"since the days of Bayle, literary history has been too great a stranger."

The private character of Sir William Blackstone is represented in very favorable colors by his biographer, but seems to have been misunderstood by those who did not enjoy an intimate acquaintance with him. His appearance was not prepossessing. The heaviness of his features and figure, and the contraction of his brow, gave a character of moroseness to his countenance which did not exist in fact. He was not, however, free from occasional irritation of temper, which was increased by the nervous complaints to which he was subject. In his own family he was cheerful, agreeable, and even facetious, and a diligent observer of those economical arrangements upon which so much of the respectability and comfort of life depends. The disposal of his time was so skillfully managed, that, though he was a laborious student, he freely mingled in the amusements and relaxations of society. This he effected by his rigid punctuality. "During the years in which he read his lectures at Oxford," says his biographer, "it could not be remembered that he had ever kept his audience waiting for him even for a few minutes. As he valued his own time, he was extremely careful not to be instrumental in squandering or trifling away that of others, who, he hoped, might have as much regard for theirs as he had for his. Indeed, punctuality was in his opinion so much a virtue, that he could not bring himself to think perfectly well of any who were notoriously defective in it." The diffidence and reserve which characterized his manners were sometimes misconstrued into pride, and the dignity which he preserved on the bench into austerity.

The notes of decisions which he had collected, both at the bar and while on the bench, were published after his death, pursuant to the directions of his will.

THE WOMAN LAWYER.

BY DR. LOUIS FRANK.

(Translated by Mary A. Greene, of the Massachusetts Bar.)

II.

THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE.-We have shown the minor and secondary part, the actual abjection of woman in Jewish civilization.

While Genesis had condemned woman to pain and suffering -had reduced her to be but a satellite of man, and to live forever dependent upon him,-(Gen. III. 16.)-Christ, the glorious defender of the weak, lowly and oppressed, desired the uplifting again of woman, and proclaimed the equality of the sexes: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."-(Gal. III. 28.)

Unfortunately, Catholicism was not slow to warp the pure teaching of Christ, and to bend it to wonderful doctrines. The opinion of the Fathers of the church, and the canons of the Councils have consecrated the Pagan theory of the absolute inferiority of woman.

The judgment which the Fathers of the church brought to the subject of woman, is hardly flattering to this pious portion of the human race, upon which the Catholicism of to-day leans, in order to assure its dominion over the world. 66 Woman," wrote Tertullian, "thou shouldst ever be clothed in rags and in mourning, appearing only as a penitent, drowned in tears, and expiating thus the sin of having caused the fall of the human race. Woman, thou art the gate of the devil; it is thou who hast corrupted those whom Satan dare not attack face

to face; it is because of thee that Jesus Christ died."-(De culta feminarum, I, 1.)

Another Father of the Latin church, Saint Jerome, is not less extravagant. "Woman given over to herself, is not slow to fall into impurity. A woman without reproach is more rare than the phenix. Woman is the gate of the devil, the road to iniquity, the sting of the scorpion, in a word, a dangerous species." "Woman has no comprehension of goodness," adds Saint Gregory the Great.

Run over the history of the Councils, and analyze their canons. On every page, in each of their surprising decisions, is affirmed, with a sort of misogynistic cynicism, the contempt in which the church held woman. Saint Augustine authorized every husband to slap his wife in the face. The council of Toledo, in the year 400, allowed a married clerk, whose wife had sinned, to confine her in the house, to make her to fast, and to chastise her, without however attempting her life.[Can. 7.]—(This provision is reproduced in the canon law. Causa XXXIII. quest. II, ch. X. The canon law also permitted the husband to inflict correction upon his wife. Ill treatment is not a cause for separation unless it exceed the limits of "legitimate correction.")

Then, taking up the famous controversy relative to the question of whether woman should be classed with rational beings or with the brutes, the Council of Macon, in 581, asked of itself whether woman has a soul, and whether she is really a part of humanity: An mulier sit homo? Deeply imbued with this idea that woman is a "dangerous species" from whom one must be protected, the Council. ordered priests to shun their society, even that of their parents. It forbade bishops, priests and deacons to dwell under the same roof with women, and only allowed them to live with their grandmother, mother, sisters or neices in cases of absolute necessity.-[Can. 1.] Bishops could not allow a woman to come into their rooms except in the presence of two priests or two deacons.-[Can. 3.] The Council of Metz, in 888, renewed the first of these prescriptions by forbidding priests to receive into their homes even their mother or their sisters.-[Can. 5.]

