[1] Homer, Odyssey, x, 58; xxii, 38. Cf. Meier-Schömann, Der attische Process, II, 510; Geffcken, Ehescheidung vor Gratian, 12; Glasson, Le mariage civil et le divorce, 151; Hruza, Polygamie und Pellikat, 64 n. 7.

[2] Geffcken, op. cit., 15.

[3] Thus Alcibiades "collected a band of men and dragged" his wife Hipparete from the archon, when she attempted to get a divorce on account of his licentiousness: Woolsey, Divorce and Divorce Legislation, 31. Cf. Geffcken, op. cit., 12, 13; and in general on the Grecian law of divorce see Meier-Schömann, Der attische Process, II, 510-13; Müller, Handbuch der Alterthumswissenschaft; Müller and Bauer's Die griech. Privat- und Kriegsalterthümer (1893), 152; Popp, Ehescheidung, 12-18; Tissot, Le mariage, 53 ff.; Glasson, Mariage civil et le divorce, 151-53; Woolsey, op. cit., 25-34. The unfavorable position of the Athenian woman is discussed by Hruza, Die Ehebegründung nach attischem Rechte, 21, 22; Gide, La femme, 63 ff., 74 ff.; Combier, Du divorce, 17 ff.; Tebbs, Essay, 44 ff.

[4] On Jewish divorce in general see Stubbe, Die Ehe im alten Testament, 31, 32; Fraenkel, Grundlinien des mosaisch-talmud. Eherechts, 42 ff.; Meyer, Die Rechte der Israeliten, Athener und Römer, II, 370 ff.; Duschak, Das mosaisch-talmud. Eherecht, 83 ff.; Michaelis, Ehegesetzen Mosis, 358, 359; Lichtschein, Die Ehe nach mosaisch-talmud. Auffassung, 85 ff.; Mielziner, The Jewish Law of Divorce, 115 ff.; Strippelmann, Ehescheidungsrecht, 8 ff.; Tissot, Le mariage, 44 ff.; Popp, Ehescheidung, 37 ff.; Glasson, Le mariage civil et le divorce, 145-50; Tebbs, Essay, 8 ff.; Gide, La femme, 56 ff.; Combier, Du divorce, 20 ff.; Woolsey, Divorce and Divorce Legislation, 10-34; Thwing, The Family, 40-44; Geffcken, Ehescheidung vor Gratian, 14, 16; and especially the admirable book of Amram, The Jewish Law of Divorce, 22 ff. Among controversial works see Luckock, History of Marriage, 16 ff.; Ap Richard, Marriage and Divorce, 54 ff., 62-72; Browne, Marriage of Divorced Persons in Church, 5 ff.

[5] Exod. 21:7-11; as interpreted by Amram, The Jewish Law of Divorce, 55 ff.; Milton's Prose Works, III, 185 ff., 322 ff.

[6] "When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her; then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife."—Deut. 24:1, 2. The Hebrew Ervath Dabar, here translated "uncleanness," literally "the nakedness of the matter," or "something unseemly," are the doubtful words. The school of Hillel, or the "broad constructionists of the Bible," held "that the husband need not assign any reason whatever for his divorce, and that he may, for instance, if he please, divorce his wife for spoiling his food." On the other hand, the school of Shammai, or the "strict constructionists," held that sexual immorality was the only scriptural ground of divorce: Amram, op. cit., 32 ff. Some writers who accept the view of the school of Shammai for the ancient law admit that, in consequence of moral degeneration, the broad constructionists were right for the days of Christ: see Duschak, op. cit., 83 ff.; Lichtschein, op. cit., 86; Mielziner, op. cit., 118-20. Cf. Geffcken, op. cit., 74; Woolsey, op. cit., 15 ff.; Tissot, op. cit., 49; Tebbs, op. cit., 28-30.

[7] Deut. 22:13-19, 28, 29: The case of the ravisher and that of the husband who falsely accuses the wife of ante-nuptial incontinence; in the latter instance he is not to "put her away all his days," which might be a trifle hard on the woman, unless indeed custom allowed her the right to free herself. See Amram, op. cit., 41 ff. By the Mishnah or oral law other restrictions are gradually imposed: ibid., 45.

