THE
HISTORY OF PROSTITUTION:

ITS EXTENT, CAUSES, AND EFFECTS THROUGHOUT
THE WORLD.

[BEING AN OFFICIAL REPORT TO THE BOARD OF ALMS-HOUSE GOVERNORS
OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK.]

BY WILLIAM W. SANGER, M.D.,
RESIDENT PHYSICIAN, BLACKWELL’S ISLAND, NEW YORK CITY; MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE; LATE ONE OF THE PHYSICIANS
TO THE MARINE HOSPITAL, QUARANTINE, NEW YORK, ETC., ETC., ETC.

“To such grievances as society can not readily cure, it usually forbids utterance on pain of its scorn; this scorn being only a sort of tinseled cloak to its deformed weakness.”—Currer Bell, Shirley.

NEW YORK:
HARPER & BROTHERS, PUBLISHERS,
PEARL STREET, FRANKLIN SQUARE.
1858.

Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year one thousand eight hundred
and fifty-eight, by
HARPER & BROTHERS,
in the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the Southern District of New York.

DEDICATION.

TO THE GOVERNORS OF THE ALMS-HOUSE OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF NEW YORK.

Sirs,—To your honorable Board I dedicate the following pages, the result of an investigation into the causes and extent of Prostitution.

Yours was the conception, mine has been the execution of the work; to you am I indebted for many valuable suggestions; to your kindness for much encouraging approbation; and now to your hands I confide my labors, in the conviction that they will not be futile; that your patriotism, your philanthropy, and your humanity will be at once enlisted in the cause.

In so noble an endeavor it will be a source of satisfaction to remember that I assisted you in those generous exertions which will add fresh laurels to your names; that I had some share in the effort which will induce future generations to remember with pride that the first blow struck in the Western World at the gigantic vice Prostitution was aimed by the Governors of the Alms-House of the City and County of New York.

I am your obliged fellow-citizen,
William W. Sanger, M.D.

Resident Physician’s Office, Blackwell’s Island,
New York City, August 10th, 1858.

ADVERTISEMENT.

The reader will perceive from the body of this work that the “History of Prostitution” was commenced in the year 1856. It was completed and ready for the press at the close of 1857. On the morning of February 13th, 1858, the Island Hospital on Blackwell’s Island was entirely consumed by fire, which spread so rapidly as to render it impossible to save any thing from the flames. Among the property destroyed, my library and manuscripts were included. Fortunately, the first draught of this work had been previously removed from my office, and was preserved, and from that the present volume has been prepared.

Advantage has been taken of the opportunity thus afforded carefully to revise the work and introduce some additional facts, bringing the history, of New York especially, to the present time.

The chapters describing foreign prostitution are not claimed to be entirely original. They are compilations and condensations from every available source. It is believed that the authorities have been named in most cases where the ideas of others have been used; but, owing to the loss of all the original works, it is highly probable that in some instances this has been overlooked. Should the reader discover any omissions of this nature, he will be kind enough to understand that accident alone prevents the usual acknowledgements.

W. W. S.

Resident Physician’s Office, Blackwell’s Island,
New York City, August 10th, 1858.

[Pg vii]

CONTENTS.

[Pg 15]

THE HISTORY OF PROSTITUTION.

[Pg 16]

[Pg 17]

INTRODUCTION.

Arguments are unnecessary to prove the existence of prostitution. The evil is so notorious that none can possibly gainsay it. But when its extent, its causes, or its effects are questioned, a remarkable degree of ignorance or carelessness is manifested. Few care to know the secret springs from which prostitution emanates; few are anxious to know how wide the stream extends; few have any desire to know the devastation it causes. Society has formally laid a prohibition on the subject, and he who presumes to argue that what affects one may injure all; he who believes that the malady in his neighbor’s family to-day may visit his own to-morrow; he who dares to intimate that a vice which has blighted the happiness of one parent, and ruined the character of one daughter, may produce, must inevitably produce, the same sad results in another circle; in short, he who dares allude to the subject of prostitution in any other than a mysterious and whispered manner, must prepare to meet the frowns and censure of society.

Keen was the knowledge of human nature, acute the perception of worldly sentiment in the breast of an accomplished woman lately deceased, when she wrote, “To such grievances as society can not readily cure, it usually forbids utterance on pain of its scorn; this scorn being only a sort of tinseled cloak to its deformed weakness.” How true the idea, many a man who has attempted to unveil a hidden crime, or probe a secret sorrow, but too well knows.

Not then to prove that prostitution exists, for that is so glaringly palpable that all must perforce concede it, but to ascertain its origin, progress, and end, is the object of these pages. The finger of scorn may be pointed at the labor; the self-righteous world may wrap itself in a mantle of prudery, and close its ears against sickening details; the complacent public may demur at an approach to sin and misery; the self-satisfied community may object to view wretchedness drawn from the obscurity of its [Pg 18]hiding-place to the full light of investigation: nevertheless, there is now existing a moral pestilence which creeps insidiously into the privacy of the domestic circle, and draws thence the myriads of its victims, and which saps the foundation of that holy confidence, the first, the most beautiful attraction of home. There is an ever-present physical danger, so fatally destructive that the world would recoil, as from the spring of a serpent, could they but appreciate its malignity; a malignity which is daily and hourly threatening every man, woman, and child in the community; which for hundreds of years has been slowly but steadily making its way onward, leaving a track marked with broken hopes, ruined frames, and sad recollections of stricken friends; and which now, in the full force of an impetus acquired and aggravated by concealment, almost defies opposition. There is a social wrong which forces upon the community vast expenditures for an object of which they are ignorant; which swells the public taxes and increases individual outlay for a vice which has hitherto been studiously kept in concealment. These reasons were sufficiently powerful to induce the necessary researches for the accomplishment of this work, and they are considered sufficient to justify its publication.

An unseen evil, of which only the effects are visible, is more frightful than one whose dimensions are apparent. No statesman would grapple with a political question until he knew its “form and pressure;” no philanthropist can satisfactorily encounter an unknown misery. Both may judge, to some slight extent, of the evil they can not see, but the one can not venture to remove it, nor the other to modify its woes until its power is fully known. This has so far been the case with prostitution. The world has studiously drawn a screen before it, and when the sufferings of its victims became so apparent that the vice was palpable, an additional mystery was thrown around it, and the people of the nineteenth century know it but as a sin with which they can not interfere. It has all the imagined force of a monster, because of its obscurity; all the virulence of an avenging fiend, because its true powers are hidden; and even those who suffered from its poison have been led to believe that its mysteries were so inscrutable as to defy all approach.

Hitherto reticence has been the policy. This position has been held too long, for it is false in principle and injurious in tendency. The day has arrived when the shroud must be removed; when[Pg 19] the public safety imperiously demands an investigation into the matter; when those who regard it as a small wrong may have their attention directed to its real proportions; and when those who have viewed it as an unmanageable giant may be alike undeceived.

A small matter it decidedly is not: the eternal ruin of one misguided woman would effectually preclude such an opinion; the physical ruin of an impetuous man would prohibit such an estimate, and both these are among those daily consequences which call for an investigation. There is scarcely a person in the community who can not recall some circumstance he has known to support this assertion; for so wide-spread has been the baneful influence of prostitution, that there are comparatively few but have suffered, through friends or relatives, if not in their own persons.

Nor is it unmanageable, except when concealed. Stripped of the veil of secrecy which has enveloped it, there appears a vice arising from an inextinguishable natural impulse on the part of one sex, fostered by confiding weakness in the other; from social disabilities on one side, and social oppression on the other; from the wiles of the deceiver working upon unsuspecting credulity; and, finally, from the stern necessity to live.

It is a mere absurdity to assert that prostitution can ever be eradicated. Strenuous and well-directed efforts for this purpose have been made at different times. The whole power of the Church, where it possessed not merely a spiritual, but an actual secular arm, has been in vain directed against it. Nature defied the mandates of the clergy, and the threatened punishments of an after-life were futile to deter men from seeking, and women from granting, sinful pleasures in this world. Monarchs victorious in the field and unsurpassed in the council-chamber have bent all their energies of will, and brought all the aids of power to crush it out, but before these vice has not quailed. The guilty women have been banished, scourged, branded, executed; their partners have been subjected to the same punishment; held up to public opinion as immoral; denuded of their civil rights; have seen their offenses visited upon their families; have been led to the stake, the gibbet, and the block, and still prostitution exists. The teachings of morality and virtue have been powerless here. In some cases they restrain individuals; upon the aggregate they are inoperative. The researches of science have been unheeded. They have traced the[Pg 20] physical results of vice, and have foreshadowed its course. They have demonstrated that the suffering parents of this generation will bequeath to their posterity a heritage of ruined powers; that the malady which illicit pleasure communicates is destructive to the hopes of man; that the human frame is perceptibly and regularly depreciating by the operation of this poison, and have shown that even the desire for health and long life, one of the most powerful motives that ever influences a human being, has been of no avail to stem the torrent.

But if history proves that prostitution can not be suppressed, it also demonstrates that it can be regulated, and directed into channels where its most injurious results can be encountered, and its dangerous tendencies either entirely arrested or materially weakened. This is the policy to which civilized communities are tending, and to aid the movement it is needful that the subject be examined, even at the risk of the world’s contumely.

In some of the countries of Continental Europe the examination has been made, and the natural consequences of a searching and philosophical investigation are there seen in legislation, which aims not to dam a wild torrent, but to lead it where its rage may be harmlessly spent. When a mighty river overflows its banks, the uncontrollable flood works wide-spread ruin and devastation along its course; but the same river, confined to its natural channel, may be of immense service in carrying off a vast amount of filth and debris that otherwise would cause pestilence and death. In this Western hemisphere, and in the mother-country, Anglo-Saxon prudery has stood aloof from inquiring into a vice which every one admits to be offensive to the moral sense of the people, and has submitted to an accumulation of evils rather than seek to abate them, until the suffering and the wrong have become so boldly defined that they force themselves upon the public eye.

Assuredly it is high time to inaugurate a new line of action; to cast aside as unworthy those puerile doubts of propriety and expediency which have stood in the way of an onward progress. The very meaning of the word “propriety” supplies an argument in favor of the proposed course. Conventionally, it has been construed to mean an indefinite something which every person has moulded to suit his own predilections. Upon the same principle that a man who makes his living dishonestly would consider it a glaring impropriety to examine the laws of fraud, has the world decided it an outrage against propriety to inquire into a[Pg 21] vice which many secretly practice, but all publicly condemn. Reasoning like this has been too often applied, and with too great an effect. Can there possibly be an impropriety in investigating a vice which threatens the purity and peace of the community, because in so doing unpleasant facts will be disclosed? Is there not a far more striking inconsistency in supinely allowing the same vice to exist and increase, without hinderance or examination?

Again: it must be conceded that the demands of propriety are universal. They are not restricted to any person or place, but press with equal force upon every member of the community in every possible situation. The common welfare is involved in their general application, and he well merits the good opinion of his fellow-men who points them to a case where propriety is outraged, and asks their aid to apply the remedy. In a word, propriety demands an exposure of all acts of impropriety, and the application of the needful cure.

Then the question arises, In what form shall the exposure be made? Truth admits of but one reply. It must be so explicit as to leave no doubt of its meaning; it must be so guarded as not to offend in its application. If the first of these rules is not observed, any disclosure will be worthless; if the remarks are vague, indefinite, or generalized, no good result can accrue. Take a simple illustration. It conveys no determinate idea to a benevolent man to say, “There is distress in a certain city;” but point him to the particular locality, and give him the precise circumstances, and his sympathy is at once aroused and effectively exerted. The same rule is equally applicable to a monster vice and to an individual hardship, and upon this principle have the disclosures of the following pages been based. The idea has been to particularize sufficiently to draw attention, but not enough to gratify a prurient inclination; to exhibit the evil in a truthful aspect, but not in a fascinating form. None can doubt the truth of Pope’s well-known lines:

“Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As, to be hated, needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.”

The endeavor should be to fulfill the imperative demands of propriety, without disturbing the conventional prejudices implied by the same word.

[Pg 22]Then, as to expediency, or the fitness to effect some good end. It must be admitted that the mere fact of proving prostitution capable of control is a good object, and it is apparent that such proof can not be afforded while the vice remains a myth. Something must be known of its haunts and its customs ere any one can decide in what shape a supervisory power can be best applied. This knowledge must be obtained in defiance of deep-rooted prejudices. Commonplace objections about the danger of touching impure objects are best met by the remark that to the pure all things are pure. Though benevolence may at times lead its devotees through scenes where moral purity is shocked, and to neighborhoods where filth and obscenity vitiate the very air they breathe, there is no contamination to those whose motives are good. Inexpediency has been urged as often and as falsely as impropriety. In their application to this subject, both are perverted from their legitimate meaning; both are made subservient to a false taste, or a mawkish sensibility which fears to encounter an imaginary danger.

The safety of the community, so far as its sanitary condition is concerned, imperatively demands an inquiry like this. It is no longer necessary to prove that syphilitic taint is propagated by the direct agency of prostitution. That fact has been demonstrated years ago, and, reasoning from it, we rightly infer that the ravages of that poison can be checked by compelling abandoned women to certain judicious observances. One thing is absolutely certain, that the public health can not be endangered by the interference, and there is a moral certainty that it may be materially benefited. The value of this investigation, so far as relates to purely physical questions, consists in not merely pointing out where the evil is, but in showing to what extent it exists, and then contrasting the state of venereal disease, its rapid increase and augmenting virulence in this country, with its condition in those nations where similar investigations have resulted in practical measures.

Public safety imperatively demands this investigation as a means of tracing the habitual resorts of criminals. It is not necessary to inform any man conversant with city life that houses of ill fame are the common resort of the most abandoned of the male part of the community. There the assassin, against whose hand no life is secure, has a safe retreat. The burglar, who commits his depredations under cover of the shade of night; the swindler,[Pg 23] who defrauds the honest trader by false representations; the counterfeiter, who earns a precarious living by his unholy trade—these hold there high carnival. There they meet to recount their exploits and divide the spoils; to devise new schemes of wickedness, or lay plans by which simple youths may be allured to vilest practices.

There is another phase of public safety which demands this investigation, namely, the preservation of female honor. Those who frequent these haunts of vice are forever employed in casting about snares to entrap the young, the unwary, or the friendless woman. They tempt her to minister to their libidinous desires, and swell the already overcrowded ranks of frailty. While these resorts are secret, there is every facility for such infamous conduct, with but slight probability of its detection, and still slighter opportunities for prevention. Thither, too, young men, and even boys, are inveigled by those who have grown old in vice, and there are they taught the horrid mysteries of unhallowed passion. Many a promising youth has left such haunts as these not only with a ruined constitution, but with loss of character and honor; many whose names swell the criminal records of the day date their first step in crime from the hour they entered a common brothel.

Again: Public safety demands this investigation because of the superior opportunities it will afford to reformatory measures. Start not at the supposition of reforming courtesans. There is hope even for them, for they are human beings, though depraved. Their hearts throb with the same sympathies that move the more favored of their sex. Their minds are susceptible to the same emotions as those of other females. Few of them become vile from natural instincts: poor victims of circumstances, many of them would gladly amend if the proper means were used at the proper time.

“There is in every human heart
Some not entirely barren part,
Where flowers of richest scent may blow,
And fruit in glorious sunlight grow.”

This consummation can be achieved only when the pseudo-virtue of the world shall yield to true benevolence, and charity be in deed what it professes in name.

If public safety is thus urgent, private interest also has arguments in favor of investigating prostitution. No one need be[Pg 24] told that public aid is required to give medical treatment to the unfortunate men and women tainted by this vice; nor need any one be assured that such aid, administered with every regard to economy, requires yearly a large portion of the taxes paid by individuals. It would be sheer folly to assert that any measures which can follow this inquiry will be efficacious in eradicating syphilis, but experience proves that an effective supervision would materially abate its influence, render it curable in a much shorter space of time, and reduce the expenses for each patient in a corresponding ratio.

Another large claim upon the public funds arises from the necessity of employing an extensive judicial and police organization to deal with the crime and the criminals generated and fostered in houses of ill fame. Nests of vice as they are now in their darkness and seclusion, it would be impossible to suppose a more fitting nursery for crime, or one whence more criminals would emanate. As with disease, so with crime. It can not be suppressed by placing its retreats under public notice, but it can be watched, and, once brought to the light of day, half its dangers and difficulties become surmountable.

Finally, private interest demands this investigation on mere private grounds—the individual and personal expenses caused by diseases contracted by debauchery. There is the money a working man must pay for his cure: this is his share of the loss. There is the unproductive time, and the loss of profits upon his labor: this is his employer’s sacrifice. There is the deprivation of comforts and necessaries experienced by his family and dependents: this is their penalty. Society is thus involved in a general loss on account of an act of folly, or passion, or crime (call it which you please), committed in a concealed and secret haunt, and such loss could be saved by the intervention of proper means.

Common sense asks for a full investigation of all the evils attending prostitution. In the every-day affairs of life, any man who feels the pressure of a particular evil looks at once for its cause. He may be neither a philosopher nor a logician, and may never have heard of or read any of the luminous treatises which professedly simplify science, yet he knows very well that for every effect there must be some adequate cause, and for this he generally searches diligently till he can find and remove it. But here, in the city of New York, is a population who claim to be as[Pg 25] intelligent as any on the Western continent, who have been for years suffering from the effects of a vice in purse and person; who have paid and are paying every year large sums of money on account of it; who witness every day some broken constitution or ruined character resulting from it, and who yet have never thought of seeking out the cause! Is it now too late to enlist your sympathies in the undertaking?

Hence we conclude that propriety, expediency, public safety, private interest, and common sense demand an investigation like this now submitted to the reader. And what is the argument brought forward to oppose it? The world’s scorn—“this scorn being only a sort of tinseled cloak to its deformed weakness.” But is not this scorn powerless against the array of favoring motives? Will it stand the test of comparison with any one of them, much less of all? Is not its influence lost when its real character is known? The reckless carelessness which has suffered a growing vice to increase and multiply, which has permitted a deadly Upas-tree to take root and blossom in the community until its poisonous exhalations threaten universal infection; which has, by its actual indifference, fostered vice, promoted seduction, perpetuated disease, and entailed death; shall this deformed weakness now raise its trembling hands, and exhibit its tottering frame, and lift its puny voice to forbid an examination into the sources of the danger? Has not the finger of this scorn too long forbid the search for truth? Has not the hour arrived when truth will speak trumpet-tongued, and when her voice must be heard?

Now the question will arise, Has the world’s indifference produced these evils? Undoubtedly it has, and in the following manner: Laws have been placed upon the statute-book declaring prostitutes, and houses of prostitution, and all who live by such means, illegal and immoral. There the law yet stands. At uncertain intervals some poor and friendless woman is arrested as a vagrant, and, to appease the offended majesty of law, she is sent to prison, a scapegoat for five thousand of her class. It also sometimes happens that another woman equally guilty, but with money or influence, is arrested at the same time and for the same offense, and before she reaches the prison walls a legal quibble has been raised and she is free. Is there no culpable indifference in this? Houses of prostitution are proscribed by law. How many of them are ever indicted, or, if indicted, how many are suppressed? This, too, is owing to criminal neglect, and it is aggravated by the [Pg 26]injurious effects arising from the mere circumstance of allowing a law to exist, and making no efforts to enforce it. The character of a people is judged, not by the laws that are made, but by the strictness with which those that do exist are enforced and observed. In regard to the first, there may be exhibited an acute perception of an existing evil, and a desire to reform it by legislation; but a second glance may reveal no wish to make this legislation effective. In the special matter of prostitution, the opinion is expressed elsewhere that prohibitory laws are worse than useless, and in the experience of New York City there is nothing to shake that opinion, notwithstanding the fact that the efforts made to enforce them are so “few and far between.” Had existing laws been more vigorously enforced, their inefficiency would long since have been much better understood than it now is, and people would not have rested under the delusion that every thing necessary has been done.

There are yet other cases of culpable indifference. These same proscribed houses of prostitution are suffered to exist uncontrolled, and to spread disease and increase crime and vagrancy in all parts of the city. It has been generally conceded that they can not be suppressed. What effort has been made to hold in check their baneful influence? None—literally none. The statesman has looked on appalled at an evil of whose magnitude he could form no correct idea; the clergyman has hesitated to encounter those who he judged would not respectfully receive his admonitions; the masses of society have shrunk from considering a subject which was repugnant and distasteful. Is there no guilty indifference in this? There can be but one answer to this query; but one opinion as to the share this general apathy has had in fostering the evil.

To substitute for this apathy a healthy action is the object of this investigation. It is but the means to an end. In themselves, as mere matters of information, the facts and deductions presented in the following pages can do nothing but demonstrate the necessity of exertion; but of this necessity they do afford overwhelming demonstration.

Thus much for the general arguments as to the necessity of a work of this nature. There are other special and local causes which led to its accomplishment in the present form.

“The Governors of the Alms-House of the City and County of New York,” or, as they are more generally known, “The Ten[Pg 27] Governors,” is a body called into existence by an act of the State Legislature passed April 6, 1849, specially to take charge of the vagrant and pauper institutions of the city. The present members of the Board are the following well-known citizens:[1]

C. Godfrey Gunther, Esq., President.
Isaac J. Oliver, Esq., Secretary.
Washington Smith, Esq.[2]
Anthony Dugro, Esq.[3]
Cornelius V. Anderson, Esq.
Isaac Townsend, Esq.
Daniel F. Tiemann, Esq.
Joseph S. Taylor, Esq.
P. G. Moloney, Esq.
Benjamin F. Pinckney, Esq.

At the time these investigations commenced two other prominent men were also members of the organization, Hon. Edward C. West (now Surrogate of the city) and Simeon Draper, Esq. Both of these gentlemen had served as President of the Board of Governors with honor to themselves and satisfaction to their colleagues and the public; both took a lively interest in the projected inquiry, and to both am I indebted for much valuable assistance.

The act establishing the Board of Governors assigned to them, with their other duties, the medical care of all persons who had contracted infectious diseases in the practice of debauchery, and who required charitable aid to restore them to health. The result was that a very large number of persons, both male and female, chargeable to the citizens of New York through the medium of the institutions on Blackwell’s Island, came under their cognizance, and they became convinced that some measures were necessary in connection therewith.

Individual members had held this opinion for some time before any official action was taken, and foremost among such was Governor Isaac Townsend. This gentleman was one of the originally appointed Governors, and has been connected with the Board by re-election ever since—a circumstance which made him perfectly acquainted with all the workings of the present system, and to him the public is indebted for the conception of this undertaking. For years has he labored to bring about this result, with an indomitable[Pg 28] energy and perseverance equaled only by his known benevolence and honesty of purpose. He frequently made the practicability of such a measure the subject of conversation with the gentleman who preceded me as Resident Physician of Blackwell’s Island, and, on my appointment (1853), the subject was again urged by him; nor could I be unaware of its importance. No official action was taken until the commencement of the year 1855. At that time Mr. Townsend was President of the Board, and one of his first acts in that capacity was to submit a list of interrogatories on the subject, which were adopted and transmitted to me. I transcribe them from the Minutes of the Board:

To reply to these questions, especially to the fifth, I discovered that it would be requisite to extend my investigations beyond the limits of the institutions on Blackwell’s Island. This idea was communicated to President Townsend, who joined me in appreciating the necessity of such a movement. He also was the means of interesting Mayor Wood and other officers of the city in the investigation as subsequently carried on, while his continued exertions and earnest support aided me generally in the prosecution of the labor, and merit my most sincere and grateful acknowledgments.

[Pg 29]The steps thus taken are fully detailed in the following letter to the Board of Governors, that letter, or preliminary report, having been called for in connection with the reports from the Medical Board of Bellevue Hospital, and from the Resident Physician of Randall’s Island, which will be found, in extenso, in Chapter XXXVII. of this work:[4]

To aid the police officers in the duty of taking the census alluded to above, a schedule of questions was prepared.[5] This was submitted to the Board of Governors by Governor Townsend, and a resolution was adopted at their meeting of October 23d, 1855, sanctioning the plan adopted, and authorizing him to have a sufficient number of copies printed. The mayor, the district attorney, the chief of police, and the captains of the several districts, willingly and zealously co-operated with Governor Townsend and myself, and every possible exertion was used to obtain accurate and extensive information. It became my duty to assist the officers in the execution of their task, and I am thus enabled to speak with certainty as to the authenticity of the statistics given, which were mainly collected under my own observation.

I gladly avail myself of the present opportunity to record my obligations for services rendered by his honor Fernando Wood, Mayor of the city of New York; George W. Matsell, Esq., Chief of Police; and to the Captains of Police in the different wards of the city, namely,

[Pg 32]To Captains Halpin, Hopkins, Ditchett, Carpenter, Dowling, Letts, Turnbull, Kissner, and Dilks, in whose wards is found the greatest amount of prostitution, and upon whom fell the largest share of labor, I am more particularly indebted.

The necessary particulars were finally obtained, and are embodied in Chapters XXXII. to XXXVII. of this work, but there was still an important point to determine, namely, what had been done elsewhere, and what was the result of such action, to check prostitution and diminish the ravages of venereal disease. The Continent of Europe presented a field for this inquiry, and to it I turned for the information required, which is given in the various chapters devoted to the several countries in such a form as to show the measures which have been taken, the effect, and the causes which led to legislative interference, contrasted with those other parts of the world where, as yet, no remedial plans have been tried, notwithstanding the necessity which calls for them.

The reader is now in possession of the facts which led to this inquiry. Is it too much to ask his attention to the analysis and exhibition of prostitution as it is at the present time, he being well assured that no assertions will be made that are not supported by good authority, nor any conclusions drawn from doubtful premises?

So far as New York alone is concerned, the evil is known to a large portion of her citizens, although its ramifications are but very imperfectly understood; and the endeavor will be to present all possible information on the matter, and to give a truthful, unexaggerated picture of the depravity. Disagreeable as this must be from the nature of the task, it is hopeful from a belief that the result will tend to public good.

One of the most painfully interesting branches of the inquiry is that relating to the ages of the unfortunate women. Their number includes many who are but mere children; who but recently knelt at a mother’s side, and in infantile accents breathed a prayer to the Almighty; who but recently sprang with eager, joyous bound to the returning footsteps of a father; who, in a happy and innocent home, have but recently given promise of a bright and virtuous life. Therein are also included many who were deprived by death of their natural protectors, and who, thus left unwatched and uncared for, have fallen before the destroyer ere yet the age of womanhood was reached.

The places of their birth form an interesting subject for [Pg 33]consideration. In this land the frigid North and sunny South, the busy East and fertile West have each contributed their quota, while foreign countries have sent large numbers to swell the mournful aggregate.

The most useful portion of the subject will be found, it is imagined, in replies to the question, “What was the cause of your becoming a prostitute?” These tend to expose the concealed vices of mankind, and to prove that many of the unfortunate victims are “more sinned against than sinning.” Among the reasons assigned for a deviation from the paths of virtue are some which tell of man’s deceit; others, where the machinations employed to effect the purpose raise a blush for humanity; others, where a wife was sacrificed by the man who had sworn before God and in the presence of men to protect her through life; others, where parents have urged or commanded this course, and are now living on the proceeds of their children’s shame, or where an abuse of parental authority has produced the same effect; and others still, where women, already depraved, have been the means of leading their fellow-women to disgrace. A bare allusion to these wrongs is sickening; but, while the gangrene of prostitution is rapidly extending through society, it becomes an imperative duty to examine its causes completely and impartially.

Another prolific source of female depravity will be exhibited by the several tables showing the description of employment pursued, and the wages received by women previous to their fall, and it will be a question for the political economist to decide how far mere business considerations should be an apology on the part of employers for a reduction in their rates of remuneration, and whether the saving of a small percentage on wages is not more than counterbalanced by the enormous amount of taxation enforced on the public at large to defray the expenses incurred on account of a system of vice which is the direct result, in many cases, of insufficient compensation for honest labor.

In conclusion, it must not be assumed that the information collected from two thousand women in New York City relates to all the prostitutes therein. The many difficulties surrounding the investigation, and especially the secrecy to which prohibitory laws have driven this class of persons, rendered the task impossible; but, from the best information that could be obtained of those whose knowledge of the vice was derived from actual experience, it is imagined that the replies represent about two fifths of the[Pg 34] total number.[6] They are presented with full confidence in their general authenticity, and may be very reasonably concluded to offer a fair average of the whole. They unquestionably exhibit an appalling amount of depravity and consequent wretchedness, with but very few redeeming features, and present mournful subjects for reflection to all classes, with forcible arguments for remedial measures. Without this end in prospect it would have been scarcely justifiable, at least in a moral point of view, to institute this inquiry or make these disclosures; but it certainly may be reasonably inferred that many will feel sufficient interest in the advance of virtue to aid in the mitigation of this enormous vice which threatens all social relations; which has already introduced physical suffering into so many families; and the influence of which, increasing in a direct ratio to its existence, will very probably extend its malignant poison, mental and bodily, into all ranks and classes of the community. The necessity for action is apparent, but its successful consummation must rest with the public at large, who have the bane exhibited before them in its actual power, and the necessity of an antidote demonstrated from positive facts, and not deduced from a mere arbitrary theory.

If some antidote be applied, even though a partial one, it will be a satisfaction to reflect that the investigations have not been profitless, nor the labor in vain.

[Pg 35]

HISTORY OF PROSTITUTION.

[If the reader has not already perused the Introduction to this volume, he is advised to do so at once, as therein are stated the reasons which have called it forth, and extended it to the present dimensions.]

CHAPTER I.

THE JEWS.

Our earliest acquaintance with the human race discloses some sort of society established. It also reveals the existence of a marriage tie, varying in stringency and incidental effects according to climate, morals, religion, or accident, but every where essentially subversive of a system of promiscuous intercourse. No nation, it is believed, has ever been reported by a trustworthy traveler, on sufficient evidence, to have held its women generally in common. Still there appear to have been in every age men who did not avail themselves of the marriage covenant, or who could not be bound by its stipulations, and their appetites created a demand for illegitimate pleasures, which female weakness supplied. This may be assumed to be the real origin of prostitution throughout the world, though in particular localities this first cause has been assisted by female avarice or passion, religious superstition, or a mistaken sense of hospitality.

Accordingly, prostitution is coeval with society. It stains the earliest mythological records. It is constantly assumed as an existing fact in Biblical history. We can trace it from the earliest twilight in which history dawns to the clear daylight of to-day, without a pause or a moment of obscurity.

Our most ancient historical record is believed to be the Books of Moses. According to them, it must be admitted that prostitutes were common among the Jews in the eighteenth century[Pg 36] before Christ. When Tamar, the daughter-in-law of Judah, desired to defeat the cruel Jewish custom, and to bear children, notwithstanding her widowhood, she “put her widow’s garments off from her, and covered her with a veil, and wrapped herself, and sat in an open place.... When Judah saw her he thought her a harlot, for she had covered her face.”[7] The Genesiacal account thus shows that prostitutes, with covered faces, must have been common at the time. It is the more valuable, as it furnishes the particulars of the transaction. To keep up her disguise, Tamar demands a kid as her recompense. Judah agrees, and leaves his “signet, and his bracelets, and his staff” as a pledge for the kid. It appears to have been regarded as no dishonor to have commerce with a prostitute, for Judah sends his friend the Adullamite, a man of standing, to deliver the kid; but to defraud the unfortunate woman of her ill-gotten gain must have been considered shameful, for, when Judah learns that she has disappeared, he expresses alarm “lest we be shamed” for not having paid the stipulated price. It may also be noticed, as an illustration of the connection between prostitution and pure domestic morals, that when Judah learns that his daughter-in-law is pregnant, he instantly orders her to be burned for having “played the harlot.”

Four centuries afterward it fell to the lot of Moses to legislate on the Jewish morals, no doubt sadly corrupted by their sojourn in Egypt. His command is formal and emphatic: “Do not prostitute thy daughter, lest the land fall to whoredom.... There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel.”[8] He was equally decided in his condemnation of worse practices, to which it would appear the Jews were much addicted.[9] He laid penalties on uncleanness of every kind, and on fornication; but it would appear that he rather confirmed than abrogated the customary right of a Jewish father to sell his daughter as a concubine.[10] With the practical view of improving the physical condition of the race, Moses guarded, by elaborate laws, against improper and corrupt unions. Adultery and rape he punished with death. The bride was bound, under pain of death by stoning, to prove to the satisfaction not only of her husband, but of the tribe, that she had been chaste to the day of her marriage.[11] A long list of relatives were specified among whom it was illegal to intermarry. Furthermore, Moses endeavored, with marked zeal, to check the [Pg 37]progress of disease among both sexes. Whether the maladies mentioned in Leviticus[12] were syphilitic in their nature, it were difficult to say. Modern medical science admits that, in hot climates, want of cleanliness and frequent amorous indulgence will generate phenomena similar to the “issue” so frequently mentioned by Moses. However this be, it is certain that both Jews and Jewesses were subject to diseases apparently similar to the common gonorrhœa; that these diseases were infectious; and that Moses, in reiterated injunctions, forbade all sexual intercourse, and almost all association, with persons thus afflicted. So earnest was his desire to eradicate the evil from the people, that he extended his prohibition to women during the period of their menstrual visitation.

Having done this much for the Jews, Moses appears to have connived at the intercourse of their young men with foreign prostitutes. He took an Ethiopian concubine himself. Syrian women, Moabites, Midianites, and other neighbors of the Jews—many of them, as it appears, young and lovely, but with debauched and vicious principles—established themselves as prostitutes in the land of Israel. For many years, until the time of Solomon, they were excluded from Jerusalem and the large cities. Driven to the highways for refuge, they lived in booths and tents, where they combined the trade of a peddler with the calling of a harlot. Unlike Tamar, they did not veil the face. Reclining within the tent, with no more clothing than the heat of the climate suggested, these dissolute girls invited the complaisance of passengers who stopped to refresh their thirst or replenish their wardrobe at their booth. So long as their practices violated no law of nature, the prudent legislator pursued a tolerant policy. Before long, however, abominable rites in honor of Moloch, Baal, or Belphegor, were formally established by the “strange women” and their male accomplices. Moloch, whose disgusting exactions we find in Phœnicia, and at Carthage also, demanded male worship. The belly of the god’s statue was a furnace, in which a fierce fire was kindled and fed with animal sacrifice; around it the priests and their proselytes danced to the sound of music, sang wild songs, and debased themselves by practices of a disgusting and unnatural character. Nor was the worship of Baal less revolting. He too had his statues, in forms eminently calculated to excite the animal passions, and surrounded by cool groves in which the most shameless prostitution was carried on[Pg 38] by all who would deposit an offering on the altars of the idol. It would even seem, from several passages in the Bible,[13] that the participators in these infamies were not invariably human beings. Against such enormities the wrath of Moses and his successors was aroused, on hygienic as well as moral and religious grounds. Participation in the rites of Moloch was punished with death.[14] Aaron’s grandson did not hesitate to commit a double homicide to mark the Divine abhorrence of the daughters of Midian; and Moses himself, warned by the frightful progress of disease among the male Jews, struck at its roots by exterminating every female Midianite among his captives, save the virgins only.

An express command forbade the establishment of groves near the Jewish temples, evidently on account of the convenience such shady retreats afforded to prostitutes. Yet on various occasions in the history of Israel we find accounts of the destruction of such groves, and of the statues of the gods in whose honor human nature was defiled.[15] Solomon, whose wisdom was singularly alloyed with sensuality, not only set the example of inordinate lust, keeping, it is said, seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines, but repealed the wise restrictions of his predecessors in regard to prostitutes, allowing them to exercise their calling within the city of Jerusalem. They multiplied so fast that the prophets speak of them wandering on all the hills, and prostituting themselves under every tree, and at a later date they even invaded the Temple, and established their hideous rites in its courts. That noble edifice had become, in the time of Maccabees, a mere brothel plenum scortantium cum meretricibus.[16]

It is, however, apparent, notwithstanding the severe ordinances of the Jewish legislators, that prostitutes were a recognized class, laboring under no hopeless ban. Jephtha, the son of a prostitute, became none the less chief of Israel; and some commentators have contended that the retreat to which he condemned his daughter was simply the calling of her grandmother. Joshua’s spies slept openly in the house of the harlot Rahab, whose service to Israel was faithfully requited by the amnesty granted to her family, and the honorable residence allotted to her in Judæa. Samson chose the house of a harlot to be his residence at Gaza; his fatal acquaintance with another harlot, Delilah, is the leading trait of his story. Even Solomon did not disdain to hear the[Pg 39] rival wranglings of a pair of harlots, and to adjudicate between them. Prostitution was in fact legally domiciled in Judæa at a very early period, and never lost the foothold it had gained. Of the manner in which it was carried on, an idea may be formed from the very vivid picture in Proverbs:[17]

“For at the window of my house,
I looked through my casement,
And beheld among the simple ones,
I discerned among the youths,
A young man void of understanding,
Passing through the streets near her (the strange woman’s) corner;
And he went the way to her house,
In the twilight, in the evening,
In the black and dark night;
And, behold, there met him a woman
With the attire of a harlot, and subtile of heart.
She is loud and stubborn;
Her feet abide not in her house:
Now she is without, now in the streets,
And lieth in wait at every corner.
So she caught him, and kissed him,
And with an impudent face said unto him,
I have peace-offerings with me;
This day have I paid my vows.
Therefore came I forth to meet thee,
Diligently to seek thy face,
And I have found thee.
I have decked my bed with coverings of tapestry,
With carved works, with linen of Egypt.
I have perfumed my bed with myrrh,
Aloes, and cinnamon.
Come, let us take our fill of love until the morning:
Let us solace ourselves with loves. * * *
With her much fair speech she caused him to yield,
With the flattering of her lips she forced him.
He goeth after her straightway,
As an ox goeth to the slaughter,
Or as a fool to the correction of the stocks.”

That prostitution continued to be practiced generally and openly until the destruction of the old Jewish nation, the language of the Biblical prophets does not permit us to doubt. It may be[Pg 40] questioned whether it ever assumed more revoltingly public forms in any other country. The Babylonish conquest must have changed the parts, without altering the performance. At Babylon, the Jewish maidens, whose large, expressive eyes, voluptuous mouth, slender and graceful figure, with well-developed bust and limbs, were frequently the theme of ancient poets, peopled the houses of prostitution, and ministered to the lusts of the nobles. Nor even after the return to Jerusalem was the evil extirpated. It was to a prostitute that Christ uttered the memorable sentence, “Her sins are forgiven because she loved much.”

CHAPTER II.

EGYPT, SYRIA, AND ASIA MINOR.

Before passing to the subject of prostitution in Greece, a glance at Egypt, and those nations of Asia which seem to have preceded Greece in civilization, may not be out of place.

Egypt was famous for her courtesans before the time of Herodotus. Egyptian blood runs warm; girls are nubile at ten. Under the Pharaohs, if ancient writers are to be believed, there existed a general laxity of moral principle, especially among young females.[18] Their religion was only too suggestive. The deities Isis and Osiris were the types of the sexes. A statue of the latter, a male image, made of gold, was carried by the maidens at festivals, and worshiped by the whole people. Nor were the rites of Isis more modest. “At the festival at Bubastis,” says Herodotus, “men and women go thither in boats on the Nile, and when the boats approach a city they are run close to the shore. A frantic contest then begins between the women of the city and those in the boats, each abusing the other in the most opprobrious language, and the women in the boats conclude the performance by lascivious dances, in the most undisguised manner, in sight of the people, and to the sound of flutes and other musical instruments.”[19] There is little reason to doubt that the temples, like those of Baal, were houses of prostitution on an extensive scale. Herodotus [Pg 41]remarks significantly that a law in Egypt forbade sexual intercourse within the walls of a temple, and exacted of both sexes that intercourse should be followed by ablution before the temple was entered.[20]

Where piety required such sacrifices, it is not surprising that public morals were loose. It was not considered wholly shameful for an Egyptian to make his living by the hire of his daughter’s person, and a king is mentioned who resorted to this plan in order to discover a thief. Such was the astonishing appetite of the men, that young and beautiful women were never delivered to the embalmer until they had been dead some days, a miserable wretch having been detected in the act of defiling a recently-deceased virgin![21] Of course, in such a society, there was no disgrace in being a prostitute. The city of Naucratis owed its wealth and fame to the beauty of its courtesans, whose reputation spread throughout Europe, and was much celebrated in Greece. Rhadopis, a Thracian by birth, led the life of a prostitute in Egypt with such success, that she not only bought her own freedom from the slave-dealer who had taken her there on speculation, but, if the Egyptians are to be believed, built a pyramid with her savings. A large portion of her story is doubtless mythical, but enough remains to warrant the opinion that she was, though a prostitute, a wealthy and highly considered person.

In Chaldæa, too, religion at first connived at, and then commanded prostitution. Every Babylonian female was obliged by law to prostitute herself once in her life in the temple of the Chaldæan Venus, whose name was Mylitta.[22] Herodotus appears to have seen the park and grounds in which this singular sacrifice was made. They were constantly filled with women with strings bound round their hair. Once inside the place, no woman could leave it until she had paid her debt, and had deposited on the altar of the goddess the fee received from her lover. Some, who were plain, remained there as long as three years; but, as the grounds were always filled with a troop of voluptuaries in search of pleasure, the young, the beautiful, the high-born seldom needed to remain over a few minutes. This strange custom is mentioned by the prophet Baruch, who introduces one of the women reproaching her neighbor that she had not been deemed worthy of having her girdle of cord burst asunder by any man.[23] Similar statements are made by Strabo and other[Pg 42] ancient writers. At the time of Alexander the Great the demoralization had reached a climax. Babylonian banquets were scenes of unheard-of infamies. When the meal began, the women sat modestly enough in presence of their fathers and husbands; but, as the wine went round, they lost all restraint, threw off one garment after another, and enacted scenes of glaring immodesty. And these were the ladies of the best families.[24]

The Mylitta of Chaldæa became Astarte in Phœnicia, at Carthage, and in Syria. Nothing was changed but the name; the voluptuous rites were identical. In addition to the forced prostitution in the temples, however, the Phœnicians and most of their colonies maintained for many years the practice of requiring their maidens to bestow their favors on any strangers who visited the country. Commercial interest, no doubt, had some share in promoting so scandalous a custom. On the high shores of Phœnicia, as at Carthage and in the island of Cyprus, the traveler sailing past in his boat could see beautiful girls, arrayed in light garments, stretching inviting arms to him.

Originally the sum paid by the lover was offered to the goddess, but latterly the girls kept it, and it served to enhance their value in the matrimonial market. In some places the girl was free if she chose to abandon her hair to the goddess, but Lucian notes that this was an uncommonly rare occurrence.

Very similar were the customs of the Lydians and their successors in empire, the early Persians. Their Venus was named Mithra, in honor of whom festivals were given at which human nature was horribly outraged. Fathers and daughters, sons and mothers, husbands and wives sat together at the table, while voluptuous dances and music inflamed their senses, and when the wine had done its work, a promiscuous combat of sensuality began which lasted all night. Details of such scenes must be left to other works, and veiled in a learned tongue.[25]

[Pg 43]

CHAPTER III.

GREECE.

The Greek mythology supposes obviously a relaxed state of public morals. What period in the history of the nation it may be assumed to reflect is, however, by no means certain. It is not reasonable to suppose that the Homeric poems were composed for immodest audiences, and it would perhaps be fairer to lay the blame of the mythological indecencies at the door of the age which polished and improved upon them, rather than of that which is entitled to the credit of their conception in the rough.

Our first reliable information regarding the morals of the Greek women, passing over, for the present, the legislation ascribed to Lycurgus, is found in the ordinances of Solon. Draco is supposed to have affixed the penalty of death indiscriminately to rape, seduction, and adultery. It has been conjectured that the safety-valve used at that time, ordinary prostitution being unknown, was a system of religious prostitution in the temples, borrowed from and analogous to the plan already described. This, however, is mere conjecture. Solon, while softening the rigors of the Draconian code, by law formally established houses of prostitution at Athens, and filled them with female slaves. They were called Dicteria, and the female tenants Dicteriades. Bought with the public money, and bound by law to satisfy the demands of all who visited them, they were in fact public servants, and their wretched gains were a legitimate source of revenue to the state. Prostitution became a state monopoly, and so profitable[Pg 44] that, even in Solon’s lifetime, a superb temple, dedicated to Venus the courtesan, was built out of the fund accruing from this source. The fee charged, however, appears to have been small.[26] In Solon’s time, the Dicteriades were kept widely apart from the Athenian women of repute. They were not allowed to mix in religious ceremonies or to enter the temples. When they appeared in the streets they were obliged to wear a particular costume as a badge of infamy. They forfeited what rights of citizenship they may have possessed in virtue of their birth. A procurer or procuress who had been instrumental in introducing a free-born Athenian girl to the Dicterion incurred the penalty of death. Nor was the law content with branding with infamy prostitutes and their accomplices alone. Their children were bastards; that is to say, they could not inherit property, they could not associate with other youths, they could not acquire the right of citizenship without performing some signal act of bravery, they could not address the people in the public assemblies. Finally, to complete their ignominy, they were exempt from the sacred duty of maintaining their parents in old age.[27]

These regulations, for which Solon obtained the praise of Athenian philosophers,[28] were not long maintained in force. Tradition imputed to the profligacy of the Pisistratidæ a relaxation of the laws concerning prostitutes. It was believed that the sons of Pisistratus not only gave to the Dicteriades the freedom of the city, but allotted to them seats at banquets beside the most respectable matrons, and, on certain days each year, turned them into their father’s beautiful gardens, and let loose upon them the whole petulance of the Athenian youth.[29] The law against procuresses was modified, a fine being substituted for death. “About the same time,” says the scandalous Greek chronicle, “the death-penalty for adultery was also commuted for scourging.”

Still, notwithstanding this falling off, it would appear that Athens was more moral than her neighbors, Corinth and Sparta. The former, then the most flourishing sea-port of Greece, was filled with a very low class of prostitutes. No laws regulated the subject. Any female who chose could open house for the accommodation of travelers and seamen, and, though Corinth was yet far[Pg 45] from the proverbial celebrity it afterward obtained for its prostitutes, there is no doubt they bore a fearful proportion to the aggregate population of the port. At Sparta the case was different. In the system of legislation which bears the name of Lycurgus, the individual was sacrificed to the state; the female to the male. Women were educated for the sole purpose of bearing robust children. Virgins were allowed to wrestle publicly with men. Girls were habited in a robe open at the skirts, which only partially concealed the person in walking, whence the Spartan women acquired an uncomplimentary name.[30] A Spartan husband was authorized to lend his wife to any handsome man for the purpose of begetting children. That these laws, the skillfully contrived appeals to the sensual appetites, and the constant spectacle of nude charms, must have led to a general profligacy among the female sex, is quite obvious. Aristotle affirms positively that the Spartan women openly committed the grossest acts of debauchery.[31] Hence it may be inferred that prostitutes by profession were unnecessary at Sparta, at all events until a late period of its history.

After the Persian wars, the subject of Athenian prostitution is revealed in a clearer light. As a reaction from the looseness of the age of the Pisistratidæ, the Solonian laws were reaffirmed and their severity heightened. It has been imagined, from certain obscure passages in Greek authors, that the courtesans formed several corporations, each of which was responsible for the acts of all its members. They were liable to vexatious prosecutions for such acts as inciting men to commit crime, ruining thoughtless youths, fomenting treason against the state, or committing impiety. Against such charges it was rarely possible to establish a sound defense. If the accuser was positive, the Areopagus, notoriously biased against courtesans, unhesitatingly condemned the culprit to death, or imposed on her corporation a heavy fine. In this way, says an old author, the state frequently contrived to get back from these women the money they obtained from their lovers. Before the famous case of Phryne, they were wholly at the mercy of their profligate associates. A man only needed to threaten an accusation of impiety or the like to obtain a receipt in full. Phryne, so long the favorite of the Athenians, was thus accused of various vague offenses by a common informer named Euthias. Her friend Bacchis fortunately persuaded Hyperides, the orator, to undertake her case, and he softened the judges by exhibiting her[Pg 46] marvelous beauty in a moment of affected passion. “Henceforth,” says the hetaira Bacchis to Myrrhina, “our profits are secured by law.”[32]

At this time, that is to say, at the height of Athenian prosperity, there were four classes of women who led dissolute lives at Athens. The highest in rank and repute were the Hetairæ, or kept women, who lived in the best part of the city, and exercised no small influence over the manners and even the politics of the state. Next came the Auletrides, or flute-players, who were dancers as well. They were usually foreigners, bearing some resemblance to the opera-dancers of the last century, and they combined the most unblushing debauchery with their special calling. The lowest class of prostitutes were the Dicteriades, already mentioned. They were originally bound to reside at the Piræus, the sea-port of Athens, some four miles from the city, and were forbidden to walk out by day, or to offend the eyes of the public by open indecency. Lastly came the Concubines, who were slaves owned by rich men with the knowledge and consent of their wives, serving equally the passions of their master and the caprices of their mistress. These all paid a tax to the state, called Pornikon Telos, which was farmed out to speculators, who levied it with proverbial harshness upon the unfortunate women. In the time of Pericles the revenue from this source was large.

All classes, too, wore garments of many colors. The law originally specified “flowered robes” as the costume of courtesans; but this leading to difficulties, a farther enactment prohibited prostitutes from wearing precious stuffs, such as scarlet or purple, or jewels. Thenceforth the custom, which appears to have been general throughout the Greek cities and colonies, prescribed cheap robes, with flowers or stripes of many colors embroidered or painted on them. To this a part of the women added garlands of roses. It was lawful in some cities for courtesans to wear light, transparent garments; but at Sparta, as may be imagined, the reverse was the rule, semi-nudity being the badge of virtuous women.[33]

Perhaps the most singular of the marks by which a Greek courtesan was known was her hair. It is said that no law prescribed the habit; if so, it must have been a sort of esprit de corps which[Pg 47] led all courtesans to dye their hair of a flaxen or blonde color. Allusions to this custom abound in the light literature of Greece. Frequently a flaxen wig was substituted for the dyed locks. At a very late period in the history of Greece, modest women followed the fashion of sporting golden hair. This forms one of the subjects of reprimand addressed to the women of Greece by the early Christian preachers.[34]

THE DICTERIADES, OR COMMON PROSTITUTES OF ATHENS.

This class approaches more nearly than any other to the prostitutes of our day, the main difference being that the former were bound by law to prostitute themselves when required to do so, on the payment of the fixed sum, and that they were not allowed to leave the state. Their home, as mentioned already, was properly at the port of Piræus. An open square in front of the citadel was their usual haunt. It was surrounded with booths, where petty trade or gambling was carried on by day. At nightfall the prostitutes swarmed into the square. Some were noisy and obscene; others quiet, and armed with affected modesty. When a man passed on his way from the port to the city, the troop assailed him. If he resisted, coarse abuse was lavished on him. If he yielded, there was the temple of Venus the Courtesan close by, and there was the wall of Themistocles, under the friendly shelter of either of which the bargain could be consummated. Were the customer nice, the great dicterion was not far distant, and a score or more of smaller rivals were even nearer at hand, as a well-known sign was there to testify.

The Dicteria were under the control of the municipal police. The door was open night and day, a bright curtain protecting the inmates from the eye of the passer-by; and in the better class of establishments, a fierce dog, chained in the vestibule, served as sentinel. At the curtain sat an old woman, often a Thessalian and a pretended witch, who received the money before admitting visitors. Originally the fee was an obolus[35]—about three cents; but this attempt to regulate the value of a variable merchandise was soon abandoned. Within, at night, the sounds of music, revelry, and dancing might be constantly heard. The visitor was not kept in suspense. The curtain passed, he was in full view of the dicteriades, standing, sitting, or lying about the room; some [Pg 48]engaged in smoothing their blonde hair, some in conversation, some anointing themselves with perfumery. The legal principle with regard to the dicteriades appears to have been that they should conceal nothing; no doubt in contrast to the irregular prostitutes, of whom something will be said presently. There was no rule, however, forbidding the wearing of garments in the dicterion, but the common practice appears to have been to dispense with them, or to wear a light scarf thrown over the person. This custom was observed by day as well as by night, and a visitor has described the girls in a large dicterion as standing in a row, in broad daylight, without any robes or covering.[36]

It seems that in later times any speculator had a right to set up a dicterion on paying the tax to the state. An Athenian forfeited his right of citizenship by so doing; but, as a popular establishment was very lucrative, avaricious men frequently embarked in the business under an assumed name. Comic writers have lashed these wretches severely. On paying the tax to the state regularly, the pornobosceion, or master of the house, acquired certain rights. The dicterion was an inviolable asylum, no husband being allowed to pursue his wife, or the wife her husband, or the creditor his debtor, within its walls. Public decency requires, says Demosthenes, that men shall not be exposed in houses of prostitution.[37] It was not, however, considered wholly shameful to frequent such places.

There appear to have been attached to these dicteria schools of prostitution, where young women were initiated into the most disgusting practices by females who had themselves acquired them in the same manner. Alexis vigorously describes the frauds taught in these places,[38] while there is a shocking significance in an expression of Athenæus—“You will be well satisfied with the performance of the women in the dicteria.”[39]

Besides these regular dicteriades, there were at Athens, as there have been in every large city, a number of women who exercised the calling of prostitutes, without properly belonging to any of the recognized classes. They were sometimes called free dicteriades, sometimes she-wolves, and also cheap hetairæ. Some were native Athenians who had been seduced and abandoned,[Pg 49] and who, led by stings of conscience and idleness to pursue their career, had still an invincible repugnance to adopt the flowered robe and yellow hair of the regular courtesan. They roamed the Piræus, and even the streets of Athens, after dark, eking out a miserable subsistence by the hardest of trades, and haunting the dark recesses of old houses or the shade of trees. Others, again, were old hetairæ whose charms had faded, and who sought a scanty subsistence where they were not known, and shrank from encountering the eye of a lover where the friendly shade of night would not hide the ravages of time. Others were the servants of hotels and taverns, who were always expected to serve the caprices of visitors.

All of these led a most miserable life. Now and then we hear of one or two of them meeting a rich and inexperienced traveler, after which the heroine of the exploit naturally ascended to the rank of hetaira; but, in general, their customers were the lowest of the port people—sailors, fishermen, farm-servants. Their price was a meal, a fish, a handful of fruit, or a bottle of wine. One poor creature, who belonged to no class in particular, but acquired some celebrity by being kept by the orator Ithatocles, was named Didrachma because she offered her favors to the public generally for two drachmas, about thirty-five cents.[40]

Perhaps the most curious fact in reference to these prostitutes is the singular predominance of old women among them. It appears to have been adopted as an invariable rule for this sort of courtesans to paint their faces with a thick ointment, and it is even said that the great painters of Greece did not disdain to beguile their leisure hours by thus improving upon nature.[41] Of course, under this disguise, it was impossible to distinguish a young face from an old one. An aged prostitute thus bedizened would place herself at an open window with a sprig of myrtle in her hand, with which she would beckon to people in the street. When a customer was found, a servant would open the door and conduct him in silence to the chamber of her mistress. Before entering he paid the sum demanded, when he found himself in a room lighted only by a feeble glimmer passing through the curtain, which now hung down over the window. In such a twilight the most venerable old woman could not be distinguished from a Venus.[42]

 [Pg 50]

THE AULETRIDES, OR FLUTE-PLAYERS.

Female flute-players were a common accompaniment to an Athenian banquet. The flute, which in modern times is played by men, was rarely seen in male hands in Greece. Though the fable ascribed its invention to the god Pan, and its development to the mythical king Midas, it was monopolized at a very early period by women, who consoled themselves for the ravages it wrought in their beauty by the power of fascination it imparted among a people intensely musical. Flute-playing soon became an essential rite in the service of certain deities. Ceres was invariably worshiped to the sound of the flute. And when the Athenians had once tried the experiment of listening to flute-players after dinner, they never would dine in company without them.

Thebes appears to have been the native city of the earliest famous flute-players,[43] but before long the superior beauty of the Asiatic girls—Ionians and Phrygians—drove their Theban rivals out of the field. Dancing was combined with flute-playing, and in this art the Asiatics bore the palm from the world. During the golden days of Greece, numbers of beautiful girls were every year imported into Athens from Miletus and the other Ionic ports in Asia Minor, just as in more modern times a similar trade was carried on between Trebizond and Constantinople.

An Athenian hired his flute-players as a modern European noble hires his band. They charged so much for their musical performances, reserving the right of accepting presents in the course of the evening. Some were singers as well as performers. At each course a new air was played, increasing in tenderness and expression as the wine circulated. It is stated that the sounds of a good flute-concert excited people to such a state of phrensy that they would take off their rings and jeweled ornaments to throw them to the performers: those who have witnessed a triumphant operatic soirée can readily believe the statement. But the fair artists did not wholly rely on their music for their success. The performer danced while she played, accompanying every note with a harmonious movement of the body. There is no doubt these dances were in the highest degree immoral and lascivious. Athenæus tells a story of an embassy from Arcadia waiting upon King Antigonus, and being invited to dinner. After the hunger[Pg 51] of the venerable guests was appeased, Phrygian flute-players were introduced. They were draped in semi-transparent veils, arranged with much coquetry. At the given signal they began to play and dance, balancing themselves alternately on each foot, and gradually increasing the rapidity of their movements. As the performance went on, the dancers uncovered their heads, then their busts; lastly, they threw the veils aside altogether, and stood before the wondering embassadors with only a short tunic around the loins. In this state they danced so indecently that the aged Arcadians, excited beyond control, forgot where they were, and rushed upon them. The king laughed; the courtiers were shocked at such ill-breeding, but the dancers discharged the sacred duty of hospitality.[44]

A flute-player who had achieved a success of this kind was enabled to conclude a lucrative bargain for other performances. We find allusions to fees as high as two talents (say $2500) and fifty pieces of gold,[45] though these were evidently unusual charges. Many of the most fashionable flute-players were slaves who had been brought to Greece by speculators. They were commonly sold by auction at the dinner-table, when their owner judged that the enthusiasm of the guests had attained the highest point. An anecdote is told of one of the most esteemed names in Greek philosophy in reference to this strange custom. He was dining with a party of young men, when a youthful flute-player was introduced. She crept to the philosopher’s feet, and seemed to shelter herself from insult under the shadow of his venerable beard; but he, a disciple of Zeno, spurned her, and burst forth into a strain of moralizing. Piqued by the affront, the girl rose, and played and danced with inimitable grace and pruriency. At the close of the performance her owner put her up to auction, and one of the first bidders was the philosopher. She was adjudged to another, however, and the white-haired sage so far forgot his principles as to engage in a fierce conflict with the victor for the possession of the prize.[46] Hand to hand battles on these occasions were common in the best society at Athens, and a flute-player in fashion made a boast of the riots she had caused.[47] Of the fortunes realized by successful artists in this line, an idea may be formed from the gorgeous presents made to the Delphian oracle by flute-players, and from the fact that the finest houses at [Pg 52]Alexandria were inscribed with the names of famous Greek auletrides.[48]

As might be inferred from the character of their dances, the auletrides were capable of every infamy. Constantly breathing an atmosphere of debauchery, and accustomed to the daily spectacle of nudities, they naturally attained a pitch of amorous exaltation of which we, at the present day, can hardly form an idea. They kept a cherished festival in honor of Venus Peribasia, which was originally established by Cypselus of Corinth. At that ceremony all the great flute-players of Greece assembled to celebrate their calling. Men were not usually allowed to be present, a regulation prompted perhaps by modesty, as the judgment of Paris was renewed at the festival, and prizes were awarded for every description of beauty. The ceremony was often mentioned as the Callipygian games; and a sketch of a scene which took place at one of these reunions, contained in a letter from a famous flute-player, justifies the appellation. The banquet lasted from dark till dawn, with wines, perfumes, delicate viands, songs, and music. An after-scene was a dispute between two of the guests as to their respective beauty. A trial was demanded by the company, and a long and graphic account is given of the exhibition, but modern tastes will not allow us to transcribe the details.[49]

A knowledge of these scandalous scenes, it may be briefly observed, would be worse than useless, were it not that they illustrate the life of Greek courtesans; and, being performed under the sanction of religion and the law, they throw no inconsiderable light on the real character of Greek society. Their value may be best apprehended by trying to realize what the effect would be if similar scenes occurred annually in some public edifice in our large cities, under the auspices of the police, with the approval of the clergy, and with the full knowledge of the best female society.

It has been suggested that these festivals were originated by, or gave rise to, those enormous aberrations of the Greek female mind known to the ancients as Lesbian love. There is, no doubt, grave reason to believe something of the kind. Indeed, Lucian affirms that, while avarice prompted common pleasures, taste and feeling inclined the flute-payers toward their own sex. On so repulsive a theme it is unnecessary to enlarge.

[Pg 53]Many flute-players seem to have been susceptible of lasting affections. In the remains we have of the erotic works of the Greeks, several names are mentioned as those of successful flute-players whose gains were consumed by exacting lovers. It does not appear that they often, or ever, married. The most famous of all the flute-players was Lamia, who, after being the delight of Alexandria and of King Ptolemy for some fifteen or twenty years, was taken with the city by Demetrius of Macedon, and raised to the rank of his mistress. She was forty years of age at this time, yet her skill was such that she ruled despotically her dissolute lover, and left a memorable name in Greek history. The ancients asserted that she owed her name, Lamia, which means a sort of vampire or bloodsucker, to the most loathsome depravities. Her power was so great that, when Demetrius levied a tax of some $250,000 on the city of Athens, he gave the whole to her, to buy her soap, as he said. The Athenians revenged themselves by saying that Lamia’s person must be very dirty, since she needed so much soap to wash it. But they soon found it to their interest to build a temple in her honor, and deify her under the name of Venus Lamia.[50]

THE HETAIRÆ, OR KEPT WOMEN.

The Hetairæ were by far the most important class of women in Greece. They filled so large a place in society that virtuous females were entirely thrown into the shade, and it must have been quite possible for a chaste Athenian girl, endowed with ambition, to look up to them, and covet their splendid infamy. An Athenian matron was expected to live at home. She was not allowed to be present at the games or the theatres; she was bound, when she appeared in public, to be veiled, and to hasten whither she was going without delay; she received no education, and could not share the elevated thoughts or ideas of her husband; she had no right to claim any warmth of affection from him, though he possessed entire control over her.[51]

Now, to judge of the position into which this social system thrust the female sex, one must glance at the mythology, or, to speak more correctly, at the religious faith of the Greek people. It has been conjectured that they derived their idea of Venus from the East. However this be, Venus was certainly one of the[Pg 54] earliest goddesses to whom their homage was paid. Solon erected opposite his dicterion a temple to Venus Pandemos, or the public Venus. In that temple were two statues: one of the goddess, the other of a nymph, Pitho, who presided over persuasion; and the attitudes and execution of the statues were such that they explained the character without inscription. At this temple a festival was held on the fourth of each month, to which all the men of Athens were invited. But Venus Pandemos soon made way for newer and more barefaced rivals. Twenty temples were raised in various cities of Greece to Venus the Courtesan. In one author we find allusion made to Venus Mucheia, or the Venus of houses of ill-fame. Another celebrates Venus Castnia, or the goddess of indecency. Others honor Venus Scotia, the patroness of darkness; and Venus Derceto, the guardian deity of street-walkers. More famous still was Venus Divaricatrix, whose surname, derived, it is said by a father of the Church, a divaricatis cruribus,[52] must be left in a learned tongue. And still more renowned was Venus Callipyge, whose statue is at this day one of the choice ornaments of one of the best European collections of antiquities. It owed its charm to the marvelous beauty of the limbs, and was understood to have been designed from two Syracusan sisters, whose extraordinary symmetry in this particular had been noticed by a countryman who surprised them while bathing. All these Venuses had temples, and sacrifices, and priestesses. Their worship was naturally analogous to their name, and consistent with their history. Their devotees were every man in Greece. Yet it was in this society, trained to such spectacles, and nurtured in such a creed, that matrons and maidens were taught to lead a life of purity, seclusion, and self-sacrifice.

The consequence was obvious. While ignorance and forcible restraint prevented the women from generally breaking loose, the men grew more and more addicted to the society of hetairæ, and more liable to regard their wives as mere articles of furniture. Nor was the anomaly without effect upon the kept women. They alone of their sex saw the plays of Alexander and Aristophanes; they alone had the entrée of the studio of Phidias and Apelles; they alone heard Socrates reason, and discussed politics with Pericles; they alone shared in the intellectual movement of Greece. No women but hetairæ drove through the streets with uncovered face and gorgeous apparel. None but they mingled in[Pg 55] the assemblages of great men at the Pnyx or the Stoa. None but they could gather round them of an evening the choicest spirits of the day, and elicit, in the freedom of unrestrained intercourse, wit and wisdom, flashing fancy and burning eloquence. What wonder that the Hetairæ should have filled so prominent a part in Greek society! And how small a compensation to virtuous women to know that their rivals could not stand by the altar when sacrifice was offered; could not give birth to a citizen!

There are many reasons besides these why the contest was unequal. Tradition reported several occasions on which hetairæ had rendered signal service to the state. Leæna, for instance, the mistress of Harmodius, had bitten off her tongue rather than reveal the names of her fellow-conspirators. Recollections like these more than nullified the nominal brand of the law. Again, every wise legislator saw the necessity of encouraging any form of rational intercourse, in order to arrest the startling progress which the most degrading of enormities was making in Greece. When Alcibiades was openly courted by the first philosophers and statesmen, it was virtue to applaud Aspasia. And besides, it can not be questioned, in view of the Greek memoirs we possess, that many of the leading hetairæ were women of remarkable mind, as well as unusual attractions. Indeed, the leading trait in their history is their intellectuality, as contrasted with other classes of dissolute women in antiquity.[53] That trait can be best illustrated by referring to the lives of a few of the more celebrated hetairæ.

A Milesian prostitute, named Thargelia, accompanied Xerxes on his invasion of Greece. Some idea may be formed of the position in society occupied by prostitutes from the fact that Xerxes employed this woman as negotiator with the court of Thessaly, just as in later times modern ministers have used duchesses. Thargelia married the King of Thessaly.

Fired by her success, another Milesian girl, named Aspasia, established herself at Athens. She set up a house of prostitution, and peopled it with the most lovely girls of the Ionic cities. But wherein she differed from her rivals and predecessors was the prominence she gave to intellect in her establishment. She lectured publicly, among her girls and their visitors, on rhetoric and philosophy, and with such marked ability that she counted among her patrons and lovers the first men of Greece, including Socrates,[Pg 56] Alcibiades, and Pericles. The last divorced his wife in order to marry her, and was accused of allowing her to govern Athens, then at the height of its power and prosperity. She is said to have incited the war against Samos; and the principal cause of that against Megara was believed to have been the rape, by citizens of Megara, of two of Aspasia’s girls. What a wonderful light these facts throw on Greek society!

Enraged beyond control at her success, the virtuous women of Athens rose against her. She was publicly insulted at the theatre; was attacked in the street; and, as a last resort, was accused of impiety before the Areopagus. Pericles, then in the decline of his power, and unable to save his friends Phidias and Anaxagoras, appeared as her advocate. But on such an occasion his eloquence failed him. He could only seize his beloved wife in his arms, press her to his breast, and burst into tears in presence of the court. The appeal succeeded; possibly the judges made allowance for popular prejudice; at all events, Aspasia was acquitted and restored to society. She lived to be the delight of a flour merchant, under whose roof her lectures on philosophy were continued with undiminished success to the day of her death.[54]

Her friend, and the inheritor of her mantle, Hipparchia, led an equally remarkable life. She was an Athenian by birth, and of good family, but, having heard the Cynic Crates speak, she declared to her parents that nothing would restrain her from yielding herself to him. She kept her word, and became the philosopher’s mistress, in spite of his dirt, his poverty, and his grossness. She is reported to have acquired great reputation as a practical professor of the cynic philosophy. Having engaged one day in a fierce discussion with a somewhat brutal philosopher of a rival sect, the latter, by way of answer to a question she put, violently exposed her person before the whole assembly. “Well,” said she, coolly, “what does that prove?” This woman was one of the most voluminous and esteemed authors of her day.[55]

Bacchis, the mistress of the orator Hyperides, illustrates the character of the Athenian kept woman from another point of view. She was extremely beautiful, and gifted with a sweet disposition. One of her early admirers had presented her with a necklace of enormous value. The first ladies of Athens, and even foreign[Pg 57] women of rank, coveted the precious trinket in vain. She was in the height of her fame and charms when she heard the orator Hyperides plead. Smitten on the spot, she became his mistress, and observed a fidelity toward him which was neither usual with her class, nor reciprocated by her lover. On one occasion, a rival announced that the price of her complaisance would be the possession of the necklace of Bacchis. The lover had the meanness to ask for it, and Bacchis gave it without a word. Again: when all Athens knew that she was the mistress of Hyperides, an officious friend came to tell her that her lover was at that moment making love to another woman. Bacchis received the announcement tranquilly. “What do you intend to do?” asked her visitor, with impetuosity. “To wait for him,” was the meek answer. She died very young, and her lover partially atoned for his ill treatment by pronouncing a splendid oration over her remains. Very few passages in Greek literature are marked by such eloquent tenderness and genuine feeling as this fragment of Hyperides.[56]

Gnathena, and her heir and successor, Gnathenion, were famous in their day as wits; the biography of the first was written in verse by the poet Machon.[57] She began life as the mistress of the comic poet Dyphiles, but soon abandoned him to keep a sort of table d’hôte for the wit and fashion of Athens. The “best society” gathered around her board, and at the close of the meal she sold herself by auction. Athenæus has chronicled a number of her witty and sarcastic sayings, adding that the grace of her elocution imparted a singular charm to every thing she said. Her protegée, Gnathenion, grew up in time to receive the mantle which age was wresting from the shoulders of Gnathena. An anecdote is preserved which throws some light upon the profits of the calling of hetairæ. At the temple of Venus, Gnathena and her protegée met an old Persian satrap, richly clothed in purple, who was struck with the beauty of the latter, and demanded her price. Gnathena answered, a thousand drachmas (about two hundred dollars). The satrap exclaimed at such extortion, and offered five hundred, observing that he would return again. “At your age,” maliciously retorted Gnathena, “once is too much,” and turned on her heel. In her old age it appears that Gnathena was reduced to the disgraceful calling which the Greeks termed hippopornos.[58]

[Pg 58]But the fame of these hetairæ is eclipsed by that of the only two kept women who can rank with Aspasia—Lais and Phryne.

Lais was a Sicilian by birth. Like the Empress Catharine of Russia, she was taken prisoner when her native city was captured, and sold as a slave. The painter Apelles saw her carrying water from a well, and, struck with the beauty of her figure, he bought her, and trained her in his own house. This, again, is a striking picture. Fancy a leading modern painter deliberately training a prostitute! It is to be presumed that Apelles gathered round him the best society in Greece. Lais, when her education was complete, was as remarkable for wit and information as for her matchless figure and lovely face. Her master freed her, and established her at Corinth, then in the height of its prosperity, and the largest commercial emporium of Greece.

Corinth and the Corinthian prostitutes deserve particular notice. It appears that almost every house in the place was, in fact, a house of prostitution. There were regular schools where the art of debauchery was taught, and frequent importations of young girls from Lesbos, Phœnicia, and the Ægean Islands supplied them with pupils. Ancient erotic writers are full of allusions to the danger of visiting Corinth; the proverb, Non cuivis homini contingit adire Corinthum, which most moderns have erroneously conceived to refer to Lais alone, was, in fact, an adage justified by the experience of merchants and sailors. It would be incorrect, however, to compare Corinth with modern sea-ports, where the natural demands of sailors require a cheap supply of women. The first-class hetairæ of Corinth charged as high as a talent (say $1000) for a single night’s company, and $200 appears to have been no unusual fee. For the common sailors, the commercial shrewdness of the Corinthians had established a temple to Venus, containing a thousand young slaves, who were obliged to prostitute themselves for a single obolus (a cent).[59]

It was in this metropolis of prostitution that Lais commenced business. She soon rose to the first rank in her trade. Her capriciousness gave additional value to her charms. Even money could not purchase her when it was her whim not to yield. She refused $2000 from the orator Demosthenes, who had actually turned his property into money to lay it at her feet; but she yielded gratuitously to the muddy, ragged cynic Diogenes, and[Pg 59] graciously shared the patrimony of the philosopher Aristippus. To the latter, who occupied no mean rank in Greek society, a remark was made to the effect that he ought to debar his mistress from promiscuous intercourse for his own sake. He replied phlegmatically, “Would you object to live in a house or sail in a ship because others had just preceded you in the one or the other?” Xenocrates, the disciple of Plato, resisted Lais successfully. She had made a wager that she would overcome his stoical coldness. Rushing into his house one evening in affected terror, she besought an asylum, as she said thieves had chased her. The philosopher sternly bade her fear nothing. She sat silent till Xenocrates went to bed; then, throwing off her dress, and revealing all her wonderful beauty, she placed herself at his side. He gruffly submitted to this encroachment. Growing bolder, she threw her arms round him, caressed him, and exhausted her arts of fascination, but Xenocrates remained unmoved. “I wagered,” she cried, “to rouse a man, not a statue;” and, springing from the couch, she resumed her dress and disappeared.

The people of Corinth desired to possess her statue, and, having spent her money in embellishing the city, perhaps she was entitled to this mark of respect. Myron, the sculptor, was deputed to model her charms. He was old and gray; but so fascinating was her beauty, that at his second visit he laid at her feet all the savings of his life. The haughty courtesan spurned him. He went away, placed himself in the hands of a skillful perfumer, had his hair and beard dyed, and his appearance rejuvenated. Then he renewed his suit. “My poor friend,” said Lais, with a bitter smile, “you are asking what I refused yesterday to your father.”

In old age Lais had leisure to repent of her caprices. She had spent her money as fast as she made it, and she retained her calling long after her charms had vanished. Epicrates has drawn a melancholy picture of a drunken old woman wandering over the quay at Corinth, and seeking to sell for three cents what had once been considered cheap at a thousand dollars. Such was the end of Lais.[60]

Phryne was more fortunate. She husbanded her attractions with judgment, and to the close of her long life retained her rank and her value. Her wealth was such that, when Alexander destroyed Thebes, she offered to rebuild the city at her own [Pg 60]expense, provided the Thebans would commemorate the fact by an inscription. They refused. She had counted among her lovers the most famous men of the day, among whom were the orator Hyperides, whose successful defense of his mistress has already been mentioned; the painter Apelles, and the sculptor Praxiteles. It was to her that the latter gave his crowning work—his Cupid. He and Apelles were both privileged to admire and reproduce her nude charms, a privilege rigorously denied even to the most opulent of her lovers.

Phryne was a prodigious favorite with the Athenian people. She played a conspicuous part in the festival of Neptune and Venus. At a certain point in the ceremony she appeared on the steps of the temple at the sea-side in her usual dress, and slowly disrobed herself in the presence of the crowd. She next advanced to the water-side, plunged into the waves, and offered sacrifice to Neptune. Returning like a sea-nymph, drying her hair from which the water dripped over her exquisite limbs, she paused for a moment before the crowd, which shouted in a phrensy of enthusiasm as the fair priestess vanished into a cell in the temple.[61]

Other famous hetairæ achieved political and literary distinction. When Alexander the Great undertook his Asiatic expedition, his treasurer, Harpalus, a sort of Crœsus in his way, accompanied him, surrounded by the most lovely women the court of Macedon could afford. Rewarded for his fidelity by the governorship of Babylon, and still farther enriched by the spoils of that lucrative office, Harpalus sent to Athens for the most skillful and lovely hetairæ of the day. Pythionice was sent him. She was not in the bloom of youth. Some years before she had been the familiar of young Athenians of fashion; she was now the staid mistress of two brothers, sons of an opulent corn-merchant. But her talents were undeniable. She arrived at Babylon, and was installed in the palace; began to rule over the province, and governed Harpalus, it is said, with sternness and vigor. In the midst of her glory she suddenly died; poisoned, no doubt, by some one of the hundred fair ones whom she had supplanted in the governor’s affections. Harpalus, inconsolable for her loss, expended a large portion of the contents of his treasury in burying her and commemorating her fame. No queen of Babylon was ever consigned to the grave with the pomp, or the show, or the ostentatious affliction[Pg 61] which did honor to the memory of the Athenian prostitute. Her tomb cost $50,000; and historians, admiring, in after ages, its splendor and its size, inquired, with mock wonder, whether the bones of a Miltiades, or a Cimon, or a Pericles lay under the pile!

