§71. At any rate the word _spondeō_ was technically used of the promise, and the maiden was henceforth _spōnsa_. The person who made the promise had always the right to cancel it. This was usually done through an intermediary (_nūntius_), and hence the formal expression for breaking an engagement was _repudium renūntiāre_, or simply _renūntiāre_. While the contract was entirely one-sided, it should be noticed that a man was liable to _īnfāmia_ if he formed two engagements at the same time, and that he could not recover any presents made with a view to a future marriage if he himself broke the engagement. Such presents were almost always made, and while we find that articles for personal use, the toilet, etc., were common, a ring was usually given. The ring was worn on the third finger of the left hand, because it was believed that a nerve ran directly from this finger to the heart. It was also usual for the _spōnsa_ to make a present to her betrothed. §72. The Dowry.--It was a point of honor with the Romans, as it is now with some European nations, for the bride to bring to her husband a dowry (_dōs_). In the case of a girl _in potestāte_ this would naturally be furnished by the Head of her House; in the case of one _suī iūris_ it was furnished from her own property, or if she had none was contributed by her relatives. It seems that if they were reluctant she might by process of law compel her ascendants at least to furnish it. In early times, when marriage _cum conventiōne_ prevailed, all the property brought by the bride became the property of her husband, or of his _pater familiās_ (§35), but in later times, when _manus_ was less common, and especially after divorce had become of frequent occurrence, a distinction was made. A part of the bride's possessions was reserved for her own exclusive use, and a part was made over to the groom under the technical name of _dōs_. The relative proportions varied, of course, with circumstances. §73. Essential Forms.--There were really no legal forms necessary for the solemnization of a marriage; there was no license to be procured from the civil authorities, the ceremonies simple or elaborate did not have to be performed by persons authorized by the state. The one thing necessary was the consent of both parties, if they were _suī iūris_, or of their _patrēs familiās_, if they were _in potestāte_. It has been already remarked (§67, 1) that the _pater familiās_ could refuse his consent for valid reasons only; on the other hand, he could command the consent of persons subject to him. It is probable that parental and filial affection (_pietās_) made this hardship less rigorous than it now seems to us (§§32, 33). [Illustration: FIGURE 11. ANTONINUS PIUS]