[8] Before the compilation of the Mishnah the form of the get "was not yet strictly fixed, it only having been required to contain, besides the date and the names of the parties, the words 'Thou art now free for any man.'" But later custom required a more elaborate form and the "presence of at least ten persons."—Mielziner, The Jewish Law of Marriage and Divorce, 128. Eventually the procedure in ordering, writing, and delivering the bill of divorce became complex, and it took place before a rabbi specially skilled in the law, who thus had opportunity to check hasty or unjust action through his advice or by refusing to deliver the document: see Saalschuetz, Das mosaische Recht, 801; Mielziner, op. cit., 116 ff.; Duschak, Das mosaisch-talmud. Eherecht, 95 ff.; especially Lichtschein, Die Ehe nach mosaisch-talmud. Auffassung, 94 ff.; and Amram, op. cit., 132-204, both giving full details as to the "get." For the form of the "get" see Meyrick, "Marriage," Dict. Christ. Ant., II, 1111; Amram, op. cit., 157; Lichtschein, op. cit., 136; Duschak, op. cit., 143, 144; Mielziner, op. cit., 129; Selden, Uxor ebraica, III, 24: in Opera, IV, 797.

[9] For full details see Amram, op. cit., 47, 48, 111-31; Mielziner, op. cit., 85-89; Stubbe, Die Ehe, 20, 21.

[10] Amram, op. cit., 25, 45, 78 ff.; Lichtschein, op. cit., 87 ff.

[11] In general, on the Roman law of divorce, see Esmein, Mélanges, 17 ff.; Sohm, Institutes, 381-84, 341; Puchta, Institutionen, II, 403; Wächter, Ehescheidungen bei den Römern, 19 ff., 62 ff.; Glasson, Le mariage civil et le divorce, 173 ff.; Rein, Das Privatrecht und der Civilprozess der Römer (Leipzig, 1858), 445 ff., giving a bibliography of the older literature; Popp, Ehescheidung, 18 ff.; Tissot, Le mariage, 56 ff.; Bennecke, Ehebruch, 2 ff.; Combier, Du divorce, 29 ff.; Tebbs, Essay, 55 ff.; Zhishman, Das Eherecht der orient. Kirche, 4 ff.; Woolsey, Divorce and Divorce Legislation, 34-49; Geffcken, Ehescheidung vor Gratian, 9-12; Strippelmann, Ehescheidungsrecht, 31 ff.

[12] By confarreatio and coemptio the man acquired the manus at the nuptials; but by the usus, or the form through which transition was made from the strict to the free marriage, he seems to have gained it only by a year's prescription: when the woman neglected her privilege of trinoctium. In the meantime, before the manus was acquired, it is a question whether the woman was legally uxor or merely uxoris loco: Karlowa, Die Formen der röm. Ehe, 68 ff.; Rossbach, Die röm. Ehe, 156 ff., 243 ff.; Sehling, Die Unterscheidung der Verlöbnisse im kanon. Recht, 5; Sohm, Institutes, 263; Glasson, Le mariage civil et le divorce, 161, 174; Hölder, Die röm. Ehe, 8 ff.; Geffcken, Ehescheidung vor Gratian, 10 n. 4, who cites other authorities; Wächter, Ehescheidungen bei den Römern, 28 ff.

[13] Whether the confarreatio or sacramental marriage was originally indissoluble even for the man is uncertain; but later it could be dissolved by diffareatio: Geffcken, Ehescheidung vor Gratian, 11; Sohm, Institutes, 381; Fustel de Coulanges, Ancient City, 60; Thwing, The Family, 37; Glasson, Le mariage civil et le divorce, 174, 179; Rossbach, Die röm. Ehe, 128 ff.; and Esmein, Mélanges, 17 ff., who believes at first confarreatio was indissoluble. The coemptio, or sale-marriage, was dissolved by remancipation, but only in a family council including the wife's relatives; but whether the usus was dissolved in the same way or by prescription we are not informed: Geffcken, op. cit., 11; Rossbach, op. cit., 131; Woolsey, Divorce and Divorce Legislation, 37, 38; Rein, Privatrecht, 456; Kuntze, Institutionen (Leipzig, 1869), I, § 776. For the very restricted legal grounds of divorce under the sacramental marriage see Unger, Die Ehe, 71; and in general compare Wächter, Ehescheidungen, 62 ff., 94 ff.

