[Footnote 69: _L. 2, C. Theod. de dotib._, 3, 13. _Cf._ GEFFCKEN, _op. cit._, 25; WÄCHTER, _op. cit._, 202, 213.] [Footnote 70: _L. 2, C. Theod. de repud._, 3, 16. _Cf._ WÄCHTER, _op. cit._, 215, 216.] [Footnote 71: _L. 8, C. de repud._, 5, 17.] [Footnote 72: WOOLSEY, _op. cit._, 98, 99; _cf._ GEFFCKEN, _op. cit._, 25, 26. The woman is allowed fourteen causes of divorce and the man but six; but in effect they are nearly equivalent, except as indicated: see WÄCHTER, _op. cit._, 216 ff.] [Footnote 73: See the summary of the act in GEFFCKEN _op. cit._, 25, 26; and WÄCHTER, _op. cit._, 218-20.] [Footnote 74: L. 34, § 1, _Dig._, XLVIII, 5, _ad. leg. Jul._: _L._ 101, _Dig. dev. sign_. "It may need to be said that only a crime to which a married woman was a party could be called _adulterium_. The Romans held that the _jus tori_ pertained to the husband. He could not commit this crime against his wife."--WOOLSEY, _op. cit._, 90, note. _Cf._ FREISEN, _Geschichte des can. Eherechts_, 617.] [Footnote 75: "Constantine the Great imposed death with confiscation of goods on the _adulterer_. His sons punished the adulteress with burning and took away from her paramour the privilege of appeal, but this seems to have been only a case of extraordinary and temporary legislation. Under Valentinian the guilty woman was again sentenced to death. Justinian's legislation shut up the woman in a cloister, making it illegal for her husband to take her back within two years. If the parties were not reconciled at the end of this term the marriage was dissolved, and the woman's imprisonment in the cloister was perpetual. As for the offending man, he was visited with death, but not with confiscation of goods, if he had near relatives in the direct line."--WOOLSEY, _op. cit._, 91, 92; REIN, _Criminalrecht_, 848-52; _Nov._, 134, § 10. In general, on the development of the law relating to adultery, see FREISEN, _op. cit._, 615-35, 830 ff.; ESMEIN, _Le mariage en droit canonique_, I, 102, 103, 111, 384-90; II, 61, 62, 90 ff., 125, 296 ff.; _idem_, _Mélanges_, 157 ff.; BENNECKE, _Ehebruch_, 13-33.] The legislation of Justinian, except in abolishing divorce by common consent, does not differ essentially in principle or detail from that of Theodosius II. The causes assigned for a reasonable divorce (_ex rationabili causa_) are much the same as in the former law. For disregard of the statute the woman loses her dower and is condemned to lifelong imprisonment in a cloister; while the man forfeits the nuptial gift (_donatio propter nuptias_), and besides must pay a fine equal to one-third of that donation.[76] [Footnote 76: _Nov._, 117, cc. 8, 9. _Cf._ GEFFCKEN, _op. cit._, 26, 27; WOOLSEY, _Divorce_, 99, 100; WÄCHTER, _op. cit._, 206, 207, 222 ff.]