of her resentment at his charges against
herself. She was determined that Herod should be a king, like her
brother Agrippa; but the latter was a great favorite with Caligula, and
when his letters were presented to the emperor at the same time that
Herod appeared, in obedience to the importunities of his wife, to press
his suit, the husband of Herodias was deposed and exiled to Lyons. The
only praiseworthy thing that Herodias ever did, so far as is known, was
on this occasion. Caligula wished to allow her to retain her own
fortune, and told her that "it was her brother who prevented her being
put under the same calamity with her husband." This was her reply:
"Thou, indeed, O emperor, actest after a magnificent manner, and as
becomes thyself in what thou offerest me; but the kindness which I have
for my husband hinders me from partaking of the favor of thy gift; for
it is not just that I, who have been made a partner in his prosperity,
should forsake him in his misfortunes." Thereupon Caligula sent her into
banishment with Herod, and gave her estate to Agrippa.

Our curiosity is greatly aroused, but in no degree satisfied, regarding
another woman who dwelt at Jerusalem in the time of Christ. Pilate, the
Roman procurator, had taken his wife with him to Judæa. Tradition has it
that she there became a proselyte to the Jewish faith. This is by no
means unlikely, for throughout the Roman world were found women who had
become converts to the religion of Zion; Josephus, by his own
experience, shows that at a later date even Poppæa, the wife of Nero,
was extremely partial to the Jews. The Greek Church even goes further,
and places Procla in its calendar of saints. Though there is no evidence
extant of her having become a Christian, it need not be considered a
thing impossible; indeed, it is extremely reasonable to suppose that,
having endeavored to save the life of Jesus, the wonderful religious
movement which succeeded His death could not have been unknown or
without interest to Procla. At any rate, certain it is that she had some
knowledge of Jesus, that she was to no small degree disposed in his
favor, and that Pilate's wish to balk the priests in their designs on
Christ's life was, in a large measure, the result of his wife's
influence. But Pilate was caught with the argument that to save the
Prisoner would be a sign of disloyalty to Cæsar. This incident is the
most prominent instance that history affords of the unwisdom of opposing
masculine ratiocinations to feminine moral intuitions.

We now turn to those women of the Gospels who were the acknowledged
friends of Jesus and of the founders of Christianity. The central figure
is, of course, the Blessed Mother--Mary, honored by Christians above all
the daughters of the earth and adored by many millions as the Queen of
Heaven; and yet how inadequate, how meagre is the veritable knowledge we
possess of this immortal woman! Never has human imagination so
magnificently triumphed as in the evolution of the concept of the
Blessed Virgin; never has fond adoration built so marvellous an ideal
upon so scanty a foundation of assured reality. A moderate-sized page
would contain all that is vouchsafed regarding her in the Gospels, yet
who ever disputed the claim for Mary that she is the highest
representative of all that is purest and most beautiful in womanhood.
This much is not a dogma of any church, but a universal feeling. This
prevailing conception of the character of Mary has grown out of the
conviction of what must have been the moral worth of the one fitted to
bear and rear the Son of Man; and it has also resulted to a large degree
from that strong human love for motherhood which seeks a perfect example
on which to expend itself. The Blessed Virgin is womanhood idealized.
She is the personification of all feminine beauty, both of soul and
body; she is the perfect expression of the poet's highest inspiration
and the artist's noblest dream. We cannot help wishing, however, that
more were known of the home life of Mary; the desire to place the
beautiful figure of the Representative Mother in the varied settings of
common feminine life is irresistible, but this can only be done by means
of what little we know of the manners and customs of her people and
time.

As has been said, the sources of information about the Mother of Jesus
are the four Gospels. In addition to these, there are the apocryphal
Christian writings; but these are of too late origin and contain too
many manifestly absurd accounts to warrant credence, except where they
are corroborated by the Evangelists. The latter say nothing whatever of
Mary's direct parentage. She was an offspring of the regal line, that of
David; for though it is most probable that the puzzling genealogies of
Matthew and Luke are those of her husband, Joseph, there are many
reasons for believing that he and Mary were blood relations. Their home
was at Nazareth, a beautiful hill town of Galilee, noted for the
comeliness of its women. At the end of the sixth century, Antoninus
Martyr remarked that the Jewish women of Nazareth were not only fairer
but also more affable to Gentiles than were the other women of
Palestine, and modern travellers inform us that both these
characteristics are still preserved. Geikie says: "The free air of their
mountain home seems to have had its effect on the people of Nazareth.
Its bright-eyed, happy children and comely women strike the traveller,
and even their dress differs from that of other parts.... That of the
women usually consists of nothing but a long blue garment tied in round
the waist, a bonnet of red cloth, decorated with an edging or roll of
silver coins, bordering the forehead and extending to the ears,
reminding one of the crescent-shaped female head-dress worn by some of
the Egyptian priestesses. Over this, a veil or shawl of coarse white
cotton is thrown, which hangs down to the waist, serving to cover the
mouth, while the bosom is left exposed, for Eastern and Western ideas of
decorum differ in some things.... In a country where nothing changes,
through age after age, the dress of to-day is very likely, in most
respects, the same as it was two thousand years ago, though the
prevailing color of the Hebrew dress, at least in the better classes,
was the natural white of the materials employed, which the fuller made
even whiter."