And in proportion as Catholicism propagated itself, it seemed to desire to emphasize more and more its tendency toward the subjection of women. The principle is, that woman is a “dangerous species," the decrease of which must be accomplished. The Gospel authorized the marriage of ecclesiastics.-(I Tim. III. 2, 12.) The Church declared the humiliation of the part of procreator which the laws of nature assigned to woman. By sanctifying celibacy they lowered the dignity of marriage, and debased the nobility of woman by honoring a perpetual state of virginity.

The Council of Elvira, in 305, Can. 33, that of Neo Cæsarea, in 314, Can. 1, the 5th Council of Carthage, and that of Rome, in 402, Can. 3, interdicted marriage to bishops, priests and deacons, under pain of being deposed.

Alexander III, in 1159, declared marriage incompatible with benefices, and Innocent III. confirmed this.statement. The Council of Trent, ending in 1563, in its 24th session, smote with anathema the opinion that "the conjugal state should be preferred to a state of virginity or celibacy, and that it is neither better nor more healthful to live in virginity and celibacy than to contract marriage."

The principles and foundations of the Catholic doctrine being thus defined, it is easy to conceive that the canon law should have excluded women from all spiritual and religious functions.

Starting with the sixth century, from the Council of Epaone, in 527, and the 2nd Council of Orleans, there were no longer deaconesses in France. However, before the Revolution, the Carthusian nuns of Saleth (Dauphiné) performed at the altar the duties of deacon and sub-deacon. Likewise the abbess of St. Pierre de Lyon filled the office of sub-deacon; she intoned the epistle and wore the maniple. A woman could not receive any ecclesiastic order, and however holy and learned she might be, she could neither teach nor baptize,-(Council of Carthage in 398: Mulier quamvis docta et sancta viros in conventu docere non præsumat. [Can. 99.] Mulier baptisare non præsumat. [Can. 100.], nor preach. She was forbidden even to speak in the church. The law for her was to be in submission.[I Cor. XIV, 34.] Id. Council in Trullo,in 692,

Can. 70. Non enim eis loqui permissum est, sed subjici, sicut dicit lex.)

She could not approach the altar, nor touch the sacred vessels, nor wait upon the ministers of the church, nor burn incense:-(Council of Nantes, in 660, Can. 3: Secundum auctoritatem canonum, modis omnibus prohibendum est ut nulla femina ad altare præsumat accedere, aut presbytero subministrare, aut infra cancellos stare, aut sedere. The missal, § 1, de defectibus, reproduces this prohibition.) A woman who might even have the exercise of a jurisdiction, could neither absolve, excommunicate or bless publicly.

By the canon law the following are declared incapable of benefices and offices; those under age, madmen, married clerks, bigamists, heretics, schismatics, simoniacs, sorcerers, outlaws, the sacrilegious, forgers, the excommunicate, those suspended from office, apostates, perjurers, bastards, sodomites, public keepers of concubines, homicides, epileptics, illiterates, the deformed, usurers, usurpers, incendiaries, the incestuous, and finally-one can easily guess the last group-women.-(Encycl. Theolog. by the Abbe Migne, Paris, 1846, Vols. 9 and 10, Art. benefices.)

The canon law forbade a woman to become surety for another, or to act as an arbitrator. It however recognized the fact that in France distinguished women exercised the ordinary jurisdiction over their subjects.-(De arbitris, L. I, Tit. XLIII, ch. IV. In partibus Gallicanis feminæ præcellentes in subditos suos ordinariam jurisdictionem habere noscuntur.)

Woman could not bring an accusation, unless it might be in order to pursue the remedy for an injury done to her. Her accusation never had any validity against an ecclesiastic.-(De accusatione mulierum. Causa XV, quest. III, ch. I. Mulieri accusare non permititur; id. ch. II, ch. III. Certis de causis concessa est mulieribus publica accusatio, veluti si mortem exsequantur eorum earumque. Mulier sacerdotem accusare non valet.)

She could neither plead nor act as attorney in a judicial proceeding,-(Causa XV, quest III. Legibus cautum est, ut ob verecundiam sui sexus mulier apud prætorem pro alio non in