7.13. 13. Of the Punishments decreed by the Emperors against the
Incontinence of Women.
The Julian law ordained a punishment against adultery. But so far
was this law, any more than those afterwards made on the same account,
from being a mark of regularity of manners, that on the contrary it was
a proof of their depravity.
The whole political system in respect to women received a change in
the monarchical state. The question was no longer to oblige them to a
regularity of manners, but to punish their crimes. That new laws were
made to punish their crimes was owing to their leaving those
transgressions unpunished which were not of so criminal a nature.
The frightful dissolution of manners obliged indeed the emperors to
enact laws in order to put some stop to lewdness; but it was not their
intention to establish a general reformation. Of this the positive facts
related by historians are a much stronger proof than all these laws can
be of the contrary. We may see in Dio the conduct of Augustus on this
occasion, and in what manner he eluded, both in his prætorian and
censorian office, the repeated instances that were made him
[31]
for that purpose.
It is true that we find in historians very rigid sentences, passed
in the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius, against the lewdness of some
Roman ladies: but by showing us the spirit of those reigns, at the same
time they demonstrate the spirit of those decisions.
The principal design of Augustus and Tiberius was to punish the
dissoluteness of their relatives. It was not their immorality they
punished, but a particular crime of impiety or high treason
[32]
of their own invention, which served to promote a respect for majesty, and
answered their private revenge. Hence it is that the Roman historians
inveigh so bitterly against this tyranny.
The penalty of the Julian law was small.
[33]
The emperors insisted that in passing sentence the judges should increase the penalty of the
law. This was the subject of the invectives of historians. They did not
examine whether the women were deserving of punishment, but whether they
had violated the law, in order to punish them.
One of the most tyrannical proceedings of Tiberius
[34]
was the abuse he made of the ancient laws. When he wanted to extend the punishment of
a Roman lady beyond that inflicted by the Julian law, he revived the
domestic tribunal.
[35]
These regulations in respect to women concerned only senatorial
families, not the common people. Pretences were wanted to accuse the
great, which were constantly furnished by the dissolute behaviour of the
ladies.
In fine, what I have above observed, namely, that regularity of
manners is not the principle of monarchy, was never better verified than
under those first emperors; and whoever doubts it need only read
Tacitus, Suetonius, Juvenal, or Martial.
Footnotes
[31]
Upon their bringing before him a young man who had married a
woman with whom he had before carried on an illicit commerce, he
hesitated a long while, not daring to approve or to punish these things.
At length recollecting himself, "Seditions," says he, "have been the
cause of very great evils; let us forget them." Dio, liv. 16. The senate
having desired him to give them some regulations in respect to women's
morals, he evaded their petition by telling them that they should
chastise their wives in the same manner as he did his; upon which they
desired him to tell them how he behaved to his wife. (I think a very
indiscreet question.)
[32]
Tacitus, "Annals," iii. 24.
[33]
This law is given in the Digest, but without mentioning the
penalty. It is supposed it was only relegatio, because that of incest
was only deportatio. Leg., si quis viduam, ff. de qæust.
[34]
Tacitus, "Annals," iv. 19.
