[Footnote 11: In general, on the Roman law of divorce, see ESMEIN, _Mélanges_, 17 ff.; SOHM, _Institutes_, 381-84, 341; PUCHTA, _Institutionen_, II, 403; WÄCHTER, _Ehescheidungen bei den Römern_, 19 ff., 62 ff.; GLASSON, _Le mariage civil et le divorce_, 173 ff.; REIN, _Das Privatrecht und der Civilprozess der Römer_ (Leipzig, 1858), 445 ff., giving a bibliography of the older literature; POPP, _Ehescheidung_, 18 ff.; TISSOT, _Le mariage_, 56 ff.; BENNECKE, _Ehebruch_, 2 ff.; COMBIER, _Du divorce_, 29 ff.; TEBBS, _Essay_, 55 ff.; ZHISHMAN, _Das Eherecht der orient. Kirche_, 4 ff.; WOOLSEY, _Divorce and Divorce Legislation_, 34-49; GEFFCKEN, _Ehescheidung vor Gratian_, 9-12; STRIPPELMANN, _Ehescheidungsrecht_, 31 ff.] [Footnote 12: By _confarreatio_ and _coemptio_ the man acquired the _manus_ at the nuptials; but by the _usus_, or the form through which transition was made from the strict to the free marriage, he seems to have gained it only by a year's prescription: when the woman neglected her privilege of _trinoctium_. In the meantime, before the _manus_ was acquired, it is a question whether the woman was legally _uxor_ or merely _uxoris loco_: KARLOWA, _Die Formen der röm. Ehe_, 68 ff.; ROSSBACH, _Die röm. Ehe_, 156 ff., 243 ff.; SEHLING, _Die Unterscheidung der Verlöbnisse im kanon. Recht_, 5; SOHM, _Institutes_, 263; GLASSON, _Le mariage civil et le divorce_, 161, 174; HÖLDER, _Die röm. Ehe_, 8 ff.; GEFFCKEN, _Ehescheidung vor Gratian_, 10 n. 4, who cites other authorities; WÄCHTER, _Ehescheidungen bei den Römern_, 28 ff.] [Footnote 13: Whether the _confarreatio_ or sacramental marriage was originally indissoluble even for the man is uncertain; but later it could be dissolved by _diffareatio_: GEFFCKEN, _Ehescheidung vor Gratian_, 11; SOHM, _Institutes_, 381; FUSTEL DE COULANGES, _Ancient City_, 60; THWING, _The Family_, 37; GLASSON, _Le mariage civil et le divorce_, 174, 179; ROSSBACH, _Die röm. Ehe_, 128 ff.; and ESMEIN, _Mélanges_, 17 ff., who believes at first _confarreatio_ was indissoluble. The _coemptio_, or sale-marriage, was dissolved by remancipation, but only in a family council including the wife's relatives; but whether the _usus_ was dissolved in the same way or by prescription we are not informed: GEFFCKEN, _op. cit._, 11; ROSSBACH, _op. cit._, 131; WOOLSEY, _Divorce and Divorce Legislation_, 37, 38; REIN, _Privatrecht_, 456; KUNTZE, _Institutionen_ (Leipzig, 1869), I, § 776. For the very restricted legal grounds of divorce under the sacramental marriage see UNGER, _Die Ehe_, 71; and in general compare WÄCHTER, _Ehescheidungen_, 62 ff., 94 ff.]