not hesitate to ask Marcia, the wife of Cato. Accordingly, Cato seeing the earnestness of Hortensius did not refuse but he said that Philippus, the father of Marcia, must also approve of it. When they had seen Philippus and informed him of the agreement, he did not give Marcia in marriage except in the presence of Cato, and Cato joined in giving her away! The contract of marriage between Cato and Marcia was legally dissolved with the consent of her father to whose family she still belonged, and a new marriage contract was legally entered on between Hortensius and Marcia. Marcia lived with Hortensius to the day of his death and then remarried Cato. The narrative throws a flood of light on Roman ideas of marriage. The remarkable feature about it is that the children are considered to belong exclusively to the father. But the feelings of motherhood were recognized in later times and kinship became a strong tie, whether those who were kin were in the same family or not. The claims of nature began to be preferred to the claims of an artificial state. The Emperor Claudius was the first to break through the Roman family system by bestowing on a mother the inheritance of her children, but it is uncertain whether he did this by an arbitrary exercise of power or by a decree. Most likely it was the former, since it was not till 158 A. D. in the reign of Antoninus Pius that a decree of the senate was passed by which matrons who had three children or freedwomen who had four, received the privilege of becoming heirs to the property of their intestate children. A reciprocal alteration took place in the reign of Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus in 178 A. D., when a decree of the senate was passed entitling sons and daughters to succeed to the goods of an intestate mother. The ties of nature received recognition in other ways. In the civil Roman family the son had no property, for he was under the control of his father, and he never, therefore, had an opportunity of contributing to the comfort of his parents by voluntary expenditure of money. But when the Roman family system began to break down, the emperors insisted on the discharge of the duties of kinship. The son was bound to support his father or mother, if they were needy, and for the same reason the father was forbidden to expose or suffocate his child on penalty of death and he was obliged to rear all who were born to him. And when a dissolution of marriage took place, a decree of Diocletian left it to the judge to determine with which of the parents the sons or daughters were to remain. In short, the old Roman family was broken up completely, the natural family claimed its rights and prevailed, and importance was attached to the individual, as he obtained the franchise because he was a free subject of the empire. The growth of the feelings of humanity in imperial times is still more evident in the case of slaves. The idea of the relation of the master to the slave remained the same. The slave continued to be regarded in the eye of the law as the property of his owner and he often was exposed to horrible cruelties and utterly barbarous treatment, especially during the reigns of wicked emperors. But a moderating influence was at work and found expression in many rescripts and decrees. Even in legal documents the lawyers propounded the philosophical principles of stoicism. It was held to be contrary to nature that one man should be the owner of another. These principles did not lead the lawyers to propose the abolition of slavery. The imperial jurists accepted slavery as an institution of civil society and they dealt with it as a fact. But their prepossessions were in favor of liberty, and the imperial laws favored the manumission of slaves and the extension of freedom. Facilities were given for manumitting slaves and many of the regulations relating to bequests and inheritances aided in securing freedom for the slave. But it was especially in the circumstances of the slave that the softening influences of humanity showed themselves. In republican times the slave was allowed by custom to possess a little property. A kind master encouraged his slaves to honesty and diligence by promising to them the privilege of having money for their own uses; and sometimes slaves accumulated so much as to purchase their own freedom. But this money did not belong legally to them but to their masters who could at any time claim it as their own. This custom continued in imperial times and further privileges were bestowed. Masters often permitted their slaves to make their fellow slaves heirs to their possessions, provided these slaves formed part of the same household. And a slave might become a member of a burial society with the approval of his master, and if he paid his entry money called also the Insula Tiberina. The Emperor passed a law that all who were thus exposed should become free and should not come under the power of their masters, if they recovered, and that if any one instead of exposing his slave, chose to kill him, he should be held guilty of murder. and his monthly contributions regularly, the to be slow, on the island of Esculapius, society provided him with a worthy funeral and a suitable resting place for his ashes. A slave could not marry. He was supposed to have no father or mother or relatives, being a mere article of commerce. But human nature rebelled against this monstrous conception. Even in comparatively early times good masters allowed their upper slaves such as the bailiff of a farm to associate with female slaves permanently and to form families, which lived together in the same houses. In imperial times these unions became much more frequent, and though they were not marriages, as marriage could take place only between free citizens, yet the connection was viewed as something approaching to marriage, and the united slaves were spoken of as husband and wife and the children as sons and daughters. The law took note of these unions and the relationships which arose out of them. Care also was taken in the sale of slaves that their families should not be broken up but that all the members of a family should be sold only as one lot. In the time of the republic no effort was made to prevent the cruel treatment of slaves. But whenever imperial government began, we find the will of the emperor interferes to check unbridled savagery toward them. As far as we know, it was only on one occasion that Augustus exercised his power for this purpose, but the story shows that a mild and merciful emperor had free course