WOMEN. (Influence of.)

Cethegus had so great a credit in Rome, that no­thing could be obtained without him, and as he had a mistress, to whom he could refuse nothing, it hap­pened that an unchaste woman had the whole city at her disposal. Lucullus was obliged to make his court to this woman to obtain the commission of making war against Mithridates, for without, be could not ob­tain that noble service. Plutarch observes, “that he resolved to use all his power, and to try every thing to prevent any mother from obtaining it besides him­self; and, after having tried all other expedients, be was at last forced, against his nature, to have recourse to a method which was neither fair nor honest, but indeed the most proper he could have found to attain , the end he desired. At that time, there was a woman in Rome, whose name was Præcia, very famous, as well for her beauty, as for her genteel and pleasant way of talking, but otherwise, as little chaste as those who made a public trade of their body; but, foras­much as she made use of the credit and favour of those who kept her company, and discoursed with her, to promote the affairs and the party of those whom she loved, she was commonly reported (besides the other charms and commendable qualities she had) to be a courtly woman, and fit, by her secret practices,

to bring a design to a happy conclusion, which gave her a great reputation. Thus, when she had gained Cethegus, who had at that time all the vogue, and managed all the affairs of the public at his plea­sure, and who grew so much in love with this woman, that he could not live without her, all the power and authority of the city of Rome was in her hands, be­cause nothing was done by the people but what Ce­thegus desired, and Cethegus desired nothing but what Præcia commanded him. Wherefore Lucullus resolved to gain her, and to insinuate himself into her favour by presents, and all sorts of caresses he could devise; moreover, it was at once a great advantage to an ambitious and haughty woman as she was, to see her­self courted by such a person as Lucullus, who by that means came to have Cethegus immediately at his command. Thus the latter made it his business afterwards to praise him in all the assemblies of the people, and to procure him the government of Cilicia, which being once granted him, he stood no more in need of Præcia’s assistance, nor of that of Cethegus, for all the people, of their own accord, unanimously conferred upon him the office of making war against Mithridates, as one who could discharge it better than any other captain.” Plutarch in Lucullus. ¹

Is it not a melancholy consideration that so illustrious a man, and so worthy to command the Roman army against Mithridates, and who acquitted himself of it with so much glory, could not obtain that employment without stooping to solicit a courtezan! If there had been a Juvenal at that time, would he not have found it a sufficient reason to exercise his satirical wit? Would he not have said:

Difficile est Satiram non scribere, nam quis iniquæ
Tam pattens urbis, tam ferreus, ut teneat se.

Juven. Sat. 1, ver. 30.

'Tis difficult from satire to refrain,
When such vile practices Rome’s glory stain.

The worst of all is, that such disorders have been revived a thousand times, in all parts of the world. This way to preferment has always been practised. It has raised to a great fortune not only those who were unworthy of it, but even those who deserved it. Many have carried an unjust cause by this means, and some, who had a just cause, would have lost it without such a support. People sometimes wonder, to see some men rise fast to eminent dignities. They dp not ascend by degrees, but fly from the lowest to the middle, and from that to the highest. For what reason? will people say. What has he done? Though he be a deserving man, he neither equals nor excels such and such, who remain a long time in the same stations. The solution of all this is, that some powerful woman protects him by the credit she has gained, and which she preserves at the expence of her virtue. The same complaints will be made a thousand years hence, if the world continues so long, and as a private man is not able to reform this confusion, it will be found Observe, that I do not say it would be right to do so. Note by the Author. -- Well guarded M. Bayle. Ed. ² that prudence may permit him to make use of it, as Lucullus did; and, if an ambassador scruples to take advantage of it, he will be blamed. M. Leti, speaking of the caprices which may hinder an ambassador from serving his prince well, relates two examples of it. A Spanish ambassador, at the court of Rome, under Urban VIII, having received orders to discover the intrigues of cardinal Antonio, learned from a Roman abbot, that there was but one way to lead him to it, He would not take it, because he must have flattered a mistress of that cardinal, and he gained but little light into the secret. I shall set down M. Leti’s own words. “He conceived it particularly difficult to penetrate the intrigues of cardinal Antonio, both because he was faithfully served by

his domestics, and used precaution; but, as this cardinal idolized women, the abbot thought, that by the help of Cadora, at that time in great favour with the cardinal, he might facilitate the ambassador’s affairs, and he put him in a way of obtaining what he pleased from that mistress. The ambassador was not a little shocked at this proposal, answering, that ‘ this was not a proposition to be made from a Roman abbot to a Spanish ambassador; that it was inconsistent with his conscience, and the grandeur of the monarchy, thus servilely to court the favour of a harlot;’ and thus the cardinal did his business with France, without the ambassador’s being able to come at the secret.” Leti, Ceremoniale Politico, Parte 1. lib. 1. pag. 76, 77.  ³

