§36. In other respects _manus_ conferred more limited powers. The husband was required by law, not merely obliged by custom, to refer alleged misconduct of his wife to the _iūdicium domesticum_, and this was composed in part of her cognates (§25). He could put her away for certain grave offenses only; if he divorced her without good cause he was punished with the loss of all his property. He could not sell her at all. In short, public opinion and custom operated even more strongly for her protection than for that of her children. It must be noticed, therefore, that the chief distinction between _manus_ and _patria potestās_ lay in the fact that the former was a legal relationship based upon the consent of the weaker party, while the latter was a natural relationship antecedent to all law and choice. [Illustration: FIGURE 4. LUCIUS CORNELIUS SULLA] §37. Dominica Potestas.--The right of ownership in his property (_dominica potestās_) was absolute in the case of a _pater familiās_ and has been sufficiently explained in preceding paragraphs. This ownership included slaves as well as inanimate things, and slaves as well as inanimate things were mere chattels in the eyes of the law. The influence of custom and public opinion, so far as these tended to mitigating the horrors of their condition, will be discussed later. It will be sufficient to say here that there was nothing to which the slave could appeal from the judgment of his master. It was final and absolute. CHAPTER II THE NAME REFERENCES: Marquardt, 7-27; Voigt, 311, 316 f., 454; Pauly-Wissowa, under _cognōmen_; Smith, Harper, and Lübker, under _nōmen_. See also: Egbert, "Latin Inscriptions," Chapter IV; Cagnat, "Cours d'Epigraphie Latine," Chapter I; Hübner, "Römische Epigraphik," pp. 653-680 of Müller's _Handbuch_, Vol. I.