Harpalus found consolation in the arms of a Greek garland-weaver named Glycera, for aught we know the poisoner of Pythionice. She, too, became Queen of Babylon, issued her decrees, held her court, submitted to be worshiped, and saw her statue of bronze, as large as life, erected in the Babylonian temples. She was a woman of a masculine mind in a feminine body. When Alexander returned from the East, breathing vengeance against faithless servants, she compelled her lover to fly with her to Attica, where she raised, by her eloquence, her money, and her address, an army of six thousand men to oppose the hero of Macedon. It is said that she purchased, at what price we know not, the silence of Demosthenes; she certainly bribed the Athenian people with large donations of corn. But she could not bribe or persuade her wretched lover to be sensible; his folly soon roused the Athenians against him, and he was exiled with his mistress. In this exile, one of his attendants cut the throat of the venerable lover, and Glycera, left a widow, returned to Athens to pursue her calling as a hetaira. She was no longer young, and needed the aid of the dealer in cosmetics; but her prestige as the ex-mistress of Babylon procured her a certain celebrity, and she soon obtained a position in the society of Athens. Out of a crowd of admirers who attached themselves to her court, she chose two to be, as the French would say, her amants de cœur. One was the painter Pausias; the other the comic poet Menander. The former achieved one of his most brilliant triumphs by painting the portrait of his mistress. But, whether his temper was not congenial to hers, or his rival inspired an exclusive affection, Glycera soon discarded Pausias, and became the mistress of the poet alone. Menander, we are led to believe, was a man of a harsh, crabbed disposition; the haughty Glycera was the only one whom his boutades never irritated, who bore with all his ill temper. When he was successful, she heightened his joy; when his plays were ill received, and he returned from the theatre in low spirits, she consoled him, and endured the keenest affronts without murmuring. Her amiability had its reward. From being one of the most dissolute men of Athens, Menander became solidly attached and faithful to Glycera, and, so soon was her Babylonish career forgotten, she descended[Pg 62] to posterity in the Athenian heart inseparably coupled with the dearest of their comic writers.[62]

Another famous hetaira was Leontium, who succeeded her mistress Philenis in the affections of the philosopher Epicurus. She is said to have borne him a daughter, who was born in the shade of a grove in his garden; but, whether she put her own construction upon the Epicurean philosophy, or did not really love the gray-headed teacher, she was far from practicing the fidelity which was due to so distinguished a lover. She figures in the letters of Alciphron as the tender friend of several younger fashionables; and she has been accused, with what truth it is hard to say, of attempting a compromise between the doctrines of Epicurus and those of Diogenes. However this be, Leontium was undoubtedly a woman of rare ability and remarkable taste. She composed several works; among others, one against Theophrastus, which excited the wonder and admiration of so good a judge as Cicero. She survived her old protector, and died in obscurity.[63]

Something more might be said of Archeanassa, to whose wrinkles Plato did not disdain to compose an amorous epigram; of Theoris, a beautiful girl, who preferred the glorious old age of Sophocles to the ardent youth of Demosthenes, and whom the vindictive orator punished by having her condemned to death; of Archippa, the last mistress and sole heir of Sophocles; of Theodote, the disciple of Socrates, under whose counsels she carried on her business as a courtesan, and whose death may be ascribed, in some part, to the spite caused by Theodote’s rejection of Aristophanes; and of others who figure largely in every reliable history of intellectual Greece. But we must stop.

In most of the nations to which reference must be made in the ensuing pages of this volume, prostitutes have figured as pariahs; in Greece they were an aristocracy, exercising a palpable influence over the national policy and social life, and mingling conspicuously in the great march of the Greek intellect. No less than eleven authors of repute have employed their talents as historiographers of courtesans at Athens. Their works have not reached us entire, having fallen victims to the chaste scruples of the clergy of the Middle Ages; but enough remains in the quotations of Athenæus, Alciphron’s Letters, Lucian, Diogenes Laertius, Aristophanes, Aristænetus, and others, to enable us to form a far more[Pg 63] accurate idea of the Athenian hetairæ than we can obtain of the prostitutes of the last generation.

Into the arts practiced by the graduates of the Corinthian academies it is hardly possible to enter, at least in a modern tongue. Even the Greeks were obliged to invent verbs to designate the monstrosities practiced by the Lesbian and Phœnician women. Demosthenes, pleading successfully against the courtesan Neæra, describes her as having seven young girls in her house, whom she knew well how to train for their calling, as was proved by the repeated sales of their virginity. One may form an idea of the shocking depravity of the reigning taste from the sneers which were lavished upon Phryne and Bacchis, who steadily adhered to natural pleasures.

The use of philtres, or charms (of which more will be said in the ensuing chapter on Roman prostitution), was common in Greece. Retired courtesans often combined the manufacture of these supposed charms with the business of a midwife. They made potions which excited love and potions which destroyed it; charms to turn love into hate, and others to convert hate into love. That the efficacy of the latter must have been a matter of pure faith need not be demonstrated, though the belief in them was general and profound. The former are well known in the pharmacopœia, and from the accounts given of their effects, there is no reason to doubt that they were successfully employed in Greece, as well by jealous husbands and suspicious fathers as by ardent lovers. A case is mentioned by no less an authority than Aristotle, of a woman who contrived to administer an amorous potion to her lover, who died of it. The woman was tried for murder; but, it being satisfactorily proved that her intention was not to cause death, but to revive an extinct love, she was acquitted. Other cases are mentioned in which the philtres produced madness instead of love. Similar accidents have attended the exhibition of cantharides in modern times.

[Pg 64]

CHAPTER IV.

ROME.

LAWS GOVERNING PROSTITUTION.

Our earliest acquaintance with the Roman laws governing prostitution dates from the reign of the Emperor Augustus, but there is abundant evidence to show that prostitutes were common in the city of Rome at the time when authentic history begins.

It does not appear that religious prostitution was ever domiciled in Italy, though in later times the festivals in honor of certain deities were scandalously loose, and, to judge from the Etruscan paintings, the morals of the indigenous Italians must have been disgustingly depraved.

In the comedies of Plautus, which are among the oldest works of Roman literature which have reached us, the prostitute (meretrix) and the bawd (leno) figure conspicuously. They were thus, evidently, in the third century before Christ, well-known characters in Roman society. When the Floralian Games were instituted we have no means of knowing (no credit whatever must be placed in the puerile stories of Lactantius about the courtesans Acca Laurentia and Flora[64]); but it is certain that the chief attraction of these infamous celebrations was the appearance of prostitutes on the stage in a state of nudity, and their lascivious dances in the presence of the people;[65] and there is evidence, in the story that the performance was suspended during the presence of the stern moralist Cato, that they had been long practiced before his time.[66] Indeed, it would not be presuming too far to decide, without[Pg 65] other evidence, that prostitution must have become a fixed fact at Rome very shortly after the Romans began to mix freely with the Greek colonists at Tarentum and the other Greek cities in Italy, that is to say, about the beginning of the third century before Christ.

We learn from Tacitus[67] that from time immemorial prostitutes had been required to register themselves in the office of the ædile. The ceremony appears to have been very similar to that now imposed by law on French prostitutes. The woman designing to become a prostitute presented herself before the ædile, gave her age, place of birth, and real name, with the one she assumed if she adopted a pseudonyme.[68] The public officer, if she was young or apparently respectable, did his best to combat her resolution. Failing in this, he issued to her a license—licentia stupri, ascertained the sum which she was to demand from her customers, and entered her name in his roll. It might be inferred from a law of Justinian[69] that a prostitute was bound to take an oath, on obtaining her license, to discharge the duties of her calling to the end of her life; for the law in question very properly decided that an oath so obviously at war with good morals was not binding. However this was, the prostitute once inscribed incurred the taint of infamy which nothing could wipe off. Repentance was impossible, even when she married and became the mother of legitimate children; the fatal inscription was still there to bear witness of her infamy.[70] In Rome, as in so many other countries, the principle of the law was to close the door to reform, and to render vice hopeless.

There is every reason to suppose that these regulations were in force at a very early period of the Republic. Of the further rules established under the imperial regime we shall speak presently. Meanwhile, it may be observed that there is ground for hoping that, at the best age of the Republic, the public morals were not generally corrupt. The old stories of Lucretia and Virginia would have had no point among a demoralized people. All who are familiar with Roman history will remember the fierce contest waged by Cato the Censor against the jewels, fine dresses, and carriages of the Roman ladies,[71] an indication that graver delinquencies did not call for official interference. This same Cato, after the death of his first wife, cohabited with a female slave; but,[Pg 66] though concubinage was recognized by the Roman law, and would seem to have involved no disgrace at a later period, the intrigue no sooner became known than the old censor married a second wife to avoid scandal.[72] A similar inference may be drawn from the strange story told by Livy of the Bacchanalian mysteries introduced into Rome by foreigners about the beginning of the second century before Christ. It is not easy, at this late day, to discover what is true and what false in the statement he gives; but there is no reasonable doubt that young persons of both sexes, under the impulse of sensuality, had established societies for the purpose, among others, of satisfying depraved instincts. To what extent the mania had extended it is not possible to judge; the numbers given by the Latin writers are not very trustworthy. But we may learn how strong was the moral sentiment of the Roman people from the very stringent decree which the senate issued on motion of the Consul Postumius, and from the indiscriminate executions of parties implicated in the mysterious rites.[73]

Other evidences of the purity of Roman morals might be found, if they were wanting, in the remarkable fidelity with which the Vestals observed their oaths; in the tone of the speeches of the statesmen of the time; in the high character sustained by such matrons as the mother of the Gracchi; and, finally, in the legislation of Augustus, which professed rather to affirm and improve the old laws than to introduce new principles.

As we approach the Christian era the picture gradually darkens. Civil wars are usually fatal to private virtue: it is not to be doubted that the age of Sylla and Clodius was by no means a moral one. Sylla, the dictator, openly led a life of scandalous debauchery; Clodius, the all-powerful tribune, is accused by Cicero of having seduced his three sisters.[74] Soldiers who had made a campaign in profligate Greece or voluptuous Asia naturally brought home with them a taste for the pleasures they had learned to enjoy abroad. Scipio’s baths were dark: through narrow apertures just light enough was admitted to spare the modesty of the bathers; but into the baths which were erected in the later years of the Republic the light shone as into a chamber.[75] Even Sylla, debauched as he was, did not think it safe to abdicate power[Pg 67] without legislative effort to purify the morals he had so largely contributed to corrupt by his example.[76]

Of the Augustan age, and the two or three centuries which followed, we are enabled to form a close and comprehensive idea. Our information ceases to be meagre; on some points, indeed, it is only too abundant.

The object of the Julian laws was to preserve the Roman blood from corruption, and still farther to degrade prostitutes. These aims were partially attained by prohibiting the intermarriage of citizens with the relatives or descendants of prostitutes; by exposing adulterers to severe penalties, and declaring the tolerant husband an accomplice; by laying penalties on bachelors and married men without children; by prohibiting the daughters of equestrians from becoming prostitutes.[77] Tiberius, from his infamous retreat at Capreæ, sanctioned a decree of the senate which enhanced the severity of the laws against adultery. By this decree it was made a penal offense for a matron of any class to play the harlot, and her lover, the owner of the house where they met, and all persons who connived at the adultery, were declared equally culpable. It seems to have been not uncommon for certain married women to inscribe themselves on the ædile’s list as prostitutes, and to occupy a room at the houses of ill fame. This was pronounced a penal offense; and every encouragement was held out, both to husbands and to common informers, to prosecute.[78]

In other respects the republican legislation is believed to have been unaltered by the emperors. The formality of inscription, its accompanying infamy, the consequences of the act remained the same. Prostitutes carried on their trade under the ædile’s eye. He patrolled the streets, and entered the houses of ill fame at all hours of the day and night. He saw that they were closed between daybreak and three in the afternoon. In case of brawls, he arrested and punished the disturbers of the peace. He punished by fine and scourging the omission of a brothel-keeper to inscribe every female in his house. He insisted on prostitutes wearing the garments prescribed by law, and dyeing their hair blue or yellow. On the other hand, he could not break into a house without being habited in the insignia of his office, and being[Pg 68] accompanied by his lictors. When the ædile Hostilius attempted to break open the door of the prostitute Mamilia, on his return from a gay dinner, the latter drove him off with stones, and was sustained by the courts.[79] The ædile was bound also, on complaint laid by a prostitute, to sentence any customer of hers to pay the sum due to her according to law.[80]

CLASSES OF PROSTITUTES.

It was the duty of the ædile to arrest, punish, and drive out of the city all loose prostitutes who were not inscribed on his book. This regulation was practically a dead letter. At no time in the history of the empire did there cease to be a large and well-known class of prostitutes who were not recorded. They were distinguished from the registered prostitutes (meretrices) by the name of prostibulæ.[81] They paid no tax to the state, while their registered rivals contributed largely to the municipal treasury; and, if they ran greater risks, and incurred more nominal infamy than the latter, they more frequently contrived to rise from their unhappy condition.

We have no means of judging of the number of prostitutes exercising their calling at Rome, Capua, and the other Italian cities during the first years of the Christian era. During Trajan’s reign the police were enabled to count thirty-two thousand in Rome alone, but this number obviously fell short of the truth. One is appalled at the great variety of classes into which the prostibulæ, or unregistered prostitutes were divided. Such were the Delicatæ, corresponding to the kept-women, or French lorettes, whose charms enabled them to exact large sums from their visitors;[82] the Famosæ, who belonged to respectable families, and took to evil courses through lust or avarice;[83] the Doris, who were remarkable for their beauty of form, and disdained the use of clothing;[84] the Lupæ, or she-wolves, who haunted the groves and commons, and were distinguished by a particular cry in imitation of a wolf;[85] the Ælicariæ, or bakers’ girls, who sold small cakes for sacrifice to Venus and Priapus, in the form of the male and female organs of generation;[86] the Bustuariæ, whose home was the burial-ground, and who occasionally officiated as mourners at funerals;[87][Pg 69] the Copæ, servant-girls at inns and taverns, who were invariably prostitutes;[88] the Noctiluæ, or night-walkers; the Blitidæ, a very low class of women, who derived the name from blitum, a cheap and unwholesome beverage drunk in the lowest holes;[89] the Diobolares, wretched outcasts, whose price was two oboli (say two cents);[90] the Forariæ, country girls who lurked about country roads; the Gallinæ, who were thieves as well as prostitutes; the Quadrantariæ, seemingly the lowest class of all, whose fee was less than any copper coin now current.[91] In contradistinction to these, the meretrices assumed an air of respectability, and were often called bonæ meretrices.[92]

Another and a distinct class of prostitutes were the female dancers, who were eagerly sought after, and more numerous than at Athens. They were Ionians, Lesbians, Syrians, Egyptians, Nubians (negresses), Indians, but the most famous were Spaniards. Their dances were of the same character as those of the Greek flute-players; the erotic poets of Rome have not shrunk from celebrating the astonishing depravity of their performances.[93]

Horace faintly deplored the progress which the Ionic dances—Ionice motus—were making even among the Roman virgins.[94] These prostitutes carried on their calling in defiance of law. If detected, they were liable to be whipped and driven out of the city;[95] but as their customers belonged to the wealthier classes, they rarely suffered the penalty of their conduct.

Apart, again, from all these was the large class of persons who traded in prostitutes. The proper name for these wretches was Leno (bawd), which was of both sexes, though usually represented on the stage as a beardless man with shaven head. Under this name quite a number of varieties were included, such as the Lupanarii, or keepers of regular houses of ill fame; the Adductores and Perductores, pimps; Conciliatrices and Ancillulæ, women who negotiated immoral transactions, and others. Then, as almost every baker, tavern-keeper, bath-house-keeper, barber, and perfumer combined the lenocinium, or trade in prostitutes, with his other calling, their various names, tonsor, unguentarius, balnearius, &c., became synonymous with leno. This miserable class was regarded with the greatest loathing at Rome.[96]

[Pg 70]This hasty classification of the Roman prostitutes would be incomplete without some notice, however brief, of male prostitutes. Fortunately, the progress of good morals has divested this repulsive theme of its importance; the object of this work can be obtained without entering into details on a branch of the subject which in this country is not likely to require fresh legislative notice. But the reader would form an imperfect idea of the state of morals at Rome were he left in ignorance of the fact that the number of male prostitutes was probably full as large as that of females; that, as in Greece, the degrading phenomenon involved very little disgrace; that all the Roman authors allude to it as a matter of course; that the leading men of the empire were known to be addicted to such habits; that the ædile abstained from interference, save where a Roman youth suffered violence; and that, to judge from the language of the writers of the first, second, and third centuries of the Christian era, the Romans, like some Asiatic races, appeared to give the preference to unnatural lusts.[97]

HOUSES OF PROSTITUTION.

Having examined the laws which governed prostitution at Rome, and the classes into which prostitutes were divided, it is now requisite to glance at the establishments in which prostitution was carried on.

M. Dufour and others have followed Publius Victor and Sextus Rufus in supposing that during the Augustine age there were forty-six first-class houses of ill fame at Rome, and a much larger number of establishments where prostitution was carried on without the supervision of the ædile. As it is now generally admitted that the works bearing the name of Publius Victor and Sextus Rufus are forgeries of comparatively recent date, the statement loses all claim to credit, and we are left without statistical information as to the number of houses of prostitution at Rome.[98]

Registered prostitutes were to be found in the establishments called Lupanaria. These differed from the Greek Dicteria in being of various classes, from the well-provided house of the Peace ward to the filthy dens of the Esquiline and Suburran wards; and farther, in the wide range of prices exacted by the keepers of the various houses. It is inferred from the results of the excavations[Pg 71] at Pompeii, and some meagre hints thrown out by Latin authors, that the lupanaria at Rome were small in size. The most prosperous were built like good Roman houses, with a square court-yard, sometimes with a fountain playing in the middle. Upon this yard opened the cells of the prostitutes. In smaller establishments the cells opened upon a hall or porch, which seemingly was used as a reception-room. The cells were dark closets, illuminated at night by a small bronze lamp. Sometimes they contained a bed, but as often a few cushions, or a mere mat, with a dirty counterpane, constituted their whole furniture. Over the door of each cell hung a tablet, with the name of the prostitute who occupied it, and the price she set on her favors; on the other side with the word occupata. When a prostitute received a visitor in her cell, she turned the tablet round to warn intruders that she was engaged.[99] Over the door of the house a suggestive image was either painted, or represented in stone or marble: one of these signs may be seen to this day in Pompeii. Within, similar indecent sculptures abounded. Bronze ornaments of this style hung round the necks of the courtesans; the lamps were in the same shape, and so were a variety of other utensils. The walls were covered with appropriate frescoes. In the best-ordered establishments, it is understood that scenes from the mythology were the usual subjects of these artistic decorations; but we have evidence enough at Pompeii to show that gross indecency, not poetical effect, was the main object sought by painters in these works.

Regular houses of prostitution, lupanaria, were of two kinds: establishments owned and managed by a bawd, who supplied the cells with slaves or hired prostitutes, and establishments where the bawd merely let his cells to prostitutes for a given sum. In the former case the bawd was the principal, in the latter the women. There is reason to suppose that the former were the more respectable. Petronius alludes to a house where so much was paid for the use of a cell, and the sum was an as, less than two cents.[100] Messalina evidently betook herself to one of these establishments, which, for clearness’ sake, we may call assignation houses; and as it appears she was paid in copper (æra poposcit), it is safe to infer that the house was of slender respectability.

The best houses were abundantly supplied with servants and luxuries. A swarm of pimps and runners sought custom for them[Pg 72] in every part of the city. Women—ancillæ ornatrices—were in readiness to repair with skill the ravages which amorous conflicts caused in the toilets of the prostitutes. Boys—bacariones—attended at the door of the cell with water for ablution. Servants, who bore the inconsistent title of aquarii, were ready to supply wine and other refreshments to customers. And not a few of the lupinaria kept a cashier, called villicus, whose business it was to discuss bargains with visitors, and to receive the money before turning the tablet.

Under many public and some of the best private houses at Rome were arches, the tops of which were only a few feet above the level of the street. These arches, dark and deserted, became a refuge for prostitutes. Their name, fornices, at last became synonymous with lupanar, and we have borrowed from it our generic word fornication.[101] There is reason to believe that there were several score of arches of this character, and used for this purpose, under the great circus and other theatres at Rome,[102] besides those under dwelling-houses and stores. The want of fresh air was severely felt in these vile abodes. Frequent allusions to the stench exhaled from the mouth of a fornix are made in the Roman authors.[103]

Establishments of a lower character still were the pergulæ, in which the girls occupied a balcony above the street; the stabula, where no cells were used, and promiscuous intercourse took place openly;[104] the turturilla, or pigeon-houses;[105] the casauria, or suburb houses of the very lowest stamp.

The clearest picture of a Roman house of ill fame is that given in the famous passage of Juvenal, which may be allowed to remain in the original. The female, it need hardly be added, was Messalina:

“Dormire virum quum senserat uxor,
Ausa Palatino tegetem præferre cubili,
Sumere nocturnas meretrix Augusta cucullos,
Linquebat comite ancilla non amplius una,
Sed nigrum flavo crinem abscondente galero,
Intravit calidum veteri centone lupanar,
Et cellam vacuam atque suam. Tune nuda capillis
[Pg 73]Constitit auratis, titulum mentita Lyciscæ,
Ostendit que tuum, generose Britannice, ventrem.
Excepit blanda intrantes, atque æra poposcit,
Et resupina jacens multorum absorbuit ictus.
Mox lenone suas jam dimittente puellas,
Tristris abit, et quod potuit, tamen ultima cellam
Clausit, adhuc ardens rigidæ tentigine vulvæ,
Et lassata viris necdum satiata recessit;
Obscurrisque genis turpis fumoque lucernæ
Fœda lupanaris tulit ad pulvinar adorem.”[106]

The passages in italics contain useful information; we shall allude to some of them hereafter. Meanwhile, it is evident from the line mox lenone, etc., that, at a certain hour of the night, the keepers of houses of ill fame were in the habit of closing their establishments and sending their girls home. The law required them to close at daybreak, but probably a much earlier hour may have suited their interest.

Allusion has already been made to the fornices under the circus. It is well understood that prostitutes were great frequenters of the spectacles, and that in the arched fornices underneath the seats and the stage they were always ready to satisfy the passions which the comedies and pantomimes only too frequently aroused.[107] This was one formidable rival to the regular lupinaria.

The baths were another. In the early Roman baths, darkness, or, at best, a faint twilight reigned; and, besides, not only were the sexes separated, but old and young men were not allowed to bathe together.[108] But after Sylla’s wars, though there were separate sudaria and tepidaria for the sexes, they could meet freely in the corridors and chambers, and any immorality short of actual prostitution could take place.[109] Men and women, girls and boys, mixed together in a state of perfect nudity, and in such close proximity that contact could hardly be avoided. Such an assemblage would obviously be a place of resort for dealers in prostitutes in search of merchandise. At a later period, cells were attached to the bath-houses, and young men and women kept on the premises, partly as bath attendants and partly as prostitutes. After the bath, the bathers, male and female, were rubbed down, kneaded, and anointed by these attendants. It would appear that women submitted to have this indecent service performed for them by[Pg 74] men, and that health was not always the object sought, even by the Roman matrons.[110] Several emperors endeavored to remedy these frightful immoralities. Hadrian forbade the intermixture of men and women in the public baths.[111] Similar enactments were made by Marcus Aurelius and Alexander Severus; but Heliogabalus is said to have delighted in uniting the sexes, even in the wash-room. As early as the Augustan era, however, the baths were regarded as little better than houses of prostitution under a respectable name.[112]

Taverns or houses of entertainment were also in some measure brothels. The law regarded all servants waiting upon travelers at inns or taverns as prostitutes.[113] It would appear, also, that butchers’, bakers’, and barbers’ shops were open to a suspicion of being used for purposes of prostitution. The plebeian ædiles constantly made it their business to visit these in search of unregistered prostitutes, though, as might be expected from the number of delinquents and the very incomplete municipal police system of Rome, with very little success. The bakers’ establishments, which generally included a flour-mill, were haunted by a low class of prostitutes to whom allusion has already been made. In the cellar where the mill stood cells were often constructed, and the ædiles knew well that all who entered there did not go to buy bread.[114]

Finally, prostitution to a very large extent was carried on in the open air. The shades of certain statues and temples, such as those of Marsyas, Pan, Priapus, Venus, etc., were common resorts for prostitutes. It is said that Julia, the daughter of the Emperor Augustus, prostituted herself under the shade of a statue of Marsyas. Similar haunts of abandoned women were the arches of aqueducts, the porticoes of temples, the cavities in walls, etc. Even the streets in the poorer wards of the city appear to have been infested by the very lowest class of prostitutes, whose natural favors had long ceased to be merchantable.[115] It must be borne in mind[Pg 75] that the streets of Rome were not lighted, and that profound darkness reigned when the moon was clouded over.

HABITS AND MANNERS OF PROSTITUTES.

A grand distinction between Roman and Greek prostitution lies in the manner in which commerce with prostitutes was viewed in the two communities. At Athens there was nothing disgraceful in frequenting the dicterion or keeping an hetaira. At Rome, on the contrary, a married man who visited a house of ill fame was an adulter, and liable to the penalties of adultery. An habitual frequenter of such places was a mœchus or scortator, both of which were terms of scathing reproach. When Cicero wishes to overwhelm Catiline, he says his followers are scortatores.[116] Until the lowest age of Roman degradation, moreover, no man of any character entered a house of ill fame without hiding his face with the skirt of his dress. Even Caligula and Heliogabalus concealed their faces when they visited the women of the town.[117]

The law prescribed with care the dress of Roman prostitutes, on the principle that they were to be distinguished in all things from honest women. Thus they were not allowed to wear the chaste stola which concealed the form, or the vitta or fillet with which Roman ladies bound their hair, or to wear shoes (soccus), or jewels, or purple robes. These were the insignia of virtue. Prostitutes wore the toga like men; their hair, dyed yellow or red, or filled with golden spangles, was dressed in some Asiatic fashion. They wore sandals with gilt thongs tying over the instep, and their dress was directed to be of flowered material. In practice, however, these rules were not strictly observed. Courtesans wore jewels and purple robes,[118] and not a few boldly concealed their profligacy under the stola. Others, seeking rather to avoid than to court misapprehension as to their calling, wore the green toga proudly, and over it the sort of jacket called amiculum, which, like the white sheet of baronial times, was the badge of adultery. Others, again, preferred the silk and gauze dresses of the East (sericæ vestes), which, according to the expression of a classical writer, “seemed invented to exhibit more conspicuously what they were intended to hide.”[119] Robes of Tyre were likewise[Pg 76] in use, whose texture may be inferred from the name of “textile vapor” (ventus textilis) which they received.

The law strictly prohibited the use of vehicles of any kind to courtesans. This also was frequently infringed. Under several emperors prostitutes were seen in open litters in the most public parts of Rome, and others in litters which closed with curtains, and served the purpose of a bed-chamber.[120] A law of Domitian imposed heavy penalties on a courtesan who was seen in a litter.

In the lupanar, of course, rules regarding costume were unheeded. Prostitutes retained their hair black, but as to the rest of their person they were governed by their own taste. Nudity appears to have been quite common, if not the rule. Petronius describes his hero walking in the street, and seeing from thence naked prostitutes at the doors of the lupanaria.[121] Some covered their busts with golden stuffs, others veiled their faces.

It has already been mentioned that the rate of remuneration exacted by the prostitutes was fixed by themselves, though apparently announced to the ædile. It is impossible to form any idea of the average amount of this charge. The lowest classes, as has been mentioned, sold their miserable favors for about two tenths of a cent; another large class were satisfied with two cents. The only direct light that is thrown on this branch of the subject flows from an obscure passage in the strange romance entitled “Apollonius of Tyre,” which is supposed to have been written by a Christian named Symposius. In that work the capture of a virgin named Tarsia by a bawd is described. The bawd orders a sign or advertisement to be hung out, inscribed, “He who deflours Tarsia shall pay half a pound, afterward she shall be at the public service for a gold piece.” The half pound has been assumed by commentators to mean half a Roman pound of silver, and to have been worth $30; the gold piece, according to the best computation, was about equivalent to $4. But whether these figures can be regarded as an average admits of doubt, even supposing our estimate of the value of the sums mentioned in the ancient work to be accurate.

The allusion to Tarsia suggests some notice of the practice of the Roman bawds when they had secured a virgin. It will be found faithfully described in that old English play, “Pericles, Prince of Tyre,” which is sometimes bound up with Shakspeare’s[Pg 77] works. When a bawd had purchased a virgin as a slave, or when, as sometimes happened under the later emperors, a virgin was handed to him to be prostituted as a punishment for crime, the door of his house was adorned with twigs of laurel; a lamp of unusual size was hung out at night, and a tablet exhibited somewhat similar to the one quoted above, stating that a virgin had been received, and enumerating her charms with cruel grossness.[122] When a purchaser had been found and a bargain struck, the unfortunate girl, often a mere child, was surrendered to his brutality, and the wretch issued from the cell afterward, to be himself crowned with laurel by the slaves of the establishment.

Thus far of common prostitutes. Though the Romans had no loose women who could compare in point of standing, influence, or intellect with the Greek hetairæ, their highest class of prostitutes, the famosæ or delicatæ, were very far above the unfortunate creatures just described. They were not inscribed in the ædile’s rolls; they haunted no lupanar, or tavern, or baker’s stall; they were not seen lurking about shady spots at night; they wore no distinguishing costume. It was in broad daylight, at the theatre, in the streets, in the Via Sacra, which was the favorite resort of fashionable Rome, that they were to be found, and there they were only to be distinguished from virtuous matrons by the superior elegance of their dress, and the swarm of admirers by whom they were surrounded. Indeed, under the later emperors, the distinction, outward or inward, between these prostitutes and the Roman matrons appears to have been very slight indeed.[123] They were surrounded or followed by slaves of either sex, a favorite waiting-maid being the most usual attendant.[124] Their meaning glances are frequently the subject of caustic allusions in the Roman poets.[125] Many of them were foreigners, and expressed themselves by signs from ignorance of the Latin tongue.

These women were usually the mistresses of rich men, though not necessarily faithful to their lovers. We possess no such biographies of them as we have of the Greek hetairæ, nor is there any reason to suppose that their lives ever formed the theme of serious works, though the Roman erotic library was rich. What little we know of them we glean mostly from the verses of Horace, Tibullus, Ovid, Propertius, Catullus, Martial, and from such works[Pg 78] as the Satyricon of Petronius, and the novel of Apuleius, and that little is hardly worth the knowing.

The first five poets mentioned—Catullus, Horace, Propertius, Ovid, and Tibullus—devoted no small portion of their time and talent to the celebration of their mistresses. But beyond their names, Lydia, Chloe, Lalage, Lesbia, Cynthia, Delia, Neæra, Corinna, &c., we are taught nothing about them but what might have been taken for granted, that they were occasionally beautiful, lascivious, extravagant, often faithless and heartless. From passages in Ovid, and also in one or two of the others, it may be inferred that it was not uncommon for these great prostitutes to have a nominal husband, who undertook the duty of negotiating their immoral bargains (leno maritus).

The only really useful information we derive from these erotic effusions relates to the poets themselves. All the five we have mentioned moved in the best society at Rome. Some of them, like Horace, saw their fame culminate during their lifetime; others filled important stations under government. Ovid was intimate with the Emperor Augustus, and his exile is supposed to have been caused by some improper discoveries he made with regard to the emperor’s relations with his daughter. Yet it is quite evident that all these persons habitually lived with prostitutes, felt no shame on that account, and recorded unblushingly the charms and exploits of their mistresses in verses intended to be read indiscriminately by the Roman youths.

Between Ovid and Martial the distance is immense. Half a century divided them in point of time; whole ages in tone. During the Augustan era, the language of poets, though much freer than would be tolerated to-day, was not invariably coarse. No gross expressions are used by the poets of that day in addressing their mistresses, and even common prostitutes are addressed with epithets which a modern lover might apply to his betrothed. But Martial knows no decency. It may safely be said that his epigrams ought never again to be translated into a modern tongue. Expressions designating the most loathsome depravities, and which, happily, have no equivalent, and need none, in our language, abound in his pages. Pictures of the most revolting pruriency succeed each other rapidly. In a word, such language is used and such scenes depicted as would involve the expulsion of their utterer from any house of ill fame in modern times. Yet Martial enjoyed high favor under government. He[Pg 79] was enabled to procure the naturalization of many of his Spanish friends. He possessed a country and a town house, both probably gifts from the emperor. His works, even in his lifetime, were carefully sought after, not only in Rome, but in Gaul, Spain, and the other provinces. Upon the character and life of courtesans in his day he throws but little light. The women whose hideous depravity he celebrates must have been well known at Rome; their names must have been familiar to the ears of Roman society. But this feature of Roman civilization, the notoriety of prostitutes and of their vile arts, properly belongs to another division of the subject.

ROMAN SOCIETY.

It was often said by the ancients that the more prostitutes there were, the safer would be virtuous women. “Well done,” said the moralist to a youth entering a house of ill fame; “so shalt thou spare matrons and maidens.” As this idea rests upon a slender substratum of plausibility, it may be as well to expose its fallacy, which can be done very completely by a glance at Roman society under the emperors.

Even allowing for poetical exaggeration, it may safely be said that there is no modern society, perhaps there has never existed any since the fall of Rome, to which Juvenal’s famous satire on women can be applied.[126] Independently of the unnatural lusts which were so unblushingly avowed, the picture drawn by the Roman surpasses modern credibility. That it was faithful to nature and fact, there is, unhappily, too much reason to believe. The causes must be sought in various directions.

Two marked distinctions between modern and ancient society may at once be noticed. In no modern civilized society is it allowable to present immodest images to the eye, or to utter immodest words in the ear of females or youth. At Rome the contrary was the rule. The walls of respectable houses were covered with paintings, of which one hardly dares in our times to mention the subjects. Lascivious frescoes and lewd sculptures, such as would be seized in any modern country by the police, filled the halls of the most virtuous Roman citizens and nobles.[127] Ingenuity had been taxed to the utmost to reproduce certain indecent objects under new forms.[128] Nor was common indecency adequate[Pg 80] to supply the depraved taste of the Romans. Such groups as satyrs and nymphs, Leda and the swan, Pasiphæ and the bull, satyrs and she-goats, were abundant. Some of them have been found, and exhibit a wonderful artistic skill. All of these were daily exposed to the eyes of children and young girls, who, as Propertius says, were not allowed to remain novices in any infamy.

Again, though a Horace would use polite expressions in addressing Tyndaris or Lalage, the Latin tongue was much freer than any modern one. There is not a Latin author of the best age in whose writings the coarsest words can not be found. The comedies were frightfully obscene, both in ideas and expressions. A youth or a maiden could not begin to acquire instruction without meeting words of the grossest meaning. The convenient adage, Charta non erubescit, was invented to hide the pruriency of authors, and one of the worst puts in the wretched plea that, “though his page is lewd, his life is pure.” It is quite certain that, whatever might have been the effect on the poet, his readers could not but be demoralized by the lewdness of his verses.

Add to these causes of immorality the baths, and a fair case in support of Juvenal will be already made out. A young Roman girl, with warm southern blood in her veins, who could gaze on the unveiled pictures of the loves of Venus, read the shameful epigrams of Martial, or the burning love-songs of Catullus, go to the baths and see the nudity of scores of men and women, be touched herself by a hundred lewd hands, as well as those of the bathers who rubbed her dry and kneaded her limbs—a young girl who could withstand such experiences and remain virtuous would need, indeed, to be a miracle of principle and strength of mind.

But even then religion and law remained to assail her. She could not walk through the streets of Rome without seeing temples raised to the honor of Venus, that Venus who was the mother of Rome, as the patroness of illicit pleasures. In every field and in many a square, statues of Priapus, whose enormous indecency was his chief characteristic, presented themselves to view, often surrounded by pious matrons in quest of favor from the god. Once a year, at the Lupercalia, she saw young men running naked through the streets, armed with thongs with which they struck every woman they saw; and she noticed that matrons courted this flagellation as a means of becoming prolific. What[Pg 81] she may have known of the Dionysia or Saturnalia, the wild games in honor of Bacchus, and of those other dissolute festivals known as the eves of Venus, which were kept in April, it is not easy to say, but there is no reason to believe that these lewd scenes were intended only for the vicious, or that they were kept a secret.

When her marriage approached the remains of her modesty were effectually destroyed. Before marriage she was led to the statue of Mutinus, a nude sitting figure, and made to sit on his knee,[129] ut ejus pudicitiam prius deus delibasse videtur. This usage was so deeply rooted among the Romans that, when Augustus destroyed the temple of Mutinus in the Velian ward in consequence of the immoralities to which it gave rise, a dozen others soon rose to take its place. On the marriage night, statuettes of the deities Subiqus and Prema hung over the nuptial bed—ut subacta a sponso viro non se commoveat quum premitur;[130] and in the morning the jealous husband exacted, by measuring the neck of his bride, proof to his superstitious mind that she had yielded him her virginity.[131]

In the older age of the republic it was not considered decent for women to recline on couches at table as men did. This, however soon became quite common. Men and women lay together on the same couch so close that hardly room for eating was left. And this was the custom not only with women of loose morals, but with the most respectable matrons. At the feast of Trimalchio, which is the best recital of a Roman dinner we have, the wife of the host and the wife of Habinus both appeared before the guests. Habinus amused them by seizing his host’s wife by the feet and throwing her forward so that her dress flew up and exposed her knees, and Trimalchio himself did not blush to show his preference for a giton in the presence of the company, and to throw a cup at his wife’s head when her jealousy led her to remonstrate.[132] The voyage of the hero of the Satyricon furnishes other pictures of the intensely depraved feeling which pervaded Roman society. The author does not seem to admit the possibility of virtue’s existence; all his men and women are equally vicious and shameless. The open spectacle of the most hideous[Pg 82] debauchery only provokes a laugh. If a man declines to accede to the propositions which the women are the first to make, it must be because he is a disciple of the aversa Venus, and whole cities are depicted as joining in the hue and cry after the lost frater of a noted debauchee.

The commessationes, which Cicero enumerates among the symptoms of corruption in his time, had become of universal usage. It was for them that the cooks of Rome exhausted their art in devising the dishes which have puzzled modern gastronomists; for them that the rare old wines of Italy were stowed away in cellars; for them that Egyptian and Ionian dancing-girls stripped themselves, or donned the nebula linea.[133] No English words can picture the monstrosities which are calmly narrated in the pages of Petronius and Martial. Well might Juvenal cry, “Vice has culminated.”[134]

It is perhaps difficult to conceive how it could have been otherwise, considering the examples set by the emperors. It requires no small research to discover a single character in the long list that was not stained by the grossest habits. Julius Cæsar, “the bald adulterer,” was commonly said to be “husband of all men’s wives.”[135] Augustus, whose youth had been so dissolute as to suggest a most contemptuous epigram, employed men in his old age to procure matrons and maidens, whom these purveyors of imperial lust examined as though they had been horses at a public sale.[136] The amours of Tiberius in his retreat at Capreæ can not be described. It will suffice to say there was no invention of infamy which he did not patronise; that no young person of any charms was safe from his lust. More than one senator felt that safety required he should remove his handsome wife or pretty daughter from Rome, for Tiberius was ever ready to avenge obstacles with death. The sad fate of the beautiful Mallonia, who stabbed herself during a lawsuit which the emperor had instituted against her because she refused to comply with his beastly demands, gives a picture of the age.[137] Caligula, who made some changes in the tax levied on prostitutes, and established a brothel in the palace, commenced life by debauching his sisters, and ended it by giving grand dinners, during which he would remove from the room any lady he pleased, and, after spending a few minutes with her in private,[Pg 83] return and give an account of the interview for the amusement of the company.[138] Messalina so far eclipsed Claudius in depravity that the “profuse debauches” of the former appear, by contrast, almost moderate and virtuous.[139]

Nero surpassed his predecessors in cynic recklessness. He was an habitual frequenter of houses of prostitution. He dined in public at the great circus among a crowd of prostitutes. He founded, on the shore of the Gulf of Naples, houses of prostitution, and filled them with females, whose dissolute habits were their recommendation to his notice. The brief sketch of his journeys given by Tacitus, and the allusions to his minister of pleasures, Tigellinus, leave no room for doubting that he was a monster of depravity.[140]

Passing over a coarse Galba, a profligate Otho, a beastly Vitellius, a mean Vespasian, and a dissolute Titus, Domitian revived the age of Nero. He seduced his brother’s daughter, and carried her away from her husband, bathed habitually in company with a band of prostitutes, and set an example of hideous vice while enacting severe laws against debauchery. After another interval, Commodus converted the palace into a house of prostitution. He kept in his pay three hundred girls of great beauty, and as many youths, and revived his dull senses by the sight of pleasures he could no longer share. Like Nero, he violated his sisters; like him, he assumed the dress and functions of a female, and gratified the court with the spectacle of his marriage to one of his freedmen. Finally, Elagabalus, whom the historian could only compare to a wild beast, surpassed even the most audacious infamies of his predecessors. It was his pride to have been able to teach even the most expert courtesans of Rome something more than they knew; his pleasure to wallow among them naked, and to pull down into the sink of bestiality in which he lived the first officers of the empire.

When such was the example set by men in high places, there is no need of inquiring farther into the condition of the public morals. A censor like Tacitus might indignantly reprove, but a Martial—and he was, no doubt, a better exponent of public and social life than the stern historian—would only laugh, and copy the model before him. It may safely be asserted that there does not exist in any modern language a piece of writing which indicates[Pg 84] so hopelessly depraved a state of morals as Martial’s epigram on his wife.

SECRET DISEASES AT ROME.

At what period, and where, venereal diseases first made their appearance, is a matter of doubt. It was long the opinion of the faculty that they were of modern origin, and that Europe had derived them from America, where the sailors of Columbus had first contracted them. This opinion does not appear to rest on any solid basis, and is now generally rejected. The fact is, that the venereal disease prevailed extensively in Europe in the fifteenth century; but the presumption, from an imposing mass of circumstantial evidence, is that it has afflicted humanity from the beginning of history.

Still, it is strange that Greek and Latin authors do not mention it. There is a passage in Juvenal in which allusion is made to a disgusting disease, which appears to bear resemblance to venereal disease. Epigrams of Martial hint at something of the same kind. Celsus describes several diseases of the generative organs, but none of these authors ascribe the diseases they mention to venereal intercourse.

Celsus prefaces what he says on the subject of this class of maladies with an apology. Nothing but a sense of duty has led him to allude to matters so delicate; but he feels that he ought not to allow his country to lose the benefit of his experience, and he conceives it to be “desirable to disseminate among the people some medical principles with regard to a class of diseases which are never revealed to any one.”

After this apology, he proceeds to speak of a disease which he calls inflammatio colis, which seems to have borne a striking analogy to the modern Phymosis. It has been supposed that the Elephantiasis, which he describes at length, was also of a syphilitic character; and the symptoms detailed by Aretous, who wrote in the latter half of the first century, certainly remind the reader of secondary syphilis; but the best opinion of to-day appears to be that the diseases are distinct and unconnected.

Women afflicted with secret diseases were called aucunnuentæ, which explains itself. They prayed to Juno Fluonia for relief, and used the aster atticus by way of medicine. The Greek term for this herb being Bonbornion, which the Romans converted into Bubonium, that word came to be applied to the disease for which[Pg 85] it was given, whether in the case of females or males. Modern science has obtained thence the term Bubo. The Romans said of a female who communicated a disease to a man, Hæc te imbubinat.[141]

We find, moreover, in the later writers, allusions to the morbus campanus, the clazomenæ, the rubigo, etc., which were all secret diseases of a type, if not syphilitic, strongly resembling it. It must be admitted, however, that no passage in the ancient writers directly ascribes these diseases to commerce with prostitutes.

Roman doctors declined to treat secret diseases. They were called by the generic term morbus indecens, and it was considered unbecoming to confess to them or to treat them. Rich men owned a slave doctor who was in the confidence of the family, and to whom such delicate secrets would naturally be confided. But the mass of the people were restrained by shame from communicating their misfortunes; as was the case among the Jews, the unhappy patient was driven to seclusion as the only remedy. However cruel and senseless this practice may have been as regarded the sufferer, it was of service to the people, as it prevented, in some degree, the spread of contagion.

Up to the period of the civil wars, and perhaps as late as the Christian era, the only physicians at Rome were drug-sellers, enchanters, and midwives. The standing of the former may be inferred from a passage in Horace, where he classes them with the lowest outcasts of Roman society.[142] The enchanters (sagæ) made philtres to produce or impede the sensual appetite. They were execrated, and even so amorous a poet as Ovid felt bound to warn young girls against the evil effects of the aphrodisiacs they concocted.[143] Midwives also made philtres, and are often confounded with the sagæ. The healing science of the three classes must have been small.

About the reign of Augustus, Greek physicians began to settle at Rome. They possessed much theory, and some practical experience, as the Treatise of Celsus shows, and soon became an important class in Roman society. It was not, however, till the reign of Nero, that an office of public physician was created. Under that emperor, a Greek named Andromachus was appointed archiater, or court physician, and archiatii populares were soon afterward appointed for the people. They were allowed to receive money from the rich, but they were bound, in consideration[Pg 86] of various privileges bestowed on their office, to treat the poor gratuitously. They were stationed in every city in the empire. Rome had fourteen, besides those attached to the Vestals, the Gymnasia, and the court; other large cities had ten, and so on, down to the small towns which had one or two.[144] From the duties and privileges of the archiatii, it would appear they were subject to the ædiles.

It may seem almost superfluous to add that no careful medical reader of the history of Rome under the empire can doubt but the archiatii filled no sinecure, and that a large proportion of the diseases they treated were directly traceable to prostitution.

CHAPTER V.

THE EARLY CHRISTIAN ERA.

Perhaps the most marked originality of the Christian doctrine was the stress it laid on chastity. It has been well remarked that even the most austere of the pagan moralists recommended chastity on economical grounds alone. The apostles exacted it as a moral and religious duty. They preached against lewdness as fervently as against heathenism. Not one of the epistles contained in the New Testament but inveighs, in the strongest language, against the vices classed under the generic head of luxury. Nor can it be doubted that, under divine Providence, the obvious merit of this feature in the new religion exercised a large influence in rallying the better class of minds to its support.

From the first, the Christian communities made a just boast of the purity of their morals. Their adversaries met them on this ground at great disadvantage. It was notorious that the college of Vestals had been sustained with great difficulty. Latterly, it had been found necessary to supply vacancies with children, and even under these circumstances, the number of Vestals buried alive bore but a very small proportion to the number who had incurred this dread penalty. Nor could it be denied that the chastity[Pg 87] of the Roman virgins was, at best, but partial, the purest among them being accustomed to unchaste language and unchaste sights. The Christian congregations, on the contrary, contained numbers of virgins who had devoted themselves to celibacy for the love of Christ. They were modest in their dress, decorous in their manners, chaste in their speech.[145] They refused to attend the theatres; lived frugally and temperately; allowed no dancers at their banquets; used no perfumes, and abstained generally from every practice which could endanger their rigorous continence.[146] Marriage among the Christians was a holy institution, whose sole end was the procreation of children. It was not to be used, as was the case too often among the heathen, as a cloak for immoralities. Christ, they said, permitted marriage, but did not permit luxury.[147] The early fathers imposed severe penitences on fornication, adultery, and other varieties of sensuality.

Persecution aided the Church in the great work of purifying public morals, by forcing it to keep in view the Christian distinction between moral and physical guilt. At what time it became usual to condemn Christian virgins to the brothel it is difficult to discover. The practice may have arisen from the hideous custom which enjoined the violation of Roman maidens before execution, if the existence of such a custom can be assumed on the authority of so loose a chronicler as Suetonius.[148] However this be, this horrible refinement of brutality was in use in the time of Marcus Aurelius.[149] Virgins were seized and required to sacrifice to idols. Refusing, they were dragged, often naked, through the streets to a brothel, and there abandoned to the lubricity of the populace. The piety of the early Christians prompted the belief that on many conspicuous occasions the Almighty had interfered to protect his chosen children in this dire calamity.[150] St. Agnes, having refused to sacrifice to Vesta, was said to have been stripped naked by the order of the prefect; but, no sooner had her garments fallen, than her hair grew miraculously, and enveloped her as in a shroud. Dragged to the brothel, a wonderful light shone from her body, and the by-standers, appalled at the sight, instead of offering her violence, fell at her knees, till, at last, the prefect’s son, bolder and more reckless than the others, advanced to consummate her sentence, and was struck dead at her feet by a thunderbolt.[151] [Pg 88]Theodora, a noble lady of Alexandria, was equally undaunted and equally faithful to her creed. The judge allowed her three days to deliberate, warning her of the consequences of obstinacy. She was firm, and was led into a house of prostitution. There, in the midst of debauched persons of both sexes, she prayed to God for help, and the sight of the half-naked virgin bent in fervent prayer struck awe into the minds of the people. At last a soldier declared that he would fulfill the judgment. Thrust into a cell with Theodora, he confessed that he was a Christian, dressed her in his clothes, and enabled her to escape. He was seized and executed; but the Christian virgin, refusing to purchase her safety at such a price, gave herself up, and died with him.[152] Similar stories are contained in several of the Christian fathers.[153]

There is, unhappily, no reason to doubt that in many instances the brutal mandate of the pagan judges was rigorously executed, and that the faith of many Christian virgins was assailed through the channel of their virtue. This appears to have been frequently the case during the persecution of Diocletian, when we hear of Christian women being suspended naked by one foot, and tortured in other savage and infernal ways. The practice led to the clear enunciation of the important doctrine of moral chastity, already stated by Christ himself in the Gospel. The Romans could not conceive a chaste soul in a body that had endured pollution, and hence for Lucretia there was no resource but the poniard. It was left for St. Augustin, St. Jerome, and the other fathers, to assert boldly that the crime lay in the intention and not in the act; that a chaste heart might inhabit a body which brutal force had soiled; and that the Christian virgins whom an infamous judge had sentenced to the brothel were none the less acceptable servants of God.[154]

The only retaliation attempted by the early Christians was the conversion of prostitutes. The works of the fathers contain many narratives of remarkable conversions of this character, and a learned Jesuit once compiled a voluminous work on the subject. The Egyptian Mary was the type of the class. She confessed to Zosimus that she had spent seventeen years in the practice of prostitution at Alexandria. Her heart being opened, she took ship for Jerusalem, paid her passage by exercising her calling on board, and expiated her sins by a life of penitence in the woods of [Pg 89]Judæa. She lived, the legend said, forty-seven years in the woods, naked and alone, without seeing a man. A chapel was built at Paris during the Middle Ages in her honor. The painted windows, representing her in the exercise of her calling on shipboard, were in existence at a very late period.[155]

In revenge for the victories of the Christians, the pagans accused them of committing the grossest immoralities. For many centuries the early Christian congregations met under circumstances of great difficulty, in secret hiding-places, in catacombs. Their religious rites were performed mysteriously. Lights were often extinguished to foil the object of spies and informers. These peculiarities served as the pretext for many obvious calumnies. It was commonly believed, even by men of the calibre of Tacitus, that the Christian rites bore strong resemblances to those rites of Isis which, at an early period of Roman history, had created such alarm and horror at Rome. Nor were these calumnies confined to the heathen. In the third and fourth centuries, when sectarian rivalries menaced the destruction of the Church, similar accusations were freely bandied. That they were wholly unfounded in every case seems difficult to believe, in the face of the clear statements of such writers as Epiphanes. What the precise doctrines of the various sects called Adamites, Cainites, Nicolaites, and some subdivisions of Gnostics, may have been, it were perhaps superfluous now to inquire; but it seems not unreasonable to suppose that, in some instances, men of depraved instincts may have availed themselves of the cloak of Christianity to conceal the gratification of sensual habits; or, on the other hand, that minds in a state of religious exaltation may have stumbled upon impurities in the search for the state of nature. In comparatively late times we have seen, in America as well as Savoy, a few persons of weak minds give way to religious enthusiasm in a manner that warred with public decency. Similar aberrations may have been more frequent during the seething era which preceded the establishment of Christianity, and prostitution, in some shape or other, may have again become a religious rite in certain deluded or knavish sects. Nor was it unnatural, unjust though it certainly was, for the heathen to charge Christianity at large with the vices of those of its followers who worshiped in a state of nudity, and accompanied prayer with promiscuous intercourse.[156]

[Pg 90]Even in the bosom of the true Church practices would break out from time to time which jarred sadly with the moral theory of the Apostles. Many persons of both sexes, under the influence of religious enthusiasm, sought relief for their troubled souls in solitude, and unwisely attempted to mortify the flesh by practices which too often sharpened the appetites. One only needs to read the eloquent effusions of St. Jerome to become satisfied that the course of life adopted by many early Christian recluses, of both sexes, must have led unwittingly to moral aberrations. Young men and young women, devoting themselves to a life of seclusion in the woods, living like wild beasts, without clothing and without shame, would naturally revive the system of religious prostitution in a more or less modified shape. On the other hand, in many parts of Europe, Christian churches thought it not unsafe to accept the legacies of the heathen religions in the shapes of idols, forms, and ceremonies. Saints succeeded to the honors of gods; dances in honor of Venus became dances in honor of the Virgin; statues which were originally intended to represent heathen deities were saved from destruction by being adopted as fair representations of Christian saints. Until very recent times there existed, in various parts of Europe, statues of Priapus, under the name of some saint, retaining the indecency of the idol, and associated with the belief of some simple women that the image possessed the power assigned it in mythology. In processions, during the third and fourth centuries, sacred virgins were seen to wear round their necks the obscene symbol of the old worship, and in places the holy bread retained the shape of the Roman coliphia and siligines. St. John Chrysostom complains that in places he designates, women were baptized in a state of nature, without even being permitted to veil their sex.[157] A majority of Christian teachers, unwilling to deprive the masses of a superstitious convenience afforded them by paganism, allowed them to pray to certain saints not only for fertility, but for the removal of impotence from husbands and lovers.[158]

To these immoral features must be added occasional instances of looseness in conventual life. The preamble of various edicts in France and elsewhere leaves no room to doubt that, in several instances, immoral persons had assumed the religious garb, and collected themselves together in religious communities for the purpose of gratifying sensuality.

[Pg 91]These were the aids Christianity afforded to prostitution in its various forms. They are a mere trifle in comparison with the obstacles it threw in its way. Independently of the effect produced by the moral teaching of St. Paul and the Apostles, the rising power of the Church was vigorously exerted to modify the legislation both of the Eastern and Western empires on the subject of sexual depravities.

The fathers did not uniformly proscribe prostitution. Saint Augustin said, “Suppress prostitution, and capricious lusts will overthrow society.”[159] Jerome recognized prostitution, and argued that, as Mary Magdalene had been saved, so might any prostitute who repented.[160] The canons of the apostles excluded from the ministry all persons who were convicted of having commerce with prostitutes, and excommunicated those who were guilty of rape, but they passed no general sentence on prostitutes.[161] But the apostolic constitution branded as sinful any sexual intercourse quæ non adhibetur ad generationem filiorum sed tota ad voluptatem spectat.[162] The same principle is asserted in various passages of the work; wine being denounced as a provocation to impurity, and the faithful are warned against the society of lewd persons (scortatores). The Council of Elvira pronounced the penalty of excommunication against bawds and prostitutes, but it expressly commanded priests to receive at the communion-table prostitutes who had married Christians.[163] St. Augustin conceived that no church should admit prostitutes to the altar till they had abandoned the calling.[164] A similar doctrine was expressed by the Council of Toledo. At a later period, as we advance in mediæval history, we find the councils recognizing prostitution, and prostitutes as a class. In 1431, at the Council of Basle, a holy father presented a paper on the subject of prostitution, in which it was implied to be the only safeguard of good morals. A century later, the Council of Milan took especial pains to identify prostitutes as a class. They were to wear a distinctive dress, with no ornaments of gold, silver, or silk; to reside in places expressly designated by the bishops, at a distance from cathedrals; to avoid taverns and hostelries. The execution of the decree was intrusted to the bishops and the civil magistrates.[165]

[Pg 92]The vectigal or tax paid by all persons subsisting by prostitution was exacted by the emperors, from Caligula to Theodosius. It was usually collected every five years. Zosimus accuses Constantine of having enlarged and remodeled the tax, but apparently without foundation. The early Christians made it a subject of reproach to the emperors.[166] In consequence of their assaults, Theodosius abandoned that portion of the law which laid a tax on bawds, leaving the tax on prostitutes. The latter was levied as rigorously as ever. A contemporary writer describes the imperial agents hunting for prostitutes in taverns and houses of prostitution, and forcing them to purchase, by payment of the tax, the right of pursuing their calling.[167] At length, in the fifth century, prostitution and the tax on prostitutes, or chrysarguron, were formally abolished by the Emperor Anastasius I., and the records and rolls of the collectors burned. It is said that some time afterward, the emperor gave out that he had repented of what he had done, and desired to see the chrysarguron re-established. The announcement gave great joy to the debauchees, and numbers of persons prepared to avail themselves of the re-enactment of the law. The emperor let it be known that he desired to have matters placed, so far as could be, on their old footing, and would therefore desire to collect as many as possible of the old rolls and records. They were gathered together at all parts, and laid at the imperial feet. Notice was then given to the people to meet at the circus on a given day; when they were all assembled, the whole collection of documents was burned, amid the frantic applause of the populace.[168]

It has been asserted, however, that the chrysarguron was revived subsequently, and was levied under Justinian. That legislator altered the old Roman laws regarding prostitution, and relieved prostitutes from the ineffaceable ban of infamy which the republican jurisprudence had laid on them. He permitted the marriage of citizens with prostitutes, and encouraged it by his example. His own wife, the Empress Theodora, had been a ballet-dancer and a prostitute. When she attained the imperial dignity, her first thought was of her old companions. She built a magnificent palace-prison on the south shore of the Bosphorus, and in one night caused five hundred prostitutes in Constantinople to be seized and conveyed thither. They were kindly treated; their every wish was gratified; but no man entered their asylum. The [Pg 93]experiment was a complete failure. Most of the girls committed suicide in their despair, and the remainder soon died of ennui and vexation.

Theodosius had laid heavy penalties on brothel-keepers;[169] Justinian reiterated them, and increased their weight. The seizure and prostitution of a girl he punished with death. He who connived at the prostitution of females was to be expelled from the city where he lived, and any person harboring him was to be fined one hundred gold pieces. Whatever legislation could effect to uproot the system of procurers and public prostitution, Justinian did;[170] but his laws contain no trace of any harsh policy toward prostitutes. Those unfortunate creatures he regarded with an indulgent humanity, which, for the sake of human nature, one may perhaps ascribe to the kindly sympathy of the empress.

CHAPTER VI.

FRANCE.—HISTORY DURING THE MIDDLE AGES.

The Roman accounts of the Gauls represent them as leading virtuous lives. Severa matrimonia is the expression of the historian. This would appear to apply more particularly to the women than the men. As is usually the case among semi-civilized nations, the Gauls, Germans, Franks, and most of the aboriginal nations of Northern Europe imposed upon the women obligations of chastity which they did not always accept for themselves. Adultery, and, in certain cases, fornication, they punished capitally; but, if the early ecclesiastical writers are to be believed, these rude warriors were addicted to coarse debaucheries, in which intoxicating liquors and promiscuous intercourse with females played a prominent part. The feasts which followed victories in the field, or commemorated national anniversaries, bore some resemblance to the Roman commessationes, though, of course, they lacked[Pg 94] the refinement and the wit which occasionally strove to redeem those disgraceful banquets. So far as the females were concerned, there is no doubt the Roman writers judged correctly. Whether the severity of the climate tempered the ardor of northern sensuality, or the harshness of the law kept the passions in check, the female population of Gaul, from the time of the Roman conquest for at least two or three centuries, was undoubtedly virtuous. Prostitution was comparatively unknown. An old law or usage directed that prostitutes should be stoned, but we do not hear of this law being carried into effect.

Simultaneously with the consolidation of the kingdom of the Franks, we note that concubinage was an established institution, recognized by the law and sanctioned by the Church. All the Frank chiefs who could afford the luxury kept harems, or, as they were called in that day, gynecea, peopled by young girls who ministered to their pleasures. The plan, as it appears, bore some resemblance to that which is at present in use in Turkey and some other Mohammedan countries. The chief had one lawful and proper wife, a sort of sultana valide, and other wives whose matrimonial rights were less clearly defined, but still whose condition was not necessarily disreputable. How the people lived we are not so well qualified to say, but no doubt prostitution prevailed to some extent among them, though in all probability the public morals were purer than they became toward the tenth and eleventh centuries.

Perhaps the first authentic legislative notice of prostitution in France is to be found in the Capitularies of Charlemagne. That monarch, who seems to have seen no mischief in the system of gynecea, was severe upon common prostitution. He directed vulgar prostitutes to be scourged, and a like penalty to be inflicted on all who harbored them, kept houses of debauch, or lent their assistance to prostitutes or debauchees. In other words, Charlemagne treated the same act as a crime among the poor, and as an excusable habit among the rich.

Our information regarding society in the Middle Ages is necessarily obscure and scanty, but we have enough to learn that immorality prevailed to an alarming degree during the tenth, eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries. Probably the rich men who had their gynecea were the most virtuous class in the nation. Most of the kings set an example of loose intercourse with the ladies of the court. The armies of the time were noted for the[Pg 95] ravages they committed among the female population of the countries where they were quartered. Both of these classes seem to have yielded the palm of debauchery to the clergy. It is a fact well known to antiquaries, though visual evidence of it is becoming scarce, that most of the great works of Gothic architecture which date from this period were profusely adorned with lewd sculptures whose subjects were taken from the religious orders. In one place a monk was represented in carnal connection with a female devotee. In others were seen an abbot engaged with nuns, a naked nun worried by monkeys, youthful penitents undergoing flagellation at the hands of their confessor, lady abbesses offering hospitality to well-proportioned strangers, etc., etc. These obscene works of art formerly encumbered the doors, windows, arches, and niches of many of the finest Gothic cathedrals in France. Modesty has lately insisted on their removal, but many of the works themselves have been rescued from destruction by the zeal of antiquaries, and it is believed some have still escaped the iconoclastic hand of the modern Church. When such was the condition of the clergy, and such the notoriety of that condition, it would be unjustifiable to expect purity of morals among the people.

Louis VIII. made an effort to regulate prostitution. It proved fruitless, and it was left to the next king of the same name, Louis IX., to make the first serious endeavor to check the progress of the evil in France. His edict, which dates from 1254, directed that all prostitutes, and persons making a living indirectly out of prostitution, such as brothel-keepers and procurers, should be forthwith exiled from the kingdom. It was partially put in force. A large number of unfortunate females were seized, and imprisoned or sent across the frontier. Severe punishments were inflicted on those who returned to the city of Paris after their expulsion. A panic seized the customers of brothels, and for a few months public decency was restored. But the inevitable consequences of the arbitrary decree of the king soon began to be felt. Though the officers of justice had forcibly confined in establishments resembling Magdalen hospitals a large proportion of the most notorious prostitutes, and exiled many more, others arose to take their places. A clandestine traffic succeeded to the former open debauchery, and in the dark the evils of the disease were necessarily aggravated. More than that, as has usually been the case when prostitution has been violently and suddenly suppressed,[Pg 96] the number of virtuous women became less, and corruption invaded the family circle. Tradesmen complained that since the passage of the ordinance they found it impossible to guard the virtue of their wives and daughters against the enterprises of the military and the students.

At last, complaints of the evil effects of the ordinance became so general and so pressing that, after a lapse of two years, it was repealed. A new royal decree re-established prostitution under rules which, though not particularly enlightened or humane, still placed it on a sounder footing than it had occupied before the royal attention had been directed to the subject. Prostitutes were forbidden to live in certain parts of the city of Paris, were not allowed to wear jewelry or fine stuffs, and were placed under the direct supervision of a police magistrate, whose official or popular title was Le roi des ribauds (the king of ribaldry). The duties of this officer appear to have been analogous to those of the Roman ædiles who had charge of prostitution. He was empowered to arrest and confine females who infringed the law, either in their dress, their domicil, or their behavior. It was afterward urged against the maintenance of the office of Roi des ribauds that it was usually filled by reckless, depraved men, who discharged its duties more in view of their private interests and the gratification of their sensuality than from regard to the public morals. Instances of gross tyranny were proved against them, and, in the absence of evidence to show that their appointment had been beneficial to the public, but little regret was felt when the office was abolished by Francis I.

To return to Louis IX. In his old age he repented of what he had done, and returned to the spirit of his early ordinance. In his instructions to his son and successor, he adjured him to remove from his country the shameful stain of prostitution, and indicated plainly enough that the best mode of attaining that end would be by re-enacting the ordinance of 1254. Philip dutifully fulfilled his father’s request. Prostitution was again declared a legal misdemeanor, and a formidable array of penalties was again brought to bear against offending females and their accomplices. But, like many a legislative act in more modern times, Philip’s ordinance was too obviously at variance with public policy and popular sentiment to be carried into effect. It was quietly allowed to remain a dead letter, and, with probably few exceptions, the prostitutes of Paris pursued their calling unmolested.

[Pg 97]A few years afterward, its nullification was authoritatively sanctioned by fresh sumptuary laws. A royal edict directed courtesans to wear a shoulder-knot of a particular color as a badge of their calling. The whole force of the government was rallied to enforce this rule, and also those which had been enacted by Louis IX. The records of the court contain innumerable reports of the arrests of prostitutes for violating these enactments. When they had taken up their abode in a prohibited street, they were imprisoned and dislodged; when their offense was wearing unlawful garments or jewelry, the forbidden objects were seized and sold, the constable apparently sharing the proceeds of the sale. Pimps and procurers were dealt with more severely. As usual, the statute-book contained a variety of conflicting enactments on this subject, and menaced them with all kinds of penalties, from burning alive to fine and imprisonment. It appears beyond a doubt that, during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, several notorious procuresses were burned alive at Paris. Others were put in the pillory; were scourged, and had their ears cropped; while many of the richer class escaped with a fine. There are records of cases in which the procuress was exposed naked to the insults of the mob for a whole day, and toward evening the hair on her body was burned off with a flaming torch. Others again were chased through the city in a state of nudity, and pelted with stones. These barbarous penalties appear to have been very much to the taste of the people. Procuresses have always been an odious class, and it is not surprising to find that the punishment of a notorious wretch of the class was observed as a joyous holiday by the populace of the French capital. On the other hand, the prostitutes themselves were often subjects of public sympathy.

Peculiar reasons operated at this period to produce a favorable sentiment with regard to prostitutes. The horrible depravities of the Templars were becoming known. Society was horror-struck at the symptom of a revival of the worst vice of the ancients. There have been, as is known, ingenious and eloquent efforts made, in comparatively recent times, to throw a veil over the corruptions of the Templars, and to prove that they fell victims to royal jealousy, but the argument is not sustained by the facts. Documents on whose authenticity and credibility no possible suspicion can be cast, establish incontrovertibly that the sect of the Templars was tainted with unnatural vices, and that one of the chief secrets of its maintenance was the facility it afforded to [Pg 98]debased men for the gratification of monstrous propensities. That this was the opinion which prevailed in Paris at the time of the outburst which finally led to the suppression of the order, there is no room to question. It is easy to understand how the horror such discoveries must have awakened would lead men to entertain more lenient views with regard to a vice which had at least the merit of being in conformity with natural instinct.

Thus far of Paris only. During the Middle Ages, as is well known, most of the provinces of France were self-governing communities, which administered their own affairs, and received no police regulations from the crown. A complete examination of the subject throughout France would therefore involve as many histories as there were provinces. Our space, of course, forbids any thing of the kind, and we can only glance at leading divisions.

Most of the northern people had adopted, partly from the old Germanic constitutions and partly from the Roman law, severe provisions against prostitution, but they were nowhere, apparently, put in force. Occasionally a notorious brothel-keeper or professional procuress was severely punished, but prostitutes were rarely molested. In the north and west of France, indeed, toleration was obviously the natural policy, for we are not led to believe that in that section of country the evil was ever carried to great excess. In Normandy, Brittany, Picardy, and the great northern and western provinces, a virtuous simplicity was the rule of life among the peasants, and even the cities did not present any striking contrast. In many provinces, usage, not fortified by the text of any custom, allowed the seigneur to levy toll upon prostitutes exercising their calling within the limits of his jurisdiction. Some old titles and records refer to this practice. One sets down the tax paid by each prostitute at four deniers to the seigneur. Others intimate that the tax may be paid in money or in kind, at the option of the seigneur. In many seigniories this singular tax was regarded with the contempt it deserved.

In the south of France we meet with a different spectacle. There prostitution had long been a deeply-seated feature of society. The warm passions of the southerners required a vent, and, in the absence of some safety-valve, it was obvious to all that the ungovernable lusts of the men would soon kindle the inflammable passions of the dark southern women. Public houses of[Pg 99] prostitution were therefore established in three of the largest cities of the south—Toulouse, Avignon, and Montpellier.

That of Toulouse was established by royal charter, which declared that the profits of the enterprise should be shared equally by the city and the University. The building appropriated for the purpose was large and commodious, bearing the name of the Grand Abbaye. In it were lodged not only the resident prostitutes of the city, but any loose women who traveled that way, and desired to exercise their impure calling. It would appear that they received a salary from the city, and that the fees exacted from the customers were divided between the two public bodies to which the enterprise was granted. They were obliged to wear white scarfs and white ribbons or cords on one of their arms, as a badge of their calling.

When the unfortunate monarch Charles VI. visited Toulouse, the prostitutes of the Abbaye met him in a body, and presented an address. The king received them graciously, and promised to grant them whatever largess they should request. They begged to be released from the duty of wearing the white badges, and the king, faithful to his promise, granted the boon. A royal declaration specially exempted them from the old rule.[171] But the people of Toulouse, no doubt irritated by the want of some distinguishing mark between their wives and daughters and the “foolish women,” by common consent mobbed the prostitutes who availed themselves of the king’s ordinance. None of them could venture to appear in public without being liable to insult, and even bodily injury. Resolutely bent on carrying their point, the women shut themselves up in the Abbaye, and did their best to keep customers at a distance. Their calculation was just; the city and the University soon felt the effects of the diminution of visitors at the Abbaye. The corporation appealed to the king; and when, during the disorders which distracted France at that time, Charles VII. visited Toulouse, a formal petition was presented to him by the capitones, praying that he would take such steps as his wisdom might seem fit to mediate between the prostitutes and the people, and restore to the Abbaye its former prosperity. The king acted with energy. He denounced the assailants of the prostitutes in the severest language, and planted his own royal fleurs de lis over the door of the Abbaye as a protection to the occupants.[172] But the people did not respect the royal arms any more than they did[Pg 100] the “foolish women.” On the contrary, assaults on the Abbaye became more numerous than ever. The prostitutes complained incessantly of having suffered violence at the hands of wild youths who refused to pay for their pleasures; and the civic authorities proving incompetent to check the disorder, the prostitutes found themselves compelled to seek refuge in a new part of the city, where, it is to be presumed, they enlisted adequate support among their own individual acquaintances. For a hundred years they inhabited their new domicil in peace and quiet. The University then dislodging them in order to occupy the spot, the city built them a new abbaye beyond the precincts of the respectable wards. It was called the Chateau vert, and its fame and profits equaled that of the old abbaye.

About the middle of the sixteenth century the city yielded to the scruples of some moralists of the day, and ceded the revenues of the Chateau vert to the hospitals; but the grant being made on condition that the hospitals should receive and cure all females attacked by venereal disease, it was found, after six years’ trial, that it cost more than it yielded. The hospitals surrendered the chateau to the city. It happened, just at this time, that many eminent philosophers and economists were advocating a return to the old ecclesiastical policy of suppressing prostitution altogether. After a discussion which lasted several years, the city of Toulouse adopted these views, and closed the Chateau vert. A magistrate, high in authority, left on record his protest against this course, founded on the scenes of immorality he had himself witnessed in the suburbs, and the country in the neighborhood of Toulouse; but the city authorities adhered to their opinion, and contented themselves with arresting some of the most shameless of the free prostitutes.[173] From that time forth, prostitution at Toulouse was subject to the same rules as in the rest of France.

The history of prostitution at Montpellier was analogous. At an early period, the monopoly which the crown had granted to the city being farmed out to individuals, fell into the hands of two bankers, in whose family it remained for several generations. During their tenure, a brothel was established in the city by a speculator of the day, but the holders of the monopoly prosecuted him, and obtained a perpetual injunction restraining him from lodging or harboring prostitutes.

At Avignon prostitution was legalized by Jane of Naples just[Pg 101] before the cession of the city to the Pope. The ordinance establishing a public brothel seems to have been drawn with care, and, though doubts have lately been thrown on its authenticity, they are not so well founded as to justify its rejection. Prostitutes were ordered to live in the brothel. They were bound to wear a red shoulder-knot as a badge of their calling. The brothel was to be visited weekly by the bailli and a “barber,” the latter of whom was to examine the girls, and confine separately all who seemed infected. No Jew was allowed to enter the brothel on any pretext. Its doors were to be closed on saints’ days, and special regulations guarded against the prevalence of scenes of riot and disorder.[174]

This ordinance seems to have remained in force during the whole occupation of Avignon by the Popes, and its penalties were occasionally inflicted on offenders. But if Petrarch and other contemporary writers are to be believed, the city was none the less a refuge for debauchees, and a scandal to Christendom. Petrarch complains that it was far more depraved than old Rome, and a popular proverb confirms, at least in part, his opinion.[175]

There were, however, in some southern provinces, severe laws against prostitution, although some of the penalties seem to have been framed as much with the view of stimulating as of repressing the passions. In one or two cities we find accounts of prostitutes and their customers being forced to walk naked through the streets by way of expiation. In others, the punishment of the iron cage was inflicted on pimps and procuresses. When a procuress had rendered herself particularly obnoxious, she was seized, stripped naked, and dragged in the midst of a great crowd to the water’s side. There she was thrust into an iron cage, in which she was forced to kneel. When the cage door was closed, she was thrown into the river, and allowed to remain under water long enough to produce temporary suffocation. This shocking punishment was repeated several times.

A potent influence over the morals of the southern people, the higher classes at least, was exercised by the institution of chivalry. It was of the essence of that institution to promote spiritual at the expense of sensual gratification. The chevalier adored his [Pg 102]mistress in secret for years, without even venturing to breathe her name. For years he carried a scarf or a ribbon in her honor through battle-scenes and dangers of every kind, happy when, after a lustrum spent in sighs and hopes, the charmer condescended to reward his fidelity with a gracious smile. It is evident that sexual intercourse must have been rare among people who set so high a value on the merest compliments and slightest tokens of affection; nor can there be any question but the effect of chivalry was to impart a high tone to the feelings and language of society, and to soften the manners of all who came within its influence.

If, on the other hand, we glance at the literature which flourished in France during the period of the revival of learning, we can not but infer that the morals of the people at large were not pure. During the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries, the standard reading of the educated classes among the French was the celebrated Roman de la Rose, a work of remarkable talent, but, at the same time, distinguished by a cynic vein of philosophy and a singular obscenity of language. No portion of that work was wholly free from lewd expressions, and it would be impossible to quote fifty lines of it to-day in a modern language. The doctrine of the author with regard to women was insulting and cynical.[176] They were uniformly depicted as being restrained only by legal difficulties from giving way to the loosest passions; and all men, in like manner, were painted as seducers, adulterers, and violators of young girls. Such was the reading of the best society in France. The Roman de la Rose was to them what Shakspeare is to us.

Nor was it alone of its kind. Of the works which that age has bequeathed to us, nearly all are tainted with the same grossness of language and pruriency of idea. All, or nearly all, breathe the air of the brothel. It was rather a matter of boasting than of shame with the authors. Villon and Regnier seem to plume themselves on their familiarity with scenes of debauch, and their extensive acquaintance among the prostitute class. The best of their works are descriptions of episodes of dissipation; their most lively sketches have prostitutes, or their fortunes, or their diseases, for the themes. They seemed to fancy they were imitating Horace when they borrowed his most odious blemishes. Some of them were actors as well as poets, and used the machinery of the[Pg 103] stage to disseminate their lewd compositions. Though it was still unusual, or even unlawful, for women to appear on the stage in their time, the boys who played female parts were well drilled to the business, and the performances which delighted the towns and villages of France fell but little short, in point of grossness, of the theatrical enormities of the imperial era at Rome.

One may form some idea of the popularity of erotic literature at this period in France from the amazing vocabulary of erotic terms which is gathered from the works of Rabelais, Beroald de Verville, Regnier, Brantome, and their contemporaries. There was not a form of lewdness for which an appropriate name had not been invented; and as to the ordinary acts and instruments of prostitution, a dictionary of synonyms might have been compiled without embracing all of them. Monsieur Dufour, in his conscientious work, fills a couple of pages with the mere words that were employed to express the act of fornication.