The other example is of a fresher date; it is that of a Spanish ambassador in England in the reign of Charles II. You will find in the following words what advice was given him, and his answer to it. “This person, talking with an English lord, his great friend, who had formerly been devoted to that crown, about the most proper means of drawing the king of England openly to espouse the protection of Flanders, by an immediate assistance; the lord answered: ‘ that all methods were good; but that he looked upon that of the duchess of Portsmouth, the king’s mistress, to be the best.’ The ambassador, with a sort of Spanish rhodomontade, answered in disdain: “My lord, I had rather my king should lose half his dominions, than preserve any part of them by the favour of a courtezan.’ And, indeed, he did nothing, while Barillon, the French ambassador, succeeded in every thing. What means he employed I do not concern myself about. I know him to be a wise and prudent man.” Leti, ibid. pag. 78, 79. ⁴

Cicero relates that “Chelidonis, a woman of an ill

life, loved Verres, and had a very great power over him. All those who were at law had recourse to her when he was praetor, and, there being no other way to succeed, some persons of honour, and whose cause were good, were forced to go and solicit him at the house of Chelidonis.” This baseness is eloquently described by the orator. It seems that the father-in-law, the uncle, and one of the tutors of a pupil seeing him threatened with a great law-suit, applied themselves to Marcus Marcellus, another of the youth’s tutors. Marcellus went to desire Verres to protect the pupil’s innocency, but did not obtain any promise. It was then that, all other means failing, they had recourse to Chelidonis. “Quum sibi omnes ad istum allegationes difficiles, omnes aditus arduos ac potius interclusos viderent, apud quem non jus, non aequitas, non misericordia, non propinqui oratio, non amici voluntas, non cujusquam autoritas pro precio, non gratia valeret, statuunt, id sibi optimum esse factu, quod cuivis venisset in mentem, petere auxilium a Chelidone: quæ isto praetore, non modo injure civili, privatorumque omnium controversiis populo Romano praefuit, verum etiam in his sartis tectis dominata est. Venit ad Chelidonem C. Mustius eques Romanus publicanus, homo cum primis honestus: venit M. Junius patruus pueri, frugalissimus homo, et castissimus: venit homo summo honore, pudore, et summo officio spectatissimus ordinis sui P. Potitius tutor. O multis acerbam, ô miseram, atque indignam praeturam tuam, ut mittam cætera, quo tandem pudore tales viros, quo dolore, meretricis domum venisse arbitramini? qui nulla conditione istam turpitudinem subissent, nisi officii necessitudinisque ratio coegisset Cicero Orat. in Verrem. lib. i. cap. 51, &c. ⁵—Finding it difficult to lay before him any proofs, and that all access to him was denied them, since neither right, nor equity, nor pity, nor the request of a neighbour, or desire of a friend could prevail on him, they determined to apply to Chelidonis, as the properest means they could think of, who, during his praetorship decided all the law suits of the people of Rome. Caius Mustius, a Roman knight, and farmer of the revenues, a man of distinguished honour, went to Chelidonis, together with M. Junius, the young man’s uncle, a most frugal and chaste man, and P. Potitius, his tutor, a man of the greatest honour, and modesty, and the most distinguished of his rank. How ungrateful to many, how wretched, how unworthy a praetorship was your’s. To say no more, with what confusion, think you, must Such men apply to a harlot; men who would upon no terms, have complied with such meanness, had not duty and necessity obliged them to it?” They found her surrounded with persons who were at law, and before they could be heard, they were obliged to wait till she had dispatched them. At last it came to their turn; the business was proposed to her, her good offices were desired, and money was offered her. She answered them like a courtezan. ‘ I will serve you with all my heart, and will speak earnestly to him about it;’ but the next day she declared ‘ that she could not prevail with him, and that he expected a good sum of money.’ "Veniunt, ut dico, ad Chelidonem. Domus erat plena, nova jura, nova decreta, nova judicia petebantur. Mihi det possessionem, mihi ne adimat, in me judicium ne det, mihi bona addicat. Alii nummos numerabant, alii tabulas obsignabant. Domus erat non meretricio conventu, sed praetoria turba referta. Simul ac potestas primum data est, adeunt hi quos dixi, loquitur Mustius, rem demonstrat, petit auxilium, pecuniam pollicetur. Respondit illa, ut meretrix, non inhumane, libenter ait se esse facturam, et se cum isto diligenter sermocinaturam, reverti jubet, tum discedunt: postridie revertuntur. Negat illa posse hominem exorari, permagnam eum dicere ex illa re pecuniam confici posse.” The chamber counsellors had nothing to do; no one went any more to them, but all applied to Chelidonis; she regulated the judgments, the praetor revoked his sentences, and gave quite contrary ones, according as she suggested to him. Cicero describes this excellently well. “Quæso redite in memoriam, judices, quæ libido istius in jure dicendo fuerit: quæ varietas decretorum, quæ nundinatio, quam inanes domus eorum omnium, qui de jure civili consuli solent, quam plena atque referta Chelidonis: a qua muliere quum erat ad eum ventum, et in aurem ejus insusurratum, alias revocabat eos inter quos jam decreverat, decretumque mutabat; alias inter alios contrarium sine ulla religione decernebat, ac proximis prulò ante decreverat.” Cicero in Verrem. ⁶