in mitigating the sufferings of the distressed. Vedius Pollio, who was himself a descendant of slaves, was in the habit of feeding his lampreys on human flesh, flinging into the fish-pond the slaves whom he condemned to death. One time while he happened to be entertaining Augustus, the slave who poured out the wine broke a crystal cup, whereupon Vedius in the presence of Augustus ordered him to be thrown to the lampreys. The slave fell at the feet of the Emperor and prayed for his intervention. The Emperor entreated his host to recall his cruel order, but his appeal did not move him. He then requested Vedius to show him all the other cups which were in his possession, and when they were brought, he gave orders that they should be smashed to pieces. And he furthermore commanded that the slave should be set free. In the reign of Claudius it seems to have become usual to expose slaves who were sick and infirm and whose recovery was expected Hadrian showed great consideration for slaves. He banished for five years a matron who on the slightest pretexts had treated her female slaves barbarously. He prohibited masters from killing their slaves and subjected them to trial for so doing. He put an end to the workshops or prisons, at least those that were private, in which slaves were huddled together in vast numbers, and he made many other humane regulations. Antoninus Pius legislated still more definitely. In his day neither Roman citizens nor any others under the sway of Rome were allowed to inflict excessive or causeless cruelties upon their slaves, for by one of his constitutions any one killing his own slave causelessly was as much amenable to justice as the man who killed a slave belonging to another. Doubtless many other regulations were made in favor of the slave, but our information is imperfect. We know that at an early period in the empire the prefect* of the city of Rome and the governors in the provinces were entrusted with the duty of hearing the complaints of slaves and doing them justice. There was nothing that the Roman owners of slaves dreaded more than treachery within their own households, and the murder of a master led to the indiscriminate slaughter of all his slaves. This fear continued in imperial times and in the reign of Nero the senate passed a decree which Tacitus does not stigmatize, but speaks of as made to serve the purposes of justice and security, to the effect, that if any one was killed by his own slaves, those also who had been manumitted by testament and had remained under the same roof should be put to death along with the slaves. Tacitus tells us that the sympathies of the masses were with the abused slaves, as they often stood up for mercy in opposition to the senate. He relates how the prefect of the city was murdered by one of * A Roman officer holding command as director or presi dent. There were several classes of officers bearing this name placed in charge of different departments, such as the prefect of the aqueducts, prefect of a camp, of the city guard, of provisions, etc. his slaves, but that the masses of the people were so irritated at the idea of sacrificing many innocent lives that they broke out into mutiny. A few of the senators sided with them but the majority of them were opposed to every innovation and sanctioned the slaughter of all the slaves. But the multitude did every thing they could to prevent such a violent and unreasonable act, and Nero succeeded in carrying out the decree only by lining the road to the execution with a large array of soldiers. Matters seem to have changed much between the period of Nero and that of Hadrian; for we are told of the latter emperor that when a master was slain in a house, he ordained that in the inquiry, torture should be applied only to those slaves who by their nearness might know something about the matter. A slave, of course, could not be a trustworthy witness nor take an oath, but the truth might be extracted from him by torture. We must say a word on the gladiatorial fights and the combats with wild beasts. These brutal sports fascinated the Romans and so blunt did custom make the conscience that some of the best Romans praised them as if they encouraged a contempt of death and the exercise of endurance. Seneca is almost the only writer who protested against them. In one of his letters he tells how he went to a midday spectacle expecting jokes and some relaxation, but met with the hideous sight of human gore. The combatants he allows were criminals, as was now the custom. "Some one," he says, "has committed a robbery: what good reason in that is there for hanging him?" "He has murdered a man." "Because he did so, he deserved to suffer the penalty of death, but what have you done, miserable one, to deserve that you should gaze on his death? Do you not understand this, that examples fall back on those who made them? Give the immortal gods thanks that you are teaching him to be cruel who cannot learn to be so." At one time owners could hand over their slaves for these sports at their own caprice. But early in the empire a law was passed that only slaves guilty of crimes could be so treated, and any owner who sold for this purpose a slave not condemned by a judge was amenable to justice as well as the purchaser. Hadrian further ordained that no owner could sell a slave, even though criminal, for gladi atorial purposes, without expressly mentioning the object for which he was sold. The mild and gentle Marcus Aurelius did every thing he could to mitigate the ferocity and cruelty of these sports. He ordained that the combatants should fight with blunted weapons. He enrolled the gladiators and slaves in his army and carried them off to his wars, amid the indignant cries of the populace who balked of their amusement exclaimed that the Stoic Emperor wished to make every citizen a philosopher. When a boy who danced on the tight-rope fell, he ordained that mattresses always should be placed below the tight rope to break the fall. The Romans were so passionately fond of these cruel sports that even Christian emperors for a long time did not venture on stopping them. Their abolition was due to the daring of an ascetic, Telemachus (tē-lem'a-, kus), according to the well-known story related by Theodoret.