Many events likewise indicate a loose state of morals. The history of the incubes and succubes, filling some space in every treatise on demonology, is a most curious feature of the morals of the day. The existence of demons who made a practice of assailing the virtue of girls and boys was admitted by some of the fathers of the Church,[177] who quoted the words of Genesis in support of the singular doctrine. They were of two kinds: incubi, from the Latin incubare, male demons who assailed the chastity of girls; and succubæ, female demons who robbed boys of their innocence. The old chronicles are full of accounts of the mischievous deeds of these evil spirits. As might be expected, the incubi were more numerous and more enterprising than the succubæ. For one boy who confessed that a female demon had attacked him in his sleep, and compelled him to minister to her sensuality, there were a score of girls who furnished very tolerable evidence of having yielded their virginity to creatures of the male gender, who, they were satisfied, could be none other than devils. The ecclesiastical writers of the period have preserved a number of scandalous stories of the kind, which were so well credited that Pope Innocent VIII. felt impelled to issue a bull on the subject, and provide the faithful with an efficacious formula of exorcism.

Females, most of whom appeared to be nuns, confessed that they had been subject to the scandalous visits of the demons for long periods of time, and that neither fasting, nor prayer, nor[Pg 104] spiritual exercise could release them from the hated plague. Some girls were brought to admit a similar intercourse, and were burnt at the stake as partakers of the nature of sorceresses.[178] Married women made similar confessions. They stated that they were able to affirm that intercourse with demons was extremely painful; that their frigid nature, combined with their monstrous proportions, rendered their society a severe affliction, independently of the sin. It was noticed that the women, married or single, who applied to the ecclesiastical authorities for relief from this curious form of torment were almost invariably young and pretty.

In the year 1637 a public discussion took place at Paris on the question, Whether there exist succubæ and incubi, and whether they can procreate their species? The discussion was long and elaborate. It was conducted by a body of learned doctors, in presence of a large audience, composed partly of ladies; and while the judgment of the tribunal appeared to be in the negative, it was not so emphatic as to settle the question.[179] Even a century later, when one of the royal physicians undertook to explode the theory of lewd demons, and to prove that girls had endeavored to conceal their intercourse with lovers by attributing to them a devilish character, the public was not convinced, and the incubi were not left without believers. The laws still pronounced the penalty of death against all persons, male or female, who had commerce with demons.

Another practice which was brought to a close about the same time was entitled “Le sabat des sorciers,” the witches’ vigil. It appears that, at the earliest times of which we have any record, the inhabitants of France and Germany were in the habit of frequenting nocturnal assemblies in which witchcraft was believed or pretended to occupy a prominent place. In the thirteenth century they were denounced by Pope Gregory IX.,[180] who was satisfied that the devil had to do with them, and that their prime object was the gratification of sensuality. His bull did not attain its object. The witches’ meetings were still held, or believed to have been held throughout the fourteenth, fifteenth, and part of the sixteenth centuries. The popular belief was that the persons in league with witches anointed their bodies with magical [Pg 105]ointment, bestrode a broom, and were forthwith carried through the air to the place of meeting; that Satan was present at the ceremony in the form of a huge he-goat, and received the homage of the witches and their proselytes; that songs and dances followed next in order, and that the whole performance was closed with a scene of promiscuous debauchery.[181] The Inquisition took the matter in hand, and obtained affidavits from several females averring that they had had commerce with demons on these occasions, and relating with singular crudity the peculiar sensations they experienced.[182] On the strength of this evidence prosecutions were instituted, and many persons were condemned and executed.

It has been usual in modern times to regard the persecution of the witches as a proof of the barbarous intolerance of the ancient Church; but, in truth, a careful examination of the evidence leaves no room for doubting that witchcraft was only the cloak of real vices. Most of the persons who were burned in France as sorcerers had really used the popular belief in magic to hide their own debaucheries, and had succeeded in depraving large numbers of youth of both sexes. It was stated by a theological writer of the time of Francis I., that in his day there were one hundred thousand persons sold to Satan in France.[183] Allowing for some exaggeration, it must still be inferred from this statement that this form of prostitution had assumed alarming proportions. Nor is there any good reason for doubting but priests and other persons of lewd propensities turned the simplicity of the village girls to account in very many instances, and richly earned the severe penalty that was inflicted upon them by the arm of the Church. The vigil, or sabat, disappears from history during the sixteenth century. That it had been for some time before its extinction a haunt of debauchees and a fertile source of prostitution, the writers on demonology and the old chroniclers establish incontrovertibly.

Other aids to prostitution were obtained from the very ranks of the Church. During the Middle Ages numbers of strange sects appeared, many of which relied for success on the favor they allowed to sensuality. At the present day it is not easy to determine what proportion of the stories that are in print respecting many of these sects were the fruit of sectarian jealousy on the part of their rivals; some of them were doubtless calumniated, but there[Pg 106] are others about whose character and practices there is no room for controversy. The Flagellants, for instance, who counted eight hundred thousand proselytes in France in the fourteenth century, were unquestionably depraved. They marched in procession, men and women together, through the cities of France, each member of the society using the whip freely on the bare back of the person before him; and at night they assembled in country places, and proceeded to more serious flagellations. The opinion of learned persons ascribed erotic effects to these flagellations, it being said, apparently with truth, that when the flagellants had excited their senses by their discipline, they gave way to frantic debauchery. However this be, it is plain that the spectacle of naked men and women marching in procession and scourging one another can not but have been provocative of prostitution.[184]

Another similar sect was the Adamites, who argued that nudity was the law of nature, and that clothes were an abomination in the sight of God. It is said that, at first, the Adamites insisted on nudity only during their religious exercises, and that their proselytes stripped themselves within the place of worship; but one, Picard, who became a leading authority in the sect, took the ground that their principles should be carried out boldly in the face of the world. He and his followers, male and female, accordingly appeared in the streets in the costume in which they were born. The Inquisition very properly laid hands on them, punished some, and exiled the others.[185]

Again: if we pass from individual accidents to the state of society at large, we shall find many features that can not have been aids to virtue. Allusion has already been made to the obscene character of much of the early poetry of France, and to the excessive grossness of those works especially which obtained, and perhaps deserved, the widest popularity. Many of the customs of the day were equally adverse to sound morals. To cite one by way of example: On the Jour des Innocents, which fell on the 28th of December, men were allowed to invade the bed-chambers of girls, and, if they could find them in bed, to administer the chastisement which used to be common in schools. Hence arose the proverbial expression, Donner les innocents à quelqu’un, which meant to birch a person on the bare skin. No doubt the old chroniclers were justified in saying that when the girl was worth[Pg 107] the trouble, the invader of the chamber was not satisfied with inflicting a chastisement.[186]

Marriages were attended with ceremonies far grosser than any that were practiced in Rome. It was not only decorous, it was fashionable, both for men and women, to spy out the bed-chamber of the newly-wedded couple, and the fortunate man or girl who had contrived to see the interior of the room through a chink in the wall or a hole in the door was loudly applauded when the result of his or her discoveries was made known.[187] The invention of bridal chambers is therefore not original in America, as some have supposed.

Strange to say, neither the lewdness of the poets nor the grossness of the social habits of the times strikes one as more singular than the tone of the sermons which were delivered in Paris at the same period. One of the most famous preachers of the day was Maillard, who rose to eminence under Louis XI. His sermons on the luxury and corruptions of the times were very popular. We find him cursing the “burgesses” who, for the sake of gain, let their houses to prostitutes: “Vultis vivere de posterioribus meretricum,” he cries, indignantly. He denounces with extraordinary virulence the “crimes of impudicity which are committed in churches,” and which “the pillars and nave would denounce, if they had eyes and a voice.” He did not spare his congregation. Turning fiercely to the women who sat before him, he apostrophized them: “Dicatis, vos, mulieres, posuistis, posuistis filias ad peccandum? vos, mulieres, per vestros traitus impudiæ, provocastis alios ad peccandum? Et vos, maquerellæ, quid dicitis?” He thunders against this latter class, the procuresses, who ought, he says, to be burned at the stake, especially when, as is often the case, they are both the mothers and the venders of their daughters. Words fail him to denounce the intercourse of abandoned women with ecclesiastics; he invokes the divine wrath upon those of his congregation quæ dant corpus curialibus, monachis, presbyteris. Both he and other famous preachers of the day pronounced maledictions upon lewd convents, which some of them say are mere seraglios for the bishops and monks, where every abomination is practiced.

It was estimated that at this time, say the fifteenth century,[Pg 108] when Paris was comparatively a small city, it contained five to six thousand prostitutes, who were said by an Italian to be far more beautiful and attractive than any prostitutes he had seen elsewhere.

CHAPTER VII.

FRANCE.—HISTORY FROM THE MIDDLE AGES TO LOUIS XIII.

The memoranda we have already given will enable the reader to form an idea of the state of society at large. It remains to say something of the court, which, in some respects, was France.

From Louis IX. to Charles V. inclusive, it is said that the kings of France set no example of debauchery, and that the court rather encouraged virtue than vice. When the sisters-in-law of Philip the Handsome scandalized Paris by their loose life in the Tour de Nesle, into which they were said to make a practice of inveigling students, whom they assassinated when their lubricity was satiated, the king had them brought to punishment and dealt with as though the popular scandal was well founded in fact. When Charles VI. ascended the throne the scene changed. This unfortunate monarch was not only himself weak and depraved, but his wife, Isabel of Bavaria, was more vicious still. The pair encouraged every practice that could shock modesty or outrage decency. The queen lived almost openly with her lover, the Duke of Orleans. The king, so long as he retained his reason, was a leading actor in the scandalous masquerades of the court, and narrowly escaped losing his life on one occasion when he disguised himself as a devil, and danced immodestly before the ladies of the court. Round his loins, as round those of his fellow-demons, a sort of girdle of tow had been fastened, and all the masqueraders were chained together. In the midst of their dances, some foolish person threw a lighted torch at them. Their girdles took fire, and all were burned to death except the king, whom the Duchess of Berri saved by courageously raising her skirts and throwing them over the burning monarch.

[Pg 109]Charles had had many mistresses in his youth. When he went mad, the physicians directed the queen to refuse to discharge her conjugal duty. Charles had enough of his former nature left to resent this privation. He even employed force, and succeeded at last in compelling his wife to resume her place in the royal couch. She contrived, however, to defraud him by hiring a pretty girl to take her place. It is said Charles never detected the fraud. His wife, meanwhile, gave the reins to her loose passions, and was known to have had at least a score of lovers.

A very striking picture of the manners of the time is afforded by the story of Agnes Sorel. She was, as is known, the mistress of Charles VII., a lady of good family, and, otherwise than as the king’s mistress, of spotless reputation. Her influence over the king she used for the best of purposes. It was she who roused him to make the efforts which eventually expelled the foreigner from France. Her private character was laudable: she was amiable, generous, kind, and true; yet when she visited Paris in company with the king, the crowd followed her whenever she appeared in the streets, insulting her, and calling her a prostitute in the grossest terms. The king lived with her eighteen years, but never ventured to acknowledge her publicly as his mistress. Of the four daughters she bore him, three only were legitimated by his successor.

Louis XI. had a seraglio and a colony of bastards before he became king, nor did he alter his mode of life when he assumed control of the kingdom. His favorites were usually chosen from the lowest class of his subjects, many of whom had gone through an apprenticeship for the king’s service in the houses of prostitution of the capital. Louis never pretended to bear them any affection; he used them as he used the men of letters who composed for his diversion the lewd tales which have reached us.

Charles VIII. appears to have been more virtuous than his predecessors, though, of course, he did not pique himself upon any conjugal fidelity. A story is told which reflects credit upon his character. It is said that during his campaign in Italy, when he retired to his chamber one evening, he found there a young girl of marvelous beauty in a state of complete déshabillé. She was kneeling and in tears when the king entered. On Charles inquiring the cause of her sorrow, she confessed that her parents had sold her to the king’s valet for the use of his majesty, and conjured Charles to spare her. The king was touched by her [Pg 110]distress. He inquired into the facts, and, finding that they were as she stated, and, farther, that she was betrothed to a youth of the neighborhood, he sent for him and married the young couple forthwith.

It appears certain that Charles’s death was caused by his indiscreet commerce with the sex. All the chroniclers state that he fell a victim to the indulgence of his passions, being frail of body and of feeble constitution.

The court of Louis XII. was purer than that of his predecessors, owing to the austere virtue of the queen. Louis himself had shared the profligacies of his family in his youth, but, on becoming king, he allowed his wife to regulate his household according to her principles. For the first time for many years, say the old chroniclers, prostitution was banished from court.

We shall have something to say of Francis I. in connection with syphilis, of which he was a conspicuous and an early victim. At the age of eighteen his mother stated that he had been punished where he sinned. The misfortune did not operate as a warning. His life was notoriously dissolute at a time when profligacy was so much the rule that it was hardly likely to be noticed. Brantome asserts positively[188] that his expedition to Italy was prompted by the desire to make acquaintance with a courtesan of Milan whose charms Admiral Bonnivet had extolled. Previous to his time, it seems, there had always been attached to the court a body of prostitutes for the use of the courtiers. Francis suppressed this body, and actually invited the ladies of the court to take their place. Brantome reviews this policy, and while he praises it in view of the “joyous pastimes” to which it led, he is bound to acknowledge that it produced the greatest immorality ever known in France. The ladies of the town followed the example of those of the court, and but little was wanting but that every woman in France became a prostitute.

It was the custom during this reign for the king to invite all his courtiers and their wives and daughters to lodge at the royal palaces from time to time. The ladies had apartments by themselves, and to each room the king had a key. We are assured that the husbands, fathers, and brothers of ladies who refused to submit to the royal demands had but little chance of retaining their offices. If they had been guilty of maladministration or peculation, as was the case with most of them, they could hope[Pg 111] for pardon only through the complaisance of their female relatives. The story of M. de St. Vallier, who was reprieved on the scaffold in payment for the favors which his daughter, the beautiful Diana of Poictiers, had granted to the king, is too well known to need repetition here.

It was the boast of Francis that he had always respected the honor of the ladies of the court, and the boast was just, from his point of view. His visits to his mistresses were always made in a mysterious manner, and at night. Even to the Duchess of Etampes, who was his acknowledged mistress and procuress for a period of nearly twenty years, he never behaved in public in a manner to compromise her reputation. In private he was not so scrupulous. When this lady’s husband disturbed the king one evening, Francis drew his sword on him, and threatened to kill him instantly if he dared to reveal what every one knew, or to punish the wife at whose adultery he had connived for years. His idea seems to have been that words alone constituted the sin of debauchery. On one occasion he took all the ladies of the court to see the royal deer in the rutting season; but when a gentleman ventured a very obvious pleasantry on the scene, he exiled him from court for life.

His death has been frequently described. Some writers imply, by their silence, doubts of the authenticity of the story of La Belle Ferronnière; but it rests on very tolerable evidence. This lady, who was uncommonly beautiful, was the wife of a lawyer or a merchant (the authorities do not agree on the point). The king solicited her favors, but, strange to say, was met with a positive refusal. On consultation with the court lawyers, however, Francis was informed that he could, by the exercise of his royal prerogative, enjoy the company of any woman he pleased, and the Ferronnière was accordingly notified that the king commanded her to yield to his desires. She confided the order to her husband, who, on reflection, counseled her to submit. Meanwhile Ferronnière himself used his best endeavors to catch a syphilitic disease, which he communicated to his wife. She gave it to the king, who died of it after much suffering.

Henry II. had the merit of fidelity, not to his wife, but to his mistress. The latter was the famous Diana de Poictiers, whose successful intercession with Francis I. on her father’s behalf has been already noticed. Brantome asserts that she did not emulate the constancy of her royal lover, saying that in her youth she had[Pg 112] “obliged many persons.” He tells a story which, if true, reflects credit on the temper of the king. Visiting his mistress one day, he surprised her in the company of a courtier named Brissac, who had only time to hide himself under the bed. After spending some moments with Diana, the king asked for some refreshments. Some boxes of confectionery were brought him, and in the midst of his meal he took a box and threw it under the bed, saying, “Halloo, Brissac, every body must live!” Diana lost no portion of her lover’s heart in consequence of her infidelities. This she owed in some degree to her extraordinary beauty, which she preserved so late in life that it was commonly reported she was in the habit of using soap made of liquid gold. Henry was proud of his mistress, and never concealed their liaison. He had his arms interwoven with hers on many public buildings and pieces of plate. He used constantly to ride through the streets with the beautiful Diana on his crupper; and he showed her so marked a preference over his wife that judicious courtiers never made the mistake of courting the latter.

But the orderly life of the king was not imitated by the court. According to Brantome and Sauval, the excesses of the age of Francis were aggravated under Henry. It was rare, says the former, that ladies presented their virginity to their husbands; and husbands who objected to the intimacy of their wives with “kings, princes, noblemen, and others of the court,” were eschewed from society. A woman was held to be virtuous because she begged her lover to wait till she was married to gratify his desires; married women who retained their love for the same galant for several years were considered models of purity. Brantome intimates distinctly that ordinary debauchery fell short of the desires of the courtiers; incest, sodomy, and similar enormities could alone satiate the passions of the old debauchees of the day.

The same writer partially explains the spread of vice by saying that within the last half century the ladies of France had acquired the arts of Italy; nor is it doubtful that with the Medicis many of the monstrous vices which have been peculiar to Italy ever since the age of Imperial Rome were imported into France. We hear of all kinds of instruments of debauchery; of lewd books and lewd pictures; of indecent sculptures and bronzes being sold without let or hinderance in the stores of Paris. It was the age of Aretino; and besides that famous or infamous writer, a number of other Italians had competed for the prize of lewdness in [Pg 113]composition. Poets, painters, sculptors, seemed to try how far art could be prostituted. Cellini, Leonardo da Vinci, Giulio Romano, Nicollo dell’ Abate, and, indeed, almost all their contemporaries, debased their genius by the execution of indecent works. Many of these found their way to Paris. When Pope Clement VII. undertook to prosecute the authors of indecent works, whether in letters or art, most of the compositions that were endangered by his bull were transported to France. Brantome alludes to many of them as being quite common in his time. He describes, for instance, a silver goblet on which the most indecent scenes were graven, and which a nobleman of the court always obliged the ladies who visited him to use at table. Other noblemen had their rooms painted in fresco in similar taste. It is stated that Anne of Austria caused three hundred thousand écus worth of frescoes of this kind to be removed from the ceilings of the palace at Fontainebleau.[189] But in the reign of Henry II. it does not appear that any one was ever prosecuted for dealing in this kind of merchandise.

During the three following reigns, it was Catharine of Medicis who gave the tone to the court, and really ruled the kingdom. All historians concur in stating that she used prostitution as the mainspring of her policy. She had a court of sometimes two to three hundred ladies of honor, whom she employed to worm out the secrets of the politicians of the day. They were known as the Queen’s Flying Squadron, and it appears they performed their duties successfully; of course, at the cost of whatever virtue or decency the court still retained. Brantome is still our authority for asserting that they introduced a new feature of debauchery; they took the initiative in affairs of this kind, and instead of yielding to the entreaties of lovers, it was they who pressed their lovers to meet them half way. He likewise informs us that they aided the establishment in France of other vices which had hitherto been peculiar to Southern and Eastern climates, by the revival of practices which had been common among the hetairæ of Athens.

It has been asserted that Catharine willfully tutored her children in habits of debauchery, in order to divert their minds from politics, and retain control over the kingdom, but this scandal does not appear to rest on authentic evidence. It is unquestionable, however, that Charles IX., the author of the massacre of St. [Pg 114]Bartholomew, lived in incestuous intercourse with his sister Margaret, and there seems no reason to doubt the truth of the story that Catharine more than once entertained the king and court at a banquet at which nude females served as waiters.

Perhaps the best idea of the morals of the time can be obtained from the adventures of the Margaret just mentioned, who married Henry IV., King of Navarre, and afterward King of France. It is said that at the age of eleven she had two lovers, both of whom claimed to have robbed her of her virtue. Marrying the King of Navarre, she found means to leave her husband and reside at Paris, whose air suited her better than the country. Here her debaucheries were a common theme of scandal, her lovers being counted by the score. Happening at last to give birth to a child which mysteriously disappeared, her brother Henry III. sent her to her husband in a quasi-disgrace. Henry of Navarre refused to cohabit with her. The king vainly endeavored to reconcile the couple. With more zeal than tact, he used as an argument with his cousin that the mother of the King of Navarre had not herself led an irreproachable life. At this Henry burst into a laugh, and remarked to the envoy that the king was very complimentary in his letters, his majesty having in the first described the vices of the wife, and in the second alluded to the frailties of the mother.

He persisted in refusing to receive Margaret, and she took refuge in the little town of Agen, but no sooner began to lead her usual life there than the people rose and expelled her. She found a second refuge in the fortress of Usson, and there she lived twenty years in a sort of prison which she converted into a brothel. She was debarred from the society of men of fashion and courtiers, but for her purposes, servants, secretaries, musicians, and even the peasants of the neighborhood answered as well, and of these there was no lack. Returning to Paris in her old age, she did not alter her course of life. She became outwardly devout, and established a nunnery and monastery near her hotel; the latter, the people said, in order to have monks always at hand; but the list of her lovers remained undiminished to the very verge of her death.[190]

Nor did her husband present any striking contrast to his wife, though he reflected so severely upon her in the work published under the title Le divorce Satirique. Bayle remarks that, had he[Pg 115] not expended so large a portion of his energy in the pursuit of sensual pleasures, he would have been one of the greatest heroes of history.[191] He was profuse and indiscriminate in his attachments; duchess or farmer’s daughter, it was all the same to him. He changed his mistress once a month at least. As an exception to this rule, his affection for Gabrielle d’Estrées, a very lovely creature, whom he shared with the Marquis of Bellegarde, and who bore him, or them, three children, lasted several years. He was not faithful to her, and made no secret of his infidelities, but he loved her passionately. On one occasion he left his army in the midst of a campaign, disguised himself as a peasant, and traveled through the enemy’s country to meet her. He once went to see her, but was stopped at the door with the announcement that Bellegarde was with her. His first impulse was one of rage. Drawing his sword, he rushed toward the door, but stopped half way, and saying, “No, it would make her angry,” he returned home. Gabrielle was a very beautiful and charming person. She was in the habit of having herself painted in a state of perfect nudity, with her children playing around her.

When she died, Henry proposed to replace her by Mademoiselle D’Entragues, whose beauty had made some sensation at court. Negotiations were opened with the lady, who dutifully placed the matter in the hands of her family, and father, mother, and brothers began to treat with the king for the prostitution of their daughter and sister. They asked a hundred thousand crowns. The king thought the sum large, and offered fifty thousand, but the family refusing to give way, he acceded to their demands. They then added that they would like to have a promise of marriage, conditioned upon the lady’s bearing a male child within a year. To this likewise Henry agreed, in spite of Sully’s remonstrances; and Mdlle. D’Entragues became the acknowledged mistress of the king. It need not be added that the promise of marriage was never fulfilled.

Some time afterward Henry fell in love with a young lady who was betrothed to Marshal Bassompierre. As ardent as ever, he sent for the marshal, explained his feelings, and ordered Bassompierre to renounce his claims. The marshal obeyed, and Henry married the lady (who was a Montmorency) to the Prince of Condé. The marriage was hardly over before the king opened negotiations with the bride. It will be scarcely credited that the[Pg 116] emissary he employed was the mother of the Prince of Condé, who left no means untried to effect the dishonor of her son. The prince, of less complacent temper than most other courtiers, refused to allow his wife to become the king’s mistress. He removed her from France, and, just as Henry was about to send after her, the assassin Ravaillac freed Condé from the danger.

The disorders of Henry III., the predecessor of the King of Navarre, are shamefully notorious. There was a time during his reign when, for the same reason which induced the establishment of Dicteria at Athens, prostitution almost seemed a desirable institution at Paris. In his youth he had been a famous seducer of the ladies of honor. An anecdote of his life at this period not only reveals the tone of the court, but happily shows that depravity was not so universal as might be imagined. When Henry was chosen King of Poland, he was anxious to settle his mistress, Mdlle. de Chateauneuf, by finding her a husband. He applied to a courtier, the Provost of Paris, M. de Nantonillet, but received the scathing reply that “M. de Nantonillet would not marry a prostitute till the king had established brothels in the Louvre.”

It is best, perhaps, to throw a veil over the later stories of Henry III., his mignons, and the frightful infamies that were practiced in Paris in his time. They may be divined from the fact that Brantome mentions some orgies in which the king and a party of friends, male and female, stripped themselves naked, and tried to place themselves on a level with the brute creation, as rather redeeming instances of his sensuality.

We shall take occasion hereafter to follow the history of the court from Louis XIII. to modern times. Meanwhile, some features of society bearing on prostitution in the age we have sketched must be briefly noted.

It is asserted by all the chroniclers that the influence of the League (Ligue) was most pernicious. A sort of religious enthusiasm seems to have been kindled by the sectarian strife of the period, and practices which purported to be religious, but were only immoral, were encouraged by the highest authorities. Religious fanaticism ruled throughout France. Men and women walked naked in processions which were led by the curates. As was natural at an age of civil war, violence was freely used toward females by both of the contending armies. At every city that was taken, either by the Leaguers or the Huguenots, all the women,[Pg 117] married and single, were violated by the soldiery; such, at least, is the statement of a contemporary historian. Moreover, in the general confusion, no proper police was enforced either at Paris or elsewhere, and the windows of print-shops teemed with lewd pictures, which no one, says the historian, thought of having seized. It was, in fact, a period of anarchy. The Moyen de parvenir, by Beroalde de Venille, which has reached us, affords some criterion of the popular literature of the day. Aretino, text and plates, was much in vogue; and Sanchez and Benedicti left their lay rivals far behind in the composition of works which may contend for the palm of lewdness with Martial or Petronius.[192]

Throughout the Middle Ages, and, indeed, up to the middle of the seventeenth century, great complaint was made by the clergy of the indecency of the dress of the people of France. About the thirteenth century it became fashionable to adorn the toe of the shoe or boot with an ornament in metal; either a lion’s claw, or an eagle’s beak, or something of that kind. Some immodest person ventured to substitute a sexual image in bronze for the usual appendage, and the fashion soon became general. Women even adopted it, and all the best society of Paris soon exhibited the indecency on their feet. The king forbade their use by royal edicts,[193] and a special bull was fulminated against them by Pope Urban V.,[194] but the monstrous shoes held their ground against both, and were only disused when fashion set in a different direction. The Braguette was another enormity of the same character. Originally, it is said, the working-classes invented the idea of a small bag hanging between the knees in which a knife or other utensil could be carried. The fashion was adopted about the beginning of the fifteenth century by men of rank, and became immediately of an immodest nature. All the arts of fashion were called into requisition to give the braguettes the most novel and remarkable appearance, and every possible means was used to render them at once disgustingly indecent and extravagantly rich. They were attached to the dress with gay-colored ribbons, and, when the wearer was a rich man, were adorned with jewels and lace. At the time Montaigne wrote, braguettes had almost gone out of vogue: they were worn only by old men, who, in the language of the essayist, “make public parade of what can not decently be mentioned.” Women, on their side, invented hoops, bustles, and low-necked[Pg 118] dresses. The libraries contain a large collection of works written by moralists and preachers of the time against these “indecent abuses” of the ladies. As they are all in use at the present time, we may perhaps conclude that the old French moralists were unnecessarily alarmed; but it is likely that the form of the bustle was by no means as modest as that of modern crinoline skirts, and that the fashion of ladies’ drawers had not yet come in. Such, at least, is the inference from some of the criticisms they provoked. The exposure of the breasts was checked for a time under Louis XIV., but the reform was evanescent, and the custom against which churchmen thundered in the sixteenth century survives to-day.

Some allusion has already been made to the theatre. Theatricals were forbidden by the early French kings, at the instigation of the Church, but the prohibition was evaded by the performance of scenes from the Gospel dramatized. From the remains of these Moralities it would appear that they were always coarse and often immoral. The devil always played a prominent part, and would have been inconsistent had he not outraged decency. Under Henry III. women began to appear on the stage, and farces very broad in ideas and language began to be played instead of the old Moralities. We are led to believe that nothing was too scandalous to be represented on the stage; in fact, the idea seems to have been to crowd as much sensuality and vice into the farces as possible. Scarcely any incident of life was too indecent to be either portrayed or described, and if the latter, the description was given in the most undisguised language. It is altogether impossible to transcribe scenes of this nature. Enough to say that women were made to go through the pains of childbirth on the stage; husband and wife went to bed in presence of the public; and when modesty prompted the retirement of actors for causes still more indecent, a colleague rarely failed to explain why they had retired and what they were doing behind the curtain. Many of La Fontaine’s most grivois stories were taken from farces which were once acted with copious pantomime before the ladies of Paris. Even as late as the reign of Henry IV., plays of this character were commonly acted at Paris at the Hotel de Bourgogne. It was usual for the star actor to speak a prologue or an interlude, which was invariably recommended by its indecency. We have some of the titles of these prologues, and they were generally of the same character as the one on the question, Uter vir an mulier se magis delectet in copulatione.

[Pg 119]Of the number of regular prostitutes exercising their calling in France during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries no correct estimate can be made. It was undoubtedly large. During the religious wars, a writer on the side of Protestantism undertook to draw up a statement of the number of prostitutes and lewd women whose vices were chargeable to the clergy. His estimate is, of course, open to suspicion, as being a sectarian performance; but, allowing for great exaggeration, it will still appear alarming. He calculates that there were at that time one million of women, more or less, who led habitually lewd lives, and ministered to the passions of the clergy. These were independent of the married women who were led into adultery, and of the pimps and procuresses who were in clerical pay.[195]

To return to the laws regulating prostitution, it appears that a serious effort was made to put it down under the sovereignty of Catharine of Medicis. An ordinance of Charles IX., dated 1560, prohibited the opening or keeping of any brothel or house of reception for prostitutes in Paris. For a short period it seems that the practice was actually suppressed, and the consequence is said to have been a large increase of secret debauchery. A few years after the passage of the ordinance, a Huguenot clergyman named Cayet proposed to re-establish public brothels in the interest of the public morals, but the authorities of his Church assailed him so vehemently that his scheme fell to the ground without having had the benefit of a public discussion, and he was himself driven to join the Romanists. In 1588 an ordinance of Henry III. reaffirmed the ordinance of 1560, and alleged that the magistrates of the city had connived at the establishment of brothels. Ordinances of the provost followed in the same strain, and all prostitutes were required to leave Paris within twenty-four hours. An ordinance dated 1635 was still more rigorous. It condemned all men concerned in the “traffic of prostitution” to the galleys for life, and all women and girls to be “whipped, shaved, and banished for life, without any formal trial.” As might be imagined, this ordinance was alternately disregarded and made to serve the purposes of private malice. Men who wished to revenge themselves on their mistresses accused them of being prostitutes; but it does not appear that the actual supply was ever seriously diminished.

[Pg 120]

CHAPTER VIII.

FRANCE.—HISTORY FROM LOUIS XIII. TO THE PRESENT DAY.

We have thus sketched the history of prostitution in France from the commencement of the French nation to the reign of Louis XIII. This chapter will complete the subject to the present day.

The ordinance of 1560, prohibiting prostitution in any shape, and granting twenty-four hours only to prostitutes and their accomplices to evacuate Paris, remained in force till late in the eighteenth century. Though, so far as the general traffic went, it was a dead letter, it enabled the police authorities to imprison or exile unruly prostitutes from time to time, and was the basis of the high-handed measure by which the colonists of Canada were first supplied with wives direct from the Paris stews. It also enabled noblemen and officials connected with government to avenge themselves upon unfaithful mistresses, and to exercise a convenient sort of tyranny over the pretty lingères and sewing-girls of the metropolis.

In 1684 Louis XIV. made some alteration in the laws governing prostitution. He provided prisons for the detention of prostitutes, and armed the lieutenant of police with authority to correct them; and he drew a broad line of distinction between dissolute women who were not actually upon the town and the class of prostitutes proper.

A farther police regulation on the subject was made in 1713. By that measure a sort of regularity was introduced into the procedure against courtesans and lewd women. They were definitely divided into two classes: women who led dissolute lives without being precisely prostitutes, and prostitutes proper. The police were authorized to interfere against both on complaint of any [Pg 121]person who charged them with outraging public decency. In the case of prostitutes the proceeding was summary. The culprit was summoned, condemned on slight evidence, and sentenced either to exile, imprisonment, or, more rarely, to a whipping or the loss of her hair. With regard to dissolute women who were not regular prostitutes, the authorities proceeded more cautiously. They were entitled to all the privileges of other accused persons, sentences rendered against them being subject to appeal; and, when found guilty, the penalty inflicted was usually a fine. Occasionally, the houses where they had carried on their calling were closed, the furniture was thrown out of the window, and a crier proclaimed their disgrace throughout the city.

Monsieur Parent-Duchatelet, who had the patience to read all the records of proceedings against prostitutes in the city of Paris from 1724 to 1788, infers the law from these instances of its application, and concludes: (1.) That, notwithstanding the ordinance of 1560, brothels were licensed by the police. (2.) That prostitutes were never troubled except on complaint of a responsible person. (3.) That brothels were disorderly; that riots, rows, and murders not unfrequently occurred within their walls or in their neighborhood. (4.) That the punishment was left to the discretion of the magistrate. (5.) That the penalties inflicted were lighter toward the close of the period examined. (6.) That certain streets in Paris were wholly occupied by prostitutes.[196]

Probably with a view to enlarge the discretion of the magistrates, a new ordinance was passed in 1778, renewing, in peremptory language, the prohibitive provisions of the enactment of 1560. This ordinance, which bears the name, and probably emanated from the office of Lenoir, the police magistrate, declares that no public woman shall hereafter try to catch (raccrocher) men on the wharves or boulevards, or in the streets or squares of Paris, under penalty of being shaved, whipped, and imprisoned; that no householder shall let his house, or any part thereof, to prostitutes, under penalty of five hundred francs fine, and that boarding-house keepers shall allow no men and women to sleep together without seeing their marriage contract.

The most curious feature in connection with this ordinance was the fact that it was not intended or held to interfere with established brothels, which the government continued to license as before. It was intended to affect private prostitutes only. We[Pg 122] may judge of its success from the general statement that, soon after its passage, the streets and squares were thronged with prostitutes. No woman or modest person could walk the garden of the Tuileries at night. Lewd women showed themselves at their windows in a state of nudity, and shocked public decency still more glaringly by their postures in the streets. It was, in fact, so complete a failure, that two years after its establishment it was practically repealed by a new police regulation.

In 1791, the whole body of the legislation of the monarchy was abolished, and in its stead the republican Legislature enacted a code which was the only law in force in France. That code making no reference to prostitution, it was inferred by lawyers that women had a natural right to prostitute their bodies if they chose, and accordingly the traffic became open and free. The consequence of this was a tremendous development of the vice. Prostitutes established themselves in every street, and monopolized every public place. Paris became scarcely habitable for modest women. An outcry against this monstrous state of things reached the Executive Directory in 1796, and that body sent a message to the Council of Five Hundred, begging them to legislate on the subject. The message was clear and able, calling upon the council to define “prostitute,” and suggesting that “reiterated offenses legally proved, public notoriety, or arrest in the act,” appeared to constitute proof of prostitution. It seemed to call for penalties, in the shape of imprisonment, on women exercising this calling. But neither this suggestion, nor a subsequent project of the same character was ever carried into effect. Napoleon swept the Palais Royal of the prostitutes who had made it their head-quarters, and broke up some of the greatest brothels by harassing their inmates in various ways, but he made no law on the subject.

In 1811, M. Pasquier, Prefect of Police, drafted a bill for the regulation of prostitutes, but it never went into effect, and the imperial ordinance drawn by the prefect has been lost. Five years later, M. Anglis, Prefect of Police under Louis XVIII., attempted the same thing with no better success, the law officers of the crown seeming to have supposed that the general provisions of the articles of the code on public decency and “outrages upon public morality” covered the particular case of prostitution. The last efforts that were made in France to obtain a law for the regulation of prostitution were in 1819 and 1822, when the ministry seriously thought of settling the whole matter by a royal [Pg 123]declaration. These endeavors had the same fate as the former ones, leading to no result.

A general impression has prevailed of late years that the moral sense of the public would be shocked by any legislative act licensing so great a sin as prostitution; and as the government has assumed, without constitutional warrant, the control and regulation of prostitutes, and has exercised as full authority as it could have done had there been a law on the subject, the deficiency has hardly been felt. A conscientious official has occasionally experienced qualms of conscience at acting without legal warrant; the government has sometimes been frightened by a menace of resistance from some bold lawyer, but no trouble has ever actually arisen, and custom now gives to the police regulations the force of law.

We shall review these regulations in another place; meanwhile a glance must be cast upon the progress of morality in France during the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries.

The gallantry which distinguished the court of Henry IV. became more refined, though not less criminal, under Louis XIII. Adultery and seduction were every-day matters in the circles which educated Mary, Queen of Scots, and developed the wit of the author of Grammont’s Memoirs. Every lady was presumed to have a lover; every man of fashion more than one mistress. Richelieu boasted that no lady could reject him when he chose to throw the handkerchief, and Mazarin was accused of intrigues with the queen herself. Louis did not blush to visit his mistresses at the head of his guards, and in all the pomp of royalty; and, as an instance of their influence over him, it has been stated that it was at the request of Mademoiselle de la Fayette that he consented to visit his wife nine months before the birth of Louis XIV.

A race of women had sprung up, under the teaching of the Medicis, who combined political skill with licentious propensities, and conducted state and amorous intrigues with equal ardor and success. The ladies who surrounded Anne of Austria and Mary of Medicis, and that brilliant circle which has been described in the Memoirs of Madame de Longueville and Madame de Sablé, were undoubtedly as dissipated as they were refined; their virtues were in inverse proportion to their wit. Paris no longer witnessed the Louvre converted into a royal preserve, or detestable debauchees haunting its dark passages; but there reigned throughout the[Pg 124] court an air of polished sensuality, which, in point of fact, must have been at least equally prejudicial to good morals.

Louis XIV. imbibed the spirit of the age during his minority. Royal mistresses had become a recognized institution, fathers and husbands rather courting than dreading dishonor at the hands of the king. After having dispensed his favors with some impartiality among the ladies of the court, he discovered, apparently to his surprise, that one of them, a charming girl, named Louise de la Vallière, really loved him. The only person who showed much annoyance at the warmth with which the king entered upon this new liaison was the Duchess of Orleans, Henrietta of England, the king’s sister-in-law, who seems to have expected that she would be the fortunate recipient of whatever crumbs might fall from the royal table. She was unable, however, to divert Louis from his purpose; La Vallière became his mistress, and bore him two children. When he grew tired of her, as he did soon after the birth of her second child, she retired into a convent, and expiated her fault by thirty years’ austere penitence.

The king then turned his attention to a lady of noble rank, the wife of the Marquis of Montespan, and in a business manner exiled the marquis to his estate, and lived with his wife. A woman otherwise virtuous, proud, and queenly, she lived with the king for fourteen years, and bore him eight children. These children were openly legitimated by Louis, and were married by him to members of the royal family. He even contemplated securing the throne to them, though they were thus doubly adulterine.

The last mistress of Louis XIV. was the famous Madame de Maintenon, the widow of the poet Scarron; a person of remarkable abilities, and old enough to have recovered from the passions which were said to have disturbed her youth. She was introduced to the king as the governess of his illegitimate children, and by her arts contrived not only to wean the king’s heart from his mistress, but even to alienate the children from their mother. For thirty-five years she wielded supreme control over Louis’s mind; and whatever may be said of her early life, and however harsh a judgment must be formed of her political measures, it must be allowed that, in general, her influence was exercised for the good of religion and morality. Under her direction the court became positively devout. Intrigues were concealed, not ostentatiously paraded before the public eye; and the ladies by whom she was surrounded were obliged to lead at least outwardly [Pg 125]decorous lives. She might not be able to check the monstrous practices of the Duke of Orleans; but much of the looseness of the court she could, and really did bring to an end. Her royal lover, who at first piqued himself upon rising as far above obligations of fidelity to his mistresses as he considered himself superior to political obligations to his people, resigned himself to the spiritual direction of the marquise, and allowed old age to assert its rights in condemning him to virtue. All things considered, the last twenty years of Louis XIV.’s reign was perhaps the most moral in the whole history of the monarchy.

This is well illustrated in the history of the literature of the day. The leading philosophers, writers, and poets of the age of Louis XIV. forbore to shock decency, and may be read to-day as safely as any modern work. Preachers—Bossuet, Massillon, Bourdaloue—exercised a potent influence over the tone of letters and society. Corneille, Racine, and their contemporaries provided the stage with a repertory that could never bring a blush to the cheek. Even Molière, who did occasionally let slip a joke of questionable propriety, for the pit’s sake, seems a daring innovator when he is contrasted with his predecessors. Decency is, in fact, one of the most striking characteristics of the literature of the age.

We may also date from the reign of Louis XIV. the final extinction of many of the old feudal rights which were at war with morality. Horrible as it may seem, there were parts of France where the custom allowed the seigneur to debauch the daughter of his vassal without obstacle or penalty. In some provinces it is said to have been customary for the seigneur to enjoy the first night of every girl married within his manor. In others, the peculiar authority of the seigneur over the serfs who were attached to the glebe was held to endow him with the right of using the bodies of their wives and daughters as he saw fit. No written custom justified these monstrous privileges, but frequent allusions to them in the old French writers show that in certain parts they were sanctioned by usage. Louis XIV. made it his especial business to break down the privileges of the nobility, and it was no doubt to the general police regulations he made for the government of the kingdom at large that the extinction of these rights was mainly due.

With the Regency the scene changes. The Duke of Orleans had long been one of the most depraved men in France. So long as Louis XIV. lived he had perforce observed a certain outward[Pg 126] decorum; but the death of the monarch, and the duke’s high-handed seizure of the regency, enabled him to give free scope to his propensities. He resided in the Palais Royal, and gave suppers there almost every evening to a select circle of roués and fast women, among whom Madame de Parabère long held the place of honor. The company not unfrequently varied the entertainment by the performance of charades and tableaux, among which the judgment of Paris was a favorite of the regent. The conversation of the guests was so gross as to shock all but the initiated, and when they separated they were generally all intoxicated.[197]

The most startling and horrible feature of these entertainments was the fact that the regent’s daughter, the Duchess of Berri, was almost always present. Her life was a romance. Married while a child to the Due de Berri, by her passionate temper and her levities she was the bane of her husband’s life. She embraced the infidel and licentious doctrines of the age in company with her father, and the pair were so fond of each other that the most horrible suspicions began to gain ground. They were dispelled for a time by the discovery of an intrigue between the duchess and her chamberlain, which so provoked the duke that he seized his wife by the hair and beat her. On his death, which occurred soon afterward, she gave the reins to her passion, and set an example of scandal. At the Luxembourg, where she had apartments, she exhibited the state of a queen, and lover succeeded lover with startling rapidity. At last she seems to have fallen in love with an officer of her guards, named Riom, whose only merit was youth. He subdued her. She became as docile and submissive to him as she had been intractable and haughty with her former lovers, and all Paris was talking of the transformation. After about a year of this liaison, she gave birth to a child. During the pains of childbirth she was not expected to live, and the curate of St. Sulpice was sent for in all haste to administer the extreme unction. The ecclesiastic happened to be a rigid champion of morality, and he refused to administer the rite till Riom had been dismissed from the Luxembourg. The duchess would not consent to part with her lover, and for many hours this strange conflict went on by the bedside of the failing woman. The curate was obstinate, however, and no sacrament was administered; but the duchess recovering, the regent used his authority, and sent Riom to join[Pg 127] his regiment. It killed his daughter. She invited her father to sup with her, and used all her eloquence to persuade him to let her marry Riom; but the regent remaining firm, she withdrew to her chamber, took to her bed, and died two days afterward.

In alluding to the regent’s mistresses, a word should be said of the famous Claudine du Tencin, whose adventures shed a flood of light on the morals of the day. She was a pretty girl, of respectable, if not noble family, living in a distant province. To escape from a marriage that was forced on her, she took refuge in a convent. Instead, however, of suiting her habits to her place of residence, she contrived to alter the mode of life at the convent so as to meet her desires, and it became famous for the gayety of its social entertainments and the liveliness of its inmates. One of the gentlemen who were allowed to share its hospitality was the poet Destouches. He was smitten with the pretty Claudine, who acknowledged the charm of his accomplishments, and, after a few months’ intimacy, gave birth to a male child, who became the mathematician and philosopher D’Alembert.

Claudine had a brother, an abbé, a man of considerable cunning, and no principle whatever. He persuaded his sister to go to Paris and seek her fortune. He obtained an introduction for her to the regent, and Claudine contrived to produce such an impression that she was soon installed as titular mistress. This did not last long, however. One day, venturing to remonstrate with the regent on his loose mode of life, his habitual drunkenness, etc., her lover lost patience with her, and suddenly summoned a crowd of his courtiers from the ante-chamber to witness the déshabillé and listen to the sermons of madame. In revenge, Claudine rushed out and became the mistress of the prime minister, Cardinal Dubois. Her brother, the abbé, got a bishopric for his share in the transaction.

At the death of Dubois, Madame du Tencin gave him as successor the Duke of Richelieu, the most famous lady-killer of the court. But she was growing old, and ambition had more attractions for her than love. She became an authoress, wrote religious works and novels, patronized letters, and brought out Montesquieu’s Spirit of Laws. Her salons became the most fashionable in Paris. It was not a little singular that she should have been the head of one literary clique, and her son, D’Alembert, the chief of another—neither positively jealous of the other, yet living on terms of cold reserve.

Louis XV. trod in the steps of his great-grandfather and the[Pg 128] regent. His amours attracted no attention, being evanescent and trifling, till he quarreled with the queen, and bestowed the title of mistress on the Countess of Mailly. This lady had four sisters, three of whom had reached womanhood. They were jealous of their sister’s success, and solicited a share of the royal favor. The monarch graciously granted their prayer, and admitted all four into an associate liaison. He was much hurt when the fifth, at the age of sixteen, declined an interest in this delectable partnership. Falling ill soon afterward, he allowed his confessor to frighten him into parting with the sisters, and when he got well replaced them by the wife of the subfarmer of the finances, Madame le Normand d’Etoiles. He created her Marquise de Pompadour, and compelled the court to recognize her. Happily for him, she was a person of moderate taste and habits. She patronized letters, was the friend of Voltaire, and seems to have employed her influence over the king for his advantage and that of the public. It is recorded, as an instance of the heartlessness of the king, that when she died he stood at a window to watch her funeral pass, and noticing that it was a rainy day, observed, with a smile, “that the marquise had bad weather for her long journey.”

Her successor was Madame Dubarry, a common prostitute, fished out of the Paris stews in consequence of her skill in debauchery. Her real name was Vanbernier; but, in order to present her at court, a nobleman of the name of Dubarry was persuaded to marry her. It was under her reign that the Parc aux Cerfs (in which Madame de Pompadour was said to have had a hand), reached its highest point of celebrity and eclat. This was a royal seraglio filled with the most beautiful girls that could be bought or stolen. The monstrous old debauchee who filled the throne of France had a weakness for very young girls, fifteen being the age at which he preferred his mistresses. Under the skillful directions of Dubarry, a host of pimps and purveyors searched France for young girls to suit the king’s fancy. Where negotiations could not be effected, the prerogative was stretched, and the police authorities judiciously blinded; but we are led to believe that it was seldom necessary to resort to these violent measures, and that French fathers of that day seldom made difficulties except about the sum to be paid. That the king was liberal may be inferred from the sum which this seraglio cost him—not less than one hundred millions of francs. It was a large, handsomely furnished building at Versailles, giving every woman her separate[Pg 129] apartments. The king rarely visited each one more than three or four times; but, on the occasion of his first visit, he prided himself on observing the etiquette of a husband. He insisted on the poor child whom he was about to ruin kneeling down by the bedside, and saying her prayers in his presence. It need hardly be observed that the Parc aux Cerfs was the great reservoir from whence the brothels of the time derived their supply of recruits. After a residence of a few weeks or months, in case they became pregnant, the poor children were thrown out upon the world, and ruin was a necessity.

The last monarch of the old French line, the unfortunate Louis XVI., forms a bright contrast to his predecessors. His education had been severe, his principles were naturally strict. Placed upon the throne after the Revolution had become inevitable, his whole attention was devoted to the business of reigning, and attempting reforms which came quite too late. Neither he nor his wife ever gave rise to merited scandal.

The profligate character of the court was, however, sustained by the Orleans family and their connections. Philippe Egalité was a true descendant of the regent. On the very eve of the Revolution he indulged in orgies that were closely imitated from those of the Palais Royal.

Our sketch of the immoralities of the French court naturally ends here. Though the period of the Directory was marked by a general looseness in the best French society, and both Napoleon and Louis XVIII. set no example of conjugal fidelity to their subjects, yet vice was not exhibited so openly under them as it had been under former kings, and the laws of decency were not actually set at defiance. Their frailties were private matters, into which it is scarcely the duty of the historian to intrude. The same may be said of Charles X. and Louis Philippe. The former had, in his youth, been a sharer of many of the excesses of the Orleans family, but at the time he became king he was an old man, and could afford to lead a decent life. Louis Philippe had never afforded a theme for scandal, and as king he set an example of rigorous morality.

If we turn back now to the period of the Regency, we shall find letters sympathizing in the most marked manner with the court. Under the regime of severe etiquette and decency established by Louis XIV., authors respected the ear of innocence; under the brutal sway of the regent, and the lewd influence of the satyr Louis[Pg 130] XV., the old prostitution of literature was revived. Thus we find that the most successful authors of the day, such as Voltaire, handled themes grossly immoral in themselves, and rendered still more offensive by their mode of treatment. The most popular novel of the eighteenth century—Manon Lescant—the work, by the way, of an abbé, is the narrative of the adventures of a prostitute. Of all the romance writers of that age, no one was more widely popular or more generally read than Crebillon fils, whose works would almost fall into the hands of the police at the present time. Diderot, Mirabeau, Montesquieu, and, with few exceptions, all the most eminent men of France, prostituted their genius to the composition of erotic works which were widely read by women as well as men. Of the light poetry of the eighteenth century very little is fit for modern reading, the poets being, as a general rule, either dull or depraved. Nor were the arts behindhand. Frescoes differing but little from those which had adorned Fontainebleau under Francis I. again covered the walls of rich men’s houses; and the most fortunate painters of the day were those who could best outrage decency without positively suggesting the brothel. Lewd books and pictures were freely sold in Paris during the Regency, the reign of Louis XV., and the Revolutionary period. Napoleon burned all he could find, but there still remained enough to supply the demand almost ever since.

It should be noticed in connection with the state of morals in France during the second half of the eighteenth century, that the tendency of the philosophical doctrines which were then current was to undermine the respect paid to marriage and chastity. The former, being a sacrament, was assailed as part of the ecclesiastical system; the latter was conceived to be at war with the natural, and, therefore, the proper passions of mankind. Several of the philosophers left it to be inferred from their writings, or stated broadly, that promiscuous intercourse, or, at all events, unlimited facilities of divorce, were the natural destiny of the human race, and that the restrictions which have been imposed on sensual gratification had no warrant in reason or sound ethics. These foolish notions brought forth fruits after their kind. Under the Directory, prostitutes were received into certain societies, and ladies of fashion became prostitutes. Even under the Empire it was not unusual for a lady to request her husband to pay her a visit, as it was well, perhaps, to avoid questions of legitimacy arising at any future period.

[Pg 131]There was one branch of society in which morality had made great progress during the century: that was the Church. It still contained cardinals like Dubois, and bishops and abbés like Du Tencin, but the vast body of the country clergy led pure moral lives. This point is placed beyond a doubt by the silence of the parties opposed to the hierarchy when the Revolution broke out, and they were so disposed to assail the priesthood on every vulnerable point. It may be broadly stated that the vices which had infected the whole body of the clergy during the sixteenth century had disappeared by the eighteenth; despite the law of celibacy, the country curates were, as a rule, moral, austere, virtuous men.

CHAPTER IX.

FRANCE.—SYPHILIS.

It properly belongs to this chapter to allude to the rise and progress of the diseases termed syphilitic.

Whether they were of ancient date—whether the “shameful diseases” which have been mentioned in the chapter devoted to prostitution at Rome were the same as the modern syphilis—may be decided by the reader. It will suffice here to say that, throughout the Middle Ages, a species of disease, termed sometimes leprosy, sometimes pudendagra, appears to have prevailed in France as in other European countries, and to have chosen for its chief seat the organs of generation. It was not, however, till the close of the fifteenth century that public attention began to be generally directed to the subject of sexual disease.

We shall briefly enumerate the earliest notices of its appearance. When Charles VIII. entered Naples in 1495, he found the city suffering from a plague (syphilis) to which the prejudice of the natives gave the name of “French malady.” Italy, said the writers of the day, was attacked simultaneously by the French army and this new disease.[198] Most of the Italian writers accuse[Pg 132] the French of its introduction. Benevenis, however, says they got it from the Spaniards, and Guicciardini candidly admits that his countrymen were the real propagators of the malady. German physicians likewise traced its origin to Naples, and placed it about the year 1493,[199] ascribing it to an untoward planetary conjunction. The disease appeared at Barcelona in 1493, and in other parts of Spain in the following year.[200] But sixty years before, in 1430, public regulations had been made in London to prevent the admission of persons attacked with a disease very similar to syphilis into houses of prostitution, and requiring the police to keep constant watch over such as should show symptoms of this infirmitas nefanda.[201] The first authentic allusion to the disease in France is the ordinance of the Parliament of Paris, dated 1497, ordering all persons attacked by the “large pox” to vacate the city within twenty-four hours, and not to return till they were cured; providing a sort of hospital for those who can not move; and appointing agents to bestow four sols parisis on the exiles to pay for their journey.[202] This ordinance alludes to the disease having been prevalent for two years.

It may therefore be taken for granted that, whether syphilitic diseases had existed before or not, they prevailed to a very alarming extent throughout Europe at the close of the fifteenth century.

To prevent misconception, it may be as well to give the diagnostic signs of the “French malady” as furnished by Fracastor: “The patients were in low spirits, and broken down; their faces were pale. Most of them had chancres upon the organs of generation. These chancres were obstinate; when cured in one place they reappeared in another, and the work was never ended. Pustules with a hard surface appeared upon the skin, generally on the head first. On first appearing they were small, but gradually increased to the size of an acorn, which they resembled in shape. In some cases they were dry, in others humid; some were livid, others white and pale, others again hard and reddish. They burst after a few days, and discharged an incredible quantity of vile fetid humor. When they began to suppurate they became true phagedænic ulcers, consuming both flesh and bone. When they attacked the upper part of the body they gave rise to malign fluxions, which gnawed away the palate, or the windpipe, or the[Pg 133] throat, or the tonsils. Some patients lost their lips, others the nose, others the eyes, others the whole organs of generation. Many were troubled with moist tumors on the limbs, which grew as large as eggs or small loaves. When they burst, a white and mucilaginous liquor exuded from them. They were usually found on the legs and arms. Some were ulcerated, others again remained callous to the last. And, as if this was not enough, the patients suffered terrible pains, especially at night, not only in the articulations, but in the limbs and nerves. Some sufferers, however, had pustules without pains, others pains without pustules; but, in most cases, both occurred together. The patients were languid, had no appetite, desired to remain constantly in bed. The face and legs swelled. Some had a slight fever, but this was rare; others had severe headaches for which no remedy could be found.”[203]

At first, it seems, the faculty, strangely misapprehending its duties, refused to treat patients assailed by this new plague. As at Rome, they were left to the tender mercies of quacks, barbers, and old women. About the beginning of the sixteenth century, however, the extent of the mischief provoked sympathy from the physicians, and one or two treatises appeared on the subject. Sudorifics seem to have been the chief agent employed. Large use was made of holy wood (the wood of the lignum-vitæ-tree), which was imported from America for the purpose. It was doses of holy wood, in decoction, which are said to have saved the life of the great Erasmus.

After the passage of the law of 1497, a house in the Faubourg St. Germain was appropriated to the reception of the victims of syphilis; but there is no reason to believe that any attempt was made to treat them there. They were left to die, or to quack themselves. Eighteen years after, in 1505, the house in question being too small for the numbers of the sick, and it being clearly shown that syphilis was not contagious except by sexual intercourse or positive peculiar contact with the person afflicted, a new decree of Parliament appropriated funds for the construction of “a hospital for persons attacked by the large pox (les grands vérolés),” and directed that they should be properly cared for.[204] This decree was never carried into effect. Thirty years afterward the condition of the sick was far worse than it had ever been, they being left to die in the streets. A new decree, in 1535, appointed commissioners to choose a locality for a hospital; and, notwithstanding some [Pg 134]opposition from the religious authorities, they performed their task. A small hospital was appropriated to syphilitic patients, and persons suffering from itch, epilepsy, and St. Vitus’s dance. It was soon filled, and several patients were thrust into the same bed. Owing to mismanagement on the part of the directors, it was short of linen, lint, and medicine. The Parliament interfered, but without success; and, in despair, the unfortunate sufferers contrived to effect an entrance into the hospital general, the Hotel Dieu. They were soon admitted on the same terms as other sufferers; but, as the establishment was far too small to accommodate all who sought refuge there, they were thrust four and five together into the same bed, and persons with syphilitic diseases lay by the side of men in contagious fevers, and others with broken legs and arms.

The Parliament interfered a second time. The municipal officers of Paris were assembled, and called upon to provide a hospital for venereal cases; but for many years the strenuous opposition of the Hotel Dieu neutralized all the efforts that were made. It was not till 1614 that the project of the Parliament was realized, and a syphilitic hospital actually opened.

Up to this time, that is to say, for a period of a century and a quarter, persons attacked by venereal disease were left to the care of Providence. Males could, with some exertion, occasionally obtain admission to the Hotel Dieu, where they often contracted new diseases without getting rid of the old; but of females, not a word had yet been spoken. No one in that hundred and twenty-five years had ever raised a voice to plead on behalf of the prostitutes; it never seems to have occurred, even to the Parliament which had so much sympathy for the pauvres vérolés, that the women likewise deserved pity and attention.

We possess no information with regard to the treatment used in this new hospital. It is certain, however, that, in obedience to the law of its foundation, patients were soundly whipped when they entered and when they left it, by way of punishing them for having contracted the disease. In 1675 the managers of the hospital declared that this practice deterred many sick persons from coming forward and confessing their condition; but it prevailed, apparently, for a quarter of a century afterward.

About the middle of the seventeenth century, under the reign of Louis XIV., a hospital prison, named the Salpétrière, was established for the reception of prostitutes; but, by a strange inconsistency, in 1658 it was closed to women suffering from syphilis[Pg 135] (femmes gatées), and physicians were directed to examine all women “who showed symptoms of syphilis on the face.” A few years’ experience showed the fallacy of this system. Diseased women were confined in the place; should they not be treated there? The physicians thought they should, and accordingly, though in violation of the rules of the establishment, a small room was appropriated to this class of patients. It appears that at this time a prostitute found some difficulty in obtaining admission to the Salpétrière; it being not unusual for unfortunate creatures to have themselves arrested for vagabondage, and to submit voluntarily to the whipping which the ethics of the day required in the case of females as well as males, in order to obtain medical treatment. It will be seen that our New York system can not claim the merit of originality. Prostitutes, in fact, flocked to the Salpétrière in such numbers that the room furnished by the connivance of the authorities was soon far too small to accommodate them. The hospital managers declared to the royal government that medical treatment was out of the question in so crowded an apartment, and that a putrid fever might be expected if better accommodations were not provided. In reply, the government placed at their disposal a ward in the hospital of Bicêtre.

This was in 1691. For nearly a hundred years afterward the severe cases of venereal disease were sent to Bicêtre, the milder ones kept at Salpétrière. Both establishments were a disgrace to humanity. The patients were cheated of the food allowed them, and supplied with cheap broth and cheese in its stead. No baths, and but few medicines were at their command. Their ward was filthy, close, and in ruin. Patients were often obliged to wait so long for medical attendance that their maladies became incurable. The air in which they lived was pestiferous, and no one could visit the hospital without being shocked at its aspect.[205] Medical men who saw the place expressed amazement that so many persons should exist in so small a room. Eight women slept in a bed, and in the room appropriated to those whose turn for treatment had not come, the patients slept by gangs, one half sleeping from 8 P.M. to 1 A.M., and the remainder from 1 A.M. to 7 A.M. The floor was covered with dirt and filth, and the windows were nailed down, for fear of their being broken if opened. There was but little linen, and that was in rags, and abominably dirty. One[Pg 136] hundred persons only were treated at a time, fifty men and fifty women. A new batch was admitted to treatment every two months, and, as the hospital always contained from three to four hundred sufferers, some cases remained six or eight months without any treatment whatever. Many died before they reached the hands of the doctors. The diet was the same for all. Those who had not been admitted to treatment were supplied with coarse bread, cheese, rancid butter, and (very seldom) a little meat. The surgeons of Bicêtre usually made fortunes in a short time.[206]

If any thing farther were needed to characterize the hospital of Bicêtre in the eighteenth century, it would be the rules in virtue of which no diseased person could claim admission until a complete year had elapsed from the time of their first application, and every diseased person was turned out, whether ill or well, after six weeks’ treatment. It was stated to M. Parent-Duchatelet that the average mortality was one hundred women and sixty men per annum.[207]

In 1787, Dr. Cullerier was appointed surgeon in charge of syphilitic cases at Bicêtre. He commenced his administration by denouncing the state of things he found there, and it is mainly from the memoires he addressed to the government that the preceding facts have been obtained. His representations seem to have met with but little success. In 1789, however, the bulk of the prisoners at Bicêtre were set free, and he immediately availed himself of the increased room to accommodate his patients.

The reform was so slight, or rather so vast a reform was needed, that the moment the attention of the republican government was drawn to the subject, it removed the syphilitic cases from the hospital of Bicêtre to the hospital of the Capuchins. That establishment was enlarged, and named the Hospital of the South (l’Hôpital du Midi). Gardens and baths were provided; ample wards permitted the classification of diseases; the food was of the best kind, and sufficient in quantity. This immense step was the work of the republican authorities.

It was, however, only the first of a series of reforms. Originally, men and women of all grades were admitted promiscuously. This led to grave inconveniences. The decorum of the hospital was frequently disturbed by the conduct of some of the men with regard to the prostitutes in the adjoining wards. To obviate this, a new hospital was set apart, under the reign of Charles X., for[Pg 137] the reception of male patients only. It is the Hospital de Lourcine.

A still more serious trouble arose from the mixture of prostitutes with other women who, from the infidelity of their husbands, hereditary disease, or other causes, found themselves infected with syphilis. For some time complaints had been made on this head, but an accident, which occurred in 1828, compelled the authorities to act. The daughter of a professional nurse, residing in the vicinity of Paris, caught syphilis from a child her mother was nursing, who had inherited the disease. It took the shape of a virulent chancre on the palate, and the girl was sent to the Hospital du Midi for treatment. She found herself thrust among the vilest prostitutes, whose language and sentiments shocked her so terribly that she insisted on leaving the hospital at once. The physician on duty declined to grant her request, whereupon the poor girl contrived to get into the yard, and threw herself into a well. She was drowned, and on an autopsy of her corpse it appeared that she was a virgin. This dreadful incident aroused the public mind. Hitherto the disposal of the prostitutes had been a subject of dispute between the administration of the hospital and that of the city, each wishing to thrust them upon the other. The government now interfered, and special accommodation was provided for prostitutes at the prison of Saint Lazare. The Hospital du Midi was devoted exclusively to such women as were not inscribed on the rolls of the police.

Before these distributions took place, when men and women were indiscriminately received at the Hospital du Midi, the average annual admissions, from 1804 to 1814, were 2700; from 1822 to 1828 it exceeded an average of 3100. Twenty years ago the mortality was said to be less than two per cent.; it was ten per cent. at Bicêtre.

At the Hospital du Midi, diseased persons who do not desire admission to the hospital are treated outside, all the medicines they require being furnished them free of charge.

It would appear, from stray allusions in various old ordinances, that some sort of medical office had been established in the eighteenth century by the government, for the purpose of affording gratuitous advice to prostitutes, and denouncing those who were diseased; but there exists no positive evidence of any such establishment or office. It was not till 1803 that a regulation was made by the prefect of police, requiring all public women to [Pg 138]submit to be visited by a physician appointed by him. The plan was a bad one, as the physician was paid by fees which he was authorized to exact; and it was rendered worse in practice by the dishonesty of the man chosen for the office, one Coulon. This individual made money and neglected his duties. The system was altered in 1810, and a dispensary established, with a strong medical staff, who were directed to visit all the prostitutes in Paris. This institution is still in existence; it will be further noticed in the next chapter.

When the dispensary was established, its medical officers were directed to offer to prostitutes the choice of being treated at home or going to the hospital. Almost all chose the former. The physicians then undertook to decide themselves which should go to the hospital and which remain in their houses. The results of their experience, and the policy it compelled them to adopt, are shown in the following table, which was compiled by Parent-Duchatelet:

The system of treating prostitutes at home was, in fact, given up. It was found they could not be compelled to take the medicines given them; and that, though laboring under the most severe disease, they would not abstain from the exercise of their calling.

The tables prepared by the sanitary office, or dispensary, at Paris, afford a clear view of the extent and progress of disease in that city. Of those which are furnished by M. Parent-Duchatelet, we shall take a few of the most striking. The following gives the aggregate disease for a period of twenty years:

[Pg 139]Other tables, apparently drawn with care, show that the proportion of disease to prostitutes varies widely in different years. In 1828 it was six per cent., that is to say, six out of every hundred prostitutes were diseased; but in 1832 it was barely three per cent. Four or five per cent. would seem a tolerably fair average.[209]

From another table compiled by the same author we gather that, during a period of eighteen years, January was found the most fatal month for prostitutes; next came August and September; while February, April, May, and July seemed seasons less favorable to disease. M. Duchatelet, however, candidly admits that he can trace the operation of no law here, and inclines to the belief that the variation is wholly due to chance.[210]

CHAPTER X.

FRANCE.—PRESENT REGULATIONS.

It remains to describe the state and system of prostitution at Paris at the present day. The vast importance of the subject will doubtless justify the length at which it must be treated.

It was usual, during the last century, to estimate the number of prostitutes in Paris at twenty-five or thirty thousand. Even as late as 1810, the number was said by good authority to be not less than eighteen thousand.[211] The police rolls show that these calculations were wide of the mark. According to them, the average number of prostitutes inscribed had risen, from about 1900 in 1814, to 3558 in 1832, the last year of which we have any record. Assuming that the number at present is 4500, or thereabouts, which would suppose an increase equal to that noted before 1832, the[Pg 140] prostitutes are one to every two hundred and fifty of the total population. Of these the city of Paris furnishes rather more than one third. The remainder come from the departments; those bordering on Paris being the most fruitful of prostitutes, and the north being largely in excess of production over the south.

The vast majority of these prostitutes are the children of operatives and mechanics. Of 828 fathers, there were

Whereas there were only

The inference drawn by M. Parent-Duchatelet from this is, that brothels are supplied from the classes of domestics and factory-girls; and that girls not bred to work rarely find their way into them. Rather more than one third of the fathers of these prostitutes were unable to sign their names.

Of the prostitutes born at Paris, about one fourth were illegitimate; of those born in the departments, one eighth were illegitimate.

Rather more than half the Paris prostitutes could not write their names; a degree of ignorance which argues very remarkable neglect on the part of parents, for at Paris every one may learn to write gratuitously, and a person who can not write will always experience difficulty in obtaining employment.

Nearly half the prostitutes were between the ages of twenty and twenty-six inclusive. One declared herself, or was proved to be, only twelve years old; thirty-four were over fifty; two were over sixty. On reference to the rolls of inscription, it appeared that the bulk of the prostitutes registered themselves between the ages of eighteen and twenty-two; but thirty-four were inscribed before the age of fourteen, which may be assumed to be the period of puberty in France, and a few after passing fifty.

[Pg 141]The following table shows the number of years during which the Paris prostitutes had exercised their calling at the time the inquiry was made:

M. Duchatelet made careful inquiries into the causes of prostitution. He admits that, the difficulty of obtaining trustworthy information on this head being very great, many errors may have found their way into his calculations. He gives them, however, for what they may be worth.

It appears that there were in Paris, in 1832, two hundred and twenty “tolerated houses”—that is to say, brothels. The rules regarding these are numerous. They can not be established in certain localities, such as the Boulevards, or other great thoroughfares. They must not be within one hundred yards of a church, or within fifty or sixty yards of a school, whether for boys or girls; of a palace or other public building, or of a large boarding-house. The proprietor of the house must have given his consent before the house can be used as a brothel. Two houses can not be established side by side, much less can they have the same entry. As a general rule, a preference is given to small, narrow streets, especially culs de sac, and to places where brothels have been established before.

With regard to the interior of these houses, they must contain a room for each girl; on no account are two prostitutes allowed[Pg 142] to occupy the same room, much less the same bed. Each room must, moreover, be amply provided with utensils, soap, and water, for ablution. No house of prostitution can have back or side doors, or in any way communicate with the adjoining buildings. No house can contain dark closets, or dark passages, or concealed hiding-places. In none of them can any trade or traffic be carried on.

With regard to the class of houses called maisons de passe (assignation houses), the police authorities require that in every such house two regular prostitutes, inscribed on the police rolls, shall live permanently. The object of this rule is to obtain a control and supervision over these houses. Before it was adopted the police was often embarrassed by denials of its authority to invade them. It is found that the prostitutes, being naturally hostile to the mistresses of the houses, will act as agents of the police in the event of any scandalous proceedings.

The windows of houses of prostitution must be roughed, as also must those of rooms where individual prostitutes live. They can only be partially opened. These regulations were made in consequence of the shocking scenes that were witnessed at the windows of brothels after the Revolution, naked women being the least of the scandals that used to be exposed.

No one can keep a house of prostitution in Paris without an authorization from the police. Men are never permitted to keep establishments of the kind. A woman who desires to open a house must apply in writing to the Prefect of Police. On receipt of her application, reference is made to the Commissary of Police of the ward to ascertain her character. If she has been condemned for crime or misdemeanor, her request is rarely granted. If she stands in the police books as a woman requiring supervision, she can not succeed. Nor can she obtain a license, under ordinary circumstances, unless she has been a prostitute herself. The reason of this regulation is obvious; no one but a prostitute understands the business thoroughly; and as the position of brothel-keeper is found to be the most demoralizing station in the world, it has been the policy of the Paris police to throw impediments in the way of persons not wholly depraved devoting themselves to so dangerous a calling. Furthermore, the applicant must have reached a certain age. She must also be of sober habits, and apparently possessed of sufficient force of character to be able to command a house full of prostitutes. She must possess a sum of[Pg 143] money sufficient to guarantee her against immediate failure, and she must own the furniture in the house she wishes to keep.

When all these conditions are fulfilled, the applicant receives a pass-book, in which the number of girls she is allowed to keep is specified. In this book she is bound to enter the name of every prostitute she receives, whether as a boarder or a transient lodger; her age, the date of her entry into her house, the date of her inspection by a physician, and the date of her departure from the house. A printed form in the beginning of the pass-book reminds the mistress of the house that she is bound, under heavy penalties, to inscribe on the police rolls every girl she receives within twenty-four hours of her arrival.

In the event of the neglect of these rules by the keepers of houses of prostitution, the license is revoked. It is understood that the police enforce this regulation with due rigor.

Much has been said and written about the manner in which the keepers of houses of prostitution obtain recruits. M. Parent-Duchatelet, whose sources of information were the best, gives it as his opinion that most of the prostitutes are obtained from the hospitals, especially the Hospital du Midi, where female venereal diseases are treated. It appears that this hospital and others are haunted by old women who have been prostitutes, and who, in their old age, eke out a livelihood by enticing others into the same calling. They soon discover the antecedents and disposition of every young girl they find in hospitals; and if she be pretty or engaging, she must either have much principle or careful friends to rescue her from the clutches of the old hags. While she lies ill on a bed of pain, the latter are constantly with her, and gain her friendship. They know the devices that are needed to impose on her simplicity, and not unfrequently are enabled to strengthen their promises by small donations in money, or a weekly stipend during her convalescence. For a pretty girl as much as fifty francs will be paid by a brothel-keeper. As the girls in France, with few exceptions, come to Paris to be cured when they have contracted disease from association with lovers, it seems quite likely that, as M. Parent-Duchatelet supposes, these hospitals are a fruitful source of prostitutes.

Other brothel-keepers have female agents in the country towns, who send them girls. One well-known woman, who kept for many years one of the largest establishments in France, employed a traveling clerk with a large salary. Some obtain boarders from[Pg 144] their own province or native city; others, who have followed a trade, get recruits from the acquaintances they made at the workshop. Latterly, it would seem, pimps have carried on their trade with unusual boldness and success. Some time since it was noticed that an uncommon number of girls arrived at Paris from Rheims. They all came provided with the name and address of the houses to which they were destined, and drove there from the stage-office. Information was sent to the police authorities of Rheims, and on their arrival the girls were sent back again. The design of the authorities was baffled for a while by the cunning of the pimps, who sent their recruits round by other roads; but the police finally triumphed by refusing, for a year or two, to inscribe any prostitutes from Rheims.

It is notorious, however, that the same traffic is carried on at the present day to an alarming extent between London and Paris, London and Brussels, and other large cities in the neighborhood. Several societies have been formed, and the police have made great exertions to suppress the trade, but without any particular success.

It is understood that the prostitutes of Paris receive nothing for their “labors” but their board, lodging, and dress. The latter is often expensive. In first-class houses it will exceed five hundred francs, which in female attire will go as far at Paris as five hundred dollars will in New York. The whole of the fees exacted from visitors goes to the mistress, and the girls are reluctantly permitted to retain the presents they sometimes receive from their lovers. They are usually in debt to the mistress, who, having no other means of retaining them under her control, hastens to advance them money for jewelry, carriages, fine eating, and expensive wines. No written contract binds them to remain where they are; they may leave when they please, if they can pay their debts; and the obligation they incur for the latter is one of honor only, and can not be enforced in the courts.

Houses of prostitution, when well conducted, are very profitable in Paris. It is estimated that the net profits accruing from each girl ought to be ten francs or more per day. Many keepers of houses have retired with from ten to twenty-five thousand francs a year, and have married their daughters well. The good-will of a popular house has been sold for sixty thousand francs (twelve thousand dollars).

We now come to the great feature of the Paris system: the [Pg 145]inscription of prostitutes in a department of the Prefecture of Police, called the Bureau des Mœurs. It seems that some sort of inscription was in use before the Revolution, but no law referring to it, or records of the rolls, can be found. Various systems were employed during the Republic and the Empire. The one now in use was adopted in 1816, and amended by a police regulation of 1828.

Prostitutes are inscribed either

When a girl appears before the bureau under any of these circumstances, she is asked the following questions, the answers being taken down in writing:

The answers to these inquiries suggest others, which are put at the discretion of the officials. Their practice is so great that they are rarely deceived by the women; M. Parent-Duchatelet affirms that they could tell an old prostitute merely by the way she sat down.

The interrogatory over, the girl is taken by an inspector to the Dispensary and examined, and the physician on duty reports the result, which is added to the inquiry. Meanwhile, the police registers have been consulted, and if the girl has been an old offender, or is known to the police, she is now identified.

If the girl has her baptismal certificate (extrait de naissance) with[Pg 146] her, she is forthwith inscribed, and registered among the public women of Paris. As prostitutes rarely possess this document, however, a provisional inscription is usually effected, and a direct application is made to the mayor of the city or commune where she was born for the certificate. This application varies according to the age of the girl. If she is of age it is simply a demand for the “extrait de naissance of —— ——, who says she is a native of your city or commune.” If, on the contrary, she is a minor, the application states that “a girl who calls herself ————, and says she was born at ——, has applied for inscription in this office. I desire you to ascertain the position of her family, and what means they propose to take in case they desire to secure the return of this young girl.”

It often happens that the family implore the intervention of the police; in that case the girl is sent back to the place whence she came. In many cases the family decline to interfere, and then the girl is duly inscribed on the register. She signs a document, in which she states that, “being duly acquainted with the sanitary regulations established by the Prefecture for Public Women, she declares that she will submit to them, will allow herself to be visited periodically by the physicians of the Dispensary, and will conform in all respects to the rules in force.”

Of course this procedure is occasionally delayed by falsehoods uttered by the women. It often used to happen that the mayors would report that no person of the name given had been born at the time fixed in their city or commune. In that case the girl was recalled, and made to understand that truth was better policy than falsehood. Girls rarely held out longer than a fortnight or so, and, at the present time, the number of false declarations is very small indeed. They seem satisfied that the police are an omniscient machine which can not be deceived.