A young man of quality could not name this creature without great reluctance. Cicero did not fail to cry out, ‘ What a shame is it, that a praetor should perform the functions of his office, as it pleased a woman, whom Domitius thought he could not name without offending modesty.’

Arts. Cethegus and Chelidonis.

Resentment when rejected.

Those who are best acquainted with affairs of gallantry, say that it is very imprudent to play the part of a tempter, when their design is nothing more than to try the virtue of a woman; for they run a very great hazard, if they go so far as to gain her consent. The affront they do her, by neglecting the favourable disposition she is in, fills her with resentment, which puts her upon inventing a thousand ways to revenge

herself; she cannot bear to remember that she has been deceived, and that the weakness she has discovered has produced nothing; she cannot, I say, think upon this without violent transports of rage, which her deceiver has reason to dread. It is much worse when a woman has declared herself first, and made advances which have met with ill success. Woe to the map she has tried in vain; she meditates nothing but his ruin. The patriarch Joseph is a proof of this, and besides this great example in holy writ, the history of the heroic times will furnish no less shining instances of the same: read the adventures of Bellerophon, and those of the chaste Hippolytus. The history of the following ages will also supply us with something of the like, were it only in Fausta, the false accuser of Crispus, who would not gratify her lust. Juvenal has well observed, that if the shame of such a denial inflame hatred, in that case a woman shows the greatest cruelty.

Sed casto quid forma nocet?quid profuit olim
Hippoly to grave propositum? quid Bellerophonfi
Erubuit nempe hæc ceu fastidita repulsa:
Nec Stenobæa minus quam Cressa excanduit, et se
Concussere ambæ, mulier sævissima tunc est
Cum stimulos odio pudor admovet,

Juvenal, Sat. x, v. 324.

She may be handsome, yet be chaste you say,
Good observator, not so fast away.
Did it not cost one modest youth his life,
Who shunn’d th’embraces of his father’s wife? And was not t’other stripling forc’d to fly,
Who coldly did his patron’s queen deny?
The ladies charg’d them home, and turn’d the tale,
With shame they redden’d, and with spite grew pale.
’Tis dangerous to deny the longing dame,
She loses pity who has lost her shame.

Dryden.

An empress, a queen, and in general ladies of the

highest rank, are especially to be dreaded when their enticements are slighted; their quality makes them more sensible of the injury, and gives them greater opportunities of revenge: to them may be well applied these words of Juno in Virgil:

Mene incepto desistere victam?

Virgil, Æneid, lib. I, ver. 37.

Must I then vanquished quit the form’d design?

Upon such occasions a contempt of beauty is an offence which sinks deep into the heart.

Manet alta mente repostum
Judicium Paridis spretæque injuria formæ.

Id. Ibid, ver. 26.

Deep graven in her heart the doom remain’d
Of partial Paris, and her form disdain’d.

Id.Ibid, ver.26

I know not whether Lactantius had made his disciple Crispus, the son of Constantine, read the history of Phædra; it might have been of some service to him. —Art. Feithius.

(Asserted Superiority of.)

