Progress of the Female Sex._ The last clause is clearly inaccurate, but there seems reason for believing that maternal affection is generally stronger than want, but weaker than shame. 23 See Warburton’s _Divine Legation_, vii. 2. 24 Ælian, _Varia Hist._ ii. 7. Passages from the Greek imaginative writers, representing exposition as the avowed and habitual practice of poor parents, are collected by Terme et Monfalcon, _Hist. des Enfans trouvés_, pp. 39-45. Tacitus notices with praise (_Germania_, xix.) that the Germans did not allow infanticide. He also notices (_Hist._ v. 5) the prohibition of infanticide among the Jews, and ascribes it to their desire to increase the population. 25 Dion. Halic. ii. _ 26 Ad Nat._ i. 15. 27 The well-known jurisconsult Paulus had laid down the proposition, “Necare videtur non tantum is qui partum perfocat sed et is qui abjicit et qui alimonia denegat et qui publicis locis misericordiæ causa exponit quam ipse non habet.” (_Dig._ lib. xxv. tit. iii. 1. 4.) These words have given rise to a famous controversy between two Dutch professors, named Noodt and Bynkershoek, conducted on both sides with great learning, and on the side of Noodt with great passion. Noodt maintained that these words are simply the expression of a moral truth, not a judicial decision, and that exposition was never illegal in Rome till some time after the establishment of Christianity. His opponent argued that exposition was legally identical with infanticide, and became, therefore, illegal when the power of life and death was withdrawn from the father. (See the works of Noodt (Cologne, 1763) and of Bynkershoek (Cologne, 1761)). It was at least certain that exposition was notorious and avowed, and the law against it, if it existed, inoperative. Gibbon (_Decline and Fall_, ch. xliv.) thinks the law censured but did not punish exposition. See, too, Troplong, _Influence du Christianisme sur le Droit_, p. 271.