When the girl is brought to the office either by a brothel-keeper or an inspector, the proceeding is slightly varied. In the latter case she has been arrested for indulging in clandestine prostitution, but she almost invariably denies the fact, and pleads her innocence. The rule, in this case, is to admonish her and let her go. It is not till the third or fourth offense has been committed that she is inscribed. When the mistress of a house brings a girl to the office, interrogatories similar to the above are put to her. If she has relations or friends at Paris, they are sent for and consulted. When the girl appears evidently lost, she is duly [Pg 147]inscribed; but if she shows any signs of shame or contrition, she is often sent home by the office at the public expense. It need hardly be said that when a girl is found diseased she is sent to hospital and her inscription held over. It occasionally happens that virgins present themselves at the office and desire to be inscribed; in their case the officials use compulsion to rescue them from infamy.

In a word, the Paris system with regard to inscriptions is to inscribe no girl with regard to whom it is not manifest that she will carry on the calling of a prostitute whether she be inscribed or not.

From the following table, prepared by M. Parent-Duchatelet from the records of a series of years, it appears that the mistresses of houses inscribe over one third of the total prostitutes:

The age at which girls can be inscribed has varied under different administrators. Under one it was seventeen, under his successor eighteen, under the next twenty-one years; but now the general rule is that no girl should be inscribed under the age of sixteen. Exceptions to this rule are made in the case of younger girls—of thirteen, fourteen, or fifteen, who lead a life of prostitution, and are frequently attacked by disease. From a regard to public health, they are inscribed notwithstanding their age.

Only second in importance to the subject of inscription is that of “radiation,” the obliteration of an inscription. This is the process by which a prostitute takes leave of her calling, throws off the control of the police, and regains her civil rights. At Rome, as has been shown already, no such formality as radiation was known to the law; once a prostitute, always a prostitute, was the Roman rule. This system did not long sustain the test of a Christian examination.

The policy of the French Bureau des Mœurs on this head is governed by two very simple maxims: 1st. The amendment of prostitutes ought to be encouraged as much as possible; 2d. But no prostitute should be released from the supervision of the police and the visits of the Dispensary physicians until there is reasonable ground for believing that her repentance and alteration of life are sincere and likely to be permanent.

A person desiring to have her name struck from the rolls of[Pg 148] public women must make a written application, specifying her reasons for desiring to change her mode of life, and indicating the means of support on which she is henceforth to rely. In three cases the demand is granted forthwith: 1st. When the girl proves that she is about to marry; 2d. When she produces the certificate of a physician that she is attacked by an organic disease which renders it impossible for her to continue the calling of a prostitute; and, 3d. When she has gone to live with her relations, and produces evidence of her late good behavior.

In all other cases the office awards a “provisional radiation.” For a period of time, which varies, according to circumstances, from three months to a year, the girl is still under the supervision of the police, such supervision being obviously secret and discreet. When the girl passes triumphantly through this period of probation, her name is definitely struck from the roll of prostitutes.

When a girl, after having her name thus struck out, desires to be inscribed afresh, her request is granted without delay or inquiry, it being wisely supposed that she has repented of her decision. A re-inscription also takes place when a girl, after radiation, is found in a house of prostitution even as a servant.

A prostitute is struck from the rolls by authority of the office when she has disappeared, and no trace of her has been found for three months.

M. Parent-Duchatelet gives the following table of radiations, which, taken in connection with the table already given of the number of prostitutes registered, shows the movement of reform:

Once inscribed, prostitutes are divided into three classes:

1st. Those who live in a licensed or “tolerated” brothel.

2d. Those who live alone in furnished rooms.

3d. Those who live in rooms which they furnish, and outwardly bear no mark of infamy.

[Pg 149]In the eye of the law there is no difference between the three classes; all are equally subject to police and medical supervision. Every girl that is inscribed receives a card bearing her name, and the number of her page in the register; a blank column of this card is left to be filled by a memorandum of the date of each visit by the physicians of the Dispensary.

But the three classes differ in respect of the place where they are visited. The Dispensary physicians visit the inmates of brothels in the houses where they live; all other prostitutes visit them at the Dispensary. Yet another visit is made by the Dispensary physicians to the Dépôt, or Lock-up, at the Prefecture of Police; as there are always a certain number of prostitutes arrested for drunkenness or disorderly conduct every night, it was thought well to seize the opportunity of their confinement to inquire into the state of their health.

All houses of prostitution are visited by the Dispensary physicians once a week; the hour of the visit is known beforehand, and every girl must be present and pass inspection. The examination is private; the result is noted in a “folio” kept by the physician, and a corresponding memorandum is made in the pass-book of the house and on the card of the prostitute. When disease is detected, the mistress of the house is notified, and cautioned not to allow the girl diseased to receive any visitors. That afternoon, or the next morning, she comes or is brought to the Dispensary, where she undergoes a second examination, and, if the result is the same as at the first, she is forthwith sent to Saint Lazare for treatment.

Free prostitutes, that is to say, those who live in lodgings or rooms furnished by themselves, are bound to visit the Dispensary, and submit to examination once a fortnight. They choose the time and day themselves, but more than a fortnight must not elapse between the visits.

It appears, from tables published by M. Parent-Duchatelet, that these rules are strictly enforced. Free prostitutes are visited nearly thirty times a year, and prostitutes in tolerated houses more than fifty times. We have alluded elsewhere to the results of the visits.

Experience has proved that the only safe method of punishment for prostitutes is imprisonment. Formerly they were whipped, and at a later date their hair was cut off; but the humane spirit of modern legislation has rejected both these punishments as unduly cruel. At the present day, offenses against the rules [Pg 150]concerning prostitution (delits de prostitution) are punished by imprisonment; misdemeanors and crimes provided against by the code being within the cognizance of the ordinary courts in the case of prostitutes as well as other persons.

Delits de prostitution have been divided by the Bureau des Mœurs into two classes, slight offenses and grave offenses; slight offenses are:

This class of offenses is punished by imprisonment for not less than a fortnight or more than three months. One month is the usual term.

A prostitute is held to be guilty of grave offenses when she

These offenses are punished by imprisonment for not less than three months, and not more than a year, rarely more than six months. The time is fixed in these cases with reference to the former character of the prostitute.

When a prostitute is arrested she is taken to the Prefecture of Police, where there is a room specially appropriated to her class. She is tried within forty-eight, usually within twenty-four hours[Pg 151] of her arrival. When condemned, she is conveyed in a close carriage or van to the prison.

The prison at Paris usually contains from four hundred and fifty to six hundred inmates. They are all obliged to work. A few are generally found incapable, either from idiocy, blindness, or incorrigible obstinacy, of performing even the simplest work. These are lodged in a department called “the ward of the imbeciles.” The others are allowed to choose their work; the bulk naturally take to sewing. They are paid a small sum for what they do, partly as they proceed with the work, and the balance when they leave the prison. Industrious girls receive, from the money coming to them, from five to eight sous daily. That this, added to the ample food supplied by the prison, suffices for their wants, is proved by the frequent purchases they make of flowers and other superfluities. Formerly, prostitutes in prison were not expected to work, and at this period fights and disturbances were of constant occurrence. Now the discipline is excellent and the prisoners orderly. The only penalty for disobedience of rules or misconduct is close confinement in the cachot.

M. Parent-Duchatelet admits that the prison discipline is so gentle that the punishment has no terrors for prostitutes. It is quite common to find girls who have been thirty times condemned to imprisonment. He recommends the use of the tread-mill as a corrective.

His experience led him to question the utility of nuns and priests in the prostitutes’ prison. He does not think they do any good, and inclines to the belief that the counsels and visits of married women, who look rather to the moral than religious reform of the women, would be productive of more benefit.

The old practice in France was to admit visitors to the prostitutes’ prison at certain hours and in a certain room, but this was found to be productive of great evils. The scenes in the visitors’ room were outrageous, and a new system was accordingly adopted. No one was allowed to visit a prostitute but a bona fide relation, and even such a one was required to obtain a written permit from the Prefecture of Police.

A certain number of prostitutes are sent every year to the prison of St. Denis. These are those who, from physical or mental infirmities, such as recto-vaginal fistula, cancer, incurable organic disease, idiocy, etc., are incapacitated from pursuing their calling, and run risk of starvation. Not more than eight or ten of these[Pg 152] are sent to St. Denis in the course of the year. The mortality among them there is not less than twenty-five per cent. per annum.[212]

Until a few years ago, a tax was levied on the Paris prostitutes for the support of the Dispensary. Each mistress of a house paid twelve francs per month; each girl living alone, three francs per month. A fine of two francs was also laid on all prostitutes who were behind their time in visiting the Dispensary. The product of these various taxes amounted to from seventy-five to ninety thousand francs per annum. The system was abolished on the ground of its immorality. A popular notion is said to have prevailed that the police received half a million or more from the tax on prostitution, and attacks on the administration in consequence were incessant. The police authorities gave way at last, and the municipal council of the city undertook to defray the cost of the Dispensary for the future. Similar taxes appear to have existed at Lyons, Strasbourg, and other cities.[213]

Allusion has been made to inspectors. At the time M. Parent-Duchatelet wrote there were ten inspectors, who had each charge of one tenth of the city. Their business was to see that the regulations governing prostitutes were carried out. They arrested offending women, and transferred them to the Prefecture of Police. In case of resistance, they summoned the aid of the ordinary police of the ward. They were not allowed themselves to use violence either to arrest or drag a girl to prison. They were usually picked men of good character. Their salary was twelve hundred francs a year, besides handsome presents.[214]

In conclusion, a word must be said of the establishment called the Bon Pasteur. It is a Magdalen Asylum established many years ago by some benevolent ladies, and now mainly supported by an annual vote from the city of Paris, and an allowance from the hospitals. It receives prostitutes who desire to reform; feeds, clothes, and instructs them; provides them with places when they desire to leave, or with work when they wish to remain in the establishment. The rule is that no prostitute can be received under eighteen or over twenty-five years of age. Beyond these limits it has been found that the humane efforts of the directresses of the establishment have rarely led to any result. No compulsion is used in any case by the managers. Girls are free to leave as they are free to come. So long as they remain, however, they must conform to the rules of the establishment, which are strict[Pg 153] without being monastic. The average admissions to the asylum for the first twelve years of its existence were twenty per annum. The mortality among the residents was very large, being equal to twenty per cent. on the total number during the twelve years. Of the whole number (two hundred and forty-five), forty were dismissed for insubordination; twenty-seven left of their own accord, and probably returned to their old courses, and fifteen were returned to the police. The remainder were either restored to their families, or placed in situations in the hospitals or elsewhere.

Small as these numbers appear in comparison with the large army of prostitutes exercising their calling at Paris, it is not at all doubtful but the establishment is a useful one. No one can help but concur with M. Parent-Duchatelet when he observes that, “did it not exist, it would be necessary to create it.”

CHAPTER XI.

ITALY.

Birth-place of modern art and literature, dowered with the fatal heritage of beauty, Italy, in the varied passages of her career among the nations, has been as remarkable for the vice and sensuality of her children as she has been eminent for their talents and acquirements.

The heart of the historical student thrills with respectful sympathy over the sorrows and ennobling virtues of her patriots in all ages, or his intellect is captivated with enthusiastic admiration and reverence in considering the monuments of resplendent genius given to mankind by her sons. Let him turn the page, and his soul recoils in disgust and deepest horror from the narrative of corruption the most abandoned, ambition the most unscrupulous, lust the most abominable, crime the most tremendous, to which the history of the world scarcely offers a parallel, and which brands the perpetrators with the execration of all succeeding generations.

The most glorious era of the Italian republics immediately preceded their downfall. Like shining lights, they perished by their own effulgence. The mutual jealousies of Florence, Pisa, Genoa, Lucca, and the numerous independent cities and states, stirred up in them a “noble and emulous rage” to excel each other in the[Pg 155] encouragement they gave to art and letters, and the mighty works produced by their respective citizens. But the same sentiment also roused them to deadlier feuds, and the common field of national patriotism being shut up, they exhausted themselves and each other by desperately-protracted struggles and incredible sacrifices of blood and treasure. Thus they paved the way to the introduction of the foreigner and the mercenary, who completed their ruin; until, in place of the small but illustrious republics which formed a diadem of brightest gems, arose a system of petty tyrants, who plunged the country into misery and degradation. These, in turn, were swept away by the strong arm of a despotism which has never since relaxed its grasp of this loveliest country of the earth.

No influence played a more important part in bringing about this catastrophe than that of the court of Rome. By the intrigues of the Roman pontiffs the mutual jealousies of the states were exacerbated and their quarrels fomented. While these results were caused by the political actions of the popes and their advisers, the worst effects were produced upon public manners and morals by their example. The abuses which had established themselves among the Roman hierarchy were the natural consequences of long and undisturbed enjoyment by the clergy of their vast immunities and privileges. The demoralization and dissoluteness which thus existed, and which spread its poison throughout the civilized world, but especially throughout Italy, are attested to posterity by all contemporary writers.

The enormous iniquity which distinguished such men as John XXII., Sextus IV., or Alexander VI., is notorious to all. Although the character of communities is not to be inferred from the actions of exceptional prodigies, either of virtue or vice, it is evident that the system which could place monsters like these in the august positions they filled must have been rotten to the core. The worth of a Leo X. or a Clement VII. consisted in the absence of the grosser vices rather than in any positive excellence, and the encouragement given by such men to objectionable practices did more to confirm a laxity of morals than the odious and unpardonable offenses of their predecessors.

Some of the political profligacy of the court of Rome, and, through its example, of the other Italian courts, was owing to the system which had sprung up of each pope providing for his family. The term nepote (nephew) was in common use as expressing[Pg 156] the relationship which existed between the pope and the individuals selected for advancement. The priests of all denominations had nephews and nieces to provide for, and the abuses covered by the term were objects of the keenest satire. In fact, Innocent VIII. thus provided for eight openly avowed sons and daughters.[215] The pseudo-avuncular obligations of Sextus IV. were also well known. Other popes, whose sins were not in this particular direction, having no sons, adopted a bona fide nephew, and one or two, feeling the want of ties of kindred or family relationship, actually adopted strangers. In one instance, the Donna Olimpia, a niece by marriage, and “a lady of ability and a manly spirit,” took the place of a nephew in the court of Innocent X., without any imputation on the character of either pope or niece.[216]

The effect produced by this example in high places, particularly upon the clergy, and through them on the community, can be imagined. By a decree of the Church in the eleventh session of the Lateran Council it appears that the clergy were accustomed to live in a state of public concubinage, nay, more, to allow others to do so for money paid to them by permission. Dante, in one of his daring flights, compares the papal court to Babylon, and declares it a place deprived of virtue and shame. In the nineteenth canto of the Inferno, Dante, visiting hell, finds Nicholas III. there waiting the arrival of Boniface, who again is to be succeeded by Clement.

The Reformation compelled some attention to morals among the clergy, and for a time an earnest endeavor was made at a purification of the Church. This was one of the chief labors of the famous Council of Trent. That council certainly did repress the abuses among the general clergy, but the law-makers were law-breakers. They could not touch the cardinals, archbishops, or the Pope himself, and thus little radical change was effected among the chief dignitaries.[217]

There are not wanting writers who acquit the Italian national character of blame in the matter, attributing the general corruption partly to the frightful example of foreign invaders. The [Pg 157]invasion of Charles VIII., himself a dissolute monarch, with the universal licentiousness of the French troops, did undoubtedly contribute largely to ruin the morals of the people at large, but, to use the words of Machiavelli, “If the papal court were removed to Switzerland, the simplest and most religious people of Europe would, in an incredibly short time, have become utterly depraved by the vicious example of the Italian priesthood.”[218]

The ecclesiastics did not confine themselves to licentiousness of conduct. The clerical writers are charged with a taste for that lowest practice of debased minds, obscenity, in which particular they exceed the lay writers. Roscoe, an accomplished Italian scholar and a man not given to railing, maintains this allegation.[219] This reminds us of Pope’s lines:

“Immodest words admit of no defense,
For want of decency is want of sense.”

For the limited range of our present subject, history, so profuse of illustration of war, bloodshed, and the personal adventures of men noteworthy by their position or character, is exceedingly chary of materials. In the case of Italy the testimony as to the morals of men in high places is superabundant, and these and the legislative enactments of the period will furnish some of the information of which we are in search.

In the fifteenth century, Charles VIII., in his wars to gain Naples from the Spaniards, drew down unspeakable miseries upon the wretched Italians. His armies are reputed to have indulged in every excess of unbridled license and rapine; and it was during the siege of Naples that the venereal disease is said to have first made its appearance, although the particulars given of this malady in Chapter IX., under the head of France, show that syphilis existed in Naples two or three years before the siege. As generally happens with new diseases, whether from fear or ignorance of the means to control them, it was represented that the affliction was of a malignity never since known. Its frightful ravages and disgusting character impressed the minds of men with a belief that it was a new scourge, sent specially as a punishment for the debauchery and prostitution of the period, each party retorting on the other the charge of having introduced it, and styling it Morbo-Gallico or Mal de Naples, according to the nation to which they belonged. No class seems to have been exempt from it. Sextus[Pg 158] della Rovere, nephew of Sextus IV., one of the wealthiest and most dissolute ecclesiastics of the age, was “rotten from his middle to the soles of his feet.”[220] Even the haughty and majestic Julius II. would not expose his feet to the obeisance of the faithful, because they were discolored by the Morbus Gallicus:[221] Leo, his accomplished and munificent successor, was said to have owed his elevation to the fact that he was in such a depraved state of body as to render necessary a surgical operation in the Consistorium while the election was proceeding, the cardinals selecting the most sickly candidate for the papal tiara.[222] An unequivocal allusion to the pontiff’s pursuits is found in an honorary inscription to Leo X. on his entrance into Florence, of which he was a native.

Olim habuit Cypris sua tempora: tempora Mavos
Olim habuit; nunc sua tempora Pallas habet:
Mars fuit; est Pallas; Cypra semper erit.
Formerly Venus reigned supreme, then Mars, now Pallas:
Mars was, Pallas now is, Venus shall always be.

Cardinals were not ashamed to contend openly for the favors of celebrated courtesans, and Charles VIII., when on his march to Naples, was provided by Ludovico Sforza and his wife Beatrice, his liberal entertainers, with the most beautiful women that could be procured.[223] Charles, indeed, is by some authors asserted to have been actually the first who introduced the venereal disease into Italy.

An eccentric trophy of public license is to be found in the poem of Fracastoro, a physician and accomplished writer—a really elegant production under the title of Syphilis. The argument of it is drawn from the sufferings of Syphilus, a shepherd who has been punished by Apollo with a malignant disease for impiety. In this work the author introduces the reader to the inner regions of the earth; to the mines, minerals, and attendant sprites, and explains the discovery of mercury, and its beneficent and healing influences on the invalid, who, once cured, is enjoined to pay his vows to Diana.

In 1520, that turbulent and reprobate artist Benvenuto Cellini, in his autobiography (one of the most spirited representations of national manners extant) gives an account of a syphilitic disease which he contracted from a courtesan. He says little of the mode[Pg 159] of cure, but it is evident from the above that the use of mercury was known at a very early period after public attention was generally directed to the disorder.

The excesses of this iron age were not limited to ordinary licentiousness; crimes against nature seem to have been prevalent, and are even alleged to have been a source of revenue. In a collection of papal lives which has fallen under our notice, but which is not very particular in giving its authorities,[224] we find it stated that a memorial was presented to Sextus IV. by certain individuals of the family of the Cardinal of St. Lucia for an indulgence to commit sodomy, and that the Pope wrote at the bottom of it the usual “Fiat.”

The case of Beatrice Cenci is better attested. Every one recollects the accumulated horrors of the story. The father, hating his children, his wife, all mankind, introduces prostitutes to his house, and debauches his daughter Beatrice by force. Through the instrumentality of a bishop she procures him to be murdered, and, with her step-mother, was executed for the crime, the Pope refusing to show any mercy. The Count Cenci had been addicted to unnatural offenses, and had thrice compounded with the papal government for his crimes by paying an enormous sum of money, and the narrator says that the acrimony of the Pope toward the wretched daughter was for having cut off a profitable source of revenue.

In Naples, the laws on the subject of prostitution were extremely severe. Previous to the thirteenth century, every procuress endeavoring to corrupt innocent females was punished, like an adulteress, by mutilation of her nose. The mother who prostituted her daughter suffered this punishment until King Frederick absolved such women as trafficked with their children from the pressure of want. The same prince, however, decreed against all who were found guilty of preparing drugs or inflammatory liquors to aid in their designs upon virtuous females, death in case of injuries resulting from their acts, and imprisonment when no serious harm was effected. These laws proved insufficient for their purpose, and toward the end of the fifteenth century profligacy ran riot in Naples. Ruffiani multiplied in its streets, procuring by force or corruption multitudes of victims to fill the taverns and brothels of the city. Penalties of extreme severity were proclaimed against them. The Ruffiani were ordered to quit the[Pg 160] kingdom, and prostitutes were prohibited from harboring such persons among them. Any woman who disobeyed was condemned to be burned in the forehead with an iron, whipped in the most humiliating manner, and exiled.

Under King Roger a charge of seduction was never taken, but William, the successor of that prince, punished with death the crime of rape. The victim, however, was required to prove that she had shrieked aloud, and that she had preferred her complaint within eight days, or that she had been detained by force. When once a woman had prostituted herself, she had no right to refuse to yield her person to any one.

In Naples, prostitutes, in spite of the law passed to confine brothels to particular quarters, established themselves in the most beautiful streets of the city in palatial buildings, and there, with incessant clamor, congregated a horde of thieves, profligates, and vagabonds of every kind, until the chief quarter became uninhabitable. In 1577 they were ordered to quit the street of Catalana within eight days, under pain of the scourge for the women, the galleys for such of the proprietors as were commoners, while simple banishment was declared against the nobles.

One example of good legislation was the pragmatic law of 1470, to protect unfortunate women against the cupidity, the extortions, and the frauds of tavern-keepers and others. Men were in the habit of going into places of amusement with single girls, contracting a heavy debt, and then leaving their victims to pay. These were then given the choice of a disgraceful whipping or an engagement in the house. They often consented, and spent the remainder of their days in dependence on their creditors, without ability to liberate themselves. By the new law, masters of taverns were forbidden to give credit to prostitutes for more than a certain sum, and this only to supply them with food and clothing absolutely necessary. If they exceeded this amount they had no means of legal recovery.

The most remarkable feature in Neapolitan legislation on this subject was the establishment at an unknown, but early date, of the Court of Prostitutes. This tribunal, which sat at Naples, had its peculiar constitution, and had jurisdiction over all cases connected with prostitution, blasphemy, and some other infamous offenses. Toward the end of the sixteenth century it had risen to extraordinary power, and was prolific of abuses. It practiced all kinds of exaction and violence, every species of partiality and [Pg 161]injustice, and even presumed to promulgate edicts of its own. The judges flung into prison numbers of young girls, whom they compelled to buy their liberty with money, and sometimes even dared to seize women who, though of lax conduct, could not be included in the professional class. This was discovered, and led to a reform of the court in 1589. Its powers were strictly defined, and its form of procedure placed under regulation, while the avenues to corruption were narrowed. The institution existed for nearly a hundred years after this.

In Rome, in the eleventh century, a brothel and a church stood side by side, and five hundred years after, under the pontificate of Paul II., prostitutes were numerous. Statutes were enacted, and many precautions taken, which prove the grossness of manners at that epoch. One convicted of selling a girl to infamy was heavily fined, and if he did not pay within ten days had one foot cut off. The nobility and common people alike indulged habitually in all kinds of excess. Tortures, floggings, brandings, banishment, were inflicted on some to terrify others, but with very incomplete success. To carry off and detain a prostitute against her will was punished by amputation of the right hand, imprisonment, flogging, or exile. The rich, however, invariably bought immunity for themselves.

Among the most extraordinary acts of legislation on this subject was the bull of Clement II., who desired to endow the Church with the surplus gains of the brothel. Every person guilty of prostitution was forced, when disposing of her property, either at death or during life, to assign half of it to a convent. This regulation was easily eluded, and proved utterly inefficacious. A tribunal was also established having jurisdiction over brothels, upon which a tax was laid, continuing in existence until the middle of the sixteenth century. Efforts were made to confine this class of dwellings to a particular quarter, but without success.

In some of the Italian states, as in Lombardy, men were forbidden to give prostitutes an asylum. They were prohibited from appearing among honest citizens, and were prevented from purchasing clothes or food, and from borrowing money by the hire of their persons.

After a time, however, a system of licensed brothels, in imitation of the institutions founded at Toulouse and Montpellier, was introduced into parts of Italy, and the brothels became very numerous. There was one at Mantua, and Venice was a very sink[Pg 162] of prostitution. In 1421, the government enlisted women in this service to guard the virtue of the other classes. A matron was placed over them, who governed them, received their gains, and made a monthly division of profit. The names of several women, the most notorious and beautiful of the Venetian courtesans, are preserved by Nicolo Daglioni. A very small sum was paid them by their patrons.

The laws regulating prostitution and prostitutes seem to have had a wonderful similarity throughout Europe. Among other enactments were those regulating clothing, which were at one time promulgated in every state. Some of these were sumptuary, and merely prohibited the wearing of fashionable attire. Others directed particular costumes as a badge of the prostitute’s calling, and to distinguish them in public from well-conducted women. At Mantua, prostitutes, when they appeared in the streets, were ordered to cover the rest of their clothes with a short white cloak, and wear a badge on their breast. At Bergamo the cloak was yellow; in Parma, white; in Milan, at first black woolen cloth, and then black silk. If disobedient, they might be fined; and in case of a second offense, whipped; and any one might strip off the garment of a girl illegally attired.

In the Duchy of Asola, in Piedmont, a regulation was established that a mother could disinherit her daughter for leading a vicious life, but she lost this privilege if it was proved that she had connived at her immorality. The father had equal authority, but with one curious limitation. When, says the law, a father has sought to marry his daughter, and has endowed her sufficiently, if she refuses to marry and becomes a prostitute, he may cut her off; but if he have opposed her marriage until she has reached the age of twenty-five, and she then become a libertine, he can not refuse to bequeath her his property; and the woman, on every opportunity to marry, is bound to present herself before her father and demand his consent. If he refused it, he was not allowed to punish her in cases where, at the age of thirty, she became a harlot.

The efforts to root out prostitution from houses and neighborhoods in Italy had, as elsewhere, the result of driving loose women to places of public resort. The baths were regularly frequented in every city in the Peninsula (hence the use of the word bagnio, as expressive of a disreputable place), so that there was scarcely a bath-keeper who was not also a brothel-keeper.

In Avignon, which, in consequence of the schism of the popes,[Pg 163] may be considered a second Rome, a statute of the Church, in 1441, interdicted to the priests and clergy the use of certain baths, notorious as brothels. The license of prostitution was soon taken away in Avignon. The residence of the popes in that city had attracted a concourse of strangers from all parts of the globe, and brothels sprung up at the doors of the churches, and close to the papal residence and bishops’ palaces. They brought so much scandal on the community that an edict was passed driving prostitutes out of the city.

In endeavoring to investigate the condition of prostitution in modern Italy, our inquiries and researches have been almost profitless, from the dearth of reliable statistical information as to any part of that most interesting country. In the fine arts, and in certain departments of abstract science, the republic of letters can show numerous records of Italy’s state and progress. In all that tells of the people, their condition, their relations to each other, and their rulers, the statements of writers, both native and foreign, are so contradictory, so imbued with party passions and prejudices, or so flippantly careless and inaccurate, that we must peruse them with constant suspicion. At the same time, official documents are so sparingly given to the world that it is hopeless to fall back upon them.[225]

It is customary to think and speak of Italy, like Germany, as a whole. In reality, however, a wide difference prevails among the inhabitants of Piedmont, Tuscany, and Austrian Italy, the Papal States, and Naples. Rome, though not the political capital of Italy, must be considered the capital, in virtue of her papal court, her past traditions, and her large concourse of foreigners. But even her manners scarcely give the tone to the remainder of the country.

In Rome, prostitution is tolerated, though not legally permitted. There are no statistics from which the number of prostitutes can be calculated. At one time there were said to be five thousand of these unfortunates in the city; but this estimate is only another sample of the carelessness which is to be observed in writers on this subject. Under Paul IV. there were only fifty thousand inhabitants; forty years after they had increased to one hundred thousand. Public prostitutes are now as rarely seen in[Pg 164] the streets of Rome as in those of other Italian cities. It is said, also, that there are scarcely any public brothels.[226] There is a law that a woman guilty of adultery shall be imprisoned for three months, but Italian usages are averse to legal proceedings; the scandal is offensive to society; besides, the courts require positive proof of the offense. With regard to seduction, the laws are equally stringent; but such cases, when brought to notice, are usually compromised by permission of the authorities, either by payment of a sum of money, or by marriage. Syphilis is always of considerable extent in Rome, and the venereal ward in San Jacomo is always full.[227] After the siege of Rome by the French in 1849, the disease was frightfully prevalent.

In 1798 there were thirty thousand poor, or about one fifth of the population of Rome, upon the lists of the curates of the several parishes. Under the administration of the French, up to 1814, the proportion had been diminished to one ninth. Since that period it has been on the increase.

There are in Rome nineteen hospitals for the treatment of the sick. In eight public hospitals the average number of patients daily is about fourteen hundred, who cost nineteen cents each per day. There are fourteen semi-convents where young girls are gratuitously received and educated, receiving a small dowry when they leave to marry or become nuns. The Hospital of St. Roch is for pregnant women.[228]

The Albergo dei Poveri at Naples is the finest poor-house in Italy. It accommodates upward of three thousand paupers of both sexes, and is provided with workshops and schools, so as to afford suitable employment and instruction. Notwithstanding this model establishment, and numerous others, whose annual revenues amount to nearly two millions and a half of dollars, Naples is infested with a large mendicant population in addition to the numbers accommodated in the poor-houses. The Lazaroni are a class peculiar to the place. Many of them utterly refuse to work, and prefer to subsist on the smallest coin of the kingdom which they can gain by begging. They bask in the sun all day, sleep on the ground or on the steps at night, and starve with the utmost complacency. An Epicurean might find in this abnegation of the cares of life a sound practical philosophy. That such a class is in the highest degree obnoxious to society must be [Pg 165]apparent to every one. In the famous rising of Cardinal Ruffo, at the time of the French occupation in 1805, the Lazaroni perpetrated the most frightful excesses, and are said to have been relied on by the imbecile Bourbon government as their chief friends and supporters against the dangers of French Republicanism. Modern progress has drawn even Naples and the Lazaroni within its magic circle, and an accomplished traveler expresses doubts of their alleged unconquerable laziness, for he has seen them work, wear clothes, sleep at home, earn money when they had a chance, and conduct themselves very much like other people.[229] Perhaps, as with the Irish, a want of fair remuneration may be at the root of their idleness.

A singular institution of Italian society is the Cicisbeo, or Cavaliere Servente. This is a distant male relative, or friend, who invariably attends a married lady on all occasions of her appearance in public. He pays her all conceivable attentions, and performs even the most servile offices; carries her fan, her parasol, or her lapdog. We are not aware that any foreigner has been able to settle this anomaly of social life to his satisfaction. The Italians themselves sometimes maintain that there is no immorality or impropriety in the arrangement—that it is a matter of etiquette, in which the heart is in no way concerned. The husband is perfectly cognizant of it, and the appearance of the cicisbeo with the lady is more de regle than that of her husband. Originally, there can be very little question that the institution was of an amorous character, and the parties met privately at the Casini, where certain apartments were specially dedicated to the use of the ladies and their cavalieri.[230] With the French occupation of 1800 the custom became the subject of immoderate raillery and satire, and there is reason to believe it has been but partially revived.

In place, however, of the cicisbeo or cavaliere servente, whose services and attentions were a form of society, it is, we fear, undeniable that more intimate though less avowed relations exist between many Italian ladies and other men than their husbands. That there are numerous and admirable exceptions to the rule, if it be a rule, we freely admit; but, unless the concurrent testimony of all writers and travelers in Italy be absolutely false, and either basely slanderous or culpably careless, the marriage vow can only be regarded as a cloak for a license that is inadmissible to the unmarried woman.

[Pg 166]The testimony of a profligate man is rarely to be taken against women; and though the witness be a lord and a poet, we do not know that this should make a difference were the case one of mere abuse. Coupled, however, as the inculpation is with extenuatory remarks, we think Lord Byron’s observations valuable. In a letter to Mr. Murray, the celebrated London publisher (February 21, 1820), he says:

As a counterpoise to these opinions of Lord Byron, it is but fair to give that of M. Valery, a traveler whose personal opportunities may have been less than in the case of the noble poet: “The morals of the Italian cities, which we still judge of from the commonplace reports of travelers of the last century, are now neither better[Pg 167] nor worse than those of other capitals; perhaps at Naples they are even better.”

The Countess Pepoli, a lady of patriotic and literary family, has written an able educational manual, in which she claims consideration for the number of “good and virtuous women” in Italy, whose existence is ignored by the prejudiced writers of extravagant diatribes. But we are afraid that the very exception, and the pains she takes to prove the temptations to which the married woman is exposed, only affirm the truth of the general charge.

Whatever allegations of veracious or exaggerated unchastity or immorality may be made against the Italians, they are generally to be laid at the door of the aristocracy and upper classes. Among the humbler Italians, the peasantry and the country poor, there is no ground for ascribing to them either greater idleness or worse morals than are to be found in other parts of Europe.

Foundling hospitals are to be met with in most great cities of Continental Europe. Among Protestants, a strong prejudice exists against these institutions. That they prevent infanticide is self-evident. Their operation as an encouragement of illicit intercourse can not be estimated without some minute inquiries into the illegitimacy of places which encourage them, and of others which are without them.

The proportion of children in the foundling hospitals of Italy is certainly large, but it is believed, on good grounds, that a considerable number of them are legitimate, and are abandoned by their parents on account of their poverty. Of the really illegitimate, there are no means of saying with accuracy (nor, as far as we know, have any attempts been made to do so) to what class of society the infants belong. Meanwhile, although there is no ground for assuming a larger proportion of illegitimate children than in northern climates, on the other hand, the publicly displayed prostitution of Italy is infinitely less.

Naples has a population of about four hundred thousand. Of fifteen thousand births there are two thousand foundlings; we can not say illegitimates, for, owing to the reasons already specified, there are no means of ascertaining the facts.

In Tuscany, in 1834, there were twelve thousand foundlings received into the various hospitals.

The Hospital of the Santo Spirito at Rome is a foundling asylum with a revenue of about fifty thousand dollars per annum.

About one in sixteen of these children is claimed by its parents;[Pg 168] the majority are cared for, during infancy and childhood, either in the hospitals or with the neighboring peasantry, with whom they are boarded at a small stipend. When of sufficient age they are dismissed to work for themselves; but in many of the hospitals they have some claim in after-life on occasions of sickness or distress.

We have already alluded to the wide differences of national character in the various political divisions of Italy. The vices of laziness, mendicancy, and their kindred failings of licentiousness and unchastity are chiefly confined to the towns, large and small.[231] The peasantry of Naples and of the Papal States are industrious, temperate; and the peasant women, even those who, from the vicinity of Rome, frequent the studios of the artists as models, are generally of unexceptionable character.[232] The mountaineers of the Abruzzi, long infamous as banditti (a stigma affixed by the French or other dominant powers on those who resisted their rule), in harvest-time brave the deadly malaria of the Campagna to earn a few liri honestly for their starving children, although in so doing the many that never return to their mountain homes show the risks that all have run. The corn, wine, and oil raised in Italy, the well-supplied markets of Rome and other cities, are evidence that the peasantry do not all eat the bread of idleness. The Papal States contain some of the finest, richest, and best cultivated provinces in Italy.[233] It is in the towns we must look for the worst results of misgovernment and bad example.

CHAPTER XII.

SPAIN.

Between the ancient Spaniards and the Romans a most intimate connection subsisted from an early period of the Roman republic, and the laws and customs of the former bore the closest resemblance to those of the latter. This affinity continued so long[Pg 169] as the Roman empire had a name, and after the establishment of Christianity as the state religion, the ties of kindred and dependence were drawn still closer, for the Spanish kingdom has ever been the favored heritage, and its rulers the most obedient sons of Rome. Thus the maxims of the Roman civil law were early incorporated into the political system, and they still remain the chief pillars of Spanish jurisprudence. Accordingly, we find, in their legislation on prostitution, that the Spaniards, together with the general theories, adopted the specific enactments of other Latin nations.

By the code of Alphonse IX., in the twelfth century, procurers were to be condemned to “civil death.” Such offenders were thus classified:

These latter were analogous to the pimp and bully of the present day, and, from the repeated and very severe laws against them, seem to have given great trouble to the authorities. They were banished, flogged, imprisoned; in short, got rid of on any terms. Girls who supported them were publicly whipped, and the general laws upon the matter were similar to those noted in the previous chapter on Italy.

In Spain, the profligacy of public morals attained a pitch beyond all precedent, possibly owing, in some measure, to Draconian legislation. Further laws were, from time to time, passed against the Ruffiani, as preceding edicts had fallen into desuetude, and their presence and traffic was encouraged by the prostitutes. These latter were forbidden to harbor the men, and on breach of this prohibition were to be branded, publicly whipped, and banished the kingdom. Procurers, procuresses, and adulteresses were punished by mutilation of the nose. Mothers who trafficked in their children’s virtue, except under pressure of extreme want, were also liable to this barbarous punishment.

In 1552 and 1566, edicts were again passed against the Ruffiani.[Pg 170] They were styled a highly objectionable class, dangerous to public order. On the first conviction as a ruffiano, the offender was sentenced to ten years at the galleys; for a second conviction, he received two hundred blows or stripes, and was sent to the galleys for life.

Up to this time the court of Spain seems to have been almost as strongly tinctured with licentiousness as those of other nations. About the middle of the fifteenth century, Henry IV. divorced his wife, Blanche of Aragon, after a union of twelve years, the marriage being publicly declared void by the Bishop of Segovia, whose sentence was confirmed by the Archbishop of Toledo, “por impotencia respectiva, owing to some malign influence.” Henry subsequently espoused Joanna, sister of Alphonse V., King of Portugal. The bride was accompanied by a brilliant train of maidens, and her entrance into Castile was greeted by the festivities and military pageants which belonged to the age of chivalry. In her own country Joanna had been ardently beloved; in the land of her adoption her light and lively manners gave occasion to the grossest suspicions. Scandal named the Cavalier Beltran de la Cueva as her most favored lover. He was one of the handsomest men in the kingdom. At a tournament near Madrid he maintained the superior beauty of his mistress against all comers, and displayed so much prowess in the presence of the king as induced Henry to commemorate the event by the erection of a monastery dedicated to St. John.[234] It does not appear, however, whom Beltran de la Cueva indicated as the lady of his love on this occasion.

Two anecdotes may be mentioned as characteristic of the gallantry of the times. The Archbishop of Seville concluded a superb fête, given in honor of the royal nuptials, by introducing on the table two vases filled with rings garnished with precious stones, to be distributed among his female guests. At a ball given on another occasion, the young queen having condescended to dance with the French embassador, the latter made a solemn vow, in commemoration of so distinguished an honor, never to dance with any other woman.

While the queen’s levity laid her open to suspicion, the licentiousness of her husband was undisguised. One of Joanna’s maids of honor acquired an ascendency over Henry which he did not attempt to conceal, and after the exhibition of some disgraceful scenes, the palace became divided by the factions of the hostile[Pg 171] fair ones. The Archbishop of Seville did not blush to espouse the cause of the paramour, who maintained a magnificence of state which rivaled royalty itself. The public were still more scandalized by Henry’s sacrilegious intrusion of another of his mistresses into the post of abbess of a convent in Toledo, after the expulsion of her predecessor, a lady of noble rank and irreproachable character.

These examples of corruption influenced alike the people and the clergy. The middle class imitated their superiors, and indulged in an excess of luxury equally demoralizing and ruinous. The Archbishop of St. James was hunted from his see by the indignant populace in consequence of an outrage attempted on a youthful bride as she was returning from church after the performance of the nuptial ceremony.[235]

Under the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella a total change was effected. “They both exhibited a practical wisdom in their own personal relations which always commands respect, and which, however it may have savored of worldly policy in Ferdinand, was in his consort founded on the purest and most exalted principles. Under such a sovereign, the court, which had been little better than a brothel in the preceding reign, became the nursery of virtue and generous ambition. Isabella watched assiduously over the nurture of the high-born damsels of the court, whom she received into the royal palace, causing them to be educated under her own eye, and endowing them with liberal portions on their marriage.”[236]

Joanna, the second daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella, was unfortunate in her marriage to Philip, son of the Archduke Maximilian, and sovereign—in right of his mother—of the Low Countries. The couple embarked for Flanders in the year 1504, and soon after their arrival the inconstancy of the husband and the ungovernable sensibility of the wife occasioned some scandalous scenes. Philip was openly enamored of one of the ladies in her suite, and his injured wife, in a paroxysm of jealousy, personally assaulted her rival, and caused the beautiful locks which had excited the admiration of her fickle husband to be shorn from her head. This outrage so affected Philip that he vented his indignation against Joanna in the coarsest and most unmanly terms, and finally refused to have any farther intercourse with her.[237]

Public brothels were established in Spain, as in other countries[Pg 172] of Europe, one of great extent being in existence in Valencia in the fifteenth century. It constituted a complete suburb in itself, similar to the Ghetto, or Jews’ suburb of most capital cities. Indeed, from its description, it is doubtful if it was not a rogue’s sanctuary, similar to the well known Alsatia in London. It was surrounded by a wall with one gate only, at which a warder was stationed. He was a public city officer, and one of his duties was to warn all comers of the risk their property ran in visiting such a place. If they wished to leave valuables in his care they could do so, and receive them on their exit. There were some hundreds of girls resident in this vast den of iniquity. To add to the disgrace of the locality, the place of public execution was at its gate.

In 1486, the rents, profits and emoluments of the public brothels of Seville were assigned to Alonzo Fajardo, the master of the royal table.

In 1559, there is an enactment in Granada fixing the rents to be paid by the women for their rooms and accommodation in public brothels, and also detailing the furniture and food with which they were to be provided in return. This is similar to the minute legislation of the German cities. This public provision having been made, no person was allowed to lend these women bed-linen.

The authorities of various cities might not permit a prostitute to reside in the town without previous examination by a duly licensed physician, who was to declare, upon oath, whether the woman then was or had recently been diseased.

By some of the Spanish laws, varraganas (kept mistresses or concubines) seem to have been a legal institution, for men of rank were forbidden to take slave-dancers, tavern-servants, procuresses, or prostitutes as concubines. This breach of the ordinary institutions of Christianity may probably have been a compromise of Moorish and Christian usages and morals. Before the final deadly struggle which ended in the expulsion of the Moors, intermarriages were not uncommon among the two peoples. Interchange of friendship and close intimacy existed between the races, and a mutual tolerance of each other’s laws and customs was maintained, except by the enthusiasts of either religion.

The Spanish jurists distinctly recognized the woman’s right to recover the wages of her infamy. The scholiasts struck out various fine distinctions, for which the monkish dialecticians were so deservedly ridiculed by the free-thinkers of the eighteenth century, and these were debated and discussed with the utmost [Pg 173]eagerness.[238] One question was whether, if the man paid beforehand, and the woman refused to complete the contract, he could compel her? The weight of opinion seemed to be that, as he contemplated an immorality, he could neither recover the money nor enforce the agreement. Another equally important point was the use to which the gains of prostitution might be lawfully applied. The legality of their gains would seem to have overridden the mode of their expenditure, but casuists thought otherwise, and, by a royal edict of Alphonse IX., it was decided that priests could not receive funds obtained from such impure sources.

By the old Spanish law prostitutes were subjected to various disabilities in matters of inheritance or testamentary disposition. As mentioned in the review of the old German customs, the Church considered it a meritorious act to marry a harlot, on the assumption that thereby a brand was saved from the burning.[239] It is related of a young man that, while being led to the scaffold, a courtesan, struck by his manly beauty and bearing, offered to marry him, whereby, in virtue of a law or usage, his life would be saved. He rejected her proposition, as existence was not worth redemption at such a price. It is added that his life was nevertheless spared, in consideration of his spirit and courage.

In 1570, by order of Philip II., the regulations in force in the principal towns of Andalusia were extended to those of Castile. By these it was enacted that a woman became a prostitute of her own free will, and that no one could compel her to continue such, even though she had incurred debts. A surgeon was directed to pay her a weekly visit at her house, and report to the deputies of the Consistory those who were diseased, in order that they might be removed to hospital. The keeper of a brothel could not receive into his house any one who had not been previously examined, nor allow any one who was diseased to remain there, under a fine of a thousand maravedis, with thirty days’ imprisonment. Each room was to contain certain furniture, and the house was to be closed on holidays, during Lent, Ember Week, and on all fast days, under a punishment of a hundred stripes to each woman[Pg 174] who received visitors, as well as to the keeper of the house. These and other orders were to be hung upon different parts of the house, under a fine (about six dollars) and eight days’ imprisonment.

The subject of venereal disease in Spain has acquired some interest from a generally received opinion that its appearance was made in that country, whence it was disseminated throughout Europe. Columbus and his crew were reported to have introduced it from America, but later investigations have proved that syphilis was not known on this side of the Atlantic until imported by Europeans. Facts have been advanced in preceding pages showing its almost simultaneous appearance in Italy and Spain, and we recur to the subject now merely with reference to the theory of its American origin. A late work, Lettere sulla Storia de Mali Venerei, di Domenice Thiene, Venezia, 1823, enumerates some proofs on the question. The main points are: 1. That neither Columbus nor his son allude, in any way, to such a disease in the New World. 2. Among frequent notices of the disease in the twenty-five years following the discovery of America, there is no mention of its originating there, but, on the contrary, a uniform derivation of it from some other source is assigned. 3. That the disorder was known and described before the siege of Naples, and therefore could not be introduced by the Spaniards at that time. 4. That it was known in a variety of countries in 1493 and the early part of 1494; a rapidity of diffusion irreconcilable with its importation by Columbus in 1493. 5. That the first work professing to trace its origin in America was not published till 1517, and was the production, not of a Spaniard, but a foreigner. The question of its origin is more definitely settled by a letter of Peter Martyr, noticing the symptoms in the most unequivocal manner, and dated April 5, 1488, about five years before the return of Columbus. Some doubts have been thrown upon the accuracy of this letter, but they do not invalidate it.[240]

In Madrid, in 1522, a special hospital for venereal patients was founded by Antoine Martin, of the order of St. Jean de Dieu. In 1575 the Spaniards passed an ordinance that no female domestics under forty years of age should be taken to service by unmarried men. The tenor of this law bespeaks the evil intended to be remedied.

[Pg 175]In the present day, little is done in Spain in reference to prostitution by legislation on the subject. In his memoir on the subject to the Brussels Congress, Ramon de la Segra tells us that the old edicts have gradually become obsolete, and that neither the municipal authorities or general government take any farther interest in the question than an occasional enforcement of the catholic laws against immorality and women of ill fame. It is said that in Seville first-class houses of prostitution have a custom of retaining the services of a physician at their own expense, whose office is to attend and make examinations of the women. Cadiz is notorious for its attractive climate and its dissipations.[241]

In the last century a tone of manners prevailed in the Spanish peninsula which was materially changed by the French occupation sweeping away many of the laxities of the age. In 1780 the Italian system of an attendant upon married ladies was adopted in Spain. These were termed Cortejos, and it is stated that in the cities they were principally military men, but in the country the monks performed the duty. The fidelity and affection of the women were directed to their gallants, and it even was thought discreditable, without very sufficient reason, to be guilty of fickleness in this particular. Married men were even the cortejos of other men’s wives, neglecting their own, or leaving them to follow the bent of their private inclinations. No husband was jealous, but it was etiquette for Spanish ladies to keep up an external decorum, and to abstain from marked attentions to a cortejo in the husband’s presence, although he might be perfectly aware of his wife’s infidelity, and of her lover’s presence in the house.[242] A curious illustration of this extraordinary state of public manners is given in an incident that occurred in Carthagena. A gentleman one morning remarked to a friend, “Before I go to rest this night the whole city will be thrown into confusion.” He occasioned this public disorder by going home an hour sooner than his usual time, whereby his wife’s cortejo was compelled to beat a precipitate retreat. The cortejo’s arrival at his own house produced a similar effect, which was multiplied through polite society all round the town.

[Pg 176]By the Spanish laws, which were in many provinces especially favorable to women, they could make ex parte cases against their husbands of ill treatment, and if they had beaten them the punishment might be made very severe. These laws were, as may be supposed, the frequent means of flagrant injustice.

In Barcelona there was a Magdalen institution, having the double object of reforming prostitutes and of correcting women who failed in the marriage vow, or who neglected or disgraced their families. The former department was called the Casa de Galera; the latter, the Casa de Correccion. The prostitutes were partially supported at the public cost, their extra food, beyond bread and meat, being provided by their own labor, to which they were obliged to devote themselves all day. The lady culprits were supported by their relations. They were imprisoned by the sentence of a particular court, on the complaint of a member of their family, and they, as well as the prostitutes, were required to work. When deemed necessary, these offenders received personal correction. Drunkenness was one of the grounds of incarceration. The precise offenses are not mentioned by our author,[243] but the fashions and customs of nations are so distinct, that indiscretion, or even familiarity in one, might be immorality in another. A leading principle in Spanish manners is not to give offense. People may be as vicious as they please; it may be even notorious that they are so, but their manners must be outwardly correct. There is little doubt the violation of this maxim was the principal cause of imprisonment.

In Barcelona there was also, in 1780, a foundling hospital liberally supported. A curious custom was observed in reference to the girls. They were led in procession when of marriageable age, and any one who took a fancy to a young woman might ask her hand, indicating his choice by throwing a handkerchief on her in public.

In the Asturias certain forms of disease appeared with excessive virulence, and were very common. Syphilis was prevalent. There was a hospital at Oviedo for its cure, but patients had considerable reluctance to apply to it. Whether incident to this prevalence of syphilis or not, we have no means of ascertaining, but leprosy was very general, and there were twenty or more large houses for its cure in the Asturias. The common itch in a highly aggravated form was also general, and often productive of parasitical vermin.

[Pg 177]The present state of Spanish society is the subject of the usual discrepancies between travelers, owing to their different prejudices, means of information, or opportunities of making observations. No country of Europe retains more of its original peculiarities and national habits than Spain. Under the fervid sun of Andalusia, the same rigorous observance of proprieties is hardly to be found as in the northern climate of Biscay, whose hardy sons have ever been the defenders of their rights and political privileges. Madrid, as the capital, might be thought a fair illustration of the habits and manners of the great bulk of the city populations, whose peculiarities of race have not been smoothed away by intercommunication, the traveling facilities of Spain being yet among the worst in Europe. The descendants of the Goth and the Moor are still distinct in character. A general prejudice exists as to the morality of Southern nations in Europe, and the Spanish women are by no means exempt from a full share of this unfortunate opinion. Nevertheless, a recent writer says:

This opinion is confined solely to the higher classes of the city of Madrid. It expresses nothing as to the great bulk of the population, and, however gratifying the record of worth may be, we fear the eulogy must be taken cum grano salis.

Of the education of Spanish women, Mrs. Donn Piatt states that, by reason of the small fortunes of the nobility, the daughters of an ancient house must be made useful before they are accomplished; that the first consideration, however, is their religious education, to which, and to the preparation for confirmation—the great juvenile rite of Catholic countries—the utmost care and attention are devoted. Next after their religious tuition, the greatest pains are taken to make them accomplished housekeepers. They are taught to make their own clothes, to keep accounts, to regulate[Pg 178] their expenditure, and to attend to the most minute details of the family economy. The advantages of a good solid education are not neglected; their natural capacity and innate taste for the arts, especially as musicians and painters, rapidly develop themselves, under very moderate tuition, to acquirements of a superior character, and the productions of young women of high station are spoken of with much admiration. One trait of Spanish character that speaks loudly in favor of the women is the devotion, respect, and obedience paid by sons to their mothers long after age has relieved them from maternal tutelage.

In Madrid there is a hospital for foundlings, which are said to amount to about four thousand annually. These are actual foundlings, exposed publicly to the compassion of the charitable. It is principally served by the Sisters of Charity. The infants are intrusted to nurses, and at the age of seven they are transferred to the Desamparados (unprotected) college, where they receive instruction in the simpler rudiments of education, and their religious and moral training is cared for. There is also an asylum to which others are drafted to learn some practical handicraft, such as glove-making, straw-hat making, embroidery, etc., and which seems, in a great measure, a self-supporting institution.

There are three Magdalen Hospitals: St. Nicholas de Barr, founded in 1691 for women of the better class, who are banished for misconduct from the homes of their husbands and fathers; that of the Arrepentidos, for penitents; and that of the Recogidos, founded in 1637, for the correction of women sent there by their families, in order that they may be induced to return to the paths of virtue.

CHAPTER XIII.

PORTUGAL.

A writer on Portugal, in the year 1780, complains of the scandalous licentiousness of the monks and nuns, of whom there were no less than two hundred and fifty thousand in a population of two millions. It is said that the convent Odivelas, the harem of the monarch John V., contained three hundred women, accounted[Pg 179] the most beautiful and accomplished courtesans in the kingdom. The great Marquis de Pombal suppressed many of these convents, and was the general reformer of the religious orders.

Of the effect of such an example from such quarters on the population at that time, sunk, as they were, in the most imbecile ignorance, little need be said. The women of Portugal were reputed to surpass all European females in gallantry, and their attractions were such that only one interview was necessary to complete the conquest. To this condition of common immorality, the rigor of their husbands and male relations may have contributed not a little. They are said to have been outrageously jealous, and to have made no scruple of murdering any stranger who gave them even the weakest grounds of suspicion.

In the fundamental laws of Portugal, promulgated in 1143, it is enacted that, “if a married woman commit adultery, and the husband complain to the judge, and the judge is the king, the adulterer and adulteress shall be condemned to the flames; but if the husband retain the wife, neither party shall be punished.”

In the case of a rape perpetrated on the person of a lady of rank, all the property of the ravisher went to the lady; and in case the female were not noble, the man, without regard to his rank, was obliged to marry her.

The writer whom we have already quoted[245] speaks of the venereal disease as being, at the time he wrote (1770-1780), habitual in Portugal, and that the Portuguese not knowing how to cure it, its malignity had become so intensified that, in some cases, individuals who had contracted a peculiar form of the malady had died in a few hours, as though struck down by an active and deadly poison. This is most probably the exaggeration of popular opinion on the subject. More recent writers are chary of information, and avoid the mention of matters so offensive to ears polite.

The manners and morals of the higher ranks of society must have undergone a material change for the better in the present century, for an English nobleman (Lord Porchester, since Earl of Caernarvon) speaks in very favorable terms of the propriety, amiability, and excellence of the Portuguese ladies, which, excepting in the matter of intellectual education, left them in no wise behind the worthy of their sex in other countries of Europe.

Among the lower classes, however, it would not seem that the tone of morals had been very much amended, whether we [Pg 180]consider their regard for female virtue, or their cultivation of the maternal tenderness and solicitude natural to all created beings.

In the neighborhood of Oporto, country women may be met conveying little babies to the Foundling Hospital, four or five together, in a basket. These helpless creatures are the illegitimate children of peasant girls, openly deserted in the villages, and thus forwarded by the authorities to the care of those pious strangers who undertake their nurture and preservation.[246]

In these cases, says Mr. Kingston, the females are not treated by their parents with any harshness or rigor. They are rather compassionated for their misfortune, and are only sent away from home when found obstinately persistent in a course of evil.

As may be supposed, the foundling hospitals have abundant claims on their funds. The Real Casapia, at Belem, near Lisbon, and another hospital in Lisbon attached to the Casa de Misericordia, receive together nearly three thousand children, who are brought up to different callings, and otherwise prepared for active life, as is usual in such institutions. There is a similar asylum, equally frequented, in Oporto. In this city there is also an asylum in which husbands may place their wives during their own absence from home. It often happens that ladies, on such occasions, enter the asylum of their own accord.

There is also in Oporto an establishment in the nature of a Penitentiary, in which husbands may immure their faithless wives, or even those who give grounds of suspicion. It is presumed that in the nineteenth century, even in Portugal, this must be done under color of some legal authority.

CHAPTER XIV.

ALGERIA.

A pamphlet has lately appeared in France on the subject of Prostitution in Algiers. Its author, Dr. E. A. Duchesne, has [Pg 181]rendered service by collecting a large number of important facts and statistical data.[247]

When the French conquered Algiers in 1830, they found prostitution established there, and prevailing to a large extent. So far as we are able to ascertain, it had always been a leading feature of Algerian society; travelers had noticed it in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In 1830 it was estimated that, with a population of thirty thousand, Algiers contained three thousand prostitutes. We have already had occasion to notice the unreliable character of similar estimates in general, but there is no doubt that the number of lewd women at Algiers under Arab rule was inordinately large. They were mainly Moors, Arabs, and negresses. All were under the control of the chief of the native police—the Mezonar. He kept a list of them, and laid a tax amounting to about two dollars per month on each. As he paid a fixed sum to the government for the privilege of collecting this tax, it was to his interest to increase the number of prostitutes as much as possible, and he appears to have done so. He kept in his employ a number of spies, who watched women suspected of immoral habits, and denounced them whenever they were detected, in which event they were inscribed on the Mezonar’s list, and became prostitutes for life. He was empowered to compel every prostitute to discharge the duties of her calling, and was frequently applied to by strangers to supply them with women. He was not allowed, however, to lease women to Christians or Jews. Twice a year the Mezonar gave a public fête, to which all the male inhabitants of Algiers were invited; the prostitutes formed the female portion of the assemblage, and the public officer profited by the increased patronage they obtained during the festivities, as well as by the sale of tickets for the entertainment.[248]

It is right also to add that the French found that other feature of Oriental manners, unnatural habits, largely developed at Algiers. The cafés, the streets, the baths, the public places were full of boys of remarkable beauty, who more than shared with the women the favor of the wealthier natives. Owing to a criminal negligence on the part of the French authorities, no systematic endeavor has ever been made to eradicate this shameful vice, which appears still to prevail to an alarming extent.

The influx of population, mainly soldiery, into a city thus[Pg 182] steeped in immorality, produced natural results. A few weeks after the invasion, the French general was compelled to establish a Dispensary, and to decree that all dissolute women must undergo an examination there once a week. A tax of five francs per month was laid upon prostitutes to defray the expenses of the establishment. Within less than a year, such grave abuses had crept into the collection of this tax that it was resolved to farm it out, and it was adjudged at auction to a man who agreed to pay 1860 francs per month for its proceeds. In 1832 the monthly tax was raised successively to seven ⁴⁴⁄100, and nine francs per girl, and on these rates it was farmed to one Balré, who paid 1666⁸⁰⁄100 for the privilege of collecting it. He was also entitled to levy and retain the amount of all fines imposed by the police on prostitutes, and to charge women ten francs each time they went to a fête outside the city, and five francs if the fête were within the limits. The profits of the farm were so great that in 1835 Balré was able to pay the government 2250 francs (four hundred and fifty dollars) per month.[249]

Under this system the gravest inconveniences occurred, and became so troublesome that in November, 1835, the governor promulgated a decree remodeling the regulations in force on the subject. It appears the farm system was then abandoned, and the government agents who were intrusted with the collection of the tax robbed both the prostitutes and the state shamefully.

Hence, in December, 1837, a new decree was issued by the governor, repealing all former laws and regulations, and placing the whole subject under the control of the Commissary of Police. The leading provisions of that decree were as follows:

This law is in force at the present time, and is said to have led to great inconvenience. Police agents are accused of levying black mail on the prostitutes to an enormous extent, in the shape of fines, dues for going to balls, hush-money for escaping the visit to the Dispensary, presents to the policeman on the birth of his children, etc. The product of the tax is inordinately large, amounting, independently of fines, to one hundred and twenty francs, or twenty-four dollars per annum for each girl. Several administrators have recommended its diminution or total suppression, but it is still retained.[251]

In the year 1838, when the present law was passed, the number of women inscribed on the police register was 320, the total population of Algiers being 34,882, of whom two thirds were Africans and one third Europeans; but the mayor of the city gave it as his opinion that this figure (320) was in reality far below the truth. In 1846 measures were taken for enforcing the police regulations more strictly than before, and some care was used to procure correct statistics of population and prostitution.[252] We compile the following table from several given by Dr. Duchesne:

To these figures, some of which are only approximative, must[Pg 184] be added the number of French soldiers in the garrison at Algiers. At times the effective force has been as large as twelve or fifteen thousand men.

Another point of interest is the nationality of the prostitutes of Algiers. It is known that the native women are loose in their morals. In many parts of the interior it is common for fathers or brothers to let out their daughters or sisters by the night or the week to strangers, and the young women themselves are only too willing to ratify a bargain which promises to gratify their unbounded sensuality. The following table gives the nationality of the registered prostitutes during the period 1846-1851.[253]

On inquiring for the causes of prostitution at Algiers, Dr. Duchesne found that they might be summed up under three heads: 1st. Poverty, mainly due to the French conquest and the wars which followed. To the present day it appears that it is not unusual for an Arab chief to relieve his wants by sending his prettiest daughter to Algiers to perform a campaign as a prostitute. 2d. The idleness in which all Arab and Moorish women are trained. It was proved that, while all the European women were capable of working at some calling or other, and did work during their stay in the hospital, not one of the native women had any idea of manual employment. A few could sing, and had at one time gained a livelihood as street-singers, but the immense majority were absolutely incapable of doing any thing for a livelihood. 3d. The Oriental idea that the woman is a chattel, to be sold or hired out by her legitimate owner, father, brother, or husband. This idea, which prevails in many savage nations, among others, many of our own Indian tribes, is, of course, the best of all entering wedges for prostitution.[254]

There are fourteen houses of prostitution at Algiers, all kept, it seems, by Europeans, and the greater part by retired prostitutes. The natives object to living under the control of a brothel-keeper. They live alone in their own rooms. Sometimes three or four of[Pg 185] them club together and form a partnership. Their rooms are generally shabby and ill furnished.[255]

Arab prostitutes seldom appear in the streets, and when they do, they are veiled and dressed like modest women. They may be seen at their windows of an evening, peeping through small holes contrived for the purpose, and smoking cigarettes. Their customers are procured by means of runners, who are mostly small boys.

As may be inferred from the amount of the tax on prostitutes, clandestine prostitution is very extensively practiced at Algiers. We have no details or even approximate estimates of the number of clandestine prostitutes, but it doubtless exceeds that of the registered women. Many of them are attached to the garrison, and are handed from regiment to regiment, shielded from the police by being claimed as wives by some of the soldiers. Others in like manner prevail upon some colonist to afford them a temporary home, and so elude the visit of the physician. Dr. Duchesne had reason to believe that syphilis prevailed to an alarming extent among the secret prostitutes, and that, until the tax was removed, and they were encouraged to register themselves on the police roll, it would continue to be general and virulent.[256]

Formerly the baths were the great haunts of clandestine prostitutes. It is known that in most eastern countries the bath is not only a sanitary necessity, but a common ally of sensuality. At Algiers, before the conquest, men and women are said to have bathed promiscuously, and frightful scenes of debauchery occurred daily. Under French rule this has been reformed. Men may not bathe from 6 A.M. to 6 P.M.; but Dr. Duchesne was led to believe that it was quite common for men to introduce women into the baths at night, with the connivance of the bath officials. Indeed, some of the latter appear to fill the same office to the Algerine bathers as the Roman bath servants did to the dissolute men of that day.[257]

It now remains to speak of the Dispensary at Algiers. It was established, as has been stated, within a few days after the capture of the place. For nearly ten years it was a scandal to the faculty and the authorities. The wards were too small; there were not beds enough for the women; every thing was either deficient in quantity or objectionable in quality. In 1839, orders were given for the establishment of a proper and commodious Dispensary.[Pg 186] Three old Moorish houses were hired and divided into wards. They contain at present thirteen wards, with beds for seventy-seven patients; a bath-room, containing six baths; a hall for the visits of prostitutes; and the necessary offices, etc. The staff of the Dispensary consists of a director, treasurer (econome), physician, apothecary, clerk, cook, assistant apothecary, porter, five laborers, and four police agents. All the washing is done in the establishment. The commissariat is on the amplest scale; meat, soup, vegetables of all kinds, rice, eggs, fruit, etc., being supplied in abundance to the patients.[258]

Every morning at seven o’clock the women are visited by the physician, assisted by the apothecary. Those who are able to walk are examined in the salle de visite, the others in their beds. The average number of patients during the year appears to be from five hundred and fifty to six hundred. The average duration of the treatment is from twenty-four to thirty-four days. The cost to the Dispensary averages from one and a half to one and three quarters franc per day for each girl (about thirty or thirty-five cents).[259]

The Dispensary physician reported to Dr. Duchesne that, so far as his observation went, syphilis was more severe on the sea-coast than in the interior; and in the months of September, October, November, and December, than at any other period of the year.[260]

Prostitutes are punished for being more than twenty-four hours behind time in visiting the Dispensary; for leaving it during treatment; for insulting the physician or other authorities; for continuing to exercise their calling after being attacked by disease. The penalty is imprisonment, either in the ordinary prison or in the solitary cell. Formerly, the tread-mill was used, and in bad cases a girl’s hair was cut off, and her nose slit; but these savage relics of Moorish legislation were long since abandoned. Solitary confinement is found to answer every useful purpose.[261]

[Pg 187]

CHAPTER XV.

BELGIUM.

Belgium takes a more prominent position in Europe than its mere extent would warrant. This influence is derived from the vigorous and effective stand made in behalf of rational freedom, and from the manner in which free institutions have been originated and maintained.

The hospitals and other eleemosynary institutions of Belgium are of a magnificent character, supported at an annual expenditure of nearly two hundred thousand dollars. Almost every town, and many of the larger villages, have hospitals for the sick, sometimes maintained at corporation expense, sometimes by private endowments. In 318 hospitals, during the four years from 1831 to 1834 (inclusive), no less than 22,180 persons were treated.[262]

Foundling hospitals are a marked feature of these charitable establishments. The turning table, which was formerly in use in all such institutions, has lately been abandoned in most of them, but still remains in use at those of Brussels and Antwerp. The total number of children annually abandoned in Belgium is estimated to exceed eight thousand out of one hundred and forty-four thousand births, a ratio of about one in eighteen. The average expense attendant upon the maintenance of each infant is about seventy-two francs.

Marriage in Belgium is, by law, simply a civil contract, requiring fifteen days’ notice posted in front of the Hôtel de Ville. Notwithstanding the simplicity of this ceremonial, it is affirmed that an enormous extent of immorality and illegitimacy is to be met with, and that a virtuous servant-girl is altogether exceptional, there being scarcely one of them who has not an illegitimate child, while they maintain with the most unyielding confidence that, so long as the father is a bon ami (sweetheart), there is no moral turpitude in the case.

[Pg 188]Belgium is remarkable for its regulations with respect to prostitution and the spread of venereal disease. The perfections of the latter arrangements are shown in the fact that, out of an army of thirty thousand men, there were less than two hundred cases of syphilis in the year 1855.

The brothels of Brussels are of two kinds: les maisons de debauché and les maisons de passe; these are visited by les filles éparses, who keep their appointments there. The two classes of houses are distinguished by different-colored lanterns hung over the doors.

All classes of prostitutes are required to be examined twice a week; those who live in brothels of the first and second class are visited by the physicians, while the very poor women of the third class, and all those who do not reside in brothels, are obliged to attend at the Dispensary. If they are punctual in their visits for four weeks in succession they are exempt from all tax; but if, on the contrary, their attendance is irregular, they can be imprisoned from one to five days. Any woman who does not live in a brothel can be examined at her own residence, provided that she pays at the Dispensary a sum amounting to about eighty-five cents. For this she receives four visits, and the physicians will continue to call upon her as long as the payments are made in advance. Thus the denizens of the aristocratic brothels are saved the inconvenience of attending at the Dispensary, as also that portion living in private lodgings who can afford to pay the fee to release themselves from going to the office as common prostitutes, while the half-starved, ill-dressed pauper of the third class must wait at the Dispensary until examined, and then return to her squalid home, where none but her companions and the police-officers are ever seen.

The medical staff of the Dispensary is composed of a superintending inspector, whose duty is to be present in the Dispensary when examinations are being made, and to visit the houses once a fortnight at least; of two medical inspectors, who, during alternate months, examine, one the women in the brothels, the other those who attend at the Dispensary. The date and result of every examination are marked on a card belonging to each woman, in the registers kept at the brothels, and in the records of the Dispensary. If a woman be found affected with syphilis or any other infectious disease, the owner of the brothel must send her immediately, in a car, to the hospital, and as soon as her cure is complete her card is handed to her, and she is at liberty to resume her calling.

[Pg 189]

CHAPTER XVI.

HAMBURG.

The ancient legislative enactments respecting prostitution in Hamburg seem to have been of the same character, and based upon the same principles, as in other Continental cities, namely, a partial toleration of a necessary evil for the sake of preventing injurious excesses. This may be traced in the oldest extant law on the subject, dated in 1292. In the public account-books for 1350 are entries of charges which imply that public brothels were built by the corporation, though we find no satisfactory information as to whether they were managed by an appointed official as in Cologne, Strasbourg, or Avignon, or were leased by the city to an individual as in Ulm. It will be interesting to give a sketch of the regulations of prostitution in the latter city before proceeding with the investigation concerning Hamburg.

The laws of the city of Ulm in 1430, or at least that portion of them called “woman house” laws, provided that the houses should be leased, and the lessee, on becoming tenant, swore to serve the city faithfully; to prevent all foul play or concealment of suspicious goods in his house; to provide clean, healthy women, and never to keep less than fourteen. He was bound to observe a fixed dietary scale; the daily meals were to be “of the value of sixpence;” on meat days every woman was to have two dishes, soup with meat and vegetables, and a roast or boiled joint, as most[Pg 190] convenient. On fast-days and in Lent they were to have the same number of dishes, which (out of Lent) might consist of eggs and baked meat. As a change to this, they might have herrings and eggs; or fishes (probably fresh-water fish), which they could cook for themselves, and to which the keeper must add white bread. If a woman refused the food provided, he was bound to give her something of the value of sixpence; he was also to sell them wine “when they required it.” If a woman was pregnant, he was to put her out of the house. In the “woman’s house” there was a chest for general purposes, and a money-box for the accounts between the host and the women. Every woman who kept company with a man at night must pay the keeper a kreutzer, the remainder of the fee being her own property. All money the women obtained in the day was to be put into the general chest; the third of this belonged to the host; the balance was paid to the women at the end of the week, less any debts they had contracted in the mean time. A woman resided in every house who made financial arrangements between inmates and visitors. If a woman received a present in addition to the stipulated fee, she was at liberty to spend it on clothes, shoes, or personal matters to which nobody could lay claim. The keeper could not supply the women with clothes, etc., without the knowledge and consent of the Master of the Beggars (a local functionary who seems to have combined the supervision of brothels, and of known vagrants and beggars). The host was required to provide, at his own cost, a cook and a cook’s maid. Girls or women could, with their own consent, be apprenticed to the “women keeper” by their parents or husbands; but if one was apprenticed against her will, and she, or her friends, wished to cancel the agreement, the keeper was bound to release her without requiring the repayment of any money he might have disbursed for her. If a woman who had accumulated a guilder of her own wished to quit her sinful life, she was allowed to tender it to the keeper in discharge of all her liabilities, and must then be permitted to leave the house, wearing the clothes she wore when she entered it, or, if they were worn out, in her common “Monday clothes.” A woman who desired might leave without this payment if she had nothing to give, but if subsequently detected in any other house the keeper could enforce his demands against her, the discharge not affecting his claim under such circumstances. Every Monday each woman had to contribute one penny, and the host twopence, to the money-box[Pg 191] to purchase tapers for the Virgin and the saints, to be offered in the Cathedral on Sunday nights. If any of the women were sick or could not support themselves, they were to be provided with necessaries from the money-box, to which (for greater security) there were two keys, one kept by the host and the other by the Master of the Beggars. Each woman had to spin daily for the keeper two hanks of yarn, or, in default, to pay three hellers for each hank. On Sunday, Lady-day, and Twelfth-day, after vespers, and in Passion Week, the house was not to be opened. If the keeper broke any of these regulations the council could dismiss him. The oath taken by the Master of the Beggars required him to visit the women-houses every quarter day; to read the laws to the women; and to report to the council any offenses he found existing.[263]

In Hamburg, in 1483, the calling of brothel-keeper was limited to certain streets, apart from the ordinarily frequented thoroughfares—a rule which would imply that the authorities had discontinued building public brothels, and relinquished the business to individuals.

In the seventeenth century a different course of action was adopted, and, in place of toleration and limitation of brothels, strict laws were made in reference to visiting suspected places, and the custody of persons of bad character. The women-houses were pulled down and the women expelled; the criminal records contain frequent instances where the pillory or exile was inflicted for the crime of prostitution.

In 1764, and again in 1767, the Hamburgers enacted very severe laws against offenders, under the title of “delicta carnis,” by which both sexes were subject to pains and penalties, but men seem to have been allowed to clear themselves on oath. The officers of justice were directed to make domiciliary visits in search of offenders, and the pillory, bread and water, the House of Correction, or banishment, are the penalties threatened on habitual evil-doers.

In Germany, prostitution received a terrible impulse from the French Revolution, when the general disruption of public obligations paved the way to unbounded private license. Probably the licentiousness of Europe at the end of the last and commencement of the present century was more extravagant than at any other time. The irruption of immigrants at the fall of the French[Pg 192] monarchy flooded Hamburg with Parisian morals and customs. Places of entertainment and sensual gratification arose in all directions, the homely, simple manners of the Vaterland were subverted, and a less rigid line of conduct took their place. In the words of a writer of the day: “Our eating-houses were metamorphosed into restaurants; our dancing-rooms into saloons; our drinking-shops into pavilions; our cellars into halls; our girls into demoiselles; in short, we were thoroughly polished up by the immoral shoal of immigrants. Quick and unrestrained strode the crowd over our pleasant streets, and modesty and respectability fled with averted faces, to the sorrow of the few good men.”

The name demoiselle was granted to many of the common women, their places of resort being called “Ma’amselle houses.” In those days the Hamburgers saw, with astonishment, houses fitted up and furnished in the style of mansions, with costly upholstery and cabinet-work.[264] Among the women were the femmes entretenness, who received their friends at certain hours, and whose favors were dispensed for a Louis d’or or a ducat. They frequented the first and second boxes of the German and French theatres, and drove through the public streets in handsome carriages. Some of the keepers of this class of houses had physicians in their pay, whose services were always available by the inmates. Petits soupers were given here, and sometimes a ball took place.

These were literally the aristocracy of prostitution. The second, third, and fourth grades resided in inferior streets or in the suburbs, differing in their attractions according to the rank which they assumed, but all equally shameless and unequivocal in their conduct and appearance.

Notwithstanding this rapid spread of prostitution, the police of the city can not justly be charged with neglect of duty, any public outrage being followed by condign punishment. At one time a whole ship-load of nymphs of the pavé was dispatched to the colonies; at another a raid was made on the most conspicuous houses, some of the inmates alarmed into decency of conduct, and the incorrigible publicly exhibited in the streets, decorated with inscriptions signifying their offenses. The voice of the few was powerless against the corruptions of the many. The pamphlets and papers of the time teem with the proffered services of go-betweens, and even the Hamburg ladies themselves were far from perfection, if we may credit the evidence of a fictitious petition,[Pg 193] praying, among other things, that the ladies restrict the indecency of their costume, and not make such a liberal display of their charms.

It was impossible such an extravagant state of society should long exist; a reaction was inevitable; and we find, accordingly, an ordinance enacted in 1807 by the Proctor Abendroth in reference to the matter. It recognized brothel-keeping and prostitution as a calling, and permitted it under certain restrictions. A tax on the class was imposed, and means were prescribed by which a register of all persons engaged therein was to be kept, and their health and general good conduct maintained and enforced. The official justification of the tax is found in the order itself, which declares that, “for the purposes aforesaid” (police register and supervision, medical examination, maintenance in sickness, poverty, etc.), “and in order that the public shall be at no charges, each housekeeper shall, for every woman residing with him, pay two marks to the Proctor’s treasury. The surplus of this treasury shall go to the Hospital.”

During the French occupation in 1811, the police renewed and enforced the stringent regulations on the subject of common houses and women. The preamble of their “Instructions” (April, 1811) is worthy of notice:

After the withdrawal of the French, the vigilance of the police authorities seems to have relaxed, if we are to judge by complaints[Pg 194] published at the time, in which they are accused of complicity with the unfortunates who infested the streets of Hamburg, and are said, “by the agency of a trifling bribe, to be able to ply their hideous trade unobstructed, and to the great annoyance of the virtuously disposed, who, after certain hours of the evening, are unable to pass along the streets.”