Lucretia Marinella, or Marinelli, a Venetian lady of a great deal of wit, published among other books, one entitled, “La Nobilita e l’eccellenza della donne con diffetti e mancamenti degli huomini,—The excellency and nobleness of women, with the defects and faults of men,” carried the pretensions of her sex not only to an equality, but also to a superiority above the male. I shall name two other authors who have done the same. One is Madame de Gournay, who wrote a little book “of the equality of men and women.” Her pretension was disapproved by Mrs. Schurman. Anna Maria à Schurman. in Opuscul. p. 85. ⁷ “The short discourse of the excellent Madame de

Gournay, as I cannot, because of its elegance and gracefulness disapprove it; so neither I dare, nor will, in all things approve it; though for brevity’s sake, I have referred to the testimonies of the men of wisdom which she hath produced.” The other author is one who published at Paris, in 1673, a book entitled, “Of the Equality of the two sexes, a discourse physical and moral, wherein is to be seen the importance of clearing the mind from prejudices.” He thought that some would write against him, and he was threatened with it, but finding that none appeared to refute him, he himself wrote against his own book; for he published a treatise in 1675, “Of the excellency of men, against the equality of the sexes.” If we consider well all that he says, we shall discover that be had no design to confute his first book, but rather to confirm it indirectly. However it be, these two books were reprinted at Paris in 1679. It was a long time before the author of them was known. I must tell you, by the way, that he was an ecclesiastic of Lorraine, who embraced, at Geneva, the Protestant religion.

A Mrs Jacquette Guillaume also published at Paris, in 1665, a book entitled, “The Illustrious Ladies, wherein is proved, by good and strong reasons, that the Female Sex in all respects exceeds the Male.” There was likewise published at Paris, a book in 8vo. in 1643, with this title, “The generous Woman, who proves that her Sex is more noble, more politic, more valiant, more learned, more virtuous, and more frugal than that of Men; by L. S. D. L. L.” I add, that Mr. Scheffer informs me, that there was printed at Upsal, in 1650, a treatise entitled, “La donna migliore del huomo, Paradosso,” written by Jacobus del Pozzo (i. e. de Puteo).

This thesis had been a long time maintained by some wits. Jerom Ruscelli published, in 1552, an Italian book, wherein he gave the superiority of perfection to the women, “Che la Donna sia di gran

unga piu mobile et piu degna dell’ Huomo.” He observes that Plutarch, John Boccace, il Cortegiano, l’Agrippa, il Portio, il Lando, il Domenichi, and several others handled this question; notwithstanding which, we do not find that their reasons have made the world believe that the women surpass the men. He quotes Maggio, and Bernardo Spina, who wrote in defence of the same opinion. I have a book, which was printed at Paris in 1617, with this title, “A Reply to the Anti-malice, or Defence of Women, of the Sieur Vigoureux, otherwise called By re-Comte-Robert, by the Sieur de la Bruyere, a gentleman of Berne.” This gentleman declares, that his intention is to confute what the author of the “Defence” has said, that “the women are better than the men, and more virtuous in all things.” Observe, that this “Defence” was the refutation of a piece of one James Olivier, and that • he who published it, to have a larger field of discourse, undertook to appropriate to the men what was attributed to the women in the book which he refuted. You will find other writers of this opinion enumerated in the second tome of Vigneul Marville’s Miscellanies, at the twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth pages of the Dutch edition.—Art. Marinella.

Women of Babylon.

Jeremiah’s Letter, concerning the immodesty of  the Babylonian women wants a commentary, taken   |out of Herodotus. This is Jeremiah’s text: “the   women also, with cords about them, sitting in the ways; but if any of them, drawn by some that passeth by, lie with him, she reproacheth her fellow, that she was not thought as worthy as herself, nor her cord broken.” To understand this right, we must have recourse to Herodotus, who informs us that there was a law at Babylon, which obliged all the women of the country to seat themselves near the temple of Venus, and there to wait for an opportunity of lying with a