We are not informed on the authority of the Gospels as to Mary's age
when she was espoused to Joseph the carpenter. The apocryphal _Gospel of
Mary_ states that she was fourteen, while the _Protevangelion_ places
her age at twelve, which is in accordance with the custom of the East,
where girls mature much earlier than with us. The betrothal consisted of
mutual promises and the exchange of gifts in the presence of chosen
witnesses, followed by the engaged couple ceremonially tasting of the
same cup of wine, and was ended with a benediction pronounced by a
priest or a rabbi. After these solemn espousals the relation between
Mary and Joseph was as sacred as though marriage had really taken place;
the only difference was that the couple did not yet live together. The
woman was not allowed to withdraw from the contract, and the man could
not fail to fulfil his promise unless he gave her a formal bill of
divorcement for cause, as in the case of marriage; the laws relating to
adultery were also applicable. Yet many months might intervene between
the date of the betrothal and that of the marriage.

What took place during this interval in the life of the Virgin is a
mystery which it would be a vain attempt to investigate. If it be judged
of from a purely rationalistic standpoint, there are no historical and
no scientific data which will enable us to do otherwise than simply
discredit the accounts of the Nativity, as they are given by Matthew and
Luke. On the other hand, if the narrative of Christ's birth is accepted
with that reverent faith which has endured through nineteen centuries of
Christendom, and has been and still is held by men of unrivalled
intellect, there is nothing more to be said than the language of worship
and wonder. We may well regret that John and Mark, or at least one of
the epistolary writers, did not corroborate the testimony of the two
first-named Evangelists; the scant importance Mary seems to have
acquired in the Apostolic Church may appear inconsistent with the
stupendous nature of her experiences; yet here is no subject for vain
reasoning; we stand before a mystery which belongs wholly to the realm
of faith. The science of Christology demands the acceptance of this
supernatural event. But it is as little within the province of this book
to defend the faith as it is to apply the canons of Higher Criticism to
the writings of the New Testament.

In the picture which the Scriptures give us of Mary there is no touch so
human as that which represents her, at the first intimation of the
coming of her Son, hastening southward to confer with her cousin
Elizabeth. To a woman must the news first be whispered, before it gains
the observation of the man to whom she is espoused; and not to the
gossips of Nazareth, but to her holy and sober-minded kinswoman alone
could Mary impart her hopes and her fears. Poetic expression was a
Jewish woman's birthright; Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, and Judith, each had
magnified the Lord with a song; let Mary also, in the assurance that her
Offspring is to be the Messiah long foretold, voice the exultation of
her soul in like manner. "Behold, from henceforth, all generations shall
call me blessed.... He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and
exalted them of low degree."

Augustus Cæsar sent forth an edict that all the world should be taxed.
It was an act of which we should have known little and thought less, had
it not marked the occasion of the birth of Him to whom the world will
never cease to pay a tribute of homage.

In the birth of Jesus, the mystery of motherhood is glorified, nay,
almost deified. Mankind needed that also. The pagan world had always
sought to satisfy feelings which are deep rooted in the human heart by
conceiving of maternity under the form of a divine personality. A
religion which does not, in some way, recognize in its object the loving
kindness and the painful solicitude of the mother heart cannot survive.
Mary is a symbol of that natural tender reverence and supreme confidence
which motherhood inspires. The shepherds knelt before her in the stable
which the necessities of poverty made the scene of her lying-in, for the
inestimable graces of the mother depend not upon wealth or earthly
splendor. The Wise Men from the East brought their gifts, for there is
no greater wisdom than that which pays its homage before the babe at its
mother's breast.

In the one great experience of maternity Mary's greatness ends, so far
as the records show. Did she settle down to all appearances as an
ordinary Nazareth housewife? Did she bear to Joseph other children? To
many, the latter question seems like sacrilege; and yet there is nothing
of authority written to the contrary.

Tradition has it that Joseph died early in their married life. Mary then
was dependent for her support upon her Son's labors. Did He refrain from
His chief calling until He was thirty years of age in order that He
might know not only common toil but also filial duty in the support of
the mother? Was it to consult on some family business that His mother
and His brethren stood outside the house where He was teaching, being
desirous to speak with Him? All these questions are to us unanswerable;
but it surely does not detract from the sacredness of the pictures to
infuse into it every possible element of human interest.

The Gospels turn their light once more, and for the last time, on Mary.
It reveals her at the foot of the Cross. Each of the Synoptists tells us
that many women followed Him out of Galilee; by John alone is Mary
mentioned as being present at the Crucifixion. "When Jesus saw his
mother, and