In 1820, “the previously existing police regulations against prostitutes being proved very ineffectual, insomuch that they infest the public streets and ways, not only to the offense of decency and propriety, but to the endangerment of public order and safety,” it was ordered that the regulations should be renewed, and additional powers were given to the police to enforce the registry of individuals coming within the scope of the law.

At this time we find some information as to the number of prostitutes, who are stated to be about five hundred, chiefly foreigners, and their receipts from their patrons, but we have no guide to the number of women who pursued their calling privately, which must have been large.

The civic administration of the Senator Hudtwalcker is marked by earnest endeavors to control prostitution and restrict it within known bounds. Some of his views on the subject met much opposition. He wished to close up one end of a notorious street, and to wall up the back windows, stationing a watchman constantly at the end left open. After great personal attention to the subject, he published the result of his experience.[265] His principles are those upon which the present police regulations of Hamburg are based. He says:

7, 8, 9. Prescribe the identification of individuals subscribing; the details of their place of birth; the consent of parents when living; also, “That any brothel-keeper detaining an innocent girl on false pretenses shall be punished with fine and imprisonment, and the concession be withdrawn.”

12. Prohibits solicitation of passengers.

14. Limits the places to which prostitutes may resort.

The remaining sections relate to the collection of the tax; the penalties for violation are fine and imprisonment.

Having thus briefly sketched the progress of legislation on prostitution in Hamburg, based upon the principle that “prostitution is a necessary evil, and, as such, must be endured under strict supervision of the authorities,” it seems an appropriate place to copy the following remarks of an eminent local writer:

Thus much for Hamburg legislation, and the sound arguments in its favor. We will now give some facts illustrative of the vice as it exists at the present time, using a pamphlet by Dr. Lippert, entitled “Prostitution in Hamburg. 1848.”

It must be premised that, for the purpose, Hamburg is divided into two parts: the city proper, and the suburb of St. Paul. The latter is under a distinct municipal authority, and is the ordinary residence of seamen and those depending on a seafaring life.

For many years the police returns of the city proper would show about five hundred of the registered “common women” (eingeschrieben Dirnen), and one hundred registered brothels. The police regulations requiring monthly payment of the personal and house tax, and also a renewal of the permission to keep brothels at the same time, is a very convenient method of obtaining a census of the class. The following is a statement of the largest and smallest monthly number of registered women for several years:

[Pg 198]

These monthly reports do not show any marked variation at any particular period, the rise and fall being arbitrary. The fluctuation is not very great in the aggregate, although from November, 1834, to January, 1835, there was a decrease of 86 (or nearly one fifth), while between November, 1835, and January, 1836, there was a corresponding increase. Since that time the numbers have remained steadily at about one point.

These figures show that the number of those living privately is gradually diminishing, more of them being concentrated in the registered houses.

Dr. Lippert is of opinion that prostitution decreases in the summer and increases in the winter months. The statistics will certainly support this theory, but the difference is so small as scarcely to warrant its reception as a rule.

[Pg 199]

In reference to the classes from which the ranks of the common women in Hamburg are recruited, Dr. Lippert states that four fifths are from the agricultural districts of the vicinity; that they live as house-servants, tavern-waiters, or in other callings for a time, and then become prostitutes “as a matter of business.” Without any desire to controvert his opinion on local questions, it may be doubted whether bad example, vicious education, ignorance of moral or religious obligations, or temptation, are not sufficient to account for their fall, aside from this sweeping denunciation, this commercial view of the question, opposed as it is to all experience in every civilized country where any inquiries on the subject have been made.

The private prostitutes, whether registered or unregistered, are mainly seamstresses or others dependent upon daily labor. These women seem to retain some natural sense of the disgrace attached to open and avowed courtesans, and in their secrecy and quiet retain a few feminine characteristics of which the common brothel woman is destitute.

We have no reliable detail of private unregistered prostitution, or of mere houses of accommodation in Hamburg; but an important fact is to be found in the number of illegitimate children, and the decrease, in proportion to the population, of the number of marriages. The following results are taken from Neddermeyer’s “Statistics and Topography of Hamburg.”

The proportion of illegitimate to legitimate children is about 1 to 5, the actual number of illegitimate births being as follows:

[Pg 200]

We have now to examine the physiological and pathological peculiarities of the Hamburg prostitutes.

The police regulations require that no registered woman shall be under twenty years of age; but in this they have a discretionary power, so as to keep under inspection and supervision some younger girls whom neither the work-house nor prison can reclaim, the experience of the Hamburg authorities having convinced them that such punitive institutions are seldom successful in the work of reformation; a truth which will, ere long, be more generally acknowledged, especially in reference to abandoned women, than it is at the present day.

The official list for 1844 shows that of the registered prostitutes there were

In 1846, of women living in registered houses, there were

The birth-places of the 502 women reported in 1844 included most of the countries in Germany. There were from

The nativity returns for 512 women, in 1846, do not vary materially from the above, the difference in the foreign-born being that there were four, instead of five, born out of Germany. These tables show that about one in five are natives of Hamburg city and territory. Dr. Lippert notices this fact as a small proportion, and accounts for it by enumerating the difficulties of local relationship, parentage, etc., which would be opposed to the registration[Pg 201] of native women. These circumstances favor the presumption that many of the unregistered women are city born.

The Hamburger Berg, or St. Paul’s Suburb, is on the west side of Hamburg, and has already been mentioned as the abode of seamen and their dependents. Brothels were tolerated here, in deference to the wants of the inhabitants, at a time when they were strictly excluded from the city proper. The women and the houses are of a different type from those of other parts of Hamburg. All the prostitutes live in registered houses, unregistered or private traffic in this quarter being rigorously opposed by the authorities. The brothels and their inmates are in the most flourishing condition at the end of autumn, when the home voyages are completed and the sailors paid off. For a time mirth and excitement bear the sway; when the wages are all spent, things relapse into their old condition, and sometimes the keepers dismiss some of their women, the supply being in excess of the demand.

During the year 1846 the number of registered women in this district was

The 169 women registered in December were distributed among nineteen tolerated houses. In seven of these music and dancing were permitted, and they contained respectively 21, 13, 11, 19, 20, 18, 29 women, leaving only 26 women to inhabit the remaining twelve houses.

The ages of these women were

The places of birth do not vary materially from the proportions given already. Other matters relating to this particular class will be found hereafter.

In their physique the great majority of the registered women present no pleasing aspect. Generally taken from the rudest classes, they are coarse and unattractive in their appearance, and from the consequences of irregular indulgence and continual exposure, they soon lose the womanly characteristics they once possessed. But this is not a portrait of the whole. Among the unregistered private women may be found some of considerable beauty. The registered women who reside in private, or in first-class[Pg 202] brothels, have some prepossessing members of their ranks, while the St. Paul suburb has few but of the roughest kind. Physical strength seems more in demand among the habitués of that section than a graceful form or a pretty face.

In their bodily peculiarities and diseases there is no difference between the public women of Hamburg and those of other cities. At the commencement of their career they frequently become thin and emaciated, but after a time, probably owing to their idle life and good food, regain their substance. In their phrenological development we find a marked preponderance of the animal instincts over the intellectual faculties. The effect of their mode of life will depend somewhat upon individual constitution. The teeth of women of the town are generally bad, but in Hamburg they are in excellent order—much better than the majority of the general population. Their complexion is pale, and they endeavor to remedy this by the constant use of coarse cloths, applications of eau de Cologne, and other stimulants, but very rarely by painting, except among the lowest classes. They soon lose their hair from dissipation, the use of pomatum, curling irons, etc. It is, however, in the rough, harsh voice that the most conspicuous result of their calling is shown.

We will leave, for the present, the medical portion of this inquiry, and give a sketch of their domestic or every-day life. It must be borne in mind that the police divisions are into “registered” or “unregistered,” and “public” or “private” women.

The public women (öffentlichen dirnen) are under the special control and supervision of a police authority charged with this duty. Without his express cognizance and permission they can not be registered, or “written in” (eingeschrieben), nor can they have liberty to change their residence, or to be “written out” (ausgeschrieben). This officer is the collector of the impost upon them and upon the brothel-keeper (bordelwirth), which is paid over to the fund (meretricen kasse). We can not give the detailed application of this money, but, in general terms, it does not swell the revenues of the city, and, to avoid public scandal, is applied exclusively to the police and medical services required by the class.

The keepers and women are of three grades. It does not clearly appear whether a woman can select the class with whom she will associate. We are inclined to think the magistrates decide this point, and allot her to the one for which she seems best adapted.

[Pg 203]In their apparel and food there exists the usual difference that may be found in all places and ranks of life. The police regulations, and the generally sober style of dress among the Hamburgers, restrict any immodest display of the person or extravagance of attire. The first-class women are generally costumed with taste and elegance, while among the lower ranks plain and serviceable garments are in demand. In most cases of the registered women residing in brothels, the keeper supplies the clothes, and very often charges extravagant prices for them. Extortionate demands in this respect are a fruitful source of complaints to the police, who moderate the bills with no very tender sympathy for the creditor. The clothes and jewelry of some of the first-class women are hired from some clothes-lender (vermietheinnen), but others seldom resort to this expedient, excepting for trinkets.

The food of the house-women is good and plentiful, varying according to the rate of the brothel in which they live. The old sumptuary laws are not in force, but the interest of the keeper induces him to desire a prudent popularity among his women, and to maintain the character of his house by the liberality of his entertainment both in quantity and quality. A considerable portion of their liquids is coffee, of which they are very fond. Wines and liquors are supplied by the house only on holidays, but visitors can purchase them at any time they wish. Drunkenness is comparatively rare among the better class, partly owing to the care of the keeper, but more from dread of the police supervision and consequent punishment.

In their intellectual capacity there is nothing to distinguish the prostitutes in Hamburg. Few can read, and fewer still can write. Those who can read seek their amusement in the old romances of the circulating libraries, seldom perusing that libidinous style of publications known among us as “yellow-covered literature.” En passant, this seems the universal practice of the class, wherever any inquiries have been made. Like other ignorant persons, they are superstitious. Lippert mentions one particular omen connected with their calling: she who picks up any article which has been thrown away is sure to receive a visit from a man soon after. He does not say whether this has been verified by experience.

Their ordinary routine of life is one of useless idleness. They rise about ten and take breakfast, of which coffee is the staple. The morning is loitered away in dressing, reading novels, playing cards or dominoes, and kindred occupations. In some of the [Pg 204]lower-class houses they dispel their ennui by assisting in domestic work, but this is a matter of favor which they are careful shall not become an obligation. By the middle of the day they are ready for dinner. In the afternoon they add the finishing touches to their dress, and wait the arrival of visitors. Some resort to the public lounges or dancing saloons to form or cultivate acquaintances, but the aristocracy of the order hold it more becoming to their dignity to stay at home and wait for their “friends.”

In that fine and peculiar quality of modesty, which adds the crowning grace to woman’s charms, even the prostitute is not wholly deficient. Some trace of the angel attribute is visible, but mostly in the private women, where a regard for the decent proprieties of life yet lingers amid the wreck of character, and to such it frequently forms the chief attraction.

Religion has an influence over some, strangely at variance with its dictates as are their lives, but a large majority are entirely destitute of any such sentiment. Occasionally, Biblical pictures may be seen in the rooms of brothels, but merely as ornaments, for they are neutralized by the contiguity of others more consonant with the place.

In their relations to the male sex there are differences between women residing in public brothels and those living privately, whether registered or unregistered. Partly from inclination, but mainly from policy on the part of the keeper, the former seldom own allegiance to any particular lover. It is true that any one who is able and willing to pay liberally can come and go as he pleases, provided he does not interfere with the girl’s “business” in other profitable quarters. Not so with the private women, who frequently have particular “lovers” to whom they show much kindness, although from them they often receive but little sympathy or protection, many of these men not scrupling to exist entirely upon the earnings of a woman whom they would publicly insult if they met her away from home.

In their personal conduct toward each other the women residing in one house are constrained and envious. In the first class there is a ceremonious retention of the forms of politeness, but they are too frequently brought into personal rivalry to entertain much good feeling. In the lower classes jealousy often finds vent in reproaches or blows, and frequently a conflict ensues requiring the interposition of the host or of a neighboring police officer. Among those who live alone warm friendships are not uncommon;[Pg 205] much timely assistance is afforded in times of sickness or want; good offices are reciprocated; and it sometimes happens, in the delicate matter of their visitors, that a man who has been in the habit of favoring one woman will not find his attentions welcomed by others.

Their crimes and offenses include the ordinary category, but it is asserted that theft is less common in Hamburg than elsewhere, and, when it does take place, it is more frequently committed by the irregular members of the body than by the duly registered women. It will be perceived that the system of registration offers too many facilities for detection, a fact to which the unusual honesty must doubtless be ascribed. Personal quarrels and assaults, or drunkenness among the older members, consign them to the House of Detention or House of Correction. Those imprisoned from various causes generally amount to one hundred or one hundred and twenty.

The licensed brothels are supplied with inmates by females (kupplerinnen) whose services are recognized by the authorities. In case of any emergency, the keeper applies to one of the procuresses, and if the girl she offers suits him, the candidate is first subjected to a medical examination. Passed safely through this ordeal, she is taken to the police office and “written in” to her new keeper, who is bound to discharge certain of her debts, as the amount due his predecessor, for instance. If the medical officers report her sick, she is sent to the infirmary if she belong to Hamburg, but if a foreigner is dispatched out of the city forthwith. In cases where a woman thus applying to the authorities has not previously lived as a prostitute, she is usually exhorted by the magistrate to abandon her intention and return to the paths of virtue, a routine piece of benevolence which is usually fruitless. The ordinary police fee for registration is two marks, the physician’s fee is one mark, and the agent’s usual remuneration four marks.

The registered women are thus kept strictly under the eye of the police, and, whenever they are disposed to quit their wretched life, have the special protection of that body. The keepers naturally throw all possible obstacles in the way of such a determination, especially if a girl is much in debt; but, by some means, whenever a woman is under any restraint, and is consequently unable to apply personally to the police, an anonymous note finds its way to the office, and speedily effects the desired object. The[Pg 206] authorities do not sympathize in any way with the brothel-keepers, but use all their energies to serve the women whenever any occasion offers.

The registered women are designated as “Brothel women” (Bordell dirnen), who live in licensed houses; as “Private women” (für sich wohnende dirnen) when they live by themselves, in which case their landlords are mostly mechanics, hucksters, or laundresses; and the common “Street-walkers” (Strassen dirnen), who ply their trade in the streets, and find shelter in the abodes of indigence and misery. These last are the lowest grade of the registered women.

Most of the brothels (bordelle) are in the oldest parts of the city, to which they were originally limited, but the leading houses may be found in the Schwieger strasse, a street of moderate traffic in a good neighborhood. Here the women are seated at the windows, conspicuously dressed up and prepared for the public eye, making themselves known to passengers by their gestures and salutations. Some of these houses accommodate as many as fourteen inmates. They are well supplied with good mahogany furniture and fine draperies, and are neat and elegant throughout. The women are generally from twenty to twenty-five years old, and are attractively dressed and decorated. The venereal disease is very rare among this class, great attention being paid to personal cleanliness, and the bath very frequently used. The men who visit this neighborhood consist of merchants, the richer public and business employés, officers, and especially the numerous commercial men who resort to Hamburg at all seasons of the year.

The denizens of the Dammthorwall, the Drehbahm, and Ulricas strasse lead but a dull life, as it is the custom in those localities for the women to sit at the windows all day. Their great diurnal event is the visit of the hair-dresser (friseurian), who, while contributing to the adornment of the person, a very serious affair, owing to the quantity of false hair required, and the necessity of making to-day’s effect vary from yesterday’s, also retails the latest items of interesting news or scandal. Whenever any of these women go out to walk, it is customary for the keeper to send together two who are at variance with each other, so as to establish a mutual check. The hair-dressing and walk over, the next important occurrence is dinner, after which they spend their time solely at the doors or windows.

[Pg 207]The hours of closing in these first and second rate brothels are not so strictly enforced by the police as in the lower parts. Occasionally the women are allowed to visit the balls at the celebrated Hall of Mirrors, or other well-known dancing saloons in the vicinity.

In first-rate houses the accounts between the keeper and the women are but little understood. As already observed, some of them hire their clothes; others purchase from the landlord on credit, and he charges accordingly; but these matters trouble the women very slightly. If they leave one house to reside in another, the new keeper pays the old one’s bill; if a woman abandons prostitution entirely, the host’s demand is totally irrecoverable.

In the second and third rate houses the charges for board and lodging are better understood. It will average about twenty marks (five dollars) a week, washing, fire, and light being extra charges. The keeper will supply fortunate or attractive women with articles of dress to any reasonable amount, but his liberality is restricted toward those who have fewer visitors. His endeavor is to keep all in debt, and in this he is usually successful. Their ornaments are usually the property of the landlord, and form a common stock distributed among his boarders in the manner best calculated to increase or display their powers of fascination, and resumed by him at discretion.

Passing over some intermediate classes of brothels, which present no remarkable characteristics, to those in the Gangen, we find the lowest grade of registered houses and registered women. Most of these are drinking-shops, and the police exercise the right of determining the prices to be charged for liquors. Here may frequently be seen host, guests, and girls, drinking and frolicking together in a small back room, where scenes of gross indelicacy (to use a mild term) frequently take place. The women in this district have literally to work hard, and are generally required to perform all the domestic labor of the establishment. In winter it is a common occurrence for them to take a shovel and clear the snow and ice from the pavement in front of their domicile. Like others of their calling, they are seldom out of the landlord’s debt, their board costing them from ten to fourteen marks weekly (say three to four dollars). Washing, fire, and light cost a dollar more, and the hair-dresser’s charge is about fifty cents. In addition to this, they must pay the weekly medical and monthly police tax. They spend a miserably monotonous existence, seldom leaving the house[Pg 208] for weeks or even months, except when they are required to visit the doctors or the police. Their visitors are from the roughest and most animalized of the population, and the treatment they receive is merely that of purchasable commodities, intended to supply the grosser wants of men whose lives are centred in sensuality. Like their compeers of the St. Paul Suburb, they are usually women of great strength and endurance, but soon degenerate into mere passive, passionless tools. Could it be imagined that they were of reflective habits, it would be impossible to conceive a more severe punishment than their own sense of the degradation, the total loss of all womanly feelings, exhibited in their daily existence.

The brothel-keepers, among whom are some Jews, have no striking peculiarities as a class. It has been already shown that both sexes are engaged in the hideous trade, and, despite the police regulations and restrictions, the obligations and disabilities under which they are placed, it is undoubtedly a most lucrative occupation. The rental of a registered house is usually double the ordinary charge for similar tenements. There are some keepers who own the houses in which they live. In their liabilities must be included the regulation which makes them responsible for thefts committed in their houses, and for any violence or disorder which may take place there, the penalties for which are fine, imprisonment, and loss of license. They also sustain considerable losses from the repentance of some of their inmates; but, in spite of all untoward circumstances, they contrive to make money rapidly.

The period during which they continue in business is uncertain, many of them continuing their houses from inclination long after they have accumulated sufficient property to retire. Of the female keepers some are young and handsome, but these do not find much favor with their women, who dread the effects of an opposition. They are rarely married, but cohabit with some man for the sake of his protection. Among these pro tempore husbands are some whose qualifications and previous positions render it surprising that they should consent to purchase existence from so polluted a source.

The housekeepers of the Hamburger Berg are not only under a separate municipal jurisdiction, but are in themselves a different class of people. They are mostly men, their dealings being principally with sailors, and their visitors sometimes demanding more[Pg 209] physical strength than a woman could command to restrain them within the prescribed limits. Their houses are but indifferently furnished, and the whole arrangements are very humble and unpretending in character. A few years ago fatal quarrels were not uncommon among their customers, but this pugnacious tendency has been materially checked by a stricter and more constant police visitation. Even now, jealousy will sometimes cause a furious contest between two of the hardy sons of Neptune. The singular fidelity of some sailors to particular women will account for this. When a man returns from a long voyage, he is desirous of paying his attentions to the female who has before shared his affections and his wages, and if he finds her under the protection of another man, the natural result is a trial of strength as to who shall be the possessor of the beauty in dispute. These tournaments, or the general fray which sometimes arises at the close of the Sunday evening dance, require to be subdued by no gentle means: hearty blows are far more effectual peace-makers than words or threats.

Some of these registered hosts have followed their calling for many years. One noble incident in connection with them must not be omitted. In the severe winter of 1846, the landlord of the “Four Lions,” a brothel-keeper of twenty-four years’ standing, maintained at his own cost, for some months, nearly one hundred poor families, many of them with three or four children each.

In the dance-houses there is music every evening except Saturday; on week-days from six to eleven, and on Sundays from four to eleven. At eleven the music is stopped, and at twelve the house is peremptorily closed. The evenings during the week are comparatively dull affairs, and male visitors are sometimes so scarce that the women are compelled to dance with each other, or sit in inglorious idleness. A scene of the wildest uproar and most uncontrolled mirth is exhibited on Sunday evenings. Every variety of national dance may then be seen—cachucha, reel, jig, contré-dance, waltz, and hornpipe have each their several admirers. Songs and shouts are heard in every conceivable dialect, and the room becomes literally “confusion worse confounded” until the hour arrives for closing.

Of the registered women living by themselves there is little to note. They are more industrious than those in brothels. Many of them have a fixed occupation, but resort to prostitution to increase their income. Money earned in this way is occasionally required for the common necessaries of life, but is more frequently[Pg 210] spent in personal gratification, in the way of fine dresses, ornaments, etc., or is appropriated to support the extravagance of some lover, who repays the generosity by a little flattering attention, or an occasional escort to some dancing saloon in the suburbs. The visitors to these women are more select than those to the courtesans hitherto described.

In the lowest ranks of prostitution, the common “street-walkers,” to be met at all times and places, under all circumstances and of all ages, we find the most prolific sources of infection. A certain, though very small remnant of decency, seconded by the invaluable watchfulness of the police, secures the visitor from disease among the inmates of registered houses, but the street-walker is under no such control. Young girls scarcely more than children, old women almost grandmothers, ply their frightful trade on the “walls” around the city, and in other obscure places, where a trifling present will purchase their caresses. Their principal customers are young boys and very old men, their practices being continued under the shades of evening until the arrival of the night-watch drives them to their wretched dens.

The Hamburg police are perfectly cognizant of these proceedings, and wage perpetual war against individuals, but find it altogether impossible to suppress the class, among whom are the habitual tenants of the jail and the House of Correction. No one can differ in opinion from Dr. Lippert, who says, “In this class of women the most pernicious results of prostitution are to be found.”

Private or domestic prostitution, so widely extended in every great town, exists in less proportion in Hamburg than in other capital cities of the same extent. That disgraceful union in evil occasionally met with on the Continent, in which husband and wife mutually agree to follow their inclinations or lusts untrammeled by each other, is scarcely known. The kept woman is comparatively rare. The expense attendant upon such an appendage of luxury is a serious consideration, and none but the wealthy patrician or successful business man venture on the step. It is assumed, on very good authority, that there are not fifty “mistresses” in Hamburg. Those residing there are under no police control, as in a public point of view they commit no breach of law.

Under the second head of private prostitution we find those who, having legitimate employment, increase their earnings in this manner. We have alluded already to the same class of [Pg 211]registered women, but the greater portion keep themselves aloof from police observation as long as possible. They are composed of needle-women, laundresses, hair-dressers, shop-girls, and others, but it must not be supposed that they represent the majority of women dependent upon those occupations. The contrary is the fact; for in Hamburg, as every where else, are to be found many bright examples of chastity in the midst of poverty; of patient, persevering industry and integrity in unfavorable circumstances. Those working women who are willing to accept the price of sin are known in the streets by a peculiar gait, by their searching and inviting glances, or their treacherous but winning smile, and also by frequently walking in the same neighborhood. They are seldom seen abroad during the day, but in the afternoon, about “’change hours,” they begin to resort to the streets near the Bourse, encountering the men as they hurry to and from the centre of business. In the evening they promenade in the vicinity of the hotels and theatres, on the Jungfernstig, the new walls, etc., when night helps their incognito, and shrouds them in a little more mystery. They are fond of attending the theatres and dancing saloons on Sundays and holidays, like the Parisian grisette, in company with a lover, but the sum of their enjoyment is complete if they can participate in the annual Shrove Tuesday ball and masquerade at the Apollo Saal, the Elb Pavilion, or the theatre.

Another class of private prostitutes is known to the police by the term “Winklehuren” (hedge w——). These are of the lower class of female operatives. Servant-girls, from their proximity to the junior members of families, often spread disease in the household of their employers. Dr. Lippert records as a medical fact that examinations have frequently shown the domestics in the highest families to be literally saturated with venereal disease, and he states his opinion that six out of every ten servant-girls who are found in the streets at night are accessible to pecuniary temptation. This ratio is very large, but as it is a local matter with which he is presumed to be well acquainted, it would be out of place to attempt either to sustain or controvert it.

All these private prostitutes resort to the houses of accommodation (Absteigequartiere), which exist in spite of the constant watchfulness of the police. When they are hunted up and rooted out of one place, they reappear under another guise elsewhere; a removal being facilitated by the slender nature of their equipment, which seldom consists of more than furniture for one room.[Pg 212] For “genteel” delinquents, they are placed where the accommodation is veiled under the French disguise of petits soupers, or some such flimsy artifice.

To the question, “What becomes of the prostitutes?” Hamburg offers no special reply. Under favorable circumstances, they abandon their calling, and become the wives of mechanics or small tradesmen; or they carry on some business for themselves, and strive to become reputable members of society; or they become companion to some man, and follow his fortunes, usually reverting to common prostitution. When their charms are entirely lost, and no hope remains of earning a living from their sale, they sometimes, but very rarely, become brothel-keepers; sometimes procuresses; and, more frequently, servants in the registered houses.

Some of the dancing saloons already mentioned have attained European celebrity. They stand in the same relation to common women as the exchange does to the mercantile community. Their female visitors are mostly prostitutes, a fact which deprives the scene of many fascinations existing in other cities. In the end of the last century there was no public place expressly designed for dancing, until, with the many equivocal blessings disseminated by the French Revolution, they also became an institution. The Hamburg saloons are conducted with order and quiet, and are generally closed about one o’clock in the morning. One of the most important, the Bacchus Hall, was burned down some few years since, and the authorities have, as yet, refused to grant a license for its re-erection.

As public places which in some degree facilitate prostitution, mention must be made of the common sleeping apartments locally called “deep cellars” (tiefen kellar). These are roomy vaults, many feet under ground, in which the poor find nightly shelter at very low prices. They are provided with beds and bedding. In the depth of poverty to which some of their customers have fallen, they can not afford to pay two schellings (about four cents) for the luxury of a bed, and these repose their weary limbs on some foul straw, or on the ground, at the charge of half a schelling. Some of these cellars are fifteen or twenty feet below the surface of the street, and it will not require a very vivid imagination to portray their horrors.

The beer and wine houses of Hamburg are tolerably free from prostitution; but a new class has lately sprung up, called “cellar-keeping”[Pg 213] (kellerwirthschaff), and in these the guests are served by females in fancy costume, Swiss, Polish, or Circassian, as the case may be. Many of these contain private rooms for prostitution, and, although they are closely watched by the police, who sometimes ungallantly expel the fair foreigners and close the establishments, they still flourish, others being speedily opened elsewhere to fill up the gap.

From this general description of prostitutes, their habitations, and customs, we will proceed to a consideration of their condition as to health, and the extent and virulence of syphilis among them, still taking the pamphlet of Dr. Lippert for our guide.

It is generally imagined that the excessive action of the generative organs interferes with the power of procreation in common women. Dr. Lippert undertakes to controvert this opinion, with what success medical men whose professional experience has been among this class will be able to judge. He supports his views by general assertions rather than by specific facts, but refers, in corroboration, to well-known instances in which children have been born while the mothers were living in a state of open prostitution, as also to those cases where women who have abandoned the habit of promiscuous intercourse confine themselves to one man by marriage or cohabitation, and then become mothers. He attributes their sterility during prostitution to their wild and irregular life, their constant exposure to weather, etc., and argues that the powers of conception are suspended, but not destroyed thereby. He also introduces the fact that abortions are frequently produced in Hamburg by the common women themselves, or by some old crones who preside over their orgies, and are stated to have a long list of drugs applicable to this purpose, which they use in a reckless manner. The medical police are not unaware of these proceedings, but find them difficult to detect, as a woman will endeavor to avoid the stated examination by pleading excessive menstruation, or inventing some story she thinks likely to deceive, until all traces of the abortion are removed. The remarks of Dr. Lippert would lead to the belief that the excessive use of the female organs was more favorable to health than the disuse would be, a conclusion which most physicians will not be willing to admit. He adds, “Cancer of the womb occurred but once in my experience of eleven years at the General Infirmary, and cases of prolapsus uteri are very rare.”

A disease incident to common women, Colica scortorum (W——’s[Pg 214] Colic), happens in Hamburg as elsewhere, but is attributed to exposure to the weather more than any other cause. It consists of pain in the womb, extending across the abdomen round to the loins, and sometimes including the whole region of the stomach. It is frequently accompanied with gastric derangement, sickness, or diarrhœa.

The enlargement of the clitoris, so much insisted on by some writers, Lippert altogether doubts, except as a very exceptional case; nor does he admit any effect of prostitution on the rectum unless induced by unnatural intercourse. As a general result of his observations, he concludes that, “apart from syphilitic affections, the generative organs of a prostitute do not usually differ from those of a virtuous woman.”

We find some returns of diseases not directly connected with prostitution; thus, cases of itch, which is now becoming rare, were in

Of other general maladies, including fevers, inflammation of the lungs, liver, womb, etc., rheumatism, small-pox, piles, jaundice, gout, dropsy, and diarrhœa, the following are reported:

Convulsions are more rare than in the female sex in general; of hysteria there is scarcely a trace, and a few cases of epilepsy are ascribed to the use of ardent spirits.

Delirium tremens seldom occurs. The vigilance of the police, and the prompt committal to prison of every prostitute found drunk and disorderly, may account for this. The proportion of cases of delirium tremens was only about one in one thousand.

Mania sometimes shows itself. Remorse may produce this, as may a violent affection for some particular man.

Of the actual extent of venereal disease in Hamburg, or any other city, it is impossible to speak with certainty, but the fact that in the general hospital there it is of a very mild type is an argument in favor of medical inspection. Dr. Lippert says:

The negro sailor is held in very bad repute by these women, and some keepers will not allow him to enter their houses, believing that infection from a colored man is of the worst kind, and almost incurable.

The medical returns for the year 1846 give the following tables relating to the women in the St. Paul Suburb:

From the facts we have quoted, it is evident that the virulence of syphilitic affections among the registered women is unquestionably mitigated. “Tertiary syphilis is rare;” secondary syphilis but occasional, while primary forms have lost their malignity. “There is a marked aggravation of the disease during the summer months, when a considerable influx of strangers takes place. This was particularly observable after the great fire in 1842.”

The mildness of the disease, and its easy control, can be ascribed to nothing but the weekly medical supervision. The women are visited at their own houses, and any reluctance or refusal renders them liable to punishment.

Contrasted with this state of affairs, we have the severity of syphilis among unregistered women, who conceal their disease as long as they can. Of those arrested, many are found to be diseased in an aggravated form. In the year 1845, of 138 unregistered women sent to prison, 43 had syphilis, or nearly one third of the whole. Parent-Duchatelet says this proportion is exceeded by the same class in Paris, where the infected amount to one half the illicit prostitutes.

The “Kurhaus” is a medical institution especially designed for bad characters who are arrested by the police, be they registered or unregistered. The General Infirmary has also a venereal ward. The police authorities contribute annually, from the amount raised by the impost on brothels and prostitutes, 5000 marks ($1500) to the funds of this infirmary. From the following facts this would seem an inadequate amount. In 1844 there were received and treated 580 females with syphilis; the total residence amounting to 30.387 days, or a pro rata average of 53½ days each, the stipend allowed for which service would be about four and a half cents per day.

[Pg 217]The number of female cases of syphilis received into the same institution in 1843 was,

and in 1845,

The state of the male venereal patients proves the same general amelioration in the character of the disease. The cases, however, are worse than among the registered women, which must be ascribed to the dislike of men to enter the hospital until such a course becomes unavoidable. The numbers received were, in

Some returns are given by Dr. Lippert of the amount of sickness in the garrison; but he has not stated the number of soldiers, so no comparison can be drawn from his information. The figures are as follows:

The treatment of syphilis adopted in the Hamburg hospital was introduced by Dr. Fricke, one of the first to apply the non-mercurial system. Ricord’s practice is also followed, and Hydropathy has been tried. It would be out of place to enter into any arguments here as to the relative merits of these systems.

The mortal diseases of the Hamburg prostitutes are incidental to their course of life. Exposure to the weather, alternate extremes of want and luxury, night-watching and constant excitement, induce consumption, inflammation of the lungs, dropsy, internal and abdominal complaints; gastric, rheumatic, or nervous fevers; and these, or chronic diseases resulting from renewed venereal infection, lead to the

[Pg 218]“Last scene of all,
That ends this strange, eventful history.”

Before dismissing this subject, we will give a sketch of the

HAMBURG MAGDALEN HOSPITAL.

This institution was founded in 1821 through the exertions of the Burgomaster Abendroth and others, and was constructed on the model of a similar asylum in London. The object is to reclaim women from vice by means that can be applied only in a place expressly dedicated to the purpose.

The number of inmates is small; only twelve can be received. The business of the asylum is conducted by a committee, including two ministers, a physician, three female overseers, and a matron. The overseers are respectable married women or widows, who voluntarily undertake the duties of a sub-committee. They assume the direction of the household affairs alternately for a month each. They meet frequently at the house, assist in Divine service, and take care of the girls who are discharged. These are provided with situations or placed in business, and require to be upheld and maintained in their new character.

The chaplain assists the ladies’ committee in their duties, but directs his energies particularly to the religious instruction of the inmates. Frequent meetings for prayer are held, and every half year the sacrament is administered to such as he deems duly prepared to receive it, and who have a competent knowledge of its importance and efficacy.

To be qualified for admission, the applicant must be young, and must have a desire to amend. The limited room will not allow the reception of old or worn-out women, who would flock there in crowds to obtain a shelter under which they could die in peace. When a woman’s application is granted, she must go through a novitiate of four or eight weeks. During this time she works and eats with the other inmates, but sleeps alone, and is closely watched by a member of the committee. When her novitiate expires and she is fully received, she is requested to give an explicit account of her life, every particular of which is recorded. Her name is not disclosed to her companions, but she, as are all the others, is known only by a Christian name.

The women are employed in all kinds of housework, needlework, or, when practicable, in any manner which will accustom[Pg 219] them to continued physical exertion. Their previous life having made indolence almost “second nature,” this course is adopted to inculcate the necessity of industry. A strict account of the produce of their labor is kept, and a portion is set apart as a fund for their benefit.

The time of their stay is usually about two years. When they leave they give the chaplain a written promise of good conduct, and receive from him a Bible and a Prayer-book, and the sum of money accumulated for them. The results of this benevolent attempt are sufficient to encourage the laborers in the good work, and we can not but think that their endeavors must be productive of great good, based as they are upon the sound principle of receiving but a few women, and treating them as members of one family, in opposition to the general theory of such institutions, whose managers attempt to crowd in as large a number as a large building will contain, and, in the endeavor to generalize rules for reformation, lose the valuable opportunities for noticing and acting upon individual traits of character.

The particulars of the subsequent life of twenty women are given as follows:

CHAPTER XVII.

PRUSSIA.

Among the warlike Germans in the days of Herminius, sexual intercourse was looked upon as enervating to youth, and [Pg 220]discreditable or even disgraceful to men until their valor had been proved by deeds of arms, and their experience authorized them to assume the duties of husbands and fathers.

In the Middle Ages, when the legislative and executive functions were vested in one individual, and the rights and obligations of the governing power were of a paternal or patriarchal character, we find much of their law-giving directed to the preservation of morality, the repression of extravagance, and the minute regulation of public economy. In their edicts against prostitution this paternal spirit was visible, in conjunction with what may be considered a due regard to the rights and interests of the law-givers, the punishments being professedly directed against a breach of morality or a public scandal, because it was a disgrace to families, and a peril to husbands and fathers, rather than a vice in itself. The provisions tacitly sanctioned its existence; and while they severely punished any invasion of domestic peace or infraction of marital rights, it seems to be conceded that, when no such relationships were involved, illicit intercourse was regarded as an allowable solace or an actual necessity for the physical requirements of unmarried men.

We learn from the German historian Fiducin (“Diplomatischen Beitrage zur Geschichte der Stadt Berlin”), that the German laws rendered it obligatory on every honorable man to espouse a virtuous maiden, and the term “hurenkind” (illegitimate child) was the bitterest form of reproach. The early statutes were very severe in the punishment of immodest females, and some carried this principle so far as to require that a woman who led an unchaste life in her father’s house should be burned at the stake. The ecclesiastical legislation moderated this severity, and crimes against morality became sins which were expiated by public penance. The citizens of Berlin became convinced that the penances of the Church were not sufficiently potent to counteract the evil, the morals of the clergy themselves being frequently impeached, and secular government was suggested in place of ecclesiastical. This seemed especially necessary, because the canon law, which ordained the celibacy of the priesthood, pronounced it to be a work of mercy to marry an erring woman, in opposition to the Berlin sheriff law (schoffen recht) declaring the children of such marriages illegitimate; and persons were not wanting who held the opinion that the work of mercy recommended by the Church was at times advocated by the clergy as a means of covering their own frailties.

[Pg 221]The same writer records instances as late as the close of the sixteenth century in which adultery was punished by death, the offenders in each case being married persons. He also cites the records of the fourteenth century to show that the same punishment was inflicted on those who acted as procurers or procuresses, wherever family honor was encroached on.

In the sixteenth century the law required that an immodest woman belonging to any reputable family should be publicly shorn of her hair, and condemned to wear a linen veil; nor was any distinction made between unmarried women and widows against whom the offense was proved.

About the same period the trade guilds enacted stringent laws prohibiting the admission of improper characters to their public festivals, and restraining their members from marrying women of that class. To attain this end, any master tradesman who designed to marry was compelled to introduce his intended bride at a meeting of the company, that all might be convinced of her discreet character and conduct, and any who married without observing this requirement were expelled the association. The guilds inflicted the same penalties on any of their members who had intercourse with improper characters, or who seduced a virtuous woman and subsequently married her.

A certain recognition of the existence of public women may be traced throughout these regulations, which appear to have admitted the necessity from regard to the rigorously enforced sanctity of the domestic circle, but, at the same time, endeavored to prevent the increase of immorality by attaching odium to its followers.

Again, turning to the pages of Fiducin, we find that, “in all the great towns of the German Empire, the public protection of women of pleasure (lust dirnen) seems to have been a regular thing,” in proof of which he says, “Did a creditor, in taking proceedings against his debtor, find it necessary to put up at an inn, one of the allowed items of his expenditure was a reasonable sum for the company of a woman during his stay (frauen geld).” This was a question of state etiquette in Berlin in 1410, a sum having been officially expended in that year to retain some handsome women to grace a public festival and banquet given to a distinguished guest, Diedrich V. Quitzow, whose good-will the citizens desired to cultivate.

During this period of toleration the expediency of controlling[Pg 222] public women was unquestioned; but the first Berlin enactment of material importance to this investigation bears date in 1700, and is remarkable as clearly enunciating the principles which have been adhered to, with only a short interval, ever since. The first section declares, “By law this traffic is decidedly not permitted (erlaubt), but simply tolerated (geduldet) as a necessary evil.”

Sections 2, 3, and 4 require the keeper of any house of prostitution to give notice to the commissary of the quarter when any of his women leave him, or when he receives a new one, and restrain him from keeping more women than are specified in his contract.

Sections 5 to 9 provide that a surgeon shall visit every woman once a fortnight, “for the purpose of protecting the health of revelers (schwarmer), as well as that of the women themselves;” that every woman shall pay him two groschen for each visit; and that, upon observing the slightest signs of disease, the surgeon shall require the housekeeper to detain the woman in her room. If the keeper neglect this order, he is made responsible for the entire costs of the illness which any visitor could prove was contracted from one of his women. If the surgeon finds the woman already so far infected that she can not be cured by cleanliness and retirement alone, he is authorized to order her removal to the Charité, “where she will be taken care of in the pavilion free of charge.”

Sections 10 and 11 provide that the debts of a woman must be paid before she can remove from one house of prostitution to another, or before she can leave one house to commence another on her own account.

Section 12 enjoins that any woman who desires to quit her mode of life altogether shall be entirely discharged from any debts to the housekeeper.

The last section requires every housekeeper who has music to pay six groschen a year for the permit to his musicians, the money to be applied to the benefit of the poor-house.

The “toleration but not authorization” clause is the noticeable feature in these regulations, and indicates the policy which was then generally adopted throughout the kingdom.

In reference to the period succeeding the issue of these rules, which continued in force till 1792, we find some information in the pages of Fiducin. Thus, in 1717, an inquiry proved that the inmates of brothels, and also the secret prostitutes, were mostly the children of soldiers, who “had been brought to vice as a trade,[Pg 223] either from the want of a proper bringing up or of a skillful handicraft.”... All measures for the extermination of the evil having been found ineffectual, “they were obliged to adopt the system of a larger toleration of common brothels, to be strictly watched over by the police, as a necessary outlet for the tendency to immorality.” The number of houses of ill fame increased in proportion to the population, the influx of strangers, and the additions to the garrison made under Frederick II.; and still more so after the close of the seven years’ war. In the year 1780, there were one hundred such houses in Berlin, each containing eight or nine women. They were divided into three classes; the lowest were those in which the women dressed in plain clothes, and were frequented mostly by Hamburg or Amsterdam mariners; the second class of women paraded themselves with painted faces, haunted the more retired corners of the town, had little attractive about their persons or dress, and were principally visited by mechanics and laborers; the third, and apparently the most select of the kind, was a description of coffee-house, frequented by females, who were designated “Mamselles:” these did not live in the houses, but used them merely as a convenient rendezvous.

In 1792 a new code of regulations appeared, the bulk of which continued in force in Berlin and other towns for many years. The rules of 1700 were too vague, made no provision for a variety of cases likely to arise, and were silent as to the question of private prostitution. Many inconveniences had arisen from these omissions, and, in consequence, a memorial was addressed to the government by the police director, Von Eisenhardt, containing suggestions for amendments to the law.

The preamble of the royal reply to this application acknowledges the attention of the police to the matter with much satisfaction; admits prostitution (hurenanstalten) to be “a necessary evil in a great city where many men are not in a position to marry, although of an age when the sexual instincts are at the highest, in order thereby to avoid greater disorders which are not to be restrained by any law or authority, and which take their rise from an inextinguishable natural impulse;” but expressly reiterates that it is “only to be tolerated (zu dulden);” and that it can not, “without impropriety and consequences injurious to morality, be established by the public laws, which do not contain any sanction whatever to common prostitution.”

The sections following this preamble provide that any one who[Pg 224] seduces a woman, or induces her to carry on a venal traffic with her person, shall be liable to one year’s imprisonment in the House of Correction, and on repetition of the offense, besides doubling the punishment, shall be whipped and driven from the country; declare any man or woman who communicates the venereal disease liable for the expenses of the cure and incidental damages (sonstigen interesse), together with imprisonment for three months, commutable by paying a fine of one hundred dollars; prohibit taking young women from the country into houses of prostitution by any device against their will, and authorize the punishment of any man who willfully infects a common woman.

In reference to the special directions touching brothels and prostitutes, the document provides, “as a leading point, that every thing which exceeds the mere gratification of the natural passions, and tends to the advancement of debauchery, or the misuse of our toleration of a necessary evil, must be prevented;” and accordingly the women are prohibited from increasing their attractions “by painting or distinguishing attire,” and also from soliciting passengers in the public streets, or at the doors or windows of their houses, “as this is not only in contravention to public morals, but especially perilous to male youth; and such means of increasing the gains of people seeking their livelihood in this manner is not to be tolerated.” For similar reasons, the keepers of houses were restrained from offering wines or other strong drinks to their visitors, although it is admitted “they can not be prevented from providing refreshments,” yet stimulants are forbidden, “because they are great inducements to debauchery, whereby other excesses may be caused.”

The orders farther provide that no woman shall become a resident in a house of prostitution without previously appearing before the police, and obtaining permission from them; and the police are directed not to allow this permission to any female under age, unless they are satisfied that she has previously made a trade of prostitution. The section containing this stipulation is prefaced by a statement that “keepers of these houses seek especially to obtain blooming young girls, who can not be procured without infamous seduction, calculated to lead to debauchery.”

In reference to precautions against infection, it provides that the prostitutes and keepers of houses shall be instructed by some competent surgeon in the signs of venereal diseases, so that they may detect it in their visitors or themselves; also that any man[Pg 225] communicating infection to a prostitute may be sentenced to make ample compensation if the woman can identify him; and farther, that the punishment inflicted upon girls infecting their visitors shall also be inflicted on the housekeepers, “as, although they may be innocent, their being included in the punishment for an incident of their trade is for the general weal.” All fines received were to accrue to the medical institutions provided for the cure of syphilis.

Again, it was deemed that “the venereal disease was much extended by common street-walkers,” and no women but such as resided in the known houses, where medical visits of inspection were constantly paid, were to be tolerated, and the night-watch were instructed to arrest those common women who were in the habit of plying their trade in the streets after dark—a portion of the penalty exacted being awarded to the officers who made such arrests, “to encourage their zeal.” But they were strictly cautioned against annoying innocent persons, “inasmuch as blunders in such matters create ill impressions against the authorities, and because the honor and happiness of the person might be irretrievably injured, so that it would be better to pass over a guilty person here and there, than to inculpate a single innocent one.” The royal rescript concludes by directing that a strict surveillance be kept over the females of the garrison, many of whom are stated, in very plain language, to be of improper character.

These directions were subsequently embodied in the general statute, or law of the land (landrecht), and upon that the police regulations which we quote hereafter were based.

The statute formally declares procurers and procuresses liable to imprisonment for from six months to three years in the House of Correction, with “a welcome and farewell;” Anglice, a sound whipping when admitted, and another when discharged. In the cases of parents or guardians who may aid in or connive at the prostitution of their children or wards, the term of imprisonment is doubled, and made more severe. It requires all common women to reside in the tolerated houses “under the eye of the state,” which houses are only to be permitted in populous cities, and “not elsewhere than in retired and back streets therein, the consent of the police authorities having been first obtained.” And in any case where a house of prostitution was established without this consent, or in defiance of the public orders, the keeper was to be liable to one or two years’ imprisonment. The police are strictly commanded[Pg 226] to keep all tolerated houses under strict and constant surveillance; to make frequent visits in company with medical men, so as to check the progress of venereal disease; to prevent the sale of intoxicating liquors therein; to see that no woman was introduced without the knowledge and permission of the authorities, under a fine of fifty thalers, for each offense; and, more especially, that no innocent female was, by force or deceit, compelled or induced to live therein; which latter offense imposes “a public exhibition,” in the stocks or pillory, we presume, and from six to ten years’ imprisonment, with “welcome and farewell,” on the keeper, who was not to be allowed to keep such a house again under any circumstances.

The police are farther enjoined to see that the mistress of the house informs the authorities of the pregnancy of any woman residing in the house as soon as she is aware of it herself, but if it is concealed she (the mistress) is liable to imprisonment, especially if a secret birth takes place. The mistress is required to take charge of any woman who becomes pregnant, if there is no public institution to which she can be removed, and is at liberty to seek compensation from the father of the child, or, if he can not be found, she has a claim upon the mother. The child must be removed from the house as soon as it is weaned, and is to be cared for at the public cost if the parents have not means to do so.

If the keeper of the house, or the inmates themselves, conceal any venereal infection from the knowledge of the police, they render themselves liable to imprisonment from three months to a year, with “welcome and farewell.”

If thefts, assaults, or other offenses occur in such houses, the keeper is, in all cases, liable to the injured party, who can not in any other way obtain his indemnity, and is also suspected of complicity in the offense so long as the contrary can not be substantiated; and if it is proved that he did not exert all his power to prevent such occurrences, his neglect is to be punished by fine or imprisonment.

No woman desirous of leaving a tolerated house to change her mode of life, and support herself honestly, can be retained against her inclination, and no difficulties may be thrown in the way of her doing so; nor will the master be allowed to force her to remain, even though she may be in his debt, under the penalty of the loss of his permission from the police.

Prostitutes who do not conform to the regulations and place[Pg 227] themselves under supervision, are to be arrested and imprisoned for three months, and, when their term of imprisonment has expired, are to be sent to the “work-houses,” and detained there until they have inclination and opportunity for honorable employment. Any females, not being inmates of the tolerated houses, who had intercourse while suffering from disease, and thereby infected men, are declared liable to an imprisonment for three months.

This comprehensive legal enactment left many matters of detail to the discretion of the police, and accordingly they issued their rules. The opposition these subsequently encountered makes them important in the history of Prostitution in Berlin, and although they are in many points a mere repetition of the terms of the statute, we give them in extenso. They are entitled,

The royal rescript, the statute, and the police ordinance of 1792 are founded upon the principle that prostitution is a necessary evil, which, if unregulated, tends to demoralize all society, and inflict physical suffering on its votaries; but, as it can never be suppressed, it is tolerated in order that those who practice it may be brought under supervision and control. In furtherance of this idea, another police order was promulgated in 1795, prohibiting music and dancing at the tolerated houses, and limiting the resort of prostitutes to public places of amusement. The immediate effect of this measure was to close several coffee-houses[Pg 233] served by women (mädchen tabagieen). At the same time, the women were classified into first, second, and third classes, and the monthly tax graduated to one thaler (sixty-eight cents), two thirds of a thaler, and one third of a thaler, which was appropriated to the healing fund, as directed by the regulations of 1792. This impost was doubled at a subsequent period in consequence of public calamities.

To enforce the police directions and collect the tax, a census of the public prostitutes in Berlin was taken in June, 1792, when they amounted to 311. The toleration was withdrawn from some of these for various reasons, and the numbers were, in

in a population of 150,000.

In the exercise of the discretionary power vested in the police of Berlin, as in most other cities of Continental Europe, they found it necessary to extend their toleration so as to include in their supervision those private prostitutes who could not be permitted to reside in the tolerated houses because they had not reached the age prescribed by law, which in Prussia fixes majority at twenty-four years; and also another class who were secretly visited at private lodgings by those wealthy libertines whose pride would not allow them to enter a common brothel, and whose amours consequently exposed them to liabilities which the spirit of the law justified the police in encountering. The persons (mostly widows) with whom the private prostitutes resided were made answerable to the police, and subjected to the same rules as the tolerated houses.

Under the new scale of impost there were, in 1796,

About this period, an epoch of general political movement, men of the highest rank in Prussia began to doubt the propriety of tolerating[Pg 234] prostitution, and orders were given, in opposition to the remonstrances of the police, to take measures which would effectually compel brothel-keepers to close their houses. This appears to have been the first positive attempt at absolute repression, and the police intimated that illicit prostitution would be its inevitable result. In reply, they were directed that, if their prediction should be verified, they must pursue the vice more closely. In 1800 the number of registered women had decreased to 246, but it was notorious that illicit prostitution had increased largely. This fact was not denied by the police. They ascribed it, very justly, to the restrictions imposed on the tolerated houses, which were now actually less than ever, at a time when the resident population of Berlin was twenty thousand more than at the last computation, exclusive of a large influx of troops and foreigners. They were not supported in their views, but were ordered, on the ground of extensive disease among the soldiery, to “crush out” the illicit prostitution, and this order they vainly endeavored to accomplish. An inquiry into the comparative state of the venereal disease was directed at the same time, and the state physician reported that there was less disease among registered than illicit prostitutes, and inferred that a diminution of tolerated, but strictly guarded regular brothels, was not for the public benefit.

The year 1808, when the French army overran Europe, was a period of general war and trouble; the police regulations fell into abeyance, and prostitution became comparatively free and uncontrolled. The French military commanders in Berlin made complaints to the police of the lawless state of the town, particularly specifying some of the brothels, which had become nests of gamblers, wherein robbery, duels, suicides, and other offenses were of frequent occurrence. The results of an inspection were as follows:

There were also seventy dance-houses, which were known as places of accommodation. The population at this time was about 150,000. The figures thus given, from an official enumeration, are the best practical commentary upon the effects of the abandonment of a tried system of surveillance.

[Pg 235]The state of affairs disclosed by this inquiry called forth a ministerial rescript, dated May 8, 1809, which we copy:

In obedience to this order, which had doubtless emanated direct from royalty itself, Herr Von Gruner, the head of the Berlin police, communicated a report containing his conclusions, as follows:

Among the official correspondence on this matter we find another document worthy of notice. It is a report by a sub-inspector to the superior police authorities, dated January 16, 1810.

The remainder of this report is unimportant. In October, 1810, a public order was made for effectuating its recommendations.

After this event the king became impressed with an idea of the impolicy and impropriety of the “toleration” system, and a lengthy correspondence ensued between the various departments and state officials on the subject; the royal rescripts enunciating the oft-repeated opinions on the subject in general, objecting to the details of the police management, or directing reports on some particular incident of the system; the police authorities, fortified by experience as opposed to theory, adhering to the toleration practice, and demanding increased powers to restrain private prostitution, and compel all such persons to enter the public houses. The matter was brought to a close in 1814 by an order from the crown for a total closing of the tolerated brothels. The police president, Lecoq, thought it advisable to communicate with the authorities of the town of Breslau before he complied with this order, requesting some information as to the state of public morals there, it being stated that there was not a single brothel or registered prostitute to be found within its limits.

The reply from the Breslau officials was in the affirmative as to the fact. As to the results, they had consulted with the state physician and the hospital physician, and their opinion was that closing the brothels and withdrawal of toleration had not been advantageous, as, in spite of the police vigilance, illicit prostitution had increased since, and procuresses carried on their arts more extensively, their operations being altogether secret, and under no police control; that the venereal disease had not decreased; that nothing counteracted it so effectually as the medical inspection of known brothels; and that its secret spread had been so great as to extend its ravages, through the instrumentality of female servants, into respectable families; that the hospital returns proved but little, because the cases were suffered to run on or were privately cured, but these returns were given as follows:

[Pg 238]

The years 1800 and 1807 were those of the French invasion. In 1812 the brothels in Breslau were closed.

The general peace of 1814 diverted the energies of crowned heads and leading statesmen from matters of internal policy, and the police of Berlin were left at liberty to pursue their old plans. Then the inhabitants began to object to brothels, and to petition against those in their immediate neighborhood. This drew from the police an argumentative document, in which they fully reviewed the question, but refused the prayer of the petition.

The change of localities, alterations in the law, and other circumstances, made a re-enactment of the code of 1792 desirable, and this took place in 1829. The alterations are chiefly in minor details of no general interest, but the law against frequenting places of public amusement was made part of this police order, which declared that the presence of prostitutes at houses of public entertainment was strictly forbidden. The most material change consisted in some very minute directions for guarding against venereal disease. To this end, every brothel-keeper was required to furnish each woman in his house with a proper syringe, which she was directed to use frequently, under the orders of the medical visitors. The private prostitutes were directed to observe similar precautions, and in place of a fixed weekly inspection by a medical officer, he was ordered to make his visits at uncertain intervals.

At this time there were thirty-three brothels in Berlin. Some of the citizens renewed their petitions for a removal of a portion of them, but with no better success than before.

In 1839, the morality of the system of toleration was again questioned by those in authority, and the Minister of the Interior, in a rescript to the authorities of the Rhine provinces, alluded to the matter of prostitution, and expressed himself as strongly opposed to any system of toleration. We quote a portion of his remarks:

Opinions of this nature from such a quarter, notwithstanding their absurdity in many respects, could not be without their effect, and induced the citizens to renew their petitions for the suppression or removal of some of the tolerated houses of prostitution. In 1840, a ministerial order enjoined such removal. It was promptly obeyed: some brothels were at once suppressed, and others were removed and concentrated in a notorious spot called the Königsmauer. The relative number of brothels and prostitutes in the years 1836 and 1844 was as follows:

Forty more women crowded into a less number of houses; an average of ten prostitutes to each brothel, instead of six as before, is but a poor commentary on enforced suppression.

The known inclination of the highest persons in the kingdom to put down brothels speedily induced a renewal of the agitation against them. So far as locality was in question, it was admitted that no more suitable place could have been found. The Königsmauer was a spot shunned by decent people from old times, out of the way, and with few inhabitants but those interested in the traffic, there was nobody to suffer, and the whole argument virtually turned upon the moral consequences of the government regulations and their utility to the public.

Among the petitions of 1840, one had been presented “from a number of Berlin citizens” to Prince William, the uncle of the king, stating that these brothels were an abomination; that many of them were splendidly fitted up, in which all means of excitement were used; that the women appeared at the windows exposed and bare-necked; in short, the memorialists said all that is customarily said on such occasions. But they seem to have [Pg 240]forgotten that the police possessed both power and inclination to suppress such grievances, or else it never occurred to these “Berlin citizens” that their assistance given to the police would have speedily checked the evils. The memorial was handed to the king himself, and he required a report upon the matter from the Director of Police. This was duly furnished, and represented,

The same report continues:

In 1841 another memorial was presented, with further complaints against the same houses in the Königsmauer. This was referred to the police authorities with the brief injunction, “Make an end of the nuisances about which there are so many complaints.”

The Schulkollegium of the province of Brandenburg now joined their influence to swell the public outcry that the few houses of prostitution on the Königsmauer were hurtful to public morals, and a bad example to youth, and, on the ground of interest in[Pg 241] their students and pupils, demanded that they be closed. The police, who had previously taken every precaution against a violation of public decency, now deputed a special inspector to give his personal attention to the locality. He reported there was no valid ground of complaint as to the outward conduct of the inhabitants, or the internal management of the houses. Thus satisfied as to the nature of the opposition, the police treated the college officials somewhat cavalierly, and recommended them to prohibit their students visiting such an out-of-the-way place: a very sensible piece of advice, and the best that could have been given under the circumstances.

According to Dr. Behrend (who has written on Prostitution in Berlin), the leading spirits of this agitation were a clergyman, and a distiller who had a brewery and spirit-store in the vicinity of the Königsmauer. The clergyman proceeded upon moral and religious grounds, and led the crusade against brothels as a public disgrace, unworthy a Christian nation. We do not learn what line of argument the distiller adopted, or whether the prohibition of liquor in houses of prostitution influenced his zeal. These agitators applied to the police with a succession of general complaints as to the luxury of the houses, the gains of the women, the bad example to the young, and other topics of a similar nature. They met with but scant favor; however, they were assured that every possible means should be used to keep the offenders within the bounds of existing rules.

The memorialists then carried their grievances to various influential people, and at length to Count Arnim, the Minister of the Interior, to whom a petition was presented, praying the entire suppression of all tolerated brothels. This petition contained all the allegations and arguments which could possibly be advanced against the places in question, augmented by much rhetorical flourish about the degradation of royal officers; the desecration of the baptismal register produced by prostitutes at the time of inscription; the insult to majesty in allowing brothels to exist in a street called Königsmauer, and many similarly weighty points. The practical knowledge of the police as to the effect of registration in checking more baneful excesses was theoretically disputed; the propositions on which the toleration system was based were denied; the defense of the plan by those cognizant of its working was entirely ruled out; so that, to a person unacquainted with both sides of the question, a sufficient ex parte case was presented.

[Pg 242]The ministerial reply was favorable, but not conclusive; it was to the effect that,

The police authorities foresaw difficulties in the details of these proceedings, and asked for more explicit instructions, which were supplied. In the second communication was this remarkable passage:

In following the prescribed course, and overthrowing an established system in order to furnish ministerial “experience” of the trouble it would cause, the police instituted a series of inquiries, and embodied the result in a report to the Minister of the Interior, dated July, 1844, which shows that there were

The amount received and disbursed on account of the healing fund was also reported in thalers, thus:

It concludes with the opinion entertained by the police:

No such measures were prepared. The king would hear no farther argument upon the matter; and, by positive “royal command,” the brothels were closed and registered prostitution stopped, December 31, 1845. Berlin became (nominally) as virtuous as an edict from the throne could make it. The majority of the prostitutes were either sent to their former homes or supplied with passports for places out of the kingdom. A few were left houseless, friendless, and destitute. History does not say whether the friends of enforced continence provided for these sufferers.

This summary edict seriously embarrassed the police, especially as the state laws tolerating prostitution were unrepealed. They applied to the authorities of Halle and Cologne, where a similar measure had been enforced, and the substance of the replies received was as follows.

From Halle:

The authorities of Cologne had no such pleasing tale to tell. They say,

The writer of this official communication added his private opinion, based upon the experience of some years, that “no effective steps could be devised to suppress prostitution: all that could be done would be to palliate it, and keep it under surveillance.”

These statements were not calculated to relieve the anxiety of the Berlin officials, who were pressed by the ministers to devise plans for executing the royal orders. They accordingly met, in much embarrassment, and prepared a scheme which was not acceptable to the superior powers. It was ordered, eventually, “that the women suspected of prostitution, being about 1000 or 1200 in Berlin, should be warned by the police to discontinue their practices. If found out, they were to be punished, and, after punishment, to be continued under surveillance until good behavior. During such period they were to be periodically examined for disease, at the police office, by medical men; the punishment to be made more severe on the repetition of the offense.”

These orders, following immediately the suppression mandate, will strike every one as reaffirming the principles of the toleration system in the most important particular—the regard for public health. The police used all their energy to enforce them, but at the same time represented their fears of the consequences, namely, the spread of prostitution, the increase of disease, and a general licentiousness of habits.

It now remains to trace the effects of the suppression of registered brothels, and local authorities afford abundant and satisfactory proof that the fears of the police were realized.

The Vossicher Zeitung (July, 1847), says:

[Pg 245]In another local paper we find:

From a work called “Berlin,” by Sass, we obtain the annexed view of

[Pg 246]From the same writer we extract the following sketch of a

The lowest dancing-houses are the Tanz wirthschaften, inferior to the saloons, where (again quoting)

In an anonymous pamphlet, entitled “Prostitution in Berlin,” is another hideous picture:

In reading these descriptions, it must be remembered that, under the toleration system, the police would not permit prostitutes to visit places of public amusement, nor would they allow music and dancing in the brothels.

Another part of Dr. Sass’s work contains a truly horrid picture of the immorality of the city. We transcribe it, in conclusion of this branch of the subject:

In estimating the effects of the suppression of brothels, it will be necessary to take medical testimony. In Dr. Loewe’s pamphlet, “Prostitution with reference to Berlin, 1852,” we find:

Dr. Behrend, to whose work we have already alluded, gives much statistical information, from original documents, showing the results of suppression. He says:

[Pg 249]Respecting the influence of the withdrawal of toleration upon the public health, Behrend concludes there is a greater amount of syphilis. He gives the following list of cases in the Charité:

He also investigated the average time each patient was under treatment, as tending to show the malignity of the disease, and reports:

These facts are corroborated by the registers of the Military Lazaret. From returns made to the police department by Herr Lohmeyer, General Staff Physician, it appears there were in the garrison

Dr. Behrend states, as the results of conversations and communications with many of the medical profession, and of his own experience:

[Pg 250]As to the influence on public morals, he contends that the abolition has produced the most injurious consequences, particularly alluding to the desecration of matrimony. He says:

He also made inquiries as to illegitimacy, and publishes some voluminous tables on the subject. From them we condense a

Comparative Statement Of The Legitimate And Illegitimate Births
In Berlin From January 1, 1838, To March 31, 1849.

Having rapidly traced the Berlin experience of the various methods of controlling prostitution for nearly three fourths of a century, it only remains to say that the increased evils of illicit prostitution, and the total inability of the police to counteract them; the spread of the venereal disease, and its augmented virulence; the palpable and growing licentiousness of the city; the complaints of public journals; the investigations of scientific men; and the memorials of the citizens generally, reached the royal ear, and induced an ordinance in 1851, restoring the toleration system, and entirely repealing the edict of 1845, which had produced such disastrous results.

The experiment of “crushing out” had been fairly tried. The king and his ministers lent all their energy and inclination to the task, and, after six years’ attempt, it was admitted to be a futile labor, and entirely abandoned. Berlin will have to suffer for years from the consequences of this misdirected step, for it is an easy matter to abandon all control, but an exceedingly difficult one to regain it. Now that the police are reinvested with their former authority, they strive, by every possible means, to repair the evils[Pg 251] of the interregnum. Their most recent regulations are embodied in the following

15. Provides for change of keepers.

CHAPTER XVIII.

LEIPZIG.

But very few remarks are necessary concerning prostitution in Leipzig, where no striking peculiarity marks the common women as a class, and the legislation is based on the ordinary German principle of toleration.

If we reckon its garrison as a part of the population of the[Pg 253] town, the number of inhabitants will amount to about one hundred thousand, nearly one third of whom are soldiers or transient residents. It is subject to many fluctuations at various times, but the general average may be assumed at the number stated. Of the permanent residents there are about six hundred well known and professed male rogues and blacklegs; these are under the constant and vigilant surveillance of the police. They unquestionably exert a considerable influence on the female morality of the place, not only from their own amours, for which men of this character are notorious wherever located, but by the agency they frequently assume to arrange the “pleasures” of their victims and acquaintances.

It need, therefore, occasion no surprise to ascertain that, in addition to about three hundred registered prostitutes who are subject to medical and police supervision, there are about twelve hundred women who notoriously frequent the city, from the neighboring towns and villages, for purposes of prostitution, whenever a large influx of visitors makes it probable that Leipzig will be a lucrative market for them. These are not directly under any police control. To this number of fifteen hundred avowed and known prostitutes, who are to be found in the city during busy seasons of the year, must be added the class of irregular or private courtesans, mostly composed of domestics. It is estimated there are three thousand servant-girls in the city, and the habits of a large number of them leave no doubt as to the propriety of including them in this enumeration; indeed, those who have had the best opportunities for observation do not hesitate to assert that at least one third are vicious. Assuming this to be an accurate calculation, we have 2500 prostitutes, or one in every forty of the gross population, exclusive of kept mistresses, or those frail women in the more aristocratic circles of society who should properly be classed with them. In this respect we have no reason to conclude that Leipzig is either better or worse than other large cities of the present day.

There are about sixty-six common brothels in Leipzig, the majority of which are registered and closely watched by the police. They are situated in the lowest and least frequented parts of the city, and many of them present, in excess, some of the worst features of such places. To escape their annoyances as far as possible, and retain that outward show of respectability most acceptable to their visitors, many of the prostitutes have private lodgings in various parts of the town, resorting to every conceivable [Pg 254]disguise to conceal or modify their real character. Very many of them are said to be married women, whose husbands not merely connive at, but frequently compel this loathsome trade for the sake of its emoluments.

The proprietors of the tolerated brothels “assume a virtue if they have it not,” and seek to disguise their houses under the names of coffee-houses or restaurants; a course recognized by the authorities, who do not insist upon calling such places by the vernacular designation, as is done in Hamburg or Berlin.

The women inhabiting these houses are principally natives of Altenburg, Berlin, Dresden, or Brunswick; those from the latter district are noted by travelers for their personal beauty. Very few Polish women are found here. The requisite supply of women is kept up through the agency of procuresses, as in Hamburg, who are remunerated by the brothel-keepers in proportion to the distance they have traveled to secure recruits, or according to the attractions of the girl, or her probable success in the establishment.

In regard to dress, manners, conduct, and the other incidents of their calling, there is little distinction between the prostitutes of Leipzig and those of other European cities. A late anonymous writer gives them credit as a class for a studious, literary habit, and names a somewhat intelligent selection of light works as those they prefer to read, such as the writings of Fredrika Bremer, Bulwer, Walter Scott, Caroline Pichler, Schiller, and others. If this statement be correct, it may be accounted for by the great local demand for literature, books and furs being universally known as the great staples of Leipzig, and the fact can scarcely be assumed as indicative of any especial inclination for belles-lettres. Prostitution and studious habits or reflective minds are very seldom associated. The majority of the brothel-keepers are stated to be anti-literary in their tastes. They keep the women plentifully supplied with cards and dominoes, which they use more for the purpose of predicting good fortunes to their visitors and themselves than for gambling. We have never heard that any of their liberal prognostications have been verified. Apparently the same usages and habits of life prevail among the common women of Leipzig as among those of Paris, Hamburg, Berlin, London, or elsewhere. Indolent from the nature of their position, envious from their relationship to their compeers, their life would seem to pass in a routine of doing nothing with considerable zest, or of quarreling among each other with noteworthy animation.

[Pg 255]No material variation from the ordinary routine of sickness caused by prostitution has been discovered in Leipzig. Syphilis has its average number of victims, the intensity of the malady being diminished or aggravated as a less or greater number of strangers may happen to be in the city.

The medical and police surveillance of prostitutes in European countries being modeled almost literally from one system, as is also the strictness with which it is now enforced, it is unnecessary to say any thing of its workings in Leipzig farther than the fact that the variable and floating nature of the population, at times, makes its application a difficult task. A description of it would be only a repetition of what has already been said of Paris, Hamburg, or Berlin.

The great fairs draw a large concourse of strangers from all parts of the world to Leipzig, and its geographical position beyond the centre of Europe brings it so close to the frontiers of Turkey, Poland, the Danubian provinces, and Russia, that the scene at these meetings is perhaps more motley and curious in race, costume, and characteristics than in any other city in the world. Among so heterogeneous a mass there exist many standards of morality. The semi-barbarous habits of some of the visitors entail a large share of sorrows on the prostitutes; more, in fact, than are generally experienced by any but the very lowest grade of women in other places. When in the tolerated houses, these rude hordes abandon themselves to the grossest licentiousness, use expressions compared with which the ordinary conversation of brothels is chaste and refined, and seek to extinguish every vestige of shame or womanly feeling in their companions. If a woman ventures to remonstrate at such extravagant lewdness, the reply is, “Well, now, be silent. I have paid you, and you are mine as long as I have you.” It may therefore be easily credited that during such periods no shadow of decency can be found in the common houses. Any which exists (and truth compels the admission that it is very rare during the crowded season) can only be traced among those women who have private lodgings.

The only compensation for such depravity is found in the large sums obtained by the women from their lovers, in some cases amounting to forty thalers (about thirty dollars) per week. Of this, one half always goes to the brothel-keeper as his share, and, calculating his expenses to be five thalers per week for the board and lodging of each woman, it will be seen that his profits are not[Pg 256] inconsiderable. The sum retained by the women is spent for articles of dress, pleasure, etc. This calculation is for a time when the town is in the full tide of commercial prosperity; but if we assume the average receipts at ordinary times to be one half only, we shall be able to form a tolerably good idea of the financial result of prostitution in Leipzig.

CHAPTER XIX.

DENMARK.

Prostitutes are very numerous in Copenhagen. This might be expected from the mixed character of the city, at once a capital, military station, and sea-port. It has been remarked by a traveler of great experience[267] that it is very rare to see a drunken man or a street-walker in Copenhagen; all seem to have a home or a place to go to, and the general character of the Danes is that of an orderly, educated, well-conducted people.

Some of the prostitutes of Copenhagen live in a kind of hotel, where they hold public entertainments; others live in brothels; and others still have private lodgings. There is nothing remarkable enough about them to call for any particular description. They are under police regulation to some extent, and receive a sort of half permission, which is not withdrawn during good conduct. A regulation is extant which professes to limit the number of children they are allowed to bear, without becoming amenable to the law as criminals. It requires that the mother of more than two illegitimate children be fined and imprisoned. As may be readily imagined, the law is very rarely enforced, its impolicy, if rigorously applied, being self-evident, since it would operate as a direct premium for abortion.

“Formal concessions are not granted either to public prostitutes or those with whom they lodge; neither are there in Denmark brothels, in the ordinary sense of the term, as they are found in other countries.”[268] So writes a Danish official. His distinction[Pg 257] is too nice to be appreciated. The Copenhagen police know of the existence of such women, and put them under strict regulations, not altogether prohibitory. They control and interfere with prostitutes; they do not tolerate them—that is to say, they do not issue a regular license to them or to the brothel-keepers. Consequently, there are no recognized brothels. The house in which courtesans live is a private dwelling, so far as the police are concerned, and is only interfered with when it becomes disorderly, the keeper not being accountable for the women or their conduct.

Nevertheless, the police regulations prescribe the number of women recognized as prostitutes who may live in any house, and from their official reports, it seems that there were in Copenhagen in

In the latter year there were sixty-eight persons who were authorized to lodge from one to four women each, the total of the women permitted to live in these houses being 139, and the remaining 59 being allowed to reside in private apartments. “Care is taken that they are all treated in the general hospital, and that they shall not be treated elsewhere, unless they give a sufficient guarantee not to propagate disease, or their personal position requires certain consideration, a thing which can seldom apply to the generality of prostitutes.” The meaning of this regulation is not very clear, nor is “certain consideration” an intelligible phrase; it may imply pregnancy, or it may mean influential friends. The medical officer visits all cases which the police refer to him, and makes the necessary examinations, receiving his fees from the police.

The rules for detection and suppression of syphilis in Copenhagen are very stringent. All persons under arrest are required to declare if they are then, or have been lately diseased, and are liable to punishment if they conceal or misstate the facts. A visit of inspection is made when a ship is about to go to sea. All non-commissioned officers, musicians, and soldiers are examined on entering and leaving the service, and also regularly every month during their stay in it.

To check the propagation of venereal disease, every soldier who is attacked is obliged to state the source of his infection, whereupon information of the individual is given to the police. Those who do not give early intimation of their disease are liable to[Pg 258] bread and water diet for a certain time after their cure. In 1797, all the inhabitants of several districts were obliged to submit to an examination, ordered by the chancellor, on account of the frequency of syphilitic cases therein.

The following table, taken from Berhand’s minute on Copenhagen, shows the working of the system there for seven years. The most remarkable feature is the large number who married or went to service, which would seem to indicate a more charitable feeling on the part of the Danes than is usually evinced toward these unfortunates:

By a code of 1734, promises of marriage might be either verbal in the presence of witnesses, or written and certified by two witnesses. Widows acting against the consent of their guardians, and women of bad repute, were excluded from the benefit of this code. A servant pregnant by her master, her master’s son, or any one domiciled in her master’s house, could not plead a promise of marriage. Corroborative testimony was sometimes required in affiliation cases, where the putative father denied his liability on oath.

Divorce was allowed on simple abandonment for seven years; desertion for three years; in case of sentence of perpetual imprisonment; of ante-nuptial impotence; of ante-nuptial venereal disease; of insanity; and of adultery. Divorce by mutual consent might also take place, but three years’ separation from bed and board was requisite as a preliminary. The king had a prerogative of divorce, without cause shown.

Illegitimate children were to be supported by their father until two years old, according to his rank in life. They could not inherit the paternal property, but might take the mother’s. They could be legitimatized by subsequent marriage or adoption.

[Pg 259]Infanticide was punished by beheading, and exhibiting the head of the criminal on a spike.

Adultery is punished by law in both husband and wife. Practically it is seldom noticed.

In 1834 a new ordinance was proclaimed fixing all the minutiæ of marriage contracts, parental obligations, and the general laws of sexual intercourse. A man is a minor until eighteen, and under some degree of parental authority to twenty-five, at which age he becomes a citizen. The woman is under tutelage all her life. Guardians are assigned to widows, who control their legal powers, but a widow may choose her own guardian. The laws of divorce are similar to those of France. The practice of formal betrothal is as common in Denmark as in Northern Germany, and implies a real and binding engagement, not to be broken without cause shown, or without discredit to one or both parties. Whether this custom favors illegitimacy is still a disputed point in Denmark.

CHAPTER XX.

SWITZERLAND.

Superior Morality of the Swiss.—Customs of Neufchatel.—“Bundling.”—Influence of Climate.

This country, from her republican form of government, and her comparative isolation from the rest of the world, presents matter of peculiar interest to the inquirer into the nature and working of social institutions. Protected, as are the Swiss, from violent contrasts of excessive wealth and extreme indigence, the moral condition of their people will compare favorably with that of most nations. The simplicity of patriarchal relations is maintained both in their national and municipal governments; and although many customs are retained which smack strongly of the despotism of the Middle Ages, they can not be said to materially check the welfare of the people. In the absence of the emulation encouraged by the constant contemplation of luxury and wealth, the wants of the population are few and easily satisfied. Their virtues, however, partake of the bold and rugged nature of their country; and while there may be little of that practical vice and immorality which are the usual accompaniments of society in most kingdoms and states, we are not prepared to assert their superiority over the[Pg 260] rest of mankind in innate virtue. Hardness of heart and selfishness of disposition will be found as rife in Switzerland as elsewhere; it is the manifestation only that differs.