stranger. They were all forced to go through this ceremony once in their lives. The rich sat in their coaches, and had a great number of domestics to attend them; the others had only an inclosure of cords, that is, they formed certain ranks, which were separated from each other with cords, but in such a manner, that there was liberty to go in and out, that strangers might pass freely in the intervals, and make choice of her who best suited their taste. When they had made their choice, they cast money into her lap, and led her aside, in order to enjoy her. They put up a prayer for her to the goddess of the temple. These women were not suffered to refuse any stranger, nor the money given them, how small soever was the sum; they were obliged to follow the first stranger who threw them money. Observe, that these sums were apppointed for religious uses. “Γίνεται γὰρ ιερὸν το τὸ ἀργὑριον,—this money is held sacred.” After the performance of this act, they might return to their houses; the devotion or expiation which the goddess required was accomplished. Those who were beautiful or agreeable were soon dispatched, and relieved from duty; but the ugly waited long for the propitious hour to satisfy the law: some were so unfortunate, that three or four years’ waiting did not end their noviciate. This removes all obscurity from Jeremiah’s words. Each of these women were kept in a little cell, bound about with cords, and did not come out but by breaking the cord; after which they insulted over those who were yet in the inclosure. Voltaire, in his Philosophical Dictionary, ridicules this account by Herodotus as utterly monstrous and incredible. Its explication of the passage of Jeremiah, however, if illusive, is singularly apt.—Ed. ⁸   

Who can sufficiently bewail the monstrous alliance preserved by Paganism, between the worship of the gods, and the most filthy passions? It might justly

have been called “the easy devotion,” if the comedy  had contained more acts and more scenes, and if there had not been a disadvantageous mixture for the ugly; for three or four years’ patience was a hard penance for one single rencounter. Martin del Rio retracted what he had said on the words I have quoted from the book of Baruch. He thought they were to be understood of certain ligatures practised to make themselves loved. See his Magical Disuisitiosms— Art. Babylon.

(Goddesses and Female Saints copied from beautiful Women.)

Venus rising out of the sea was the picture of Campaspe mistress to Alexander the great, or else that of the courtezan Phryné. Whilst Phryne was young she served for an original to all those who drew the goddess Venus. The Venus of Cnidus was copied from the face of a courtezan whom Praxiteles was passionately fond of. Pliny mentions a painter who always drew the goddesses after some or other of his mistresses. “Fuit Arellius” says he, “Romæ celeber, paulo ante divum Augustum, nisi flagitio insigni corrupisset artem semper alicujus fteminæ amore flagrans, et ob id deas pingens, sed dilectarum imagine.—“Arellius,” says he, “was eminent at Rome a little before the time of Augustus Cæsar, but he basely prostituted his art, being always mad after one woman or other, and for that reason painting goddesses in the form of his favourites.” Nor are the Christians free from this licentiousness; see the thesis of Voetius: “Aperit Molanus in libro de picturis sacris, cap. 29...Visæ inquit quandoque in locis ubi non decuit divorum imagines viventium adhuc hominum ora vultusque referre, ut hoc umbratico velamento illorum quos amabant effigie pascerent oculos. Ad quas selectas et procacitur venustas formas pingi solere imagines deiparæ virginis probe norunt pictores.

Molanus in his treatise of holy paintings, shows what practices have been used. ‘ Pictures,’ says he, ‘ have been seen in very improper places, representing saints whose features have exactly answered to those of persons still living, that under this symbolical dress they might feed their eyes with the effigies of those they loved. From what select and beautiful, but dishonest originals, the pictures of the virgin mother have been drawn, painters well know.’” I shall conclude with a passage out of the News from the Republic of Letters. “The author explains a medal of Julian the apostate, upon which on one side is seen Serapis perfectly resembling Julian, and on the other the figure of a Hermanubis. It was no unusual thing to see statues of men altogether like those of some God; flattery or vanity has often been the cause of this disorder. Pliny mentions a painter who always drew the goddesses like the mistresses he was in love with. This might give Justin Martyr occasion to say, laughing at the pagans, that they worshipped their painters’ mistresses. But I know not whether it is very fair to make the heathens responsible for the fancies of a Zeuxis or a Lysippus. What would be said of a man that should pretend that those who believe they worship the image of St Charles Borromeo, worship nothing but a picture made at pleasure and the caprice of a painter? I say this because though that saint was very homely, he is painted very handsome. This is an unavoidable thing in all religions where images are used: you must submit to the licence of workmen, and must depend upon them for the air and shape of the objects of devotion. ‘ Deos ea facie novimus qua pictores et fictores voluerunt. Cicero de Nat. Deor. 1. ⁹—We know the gods only by such faces as the painters and sculptors please to give them,’ said the men of sense among the pagans; yet this ought not to encourage such abuses: for instance, it was not to be borne that the image of the virgin should be made at Rome from the picture and resemblance of a sister to pope Alexander VI who was indeed very beautiful, but not very virtuous.”—Art. Flora.