8.—“... this reasoned day ...”
See Note XVII., 8.
XXXVI.
1.—“By cant condoned ...”
“Much has been said by Guizot on the influence of women in developing European civilisation. It is at least certain that several of the fathers did everything they could to diminish that influence. Tertullian bitterly complains of the insolence of women who venture to teach and to baptise. He allows that in case of necessity baptism may be administered by a layman, but never by a woman. Again, among the other crimes of the heretics he particularly enumerates the insolence of their women, who ventured to teach, to dispute, &c., &c. In ‘De Cult. Faem,’ lib. I. Cap. I., he says: ‘Let women remember that they are of the sex of Eve, who ruined mankind, and let them therefore repair this ignominy by living rather in dust than in splendour.’”—Buckle (“Common-Place Book,” Note 1870).
Id.—“... man fashioned woman’s ‘sphere.’”
“We deny the right of any portion of the species to decide for another portion, or any individual for another individual, what is, and what is not, ‘their proper sphere.’ The proper sphere for all human beings is the largest and highest which they are able to attain to. What this is, cannot be ascertained without complete liberty of choice.”—Mrs. Harriet Mill (“Enfranchisement of Women,” Westminster Review, July 1851).
6.—“... civil law ...”
For example of this let us look at the law of our own country in even recent times. Blackstone says:—“The husband (by the old law) might give his wife moderate correction.... But this power of correction was confined within reasonable bounds, and the husband was prohibited from using any violence to his wife, aliter quam ad virum ex causa regiminis et castigationis uxoris suæ licite et rationabiliter pertinet (i.e., otherwise than to a man for the ruling and punishment of his wife, lawfully and reasonably pertains). The civil law gave the husband the same or a larger authority over his wife, allowing him for some misdemeanours, flagellis et fustibus acriter verberare uxorem (i.e., to severely beat his wife with whips and cudgels), for others, only modicam castigationem adhibere (to administer a moderate chastisement). But with us, in the politer reign of Charles the Second, this power of correction began to be doubted, and a wife may now (circ. 1750) have security of peace against her husband; or in return, a husband against his wife. Yet the lower rank of people, who were always fond of the old common law,” (query, were the women fond of it?) “still claim and exert their ancient privilege: and the courts of law will still permit a husband to restrain a wife of her liberty in case of any gross misbehaviour.” (“Commentaries,” Edward Christian’s Ed., Book I., Chap. XV.)
Such was undoubtedly the generally accepted and not infrequently acted upon assumption; and it is certain that the Courts of Law would, in the event of a wife absenting herself from her husband, order her return to his custody; and would, and did imprison her in default of her compliance. And this state of things continued until—as Mrs. Wolstenholme Elmy records in her history of the celebrated “Clitheroe case”—