Authors are so universally deficient of remark on the subject of prostitution, or even of immorality in Switzerland, that, if we may judge from their silence, nothing of the kind exists there. “The Swiss population is generally moral and well-behaved. A drunkard is seldom seen, and illegitimate children are rare,” says Bowring.[269]

In Neufchatel, which, except politically, can hardly be considered part of Switzerland, a custom exists strongly similar to one in Norway, and a general usage among Lutherans, namely, that of associating before marriage. This, as Washington Irving says of the “delightful practice of bundling,” is sometimes productive of unfortunate results. A lady writer says that public opinion upholds the respectability of the females if they are married time enough to legitimatize their offspring. Instances have occurred of two couples quarreling, and a mutual interchange of lovers and sweethearts taking place, the nominal fathers adopting the early-born children.[270]

The frugal thrift of the great bulk of the Swiss population, their distribution over the country in small numbers, the absence of large masses of human beings pent up in the reeking atmosphere of cities, their constant and intimate association with their pastors, and the hope which every individual cherishes of purchasing with his savings a small patch of his beloved native soil as a patrimony, seem to discourage prostitution as a trade. The influence of climate, also, must not be forgotten; and Mr. Chambers, in accounting for the general good conduct of the Swiss peasantry, lays much stress on their temperate habits, the use of intoxicating liquor among them being very rare indeed.

[Pg 261]

CHAPTER XXI.

RUSSIA.

The brutality, drunkenness, and debauchery which accompany semi-barbarism, and of which the old Russian manners had more than a due proportion, continued to be characteristic of the people of that country until a very recent period; while their amiability, their plastic disposition, their highly imitative faculty in the arts, and their capabilities of improvement, are noted by many writers. Just emerged from savage life as a nation, they have been moulded and welded as one mass by the steady and undeviating policy of their sovereigns, among whom we have examples of vast mental powers and towering ambition, combined with the lowest depravity and the most shameless profligacy, exemplifying in the same individual the extremes of human nature.

Previous to Peter the Great, Russia was comparatively unknown, and in the Elizabethan age of England the Czar of Muscovy was considered only as a barbarian, whose subjects were far inferior in civilization to the Tartars of the Crimea. Indeed, it was not till the eighteenth century that the Russians were admitted within the pale of European politics, or their power reckoned as an element in the calculations of statesmen.

The most important, we might almost say the only lawgiver previous to Peter the Great, was Ivan III., who reigned in the early part of the sixteenth century. Among the laws of that period, which were all sanguinary, was one fixing the value of a female life, in case of death by misadventure, at half the life of a man. Slavery was the institution of the state, each child being the absolute property of its parent. The women were more enslaved than among the Asiatics, no law protecting them against their husband’s violence. A wife who killed her husband was to[Pg 262] be buried alive up to the neck, and a guard was set around her to see that no one supplied her with food or the means of ending her sufferings.[271] Females lived in the strictest seclusion, and had no weight nor authority in the household. Their duties were to spin, to sew, and to do menial work.

Peter I. came to the throne, as most Russian sovereigns have done, either through intrigue or usurpation. Both before and after Peter, the will and caprice of the ruling power was paramount. He might appoint his successor, either during life or by will, and such appointment was often set aside by a more powerful competitor. In Peter’s public life, in his aspirations for the general welfare, in his self-devotion, in his conceptions of all that was wanting to his country’s elevation and greatness, and in his iron will and supernatural energy, he was a hero; in his private life, in his passions, his tastes and habits, he was on a level with the lowest of mankind.

Our object is the delineation of national characteristics, and individual propensities or delinquencies are unimportant except so far as they illustrate national character. It has been well observed that a people’s virtue or vice does not consist in the arithmetical increase or decrease of immoral actions, but in the prevailing sentiment of an age or people, which condemns or approves them. It is in this respect that the conduct of monarchs and courtiers becomes of importance in the estimate of national manners, especially in a despotism. The Czar of Russia is at once the religious and political leader of his people, and his personal conduct becomes the standard of their moral relations, offering encouragement and support to the good, or sanction and justification to the depraved.

Peter’s first wife, Eudoxia, was a woman of virtue and merit. Neither her youth nor beauty secured the affections of her husband. She did not escape the voice of slander. Gleboff, her alleged lover, was impaled by Peter, who went to see him writhing in his death agonies, when the wretched man avenged himself in the only way left him: he spat in the Czar’s face. Eudoxia was subsequently sent to a nunnery at Moscow by Peter’s orders, and at last took the veil under the name of Helena.

Scarcely had Peter attained the crown when he formed a connection with Catharine. The romantic history of her origin and elevation is too well known to repeat here. Her husband, a[Pg 263] Swedish dragoon, was living; and she was the mistress first of Marshal Sheremeloff, then of Mentchikoff, in whose house Peter saw her, and whence he took her. She acquired great influence over the Czar’s untamed ferocity, and, to her infinite credit, this influence was always used to mitigate the fearful rigor of his punishments, and to soothe his otherwise implacably revengeful spirit. During the lifetime of her husband and of his first wife, Peter married her.

The pleasing traits of Catharine’s character were obscured by the irregularity of her life. Raised, by the affection of Peter, to the imperial throne, she set an example of dissoluteness to her subjects. There is ample reason for believing that she had several intrigues during Peter’s lifetime, but the case of Moens de la Croix is beyond question, and the discovery of her infidelity in this instance led to her separation from Peter and the death of her lover.

In 1724, after the campaign against the Turks, in which Catharine had accompanied the Czar, and had, by her spirit and example, kept up the courage of the army amid great difficulties and reverses, Peter determined on publicly crowning her; a ceremony very unusual in Russia, and almost tantamount to declaring her his successor.

Moens de la Croix was the young brother of Anne de la Croix, one of Peter’s early mistresses. He was Catharine’s chamberlain. His office brought him in close attendance on the empress, and an intimacy was established. This was for a time notorious to every one except Peter himself. At length, however, his suspicions were aroused, and, by setting spies on Catharine, he became a personal witness to her infidelity. The first explosion of his resentment was terrific, and he was on the point of executing both the empress and her paramour, but by the temperate advice of some of his friends, who counseled him to avoid a scandal, it was determined to arrest Moens on a false charge of conspiracy.

Moens and his sister were accordingly seized and confined in an apartment in the winter palace. Peter permitted nobody to approach them, and took them their food with his own hands. When they were examined as to the conspiracy, Moens, to save the empress with the public, confessed to every thing. He was accordingly condemned and beheaded. His sister was knouted and sent to Siberia.

Catharine had presented her lover with her miniature on a bracelet, which he always wore. As he walked to his death, he managed[Pg 264] to deliver it, unperceived, to the Lutheran minister who accompanied him, with instructions to convey it back to the empress privately, which was accomplished. The Czar was a spectator of the execution, after which the head of the culprit was fixed on a stake, according to custom. To terrify Catharine the more effectually, Peter drove her round the head of her lover. Happily for her, she managed to preserve self-control during the torture of this horrid spectacle. After this the Czar only spoke to her in public.

At Peter’s death, Catharine ascended the throne of Russia by virtue of a pretended dying declaration of her husband. She went through a pantomime of sorrows and tears over his body, but, as soon as she was firmly seated, she abandoned herself to pleasure and voluptuousness, and had two lovers, Prince Sapicha and Loewenwolden, at the same time. “These two rivals equally strove to please her, and alternately received proofs of her tenderness, without suffering their happiness to be marred by jealousy.” The irregularity of the empress’s life, and her intemperate use of ardent liquors, hastened her death, which took place in her thirty-ninth year.

Peter himself was a wretched example of conjugal infidelity and low debauchery. His associates were often of the very lowest of the populace. It is true that in his time the highest were not much removed from their inferiors in decency of manners; while the inferiors often had the advantage, if not of intellectual cultivation, at least of practical intelligence, in which Peter took delight. He spent many of his hours drinking brandy and other liquors with sailors, carpenters, and artisans, irrespective of his temporary assumption of the working man’s pursuits. He consorted indiscriminately with women of all sorts and conditions. Eventually he contracted the venereal disease. From neglect, and the general depravity of his life, the disease became so aggravated that at last it proved the indirect cause of his death. He himself used to say that he had taken it from Madame Tchnertichoff, wife of the general and diplomatist of that name. Upon the fact being mentioned to her, whether casually or with malice prepense does not appear, she is reported to have replied very naïvely that she had not given it to him, but that he, on the contrary, had such loose habits and low associates that he had given it to her.[272]

It was in 1722 that Peter was attacked with this malady, and while suffering from it he marched into Persia, and shared the[Pg 265] fatigues of the meanest soldier throughout the campaign. The heat, drought, and constant dust increased the disease frightfully, and the pains became so excruciating that he could not conceal them from his immediate attendants. Still, however, he would not consult the court physician, but directed his servant to get advice as if for some one else. He then went to the hot baths of Plonetz, and apparently recovered. But it seems the disease was not cured; it was merely palliated by this treatment, and he was obliged, on a relapse, to have recourse to the regular physicians, and for three months his life was despaired of. At last he recovered; but now, in spite of all warnings, he resumed his usual habits of life, renewed his long and severe journeys, his public works, and his general activity of mind and body, while he in nowise amended other and more injurious pursuits and practices.

On November 5, 1724, while on a journey to Finland, he stopped at the port of Lachta. There, from the shore, he saw a small vessel full of soldiers and sailors which had struck upon a shoal. Perceiving their imminent danger, he shouted to them, but the boisterous wind drowned his voice. He sprang into a skiff, pulled out to the shoal, and, having reached the vessel, jumped into the water, got her off, and landed the passengers all safe. He neglected all the precautions necessary in the then state of his health, and was seized with violent fever, and at the same time his former pangs came on with all their old force. He was taken back to St. Petersburg, where he obtained partial relief from his sufferings. He employed one of his intervals of ease in celebrating the great festival of blessing the waters of the Neva, and by his intemperance in the festivities renewed his attack, and after a period of protracted agony, died on the 28th of January, 1725.

Peter is described as having been excessively libidinous in temperament, and his coarse promiscuous amours were made the common subject of his jocularity, even in the presence of Catharine. He was even addicted to abominable depravities, which are stated by contemporary writers to have been the common practice of the Russians at that time.[273] Peter at times gave way to fits of lust, in which, like a furious beast, he regarded neither age nor sex. Unnatural vices were punished in the Russian army at this time by an express military regulation, and the crime was a standing reproach with the people, who were said to have acquired it from the Greeks of the lower empire.[274]

[Pg 266]Anne, the successor of Peter and Catharine, had two publicly avowed lovers—Dolgorouki and Ernest John Biren. The latter was the better known, as his influence and importance during Anne’s reign were very great. Dolgorouki had become one of the deputies to announce to Anne her succession to the throne, which office he accepted, with the hope of being able to resume his former intimate relations with his future sovereign. When he entered the apartments, he found a man in mean apparel seated by the side of the princess. He ordered him to withdraw, and, upon his inattention to the order, took him by the arm to turn him out, when the empress stopped him. This unknown person was Biren, who became regent of the empire.[275]

Anne was not sunk in the same abyss of profligacy as her successor Elizabeth, nor in brutality as her ancestor Peter. She had been brought up in Courland, and had acquired some little refinement of ideas and manners. Gluttony and drunkenness were somewhat less in vogue at her court, but dissipation, ruinous gambling, and boundless extravagance were in full fashion. The whole court became a body of buffoons and jokers, and the most absurd and preposterous fashions of dress, the rudest and most boisterous romps and gambols were generally practiced. As a specimen of court manners, the practical joke played on Prince Galitzin, in which there was as much malice as fun, may be remembered.

Having given offense by changing his religion, the prince was compulsorily married to a girl of the lowest birth. A palace was built in his honor, but the material was ice, and all the furniture was composed of the same. The wedding procession, consisting of more than three hundred persons in their national costumes, who had been collected from all the provinces of Russia, passed along the streets. The newly-married couple were mounted in a pagoda on the back of an elephant. When the ball was over, the bride and bridegroom were conducted to their nuptial chamber, like the rest of the house, all of ice, and were there installed in an ice bedstead, and guards were posted at the door to prevent them escaping from the room before morning.

Anne died in 1740, and, after a short interregnum, Elizabeth, daughter of Peter I., came to the throne. She inherited all her father’s vices and sensuality, but none of his great qualities. Before she became empress, Elizabeth had outraged all propriety;[Pg 267] had openly carried on an improper intercourse with the sub-officers and soldiers of the guards who had been quartered near her dwelling. The lust and drunkenness in which she wallowed indisposed her from all longings after greatness. But there were others who needed her name, and a conspiracy being formed, she became empress in spite of herself. Her chief paramour at the time was Grunstein, sergeant in the guards, who was elevated to the rank of major-general. The other soldiers and non-commissioned officers who had been the ministers of her lewdness were made officers. These individuals frequented the common public houses, got drunk, made their way into the houses of persons of condition, and committed all sorts of depredations with impunity. When the men who could boast of the empress’s favors became intolerable, they were drafted off to the army, as officers in regiments on service.

Elizabeth is said to have been privately married to Razamoffsky, as also to the well-known Chevalier d’Eon, who visited the court of Russia in the disguise of a woman, and undoubtedly enjoyed Elizabeth’s favors, whatever may be the truth about her marriage to him. Elizabeth withdrew herself for whole months from business, and was drunk for days or even weeks consecutively. She had a reputation for humanity; but, although she sentenced no one to death, not less than eighty thousand of her subjects were tortured or sent to Siberia during her reign. Her extravagance was such that when she died there were in her wardrobe some fifteen thousand dresses, thousands of pairs of sleeves, and several hundred pieces of French and other silks.

Catharine II. of Russia was, like Peter, a compound of the noblest intellectual endowments, with a moral organization of unsurpassed depravity. She has usually been considered a monster of lust; but she was no less infamous for her cruelty, and for the total absence of all those qualities and feelings which form the chief grace and beauty of woman’s inner life. Her favorite dining-room in the Tauric palace was adorned with pictures representing the sacking of Ohkzakoff and Ismail, in which the painter had surpassed the gloomy vision of a Carravaggio, and had depicted the assault, the carnage, the mutilation, and all the hideous details of such scenes. In these Catharine is said to have taken great delight. She hated music, and never could permit other sounds than those of drums, trumpets, and similar barbaric instruments within her hearing; and yet it is said that, in her outset in[Pg 268] life as Princess of Anhalt Zerbst, she had a womanly heart, delicacy of taste, and refinement of intellect;[276] that it was not till long after her husband, Peter III., had insulted her by open neglect of her very winning person and youthful graces, and had abandoned her for the vulgar and ugly Princess Woronzoff, that she committed herself to the terrible career which she afterward pursued so steadily.

The Duchesse d’Abrantes, in her memoir of Catharine, tells us that her first lover, Soltikoff, was forced upon her as a matter of public policy by the crafty and unscrupulous Bestujeff, the able minister of Elizabeth, for the sake of procuring an heir to the Grand Duke Peter. Catharine remonstrated, and threatened to complain. “To whom will you complain?” asked the minister, coldly. Catharine submitted, and accepted the lover thus imposed upon her. At the time of this adultery for expediency sake, Catharine was deeply intent upon study, with a view to qualify herself worthily for her future destiny, disgusted as she was with the indecencies of the Russian court!

Subsequently, it was considered expedient to remove Soltikoff. Catharine had given birth to a child, and was not pleased with this dismissal; but the impassible Bestujeff only sneered at her remonstrances and professions of affection for the dismissed lover, and recommended her to choose another. This was a lesson she was not slow to carry out. The list of her paramours was little less numerous than that of Elizabeth.

After Catharine had caused Peter III. to be murdered, and had ascended the throne as empress in her own right, she abandoned herself to the fullest gratification of her passions, both royal and personal. Besides the vulgar crowd whom she selected as the recipients of her filthy favors, the world knew, as the public and recognized paramours, the names of Orloff, by whom she had a son called Count Bobruski, Wassilitchikoff, Potemkin, Louskoi, Mornonoff, and Zuboff.

These were appointed in a manner that was reduced to a system, and an etiquette was established as precise as that of naming a state minister. When Catharine was tired of her present favorite, one of her intimate friends was commissioned to look out for another. At other times, her notice having fallen on some young man who pleased her fancy, she signified her wishes to some female friend, and thereupon an entertainment was arranged at[Pg 269] the lady’s house, which the empress honored with her presence, and thereby gained an opportunity of closer acquaintanceship with the chosen individual. He then received orders to attend at the palace, where he was introduced to the court physician, and examined as to his general health and physical condition. After this he was placed under the charge of a certain Mademoiselle Protasoff.[277] The various examinations having been successfully passed, the favorite was installed into the regular apartments of office, which were immediately contiguous to those of the empress. On the first day of his installation he received one hundred thousand rubles (about twenty-five thousand dollars) for linen, and an allowance of twelve thousand rubles per month; besides which, all his household expenses were defrayed. He was required to attend the empress wherever she went, and was not permitted to leave the palace without her permission. He might not converse familiarly with other women, and if he dined with his friends, it was imperative that the mistress of the house should be absent.

When a favorite had completed his term of service he received orders to travel, and from that moment all access to her majesty was denied. The favorites rarely rebelled against their destiny in this particular; but Potemkin and Orloff, who had far other views than those of dalliance, had the temerity to disobey the order, and succeeded in retaining power and the friendship of the empress long after their personal claims on her tenderness were at an end. On terminating the intimacy, the favorite usually received magnificent gifts. Potemkin, after he had ceased his functions as favorite, became pander to his royal mistress, thereby securing the double advantage of the favor of the empress and the patronage of the favorite, from whom he levied a handsome fee for the introduction. Potemkin and Orloff were at one period rivals, in which contest Orloff was at last defeated; but when Potemkin reached his pride of place, he became so necessary to Catharine in his higher capacity that he set up and pulled down the favorite of the hour as he pleased, and even ventured upon the most extravagant flights of insolence and personal disrespect to the empress. Orloff had been also the rival of Poniatowski, but his superior capacity and[Pg 270] brutal energy of will made him respected and feared by Catharine long after she had ceased to like him.

The pecuniary results to the state, enormous as was the plunder, was perhaps the least of the evils sustained through this system of iniquity. The registered gifts to the twelve favorites amounted to upward of one hundred million dollars.[278] Lanskoi, who had held no political offices, and the whole of whose fortune was drawn from the flagitious profits of his post of dishonor, died, after less than four years of office, worth, in cash only, and exclusive of valuables, seven millions of rubles. Potemkin’s wealth, which was accumulated from all sources of public robbery and private extortion, was fabulous. At his death he owned two hundred thousand serfs; he had whole cupboards filled with gold coin, jewels, and bank-bills; he held thirty-two orders, and his fortune was estimated at sixty million dollars.[279]

In the closing days of Catharine’s reign she found a lower deep into which to plunge. When upward of sixty, she took into office, as her favorite, Zuboff, who was not quite twenty-five. She now formed the Society of the Little Hermitage. This was a picked company of wits and libertines, of both sexes, over whose scenes of debauchery and revelry the empress presided. An inner penetralia even of these orgies was established, and called the Little Society.

The pernicious influence of such an example, set for so long a period of time by a sovereign distinguished for ability, and whose reign had been rendered famous by its successful foreign enterprises, was the almost universal corruption of the Russian court and aristocracy of both sexes. The women, in imitation of her majesty, kept men, with the title and office of favorites. This was as customary as any other piece of fashion, and was recognized by husbands. Tender intrigues were unknown; strong passion was still more rare; marriage was merely an association. There was a club, called the club of natural philosophers, which was a society of men and women of the highest classes, the object of whose meetings was indiscriminate sexual intercourse. The members met to feast, and after the banquet they retired in pairs chosen by lot. This club was afterward put down by the Russian police, in common with all other secret societies. A hospital was founded by Catharine for fifty ladies affected with venereal disease. These were all to be taken care of; no question was permitted as to name[Pg 271] or quality, and the linen of the establishment was marked with the significant word “discretion.”

Catharine’s end was sudden and frightful. She had grown corpulent, and her legs and body had swollen and burst. She moved about with considerable difficulty, although her imperious will would not allow her to give way in her career either of ambition or profligacy. She was at the Little Hermitage November 4, 1796, in remarkably high spirits, and even joked her buffoon, Leof Nauskin, among other things, as to his death and his fears thereupon. The next morning the dread messenger, of whose advent she had made sport, brought his orders for her. She fell into an apoplectic fit, and, after thirty-seven hours of insensibility, died unblessing and unblessed, to be succeeded by Paul, her detested son by her first lover Soltikoff.

The emperor, or as he was better known by Napoleon’s sobriquet, the mad Emperor Paul, was too remarkable for his eccentricities to make himself conspicuous for his gallantries. Even in this particular he preserved his eccentricity. He neglected his wife, an amiable and handsome woman, the mother of Alexander and Nicholas, for an ugly mistress, Mademoiselle Nelidoff, and for another, Mademoiselle Lapukhin, who would not accept his addresses, but to whom he nevertheless professed the patient devotion of Don Quixote. The most noteworthy circumstance, in this connection, of Paul’s life was the indirect effect of female frailty in procuring his murder. The enemies who subsequently plotted his downfall and destruction procured their return from banishment through the offices of a certain Mademoiselle Chevalier, a French actress who ruled Kutaisoff, who on his part ruled the Czar.

As we approach our own times, the description of historical characters becomes liable to the tinge of prejudice or partiality.

Alexander, the son and successor of Paul, was distinguished by the amenity of his disposition and the philosophical tone of his political theories. He was married at an early age by order of his grandmother Catharine, who in his case insisted on making him a good husband, and took numerous precautions for that purpose, all of which her example neutralized or belied. The selection made for him might, under the conditions of humble life or a free choice, have turned out happily. As it was, he preferred the society of the ladies of his court, and in particular of the Countess Narishkin, by whom he had three children. The countess proved inconstant, and all his children by her died, to Alexander’s deep grief.

[Pg 272]After the loss of these illegitimate children, the affections of Alexander were turned toward the empress, whose true worth he recognized when it was too late. She was struck with disease, and he was on a journey to Southern Russia to select a suitable spot for a residence for her, when he was seized with the fever of which he died.

If Alexander’s mild character had but little influence on his subjects, the name of his successor, Nicholas, has been identified with the very existence of the Russian people, as much as any sovereign since Peter the Great. His example and expressed will have had immense effect, both for good and evil. It is almost impossible to arrive at the true character of Nicholas at the present time, for the reasons just mentioned. In his private life as husband and father, and in his public life as ruler and politician, writers are diametrically opposed to each other. Party prejudice denies him all worth, or makes him a very Socrates. Golovin and authors of the democratic school affirm, in addition to his other offenses, that Nicholas had several illegitimate children, and also “that no woman could feel herself secure from Nicholas’s importunities;” while writers like Von Tietz, Jermann, and other panegyrists of the Russian court, describe Nicholas as an exemplary husband and father, a model to his subjects in his domestic relations. They allege farther, that the gross immorality which has been the chief feature of Russian society was very much discouraged, and rendered altogether unfashionable by the estimable manners of the imperial family.

Truth is rarely found in extremes. The prevalent usage among sovereigns in this century has been “to assume a virtue if they have it not,” and to maintain a respectable exterior for the sake of public opinion. So politic a ruler as Nicholas was not likely to reject this. He did all that could be done to bring virtue into good repute at court. But too many little incidents are told of him to justify a belief in his perfect spotlessness. The characters of individuals, even as rulers, would be unimportant to us were it not that in Russia society is in a transition state, and shows itself plastic in the hands of an energetic emperor. “The state! I am the state!” was perfectly true in the mouth of Nicholas. By his subjects he was held in an esteem little short of idolatry, and he was, in every sense of the word, the most remarkable man in his vast dominions.

Thompson, an English traveler, who has spoken very favorably[Pg 273] of the personal worth of the Emperor Nicholas, says of the morality of the upper classes among the Russians, “Denied the advantages of rational amusement and innocent social enjoyments, deprived of those resources which, while they dispel ennui, elevate the feelings, the mind resorts to sensual indulgences and to the gratification of the passions for the purpose of finding recreation and relief from the deadening pressure of despotism. Immorality and intrigue are of universal prevalence, and (in a social sense) are hardly looked upon as criminal acts, while gambling and debauchery are the natural consequences of the tedious monotony from which all seek to escape by indulging in gross and vicious excitement.”

Under the system of serfage, now approaching its end, it was almost impossible that there should be such a thing as public morality in the lower classes. The Russians, both noble and serf, are false and dishonest to a proverb. Prostitution in such cases is a superfluous term: a woman had no right or opportunity to be virtuous.

The morality of St. Petersburg is undoubtedly of the lowest, and yet we have not met with any accounts of local prostitution there. It is a city of men, containing one hundred thousand more males than females.[280] Kelly says the women form only two sevenths (²⁄7) of the entire population, and calls it “an alarming fact.” The climate is unfavorable to female beauty, and it is generally conceded that the men are handsomer than the women. The German girls have an almost exclusive reputation for good looks in St. Petersburg. By reason of the disproportion of the sexes, it is said that ladies can not venture out unattended. This is etiquette among the higher classes of all Continental Europe, and the simple fact, without the reason, would not be surprising.

The attention to minutiæ which distinguishes a despotism, and which is so remarkable a feature of Russian state craft, does not allow us to suppose there are no statistical papers on the subject of prostitution; on the contrary, it is perfectly well known that such are in existence. The secrecy which is scrupulously maintained in all public matters, and the watchful vigilance of the police over strangers, prevents them obtaining any information except on the most patent and notorious subjects. The remarks of travelers on Russian society are very vague and general, and unsupported by any of those details which could alone authenticate them.

[Pg 274]We have already alluded to the ancient Oriental seclusion of women among the Russians. This was so strict that a suitor never saw, or at least was presumed never to have seen, the face of his bride before marriage. In 1493, Ivan the Great told a German embassador who demanded his daughter in marriage for the Margrave of Baden, that Russians never showed their daughters to any one before the match was decided. Peter the Great abolished this lottery, and directed that the parties might see each other, but he still found it necessary to promulgate a strong ukase against parents compelling children to marry against their wishes.

The compromise of the ancient custom which has been brought about by this law is that the elders of the family usually pre-contract for the juniors: then succeeds the bridal promenade, at which the young people, if unknown to each other, are led accidentally to meet in the same walk. Having thus managed an interview, the father of the young man, if all the preliminaries have been satisfactory so far, sends to the bride’s father, and a general family meeting takes place, at which the arrangements are completed, the dowry determined, and then follows the betrothal. The elect pair kneel down on a fur mat and exchange rings. The preparations for the marriage are commenced, during which time the lovers have frequent opportunities of meeting and becoming better known to each other; this is a general period of visiting and parties. On the wedding-day the bridemaids unbraid the lady’s hair, and she receives her husband with flowing locks. This is a remnant of ancient Russian usage, when the greatest outrage that could be committed on a woman was to unbraid her hair. It is generally believed that among the lower orders the wife is bound to draw off her husband’s boots on the wedding-day, and also that the Russian peasant beats his wife at the commencement of her married life, so as to indicate supremacy. As to the substantial observance of the latter practice modern travelers differ, although it would seem that symbolically it is still maintained.[281]

A curious exhibition takes place on Whitsunday in the Petersburg summer garden, called “The Bride’s Fair.” All the marriageable daughters of the Russian tradesmen turn out on that day for a promenade. The young men, in their best attire, come forth to view them. The brides expectant do not limit their [Pg 275]display to their charms, but second them by attractions of a more substantial character, adorning themselves with trinkets, jewels, or even now and then with silver tea-spoons, plate, and other valuables useful in housekeeping. This has been inveighed against as indicative of the prevalent indelicacy of the Russians, a sort of bride-market. Is it more reprehensible than many customs nearer home? It is now, however, falling into disuse.

The conjugal relations of the Russian nobility were extremely loose and indefensible during the time when vice was fashion, and virtue in a courtier would have been deemed condemnation of the higher powers. Then, and even down to the reign of the Emperor Nicholas, marriage was simply an affair of convenience—the husband living at Moscow or St. Petersburg, the wife in Paris or Italy; such separations frequently lasting for years.[282]

The Foundling Hospital at St. Petersburg, the Wospitatelnoi Dom, is the most magnificent foundation of the kind in Europe, and it pleases the authorities to give information upon its features. The endowments are enormous, owing to the munificence of successive sovereigns, who have made it a kind of state caprice. The annual expenditure exceeds five millions two hundred thousand rubles.[283] The number of children in this institution is commensurate with its wealth. Upward of twenty-five thousand are constantly enrolled on its books.

The lodge is open day and night for the reception of infants. The daily average of children brought is about twenty. The only question asked is if the child has been baptized, and by what name. If not baptized, the ceremony is performed by a priest of the Greek Church. At the time of leaving, the mother receives a ticket, the duplicate of which is placed around the child’s neck. The mortality which takes place among these helpless victims of sin and misfortune is enormous. Some die in the lodge when just received; more perish during the tedious ceremonies of their baptism, which last several hours. The total number of deaths among children in the asylum and those out at nurse is probably three thousand per annum, or about one in four of the whole number committed to its charge.[284]

[Pg 276]The children are given in care of wet nurses for about six weeks, when they are sent into the country until six years old. They are then brought back to the institution and educated in a superior manner; the girls being qualified as governesses in Russian families, and the boys as artisans in the imperial manufactories. In cases of special capacity, they receive a scientific or musical education.

An incident which is said to have occurred at this institution has gone the rounds of the press. The story is, that one of the young women having given birth to an infant, and the delinquent not being discovered, the Emperor Nicholas heard of the occurrence, and made a visit of inspection. Having summoned the pupils before him, he demanded to know the guilty one, adding that, if she came forward, she should be pardoned. No one obeyed the invitation, and he was going away, with threats of disgracing the whole body, when one girl, to save her companions, came forward, threw herself at his feet, and confessed her fault. Nicholas kicked her out of the way, exclaiming that it was too late.[285]

A Lying-in Hospital is one of the appendages of this establishment. Pregnant women may enter there four weeks before their confinement, and the strictest secrecy is maintained as to their name and character. Even the omnipotent Czar respects the privileges of the place.

The institution at Moscow is on a similarly gigantic scale, and is managed after the same fashion.

The empress is the mother of the foundlings, which, be it observed, are mostly the children of such as can not or do not desire to keep their offspring. Free access, on appointed days, is permitted to the parents of the children; and, under special circumstances, the empress will permit a child to be removed from the institution, if the parents prove their means and disposition to support it properly.

Kohl, who gives us particular, and even minute accounts of the management and arrangement of the public hospitals, makes no mention whatever of the syphilitic wards. The high system of efficiency in which the military infirmaries are maintained might have encouraged a hope for more detailed information on this subject.

[Pg 277]

CHAPTER XXII.

SWEDEN AND NORWAY.

The ancient Scandinavian peninsula, land of the Scald and the Rune, with its Vikings and Beisckers, has sent down to us many a legend of war and conquest, but few of social manners or moral relations. The high esteem in which the ancient Germans held their women, and the affinity of laws and customs between the Norsemen and the Teutons, justify us in believing that the blue-eyed maids of the Scandinavian heroes were as much respected for virtue as beloved for beauty. The eternal virgins in the Walhalla of Western mythology were not associated with the grosser pleasures with which the impure fancy of the Koran invested the houris of the Mohammedan Paradise; and the Norsemen, through their posterity, the Normans, introduced, among the other amenities of chivalry, that prominent obligation of true knighthood, “devoir aux dames,” perhaps not the least humanizing incident of the institution.

Passing, by a long stride, at once to modern times, we find in the joint kingdom of Sweden and Norway two territories as distinct in their social condition as they are in their geographical divisions. Norway has always been remarkable for a simple and hardy population of fishermen and small farmers, elements in the highest degree favorable to virtue and independence, and their poverty and isolation from the continental interests of Europe have exempted them from politics and war. Sweden, on the other hand, though not much wealthier as a nation, has had an hereditary nobility, and the ambition and ability of some of her monarchs, especially of the great Gustavus, caused her to play a part in history wholly disproportionate to her territorial importance. If, however, the historical significance of Sweden be somewhat greater than that of the less pretentious sister kingdom, statistics do not accord to the former the same estimation, in point of morals, as they concede to the latter.

[Pg 278]The average of illegitimate births, though not infallible, is generally accepted as a fair test of the immorality of a people. Taken by this standard, Sweden ranks lower than almost any country of Europe. But if the character of the general population be indifferent, that of Stockholm “out-Herods Herod.”

In Stockholm, in 1838, there were 1137 illegitimate to 1577 legitimate; in 1839 there were 1074 illegitimate to 1492 legitimate births.

The average of illegitimate to other births in the capital and throughout the country was as follows:[286]

As regards the average of the whole kingdom, the proportion is much the same as that of England and France. What, then, must be the condition of the towns, and, in particular, of the capital?[287] The figures are such as to justify the allegation against Stockholm of being the most immoral capital in Europe, and also the presumption that the late decrease in its population, from which it is but recently recovering, is a direct consequence of the vice that stains it.

With so large an amount of illegitimacy, it is not surprising that infanticide should be of common occurrence. The penalty of this crime is death, although, from a growing aversion to capital punishment, it is generally commuted.

There are numerous foundling hospitals throughout the kingdom of Sweden; one in particular, the Stora Barnhorst in Stockholm, established by Gustavus Adolphus, originally intended for the children of military men of broken health and fortunes. It has been perverted from the simplicity of its original foundation, and now receives children of all comers, who pay an entrance fee of about thirty-five dollars. No questions are asked on the presentation of an infant to the asylum, and, excepting the fee, it is in no respect different from the ordinary foundling hospitals. This very fee, however, it is considered by some writers, makes all the difference, as it in some measure justifies those parents who, having adequate means, choose to release themselves of the care and[Pg 279] expense of their offspring, and who use this payment as a salve to their consciences, considering that they have to that extent done their duty. The Stora Barnhorst is wealthy, having an income of above one hundred and fifty thousand dollars per annum.

In 1836, prostitution was forbidden, by express enactment, throughout all Sweden, and women who had not a legally recognized occupation were liable to imprisonment as disorderly characters. The prostitute, of course, came within the category. It was asserted at the time that there was no common prostitution, but a counter statement was made by the jurist Angelot, who affirmed that every house of entertainment was a brothel, and every servant a loose woman.

This prohibitory system did not work so well as had been anticipated, and in 1837 a change was effected. A large hotel was taken by the corporation, and, after the plan of various cities in the Middle Ages, was managed by public officers. Thus a government brothel was established. Nor did this lewdness by authority have the desired effect. The brothel was filled with women, but no customers appeared. Private brothels were resorted to for a time, and were opened under regular licenses. They have now disappeared, and as the inefficient police management never succeeded in repressing illicit prostitution, even while tolerated brothels were in existence, it will surprise no one to learn that Stockholm is now one vast, seething hot-bed of private harlotry.

There are Lock Hospitals throughout Sweden, established by public funds, and kept up by direct taxation as a charge upon the municipal rates. The Stockholm Hospital for syphilis in 1832 received seven hundred and one patients, of whom one hundred and forty-eight were from the country, and the remainder from the city. The capital contained in that year 33,581 persons of both sexes above the age of fifteen, consequently one person in every sixty-one was affected with syphilis.

The superficial aspect of society in Sweden is certainly not such as here described. The upper classes are cultivated, polite, and observant of all the usual refinements of modern society, while to the humbler classes, excepting that intercourse is free and unrestrained among them, there is no ground for attributing any unusual departure from modesty and propriety. Neither are the laws remarkably stringent: although difficulties are thrown in the way of affiliation, they are the same in principle as those which have been adopted by the modern statute law of England.[Pg 280] Still, that there is such an excess of immorality can not be doubted. The official statistics of the country prove it, were any possible doubt thrown upon the statements of the many travelers, of the highest repute for correctness and reliability, who have noticed it. The latest publication upon the matter is from Bayard Taylor, who, writing from Stockholm under date May 1, 1857, says,

We have spoken of the difference between Sweden and Norway in their moral relations. At first this is not apparent, for illegitimacy is as frequent in one as the other; but there are attendant qualifying circumstances, which go to constitute a material variation in the conclusion to be drawn from the unexplained fact. We may remark that street-walking and open prostitution are rare. Illegitimacy is of considerable extent, averaging one in five, or, in some parts, one in three of the total births.

The people are betrothed by the practice of the Lutheran[Pg 281] Church a long time before the actual marriage. This is considered as nothing more than a wholesome check upon hasty unions in a general point of view. In Norway, however, this probationary period is extended to a limit beyond the endurance of flesh and blood. The wedding is a prodigious merry-making, and it is absolutely indispensable that the means for an extravagant hospitality should have been accumulated before the parties dare attempt the public ceremony. The profusion is so great as sometimes to dissipate a whole year’s earnings. The obligation to this expense increases the delay required by the Church, and it frequently happens that the affianced cohabit before the nuptial benediction is pronounced. As the betrothal is a half-marriage, the arrangement loses part of its offensive character in the eyes of the parties themselves, and also of their neighbors. The children are legitimatized by the subsequent marriage, which takes place in by far the largest number of cases. In those occasional instances where the wedding ceremony is not duly completed, there is a particular legal act by which a child can be acknowledged. Failure of marriage under such circumstances, or failure of natural duty to offspring, is against the sentiment of the people. While these facts do not alter the actual concubinage or illegitimacy, it is easy to understand that a considerable difference exists between such conduct, however reprehensible, and those habits which may be fairly characterized as licentiousness or profligacy.

Norway is very far from being free of syphilis. Bayard Taylor says, “Bergen is, as I am informed, terribly scourged by venereal diseases. Certainly I do not remember a place where there are so few men, tall, strong, and well made as the people generally are, without some visible mark of disease or deformity. A physician of the city has recently endeavored to cure syphilis in its secondary stage by means of inoculation, having first tried the experiment upon himself, and there is now a hospital where this form of treatment is practiced upon two or three hundred patients, with the greatest success, another physician informed me. I intended to have visited it, but the sight of a few cases around the door so sickened me that I had no courage to undertake the task.” We have no means of ascertaining whether the malady exists with the same virulence in the interior as on the coast. The habits of the people would seem adverse to the supposition that it does.

[Pg 282]

CHAPTER XXIII.

GREAT BRITAIN.—HISTORY TO THE TIME OF THE COMMONWEALTH.

The first references to prostitution which we find in the works of the early British annalists are so vague that it is difficult to derive from them any very definite idea as to its extent and character. Among the crude efforts at legislation there are laws to enforce chastity among women, but whether the necessity for these enactments was owing to general licentiousness or to the existence of a regular class of prostitutes does not appear.

At the period of the Roman invasion, the morals of the Britons were as low as might be expected from their nomadic habits. The population was divided into small communities of men and women, who appear to have lived promiscuously, no woman being attached to any particular man, but all cohabiting according to inclination, the carnal instinct being the feeling which regulated sexual intercourse. A sort of marriage was instituted, but with no idea that either of the parties to it should be restricted by its obligations. Its only object seemed to be to provide means for rearing the children, and to fix somewhere the responsibility of their nurture and support. A society constituted as this was can, of course, be considered scarcely a step removed from barbarism. The regulation to provide for the children was necessary to prevent depopulation; its tendency was to remove from the woman’s path every obstacle to lust; over the man it exercised but very slight control.

A still farther proof of the demoralized condition of the people is found in the gross ceremonies attending these marriages. The man appeared on his wedding day dressed in all the rude trappings of the time; the woman was entirely naked. A repulsive coarseness marked their licentiousness, and the rudeness of [Pg 283]manners was nowhere more conspicuous than in the relations existing between the sexes.

It is to be presumed that the Anglo-Saxons imported into England the laws and customs prevailing in their own country. The rules they made against adultery were frightfully severe. When a couple were detected in the commission of the offense, the woman was compelled to commit suicide, to avoid the greater tortures awaiting her if she refused. Her body was then placed on a pile of brushwood and consumed. Nor did her partner in guilt escape punishment; he was usually put to death on the spot where her ashes lay collected. These penalties would appear to be sufficiently severe, but in some instances worse were inflicted. Where the case was one of peculiar aggravation, the adulteress was hunted down by a number of infuriate demireps of her own sex, each armed with a club, a knife, or some other formidable weapon, and stabbed or beaten to death. If one party of her pursuers became weary of the sport, another took their places until the victim expired beneath the blows.

These extremely rigid ideas of the Anglo-Saxons do not seem to have been consistent, for while adultery was punished in the severe manner described, incest was not only permitted, but commonly practiced; and it was even the custom for relations to marry within the closest degrees of consanguinity.

But they were not long located in England before the more savage traits of their character were softened down, and the women soon found amusement more suitable to their sex than that of chasing their erring sisters as quarry. The marriage ceremonies also assumed a more refined and decent character, although the wife continued to be regularly purchased by her husband, and the contract was still considered a mere matter of bargain and sale. By the laws of Ethelbert marriageable women were made commodities of barter, and enactments of this character are to be found in existence long subsequent to his reign.

As the Anglo-Saxons were a hardy, vigorous race, and existed chiefly by hunting, fishing, and a rude and imperfect system of agriculture, it is not probable that prostitution existed among them to any great extent. The fatigues of the chase and field exhausted the energy of the body, and diminished the desire and capacity for sexual indulgence, and, living in small detached communities as they did, they knew nothing of the stimulating incentives of city life.

[Pg 284]Yet that prostitutes existed, and lived by the wages of their profession, is proved by the fact that women (who were entitled by law to hold and dispose of property) bequeathed their wealth to their daughters, with the occasional stipulation that they should live chaste lives in the event of their remaining single, and not earn money by prostituting their persons.

In the reign of Canute a law was enacted by which any one found guilty of adultery was to be punished by the loss of the nose and the ears.[288] In the course of time the crime came to be punished by a fine paid to the husband of the woman. This penalty soon fell into disrepute, as it was found that some husbands and wives took advantage of it to extort fines from persons possessing more money than prudence. By a subsequent enactment the male adulterer became the property of the king, who might send him to the wars, or employ him at hard labor as he pleased. By a law of Edgar’s time the adulterer of either sex was compelled to live, for three days in each week, on bread and water for seven years. This was treating the evil on physiological principles.

We can not infer any very strict condition of morals as the result of this harsh legislation. When punishment is carried to an extreme entirely disproportioned to the offense, it is as likely to fail in its object as mistaken lenity. Forgery and arson were more frequent in England when punished with death than they are at present; and although we have no statistics of the time from which we can deduce any positive conclusions, we may reasonably imagine that neither the death penalty, nor the other barbarous punishments substituted for it, exercised any very powerful influence in the diminution of the crime among our hardy progenitors. It may have taught them greater caution and dissimulation in the prosecution of their evil purposes, but it did not render them the less eager to profit by the opportunities thrown in their way.

It has been already shown that the founders of Christianity treated illicit sexual indulgence as a sin, and resorted to extreme measures for its suppression, but yet, to some extent, tolerated prostitution. Shortly after he had established himself in Britain, Augustine put some curious queries to the Pope touching the manner in which chastity among converts to the new faith should be enforced. The nature of these interrogatories and replies forbids their appearance here.[289]

[Pg 285]That Augustine required to be instructed on such prurient details proves that he was a believer in the Jewish observances of physical ablutions and cleansing of the person being necessary to the removal of moral impurities, and that he carried his scrutiny into the morals of his flock much farther than was consistent with modesty and good sense. However much his religious teachings might have improved the manners of the people, the regulations alluded to would have exercised no very salutary or efficacious influence over them.

The lives of the early kings and rulers of Britain serve to illustrate the morals of the nation during their respective reigns, not only by exhibiting individual examples where the condition of the masses is hidden from view, but by affording us an index to that condition when it is considered that the manners of the court have, in all ages and all countries, exercised an important influence on those of the people.

Augustine converted Ethelbert, but his son Endbald deserted the Christian Church because it refused its sanction to his mother-in-law becoming his wife. It is true that he afterward divorced her, and returned to Christianity, but in this he was influenced rather by satiety than by the promptings of a reviving faith. Many of the other kings of the Heptarchy were as remarkable for the headstrong ardor of their passion as Endbald. Canulph of Wessex had, in the year 784, an intrigue with one of his female subjects, and frequently quitted his court to enjoy her society in the country. During one of these clandestine excursions he was surprised and surrounded in the night by the followers of Kynchard, a rival pretender to the throne, and murdered in the arms of his mistress.

In the ninth century prostitution seems to have been a prevailing vice throughout the country, and frequent references are made to it in the discussions of the period. In the arguments used in favor of tithes, in the time of Athelstan, it was held by some canonists that the clergy had a right to demand one tenth of the profits earned by prostitutes in the exercise of their calling. It is but right to add that the Church did not persist in enforcing this extraordinary claim.[290]

Edwy, who ascended the throne at the early age of seventeen, became involved in a controversy with the monks on the question, then first started, of the celibacy of the clergy. The celebrated[Pg 286] Dunstan favored the new doctrine, but Edwy opposed it. The youthful and inexperienced prince was no match for his sagacious antagonist, as he soon after discovered. On the day of his coronation, which took place soon after his marriage with his cousin Elgiva, whom he loved and resolved to wed, though she was within the degrees of consanguinity prohibited by the Church, his nobles were indulging in the pleasures of the banquet, when it was discovered that Edwy had stolen away. Dunstan and Odo, Archbishop of Canterbury, conjecturing the cause of his absence, proceeded to the private apartments of the queen, and found him in her company. They tore him from her, and dragged him back to the party. Elgiva’s face was seared with a red-hot iron to destroy her beauty, and she was transported to Ireland. Her wounds being soon healed, and all trace of the injuries removed, she returned to her own country, but was met by a party the archbishop had sent to intercept her, and put to death. Thus, professedly to preserve the morals of the king, these high ecclesiastics committed crimes of far greater gravity than a marriage even between persons more nearly related than Edwy and Elgiva.

Edgar, who succeeded Edwy, was of a still more passionate and licentious disposition. He broke into a convent, and carried off one of the nuns, named Editha, who was remarkable for her beauty. In the heat of passion, he violated her person; and for the double offense of abduction and rape, the Church, according to the peculiar morality of the times, punished him by compelling him to resign his crown for the period of seven years. By a curious inconsistency, he was permitted to retain possession of Editha, who lived with him as a concubine.

Another of his mistresses he obtained by a less violent process. In passing through Andover, he accidentally met the daughter of a neighboring noble, who fascinated him by her remarkable beauty. Listening only to the suggestion of his passion, he proceeded immediately to the residence of the maiden’s mother, and, informing her of the violent love with which she had inspired him, demanded that she should be permitted to share his bed that night. The mother, fearing to excite the king’s anger by a refusal, resorted to a stratagem, by which she hoped to evade his wrath, and, at the same time, preserve the chastity of her daughter. She directed a handsome waiting-maid to introduce herself into the young lady’s chamber, and the king was admitted after dark. When Edgar discovered the trick which had been played[Pg 287] on him, he manifested no resentment, and the accidental partner of his bed became afterward his favorite mistress.

These were not his only amours. Elfrida, daughter of the Earl of Devonshire, was distinguished by extraordinary beauty, and the fame of her charms reached the court, although she resided in the country in strict retirement, and had never been a mile from home. Edgar, hearing of her beauty, and doubting whether her appearance justified the extravagant praise lavished on it, sent one of his trusted favorites, Earl Athelwold, to her father’s residence to make a report to him on the subject. Athelwold himself, like many a similar envoy, fell in love with the young lady, and informed the king that rumor had greatly exaggerated her merits, and that she was positively ungainly. This was sufficient to allay the king’s curiosity, and Athelwold shortly afterward secured the young lady’s hand in marriage. He explained the matter to Edgar by remarking that it was her fortune which induced him to overlook her homely features. The king desired him to introduce her at court, and Athelwold persistently refusing, the king suspected the true state of the case. He intimated to the earl that he had determined to visit the castle where she resided, and the husband, dreading the consequences, implored his wife to conceal her beauty as much as possible. Elfrida, woman-like, did precisely the contrary, and set off her charms by the richest and most becoming toilette in her wardrobe. Edgar was so enraged at the deception practiced on him that he put the unfortunate earl to death, and married the widow.

The infusion of Danish blood does not seem to have exercised an improving influence on Anglo-Saxon manners. Judging from the following, the contrary may be inferred.

Ethelred kept a number of Danish troops in his pay, who were stationed in different parts of the country. A complaint was made to the king that the Danes had attained such a pitch of refinement, and made such an advance in luxury, that they combed their hair daily, and were guilty of other acts of personal embellishment equally reprehensible. Worse still, it was averred that the women looked with favor on these practices of the Danes, and that the latter debauched the wives and daughters of the English, and disgraced the nation.[291] It is evident that women who could thus easily be led away were only virtuous from the want of opportunity.

[Pg 288]The legislation of this period shows that prostitution was not only tolerated, but indirectly encouraged.

If a man seduced the wife of another, he was compelled, by an early Saxon law, to pay a fine to the husband, and to procure for him another woman, whom he was to remunerate for admitting him to her bed.[292] This was not only offering a direct premium to prostitution by providing for the debauching of a woman every time another chose to be seduced, but it shows that females were in the habit of cohabiting with men for hire. The fines for adultery were graduated according to the rank of the woman. If she happened to be the wife of a nobleman, her chastity was valued at the moderate sum of six pounds sterling (about thirty dollars); while the wife of a churl brought to her husband as a salve for his injured honor about a dollar and a half. The effect of these enactments could not but exercise a demoralizing and injurious influence on the manners of the people. They reduced the estimate of female chastity to that of a cheap marketable commodity, whose loss could be repaid by a small money compensation.

By the laws of Ethelbert a man was permitted to buy a wife, provided the purchase was made openly, and many such transactions are recorded, the price being sometimes paid down in money, and sometimes in palfreys and other kinds of property. The practice, however, was soon modified, and it became necessary to obtain the consent of the bride. The husband was compelled to support and protect her, and to treat her with respect. A couple desirous of contracting marriage were formally betrothed in presence of the priest, and this practice, having something of an ecclesiastical obligation without any of its legal force, was frequently productive of the same evil consequences as in Norway at the present day. This custom of betrothal prevailed down to the time of Elizabeth.

The Normans introduced into England, if not a higher standard of morals, at least a greater refinement in vice. Their laws were moulded by the spirit of the feudal system which they imported with them. Under their sway society was divided into two classes—feudal lords and their vassals. The lord could dispose of the person and property of the vassal, limited, indeed, by certain restrictions, but still leaving so much power in his hands as to render the latter a virtual slave.

Thus, by the laws of the time, a vassal who seduced or debauched[Pg 289] his lord’s wife or near relative, or who even took improper liberties with them, might be punished by the forfeiture of his land. When a baron died, the estate escheated to the king, who took immediate possession, and kept it until the heir applied to do homage for it, and pay such a fee as the king might demand. If the heir happened to be a minor, the king retained possession of the estate until he reached his majority; and when the inheritance devolved on a female, the king might give her any husband he thought proper. He often turned this privilege to account by selling the right to the hand and fortune of an heiress. Geoffrey de Mandeville paid Henry III. a sum equal to about twenty thousand dollars for permission to wed Isabel, countess of Gloucester, with the right to all her lands and revenues. Even a male heir could not select his own bride except by purchasing permission from the king, otherwise he had to accept his majesty’s choice.

We have no means of estimating the amount of licentiousness arising from these arbitrary regulations, but we only require a little acquaintance with human nature to arrive at the conclusion that they must have been a prolific source of vice. The husband being selected by the king from purely mercenary or interested motives, no attention was, of course, paid to disparity of ages, or other circumstances on which the purity of the marriage-bed depends. When the inclinations are forced in this way, women, as well as men, are apt to revenge themselves on their partners by seeking illicit enjoyments. Mercenary marriages, when projected, as they are even in our day, from sordid motives on the part of parents or guardians, almost invariably lead to infidelity, and many an old dotard, who forces himself upon a girl under age, merely serves as a screen for her clandestine amours.

In the reign of Henry III., grave disputes occurred between the civil and ecclesiastical courts on the subject of bastardy. The common law deemed all children to be illegitimate who had been born before marriage. By the canon law they were held to be legitimate if the parents married subsequent to their birth.

When a dispute of inheritance arose, it was customary for the civil to issue writs to the spiritual courts, directing an inquiry to be instituted into the legitimacy of the claimants; and as the bishops always returned answers in accordance with the canon law, all persons whose parents had married at any period were legitimate. When it is considered how strongly most parents feel for the honor of their offspring, the tendency of such decisions to[Pg 290] increase prostitution becomes apparent. It may be considered unjust to inflict disabilities on the child for the sins of the parent, but such penalties undoubtedly have the effect of imposing a check upon concubinage.

We have stated that the king claimed the disposal of the hands and fortunes of heiresses: the barons claimed a still greater privilege from their tenants. In some localities the feudal lord insisted upon enjoying the person of one of the daughters of each tenant who happened to be blessed with a plurality of them. He returned her to her parents within a given time.

Every extreme is followed by a reaction in the opposite direction. The abject condition of women, as indicated by the foregoing facts, led to the institution of chivalry, which elevated her from the position of a slave, and the mere instrument of sensual gratification, to that almost of a deity, thus assigning her a rank as much above her real sphere as her former one had been beneath it.

Previous to the advent of this system, women could not appear at any public exhibition or place of amusement unless accompanied by a band of armed retainers. Any female encountered alone and unprotected was liable to insult.

Chivalry, if it did not put an end to, greatly modified this state of things. By its rules each of its members was constituted a champion of female virtue and honor. No man was admitted into the order whose valor was not above suspicion, and a word uttered by him derogatory to the beau sexe excluded him from its ranks. No woman, however, was deemed worthy of knightly protection who had not preserved her honor, it being to that quality alone that knighthood volunteered its safeguard. At public ceremonies, if a woman of easy virtue ventured to take precedence of a woman of honorable fame, she was immediately reminded of the impropriety of her conduct by some member of the order, and compelled to retire to the rear.

This recognition of virtue had a strong tendency to promote female chastity. It could not put a stop to voluntary prostitution, but it at least prevented virtuous women being necessitated to yield their honor to force. It held out, moreover, an attractive premium to correct conduct among the sex by making it the object of heroic exploits, celebrated in the romantic lays of minstrels and troubadours. Its observances have a fantastic aspect in the light of modern civilization, but they unquestionably exercised a[Pg 291] powerful corrective influence over the female character, so degraded at its commencement, while, at the same time, they elevated that of the male sex by teaching them to respect themselves.

In the wars of the period, it was against the rules of chivalry to take women prisoners. When a town was captured and entered by victorious troops, the first step taken was to make proclamation that no violence should be offered to any female. This conduct was so much at variance with the notions and habits of soldiery, that the feelings which sustained chivalry must have taken deep root in the minds of all classes to restrain the passions of the military, strengthened as they were by dissolute habits, and the absence of opportunity for their gratification during service in the field.

To such an extreme was this feeling of deferential courtesy to the sex carried, that the Normans were severely censured for their conduct at the capture of the castle of Du Guesclin, it being alleged that they disturbed the repose of the ladies. But as the tendency of every human institution is to degenerate from its original purpose, the rigid purism which marked the foundation of chivalry soon began to relax, and disorders crept in and sapped the basis of a system which was too theoretically perfect to have any extended duration.

It is difficult to ascertain the precise character of the relations which existed between the Troubadours and the mistresses to whose service they devoted themselves, and who were frequently married women. The knight Bertram happened to lose the favor of his mistress, the wife of Talleyrand de Perigord, in consequence of stories which had been related to her implicating his fidelity, and charging him with dividing his knightly attentions. He protests his innocence of these accusations in a lay as impassioned as that of a lover to the object of his adoration, and invokes a number of knightly calamities upon himself if his devotion to her be not above suspicion.

It is hardly credible that the loves of such ardent admirers was immaculate Platonism. On the other hand, the fact that husbands were rarely or never jealous of them, goes some way to refute the idea that they had a more serious character. The lords of those times were proud of the protestations of regard offered to their ladies, and rewarded the Troubadours with rich and valuable presents. The lords of our day, grown wise by experience, make a point of keeping all such interlopers at a distance.

While chivalry poised its lance in defense of the Lucretias, and[Pg 292] then of the Dulcineas of the day, the religious view of the commerce of the sexes was particularly ascetic.

Although the most profound devotion was paid to woman in the abstract by the order, the Church sought to encourage perpetual celibacy, the seclusion of women, and the separation of the sexes. The clergy were forbidden to marry, and the idea seemed to prevail that it was impossible for men and women to mingle without being under the influence of lascivious ideas, and ready to carry them into practice as soon as opportunity offered. The attempt to organize society on such a basis had an inevitable tendency to produce demoralization. Its obvious result, instead of promoting chastity was to increase secret licentiousness and encourage prostitution.

Even the voluntary vows of knights and troubadours were, in the end, as little observed as these ecclesiastical precepts. The profligacy of the Troubadours became open and undisguised, and the virtue of their mistresses naturally kept pace with their example. The knights who enlisted in the Crusades, with a large amount of zeal and but a small share of wealth, supported their retainers by robberies on the way, and the females who accompanied them acted as camp followers usually do. No institution which deals merely in external observances can restrain immorality in circumstances favorable to its development, and hence chivalry was forced to yield before more powerful influences. That it served its purpose in elevating the condition of woman, and in giving a better tone to society at large, it would be unjust to deny.

Even when chivalry declined and ceased to inspire feats of knight-errantry, we find women, instead of falling back into the degrading position they had formerly occupied, employing themselves in intellectual pursuits, publishing books, mixing in public controversies, distinguishing themselves in the acquisition of languages, and even taking a leading part in the political affairs of the times.

Among the women who acquired a historical notoriety by their position as royal mistresses, during the epoch comprised between the Norman conquest and the reign of Henry VIII., were the Fair Rosamond, concubine of Henry II., and Jane Shore, the mistress of Edward IV. The misfortunes, as well as the generous qualities of these fair sinners have thrown a sort of halo around them.

Rosamond, surnamed the Fair on account of her exquisite beauty, was the daughter of Walter, Lord Clifford, and was [Pg 293]educated in the nunnery of Godstow. The popular tradition concerning her is that Henry, hearing of her charms, paid her a visit, but, finding her virtue inflexible, had to exercise his authority as sovereign to compel her to yield to his wishes. He placed her in a building erected in the midst of a labyrinth at Woodstock, access to which could only be obtained by a clew of thread. Henry located her here to protect her from the jealousy of his queen Eleanor. She bore the king two sons, William Longsword, Earl of Salisbury, and Geoffrey, Bishop of Lincoln. During the king’s absence in France he intrusted the keeping of Woodstock and the care of the Fair Rosamond to one Lord Thomas, who endeavored to seduce her. In revenge for the rejection of his overtures, the faithless warden conducted Queen Eleanor to her retreat, and the latter is said to have mixed a cup of poison, which her minions compelled the unfortunate Rosamond to drink. It is also alleged that the queen struck the poor girl on her lip with her clenched hand.[293] Some assert that Rosamond died a natural death in a convent at Oxford, and attribute the origin of the story of poisoning to the figure of a cup which was sculptured on her tomb. It is more probable that this effigy was placed there to commemorate the actual event. Rosamond was buried in the church of Godstow, opposite the high altar, where her remains lay undisturbed until they were ordered to be removed, with every mark of indignity, by Hugh, Bishop of Lincoln, in the year 1191. She was regarded by the people as a saint, if not a martyr, and wonderful legends were related concerning her.

Jane Shore, the celebrated concubine of Edward IV., was the wife of Matthew Shore, a goldsmith in Lombard Street, London. Edward possessed a good figure and pleasing address, and was fond of athletic sports and exercises, which he enjoyed in company with the citizens, among whom he became exceedingly popular. His popularity extended to many of the citizens’ wives, and it was not considered out of the natural course of things that Mrs. Shore should be removed from Lombard Street to shine at court as the royal favorite. Historians represent her as extremely beautiful, remarkably gay in temperament, and of uncommon generosity. The king, it is said, was no less charmed with her temper and disposition[Pg 294] than with her person. She never made use of her influence over him to the prejudice of any one, and if she ever importuned him it was in favor of the unfortunate.

After the death of Edward she attached herself to Lord Hastings, and when Richard III. cut off that nobleman as an obstacle to his schemes, she was arrested as an accomplice on the ridiculous charge of witchcraft. This accusation, however, terminated in a public penance, with the loss of whatever little property she possessed. Notwithstanding the severities exercised against her, it is certain that she was alive in the reign of Henry VIII., when Sir Thomas More mentions having seen her, poor and shriveled, without the least trace of her former beauty. Mr. Rowe, in his tragedy of “Jane Shore,” has adopted the popular story related in the old ballad, of her perishing from hunger in a ditch where Shoreditch now stands, but Stow assures us that that street was thus named previous to the time of Jane Shore.

The example of none of the English kings had a greater influence in bringing the marriage tie into disrepute than that of Henry VIII. An effort has been made by Mr. Fronde, in his new history of England, to redeem the character of this monarch from some portion of the obloquy with which it is covered, but there is no doubt that he was an unmitigated monster. Curious to say, during his youth and early manhood he betrayed no evidence of the brutal passions which afterward moved him. He was the husband of Catharine for seventeen years before his domestic conduct incurred reproach. At that late period of his career he conceived a violent passion for Anne Boleyn, and, in order to get her to share his bed, sought to divorce his wife. From this period he seemed to become the prey of a restless concupiscence, which sought gratification in new objects of indulgence, and his passion for the women he married and beheaded was as short-lived as it was violent.

There is reason to believe that his marriage with Anne Boleyn was more than adulterous. It is said Anne’s mother had been more complaisant to Henry than her duty to her husband or the laws of morality would have sanctioned, and we have the authority of Bishop Fisher for concluding that Anne was the result of this illicit connection, and that, when the king expressed an intention of marrying her, Lady Boleyn exhorted him to abandon his design, as Anne was his own daughter. Henry was not to be deterred by an obstacle of this sort. He had great difficulty in procuring a divorce, and in the mean while he and Anne had become so [Pg 295]intimate that she began to exhibit proofs of the connection which could not be concealed. A private marriage was resorted to, considerations of state rendering it prudent to keep the union secret.

Catharine was divorced through the instrumentality of Cranmer, but Henry did not long continue to repose confidence in his new bride. Soon after the marriage was made public, and she had been formally inaugurated as queen, she attended a tilting-match at Greenwich, accompanied by the king and a large concourse of spectators. The king observed her exchange amorous signals with one of the combatants, who was also one of her paramours. Henry had entertained suspicions of her connection with this man, and this proof, as he regarded it, of her infidelity aroused his jealousy. He left the scene on the instant and returned to Westminster, where he issued orders to have her immediately arrested. She was thrown into prison, and tried on the joint charges of adultery and incest. She was accused of having committed adultery with four separate members of the king’s household, and of having had incestuous intercourse with her own brother, Lord Rochford. She was tried, found guilty, and executed.

Whether she committed the entire criminality laid to her charge it is impossible to say, but that the incidents of the career just described were in perfect unison with the doings of Henry and his court there is no doubt. Of the influence of such examples on the morals of the people at large, there is, unfortunately, as little question. If court manners and court styles are zealously followed, the vices that spring from them are not less assiduously improved upon.

Henry’s strong sexual passions, as well as his arbitrary disposition, were bequeathed to his daughter Elizabeth. However historians may differ as to the degree of her depravity, they all agree that her right to the title of “Virgin Queen” was exceedingly ill founded. Many of her delinquencies with persons of the opposite sex were notorious, although perhaps difficult of proof. While she had not the slightest claim to beauty, she delighted in flattery, and could swallow any amount of gross and fulsome adulation. Her vanity so blinded her that she never perceived that the extravagant praises lavished on her personal attractions were merely covert satire.

It is said that Elizabeth indulged in almost indiscriminate lewdness, and that Leicester, Hatton, Essex, Mountjoy, and numerous others shared her favors. In one of the notes appended to Hume’s[Pg 296] fourth volume, the nature of Elizabeth’s dealings with a large number of her favorites is set forth, the author of the statement being the Countess of Shrewsbury.

Mary, Queen of Scots, at a time when friendly relations existed between her and Elizabeth, wrote to the latter that the countess had reported that Elizabeth had given a promise of marriage to a certain courtier, but, finding the marriage inexpedient, had dispensed with the ceremony and admitted him to her bed. The countess also stated that she had been equally indulgent to Simier, the French agent, and that Hatton, another of her paramours, had spread many reports indicative of her extreme sexual passion.

The immediate successors of Elizabeth were of a different personal temperament, and did not abandon themselves to such scandalous excesses. James I. had no mistresses, and was not of a character to seek pleasure in extravagant licentiousness, but his court was not free from the scenes which had disgraced those of Henry and Elizabeth. James, being desirous of uniting the Earl of Essex with the Lady Frances Howard, daughter of the Earl of Suffolk, had the young couple betrothed, although they had not attained the age of puberty. The earl was only fourteen years of age, while Lady Frances was but thirteen, and it was deemed proper for the youth to travel until both should have arrived at the maturity necessary for the consummation of the marriage relation. After four years spent on the Continent, the earl returned to England, and found his affianced bride in the full lustre of extraordinary beauty, and of the fame which great personal charms excite. He had also the mortification to find himself repulsed when he approached her as a husband, and was met by every manifestation of dislike and contempt. He complained to her parents on the subject, and they compelled her to accompany him to the country.

Although the young countess obeyed this mandate literally, the feud between her and Essex was far from terminated: she recognized him as her husband in name only, and sedulously kept herself aloof from his society, nor could any of his endeavors overcome her repugnance. The lady persisted in her obstinacy; the husband redoubled his attentions and importunities, but, finding that she was invincible, he finally abandoned the pursuit, and separated from her.

The cause of this strange conduct on the part of the countess was the passion which she entertained for a Scotch adventurer[Pg 297] named Robert Carr, who had found a favorable reception from the king, by whom he was created Viscount Rochester. She believed that by refusing to consummate her marriage with Essex she would not be considered by the world in the light of his wife, and she hoped to procure a divorce, which would enable her to marry Rochester.[294] As their mutual attachment was ardent, and their opportunities for being together frequent, they anticipated the probability of a marriage, and indulged their passions without waiting for the ceremony. They did not find as much trouble in procuring a divorce as they had anticipated.

The king, who had a strong partiality for Rochester, favored their views, and Essex, finding that his suit was hopeless with his wife, opposed no obstacle to the nullification of his marriage. The grounds on which the countess sued out the divorce were of rather a curious character. The chief allegation against Essex was impotency. At that time a firm faith existed in the absurd notions that there were people who possessed the power of witchcraft, enabling them, among other things, to deprive a man of his virility. It was asserted and maintained that Essex had been subjected to this influence, and was therefore incompetent to occupy the position of a married man. The divorce was secured, and Rochester and the countess experienced no farther obstacle to the gratification of their desires.

Rochester had previously consulted Overbury on the difficulties of his position, and the latter strongly advised him not to marry the countess. These facts coming to the ears of Lady Frances, she induced Rochester to have Overbury poisoned. On the discovery of the murder, Rochester and his wife were brought to trial and convicted, but the mistaken clemency of the king interposed between them and the doom they so richly merited. They passed the remainder of their days in obscurity, but as bitter enemies, and although they resided in the same house for many years, no word or message was ever exchanged between them.

[Pg 298]

CHAPTER XXIV.

GREAT BRITAIN.—HISTORY FROM THE COMMONWEALTH TO THE PRESENT DAY.

On gaining the ascendant, the Puritans endeavored to reform the general corruption of society by cutting to the root of the disorders that afflicted it. Instead, however, of applying the knife judiciously, they excised the sound as well as the unhealthy parts. Their measures went to the extreme of killing all the affections and impulses natural to the human breast, in order to repress the excesses arising from too free an abandonment to them. Some fanatics, for instance, gravely suggested that, in order to put an end to fornication and adultery, all intercourse should be prohibited between the sexes.

In our days it is found that innocent amusements are the best safeguard against criminal indulgence, but the Puritans thought otherwise, and looked upon joyous exhilaration of any kind as almost sinful. They enforced their gloomy doctrines with a tyranny as unbending as their tenets themselves were harsh and unnatural. Theatrical entertainments, dancing, etc., were sternly placed under ban, and Puritanism presented merely a heavy and murky atmosphere, with scarcely a social star to enliven its gloomy aspect.

When the Restoration removed the oppressive weight of fanaticism from the public spirit, it rebounded as far above a healthy pitch as it had been formerly depressed below it. An immediate revolution took place in the manners and habits of the people. The theatres, which had been closed by the Puritans, were at once reopened, and the populace abandoned themselves to pleasurable excesses with an eagerness proportionate to the restraint which had been imposed on them. This license would, in time,[Pg 299] have been checked by reflection, had not the impulse been supplied from the quarter where a repressive influence should have been exercised. The Merry Monarch and his court led the race in this national carnival, and the examples which they set only served to stimulate the public appetite for debauchery. Indeed, the court of Charles was little better than a public brothel, and the wit with which its orgies were embellished only served to increase the dangers arising from its conspicuous position, and its power over men’s minds as the centre from which all rank and consideration flowed. The conduct of the courtiers was strictly modeled on that of their royal master, and their social accomplishments only imperfectly varnished over the gross features of a coarse sensuality. Women were flattered and caressed, but not respected, and the homage paid them was such as no decent woman in our time would consent to receive.

The most faithful portraiture of the manners of this epoch is to be found in its dramatic literature. The staple incidents of the pieces represented at the theatres consisted of love intrigues, seductions, and rapes. The fop of the play never elicited such hearty applause as when he recounted his exploits in the ruin of female virtue among the citizens’ wives.

The theatre not only fostered lewdness by depicting it in glowing and attractive colors, but its actors spread abroad the corruption which it was their business to delineate. Their personal character corresponded, in too many instances, with the parts which they performed, and they re-enacted in private the debaucheries which they presented on the stage.

The theatre itself became a central rendezvous for immoral characters, and the place where assignations were most conveniently fixed. Lively wenches, under the pretense of selling oranges to the spectators, frequented the pit, and took their places in the front row, with their backs to the stage. It was well understood that they were as ready to sell favors as fruit, and, in fact, that they had come from the neighboring brothels for that express purpose.

Deep drinking was another characteristic feature of the times, and bacchanalian orgies were freely indulged in by all classes, from the king to the beggar, differing little in the extremes to which they were pushed. Conversation, even in what was called the best society, was disfigured by the grossest obscenity and blasphemy, and bon ton consisted in the extravagance to which this vicious conduct was extended.

[Pg 300]Even the peasantry endeavored to imitate the costumes and carriage of the courtiers, and country women were to be seen in flaunting dresses cut so as to expose as much as possible of the person.

Up to this period no female had ever appeared upon the English stage; where women were introduced, their parts had been filled by boys. Neither was it customary for a monarch to show himself at a public representation of a play; but, when they were enacted for his amusement, the performance took place in some apartment of the royal palace. In Charles’s reign, women for the first time appeared on the stage, and performed the parts allotted to the heroines of the drama.

The king and queen became regular frequenters of the theatre, and encouraged by their presence the double entendre and broad indecencies of the pieces in vogue. We may remark, parenthetically, that unmarried actresses usually adopted the title Mistress before their names, the word Miss, as then applied, signifying that she who bore it was a concubine. In modern days it is the habit to reverse this practice, as the marriage state is considered to divest the actress of half her attractions.

There were but two theatres in London at this period: the King’s Theatre, where the celebrated Nell Gwynne and Mrs. Rebecca Marshall were the chief actresses, and the Duke’s, where another company performed. One day the reigning favorites at the King’s Theatre had a violent quarrel, and Mrs. Marshall called Nell “Lord Buckhurst’s mistress.” Nell contented herself with rejoining that she was but one man’s mistress, though brought up in a brothel, while Mrs. Marshall bore the same relation to three or four, notwithstanding she was the daughter of a Presbyterian. Their own accounts of each other leave no doubt as to their morality.

The pieces represented in the London theatres in the time of Charles II. were, as we have before stated, filled with indecent allusions, and their interest with the public turned on the number and intensity of these prurient passages. The ladies never attended the first representation of a comedy except in masks; and when the dames of the court, with their established reputations for gallantry, were apprehensive of being seen at them, some idea may be formed of the licentious character of the pieces most in favor.

But many of these plays are still in evidence to speak for themselves. It will be seen that in the majority the plot is so framed[Pg 301] as to admit the greatest license in libidinous allusions. The distinguishing feature of them is that the most immodest passages are put into the mouths of women, and, indeed, we know that that actress was the most successful who took the greatest liberties with the text, and most improved upon its lewdness of expression.

As a specimen of the general character of these plays, we may name “All Mistaken, or the Mad Couple,” quite a favorite with the public in its day. The hero is importuned by six clamorous unfortunates whose ruin he has effected, and dunned in addition by the nurses of their illegitimate offspring for wages owing to them. The delectable superstructure of obscene dialogue which is raised on this foundation may be better imagined than described.

The usual hour at which the theatres opened their doors was four in the afternoon, and after the close of the performances the audience generally repaired to some garden or other place of public amusement. Here scenes were enacted which proved a fit sequel to those witnessed on the stage.

The orange-girls had a superior known as “Orange Moll,” who occupied a position somewhat analogous to that of the modern brothel-keeper. She attended the girls to the theatre, and superintended and directed their operations there. During the entreactes lewd conversations were carried on between the orange-girls and the gallants, which were interspersed with obscene jokes, and highly relished by the audience. The custom of interpellating the gay women who frequented the theatre was continued to a period comparatively recent. Every one has heard the story of Peg Plunket and the Duke of Rutland, in the days when the gods of the Dublin theatre were esteemed the most discriminating, though boisterous and rollicking audience of the three kingdoms.

Charles selected several of his mistresses from the stage, for which he had a passionate fondness. Miss Davis literally sang and danced her way into his affections. Her conquest of the king was consummated by the manner in which she sang the popular ballad “My lodging is on the cold ground.” Charles thought she was deserving of warmer quarters, and raised her to his own bed. He established her in a splendid residence, and lavished on her the most extravagant gifts.

The queen at first resented the open and undisguised infidelities of the king, and publicly manifested her sense of them on one occasion by quitting the theatre when Miss Davis made her appearance on the stage; but, finding it impossible to reclaim him from[Pg 302] his vicious propensities, she abandoned all hopes of restricting his libertinism, or even of keeping him within the bounds of conventional decency.

The Countess of Castlemaine (afterward created Duchess of Cleveland) was of a more jealous temperament than the queen, and took a more characteristic revenge on Charles for his frailties. She took another lover, and went to reside at his house, very much to the comfort of her royal patron, who had a kingly dislike of trouble.

After quarreling with Lord Buckhurst, Nell Gwynne returned to the stage, but had not long resumed her profession when it was rumored that she had made a conquest of the king. These reports were apparently contradicted by her continued appearance at the theatre, and the progress she made in her art, which could only be the result of careful study. A tragedy by Dryden was advertised, the principal character to be performed by Nell; but, before the night of its first representation arrived, it was found necessary to postpone the performance, owing to Nell’s not being in a condition to appear. From this time her connection with Charles no longer remained a secret.

Nell, like her predecessors, was not long suffered to maintain uncontested her supremacy over the king’s affections. When the Duchesse d’Orleans, the sister of Charles, paid a visit to the English court in 1670, she had in her train a handsome maid, who was admired for her simple and childish style of beauty. Whether instigated by the courtiers who accompanied her mistress, whose visit was a political one, or prompted by her own sagacity, she made her acquiescence in the king’s desires conditional upon his executing the shameful treaty which gave France such important advantages, and rendered Charles a mere tributary to the French king. This girl, Louise de Querouaille, became the rival of Nell Gwynne, and had a child by Charles, who was created Duke of Richmond.

So scandalously public had the relations of Charles with the loose women who surrounded him become, and so flagrant and unblushing was the conduct of the latter, that the queen could no longer reside in the palace of Whitehall, and accordingly removed to Somerset House in the Strand. This feeling of indignation on the part of her majesty soon extended to the virtuously disposed part of the public. Efforts were made to apply a remedy to the disorder which threatened to corrupt the whole framework of [Pg 303]English society. In Parliament it was proposed to levy a tax on the play-houses, which had become undisguised nests of prostitution. The debate which ensued elicited a witticism which led to serious consequences to the gentleman who uttered it. On Sir John Birkenhead’s remarking that “the players were the king’s servants and part of his pleasures,” Sir John Coventry was imprudent enough to inquire “whether the king’s pleasures lay among the men that acted or the women.” For this offense to Charles he was waylaid by some of the courtiers, who slit his nose, and otherwise maltreated him.

