A History of Matrimonial Institutions, Vol. 2 of 3Howard, George Elliott
History
A History of Matrimonial Institutions, Vol. 2 of 3
Howard, George Elliott
Families; Marriage -- History
[Footnote 14: After the second Carthaginian war free marriage,
or _matrimonium sine conventione in manum mariti_, until that
time regarded only as _matrimonium juris gentium_, was accepted
as _matrimonium iustum_ for plebeians as well as patricians;
and it rapidly became the only form observed among the Romans,
except that _confarreatio_ was preserved for the _flamines_;
while the _usus_, though not entirely abolished, was deprived
of real significance by a _senatus consultum_ under Tiberius
which abrogated the effects of _manus_ in the domain of private
law: GEFFCKEN, _op. cit._, 11, 12; _ap._ TACITUS, _Annales_,
IV, 16; ZHISHMAN, _Das Eherecht der orient. Kirche_, 5. On free
marriage see WÄCHTER, _op. cit._, 77 ff., 95 ff.; ROSSBACH, _op.
cit._, 42-62, 182 ff., 242; KARLOWA, _Die Formen der röm. Ehe_,
79 ff.; ESMEIN, _Le mariage en droit canonique_, II, 46; SOHM,
_Institutes_, 263, 267, 268; UNGER, _Die Ehe_, 72 ff.]
[Footnote 15: MAINE, _Ancient Law_, 150.]
[Footnote 16: Freedom of divorce in _matrimonium sine manu_
reacted upon the _manus_ marriages to the extent that the causes
of dissolution were increased in number.
"The famous divorce of Sp. Carvilius Ruga [_ca._ 520 A. U. C.]
is not only the first Roman divorce in general, but also the
first dissolution of a _manus_ marriage in which no fault but
merely a _vitium corporis_ of the woman was assigned" as ground
of action.--GEFFCKEN, _op. cit._, 12. But it is very doubtful
whether this is really the first divorce among the Romans:
WÄCHTER, _op. cit._, 82 ff.; COMBIER, _Du divorce_, 42 ff. The
time is uncertain. According to Dionysius, the divorce occurred
in 520 A. U. C.; while AULUS GELLIUS, _Noctes atticae_, IV,
3, § 2, xvii, 21, gives confusingly 519 and 523 as the date.
Compare WÄCHTER, _op. cit._, 78 ff.; SAVIGNY, "Ueber die erste
Ehescheidung in Rom," _Abhand. d. k. Akad. d. Wis. in Berlin_,
1814-16 (Berlin, 1818); REIN, _Privatrecht_, 450 ff.; KARLOWA,
_Rechtsgeschichte_, 188; GLASSON, _Le mariage civil et le
divorce_, 175; WOOLSEY, _Divorce_, 39; THWING, _The Family_, 36;
POPP, _Ehescheidung_, 22; LANGERON, _Du divorce_, 17.]
[Footnote 17: CICERO, _De orat._, I, 40, 56: GEFFCKEN, _op.
cit._, 12.]
[Footnote 18: By the _Lex Julia de adulteriis_ of _ca._ 18 B. C.:
GEFFCKEN, _op. cit._, 15; JÖRS, _Die Ehegesetze des Augustus_,
36-39. For the best analysis of the _Lex Julia_, with an account
of the preceding history, see ESMEIN, _Mélanges_, 71-169; and
compare BENNECKE, _Ehebruch_, 2-6.]
[Footnote 19: GEFFCKEN, _op. cit._, 15.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account