* He came from the East for the express purpose of trying what he could do, and entering the stadium while the hideous spectacle was going on, he endeavored to separate the combatants. The eager spectators were enraged at his interference and stoned him to death. But the Emperor Honorius was so impressed by the event that he put an end forever to the demoralizing exhibitions. Many of the decrees in regard to slavery during imperial times partake of the spirit of Christianity, but it cannot be affirmed that they directly proceeded from it. The sense of human brotherhood, as we have seen, was prominent in the Stoic philosophy and the writings of the pagan authors of the second century are brightened by compassion for the poor, by interest in the slave, and by a belief in the essential equality of all men. But the love of man as man was emphasized in Christianity and was an inherent feature of it. It did not proclaim a crusade against slavery as a civil institution; but Christians accepted the slave as a brother; they often placed him in the highest positions in the church; they associated him with themselves in every Christian work; and they regarded him as an heir of eternal life. Such action had a powerful influence in mitigating the hard lot of the slave and in bringing about the emancipation of large numbers. *(The-od'o-ret.) (About 390-457.) An eminent Christian writer and ecclesiastic. 9. What lake famous for its beauty lies in Lombardy? 10. What is the most extensive gulf indenting the Italian peninsula? 11. How many groups of the Alps touch Italy? 12. Where is the church of San Andrea, called by 4. Locate Elba, the island to which Napoleon retired Harrison in the present issue, "one of the most perfect in in 1814. 5. Where is Carrara, from which the famous marble takes its name? 6. Trace on this map the variations in boundary described by Freeman in the present issue in the article on "The Making of Italy." Christendom," located? 13. Locate the cities described on p. 136 of present issue as famous for "villas and palaces and municipal buildings." 14. In what province is the old duchy of Savoy, the scene of the action of "King Victor and King Charles" 7. Where is the republic of San Marino, next to Mo- in present issue, now included? (See map in April naco the smallest state in Europe, located? 8. In what province is the famous winter resort known as the Italian Riviera located? issue.) 15. Where was Chambery the ancient capital of Savoy? (See map in April issue.) C [May 4.] SUNDAY READINGS. SELECTED BY BISHOP VINCENT. HRISTIANITY is a remedial system. It presupposes guilt and ruin. It announces free forgiveness, provides in its own way for the formation of a holy character, and secures for all who believe, happiness and eternal life. These announcements I desire briefly to examine in the light of reason and experience. I do it under the conviction that the best way to defend Christianity is simply to state it. It is largely its own evidence. tears. If saved at all, it must be through free mercy. This depravity is as much a fact of experience as it is of revelation. It is as clearly an induction as any law of science. Gravitation is proved by the fact that all bodies, when free to move, show a tendency to move toward one another; and man's depravity is proved by the fact that when left to himself he always displays a proneness to evil. . . . All our knowledge of the lower animals and of natural objects is gained from their doings in the one case, and from their I. I begin with what Christianity presup- sensible qualities in the other. We speak of poses our guilt and ruin. The fact of man's sinfulness is clear; the startling thing is what Scripture teaches as to the degree of it and God's feeling toward it. We imagine that sin is in our acts only, and that our hearts are ever better than our lives. Scripture tells us that it is our nature, and that our hearts are ever worse than our lives. Theology proceeds to define this sinfulness-as its custom is. It pronounces man to have "fallen very far from his original righteousness." Popular thought, which delights in clear and vivid utterance, describes this depravity as "total." When we speak of total depravity, it is not meant of course that all men are alike bad, because totally depraved; for Scripture recognizes all the shades of character that are recognized by common sense. In our Lord's day there were young men whom He loved, as there were scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, whom He strongly denounced. Nor is it meant that all men are as bad as they can be; for "evil seducers shall wax worse and worse." What it means is that sin has tainted every part of our nature, changing affections into passions, self-love into selfishness, searing, darkening, and enfeebling the conscience, and making even our intellectual faculties less vigorous and clear. It means that every act and every feeling, even in the best of us, is wanting in holiness, through deficiency in its measure, fault in its motives, or through the absence of that general regard for God's will and claims which is essential to all divine virtue. It means, finally, that there is no hope of salvation for any of us through the merit of our doings or the disposition and properties of each. We talk of the faithfulness of the dog, of the ferocity of the tiger, of the poisonous nature of the foxglove, ascribing to each a prior tendency that accounts for the peculiarities we see. It is just thus we verify the doctrine of human sinfulness. The passions and the selfishness which have prevailed in all nations, and which nothing seems able to subdue, justify the statement that in man's very make as he now is, there is something that leads him astray. To assert depravity is simply to assert the quality of a species. It as accurate to talk of human depravity, intending thereby to affirm the existence of a prior universal disposition to sin, as it is to affirm the most certain laws or the soundest generalizations in science. Our nature is not more certainly rational than it is sinful. And yet there is much in relation to this truth that is matter of faith. That this tendency to sin was not our primeval condition, that there was once a golden age of innocence and happiness is a matter of revelation, though poetry and traditional history have preserved some fragments of the truth. The degree of our sinfulness, the guilt and the misery of it, are also largely matters of revelation, and accepted less from experience in the first instance than from faith. And this is all natural. The fact of our sinfulness is ascertainable by experience. The degree of it is not. We are not only born with depraved tendencies, themselves unconscious of their depravity, but when we begin the process of self-scrutiny, the depravity which is natural to us has been further con |