It is impossible, however, to deny that this very license of manners rendered the king popular with a certain class of his subjects. The only exception taken by them to his conduct was the selection of a foreigner as one of his mistresses, and even this would have passed without comment but for the political consequences of the connection. It was generally understood among the people that Mademoiselle de Querouaille, or Mrs. Carwell, as she was commonly called, was an agent used for the purpose of securing the ascendency of French interests. This brought upon her the hostility of the populace, who availed themselves of every opportunity of manifesting their dislike to her.

Nell Gwynne was an English woman, a Protestant, and the idol of the town. She was known by the title of the Protestant mistress, while Mrs. Carwell went by that of the king’s Popish concubine. Nell was one day insulted in her carriage at Oxford, and came very near being mobbed by the populace in mistake for Mrs. Carwell. With her usual wit and presence of mind, she put her head out of the window, and quieted the rioters by telling them that she was “the Protestant w——e.”

As the literature of the times reflected the general licentiousness of manners, it was not to be expected that the arts would escape their demoralizing influence. Most of the paintings then executed were characterized by the same freedom of expression which was used on the stage. There is an old print extant of the Duchess of Portsmouth, reclining on a bank of violets, wearing no other covering than a lace robe; and in another Nell Gwynne is represented in the same semi-nude condition. It is said that this dress had belonged to the duchess, and had been much admired by the king, but that, with her usual love of mischief, Nell had purloined it, greatly to the amusement of her royal lover, and very much to the chagrin and mortification of the duchess.

[Pg 304]The king had his own peculiar way of celebrating the Sabbath. On that day he usually collected his mistresses around him, and amused himself by toying with them and humoring their caprices. We have a picture by a contemporaneous writer of one of his Sunday evenings at Whitehall, where the court resided. It was shortly before his death. Charles sat in the centre of a group of these women, indulging in the most frivolous amusements, and apparently in high humor. At a little distance stood a page singing love-songs for the delectation of the king’s mistresses, while round a gambling-table were seated a number of his courtiers, playing for stakes which sometimes ran as high as ten thousand dollars of our money.[295] The orgies of the night were kept up until daylight broke in upon the revelers. At eight o’clock the same morning the king was seized with a fit of apoplexy, and died within a week.

James II., though of a grave and stern character, was scarcely less amorous in his temperament than Charles. They differed, however, in their tastes. Charles required beauty in his mistresses; and Nell Gwynne and some of his other concubines were not only beautiful in person but possessed of intellectual graces which gilded their gross sensuality. James cared but little for personal attractions, and lavished his favors on coarse-featured and coarse-minded women. His wife was below him in rank, and he did not stoop to her for her beauty, for she was plain, if not downright ugly in her features. He soon transferred his affections to a still plainer mistress, Arabella Churchill. His strongest attachment was, however, that which he entertained for Catharine Sedley, who possessed a powerful influence over him. She was the daughter of Sir Charles Sedley, and seems to have inherited from him the strong passions and reckless disregard of public opinion by which he was distinguished. Sedley’s writings were more licentious than those of any of his contemporaries. His literary talents were not of a high order, but he possessed fair conversational abilities, which made his society attractive. The extreme dissoluteness of his life and disregard of all decency provoked censure even in that age of loose morals. On one occasion, after a drunken revel with some of his profligate companions, he presented himself on the balcony of a tavern near Covent Garden in a state of complete nudity, and commenced a harangue so full of lewdness and obscenity that the crowd pelted him with stones and other missiles, and compelled him to withdraw into the house. A daughter inheriting these[Pg 305] propensities, and brought up under the influence of this example, could not fail to become conspicuous for similar traits of character. Her person possessed none of the attributes which render women attractive. A lank, spare figure, a hollow cheek, sallow face, and an eye of glaring brightness comprised the sum total of her charms.

Charles, whose taste was more cultivated, remarked that his confessor must have recommended Catharine to his brother as a penance for his sins. She herself had the discrimination not to be insensible to the truth of this remark, and was even in the habit of boasting of her own plain looks. Her taste for finery was as great as if she possessed attractions worth setting off by its aid. James, when he formed this connection, had advanced to middle age, and it is difficult to account for the influence which she contrived to exercise over him. On his accession to the throne he promised the queen to abandon her, but his good resolutions soon gave way. Whenever the absence of his wife afforded the opportunity, Chiffinch might be seen conducting Catharine through the private passage leading to his chamber. Notwithstanding all the affected austerity of his manners, James was, in reality, but little better than his volatile brother.

At no period in the history of England, as we have just shown, had the licentiousness of the court been greater than it was during the reigns of Charles II. and James II.; only to be exceeded, perhaps, by the fearful abyss of debauchery and atheism which a few years later was beheld in the courts of Louis XV. and the Regent of France. The vigor and intellect of the early part of the reign of Louis XIV., the magnificence of his tastes, and the glory of his enterprises, stand out in powerful contrast to the doings of the imbecile, corrupt, and utterly profligate and debased court of England. The influence of this most pernicious example it is somewhat difficult to arrive at. The great body of the people, especially in the country, in those times of difficult communication, were probably but little affected by the extravagance of the restored Cavaliers, added to which there was a powerful leaven of religious feeling working through the country, which did not for some time settle down into the apathy that called for a new manifestation of Puritan feeling in the establishment of Wesleyan Methodism. In the upper classes of society, however, the core-rottenness of the courts of Charles and James was yet felt, throughout the reigns of the succeeding sovereigns, even down to the time of George III. The writings of contemporary authors, especially of the comic [Pg 306]dramatists, “the abstract and brief chronicles of the times,” are a fair type of the public morals and intelligence in all ages. At this epoch we have from these sources overwhelming evidence of the reaction which had taken place.

After the removal of the compulsory restraint of Puritan control, the nation seemed at once to have lost its reason: modesty and decency were badges of Puritan Republicanism, and therefore unsuited to loyal men, who showed their attachment to the monarchy by their abandonment of decorum and violation of every moral virtue. The productions of the favorite authors teem with coarse images, unequivocal allusions, and gross facts. Wit degenerated into blasphemy, liveliness into obscenity, metaphors into lasciviousness. The scenes that took place in the court, and which constituted its daily amusements, were disgusting to the last degree. The mere commerce of the sexes, and the libertinism of the period in that respect, were the smallest vices, and might almost be considered merely follies, but the venality and corruption were open and shameless. The courtiers cast aside the last rag of patriotic propriety, and avarice, cruelty, lust, and perjury filled the measure of wickedness. On one occasion, it is said, an infant was prematurely born in one of the rooms of the palace, and Charles, with many jocular remarks, had the body conveyed to his own closet for dissection by his own hand! An incident of such brutality, which might be frequently paralleled by others equally bad in degree, though different in fact, shows the hideous destitution of all decency with which the court must have been cursed. The pages of Rochester, Etherege, Buckingham, Congreve, Vanburgh, and Fletcher, in the close of the seventeenth, and Prior, Gay, Swift, and scores of inferior writers in the commencement of the eighteenth century, all exhibit this state of affairs, while the noble Muse even of a Dryden could stoop to earn base applause by lending her powers to the decoration of vice, and voluntarily quitting her native regions to wallow in the mire.

The vices of this period must have left an ineradicable taint behind them, when, after the full tide of iniquity had swept on, and purer waters were succeeding, we find Lord Chesterfield, a British statesman of distinguished ability and high position, thus advising his own son: “Let the great book of the world be your principal study. Nocturna versate manu versate diurna, which may be rendered thus: Turn over men by day and women by night: I mean only the best editions.”

[Pg 307]While, as we have already observed, there was probably a wholesome religious element in a portion of the population, which operated as an antiseptic against the rottenness of the court, it is impossible but that the capital must have been imbued with the reckless iniquity, outrageous dissoluteness, and general immorality of the higher classes. The poets, playwrights, essayists, and biographers of the age all bear traces of the effects of bad example in high places on public manners. A critic of those days says, “The accomplished gentleman of the English stage is a person that is familiar with other men’s wives and indifferent to his own, and the fine lady is generally a composition of sprightliness and falsehood.” A thorough disrespect for female virtue, or rather the admiration of libertinism, tainted the life’s blood of the capital. And when, passing over the coarse wit of Prior, or the perverted genius of Dryden, we come to the sober and moderate writings of essayists and satirists, we find material which gives us some little insight into the lower London life of the period, and that which has more immediate interest for us in this inquiry.

In the delightful and ever youthful pages of the Spectator, there are some incidents of great pathos touching the state of those unfortunates whose condition was then, as now, one of the disgraces of civilization. One paper contains a singularly apposite remark. “I was told,” says the writer (a woman of the town), “by a Roman Catholic gentleman last week, who I hope is absolved for what then passed between us, that in countries where Popery prevails, besides the advantages of licensed stews, there are larger endowments given for the Incurabili, I think he called them. This manner of treating poor sinners has, we think, great humanity in it; and as you, Mr. Spectator, are a person who pretends to carry your reflections upon all subjects which occur to you, I beg therefore of you to lay before the world the condition of us poor vagrants, who are really in a way of labor instead of idleness.”

At another time the Spectator himself meets “a slim young girl of about seventeen, who, with a pert air, asked me if I was for a pint of wine. I could observe as exact features as ever I had seen; the whole person, in a word, of a woman exquisitely beautiful. She affected to allure me with a forced wantonness in her look and air, but I saw it checked with hunger and cold. Her eyes were wan and eager; her dress thin and tawdry; her mien genteel and childish. This strange figure gave me much anguish of heart, and, to avoid being seen with her, I went away, but could[Pg 308] not avoid giving her a crown. The poor thing sighed, courtesied, and with a blessing, expressed with the utmost vehemence, turned from me. This creature is what they call newly come upon the town.”

The arts of the procuresses; their experiments on inexperienced country girls; their attendance at coach-offices and public places to hunt for and entrap the unwary; the regular customers they have for new wares; the mode, first of offering them to private sale, and, when the first gloss is worn off, casting them on the public market, are all as true of 1858 as of the day for which it was written. In one case, the Spectator, being at a coach-office, overhears a lady inquiring of a young girl her parentage and character, and especially if she has been properly brought up, and has been taught her Catechism. Desirous of seeing a lady who had so proper an idea of her duties to servants, he peeps through and sees the face of a well-known bawd, thus decoying a young girl just arrived in London. One amusing cheat in the business of these go-betweens is complained of by a lady correspondent: for a consideration, they profess to introduce some ambitious foreigner or country gentleman to the favors of ladies of high degree, ruling toasts, leading belles, etc. Some lady, Wilhelmina Amelia Skeggs, is foisted upon the deluded customer, who must, of course, be ignorant of the person of his inamorata, and he walks off boasting, in great self-gratulation, of his good fortune, to the great injury of an irreproachable woman’s fame.[296]

It was reserved for the reign of George III. to give a favorable turn to court morals and to make virtue respectable. The Georges I. and II. had exercised but a negative influence on their subjects. They were merely viewed as political necessities, and held in little or no personal esteem. Their uncouth manners, foreign mistresses, and decidedly heavy liaisons had no charm for either eye or fancy. With George III. and his queen, virtue in courts became in some degree fashionable; the slough of libertinism in which Louis XV. and the Regent Orleans had plunged themselves seemed in France to have created some reaction. Louis XVI. in Paris, and George III. in London, presented the rare spectacle to their respective subjects of two well-conducted men, whose domestic life and character were unimpeachable. But as the sons of[Pg 309] George III., especially the Prince of Wales and the Duke of York, attained their majority, they were surrounded by bands of flatterers and parasites, who stimulated and encouraged the natural proneness of youth to pleasure and dissipation. The libertinism and excesses of the Stuarts again became bon-ton, devoid, it is true, of political debasement and national dishonor; checked also by parental disapprobation, and by the influence of public opinion. This, though very weak, was not quite powerless; and, though lenient to the errors of youth, it drew an unfavorable comparison between the reckless extravagance and dissolute tastes of the princes, and the moderate and personally estimable conduct of the king and queen.[297]

The masses of the English people were distinguished for plain good sense, and attachment to the cause of religion and morality; and although drinking, gambling, boxing, and racing were, in honor of the royal princes, fashionable amusements, and their attainment coveted and emulated by many of the rising generation, still the general sentiment of the nation at this period was condemnatory of these vices. Those inclined to charitable views of human nature found excuses in the temptations of youth, a fine person, a commanding position, and, lastly, in the infamous counsels of those who found political capital in the encouragement of these excesses, thereby promoting a division between the heir to the throne and his sovereign parent. Others there were who beheld in George IV., whether as prince or monarch, a modern Tiberius, a man of ungovernable lusts; a ruthless libertine and a debased sensualist, without any redeeming qualities. As a fact, apart from causes and political prejudices, George IV. was undoubtedly a debauchee and a man of dissolute habits;[298] but he[Pg 310] was a man of liberal education, of cultivated taste, of distinguished appearance, and elegant manners. He and the Count D’Artois, brother of Louis XVI., were considered the most finished gentlemen in Europe, so far as mannerism went. These externals glossed over, and even lent a charm to, the vices of his youth; and the mysterious orgies of Carlton House were associated in the public mind with the brilliant wit of Sheridan, the manly grace of Wyndham (that beau ideal of an English gentleman), the vast talent of Fox, and the enchanting grace of Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire, the bright particular star amid a galaxy of minor luminaries. The respectability belonged to the court party; the genius and fascination were ranged on the side of the Prince of Wales.

It is difficult, even at this brief lapse of time, and when so many eye-witnesses are yet surviving, to speak with any degree of confidence of the state of general public morals in England as affected by the French Revolution, and the violent Tory and Whig contests of the period. The literature which preceded and accompanied the French Revolution went the whole length of undermining and unsettling every established institution, both of politics and religion, without building up an effective substitute in place of the structure destroyed. The doctrines of moral obligation and the balance of general convenience, which, according to the Volney, Voltaire, and Rousseau school, were to supersede the effete and worn-out dogmas of the Gospel, were little known and less liked in England. At the outset of the French movements, the cause had the sympathy of the English Liberals; but afterward, when the social and political excesses of the time disgusted even its moderate British supporters, and when the deep-rooted and apparently innate antagonism of the two nations was revived by the war, the hatred and contempt of the English people for French manners, French literature, French men, French every thing, knew no bounds. Thus, while the leaven of Parisian philosophy was fermenting in the breasts of all Continental Europe, it is our opinion that its influence in England was purely of a reactionary character; and as under the last Stuarts patriotism and libertinism went hand in hand, so, in the end of the eighteenth and the commencement of the nineteenth centuries, an Englishman’s love of his own country and his hatred of France were associated with a detestation of the heresies of French philosophers and patriarchs.

[Pg 311]Of the effect produced on the morals of the people by the loose manner in which, previous to 1753, the marriage ceremony was performed, we have the evidence brought forward in the debates on Lord Hardwicke’s Marriage Bill. Anterior to that time, a boy of fourteen and a girl of twelve years of age might marry against the will of their parents or guardians, without any possibility of dissolving such marriage. The law, indeed, required the publication of banns, but custom and the dispensing power had rendered them nugatory. A dispensation could be purchased for a couple of crowns, and the marriage could take place in a closet or a tavern, before two friends who acted as witnesses. But dispensations were not always necessary. There were privileged places, such as May Fair and the Fleet, where the marriage ceremony could be performed at a moment’s notice, and without any inconvenient questions being asked.

Gretna Green, on the borders of Scotland, was long a famous place for runaway matches. It has been questioned how far the Scotch law of marriage was conducive to morality; but, judging from its effects upon the people themselves, it can scarcely be considered an ally of vice. This law, which has only been repealed within a few years, treated marriage as a civil contract, valid if contracted before witnesses, and required no ceremony or preparatory notice. That unions so formed were binding, admits of no possible dispute: the question has been tried in the British courts of law on every conceivable ground, and their legality has been always affirmed, but in the case of marriages at May Fair or the Fleet the same certainty did not exist. Gretna Green is the first village after passing the dividing line between England and Scotland, and owes its fame to its locality. It has doubtless been the scene of many heartless adventures, for which the actual law of the land must be held accountable.

The marriage act which came into operation in 1754, had for its object the prevention of clandestine marriages in England, but did not interfere with the law of Scotland. It sought to effect this reform by making it necessary to the validity of a marriage without license, that it should take place after the proclamation of banns on three Sundays in the parish church, before a person in orders, between single persons consenting, of sound mind, and of the age of twenty-one years, or of the age of fourteen in males and twelve in females, with the consent of parents and guardians, or without their consent in cases of widowhood. The new [Pg 312]marriage act of 1837 allows marriage, after notice to the superintendent registrars in every district, either in the public register offices in the presence of the superintendent registrar and the registrar of marriages, or in duly registered places of worship.

We have no statement as to the number of marriages previous to the year 1753. All we know is, that from 1651 to 1751 the population only increased sixteen per cent., the increase being only one million and fourteen thousand in one hundred years. Since the act of 1753 came into operation, the registers of marriages have been preserved in England, and show an increase of marriages from 50,972 in the year 1756, to 63,310 in 1764. “The rage of marrying is very prevalent,” writes Lord Chesterfield in the latter year; and again in 1767, “In short, the matrimonial phrensy seems to rage at present, and is epidemical.” After many fluctuations, the marriages rose to seventy, eighty, ninety, and one hundred thousand annually, and in 1851 to one hundred and fifty-four thousand two hundred and six. Fourteen millions were added to the population, an increase of 187 per cent., or at the rate of one per cent. annually.[299]

CHAPTER XXV.

GREAT BRITAIN.—PROSTITUTION AT THE PRESENT TIME.

The corruption of court morals alone, and without circumstances of national weight and moment, has seldom, we take it, affected the bulk of the population. It is nevertheless undeniable that a lax morality, and, à fortiori, a system of absolute profligacy among the wealthy classes of society, will contribute in a significant degree toward the increase of prostitution in metropolitan[Pg 313] cities. It is in the service of her wealthy customers and patrons that the professional procuress is chiefly employed, and, stimulated by high gains, she plies her vile calling, and exerts all her hellish ingenuity to discover new sources of amusement and gratification for them.

In Fletcher’s “Humorous Lieutenant,” written in 1690, a court bawd is introduced reading her minute-book, and calling over the register of the females at her command. “Chloe, well—Chloe should fetch three hundred and fifty crowns; fifteen; good figure; daughter of a country gentleman; her virtue will bring me that sum, and then a riding-horse for her father out of it; well. The merchant’s wife, she don’t want money. I must find a spark of quality for her.” The representation of such character is out of vogue in these days on the English stage; but, while the proprieties are observed, the omission is but a veiling of the subject. The reality exists, though unseen.

In the London Times of July, 1855, an incident is thus related by a correspondent: “I was standing on a railway platform at ——, with a friend waiting for a train, when two ladies came into the station. I was acquainted with one of them, the younger, well. She told me she was going to London, having been fortunate enough to get a liberal engagement as governess in the family of the lady under whose charge she then was, and who had even taken the trouble to come into the country to see her and her friends, to ascertain that she was likely in all respects to suit. The train coming in sight, the fares were paid, the elder lady paying both. I saw them into the carriage, and the door being closed, I bowed to them and rejoined my friend, who happened to be a London man about town. ‘Well, I will say,’ said he, with a laugh, ‘you country gentlemen are pretty independent of public opinion. You are not ashamed of your little transactions being known!’ ‘What do you mean?’ I asked. ‘Why, I mean your talking to that girl and her duenna on an open platform.’ ‘Why, that is Miss ——, an intimate friend of ours.’ ‘Well, then, I can tell you,’ said the Londoner to me, coolly, ‘her friend is Madam ——, one of the most noted procuresses in London, and she has got hold of a new victim, if she is a victim, and no mistake.’ I saw there was not a minute to lose; I rushed to the guard of the train, and got him to wait a moment. I then hurried to the carriage-door where the ladies were. ‘Miss ——, you must get out; that person is an unfit companion for you. Madam ——, we[Pg 314] know who you are.’ That was one victim rescued, but how many are lost?”

In another case, the practices of a scoundrel named Phinn were made the subject of a public warning by the Lord Mayor of London from his judicial chair. This fellow’s plan was to advertise from abroad for ladies to go to Cologne, or other places on the Rhine, to become governesses in his family, which was traveling, and whose governess had unexpectedly left them, or been taken ill, or was otherwise got rid of. The candidates were to pay their own passage to the place of rendezvous, when the appointments of the situation were to commence. In some cases in which the practices of this rascal had failed of their full effect, he had succeeded in defrauding poor women of their funds, and they had found the utmost difficulty in making their way home again.

While it is impossible to have any precognizance of the persons and circumstances among which these wretches find their prey, some cases are peculiarly within the scope of their operations. Young females who have lost their natural protectors, and are brought into contact with the world under their own guidance, are easily imposed upon by the pretended friendship of these persons, and being under a pretense of employment inveigled into their houses, are there kept until their fall is accomplished by persuasion or force. It is said that women even attend regularly at churches and Sunday-schools for the purpose of decoying female children. They first accost them, and interest them, without making any direct advances. The next time they proceed a little farther, and soon invite them to accompany them a little distance, when they lead them to a brothel. They have been known to take the children away in the presence of the teacher, who, seeing them act as acquaintances, had no suspicion of the real nature of their associations.[300]

The London Society for the Protection of Young Females have recorded instances of children of eleven years of age being entrapped by procuresses into houses of prostitution. Those who are thus decoyed are not permitted to escape, nor to go into the streets for two or three months. By that time they are supposed to be incapable of retracing their steps, or to have become reconciled to their mode of life, and are permitted to go or remain. Occasionally they are turned adrift to seek new lodgings, their places being supplied by fresh arrivals. Some of these children[Pg 315] find their way home again, but the majority of them are of course irretrievably lost, and continue in the course into which they have been thus indoctrinated.

The procuresses have agents in different parts of London, whose business it is to discover young persons, servant-girls and others, who are dissatisfied with their earnings and condition in life, and who may be considered suitable subjects. The number of servants out of place, in London alone, is enormous—many thousands in number; and as “service is no inheritance,” such a body constitutes a very favorable field of operations. The intermediate agents in these cases are small shop-keepers, laundresses, charwomen, and such others as from their avocations have the opportunity of becoming acquainted with young women in service. Common lodging-house-keepers too, residing in the suburbs of London, contribute their quota of assistance. Young women coming fresh from the country, and sleeping in such places for a night, receive recommendations to procuresses and brothel-keepers as servants. Intelligence-offices for hiring servants, which in London are called “Servants’ Bazars,” and are not under any license, are visited by these people in search of new faces.

In some cases procuresses are found to act on behalf of particular individuals only. In one case, such a woman kept a small shop, to which she invited servant-girls in the neighborhood after a little acquaintance. By her assistance, aided by liberal entertainment with wines and spirits, her employers (two men of property) were enabled to corrupt eight servant-girls in a short space of time.

A constant trade in prostitution is carried on between London and Hamburg, London and Paris, and London and the country. Three or four years ago a trial took place at the Central Criminal Court (London) of a man and woman who were engaged in the importation of females for purposes of prostitution. The prisoners were convicted. The details of the trial show that a regular organization existed. In some cases, Parisian prostitutes were hired in Paris for the London market by the ordinary agents in such contracts; in other cases, the parties in both capitals decoyed young women into their service on pretense of reputable engagements, and shipped them over to their consignees. Of course, every care is taken in these matters to keep the transaction confidential; for, although the English laws are practically most defective, still, in cases exciting any degree of notoriety, and in which[Pg 316] the offense can be satisfactorily established by legal proof, prosecutions do take place.

We can not close this branch of our subject better than by once again quoting from the Spectator, and giving a genuine letter, which, although written a century and a half ago, is just such a one as might, for a similar purpose, be penned at the present day. It as accurately describes the mode in which “articles of trade” in the procuress line are disposed of now as then.

Next to procuresses in this gradation of iniquity are the brothel-keepers, who, although often procuresses, are not necessarily so. Shakspeare, who included all human existence in the sphere of his observation, says of them,

“A bawd! a wicked bawd!
The evil that thou causest to be done,
That is thy means to live: do thou but think
What ’tis to cram a maw or clothe a back
From such a filthy vice; say to thyself,
From their abominable and beastly touches
I drink, I eat, array myself, and live.
Canst thou believe thy living is a life?
So stinkingly depending.”

[Pg 317]Many of these persons have been prostitutes themselves, and when past service in the one branch of business have naturally fallen into the other. Others, without having been such, adopt the trade from inclination or circumstances. The condition of these people and the interior of their houses are as various as the people themselves. At the west end of London there is a considerable degree of style; in the lower parts of the town they are sordid and filthy habitations, fit only for deeds of darkness. They are confined to private streets, alleys, and lanes out of the great thoroughfares. The law is usually put in operation in England against the brothel-keepers as the representatives of the whole class. As they get the chief profits of the trade, so they run all the legal risks. The indictments against them, however, are comparatively few. There is no public prosecutor in England, as with us. The police administration of the metropolis, perhaps the best organized, the most efficient and cheapest department of the public service, does not include the prevention of brothels within its duties, which are confined to the preservation of life and property. The prosecution of brothel-keepers and abolition of their establishments are usually undertaken by the parish authorities when the places are so conducted as to become a nuisance to the neighborhood; and police officers merely interfere to prevent the assemblage of prostitutes in the public streets, or the solicitation of passengers by them. Virtually this provision is little better than a dead letter, and the women evade it by walking when an officer is in sight, and thus deprive him of the only proof which would enable him to make an arrest.[301]

Some of the girls who pay exorbitant board also stipulate to give their mistresses one half of their cash receipts, which are frequently very large in the case of attractive women, amounting sometimes to one or two hundred dollars a week. The mistress is treasurer, and the prostitutes rarely succeed in receiving back what ostensibly belongs to them. The very prosecution before mentioned originated in a French girl’s being cheated by the brothel-keeper. The clothing is furnished by the mistress, and for this she charges prices which absorb the entire earnings of the[Pg 318] girls. She even contrives to furnish them with such a number of showy and useless garments that she keeps them always in her debt, and so has a lien on each to prevent her leaving as long as she is a profitable member of the establishment. Some girls who have been seduced have, when entering on a life of prostitution, extensive and valuable wardrobes. The mistress runs them into debts of her own contracting, and if they become dissatisfied with their treatment and desire to leave, they are held for the debt. By the common law of England, all debts incurred for an immoral purpose are void, but this law is of little value to those who are ignorant of its existence; besides which, the brothel-keepers have possession of the booty, and thus effectually drive the debtor to an adjustment of the matters in dispute.

Such of the brothel-keepers as have no lawful husbands form intimacies with some man whom they support. In slang dialect, there is a class of men called “spooneys,” who support the women, or furnish them with funds when necessary. They set them up in business, become responsible for their debts, and assist them in all their difficulties. The “fancy men” are those who do nothing for them, but live at their expense. The lower class of brothel-keepers have no “spooneys,” but they invariably have “fancy men,” who act as bullies, and settle by physical force any disputes that may arise between the inmates and their visitors. These men spend the day in taverns, and the night in the particular brothels to which they are attached, and are frequently felons of the deepest dye.

Some of the brothel-keepers are married women, and even mothers of families. The husbands are lazy, worthless wretches, addicted to gambling and drinking, and brutally indifferent to the sources from which their luxuries are supplied. In some cases the wealthier individuals have been known to send their children to good schools away from home, and to have kept them in ignorance of their own wretched vocation. Thus sin entails its own punishment.

The number of brothels in London has been variously estimated. The whole number of houses at the last census was three hundred thousand and upward. Among them it was calculated, and probably correctly, that there were five thousand brothels, including houses of assignation. The rents of these establishments vary as much as the houses and situations (from fifteen hundred down to one hundred dollars a year). In good neighborhoods we[Pg 319] should be slow to believe that landlords had any previous knowledge of the purposes to which their houses are to be applied. Independent of moral objection, such a house deteriorates the character of the property. Indeed, the clauses in leases of the great London properties are very strict, and include all objectionable trades as causes of forfeiture.

The owners of the houses are of all classes. The Almonry of Westminster, once the abode of Caxton, which within these six or eight years has been pulled down, was one of the vilest aggregations of vice and crime in existence. This was the property of the dean and chapter of Westminster Abbey. The common law of England, as already mentioned in the matter of dress, prohibits the recovery of the rents of houses let for immoral purposes. Many of the brothel-keepers themselves hire houses, furnish them, and sublet them. It has been made a matter of reproach that landlords should, even indirectly, derive income from such sources. But poverty and vice are closely allied; where poverty exists, vice will come. It is impossible for a landlord to exclude any class of tenants in a particular neighborhood suited to them, and those who know aught about the improvement and ventilation of large cities, and the breaking up of bad neighborhoods, are well aware that they are accompanied with a fearful amount of extra misery to the very poor.

In a subsequent portion of this work we have endeavored to analyze the causes of prostitution as it exists in the city of New York. It may be reasonably supposed that the same reasons would be applicable to the kindred people of Great Britain. We give the following, mainly deduced from English writers, as indicating the sentiments of the best-informed in that kingdom as to the sources of so deep-rooted an evil, which must be sought in a variety of circumstances, national as well as personal.

A professional man, Mr. Tait, to whose pages we have turned for information as to prostitution in Great Britain, classifies the causes as natural and accidental. The natural he subdivides into licentiousness of disposition, irritability of temper, pride and love of dress, dishonesty and love of property, and indolence. The accidental include seduction, ill-assorted marriages, low wages, want of employment, intemperance, poverty, defective education, bad example of parents, obscene publications, and a number of minor causes. Without assenting to the classification, we will accept the enumeration.

[Pg 320]The operation of sexual desire on the female sex is a mooted question among English writers on prostitution. Whether it is latent, and never powerful enough to provoke evil courses until it is itself stimulated and roused into energy by external circumstances, or whether it be an active principle impelling the ill-regulated female mind to sacrifice self-respect and reputation in the gratification of dominant impulses, has been frequently discussed. Many consider that its influence on the inducement of prostitution is no less unsatisfactory of solution than the physiological problem, alleging that those who have followed the bent of their natural appetites would undoubtedly prefer to ascribe their lapse to other circumstances. This subject is treated more fully elsewhere, and it is needless to repeat here the views there expressed.

That sexual desire, once aroused, does exercise a potent influence on the female organization, can not be questioned. Self-abuse, which is a perverted indulgence of the natural instinct, is well known to English physicians as being practiced among young women to a great extent, though in a far less degree than among young men. Its frightful influences upon the latter have been the subject of the liveliest anxiety to those who have made the care of youth their profession, and this source of trouble is shared to some degree by female teachers. Such subjects seem by common consent to be banished from rational investigation by the majority of people, as if shutting one’s eyes to the fact would prove its non-existence. This false delicacy is more injurious than is commonly supposed; for the unchecked indulgence in such habits is not only destructive of health, but in the highest degree inimical to the moral feeling, and directly subversive of all self-respect, leaving but one step to complete the final descent.

Seduction.—The effect of undue familiarity, and too unrestrained an intercourse between the sexes, can not be exaggerated as paving the way for the last lapse from virtue. It is precisely these familiarities which, in ill-regulated minds, excite the first impulses of desire; and even where such a result does not immediately flow from too free an intercourse, it breaks down that modesty and reserve which so much enhance the beauty of woman, and constitute her best safeguard. The inclined plane by which the female who permits the first freedom glides unchecked to final ruin, though gradual, is very difficult to retrace. The unrestricted intercourse permitted, or rather encouraged between the sexes[Pg 321] at places of public amusement much facilitates the opportunities of seduction. Prostitutes frequently, and we believe with truth, allege seduction as the first step toward their abandoned course of life, and the allegation itself should induce a sympathy for the misfortune of their present existence. Although in some cases the story can not be implicitly believed, at the same time there is no doubt that a heartless seduction is but too frequent a circumstance in such cases, and contributes its sad quota of heavy account to prostitution.

It is a general opinion that cases of (so called) seduction in England occur between employers and female servants, and that of these are vast numbers. By seduction in such circumstances is meant the inducement to do wrong by promises or other suasives, in opposition to the commonly received idea, which makes the fall the result of strong personal attachment. In a work like this we must notice the largest definitions, and can not consistently limit ourselves to the inducement customarily brought forward in law proceedings, namely, “a promise of marriage.” In this sense, illegitimate children may be said to be the consequence of seduction. Certainly not all of them, however, because many persons, voluntarily and with their eyes open, enter upon cohabitation arrangements; but doubtless many are. Once seduced, of course the female becomes herself the seducer of the inexperienced.

The policy of English law, of late years, has been to compel the woman to protect herself—in the main, a wise policy. But the balance of human justice is very unevenly maintained. The male, the real delinquent, incurs no legal punishment, and but little social reprobation. Actions for seduction are very unpopular, and those brought bear but an infinitesimal proportion to the occurrence of the crime. The onus of proof in bastardy affiliations of course rests upon the woman. Of late years the alterations in the law have thrown great difficulties in her way by what is called the necessity of corroborative evidence, namely, some kind of admission, direct or indirect, or some overt act which will furnish oral or documentary testimony other than the woman’s unsupported statement. This may be strictly expedient, but it renders the man almost irresponsible if he only play his part with knavish prudence. Lastly, popular feeling is against charges of rape: acquittal is very frequent, and the usual rebuttal is to [Pg 322]impeach the character of the prosecutrix. The opinion of one of England’s greatest judges has passed into a proverb: “No charge so easy to make, none so difficult to disprove.” Queen Elizabeth’s mode of proving her disbelief of rape is also expressive of public opinion.

From the combination of these circumstances, it would seem that seduction must, almost as a matter of course, lead to prostitution, inasmuch as, in ordinary English parlance, the mother of a bastard and a prostitute are almost synonymous.

Overcrowded Dwellings.—The natural impulses of animal instinct in both sexes seem to be implicated in the effect of crowded sleeping apartments, as met with in the habitations of the poor both in town and country. In the latter we have the show, and sometimes the reality, of family life and virtuous poverty. In the towns we find abodes of poverty sometimes honest, sometimes in closest propinquity or intimacy with vice, and there too we have the dwelling-places of the lowest depravity and vagabondism.

Those who have not given their attention to the condition of the poor, and the relation which their lives hold to the ordinary habits of decency and morality, have much difficulty in comprehending, or even believing, statements which embody the plainest every-day truths. It is hard to realize things as they are, if the mind has been full of ideal pictures of things as they should be. The Dives of society has been often reproached with his ignorance of Lazarus. The sin lies exactly in that ignorance. As Carlyle finely says, “The duty of Christian society is to find its work, and to do it.” Negative virtue is of no practical use to the community. But yet the ignorance is natural enough, and no easier of removal than other ignorance. It has been generally attributed to the wealthy and upper classes of society, but it exists just the same, differing only a little in degree, in the middle class and moderately rich members of the English social system.

The misery and inconvenience which the poor suffer from the straitness of their domestic arrangements are beyond belief. Grown-up girls and boys sleep in the same bed; brothers and sisters, to say nothing of less intimate relations, are in the closest contiguity; and even strangers, who are admitted into the little home to help in eking out the rent, are placed on the same family footing. This momentous question to the moral well-being of the poor has excited very lively interest in England, and has called[Pg 323] into active operation several philanthropic associations, which have in view the employment of capital in improving and cheapening the dwellings of the working classes.[302]

In London this system of close lodging was carried to a fearful pitch. In some places from five to thirteen persons slept in a single bed, while in the country the evil was nearly as bad, although, from the slight restraint imposed by family ties, the actual evil is positively less; though the moral contamination is of nearly the same extent, and paves the way for other relations out of doors. The facts which justify these conclusions are to be found in a variety of shapes—parliamentary reports, statistical tables, appeals from clergymen, addresses from philanthropic associations, etc., etc.[303]

The Honorable and Reverend S. O. Osborne, a clergyman well known for his philanthropic exertions in behalf of the poor, says of country life in England:

Mr. A. Austin, Assistant Poor-Law Commissioner, says:

Without entering into disgusting details, the pain of perusing which could add nothing to the value of the statements, the conclusion is indisputable that much of prostitution, if not of prostitution for hire, certainly of prostitution from corrupt and profligate motives, is engendered by the vicious habits induced by habitual proximity of the sexes in early life. The prostitutes themselves frequently assign these habits as the commencement of their career of vice, and some even admit the breach of the closest natural ties during early youth, by reason of the too great facilities thus offered.[304] The great importance of this want of decency and propriety in family life can not be overrated. The contagious nature of vice is proverbial; and it is almost impossible to imagine the power attained by ill-conditioned children, and the fatal readiness with which their sinful words and practices are propagated.

The cheap lodging-houses are a pendant to the close-packed dwellings of the poor, although they do not produce the same early pernicious results as indecency and immorality in family life. The latter prepare the way to the scenes of the common lodging-house, in which the lowest depth of vice is speedily reached. Here prostitution is habitual—a regular institution of the place. The smallest imaginable quantities of food can be purchased; adults, youths, and children of both sexes are received, and herd promiscuously together; the prices of beds are of the lowest (from three to six cents); no questions are asked, and the place is free to all. A new-comer is soon initiated, or rather forced into all the mysteries of iniquity. Obscenity and blasphemy are the staple conversation of the inmates; every indecency is openly performed; the[Pg 325] girls recite aloud their experiences of life; ten or a dozen sleep in one bed, many in a state of nudity. Indeed, the details of these places are horrible beyond description. Unmitigated vice and lustful orgies reign, unchecked by precept or example, and the point of rivalry is as to who shall excel in filth and abomination.

Example is the next immediate cause in what may be considered the natural series. There are a few prostitutes who have children. That these latter should follow the same course is quite in the common course of events, although considerable anxiety is occasionally evinced by such women to have their children brought up to better courses. Such redemption is all but impossible. In ordinary life, however, the mind of youth is often perverted by direct evil example in the elders; and, as we have already remarked, the corruption of the human affections in their fountain-head—family life—where they ought to be sweetest and purest, is more fatally demoralizing, and more certain to insure eventual ruin than almost any other. Fathers and mothers are both wanting often enough in their duty, although it is a matter of universal faith that the influence and example of the father are of less importance than that of the mother. A bad man may have virtuous children, a bad woman hardly ever. There are cases where the mother and daughter sleep in the same bed, each with a male partner. In the city of Edinburgh there are two mothers, prostitutes, each with four daughters, prostitutes; five prostitute mothers each with three prostitute daughters, ten such with two daughters each, and twenty-four such with one daughter each, all following the practices of the mothers.[305]

Such influences brought to bear on the young are irresistible. This may perhaps account for the number of sisters who carry on prostitution. The effect of mere sisterly example would be sufficient to account for the circumstance, but the parental becomes almost a compulsion, inasmuch as the parent (in such circumstances, the mother) will not only connive at, but be the main cause of her child’s ruin for her own direct profit and advantage. This, indeed, seems more accordant with our ideas of the natural tendencies of prostitutes and procuresses, than that such persons should be excessively anxious for their children’s purity and moral welfare.

Poverty is an integral part of nearly all the conditions of life[Pg 326] which we have to consider as incentives to prostitution. In some instances, more, perhaps, than may be generally credited, poverty is a direct and proximate cause of this vice. In other words, “women previously and otherwise virtuous do prostitute their bodies for bread.” In most of the cases enumerated except that purely natural, but rare one, innate sexual desire, poverty is a remote cause. From the number of the human race who are under its griping, chilling pressure, poverty may be set down as a fruitful source of prostitution.

The connection of political circumstances with the phases of public morals is more intimate than the consideration of the superficial differences of the two matters would at first sight imply. But an attentive comparison of the state of public prosperity with the state of public crime will show that crime is somewhat dependent on food: the man with a well-filled stomach is no foe to order. Prostitution, as a means of supplying the cravings of hunger, is part of the same connection. It is true that in England there are poor-laws and work-houses, from and in which every destitute person, without reference to character, has a right to food and shelter. In the first place, however, the work-houses are objects of unmitigated aversion to the poorer classes. Various rules, in themselves hard, but rendered necessary by consideration for the rate-payers as well as for the beneficiaries, such as separation of husband and wife while receiving relief, separation of child and parent, etc., make the work-house system odious to the worthy and honest poor; while the strict rules, and the restraint and discipline enforced within the walls, make it still more odious to those who place their happiness in license and irregularity; added to this, in populous and poor districts, the claims upon the work-house in seasons of distress are too numerous for its capabilities. It is an awful truth that, notwithstanding the enormous revenues, nearly fifty millions of dollars per annum, collected for poor relief, and the immense establishments instituted throughout the country for the support and shelter of the distressed, sometimes the number of applicants is so great that their demands can not be met. Possibly, if these unfortunates could be distributed throughout the kingdom, so that the poverty of one spot could be balanced by the comparative prosperity of another, the fearful starvation in the midst of plenty, which is occasionally witnessed, need not occur. But in the mean while, and until the time when[Pg 327] all the schemes and devices of modern improvement and advancement shall be finally perfected, and universal happiness attained, there is a mass of inconceivable wretchedness to be dealt with. In “Household Words” for November, 1855, Mr. Dickens gives a harrowing picture of London distress, of which he was himself an eye-witness.

It was a dark, rainy evening, and close against the wall of Whitechapel Work-house lay five bundles of rags. Mr. Dickens and his friend looked at them, and attempted to rouse them in vain. They knocked at the door, were admitted, saw the master of the work-house, and asked him if he knew there were five human beings—females—lying on the ground outside, cold and hungry. He did—at first he was annoyed—such applications were frequent—how could he meet them?—the house was full—the casual ward was full—what could he do more? When he found that Mr. Dickens’s aim was inquiry, not fault-finding, he was softened. The case was certainly shocking: how was it to be met? Mr. Dickens said he had heard outside that these wretched beings had been there two nights already. It was very possible. He could not deny or affirm it. There were often more in the same plight—sometimes twenty or thirty. He (the master) was obliged to give preference to women with children. The place was full. Unable to do more, Mr. Dickens left. On getting outside, he roused one of these poor wretches. She looked up, but said nothing. He asked her if she was hungry; she merely looked an affirmative. Would she know where to get something to eat? she again assented in the same way. “Then take this, and for God’s sake go and get something.” She took it, made no sign of thanks—“gathered herself up and slunk away—wilted into darkness, silent and heedless of all things.”

To what will not such misery as this compel suffering human nature? In times of commercial depression the police of London note an increase of street prostitution. It is said in the cities of England that the permanent prostitution of each place has a numerical relation to the means of occupation. In Edinburgh there are but few chances of employing female labor. Glasgow, Dundee, and Paisley are the seats of manufactures, and employ female labor extensively. According to Tait, the prostitution of Edinburgh far exceeds its proportion of prostitution to population as compared with the manufacturing towns.[306]

[Pg 328]It seems unnecessary to multiply instances of poverty and indigence, inasmuch as the fact is most miserably indisputable: shirt-making at three cents, pantaloon-making at five or six cents—unceasing labor of fourteen hours a day bringing in only sixty or eighty cents a week, and competition even to obtain this. As the London Times once said, “The needle is the normal employment of every English woman; what, then, must be the condition of those tens of thousands who have nothing but that to depend upon?” Of late years, too, a still farther competition has been introduced in that ingenious invention of our country, the sewing machine.

In order to show the relation between unpaid and excessive labor and prostitution, we will instance a few cases.

One young woman said she made moleskin pantaloons (a very strong, stiff fabric) at the rate of fifteen cents per pair. She could manage twelve pairs per week when there was full employment; sometimes she could not get work. She worked from six in the morning until ten at night. With full work she could make two dollars a week, out of which she had to expend thirty-eight cents for thread and candle. On an average, in consequence of short work, she could not make more than seventy-five cents a week. Her father was dead, and she had to support her mother, who was sixty years of age. This girl endured her mode of existence for three years, till at length she agreed to live with a young man. When she made this statement she was within three months of her confinement. She felt the disgrace of her condition, to relieve her from which she said she prayed for death, and would not have gone wrong if she could have helped it.[307]

Such a case as this scarcely comes within the term prostitution, but she stated that many girls at the shop advised prostitution as a resource, and that others should do as they did, as by that means they had procured plenty to eat and clothes to wear. She gave it as her opinion that none of the thousands of girls who work at the same business earn a livelihood by their needle, but that all must and do prostitute themselves to eke out a subsistence.

Another woman, a case more directly in point, also said she could not earn more than seventy-five cents. She was a widow,[Pg 329] and had three children when her husband died. Herself and her children had to live on these seventy-five cents. She might have gone into the work-house, and been there better supported than by her labor. Had she done so, the laws of the work-house are inexorable, she would have been separated from her children. Although one child died, she was now so reduced that she could not procure food. She took to the streets for a living, and she declared that hundreds of married and single women were doing the same thing for the same reasons.

A widow who had buried all her children could not support herself. From sheer inability to do so she took to prostitution.

A remarkably fine-looking young woman, whose character for sobriety, honesty, and industry was vouched by a number of witnesses as unimpeachable, had been compelled to work at fine shirts, by which she could not earn more, on an average, than thirty-five cents a week. She had a child, and, being unwilling to go to the work-house, she was driven by indigence to the streets. Struck with remorse and shame, and for the sake of her child determined to abandon prostitution, she fasted whole days, sleeping in winter-time in sheds. Once her child’s legs froze to her side, and necessity again compelled her to take to her former course. Her father had been an Independent preacher.

These circumstances, and innumerable others, will establish incontestably the intimate relation which poverty bears to prostitution. A consideration of such circumstances as the foregoing, and the every-day observation of hosts of others of a similar character which will come within the cognizance of any one who searches into human motives, must incline all but the most outrageously virtuous to judge more tenderly of the failings and errors of their fellow-creatures.

All young females engaged in sewing are liable to the same distress, and the same resource against it is, of course, open to all. The hard labor and long hours are the least part of the evil, although in that light even there would be ground for commiseration.[308] The real grievance is that the most patient and industrious[Pg 330] can not, by any hours of labor, earn a sufficiency to support themselves. It is true that the work-house is the legal refuge of the poor; but the tender mercies of the work-house have passed into a proverb. The policy of the poor-laws as administered is to deter the needy from applying for relief except in very extreme cases. Hence many rules are made, and much formality is interposed, which render the legal provisions so irksome and unbearable that many fly to the nearest means of satisfying their wants rather than demand their legal rights.

Domestic Servants are, in respect of their removal from absolute want while in service, more happily situated than those who are thus dependent upon the needle. But they are open to influences of another kind—we mean seduction by masters and male members of the household. Where this evil begins is an exceedingly difficult question to determine. When corrupted, they become themselves, by the very opportunities they possess, ready and dangerous instruments of corruption, and contribute to disseminate the poisons of immorality and of bodily disease. We have already incidentally mentioned that this class is at times open to a great deal of poverty and distress, namely, when out of service, and at such times they are peculiarly the mark for the lures of persons who make seduction their business and profitable occupation.

The domestic servants and the sewing-women are the principal adult laborers of Great Britain, except the factory girls. In 1851 there were,

and of these one third were under twenty years of age.

Places of Public Amusement in England are few when compared with those of the Continent, and their influence must be proportionately less. On the Continent dancing saloons are a prominent feature; in England this character of entertainment is almost unknown. In London there are a few places of this sort, such, for example, as Cremorne Gardens. Mr. Tait lays some stress on the evil effects of dancing-houses in Edinburgh. We should be inclined to think the cases of misconduct traceable to these places actually few in number, though not unworthy of notice. The single females who frequent dancing-rooms, theatres, and other similar places in England, without friends or family escort, have very little virtue to risk. The country fairs are far[Pg 331] more injurious; they are indiscriminately attended by all ages and sexes, and their effects upon the female agricultural population are often very pernicious. Greenwich Fair, a three days’ scene of rollicking and junketing, was held at Easter and Whitsuntide, in the outskirts of London, but is now abolished. It had its uses a century or two ago, but recently had been attended by all the idlers of London, of both sexes, and was justly dreaded by the friends of youth. It is proverbial that more young women were debauched at Greenwich Fair (allowing for its duration) than at any other place in England.

Ill-assorted Marriages are decidedly a cause of prostitution. Certainly breach of the marriage vow is one thing, prostitution for hire another. In estimating the number of prostitutes in Edinburgh at eight hundred, Mr. Tait adds two hundred to them under the head of married women, which he considers accrue from ill-assorted marriages. That the marriage was ill-assorted is plainly shown by its result, and that want of congeniality and temperament is the cause of prostitution to the extent thus named we have no ground to question. He speaks of such women selling their favors generally to one lover only, occasionally to any one who will pay; although the latter forms what is commonly known as prostitution, no other construction can be put upon the former.

Love of Dress is another incident which many writers, and Mr. Tait among them, have introduced into the direct causes of prostitution. We should consider it doubtful if any woman ever positively sold her virtue for a new gown or a knot of ribbons. Of course, after the Rubicon is crossed, all subsequent steps are easy, and may be taken from any motive. The love of admiration, which, under regulation, is sometimes a commendable instinct, when uncontrolled, becomes a snare. The love of dress is a modification of this sentiment, and may help to work out the effect when other causes have overthrown the balance of the mind.

Juvenile Prostitution.—We have now arrived, in the consideration of the causes of prostitution in England, at decidedly the most painful of all the phenomena connected with this condition of human life, namely, the immense extent of juvenile depravity. We have already sketched the evils of insufficient house accommodation and its noxious effects upon the morals of the rising generation. In this connection, also, bad example is particularly[Pg 332] prominent; perhaps, indeed, with respect to the young, evil communications are the greatest dangers.

The work-house was formerly one great hot-bed of vice, and the greatest license and irregularity prevailed in every department. That children born or brought up in such a place should grow up debased was perfectly in the expected course of things. Now, however, under the new Poor-Laws Commission, the scene is stripped of its more revolting accessories. The sexes do not mingle, children do not associate with adults: some modicum of education is given. The sweetest and holiest of all ties, that of family, is yet wanting, and self-respect is totally deficient. In the absence of these protective influences, the wonder is, not that so many children should turn out ill, but that so many girls should turn out well. Formerly, also, there was a system of compulsory pauper apprenticeship, and the interests of the parish apprentice out of doors were very little looked after. This, again, has been altered, both in town and country, and the improvement is marked.

Even with all this, it is recorded in the London Times (June, 1848) that a correspondent, visiting one of the metropolitan work-houses, was struck by the happy and healthy appearance of the female children, and inquired of the master of the work-house what became of all of them. He was informed that they were sent out, at the age of fourteen, as servants or in other capacities, and that nine tenths of them, after coming backward and forward from their places to the work-house, eventually got corrupted and took to the streets.

Factories are made accountable by many writers for much juvenile immorality and prostitution. Factories in England are, as most of our readers are aware, institutions materially differing in some respects from those of our own country. In no feature is there so wide a dissimilarity as in the character of the work-people. The factory children of England are the offspring of the poorest of the community, whose only heritage is pauperism, with wages at no time too good, and often at starvation point. The miserable earnings of the factory operatives are still farther reduced by constant strikes and contests with their employers, in which it is a foregone conclusion that the workmen must yield. Macaulay tells us that, two centuries ago, the employment of children in factories, and the dependence of the parent’s bread upon the children’s earnings, was a notorious fact, much condemned by philanthropists. The introduction of machinery and the value of child-labor [Pg 333]gradually aggravated all the horrors of the factory system, the enormity of which called down the indignation of the non-manufacturing community, and compelled the protective interference of Parliament. The Ten Hours’ Bill, the Factory Childrens’ Education regulations, appointment by government of factory commissioners and inspectors, have all contributed to ameliorate the hard lot of the factory child. The employment of very young children in factories is still to be regretted, or rather its necessity, for probably it is better they should be employed in a not very laborious occupation than left to roam the streets.

The direct influence of factory work on juvenile prostitution is insisted on by many writers; by others, some reservations have been introduced, such as, The young associate only during hours of recreation. In business hours they are generally employed in different parts of the building. They have a certain amount of education. Their parents are generally, or very often, employed in the same establishment. Assume that these children were not in the factory, where would they be, and what could they do? Are evil influences rife only in the factory? The overcrowding at home; the frequent drunkenness and debauchery of their parents and associates; the endless indigence; the frequent visits to the work-houses, are all circumstances which have been considered and argued in the case. But of the fact of juvenile prostitution and depravity in factory populations none can doubt; of its being exclusively or chiefly attributable to factory life, others are not certain.

That children who labor in factories, and thereby contribute to the family earnings and their own support, could do better in the present condition of English society, is doubtful. Mill-owners are required to devote a portion of their time to education. Sunday-schools are established; personal attention is paid by leading mill-owners to the improvement of the poor; many build good cottages (for which, by the way, they receive a good interest in the way of rent); many inspect the schools; some build school-houses and pay the teachers. The good example of benevolent mill-owners in a measure compels others, whose moral perceptions are less keen, to follow them.

We would not be supposed to argue that English cotton factories are types of the Millennium, any more than are similar institutions on this side of the Atlantic. In fact, we have a very decided opinion on the matter, but common honesty requires that[Pg 334] the opinion of all who have investigated the subject should be fairly recorded. In submitting the various arguments adduced in favor of factory labor and its bearing on immorality, we present merely subjects for consideration.

Disease in Children.—A fact of importance to public health is the disease acquired by children. In the first address issued by the London Society for the Protection of young Females, it is stated that in three of the London hospitals during the preceding eight years there had been no less than two thousand seven hundred cases of venereal disease in children between eleven and sixteen years of age.

Dr. Ryan, on the same subject, speaking from his professional experience as medical officer of several charities, mentions the shock he felt on seeing numerous cases of venereal disease in children.

Mr. Miller, of Glasgow, testifies to the same fact.

The very imperfect data which exist on this important branch of our subject will not enable one to form any sound opinion on the spread of disease from these juvenile sources. It is, however, reasonable to conclude, from the few facts, and from the very facilities afforded at their age for intercommunication between children, that the spread of disease from direct contamination, and the deterioration of health and constitution from unknown excesses, must be very great.

Obscene Publications.—Of these there are vast numbers, and the extent of juvenile contamination from this source must be very great. The Society for the Suppression of Vice, in London, reports having seized, at different periods, thousands of obscene books, copper-plates, and prints, all of which they caused to be destroyed. Within a period of three years they procured the destruction of

and even this was but an item in the calculation.

The police of London take but little interest in this matter. The above-mentioned society is the principal agent in the repression of this infamous species of depravity. There are certain places in London in which the trade still lives and flourishes, notwithstanding the attacks made upon it. Holywell Street, in the Strand, and the vicinity of Leicester Square, are places of disgraceful notoriety in this respect. The secret is, that wherever[Pg 335] there is a public demand, no repressive laws will ever prevent trade. The attempt at repression but makes it more profitable.

To the corruption of the youthful mind and the preparatives for prostitution these publications must contribute. It is matter of question what number of prostitutes have become such directly from this cause. The results of visitorial inspection do not show among London prostitutes, any more than elsewhere, a taste for books and prints of an obscene tendency. Their taste in literature is that which would prevail among persons of low intellectual calibre. Startling tales, romances with a plentiful spice of horrors, thrilling love-stories, highly wrought and exaggerated narratives, are their taste. In the practice of prostitution, the use of indecent or prurient prints is chiefly for the adornment of visitors’ rooms in brothels.

Education.—In the relations between education and crime are found no distinctive marks whereby prostitution may be separated from any other development of vice or immorality. It is to be presumed that the same general laws which apply to the unregulated manifestation of the passions apply to those with which prostitution is chiefly implicated.

In the present generation it is generally assumed that crime is the offspring of ignorance, therefore Education! is the cry. Education has become a party watchword in England. The necessity of education, the quality and the quantity, with all the minor propositions that branch off from the main question, are, and have been for years, the subject of the hottest polemics. But recent results, evolved from statistical inquiries, would seem to call up the previous question as to the value of education at all. The present work is not the place in which to discuss the fact, or to point out a remedy, or indicate the deficiencies of a system which can suffer such a question to arise. We give the facts. From the Parliamentary reports of 1846-1848, it appears that the number of educated criminals in England was at that time more than twice, and in Scotland more than three and a half that of the uneducated:

In calculating a percentage on certain criminal returns during the undermentioned years, the results were:

[Pg 336]

This table, which on its face conclusively establishes an increase in criminals imperfectly educated, and a decrease both in those who could read and write well, and those who could not read or write at all, may be, and has been made, the subject of much pseudo-philosophical remark, as proving the injury of education. In the first place, it only shows the effects of partial education, if it shows any thing. But the misfortune of statistical results is that they are relied on too implicitly, with a narrow-minded subservience to figures and facts, whereas they require to be accompanied with explanatory circumstances, which may either enhance their value up to the point of mathematical demonstration, or may so pare them away as to render them perfectly worthless. In the consideration of the above figures, all that would seem to appear is that there was an increase of education keeping pace with the increase of population, and that in the statistics of crime the increase of imperfectly educated people would be as perceptible as elsewhere. Mere reading and writing, unaccompanied by moral elevation, will not reform mankind. Alone, they will not prevent a hungry man from satisfying his hunger. The words of Cæsar apply to criminals equally as to conspirators:

“Let me have men about me that are fat,
Sleek-headed men, and such as sleep o’nights:
Yon Cassius has a lean and hungry look.”

Pursuing this question, and turning to the population tables of 1851, the period of the last census, we find that Middlesex was the most generally educated county, taking the signature of the marriage register as the test of education. Eighty-two per cent. signed the marriage register, yet in the list of criminality Middlesex stood third of all the counties of England. Gloucester, which was first in crime, was far from being the most ignorant. There sixty-five per cent. signed the register. The general average of the whole population by the same list is forty per cent. Here again is a qualifying circumstance. London is included in Middlesex, with its vast seething mass of human misery and corruption[Pg 337] to swell the record of crime, while its general population is, of course, about the most intelligent of the British empire, so that in the same spot is found at once the greatest intelligence and the greatest misery. We are not aware of such qualifying circumstances in Gloucestershire.

Dr. Ryan, writing on this point, refers to the Metropolitan Police Report for 1837, by which it appears that of prostitutes arrested in that year there

This is a tolerably fair criterion; for although, as before said, the police only interfere with peace-breakers, and all these came under the technical term of “drunk and disorderly,” still we believe the state of prostitution in London to be such that an average proportion of all classes of courtesans pass through the hands of the police during the year.

Mr. Tait, speaking of Edinburgh, confirms the view put forward as to educational influences. A large proportion of the Edinburgh prostitutes (eighty-seven per cent.) read and write. The Scottish peasantry are perhaps the best-educated in Europe, and those girls who come to Edinburgh from the country are no exception to the rule. The uneducated, Mr. Tait thinks, are city girls.

As to the religious denomination of prostitutes, for that a prostitute may have a religion we may say, in the kindly spirit of Corporal Trim, but doubtingly, “A negro has a soul, your honor.” In Edinburgh they include all sects except Independents, Baptists, and Quakers. There may be those who smile at the idea of a prostitute having any belief. How many of us are there whose actions are accordant with our religious professions? Of London we have no data on this point.

Illegitimate Births seem, by common consent of most writers, to be classed with details of prostitution. In France, it is said by those who profess intimate local knowledge, there is almost a prejudice against marriage, although it can be performed as a legal ceremony. We think Bayle St. John states this fact. In the poorer districts of London, the east end, for example, it is notorious that numbers live in a state of concubinage. Again: in the country, and away from the dense population of towns, a woman of [Pg 338]immoral habits may often be found who has had two or three illegitimate children by different men with whom she has cohabited. Such a woman would most probably have been a prostitute in a town; as it is, she is no better; still, she is not a prostitute for hire. But to proceed to details.

The number of illegitimate births in every thousand births in the various counties is as follows:

Cumberland is a pastoral and mountainous county, with a thinly-settled population. Norfolk is an agricultural and grazing county, broken up into large farms. Neither county has many large towns. Stafford is a manufacturing county, with a long list of thickly-populated small towns, in which as great indigence and misery can be found as in any part of England. Middlesex contains London. Here, then, we see at once that illegitimacy and prostitution are not the same thing. Where there are no prostitutes there are bastards, but the women in the country are mostly employed; they are obliged to work in the fields, rough country labor, or in some domestic manufacture such as button-making, stocking-making, etc.

An apparent paradox may be here mentioned, although not intimately affecting these investigations. The preponderance of bastards is accompanied by a preponderance of early marriages. This has been accounted for by the theory that both are dependent on sexual instincts precociously or excessively stimulated, which seek marriage when practicable, or illicit intercourse where not.[309]

Illegitimacy is somewhat regulated by the disproportionate number of the sexes. In an excess of females there are few bastards; in an excess of males there are many. Upon this fact, unattended by qualifying circumstances, might be based an argument[Pg 339] as to the innate sexual instinct in females. It might have been expected the relations would be somewhat different, namely, an increase of prostitution with an excess of men, but an increase of bastards with an excess of women.

The number of rapes in England seems to be governed by the excess of men over women. Where the number of illegitimate children exceeds the average, rape is less frequent.

The cases of abuse of children between the ages of ten and twelve are three in every ten million of the whole population. There is some difficulty in this matter, arising from a legal technicality on the subject of age. In any case, neither of the last items of criminality is of any value, inasmuch as they include only those cases judicially investigated and proved to conviction. Many are guilty, yet acquitted; and many more are never charged with the offense. Shame prevents parties prosecuting; or, in the case of children, the fact does not transpire, or else it is compromised.

Keeping a brothel is, as we have said, an offense at common law. We have a computation of the number of offenses of this kind based upon every ten million of the population. In Middlesex it was two hundred and ninety-six, in Lancashire one hundred and eighty-three. Both counties include the most populous towns in England. Lancashire contains Manchester and Liverpool. This fact also is of little value, owing to the peculiar administration of the law on the subject. Remote or indirect injuries to the public safety are not noticed in England. The police may be well aware of crime meditated and planned, and of the haunts of crime, but the theory of public justice is cure, not prevention.

Concealment of birth is an offense which, as it emanates from undue sexual intercourse, is generally associated with prostitution. In Hereford and other counties, the proportion of illegitimate births is eighty-eight out of every thousand born, and there were twenty-two concealments to every thousand bastards.

In four counties the illegitimate births were fifty-eight in a thousand, and the concealments thirteen in a thousand illegitimates.

In fifteen counties there were fifty-three illegitimates in every thousand births, and twenty-seven concealments to every thousand illegitimates.

With the largest proportion of illegitimates there are the fewest concealments; namely, with seventy-nine illegitimates out of a thousand births, there were only twelve concealments to a thousand illegitimates.

[Pg 340]It is absolutely impossible to ascertain the number of prostitutes in London with any degree of certainty, and even a satisfactory approximation is exceedingly difficult; nevertheless, it is most important to attain as nearly as possible to the actual facts, because without this knowledge no adequate idea can be formed of the vast seed-bed of disease and corruption in constant action in a great capital city, shedding forth and disseminating its pernicious growth on every side, through channels unknown and unsuspected.

Mr. Colquhoun, a magistrate of the British metropolis toward the close of the last century (1796), made an arbitrary enumeration, fixing the number of prostitutes in London at fifty thousand. Drs. Ryan, Campbell, Mr. Talbot, and others, carry their estimate in 1840 to eighty thousand!

Mr. Mayne (now Sir Richard Mayne), chief commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in 1840, made an estimate of the number of regular London prostitutes, which he considers were then eight thousand and upward. The seemingly irreconcilable discrepancy of these numbers is no doubt to be found in the loose terminology of the one party, and the technicality of the other. The term “prostitute” would seem to be best applied to those unhappy females who make prostitution their sole calling, and may therefore be styled “regular” prostitutes, while the larger estimate includes all shades, both “regular” and “occasional” or “irregular,” by which is understood those females with whom prostitution is auxiliary to some reputable calling.

We can not find that any reliable or detailed returns have been made on this branch of public life by the London police, although they must possess peculiar and exclusive powers of preparing them. As long back as 1837 the following rough calculation was made.

On this return Mr. Mayne very probably based his estimate of 1840.[310]

[Pg 341]Mr. Talbot, the secretary of the Society for the Protection of Young Females, made the subject one of special inquiry, both personally and with the aid of the local police of the different cities; and although his details are very meagre, he professes to have satisfied himself of the general accuracy of the following figures, showing the regular prostitutes in various cities.

All parties are, however, agreed in representing that it is impracticable to form any thing like a correct estimate of “the number of female servants, milliners, and women in the upper and middle classes of society who might properly be classed with prostitutes, or of the women who frequent theatres, barracks, ships, prisons, etc.”

In 1851, the police of Dublin published in their statistical returns the number of prostitutes in that city, which is the only public or official paper on the point having any appearance of system or accuracy. It is as follows:

This table shows a steady decrease in the number of these women. We are uninformed as to any local causes for this, nor do we know whether it has been balanced by an increase of “sly” or occasional prostitution.

From the preceding figures a calculation has been made of the regular prostitutes relatively to the population in the several towns. It appears to have been based on the number of inhabitants at the date of the various estimates. That of Dublin is according to the census of 1851, the remainder according to that of 1841.

[Pg 342]Proportion of Prostitutes to Population.

The mean of the above maybe taken as a fair representation of the general state of the kingdom. The qualifying circumstances to which we have already made allusion as peculiar to each city or district are, of course, neutralized by the aggregate.

For example, Liverpool is a great sea-port town, and a large number of regular prostitutes would be inevitable there. In Manchester, a large manufacturing city, with an immense pauper and factory operative population, the trade of prostitution would meet with less profitable custom; accordingly, we find the proportion much smaller. Glasgow is both manufacturing and commercial; there, again, the proportion is larger. Dublin has but little commerce, but is a capital city, and has a court and a large garrison. The combination of all these circumstances is found in London, and a fair estimate would be obtained by adding all the preceding proportions together, which would give a mean of about 1 in 232, and this upon the population (2,362,000) is within a fraction of ten thousand.

We have seen that Mr. Mayne in 1840 stated his opinion to be that there were about eight thousand regular prostitutes in London, qualifying that statement by a profession of total ignorance as to the irregulars who did not make prostitution their only means of living. Mr. Mayne had peculiar sources of information open to him, and it is more than probable that his opinion was well founded. From the above calculation, from the best sources available to us on this very obscure question, we are satisfied to assume ten thousand as at least a probable approximation to the number of regular prostitutes in London.

Mr. Mayne, in his statement on this subject, mentioned that[Pg 343] there were 3335 brothels. Some authors have attempted to make a calculation of the number of prostitutes on the basis of this number of houses; one has assumed three, another ten. Dr. Wardlaw has fixed upon five women per house, without, as it appears to us, any precise reason for preferring that figure. These different opinions may be thus worked out:

We have not been able to obtain Mr. Mayne’s statement ipsissimis verbis, and failing that we may be in error, but we should be inclined to think that, in his official capacity as a magistrate, and in his personal character as a lawyer, Mr. Mayne would be apt to assign the term “brothel” indiscriminately to all houses trading in prostitution, whether houses of assignation or houses in which prostitutes habitually reside. If our reading of the word “brothels” in this sense be correct, it is clear that any attempt to enumerate on the basis of the women attached to each house would be fallacious. The expression used by the Dublin police is “houses frequented or occupied,” and its ambiguity shows that the authorities there considered the word “brothel” in the sense given to it by English jurists.

How does this number of ten thousand regular prostitutes bear on the population?

In London there are, above twenty years of age,

Omitting fractions, the proportions would be,

This would establish ten thousand as the nucleus of the prostitution system of London. Those females who come within the designation of “irregular prostitutes” are in no respect less prejudicial to the community than the “regulars.” The difference is that they have some other real or nominal occupation, which they[Pg 344] follow according to circumstances. An even moderately correct estimate of their number is little better than guess-work, and we therefore think it expedient to put our readers in possession of our own limited means of information, and take them on to a conclusion. There are so many elements to be taken into the account, and the data are so scanty, that we only consider ourselves justified in intimating an opinion rather than announcing a satisfactory conclusion.

To show the extremes to which the doctrine of possibilities may lead in this development of misery and vice, we will recur to the statement of some of the London prostitute needle-women themselves. We quote from Mayhew’s letters to the Morning Chronicle:

Then follow a series of most heart-rending statements, all to the same purport as those quoted in other parts of this work, and bearing all the internal evidence of truth. The letter concludes with the following sentence:

Thus, then, we have it in evidence that “probably” one fourth of all women engaged in sewing occupations for a livelihood are compelled to have occasional recourse to prostitution as their only and compulsory refuge from starvation.

The number of women engaged in these sewing occupations is enormous. According to the census of 1851, they constitute, indeed, the main support of the female working population throughout Great Britain, exclusive of domestic servants, laundresses, and persons employed in agricultural pursuits, and in the cotton and linen factories. The figures for the three kingdoms are as follows:

[Pg 346]

We have not the details of the occupations of London, but the proportion which the population of the metropolis bears to that of Great Britain is about one ninth. One ninth of the above aggregate would give for London about 196,500 women engaged in the sewing trades, all of whom, it may be assumed, are over fifteen. We omit from the consideration of female trades those engaged in agricultural pursuits and factories, such occupations having comparatively few representatives in the metropolitan districts, although there are more of them than would be supposed. Laundresses are also omitted, as a very large proportion of them in and about London are, as is well known, married and middle-aged women. But another class to which all writers assign a large amount of prostitution are domestic servants, a body most numerously represented in London. There are in the metropolis 165,100 domestic servants, the peculiarly unprotected character of whom, as a class, may be inferred from the singular fact that to the work-house, the hospital, and the Lunatic Asylum they supply an immense number of inmates, exceeding that of any other class.

Thus, then, are shown two very large figures, amounting together to 361,000, as the stock from which prostitutes to any extent may be procured. Some consideration, perhaps, of the ages of prostitutes, and of other circumstances in the condition of the female population, may enable us to appreciate the state of the case without being driven to the necessity of looking on these enormous totals as incapable of reduction.

Nature would indicate the period between 15 and 45 as the age during which the trade of prostitution must be carried on. Much has been said as to the means used for decoying young children for purposes of prostitution. Of the fact we are perfectly convinced, but should think it of little numerical importance in the aggregate body. The influence of evil communication on the young is of infinitely greater mischief, and the extent of youthful depravity from this cause is very great among the poorer classes, and would oblige us to date the commencing age of prostitution back to twelve years.

As to the period of life at which the prostitute’s career is terminated, it is contended by some of the English writers that only an infinitesimal proportion reach the age of forty-five in the exercise[Pg 347] of their soul and health destroying trade. Mr. Tait says, “In less than one year from the commencement of their wicked career these females bear evident marks of their approaching decay, and in the course of three years very few can be recognized by their old acquaintance, if they are so fortunate as to survive that period. These remarks apply more especially to those who are above twenty years of age when they join the ranks of the victims.” From the average of Edinburgh, Mr. Tait goes on to assume that “not above one in eleven survives twenty-five years of age; and taking together those who persist in vice, and those who, after having abandoned it, die of diseases which originated from the excesses they were addicted to during its continuance, perhaps not less than a fifth or sixth of all who have embraced this course of sin die annually.” Dr. Ryan seems to adopt an opinion that the average duration of life after commencing prostitution is four years.[314] Captain Miller, of Glasgow, thinks that “the average age at which women become abandoned is from fifteen to twenty, and the average duration of women continuing this vice is about five years.”

The ages of patients admitted into the Lock Hospital at Edinburgh were as follows:

These figures alone would go to make out the presumption that the ages of prostitutes are between twelve and thirty, and that ⁸⁶¹⁄1000 are between fifteen and twenty-five. According to the above table, nine tenths of the number at twenty have disappeared at thirty, and according to Captain Miller’s opinion that “cases of reform and abandonment of their life are very rare,” the conclusion would be that their career ends in death.[315]

[Pg 348]The duration of prostitution being ascertained, we would find the number of women between the ages of fifteen and twenty-five. In the whole female population this is one fifth, but the very aged or the very youthful are necessarily excluded from the classes of work-women and servants; of servants, indeed, there are five and upward under twenty to three above twenty years of age. This, therefore, would indicate very little reduction of the numbers.

It is reasonable to suppose that some portion of the above are married women having husbands living, and if so, it is not an unreasonable supposition that their wives are not obliged to have recourse to prostitution; in fact, the poor creatures themselves seem to imply that immunity. The number of wives is about one third of the whole female population; of these wives about one fourth are employed in trades apart from those of their husbands. If we deduct only such a proportion from the sewing-women, it makes something when we have to deal with such enormous masses; we should strike off nearly 50,000, leaving only 150,000 sewing-women.

There is comfort, however, in the fact that, of these sewing-women,[Pg 349] three fourths are known to be over twenty years of age; and if we only assume one half instead of three fourths, allowing the other fourth for the difference between twenty and twenty-five years of age, it brings our figure down to seventy-five thousand.

All these deductions are, we fear, in excess; and it must be recollected, moreover, that the above large sums by no means include all the female occupations of London,[316] but merely those classes which, either from the temptation incident to their position, or from the imperative demands of want and necessity, are, by competent authority, supposed to be peculiarly obnoxious to the risk of prostitution. If to this large number of women, which we can not assume at less than 273,000 between the ages of twelve and twenty-five, be added all the other denizens of a great city unexampled in its magnitude, embracing in itself all the peculiarities of all other cities, at once a manufacturing, a commercial, a garrison, and a capital city, and, finally, containing the largest population in the world, one such item being nearly four hundred thousand single females over twelve years of age, then, indeed, the mass of misery, wretchedness, vice, and crime there accumulated appals the mind seeking to grapple with it, and oppresses us with the apprehension that even eighty thousand, the highest estimate which has been made, is, when understood to include all contingencies, not an incredible figure.[317]

Englishmen pride themselves, and, it must be admitted, not without reason, on their numerous and admirable public charities. In this particular direction it would seem that public munificence has not been so liberally displayed as in some others. “Joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth more than over ninety and nine just persons,” does not, we fear, apply to minds and hearts of earthly mould. People, in charitable as in other institutions, like to see a return for their investment; and, [Pg 350]notwithstanding the immense field for benevolent labor in prostitution, there is a general impression among both the public and officials that it is an irretrievably barren waste, and that it is worse than profitless to squander money and time upon it. The results which have been achieved would, however, show that the exertions of philanthropy, although not producing so much fruit as in some other quarters, have not been entirely vain. In reference to these results, too, it must be borne in mind that the discipline of the various institutions is severe, and even repellent, a policy ill adapted to insure a large amount of success.

The Lock Hospital is the oldest institution in London for the benefit of lost females, and is devoted entirely to the cure of venereal disease. It was founded in the year 1747, and in a century had cured 45,448 cases.

The Magdalen Hospital of London was founded in 1758, and up to January, 1844, had received 6968 females. The results were as follows:

A considerable number of the women, when discharged from the institution, are under twenty years of age; and it is an invariable rule not to dismiss any one (unless at her own desire, or for misconduct) without some means being provided by which she may obtain a livelihood in an honest manner.

The Lock Asylum was founded in 1787, for the reception of penitent female patients when discharged from the Lock Hospital; and up to March, 1837, the number of women received was 984. The results were:

Of the remaining number, many had been sent to their parishes;[Pg 351] some had eloped, and some had been expelled for improper conduct, but of several even of these favorable accounts had been afterward received: some of them were known to be married, and living creditably, and others were earning a living honestly. We have been unable to obtain any account of the operations of this institution since the year 1837.

The London Female Penitentiary was instituted in 1807. Of 6939 applicants, 2717 were admitted into the house. The results were:

The Guardian Society was established in 1812, and from that period up to 1843 had admitted 1932 wretched outcasts to partake of the advantages it offered. The results were:

Besides these institutions, others have been established with similar objects, namely, The British Penitent Female Refuge, The Female Mission, The South London Penitentiary, and one or two others. As compared with the great number of unfortunate women in London, these institutions have effected but a very small amount of good. During seventy-seven years, ending 1835, ten thousand and five females were received within the walls of four of the London asylums, of which number six thousand two hundred and sixty-two (more than three fifths) were satisfactorily provided for, and two thousand nine hundred and eighty were discharged for misconduct. Taking the whole of the institutions in London up to that time, it may be fairly estimated that fourteen or fifteen thousand prostitutes have had the opportunity of returning to a virtuous life.

Those who, like the Pharisee, content themselves with thanking[Pg 352] God that they are not as other men, and even as these unfortunates, are a very impracticable set to deal with, and if such there be who read these pages, we pass them by, and pray for the better health of their souls. The gentle spirits who, imitating a blessed example, think it not pollution to extend their sympathy and saving help to publicans and harlots, may, in the following lines, written by a prostitute and found in her death-bed, see matter for meditation, and ground for the belief that all efforts in the cause of the sinner will not be unsuccessful. They were headed

“VERSES FOR MY TOMB-STONE, IF EVER I
SHOULD HAVE ONE.
“The wretched victim of a quick decay,
Relieved from life, on humble bed of clay,
The last and only refuge for my woes,
A love-lost, ruined female, I repose.
From the sad hour I listened to his charms,
And fell, half forced, in the deceiver’s arms,
To that whose awful veil hides every fault,
Sheltering my sufferings in this welcome vault,
When pampered, starved, abandoned, or in drink,
My thoughts were racked in striving not to think
Nor could rejected conscience claim the power
To improve the respite of one serious hour.
I durst not look to what I was before;
My soul shrank back, and wished to be no more.
Of eye undaunted, and of touch impure,
Old ere of age, worn out when scarce mature;
Daily debased to stifle my disgust
Of forced enjoyment in affected lust;
Covered with guilt, infection, debt, and want,
My home a brothel, and the streets my haunt,
For seven long years of infamy I’ve pined,
And fondled, loathed, and preyed upon mankind,
Till, the full course of sin and vice gone through,
My shattered fabric failed at twenty-two.”