[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.

[15] Maine, Ancient Law, 150.

[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.

[17] Cicero, De orat., I, 40, 56: Geffcken, op. cit., 12.

[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.

[19] Geffcken, op. cit., 15.

[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.

[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.

[22] Glasson, op. cit., 176, 178. Poisoning became a frequent substitute for divorce, especially where marriage by confarreatio had been contracted: ibid., 177; Woolsey, op. cit., 42, 43.

[23] Aulus Gellius, Noctes atticae, I, 6.

[24] "We find Cicero repudiating his wife Terentia, because he desired a new dowry; Augustus compelling the husband of Livia to repudiate her when she was already pregnant, that he might marry her himself; Cato ceding his wife, with the consent of her father, to his friend Hortensius, and resuming her after his death; Mæcenas continually changing his wife; Sempronius Sophus repudiating his wife, because she had once been to the public games without his knowledge; Paulus Æmilius taking the same step without assigning any reason, and defending himself by saying, 'My shoes are new and well made, but no one knows where they pinch me.'... Christians and Pagans echoed the same complaint. According to Tertullian 'divorce is the fruit of marriage.' Martial speaks of a woman who had already arrived at her tenth husband; Juvenal, of a woman having eight husbands in five years. But the most extraordinary recorded instance of this kind is related by St. Jerome, who assures us that there existed at Rome a wife who was married to her twenty-third husband, she herself being his twenty-first wife."—Lecky, Hist. of European Morals, II, 306, 307, who cites the authorities in the margin. For other illustrations see Woolsey, op. cit., 39-49; Thwing, The Family, 36 ff.

[25] The evidence of the satirists, jurisconsults, and other writers regarding the abuses of divorce, with full citation, is collected by Marquardt, Das Privatleben der Römer, I, 66-80; and Glasson, op. cit., 175 ff. See, for example, Juvenal, Sat., XI, 229; VI, 230; Plautus, Mercat., 805; Quintilian, V, 11, 35.

[26] Lecky, Hist. of European Morals, II, 307. Cf. Seneca, De Benef., III, 16; also Plutarch, Lives (London, 1890), 526, 531, 532 (Cato of Utica).

[27] On the depravation of Roman society see Unger, Die Ehe, 80 ff.; Combier, Du divorce, 51 ff.; Popp, Ehescheidung, 23 ff.

[28] Lecky, op. cit., II, 307, 308.

[29] The principal passages are Matt. 5:31, 32; 19:3-12; Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18; 1 Cor. 7:10-16; Rom. 7:2,3.

In general, on the interpretation of these passages, consult Geffcken, Ehescheidung, 16 ff.; Esmein, Le mariage en droit canonique, II, 48 ff.; Freisen, Geschichte des can. Eherechts, 769, 770; Friedberg, Lehrbuch, 337 ff.; Loening, Geschichte d. deutschen Kirchenrechts, II, 606; Perrone, De mat. Chr., III, 147-219; Roskovány, De mat. in ecc. cath., II, 61-187; Meyrick, in Dict. Christ. Ant., II, 1110; Zhishman, Das Eherecht der orient. Kirche, 96 ff., 734; Gide, La femme, 169 ff.; Thwing, The Family, 45 ff.; Woolsey, Divorce, 50-85; Popp, Ehescheidung, 51 ff.; Tebbs, Essay, 74 ff.; Strippelmann, Ehescheidungsrecht, 11 ff.; especially Milton, "Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce," Prose Works, III, 180 ff.; idem, "Tetrachordon," ibid., 322 ff.; Mentzer, De conjugio, 190 ff.; Sarcerius, Vom heil. Ehestande, 161 ff.; and Bucer, in Milton's Prose Works, III, 296, passim. Partisan writers are Hovey, The Scriptural Law of Divorce; Caverno, Divorce, 29 ff.; Ap Richard, Marriage and Divorce, 77-112; Luckock, Hist. of Marriage, 44-79; Browne, Marriage of Divorced Persons in Church, 27 ff.

