[Footnote 20: By the _Lex Julia et Papia Poppaea_ of 9 B. C.; but even this restriction was narrowed in various ways: GEFFCKEN, _op. cit._, 15; WÄCHTER, _op. cit._, 143 ff. It should be noted, however, that the husband was compelled to put away a wife guilty of adultery. On this law see JÖRS, _Die Ehegesetze des Augustus_, 49 ff.; COMBIER, _Du divorce_, 55.] [Footnote 21: "Scheidung zufolge friedlicher Übereinkunft (_divortium consensu_) sowie einseitige Scheidung aus einem rechtmässigen Grunde, ohne dass eine Verschuldung des entlassenen Gatten vorlag (_divortium bona gratia_), war durchaus erlaubt und hatte für keinen der sich Trennenden nachteilige Konsequenzen, bei willkürlicher Scheidung (_repudium iniustum_) traf ihren Urheber, bei der durch Schuld des einen Teils, namentlich durch Ehebruch veranlassten Scheidung den Schuldigen Nachteil an Geld und Gut."--GEFFCKEN, _op. cit._, 15, 16; _ap._ ULPIAN, VI, 13. See REIN, _Das Privatrecht_, 433 ff. Forfeiture of property rights for adultery was prescribed by the _Lex Julia de adulteriis_: ESMEIN, _Mélanges_, 114; UNGER, _Die Ehe_, 86; GLASSON, _Le mariage civil et le divorce_, 178, 179. On the legislation of Augustus compare WOOLSEY, _Divorce_, 47, 49, 88, 89, 92-94; and JÖRS, _Die Ehegesetze des Augustus_.] What were the moral and social results of this excessive freedom of divorce? To many the answer seems easy enough; for during the later republic and the early empire the laxity of the nuptial bond became a notorious scandal. At the capital, and especially in the imperial circle, wives as well as husbands gave free rein to their licentious passions. Marriage became unpopular. A recent historian even declares that "almost always" it was ended by divorce.[22] Already in the age of the Gracchi, Metellus the Macedonian cynically exclaimed: "Romans, if we could get along without wives, assuredly none of us would accept so grievous a burden; but since nature has ordained that one cannot live easily with them, nor live without them, let us sacrifice the happiness of our short life to the perpetuity of our nation."[23] Later even the most distinguished and reputable men, as if in mockery of wedlock, put away their wives on purely selfish or absurdly trivial grounds.[24] To believe the exaggerations of the satirists, one changed his partner almost as often as the cut of his garment.[25] "Seneca denounced this evil with especial vehemence, declaring that divorce in Rome no longer brought with it any shame, and there were women who reckoned their years rather by their husbands than by the consuls."[26] Nevertheless, the abuse was more a result than a cause of the gradual decline of Roman morals during the two centuries following the conquest of Carthage.[27] Doubtless, the state in neglecting to exercise a proper jurisdiction in this field had abrogated a function important for her own stability. Proper restraints would have lessened the evil.