The enormous extent of this evil, its deep-rooted causes, the difficulty of combating it, either by religious arguments, legislative provisions, or appeals to common sense and physical welfare, may well deter the philanthropist from the attempt to purify this stable of Augeas; but benevolence has accomplished tasks as arduous, and we can not conclude this chapter better than by a short description of the discouragements which attended the first efforts[Pg 353] of Mrs. Fry in the reformation of the prostitute felons in Newgate, and of the blessed results of her indomitable perseverance and immovable faith.[318]

This admirable woman, on her first visit to Newgate, found the female side of the jail in a condition which no language can describe: “Nearly three hundred women, sent there for every gradation of crime, and some under sentence of death, were crowded together in two small wards and two cells. They all slept, as well as a crowd of children, on the floor, at times one hundred and twenty in a ward, without even a mat for bedding. Many of them were nearly naked. They were all drunk, and her ears were offended by the most terrible imprecations.” The authorities of the prison, of course, advised her against going among them: they were sure that nothing could be effected! She, however, determined to make the trial; she went alone into what she felt was like a den of wild beasts. In vain the governor reasoned with her: “She had put her hand to the plow and was not to be turned back.” In one short month, such was the effect of her merely moral agency and religious instruction, that she felt herself justified in inviting the lord-mayor, the sheriffs, and several of the aldermen to satisfy themselves, by personal investigation, of the result of the exertions which she herself and some few lady members of the Society of Friends, who had joined her in the good work, had effected.

Thus was conviction forced upon the obtuse intellects of corporate authorities, and hence was dated the era of Prison Reform in England.

In our own country, where the means of diffusing intelligence are unbounded, and whose reformatory system for criminals has already claimed the attention of European statesmen and philanthropists, there can be no insuperable barrier even in so difficult an undertaking as that to which our labors are directed. Paraphrasing the opinion of one of the most distinguished essayists of this century,[319] we venture to assert that “it is impossible that social abuses should be suffered to exist in this country and in this stage of society for many years after their mischief and iniquity have been made manifest to the sense of the country at large.”

[Pg 354]

CHAPTER XXVI.

GREAT BRITAIN.—SYPHILITIC DISEASES.

The best English and French writers are of opinion that syphilis, as it exists at present, has, in some shape or another, always existed among mankind, although it was not known to science or history, in a distinct manner, until the middle of the fifteenth century.

The period at which syphilis first made its appearance in England is involved in obscurity, but we know that it began to attract attention early in the fifteenth century. The first official recognition of it found on record is a police regulation of the year 1430, during the reign of Henry VI., excluding venereal patients from the London hospitals, and requiring them to be strictly guarded at night. In the time of Henry VIII. there were six lazar houses in London for the reception of venereal patients, namely, at Knightsbridge, Hammersmith, Highgate, Kingsland, St. George’s Gate, and Mile-End. These localities were doubtless fixed upon as being some distance from the city.

That the disease, however, must have been known long before the period above specified is certain, from passages which are to be found in the writings of the previous century. John of Gaddesden, who wrote in 1305, and who was a Fellow of Merton College, Oxford, thus speaks of the possibility of contracting the disease from leprous women: “Ille qui concubuit cum muliere cum qua coivit leprosas puncturas intra carnem et corium sentil et aliquando calefactiones in toto corpore.”[320] Mr. Wm. Acton, upon whose pages as an English standard writer on this subject we draw largely, is of opinion that leprosy, which was formerly so common in Europe, consisted merely of what we now call secondary syphilis. Some of the Jewish observances were no doubt dictated by a scientific appreciation of the influences which predisposed the body to the effects of syphilitic virus. The practice[Pg 355] of circumcision seems instituted with a direct view to the preservation of the chosen people from venereal contagion, to which, in a hot climate, and with the extreme deficiency of means for general cleanliness, they would be liable.

As to the type of the disease in former times, there seems no ground for believing that it was more severe than at present, while its numerical importance must have been much smaller. The following extract is from a treatise by Queen Elizabeth’s surgeon:

It was supposed, in former ages, that syphilis was transmissible by personal communication, touching the clothes, drinking out of the same vessels, or even breathing the same air with infected persons, and accordingly we find the lower orders of people driven out into the fields to die, and physicians refusing to attend the sick for fear of infection.

Some writers, indeed, doubted this kind of contagious influence, and held that it required intercourse, or at least contact. But nobles, and especially the clergy, preferred to ascribe their maladies to misfortune rather than to licentiousness, and sought to “put down” such innovating doctrines. The consequence was that patients were shunned universally, and left to die or get well without assistance. It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that in numerous instances the disease should assume its most inveterate aspect, and hence the notices found among many old writers as to the supposed malignancy and incurability of what they were disposed to consider a newly-imported malady. That the disease, in reality, differed little from that which exists in our day, is proved by the fact that cases of the once formidable Black Lion are occasionally to be met with in the London hospitals.

[Pg 356]Cardinal Wolsey, among other charges made against him by his enemies, was accused of whispering to the king, Henry VIII., and thereby casting his poisonous breath upon his royal grace, he (Wolsey) having at the time “the foul contagious disease” upon him. The belief as to contagion by this means is not entirely extinct, but is cherished by the laboring classes of England, many of whom entertain great prejudices on the score of health against drinking from the same vessel out of which an infected person has partaken.

In 1497, James IV. of Scotland, in consequence of the frightful prevalence of venereal disease in his kingdom, issued a proclamation banishing the infected from Edinburgh. His majesty “charges straitly all manner of persons being within the freedom of this burt, quilks are infectit, or has been infectit, uncurit with this said contagious plague, callit the grandgor devoyd, red and pass furt of this town, and compeir upon the sandis of Leith at ten hours before none; and thair sall thai have and find boatis reddie in the havin ordainit to them by the officers of this burt, reddy furneist with victuals, to have them to the Inche (Inchkeith), and thair to remain quhill God provyd for thair health.” Those evading this ordinance “salle be byrnt on the cheik with the marking irne, that thai may be kennit in tym to cum.”

A remnant of this barbarous system was retained in the regulations of Middlesex Hospital, London, by which an admission fee of forty shillings sterling (ten dollars) was directed to be paid by venereal patients. The reason assigned for it was, that a hospital intended for the virtuous might not be made subsidiary to purposes of vice. The regulation, however, became a nullity, and was repealed, owing principally to the fact that the work-house guardians were in the habit of paying the forty shillings and sending in pauper patients, well knowing that the cost of cure in the work-house would far exceed the admission fees.

In the London Hospital a similar regulation exists even now, but is openly evaded, however, by the house surgeon describing the disease as a cutaneous one.

The extent of this disease in Great Britain is matter of opinion alone. There are no positive data whatever upon which to form any conclusion with respect to the general population, while the hospital lists are very imperfectly kept, and it is only in the army and navy returns that we can find any real assistance.

 [Pg 357]

BRITISH ARMY.

The army reports quoted extend over a period of seven years and a quarter, and enter into the details of the various venereal affections of the soldiers, amounting to the aggregate strength of 44,611 quartered in the United Kingdom. The cases admitted into hospitals were:

Ratio: 181 per 1000 men, or nearly one in five in the whole number.

These returns show that the venereal disease is of much more frequent occurrence in the British than in the Belgian army.

BRITISH NAVY.

The navy reports extend over a period of seven years, and include 21,493 men, employed on home service; that is to say, on the coasts or in the ports of Great Britain. Of this number, 2880 were attacked with venereal disease. Ratio: one in seven.

BRITISH MERCHANT SERVICE.

The returns of the “Dreadnought,” hospital ship for seamen of all nations, extend over a period of five years, during which 13,081 patients, laboring under surgical and medical diseases, were admitted. Out of these, 3703 came under treatment for venereal affections, showing a ratio of two in seven.

As a mode of testing these returns, we turn to the analysis of the surgical out-patients of Messrs. Lloyd and Wormald, assistant surgeons of Saint Bartholomew’s, the largest of the London hospitals. These out-patients are attended gratuitously by the hospital officers:

These cases were part of a total of 5327 general patients.

This last item alone would not enable one to form any idea of the number of sufferers from this terrible scourge. There are in[Pg 358] London nine great hospitals, besides smaller ones, and dispensaries in every parish, or division of a large parish, and other means of gratuitous medical assistance. Suppose the smaller medical foundations put aside, and their patients thrown into the aggregate of the great hospitals, we should have 22,617 venereal patients. Suppose the private practice of the London army of medical men to yield only half as many more, we have 35,000 venereal patients in London only. Without reckoning the Lock Hospital, parish doctors, barracks, and all the other institutions, one would very readily imagine that London alone furnished 50,000 venereal patients per annum.

Again, on the number of single men and widowers in London above twenty years of age (upward of a quarter of a million), the venereal cases, if in the same proportion as among soldiers and sailors, would in the same period amount to 30,000 and upward.

There is, however, another way of conjecturing the amount of disease introduced into the community by prostitution, which English writers have adopted. The Medico-Chirurgical Review, a periodical of high standing, speaking of the extent of venereal disease and its effects on the population, says:

CHAPTER XXVII.

MEXICO.

The social condition of Mexico is of importance, as it was formerly the chief seat of Spanish domination in America, and its manners and government gave the key to all the other colonies and viceroyalties which owed allegiance to the crown of Spain. Whatever the state of the native population may have been when Spanish leaders and their myrmidons burst upon them, and broke up the kingdom of the Mexican emperors, they rapidly succumbed beneath the lust, avarice, and cruelty which were ever the distinctive features of Spanish warfare and conquest in every clime and against every people. Of the enormities perpetrated by these soldiers, the history of the Mexican conquest gives us innumerable instances; but one solitary example, from Bernal de Diaz, will be enough. He tells us that when they took women prisoners, they made a division of them at night for the sake of greater peace and quietness, and that they branded them with the marks[Pg 360] of their owners. They were thus at liberty to choose the handsomest of the Indian women, and reserve them for their own uses. What these uses were can be easily supposed. The fate of less favored female prisoners is left in doubt; they were turned over to their savage allies, to be butchered in cold blood, or otherwise disposed of as most convenient.

From Mexico the flood of Spanish cruelty and immorality spread itself like a stream of lava over the whole of South America. The chivalry of the soldiery soon degenerated, and the self-denial and lofty motives, darkened though they were by bigotry and cruelty in some cases, which had distinguished the priests, were lost. Inglorious ease and luxurious indolence now superseded that love of adventure and unconquerable daring which distinguished Cortez and Pizarro, and their comrades: no trace of the old heroic character remained save the grinding oppression and reckless selfishness which usually accompany ambition.

An illustration of the loose manners which prevailed in Mexico among the clergy is to be found in the voyages of Thomas Page, a Dominican monk, who visited Mexico with some of his order on their road to the western coast of America and to Asia as missionaries.

From this work, published in 1677, we learn that the writer and his companions visited the prior of Vera Cruz on their journey, and, after a sumptuous dinner, adjourned, by invitation, to his cell. They found it richly tapestried and adorned with feathers of the birds of Michoacou; the walls were hung with various pictures of merit; rich rugs of silk covered the tables; porcelain of China filled the cupboards and sideboards, and there were vases and bowls containing preserved fruits and sweetmeats. “My companions,” says he, “were scandalized by such an exhibition. The holy friar talked to us of his ancestry, of his good parts, of the influence he had with the Father Provincial, of the love the principal ladies of the place bore him, of his beautiful voice and skill in music. He took his guitar and sang us a sonnet in praise of a certain lady.” Afterward, speaking of the Franciscans of Jalapa, Thomas Page says: “Their lives are so free and immodest that it might be suspected with reason that they had renounced only that which they could not obtain.” After witnessing a gambling scene in a convent, he concludes that “the cause of so many Friars and Jesuits passing from Spain to regions so distant was libertinage rather than love of preaching the Gospel.”

[Pg 361]The same writer subsequently passes from portraiture to more general delineation, and thus depicts the body of the clergy: “It seems that all wickedness is allowable, so that the churches and clergy flourish. Nay, while the purse is open to lasciviousness, if it be also open to enrich the temple walls and roof, it is better than any holy water.... In their lifetime the Mexicans strive to excel one another in their gifts to the cloisters of nuns and friars.”

We need no addition to these deep shadows from the dark pencil of so vigorous a limner as worthy Thomas Page, to delineate character nearly two hundred years ago, but we can scarcely believe it equally applicable to the present day. The reign of oppression in Mexico, it is to be hoped, is approaching its end, and recent events have shown that the population is alive to some of those truths which were long ago patent to all the world except those most intimately concerned.

Of modern Mexican society, an accomplished female writer, who had the best opportunities of judging, says:

The present amiability of the Mexican ladies is admitted on all hands, as is the genial warmth of their manner. Some travelers, indeed, and among them Mr. Waddy Thompson, are of opinion that this is attributed to them as a fault, and that the reproach of unchastity is unjustly urged against them, as there is no city in Europe where there is less immorality. The constant presence of a duenna, and the house-porter, who is an appurtenance of every household of respectability, are excellent checks on immorality. But this would rather argue the necessity of a safeguard not found in the female virtue of Mexico. Besides, these appendages of rank have lost their real meaning, and the duenna may be converted into the convenient cloak or abettor of an intrigue, the more safe as she is the supposed protectress of the husband’s honor. A native writer, in summing up the character of his countrymen, says that “they are moderate in eating, but their passion for liquor is carried to the greatest excess. The affection which husbands bear their wives is certainly much less than that borne by wives to their husbands, and it is very common for the men to love their neighbors’ wives better than their own.”[323] This one-sided censure presupposes, as a necessary consequence, that the neighbors’ wives must show some reciprocity.

The general immorality of the lower classes in Mexico would almost exclude the expectation of a system of prostitution, as we usually understand the term. Puebla, a manufacturing town near Mexico, is summarily described as having a most devout female population, and a most abandoned one; but this is matter of conduct rather than of calling. The enumeration of offenses in the justice list of Mexico does not tell of one prostitute, although it contains a large number of persons guilty of “incontinence.” The exact meaning of this offense, in its legal and technical sense, is not given us, but we presume it relates to improper and disgusting practices. The charge of “violation of public decency,” [Pg 363]although it may relate to mutual familiarities, will probably include both indecency and immorality.

The following table gives the number of persons arrested in the city of Mexico in 1851.

Among a population of inferior intellect, and with the excess of women always to be found in tropical countries, the character of the priesthood becomes of primary importance. On this particular, some writers are of opinion that what was written in 1677 will apply with almost equal force in the present day; a position certainly open to doubt.[324]

The lower orders of the priests and friars in Mexico are generally uneducated and frequently licentious. The most revolting spectacles of vice and immorality are exhibited by some of them. They are remarkable for the roue appearance they present, but they can not be considered types of the class, for the higher orders and respectable members of the priesthood are exempt from the imputation of such flagrant immorality. Even these are not blameless members of the Church. Many of them have nephews and nieces in their houses, or at least those who call them uncle, but to whom scandal ascribes a closer relationship.

Among the charitable institutions in Mexico, perhaps the most important is the Cuna, or Foundling Hospital. It is supported by private individuals, and the members of the society consist of the first persons in the capital, male and female. The men furnish the money; the women give their time and attention. When a child has been about a month in the hospital, it is sent with an Indian nurse to one of the adjacent villages; but if sick or feeble, it remains in the institution, under the immediate inspection of the society. These nurses are subject to a responsible person, who lives in the village and answers for their good conduct. The child[Pg 364] is brought back to the hospital when weaned, and remains in its charge for life. Few, however, are left to grow up in the asylum; they are adopted by respectable persons, who bring them up either as servants or as their own children. In this, as in other institutions of the same character, the mothers of the children often get themselves hired as nurses. There are usually five or six hundred children in this asylum.[325]

CHAPTER XXVIII.

CENTRAL AND SOUTH AMERICA.

The whole peninsula of South America, and the states comprised in Central America, are involved in the same social system with Mexico, derived as they are by common origin from pure or mixed Spanish blood. The same political circumstances and organization have always affected the various territorial divisions, and whether we consider the semi-civilized nations of ancient Peru and its dependencies, or the savage tribes in the valleys of the Amazon and the La Plata, we find them, after the first irruption of Spanish conquerors, victims of indiscriminate oppression, insatiable avarice, and unsparing lust. South America was long considered a mere treasure-field of the Spanish monarchy, to be worked without liability to account by every adventurer who chose to encounter the hardships of foreign travel, or the perils of residence in a tropical climate and amid hostile savages.

The natives far outnumbered their masters, and the same ruthless system of depression was extended to them as to Mexico. The consequence was, that before the lapse of many generations from the Conquest, there were but two classes throughout the vast Spanish territories—masters and slaves. The natural and inevitable result of servile institutions could not long be postponed. The descendants of the conquerors rapidly degenerated, and imbecility and incapacity took the places of heroism and ability. The original hardihood and daring, which had vanquished uncounted enemies, had traversed unknown wilds, had defied every[Pg 365] danger, were lost in voluptuousness and self-indulgence. The posterity of those men who had discovered a new world, and swayed the destinies of the old by a nod or the stroke of a pen, were unable to protect themselves against the weak ministers of a worn-out despotism, or against any unscrupulous demagogue who could rally a band of roving Indians around him, and maraud the peaceable and well-disposed. A state of political degradation reigned supreme over the whole of South America, only to be paralleled by the debasement of its social condition.

In Central America, including San Salvador, Guatemala, Yucatan, Costa Rica, and Honduras, the condition of the women is very much the same as in Mexico. The statements of travelers in those little-frequented regions are very vague in reference to the subject of public morality, and give us no reliable or detailed information on the specialities which would be of service in this inquiry. In Yucatan, the ladies are said to be somewhat more domesticated than their Mexican neighbors, and to interest themselves in the management of their households and the education of their children; but still the standard of morality is not very high, if measured by United States habits and ideas.[326] In the neighboring republic of Guatemala, the free manners prevalent in the country districts of the kindred territories are usually met with;[327] but these would rather indicate low ideas of decency than any actual immorality. Difference of climate and of race would make many things tolerable, or even reputable, which our colder skies and more rigid notions would totally exclude from the observances of civilized society.

The Indian populations of South America have become so completely slaves during long years of bondage that they have lost their prominent characteristics,[328] and are but a reflex of their [Pg 366]masters in the lowest state of ignorance. The women may be generally described as of very loose morals, yet kind and gentle unless roused by jealousy, in which case they can use the knife as promptly as their male friends. It is said they make very affectionate mothers.

There are a few tribes who have preserved some semblance of nationality. The Caribs of Honduras are a hardy and athletic race. Polygamy is general among them, three or four wives being a not uncommon number. The husband is compelled to have a separate house and plantation for each, and, if he make one a present, he must give the others something of equal value. He must also divide his time among them, giving a week to each in succession. When a Carib takes a wife, he fells a plantation and builds a house; the wife then takes the management, and he becomes a gentleman. The women attend their plantations with great care, and, in the course of twelve or fifteen months, have every description of breadstuff under cultivation. About Christmas they engage several creers, and freight them with produce for Truxillo and Belize, hiring their husbands and others as sailors. It is also the custom, when a woman can not do all the work required on her plantation, for her to engage her husband as a laborer, and pay him two dollars per week. Industry and forethought are peculiar traits of the Carib women, consequently they easily surround themselves with necessaries and comforts.

The data bearing on the proportion of the sexes in the aggregate population, although too imperfect to be worth presenting, yet go to show that, as in Mexico, there is a considerable preponderance of females.[329] The disproportion in births is not so great as in deaths; for, while the number of males and females born is nearly equal, more of the former than the latter die annually. There are more old women than old men, ascribable, no doubt, to the greater sobriety of the women, drunkenness being a vice which, under the tropics, is rapid in its consequences. In Nicaragua the women number two to one of the male population. The Department of Cuscatlan in San Salvador has an excess of 1838 women over men, and of 1709 boys over girls.

Peru and Chili, though neighboring countries, and both in the strip of western coast between the Andes and the sea, present [Pg 367]considerable difference of condition. Chili is rapidly rising in political importance by means of the internal energy of the people, and the development of natural resources by native and foreign enterprise and capital.

It has been asserted by resident eye-witnesses that female virtue was at so low an ebb in Chili within a few years, that in most families, even of good standing, there were one or more children who were called “children of the house,” and whose parentage was distributed generally among the ladies of the family. Nay, we have heard that the rites of hospitality sometimes included civilities in respect to the females which are usually considered as peculiar to certain Oriental nations. A rapid change for the better is, however, taking place in these usages, and even the sea-port of Valparaiso is described by Wilkes as being greatly improved from the period of his first visit, when few sailors left it without having lost both their money and health among its women.

Peru has made but little advance in its recent political changes. The government is in a state of continual anarchy. A new mine of wealth has been discovered in the guano deposits of the Chincha Islands, which has attracted great numbers of foreign vessels to its shores. But the wealth acquired from this source has done little for the people. Lima, the capital, has long been remarkable for the levity and dissipation of its inhabitants. The very dress of the ladies, which may have been originally intended to insure seclusion and privacy, has become an emblem of intrigue. It consists of a peculiar hood and petticoat, covering the wearer entirely, who, when thus in domino, is styled tapada, and is, by common usage, held to be secure from all impertinent interference or insult. The same term is applied to a shawl worn over the head, so as to cover the mouth and forehead. Under this concealment the wearer is known only to the most intimate friends, and ladies thus attired frequent the theatres. It is favorable to intrigue, and so perfect is the security that any place of amusement may be visited with impunity, and, even if suspected by the husband or relative, she is protected from discovery by the respect attached to the custom.

Dr. Tschudi draws a very cheerless picture of the state and prospects of Peru.[330] Its moral degradation is significantly typified in the decline of its population, which has been continually [Pg 368]diminishing since the establishment of its independence. That noble land, which contained an enormous population at the time of the Conquest, numbered in 1836 less than 1,400,000 inhabitants; not so many as were formerly found in the department of Cusco alone. The deaths in Lima vary annually from 2500 to 2800 out of a population of 53,000; in the ten months from January 1st to October 31st, 1841, they were 2244, the births in that period being 1682, of which 860 were illegitimate.

Add to this picture that, though delicate, modest women are rare, actual adultery is not often committed by the sex, but that concubinage is more common, or rather, perhaps, more public than in Europe, the father being usually very fond and careful of his natural children, and a fair view is obtained of female character in Lima. The white Creoles are noted for sensuality, and some of the dances in which they indulge are of indescribable obscenity.[331]

The influx of foreign ships and seamen into Callao, the port of Lima, has brought in its train the usual accompaniments, drunkenness and debauchery. A few years ago it was almost in decay and ruin; now it swarms with drinking-shops (pulperias) and prostitutes, and is probably as profligate a place as any in the western hemisphere.

Passing to the Atlantic coast of South America, we find Robertson, the author of “Letters from Paraguay,” writing of female Spanish society at the city of Santa Fe:

The same author, speaking of female society in Rio, says:

It may be thought that some of these remarks are applicable to periods of time and conditions of society now happily passed away. But the poison of moral depravity, when once taken up, is not to be speedily eliminated from the system of nations more than of individuals. A very recent traveler, Mr. Stewart, testifies to the demoralization of female society in all classes.[332]

With such uniform representations of the general immorality, and of the low estimate in which female virtue is held in South America, it is not to be expected that there are any special details on the subject of our investigation. Prostitution is in some degree attendant upon a state of public feeling in which the purity of wives and daughters is held in respect—not viewed with jealousy, but with reverence. In South America, even in the present time, females mix but little in society. Their education is very limited, terminates early, and they are always under some kind of guardianship or chaperonage in public. This does not elevate the female character. Freedom and self-respect are the best protectives to virtue and honor, and the seclusion of women from general society only serves to invest them with the attraction of mystery to the libertine, while it takes away from themselves the experience and self-reliance in which they find a safeguard.

In South America generally, the character of the priesthood is unfortunately open to reprobation. In Brazil, the priests are reputed to be free livers. Nearly all of them have families, and when seen leaving the dwellings of their wives, or of the females they visit, they speak of them as their nieces or sisters. Some[Pg 371] unequivocally admit the relationship existing, and acknowledge their children.[333] The value of the priestly character, in estimating the standard of morality among a population is unquestionably great.

An enlightened native said to Mr. Ewbank, “The priesthood of this country is superlatively corrupt. It is impossible for men to be worse, or to imagine them worse. In the churches they appear respectable and devout, but their secret crimes have made this city a Sodom. There are, of course, honorable exceptions.”[334]

Another, a man of unquestionable authority, said, “They are assuredly the most licentious and profligate part of the community. The exceptions are rare. Celibacy being one of their dogmas, you will find nearly the whole with families.”

At Rio Janeiro there is a Foundling Hospital, established in 1582, which is a noble institution. The boys are provided for at Botofoga, and are in due time apprenticed to trades. The girls reside in the city establishment, and are taught to read, write, sew, etc. At each anniversary, bachelors in want of wives attend at the festival, and if they see girls to their liking, make themselves known. If a girl accepts such a lover, he makes his application to the managers, who inquire into his character, and, if satisfactory, the marriage takes place, and a small dowry is given from the funds of the society. In the management of the institution or the reception of infants, there is nothing peculiarly worthy notice. But if those who are averse to such institutions contrast the blessed results of saving these helpless infants from misery, and the horror of beholding their dead bodies cast on dunghills, to be devoured as carrion by obscene animals and birds of prey, as has been mentioned in the notice of Lima, they would, on such grounds, even if there were no better to be urged, suspend a hasty judgment on Foundling Hospitals.

[Pg 372]

CHAPTER XXIX.

NORTH AMERICAN INDIANS.

The aboriginal inhabitants of the vast continent of America have been variously described by different writers, one man lauding them as models of chivalry and virtue, another decrying them as the personification of meanness and vice. Hence it is only at a recent period, comparatively speaking, that any reliable information has been obtainable on the subject. In the limited space that can be given to a consideration of the Indian and his social habits, we shall endeavor to reject both romance and vituperation. We do not believe him so stoically virtuous as the former class of writers depict, nor do we think that all of the race are so deeply sunk in depravity as the latter represent.

In addition to the authorities quoted in the progress of the chapter, we are under obligations to Mr. Horace St. John’s article on Prostitution, incorporated by Mr. Mayhew in his tracts on “London Labor and the London Poor.”

At the time of the settlement of Jamestown and Plymouth, it was estimated that there were about two millions of Indians scattered over this continent. They were then a brave and hardy people, who lived on the produce of the chase, varying their locations as the facilities for hunting required. When the last census of the United States was taken, their numbers were about four hundred thousand, exclusive of fifteen thousand in Canada and the British possessions. This decrease has been ascribed to the occupation of their hunting-grounds by white men, and the consequent extermination of the game upon which they depended for subsistence; the free use of intoxicating liquors, and the introduction of small-pox and other fatal diseases. These causes will, in all probability, result in the entire extinction of the race. In the[Pg 373] small number mentioned are many half-breeds, children of white fathers and Indian mothers.

It might naturally be supposed that in the several tribes composing this people there would exist great diversity of manners, but these are found only in minor particulars. The social institutions of the North American Indians are so generally uniform as to render it possible to sketch the whole at one view.

Their occupations are still confined to the chase and the war-path. To perform a round of daily labor, even though it insured the most ample provision for his wants, would be contrary alike to the inclination and the supposed dignity of the Red Man, who will scarcely deign to follow any pursuit which does not combine enterprise and excitement. Woman, therefore, becomes the drudge and slave; upon her devolves the duty of cultivating the ground, whenever any attempt is made to assist the spontaneous efforts of Nature; she it is who must bear the load of game which her husband has killed; must carry wood and water, build huts, and make canoes. In fishing, and in reaping their scanty harvest, the man will, at times, condescend to assist her, but otherwise all the labor falls to her share. In those tribes visited by traders, her duties are still heavier; she must join in the hunt, and afterward dress and prepare the skins and furs which are to be bartered for whisky and other luxuries. To this degraded condition the women seem perfectly reconciled, and expertness at the assigned employment is a source of pride to them.

The treatment of the female sex is generally admitted to be a standard by which man’s moral qualities can be estimated. It may be doubted if this rule would apply to the Indian tribes, for those who treat their females most mildly are by no means the most virtuous, nor is their deference attended by any increase of attachment, the general opinion of a wife’s value being the consideration of her capacity to be useful. Where they aid in procuring food or luxuries for the tribe, they are held in more esteem; while in places where the chief burden of providing rests upon the men, they are treated with severity.[335]

Even when oppressed with these laborious occupations, the women have as much native vanity in respect to decoration as the sex in any part of the world; and an accurate observer remarks that, “Judging from the time a squaw often occupies in arranging her hair, or disposing her scanty dress, or painting her[Pg 374] round cheeks with glaring circles of vermilion, it is evident that personal ornament occupies as much of her thoughts as among fashionable women in civilized society.”[336]

Courtship and marriage are differently arranged among various tribes. The predominant custom is for a man to procure a wife by purchase from her father, thus acquiring a property over which he has absolute control, and which he can barter away or dispose of in any manner he pleases. The example of Powhatan, who was chief ruler over thirty tribes in Virginia at the time of the English colonization, is a case in point. It is said that he always had a multitude of wives about him, and when he wearied of any would distribute them as presents among his principal warriors. In most cases the woman is not consulted at all, the whole transaction being a mercantile one; in others an infant female is betrothed by her father (for a consideration) to some man who requires a wife, either for himself or for his son. The girl remains with her parents until the age of puberty, when the contract is completed, at which time the father often makes a present to the husband equal in value to the price originally paid for his daughter.[337]

Another mode of obtaining a wife is to steal a girl from some neighboring tribe. Captain Clarke, who crossed the Rocky Mountains in the years 1804-1806, as one of the leaders of an expedition ordered by the executive of the United States, records instances of this kind. He says, “One of the Ahnahaways had stolen a Minnetaree girl. The whole nation immediately espoused the quarrel, and one hundred and fifty of the warriors were marching down to avenge the insult. The chief took possession of the girl, and sent her by messengers to the hands of her countrymen in time to avert the threatened calamity.”[338] “A young Minnetaree had carried off the daughter of a chief of the Mandans. The father went to the village and found his daughter, whom he brought home, and at the same time took possession of a horse belonging to the offender. This reprisal satisfied his vengeance. The stealing of young women is one of the most common offenses.”[339]

A more peaceable kind of preliminary to matrimony is for a man desiring a wife to offer a small present to the woman: if she accepts it and offers him one in return, the match is complete; or he may tell her his wishes without any introductory gift, and, if agreeable, she will reply accordingly. Others will not venture[Pg 375] to express their thoughts, but will sit quietly by a girl’s side, and, if she does not remove from her seat, her assent is understood to be given.[340] Still another custom is for the lover to enter the woman’s tent at night, bearing a lighted torch. If she allows it to burn, it is a sign that his attentions are not desired; but if she extinguishes it, she thus intimates that he is accepted. It will not require much knowledge of human nature to imagine the consequences of these nocturnal visits.

A recently published work, “Life and Adventures of James P. Beckwourth, New York, 1856,” professes to give an accurate account of the domestic life of the Crow Indians, among whom he lived for some years, and became a chief of the tribe, who believed that he was one of themselves, and had been stolen from them in infancy. It may be necessary to say that we only quote him on points where corroborative evidence can be obtained from other sources. His character for veracity is questionable, and among the miners of California, where he is known, any extravagant tale is proverbially called “one of Jem Beckwourth’s lies.” His first experience of matrimony, showing that the woman’s consent was not asked, but that the arrangements were made by the parents, is thus stated: “While conversing with my father, he suddenly demanded if I wanted a wife; I assented. ‘Very well,’ said he, ‘you shall have a pretty wife and a good one.’ Away he strode to the lodge of one of the greatest braves, and asked one of his daughters of him to bestow upon his son. The consent of the parent was readily given. He had three very pretty daughters, and the ensuing day they were brought to my father’s lodge, and I was requested to take my choice. The eldest was named ‘Still Water,’ and I chose her. The acceptance of my wife was the completion of the ceremony, and I was a married man, as sacredly in their eyes as if the Holy Christian Church had fastened the irrevocable knot upon us.”[341]

Cases are also recorded by Indian travelers wherein a custom more assimilating to civilized notions is adopted. A young man will court a girl for a length of time, using all his endeavors to cultivate her affections, and the woman, upon her part, will entertain an equal tenderness for him. Again turning to the pages of Beckwourth, we find an instance of this in the case of a woman who attracted his attention. It must not be considered that he[Pg 376] was a victim of the romantic affliction called “first love,” for he had some six or eight wives in the tribe at the time. His description is as follows:

It would occupy too much space to recite all the details of a long courtship, including scenes in war and chase, at the camp, or on horse-stealing excursions; suffice it to say that the heroine accomplished her vow, and seemed convinced of the sincerity of her lover. She concluded the courtship thus:

Women will sometimes voluntarily ask men to marry them, promising to be faithful, good-tempered, and obedient. This request is seldom refused, as the marriage tie is easily dissolved if the union proves unpleasant. Tanner, who was taken prisoner by a war-party, and lived among various tribes in the northwest for[Pg 377] nearly thirty years, relates a case in point. The woman’s endeavors to secure him as her husband commenced with an invitation to smoke with her. He acceded; but either his blood was not so warm as that coursing through Indian veins, or from some other cause, it was long before he consented to the proposed companionship, which a Red Man would have accepted on the spot. The girl resolutely pursued him, and at last, with the consent of her father, took possession of his hut while he was absent. When he returned, “he could not put the young woman to shame” by sending her back to her friends, and so they became man and wife.[344]

Beckwourth also had some experience of this custom. “A little girl, who had often asked me to marry her, came to me one day, and with every importunity insisted on my accepting her as my wife. I said, ‘When you are older I will talk to you about it;’ but she would not be put off. ‘You are a great brave,’ she said; ‘and, if I am your wife, you will paint my face when you return from the war, and I shall be proud.’ The little innocent used such powerful appeals that I told her she might be my wife.”[345] He lived with her until he left the Indians, and her son is now (1855) chief of the tribe.

The women taken prisoners in war are frequently married into the tribe that captured them, but never to the captors, who stand in the relation of brothers to them, and by whom they are protected from insult. A warrior who has taken a female prisoner usually makes an exchange with another who has had the same fortune, each being thus accommodated without infringing upon custom. If a man has seized more than he can dispose of in that way, he generally gives them to any man who will accept them.[346] In the same manner, a woman whose husband has been killed in battle will ask a warrior for a male prisoner, who accordingly becomes the successor of one whom he has probably slain. In these cases the man is adopted as one of the tribe, is kindly treated, and entitled to his share of all their advantages.[347]

The marriages are without ceremony of any kind; the parties agree to live with each other as long as they can do so with mutual satisfaction, and the man conducts his bride to his hut at once, or resides with her at her father’s cabin. It must not be supposed that the ordinary requirements of a married life are [Pg 378]systematically unheeded, for, as a general rule, the squaws are faithful to their husbands, who, upon their part, rigidly exact this fidelity, even if they do not practice it themselves.

The general description of the position of Indian women already given applies equally to their state after marriage. They continue sometimes the abject slaves, otherwise the patient servants of their husbands. While he eats the food she has cooked, and probably caught herself, she must wait in submissive silence. At all times she approaches him with the deference due to a superior being. An Indian will never evince the slightest symptom of tenderness toward his wife; this would be opposed to his idea of manly dignity; but the eagerness with which he will revenge her wrongs proves that his apparent apathy springs only from pride, or a fancied sense of decorum.[348] When Catlin proposed to paint the portrait of the wife of a Sioux chief, his offer was ridiculed, and it was considered marvelous that he should honor a woman in the same manner he had honored the warriors, as the former had never taken any scalps, never done any thing but make fires, dress skins, and other servile employments.

To infer from these facts that there is no conjugal affection among this people would be erroneous. Notwithstanding their assumed indifference, instances are not rare of strong mutual attachment. To an Indian there is nothing inconsistent with affection in his indolently walking through the forest, while his wife follows him bearing the heavy wigwam poles, his ideas never having been led to consider this as other than her natural duty. Many pictures of domestic happiness are exhibited among the Indians, and the Blackfeet, Sanee, and Blood tribes strongly desire that their wives may live long and look young. Heckewelder relates a singular instance of indulgence. In 1762 there was a scarcity of food among many tribes, and during the prevalence of this famine a sick woman wished for a mess of Indian corn. Her husband rode about a hundred miles to obtain it, gave his horse in exchange for a hatful, and returned home on foot with the coveted dainty.[349]

These “lords of creation” attempt to enforce their marital rights with much severity, and, if their suspicions are excited against their wives, become very indignant, and punish them by beating, biting off the nose, dismissing them in disgrace, or even killing them. The wife of a Mandan Indian ran away from him in [Pg 379]consequence of a quarrel. By so doing she forfeited her life, which custom would have justified the husband in taking, and he would have murdered her but for the interposition of the travelers, who “gave him a few presents, and persuaded him to take his wife home; they went off together, but by no means in a state of much apparent love.” This trouble arose from jealousy.[350] In another case, a Minnetaree had much abused his wife for the same reason, and she sought refuge in the camp. Her husband followed and demanded her, and she “returned with him, as we had no authority to separate those whom even Indian rites had united.”[351]

Since an Indian considers his wife as so much property, equally valuable as his horse, and for the same reason—for the labor she can perform—we can easily understand that polygamy is universally allowed, though it is not generally practiced, being confined to great chiefs and medicine-men, as the rank and file are often too poor to buy a second wife. Many follow the custom for the mere purpose of amassing wealth, but others of the stoic warriors delight in the harem from the same sensual motives as a Turk or Hindu. Among the communities that Catlin had an opportunity of visiting, it was no uncommon thing to find from six to fourteen wives in the same lodge. He mentions an instance in which a young chief of the Mandans took four wives in one day, paying a horse or two for each. These brides were from twelve to fourteen years of age. An Indian marriage at this age is far from uncommon, and, indeed, it appears from good testimony that celibacy beyond the age of puberty is very rare. Some of the females are mothers before they are twelve years old. It is not universal for the wives to live all in one hut, some tribes requiring separate lodgings for each. This custom is in force among the Crows, and Beckwourth relates that, on returning from one of his excursions, he made a round of visits to his wives, some of whom he had not seen for months.[352]

It is not uncommon for a man to marry his wife’s sister, and, indeed, the whole family of girls, on the supposition that his household will thus be rendered more harmonious.[353] For the same reason, a Cherokee will marry a mother and her daughter at one time, though he will not, upon any account, take a wife from his own kindred. Among the Oregon tribes it is strictly required that each wife should be purchased from a different family.

[Pg 380]So well established among Indians is the custom of polygamy, that civilization meets the greatest difficulty in opposing it, and, if ever abolished, it will overthrow their whole social system, and, in changing their national character, tend to their speedy extinction. Sir George Simpson relates an amusing anecdote of an Indian who came into the settled districts of British North America, learned to read and write, and adopted the principle of monogamy. Returning to his tribe, he endeavored to persuade them to the same course. Long and earnest were the debates on the question, and the finale was, instead of converting them, they reconverted him. He took a great number of wives, foreswore books, and never again appeared in the character of a social reformer. Another chief offered to renounce polygamy, he having five wives, and a large fortune in horses and cattle. Falling in love with the daughter of a gentleman in the service of the Hudson’s Bay Company, he dismissed his harem, and presented himself, with great parade and confidence, to make his matrimonial proposal to the lady’s family. To his extreme disgust and mortification, they rejected the honor of his distinguished alliance. He revenged himself by refilling his hut with women as quickly as possible.

If the obligation of marriage is easily contracted, divorce is effected with as little trouble. It is not often that a separation takes place, for it is held dishonorable to forsake a wife for a trifling cause, particularly if she has borne children. When it does occur, the offspring are usually permitted to decide which of the parents they will accompany, although usage gives the mother the right to take charge of them. In some instances the form of divorce is simply for the husband to bid his wife go; in others he will not take the trouble to give her notice of his discontent, but will quietly put his gun on his shoulder and move off himself.[354] There are a few instances of this being done for very slight reasons; but, in addition to the restraint of custom just mentioned, the actual value of the wife is a subject of consideration. Where a separation does take place, the man will often endeavor to renew the connection. A missionary mentions a woman who contracted a new marriage after her husband left her. He returned and claimed her. The dispute was referred to a chief, and he, either wanting a precedent or distrusting his judicial capacity, could think of no better expedient than placing the woman at an equal distance from each claimant, and then ordering the men to run,[Pg 381] promising that the one who first reached her should retain possession of the prize.[355] In some tribes divorce renders it impossible for the woman to marry again, but in others she can make a new alliance as soon as free from the old one.

It is difficult to form any opinion as to the morality of females among a people where marriages are contracted and dissolved so easily. We may safely say that they have very little idea of chastity as a positive virtue, notwithstanding their general, although not invariable fidelity when married, which may probably be induced more by fear of consequences than sense of duty. Of prostitution for a price, as known in civilized communities, we find no trace in the Indian nations while in a normal condition; but if we assume Webster’s definition, “the act of offering the body to an indiscriminate intercourse with men,” it can scarcely be claimed that they are free. The predominant motive seems to be an inordinate sexual appetite, which must be gratified, if not in legitimate marriage, then by illicit intercourse. We are told that in most large assemblies of Indians there are to be seen voluptuous looking females, whose passions urge them to this; and Carver, in his “Travels in North America,” says that among the Manedowessis it was a custom, when a young woman could not get a husband, for her to assemble all the leading warriors of the tribe at a feast, and, when their hunger was appeased, to retire behind a screen, and submit to the embraces of each in succession. This gained her great applause, and always insured her a husband. Though the custom is now almost obsolete, the principle still exists, and prostitution is regarded by many as the shortest road to marriage.

The birth of a bastard child entails little shame upon a girl, and that such children are not more frequent is due less to their chastity than to the means they employ to procure abortion. One of the reasons advanced for their early marriages is that the impetuosity of the girls would render it difficult to obtain a virtuous wife if the union was delayed. The confessions upon starting for war, or what is called the “war-path secret,” would also favor the opinion that abstract virtue is at a low ebb. At these times every warrior is required to relate to his companions each act of illicit intercourse he has committed since the last excursion, naming his partner, and enumerating the facts attending the frailty. This obligation is enforced by the most rigid oaths known to Indian customs.[356]

[Pg 382]This immorality is not confined to the single women, for the squaws are, at times, as ready to take part in an intrigue as any in civilized nations. Beckwourth, whose experience of Indian manners seems to have embraced every conceivable phase of life, relates his adventures in this way:

“A brave named ‘Big Rain’ was elected chief of the village. He possessed a most beautiful squaw, who was the admiration of the young men, and all were plotting to win her from her lord. I determined to steal her, be the consequences what they might.” Having enticed the husband to a smoking-party, he says, “I went to Big Rain’s lodge, dressed and painted in the extreme of fashion, and saw the lady reclining upon her couch. She started up, saying, ‘Who is here?’ ‘Hush! it is I.’ ‘What do you want here?’ ‘I have come to see you because I love you.’ ‘Don’t you know that I am the chief’s wife?’ ‘Yes, I know it, but he does not love you as I do. I can paint your face and bring you fine horses, but as long as you are the wife of Big Rain he will never paint your face. With you by my side I could bring home many scalps. Then we could often dance, and our hearts would be merry.’ * * * * ‘Go, now,’ she pleaded, ‘for if my husband should return I fear he would kill you. Go, for your own sake and for mine.’ ‘No, I will not go till you give me a pledge that you will be mine.’ She hesitated for a moment, and then slipped a ring from her finger and placed it on mine. All I had to do now was to watch for a favorable chance to take her away. * * * * The appointed time had arrived, and on going to the place of assignation, I found the lady true to her word—in fact, she was there first. We joined the party, and were absent about a week. We succeeded in capturing (stealing?) one hundred and seventeen horses, and arrived safe with them in the camp. Meanwhile Big Rain discovered the loss of his wife. When we rode in, he took no part in the rejoicing, but ordered his wife and me to be surrounded, and, with half a dozen of his sisters, all armed with scourges, administered a most unmerciful whipping. I received it with Indian fortitude. If I had resisted, they would have been justified in killing me; also, if they had drawn one drop of blood, I should have been justified in taking their lives.”

Without wishing to delay the progress of the narrative, we can not resist the impulse to express admiration of the Indian punishment for a seducer of married women. Could the same unromantic penalty be duly and zealously inflicted for similar [Pg 383]transgressions, in places of more pretensions, some of the scandals of civilized life would be curtailed. To resume:

“I sent word to the wife of Big Rain that I should go out again the next night, and should expect her company. She returned a favorable answer, and was faithful to her promise. On my return I received another such flogging as the first. Two nights afterward I started on a third expedition, my new wife accompanying me, and received a third sound thrashing from her husband. Finally, he grew furious; but my soldiers said to him, ‘You have whipped him three times, and shall whip him no more; we will buy your claim.’ He acceded to the offer, and consented to resign all interest and title in Mrs. Big Rain for the consideration of one war-horse, ten guns, ten chief’s coats of scarlet cloth, ten pairs of new leggins, and the same number of moccasins.”[357] This was not a bad remuneration for a faithless woman.

In another case an intrigue resulted tragically. One of the wives of a Minnetaree chief eloped with a man who had formerly been her lover. He deserted her in a short time. She returned to her father’s hut, whither her husband traced her. He walked deliberately into the hut, smoked quietly for a time, and then took her by the hair, led her to the door, and killed her with a single blow of his tomahawk.[358] The caprice or generosity of the same chief gave a very different conclusion to a similar incident which occurred some time afterward. Another of his wives eloped with a young man who was not able to support her as she wished, and both returned to the village. She presented herself before her husband and asked his pardon. He sent for the man, inquired if they still loved each other, and on their acknowledgment gave up his wife to her lover, made them a present of three horses, and restored them both to his favor.[359]

With the exception of some national customs, the outward life of the Indian is generally decent. A temporary interval of wild license, corresponding to the Saturnalia of the ancients, and called the festival of dreams, is common among the Canadian tribes. This carnival lasts fifteen days, and, laying aside all their usual gravity, they then commit every imaginable extravagance.[360] Our authority does not say whether immorality forms a portion of this relaxation, but from the custom of other bands it is not improbable. Lewis and Clarke mention several instances in which they[Pg 384] were present at dancing and similar festivals, and witnessed exhibitions of the most foul and revolting indecency.

Mr. Catlin records his opinion that the Old World has very little of superior morality or virtue to hold as an example to the North American Indians, and we are not inclined to enter into any long comparison of the races. The manners of each have been described; and while it would be unjust to expect the untutored son of the forest to display as much delicacy as his more cultivated fellow-men, it would be equally ungenerous to assert that the white female population, as an aggregate, are governed by the impulses which apparently sway the Indian woman.

But whatever doubts there may exist as to the immorality of the Indian women in their natural state, all are entirely removed as soon as they come in contact with the white race. Those in the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Canada have rapidly learned the worst of vices. They are drunken, sensual, and depraved. The venereal disease commits frightful ravages among them; in fact, most of their sickness arises from excess of one kind or another. Maclean, in his “Twenty-five years’ Service in Hudson’s Bay,” says that the men employed by the company are reconciled to their hard employment and poor remuneration by the immorality of the women, of whom numbers are prostitutes, selling themselves for the smallest remuneration. On the Northwest Coast chastity is scarcely even a name. The sea tribes are the most licentious, and at some places, where ships touch for supplies, hundreds of women come down to the beach, and by indecent exposures of their persons endeavor to obtain permission to come on board. Sir George Simpson received a visit from a chief who wanted to negotiate the loan of Lady Simpson, and offered his squaw in temporary exchange.

Many of the traders on the Upper Missouri, from motives of policy, connect themselves with women of the tribes. The most beautiful girls aspire to this station, which elevates them above their ordinary servile occupations. These engagements are not marriages in our sense of the word; a price is paid for the girl, and she is transferred at once to the trader’s house. With equal facility he can annul the contract, for which her father is not sorry, as he is thus enabled to sell her over again. The tariff of prices will range from two horses to a handful of awls: such is the remuneration for which an Indian chief will prostitute his daughter. It must be added that occasionally the couple live [Pg 385]permanently together as man and wife, the possibility of their doing so being always supposed in the first instance.

CHAPTER XXX.

BARBAROUS NATIONS.[361]

Africa.—Australasia.—West Indies.—Java.—Sumatra.—Borneo.

The relations of the sexes among uneducated races are modified by every circumstance of their position, but the natural ascendency of the strong over the weak is universally displayed, and wherever woman is allowed a social rank approaching that of man, it will be found that a degree of civilization has been attained. Many branches of the human family have advanced, more or less, beyond the utterly savage state, the love of ornament and the practice of exchange having raised them one step in the scale, while they vary as much in the characteristics of their barbarism as civilized nations do in their refinement. Waiving generalities, a better idea of their respective customs will be obtained by noticing the position of females among the different nations.

AFRICA.

Some of the most wild and savage tribes of the human family are to be found in the immense peninsula of Africa. Observation has proved that a medium state of refinement is accompanied with the least immorality, and that it is among the merest savages and the most highly-polished communities that the greatest profligacy exists. In order to present the subject clearly, we will make a geographical arrangement, and, commencing from the south, pass over the continent, till we reach the valley of the Lower Nile.

The Hottentots are a dissolute, profligate race, and have borne that character from the earliest period. It was remarked by Van Riebeck in 1655, and confirmed by Colonel Napier in 1840, the latter describing them as “proverbially unchaste.” Indecency and lewdness are their characteristics; and even now, though accustomed to clothing, it is not uncommon for them to strip themselves, and dance in a lascivious manner at their festivals. The[Pg 386] females prostitute themselves readily to strangers, some from inclination, others for money or a gift of finery; but we have no means of estimating the numbers of this disreputable class. A few of superior order are scattered among these degraded creatures, and intelligent and well-conducted women have attracted the notice of travelers.

The pastoral Kaffirs are more moral, though more ferocious than the Hottentots, being more addicted to arms, and less to debauch. They practice polygamy, buying their wives for so many head of cattle. The girls undergo a probation before marriage, during which they are kept in seclusion. As the tribe wander from place to place, they carry their women with them, and upon them all the domestic labor falls, even the chief’s wives assisting in grinding corn and similar work. Divorce is easy on very slight grounds. We occasionally hear of women committing fornication, but no professed class of prostitutes has been described. Marriage is not held as a sacred tie, but adultery by a wife is severely punished. Natural affections appear extremely weak among the Kaffirs, and mothers have but little attachment to their children, the sickly and feeble being sometimes abandoned to avoid the trouble of rearing them. Mrs. Ward knew of a woman who buried alive a sickly daughter. The little creature was but imperfectly interred; it burst from the grave and ran home. A second time it was subjected to the same torture, and again escaped. A third attempt was made with a similar result, when its mother received it, and it ultimately recovered. Such instances of inhumanity are not rare. Husbands frequently drag their sick wives into a thicket, and leave them to die. It is important to mention that, where these people have embraced Christianity, their manners have totally changed; polygamy has been renounced, and they manifest an inclination to conform to the morals taught them.

Between the tropics the people are notorious for licentiousness. Morality is a strange idea to them, nor is a man restrained by any social law from intercourse with as many females as he pleases. The result is, that women are regarded strictly as marketable commodities, and the commonest feelings of humanity are unknown. On the Gold Coast husbands openly prostitute their wives for money. In other places an adulterer pays a fine to the husband, and many urge their wives to commit the crime for the sake of the penalty. When Laird visited the Niger in 1832, he found the condition of the females upon its borders most humiliating.[Pg 387] Polygamy was universal, and wives were reduced to slavery in their own houses. In short, the race may be described as the most idle, ignorant, and profligate in Africa. The king possessed one hundred and forty wives, one of whom was under thirteen years of age, and all had been purchased for a few muskets or a piece of cloth. Half a dozen of the fattest were known as his favorites, and one of them was said to weigh over three hundred and fifty pounds. The mother of this prince lived in his palace, and amused the court with obscene dances. Adultery by any inmate of the harem was punished with death. When a man died, one at least of his wives was expected to attend him; she was bound and thrown into the river. In another place the woman was buried alive; and in the kingdom of Fundal, when a chief died leaving fifteen wives, the king selected the ugliest to be hanged over the grave, and transferred the remaining fourteen to his own quarters.

The native of Western Africa looks upon his wife as a source of pleasure and gain, reckoning her as property to the amount she can earn. With a strange inconsistency, some of these barbarians profess a sentiment of attachment. The King of Atta told Lander that he loved him as he loved his wife. As he was a polygamist, it is to be assumed the traveler thought it a divided affection. Marriage is held as one of the common occurrences of life. When a man is old enough, he takes a wife, and goes on adding to his property until he probably owns a hundred, if he has means enough to buy them. Even under this system many women can not obtain stated husbands, as some men will not take permanent wives; but it is safe to assert that no single man lives without female intercourse, and no single woman remains chaste. A wife suspected of adultery is forced to drink a poisonous decoction, but she sometimes bribes the priest to render it harmless. Widows who have lived on bad terms with their husbands have to undergo the same ordeal. An illicit connection with the king’s wife results in death to both parties, but for the wife of a chief the gift of a slave is an expiation. The price of a handsome wife is from eighteen to thirty-six dollars; a plain-looking one is worth about seven dollars. As a man’s inclination varies, he often sells one wife, and buys another with the proceeds of the transaction.

In the kingdom of Dahomey, once the centre of the slave-trade, a most profligate population is found, and the traveler entering its sea-port is immediately struck with the immodesty of the women. Throughout the country the same characteristic is observable;[Pg 388] they are profligates from the highest to the lowest. The king is superior in brutality and filthiness (traits which seem hereditary to the throne of Dahomey) to any of his subjects. He has thousands of wives, his chiefs have hundreds, his subjects tens. The royal favorites are too sacred for the gaze of common people, who must turn aside or hide their faces if any of them are passing. Strangers are excluded from the harem, but the privileged nobility attend the king’s feasts, at which his wives take a leading part in drinking rum and conducting the debauch. When the king desires to confer honor on any favorite, he chooses a wife for him, and presents her publicly. She hands her husband a cup of rum, which is a sign of union.

The King of Dahomey supports an army of several thousand amazons, who dress in male attire, do not marry, and are supposed not to have intercourse with men. These troops were long considered invincible, but a few years ago they encountered a defeat on one of their marauding expeditions, and a thousand or more were killed on the field.

As the king and his wealthy subjects have so many wives, poor people are obliged to content themselves with the company of prostitutes, who are a licensed and taxed class in Dahomey. There appears to be a band of these in every village, but their profits are often insufficient for support, and they resort to industrial occupation, hiring themselves to carry heavy burdens, etc. One traveler saw two hundred and fifty collected in a troop, and another was assailed by a crowd of women who offered to “be his wives” for a drop of rum. Many of the poorest class stroll about naked, and a gratuity, however small, will purchase their favors.

The dirty, lazy, dull people of the Fantee Coast have the same moral aspect as the subjects of Dahomey. Parents sell their children, husbands sell their wives, women sell themselves, for a trifling sum. One woman was so anxious to make a bargain of this kind that she took possession of a traveler’s bed, and force was necessary to expel her. Marriage is a mere purchase, a wife costing about sixteen dollars. Women are unsalable when more than fifteen or sixteen years old. Any man committing adultery is forced to buy his paramour at her cost price.

Along the coast of Benin similar customs prevail. Public dancers act as prostitutes, and offer themselves at a small price. Every woman considers it an honor to be the king’s companion, even for one night.

[Pg 389]In Ashantee, where also polygamy prevails, adultery is common, especially among the king’s wives, who are hewn to pieces if discovered. The people are profligate beyond any thing which can be conceived. A practice of unusual depravity prevails among the Kroomen, a son who inherits his father’s property taking his wives also, and thus his own mother becomes his slave.

The Edeeyahs of Fernando Po offer a strong contrast to the above, treating their women with consideration, and assigning them far less than the usual amount of work. Polygamy is allowed. The first wife taken by a man must be betrothed to him at least two years before marriage, and during that time he is in a state of servitude like that of Jacob for Rachel, the girl being kept in seclusion. When she appears as a married woman, all the virgins of the tribe salute and dance round her. This custom is only observed with the first wife, the others being concubines who are governed by her. Adultery is severely punished: for the first offense both parties lose one hand; for the second, the man and his relatives are heavily fined and chastised, the woman loses the other hand, and is driven from the settlement into the woods—an exile more terrible than mutilation.

It would be but a needless repetition to pass in review all the various groups of African states. We have seen that in the west profligacy is a universal feature, and it is scarcely less so in the east. In Zulu, for example, the king has a seraglio of fifteen hundred women. The manners of the communities in the Sahara are imperfectly known, but appear to be above those in other parts of Africa, though many customs prevail which shock our ideas of decency. A chief offered Richardson his two daughters as wives. Immorality is usually a secret crime, and their general customs with regard to sexual intercourse are outwardly decent. Still the condition of the female sex is degraded, for they are regarded as materials of a man’s household, and ministers to his sensuality.

Abyssinia presents various characteristics of manners. In Tajura men live with their wives for a short time, and then sell them. Parents are known to hire their daughters out as prostitutes. One chief offered his daughter as a temporary or permanent companion to a traveler, and a woman presented herself as a candidate for a similar appointment, saying, by way of recommendation, that she had already lived with five men. One strong evidence of the immorality of Tajura is the fact that syphilis affects nearly the[Pg 390] whole population, man and woman, sultan and beggar, priests and their wives inclusive.

In Shoa the king has one wife and five hundred concubines, the latter scattered in various parts of his dominions. He makes a present to the parents of any girl he may desire, and is usually well paid in return for the honor. The governors of provinces and cities follow his example. There are two kinds of marriage in Shoa: one a mere arrangement to cohabit, the other a holy ceremony. The former is almost invariably used, the man and woman declaring before witnesses that they mean to live together. Divorces are as easily obtained, only mutual consent being necessary. A wife is valued according to the amount of her property, and the owner of a hut, a field, and a bedstead is sure to get a husband. When they quarrel and part, a division of property takes place. Concubines are procured as well from the Christians as from Mohammedans and pagans, but the latter are forced to declare themselves converted, for Shoa is professedly a Christian kingdom. A favorite concubine holds the same position as a married woman, and no distinction is made between legitimate and illegitimate children. The court overflows with licentiousness, numerous adulteries take place, and the example is followed by the people, among whom a chaste married couple is rare. The sacerdotal class of Shoa is notoriously drunken and profligate; in a word, the morals of the country are of the lowest description. In the Mohammedan states of the neighborhood the condition of the female sex is also degraded, and if there is less general prostitution, it is because every woman is the slave of some man’s lust, and is closely watched by him.

In the provinces of Kordofan, south of the Nubian mountains, the sentiment of love is not altogether unknown, and men fight duels with whips of hippopotamus hide on account of a disputed mistress. The wife is, however, a virtual slave, and is still more degraded if she prove barren, the husband then solacing himself with a concubine, who is raised to the rank of a wife if she bear a child. The general demeanor of the girls of Kordofan is modest, and their lives are chaste, while the married women are addicted to intrigue, especially if neglected by their husbands. In some parts of the country men consider it an honor for their wives to have intercourse with strangers, and often assist the woman to this end. There is a class of pretty dancers who are usually prostitutes, and are celebrated for their successes in the latter vocation.[Pg 391] Marriage is arranged without the woman’s consent; the man bargains for her, pays the price, and takes her home. A feast and dance sometimes celebrate the event. When a wife is ill treated she demands a divorce, and returns home, taking her female children with her. Trifles often produce these separations, an insufficient allowance of pomatum to grease her skin being a valid complaint. These remarks apply to the fixed population; the wandering tribes of Kordofan are a moral, modest race, naked, but not indecent.

A chief of the Berbers offered a late traveler his choice of two daughters for a temporary companion, both being already married. Many women there are ready to prostitute themselves for a present. A virgin may be purchased, either as a wife or a concubine, for a horse. A young Berber, who was asked why he did not marry, pointed to a colt and said, “When that is a horse I shall marry.”

The condition of women in Khartum, on the upper borders of the Nile, as described in Ferdinand Werne’s account of his voyage to discover the sources of the White Stream, is so degraded that it may be said with truth the female monkeys of the neighboring woods occupy a far nobler and more natural position. Farther up the river the morals are purer. The Keks are described as leading a blameless life. Marriageable girls and children are kept in seclusion, and during a considerable part of the year the women live in villages apart from the men, who possess only temporary huts, the substantial habitations of their wives being accessible to them during the rainy season. A man dare not approach the “harem village” at any other time, but some of the women occasionally creep into their husbands’ huts. Polygamy is allowed, but is too costly for any but the chiefs.

Among some of the tribes on the banks of the White Nile, women sell their children, if they can do so with profit. The maidens appear naked, but married women wear an apron. All experience shame at appearing unclothed before travelers. Beyond the Mountains of the Moon Werne found a people whom he describes as chaste and decent, where unmarried men and women were kept separate.

Our information is so limited that any inquiry into the morals of Africa must be incomplete, but enough has been stated to give a fair idea of the average morality. Statistics are of course impossible, but from a description in general terms we can not hesitate to form an opinion.

 [Pg 392]

AUSTRALASIA.

In this division of the earth’s surface are generally included the great island of Australia, Papua or New Guinea, and some adjacent islands, comprising New Caledonia and Van Diemen’s Land. Politically and geographically the islands of New Zealand are also in this division, but there is some question as to the propriety of this distribution for ethnographical purposes. Opinions vary as to the state of the New Zealanders. There is much similarity between them and the inhabitants of some of the Polynesian Islands, while there are equally strong points of resemblance between them and the Australian aborigines. The New Zealander, when discovered by Cook, was far superior to the Australian in intelligence and in the arts of life. He inhabited a decent hut, could build a stockade fort, and lived upon cooked food. The Australian lived in a hollow tree, could put together a temporary hut made of bark and brush, and fed upon grubs, roots, and raw flesh. Among such a race as the Australian blacks it is needless to say that the position occupied by women was of the most degrading and brutal character.

The Australian savage does not even pay his future spouse the compliment of wooing her. Might makes right in their case. The woman is often betrothed by her parent or kinsman, and becomes her husband’s property by sale and bargain. If this has not been effected in the usual way, he acquires his marital privileges by an inroad on the grounds of another tribe, and then meeting a woman, he knocks her down with his waddy (a heavy club), and carries her to a place of security, where he makes himself master of her person by force. This, indeed, is so usual a course of procedure, that it has given rise to a belief that the Australian rival bachelors compete for a wife by knocking her on the head, and whoever fells her bears away the belle.

The habits of the native Australians are not so observable now as they were at the commencement of the system of colonization. At first a continual intercourse was kept up between them and the settlers. The reciprocal injuries inflicted upon each other, in which the whites were more to blame than the natives, brought about an exterminating warfare. The black race has gradually wasted away from the settled, or rather partially settled country, while the much-diminished interior tribes have retreated, in South Australia, New South Wales, and Victoria, far into the wilderness, beyond ordinary communication with the white man.

[Pg 393]In Van Diemen’s Land the natives were almost extirpated by the constant warfare carried on between them and the settlers, convict as well as free, and the government was obliged to take the few survivors under its protection, and to establish a place of refuge for them. They were accordingly collected, and deported to an island in Bass Straits, under the charge of a special commissioner. But, notwithstanding the increased comforts of their condition, and their immunity from the murderous hostility of their white foes, they have languished, and, instead of the population increasing, it has gradually decreased, until, at the present time, it is believed that the numbers are under one hundred. In Central Australia, north of the Murray, the tribes are still comparatively numerous, and in some cases warlike and hostile to settlers.

The married women among the aborigines are called “gins,” and the single girls “lubbras.” The women follow their lords on their migrations and excursions, carry the loads, and do all the work. They bear patiently and submissively the blows and ill-usage to which they are subject. Polygamy is practiced by the more powerful men of the tribes, who appropriate to themselves such women as they choose, and cast them off at pleasure. Now and then they sell or present a “gin” to a friend in want of such a commodity. There is considerable disproportion between the sexes, attributable partly to continual ill-usage, partly to the habit prevalent among savage nations of destroying female infants.

At one time in the history of these colonies, the outlying stock-men and shepherds occasionally endeavored to solace their loneliness with a “lubbra” whom they had managed to decoy from her lawful owner, but the half-breeds from such unions are very rare. The natives, notwithstanding the low estimate they have of their women, are exceedingly jealous of them as property, and keep them away as much as possible from the stations.

Chastity is at all times of little account among savages, always excepting the old Celts and Teutons, who held continence in high esteem, and whose women were objects of general respect. From the peculiar habits of the Australian aborigines themselves, it can scarcely be said that prostitution exists as an institution. The woman has no choice in the matter. As between the “gins” and “lubbras” and the white settlers, there is scarcely any chance for prostitution. A woman now and then visits the towns or settlements, but always in company with her male friends. When quite young, the girls are not more disagreeable than others of[Pg 394] their complexion. When more advanced in years they are absolutely repulsive, and are rendered hideous by scars and other evidences of brutality. At all times both sexes are loathsome in their persons, and are clad in filthy blankets or sheep-skins, unless when they can pick up tattered remnants of European clothing.

Among the New Zealanders the state of the women was a little better than among the Australians. The amelioration was rather in degree than principle. They were subject to the same control by parents and kinsmen. They were disposed of in marriage as matter of right, and were often betrothed from infancy, in which case they were tapu or taboo to other persons than the young chief or warrior who had purchased the reversion. Cruel punishments of the women for infidelity were general, and even for minor offenses they were subject to very severe chastisement. In one case, even recently, a New Zealand woman was suspended by the heels naked, and in that position unmercifully whipped. Her sense of the outrage was so keen that she committed suicide. Licentiousness among the women was probably more rare formerly than now. Adultery was punished in both parties by death, and the family of the male offender were often involved in the punishment. Now, however, the constant visits of whalers and seafaring men, the gradual settlement of whites in the islands, and, above all, the profits and advantages derivable from illicit intercourse, cause the women to be free of their persons. Parents and even husbands are oftentimes the principal gainers by the transaction, and even negotiate the profit to be made. The marriage ceremony, too, was formerly of so easy a character that, whatever the New Zealand woman might have thought of it, no settler, and especially no seaman, would feel himself bound by the tie, and, although associations based on this weak bond were not wrong in the woman, they paved the way for less excusable relations.

The influence of civilized institutions and the presence of a regular clergy and missionaries is effecting some improvement in native morals, and many lawful marriages have taken place between the whites and the native women, the offspring of which—a fine race of half-breeds—may be met with throughout the Australian colonies. The example of the consideration in which the native women thus married are held, and the rights and social position that they acquire, is not without influence on others, and predisposes them to the same course. Among the tribes removed from the coast and withdrawn from civilized control, the ancient[Pg 395] customs are still kept up in their integrity, and the chiefs and natives jealously resist all encroachments on their independence. Among those chiefs, even, who have been converted to a nominal Christianity, Rauperaha for instance, heathen institutions of revenge for injury, polygamy, power of life and death over their wives and followers are maintained, and the humanizing lessons of the Gospel have made but little way toward an amendment of their barbarous lives. In New Zealand it is asserted that the venereal disease is very prevalent among the natives, and from their diet and licentious habits is often fatal.

In colonial white society there are no particular incidents to characterize prostitution. At all times during the continuance of transportation, female immorality has been very prevalent. The general law so often observed as attendant upon irregularity of the sexes has been powerfully operative; besides, there have been local influences at work to deteriorate female manners. The large importations of convict women, who were always the most unruly and vicious of the felon population, and who notoriously gave more trouble and vexation to the authorities than any one else, was prejudicial to public virtue. Just, however, as, on account of these faults, women of indifferent character were lightly esteemed, so did the respectable females gain in public opinion, however poor their worldly condition. There was not much regular prostitution, although incontinence prevailed. There was a continual system of marriage going on among the convicts. When a man chose to marry, he brushed himself up, put on a clean shirt, and went to the nearest superintendent, to whom he intimated his desire for matrimony. Permission was always given. The eligibles at the station were forwarded for his inspection, and the selected one rarely refused, inasmuch as her connubial bonds relieved her, during good behavior, from the more galling bondage of the law. Some of these unions turned out more satisfactorily than might have been expected from the character of the parties, especially of the women.

South Australia and the gold colony of Victoria never were penal settlements. The deficiency of respectable young women was very much felt by the colonists, and the home government made many well-intentioned efforts to supply the want. A large number of young women went out from Great Britain, under the charge of matrons and medical officers, and, in the majority of cases, their arrival was hailed with great satisfaction. It was no[Pg 396] unusual thing for a young man, a settler far away up the country, to come down to the government depôts at Adelaide or Melbourne on the arrival of a female emigrant ship, and then and there to pick out his partner for life. Of course, the greater number were hired out to service by the colonists, and, in the order of events, passed from service to independence. Parental care and precaution were exercised by the authorities over the young women thus sent abroad. They were not allowed to hire into dram-shops or lodging-houses: the parties who hired them required to be known: they had liberty to remain at the depôt for some months if not suited, and for any length of time in case of sickness on arrival; and afterward, during good conduct, the depôt was an asylum for an indefinite length of time. Notwithstanding all these safeguards, there was a constant supply of prostitution. The good intentions of the emigration commissioners in London were too frequently neutralized by the depraved character of officers of the vessels in which females were sent, or by the interested conduct of the local authorities in England. A good reputation was essential to the intending emigrant, but frequently masters of work-houses and parish officers shipped off unworthy or troublesome characters, who were better got rid of at any price.

During the gold mania, prostitution in Australia was rampant. The enormous gains and flaunting extravagance were a great temptation to young women who could not readily suit themselves with situations, and who disliked the moderate restraints of the depôt. The persuasive arts of the procuress and brothel-keeper were not wanting. It was a singular fact that at one time all the public vehicles were owned by brothel-keepers. The profits of these joint callings were perfectly fabulous. It was an every-day sight to see a party of prostitutes in the most gaudy costumes parading the streets in open carriages. Indeed, it was generally understood to be part of their contract that they should have unlimited clothing, of the most garish colors and style, and expensive material, and also Sunday rides in open carriages. The police authorities did what they could to check this shameful display, but they were powerless before the reckless extravagance of the miners and the influx of women. It is believed that this excess has now toned down, and miners having taken to buying land and to marriage, order is once more resuming sway, and prostitution in the gold colonies, though not at an end, is much shorn of its public show and display.

 [Pg 397]

POLYNESIA.

The principal groups of the Polynesian Islands are the Society, Friendly, Samoan, Sandwich, and Marquesas. These last have been rendered famous of late years by Mr. Hermann Melville’s Typee and Omoo.

The South Sea Islands were usually depicted in the most glowing colors by early navigators. The lands were the fairest on earth’s surface; the climate was unsurpassed, combining the genial warmth of the tropics with the fresh breezes of ocean; the soil spontaneously bringing forth in luxuriant abundance the loveliest and most valuable vegetable productions; and, finally, the inhabitants were fitted both in person and disposition to tenant such an Eden.

It is easy to comprehend the frame of mind which led to these descriptions. The seaman, after wandering over the pathless ocean, with only the dark waste of waters in view, might well recognize a paradise in the green hills and shady groves of the islands of the Pacific, and angels in their dusky denizens. But these pictures were eminently fallacious: the virtues of savage life disappear on close acquaintanceship. Implacable ferocity among themselves; sanguinary and exterminating warfare; cannibalism; unbounded licentiousness and its concomitants of unnatural lust and lasciviousness; debasing and horrid idolatry; infanticide; the most grinding tyranny of the strong over the weak, and of the man over the woman, who is not permitted to live in the same dwelling, eat the same food, cook at the same fire, or even use the same dish as her lord and master: these enormities are the ordinary conditions of savage life. Some local modifications may be found, but such were the main incidents in Polynesian life and character.

It is true that in the first instance the natives received the whites with all friendship, and evinced toward their visitors much hospitality and gentleness of demeanor. This is to be attributed to the wonder and reverence with which they regarded foreigners, looking on them as superior beings of another sphere, and awestruck at their wonderful powers, at the astonishing engines they wielded and managed, and at their unknown attributes. But familiarity lessened respect; some ill-advised and unjustifiable tyranny brought out the offensive points of savage character, and theft, treachery, and murder were soon practiced as freely against[Pg 398] the whites as against each other whenever fear of consequences did not restrain them. The murder of Captain Cook and the attack on La Perouse were remarkable cases on account of the boldness of the savages, and the public loss in the death of the great navigator, but they were not isolated outrages. Many a small and feebly-manned vessel perished among the islands, and, on repeated occasions, when landings were effected, the mariners ran great risks from the uncertain despotism of the natives.

Whatever may have been their other qualities, either among themselves or in their intercourse with foreigners, licentiousness was the universal characteristic of the South Sea Islanders. It was not merely polygamy or excess among a few of the more powerful members of the community, but the ordinary habit among all classes. Chastity, whenever met with, was not a customary part of woman’s life, but only an incident dependent on particular circumstances; in fact, an abnormal condition. It was associated with either marriage or betrothal. A peculiar institution of all these islanders was the tapu or taboo, a semi-religious ceremony performable either by priest or chief, whereby places, persons, or property could be rendered unapproachable by other than the lawful owner. The breach of this law has always been the greatest violation of propriety and public feeling of which a native or foreigner could be guilty. When young girls were betrothed at an early age, either to boys of corresponding years or to older persons, such females were tabooed. This insured chastity until they had reached a marriageable age. As this betrothal system was almost exclusively confined to chiefs, it follows that the obligation to chastity was very limited. The farther inference would be, that chastity was associated rather with property in the female than propriety in the woman.

Another institution of the South Sea Islanders was that of the Areoi. These were a body of men and women banded together for certain purposes, which had originally been of a religious character. They had probably been once Obi men, medicine-men, or wizards, as among the negroes and Indians. The custom, so often observable among heathen nations, of incorporating amusements and festivities into religious rites, had been taken up by these Areoi, and in process of time they degenerated into mere mimes or buffoons, and yet preserved to themselves by prescriptive right all the immunities and privileges otherwise accorded to priests. They traveled about from place to place, and sometimes[Pg 399] from island to island. Their observances yet retained a trace of their religious origin, inasmuch as they commenced with a sacrifice to the gods, after which they entertained the people with theatrical performances, in which obscene songs and lascivious dances formed the chief features. They gave dialogues and recitations, in which they freely satirized all classes, not excepting the priests. They were every where gladly received, and had a right to free quarters wherever they stopped. It is said the members were usually the handsomest of both sexes, the women being the most profligate among the inhabitants. Tradition maintained that these persons had been originally incorporated by the gods, and that one of their rules was perpetual celibacy, and that they should have no descendants. This, though it might perhaps in the outset have been a prohibition intended for pure purposes, has ended in the perversion of such an intention. In their present condition, whether degenerate or not, the inhibition is not taken to exclude them from sexual intercourse and enjoyment, but from its natural consequences. Their lives were accordingly most abandoned, and abortion and infanticide were invariably practiced. Nor were their enormities confined to their own body: after their representations the wildest excesses were perpetrated in all quarters. Resistance or retaliation was impossible by the sufferer, on account of the fear these wretches excited by the mysterious powers with which they were accredited, and which were, in reality, the secret affiliations of all the bands.[362]

When performing, the Areoi painted their bodies black and their faces scarlet; they wore dresses of bright-colored plants and flowers. They were divided into several classes, named after some particular ornament; and, taking into account the subordinate members of the troops and the attendants who performed the menial offices, they must have been exceedingly numerous. Places were specially built for their reception, and for the greater convenience of their representations.[363]

Candidates for admission into their number were received by secret ceremonies akin to the mysteries of paganism. Solemnities intended to awe the vulgar were performed, and the idea of special reservation of the blessings of a future elysium to these deceivers was promulgated and believed.

[Pg 400]The existence of such organized societies could not but be in the highest degree subversive to all order and decency. Accordingly, when the missionaries first arrived, they found the general depravity of morals the greatest difficulty they had to encounter. Obscenity, libidinousness, and incontinence were so ingrafted into the very nature of the people that they seemed almost ineradicable. Accordingly, we find it narrated of an intelligent convert that he expressed his conviction that “the people ought to be induced to discontinue infanticide, human sacrifice, and demon worship, but that preservation of female virtue and Christian marriage would never be obtained.”[364]