[30] On the use here of the generic term porneia (fornication), instead of the specific moicheia (adultery), see Milton, "Tetrachordon," Prose Works, III, 394 ff.; also the labored argument of Woolsey, Divorce, 60-70; Zhishman, Das Eherecht der orient. Kirche, 578 ff.; Meyrick, in Dict. Christ. Ant., II, 1110; Gray, Husband and Wife, 95, 104 ff.; Luckock, Hist. of Marriage, 56, 57; Ap Richard, Marriage and Divorce, 80; Selden, Uxor ebraica, III, 23, 27.

The scope of porneia is of historical importance; for some of the early Fathers and some of the leaders of the Reformation by giving it an allegorical meaning sought to multiply the scriptural grounds of divorce. Cf. Freisen, Geschichte des can. Eherechts, 770; also Milton, in Prose Works, III, 255 ff., 394 ff. In general read the elaborate essay of Morgan, Marriage, Adultery, and Divorce, II, 394-550, on porneia.

[31] Matt. 19:4-6; cf. 5:31, 32, and Mark 10:6-9. This doctrine is laid down in reply to the Pharisees who "tempting him" ask: "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?"—doubtless having in mind the teaching of the school of Hillel. When Jesus declares that "what therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder," they further demand: "Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?" To which "he saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not so." Thus, it may be suggested, Jesus admits that legally the followers of Hillel—the "broad constructionists"—are right in their interpretation; while morally he sides with the school of Shammai. See n. 2, p. 13, above. Cf. however, the specious assertions of Woolsey, Divorce, 58.

[32] By the Jewish law, of course, the woman had no right to divorce her husband for any cause; the man putting away his wife could take other wives; and the woman divorced for adultery—the only cause of separation contemplated by Jesus—was stoned to death. Cf. Geffcken, Ehescheidung, 17; and Woolsey, op. cit., 59 ff., 70 ff., who holds that the words of Jesus apply to the wife equally with the man, and that the innocent, though not the guilty, party may marry again, sustaining his position, as he fancies, by reference to Paul in 1 Cor., chap. 7. For a fair sample of theological special pleading see Browne, Marriage of Divorced Persons in Church, 30 ff.

[33] 1 Cor. 7:8-16.

[34] The Catholic doctrine as finally settled. Woolsey, assuming that this is a case of separation of two "believers" for some "dissension" or other cause less than adultery (which he holds allows a second marriage), says, "we have here an actual separation a mensa et toro without a separation a vinculo matrimonii. This third state between absolute divorce and full marriage union has then the sanction of the Apostle—not of course as something desirable, but probably as a kind of barricade against divorce and a defense of the Saviour's commandment. It may be introduced therefore into the law of Christian lands."—Divorce, 73, 74.

[35] 1 Cor. 7:12-16.

[36] Thus Augustine (De adult. conjug.) confesses the extreme difficulty of reconciling the scriptural texts relating to divorce and second marriage: "His ita pro meo modulo pertractatis atque discussis quaestionem tamen de conjugiis obscurissimam et implicatissimam esse, non nescio." On this Freisen (Geschichte des can. Eherechts, 772, 773) remarks, "es wird ihm hierin gewiss jeder zustimmen, der die Worte der hl. Schrift durchliest."

