“Without taking time to discuss the rudimentary law of the ancient German Colonies, we recall only that institution of Germanic origin, the _vogt_ or _advocatus_, whose care it was to represent every woman at the court of the suzerain, in judicial acts and debates.... The ancient precedents were conceived and established in a spirit which was extremely favorable to woman. There is not a trace in them of the privileges of masculinity. They allowed woman to be a witness, a surety, an attorney, a judge, an arbitrator. Later, under the influence of the canon law, and in the early renaissance of juridical study, under the action of the schools of Roman law, a reaction made itself felt against the rights of women, and the old disabilities of Roman legislation reappeared and became a part of the legal institutions.” Further on, Dr. Frank says: “The forwardness of Calphurnia appeared to all the ancient jurists a peremptory reason for excluding women from the forum.” From among his citations to prove this assertion we extract the following: “Boutillier tells us that a woman could not hold the office of attorney or of advocate. ‘For know, that a woman, in whatever state she may be, married or unmarried, cannot be received as procurator for any person whatever. For she was forbidden (to do) any act of procuration because of Calphurnia, who considered herself wiser than any one else; she could not restrain herself, and was continually running to the Judge without respect for formalities, in order to influence him against his opinion.’ (Somme Rural, Edit. Mace, Paris, 1603, L. i. tit. x. p. 45.) Further on, designating those ‘who may be advocates in court and who not,’ Boutillier cites as incapable minors, the deaf, the blind, clerks, sergeants, and women. ‘For women are excluded because of their forwardness, like Calphurnia, who could never endure that her side should be beaten nor that the judge should decide against her, without speaking forwardly to the judge or to the other party.’ (_Id._ L. ii. tit. ii. p. 674.)... In Germany as in France, the inferiority of woman was justified upon the same grounds. ‘No woman,’ says the _Miroir de Souabe_, ‘can be guardian of herself nor plead in court, nor do it for another, nor make complaint against another, without an advocate. They lost this through a gentlewoman named Carfurna, who behaved foolishly in Rome before the ruler.’” (_Miroir de Souabe_, T. ii. ch. xxiv., Lassberg, 245.)