion Of
hate so insidous is the human heart. that
once solitary pretext is admitted for alb
solute divorce, others are quickly invent
ed, IS experience has shown. Thus fear
ful crevice is made IN the moral embauk-
ment, and the rush of waters is sure to
override every barrier that separates a
man from the object ne desires.
1t has again and again been alleged
that this law is too severe, that Il is harsh
and cruel, and that it condemns to a life
of misery two souls who might find hap
piness if permitted to have their marriage
annulled and to be united with more con-
genial partners. Every law has its occa-
sionaI inconvenience, and I admit that
the law absolutely prohibiting divorce