[37] Geffcken, Ehescheidung, 18-20. In general on the views of the early Fathers see also Freisen, Geschichte des can. Eherechts, 770 ff.; Esmein, Le mariage en droit canonique, II, 48-55; Meyrick, in Dict. Christ. Ant., II, 1110; Woolsey, Divorce, 86 ff., 107 ff.; Popp, Ehescheidung, 54 ff.; Greve, Ehescheidung, 190 ff.; Observations on Mar. Laws, 330 ff.; Moy, Eherecht der Christen, 10-45; Zhishman, Das Eherecht der orient. Kirche, 99-102; Luckock, Hist. of Marriage, 80-153; Tebbs, Essay, 125 ff.; Milton, "Tetrachordon," Prose Works, III, 414 ff.; Burnet, Hist. of the Reformation, I, 26-133, 330 ff., who discusses Henry VIII.'s divorce from Queen Katherine and summarizes the results of Cranmer's examination of the Fathers and early canons in connection with the Northampton case. Burnet's summary is also given by Geary, Marriage and Family Relations, 577, 578.

For the Roman Catholic view see particularly Cigoi, Unauflösbarkeit der ch. Ehe, 1 ff.; Roskovány, De mat. in ecc. cath., II, 1 ff., 187 ff., 198 ff.; Perrone, De mat. christ., III, 221 ff.

[38] Cf. Geffcken, op. cit., 18.

[39] Esmein, op. cit., I, 220 ff.; II, 268 ff.

[40] Or "fornication," the porneia of Matthew.

[41] Cf. the sources cited by Freisen, Geschichte des can. Eherechts, 770; Meyrick, in Dict. Christ. Ant., II, 1110. This view is taken by Augustine, De serm. dom. in monte, c. xvi; but he doubts its correctness in the "Retractions;" Meyrick, loc. cit. Tertullian shows also that mishandling and insult, as well as adultery, are considered sufficient grounds of separation: Geffcken, Ehescheidung, 20, 21. See however, Perrone, De mat. christ., III, 231 ff.

[42] Geffcken, op. cit., 21. Cf. Freisen, op. cit., 770, who says: "Man hatte, wie es scheint, hier eine Scheu sich durchaus klar zu erklären. Sicher ist jedoch das eine, dass sich keine Stelle findet, welche die Wiederverheiratung in solchem Falle [adultery] als schriftgemäss verteidigt hätte. Vielleicht wurden die Kirchenväter bei ihrer Ansicht von der alten Anschauung geleitet, nach welcher die zweite Ehe in jener Zeit überhaupt gemissbilligt, als honesta fornicatio, angesehen wurde."

[43] Thus the strict view is taken by Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Cyprian. They all declare, says Freisen, that "whoever marries a divorced person commits adultery;" but he adds, "Dass dieser Ehebruch auch dann statthabe, wenn die erste Ehe wegen Ehebruch geschieden, sagt meines Erachtens keiner der genannten Kirchenväter, ebenso wenig wie sie sagen, dass in solchem Falle die Wiederverheiratung erlaubt sei."—Op. cit., 770, 771. Cf. Loening, op. cit., 607; who is criticised by Geffcken, op. cit., 19 n. 1; also Esmein, op. cit., II, 49 ff.; Perrone, op. cit., III, 243 ff.; Woolsey, op. cit., 109, 110; Zhishman, op. cit., 101.

[44] Tertullian, "On Monogamy," in Donaldson's Ante-Nicene Fathers, IV, 66, 67. See also Geffcken, op. cit., 19-21.

[45] Esmein, op. cit., II, 51. Chrysostom (De libello repudii, c. iii), Asterius of Amasea, Theodoret, and Hilarius of Poitiers all appear to hold that marriage is absolutely dissolved by adultery, from which the right of second marriage for both parties logically follows: ibid., II, 50, 51; Zhishman, op. cit., 101, 102; Geffcken, op. cit., 31.

[46] Freisen, op. cit., 771. Cf. also Greve, Ehescheidung, 195, 208 ff. (second marriage in general); Cigoi, Unauflösbarkeit, 23 ff.; Geffcken, op. cit., 22; Loening, op. cit., II, 608.

[47] The rubric of Canon 10 of the council runs: "Ut is, cujus uxor adulteravit, aliam illa vivente non accipiat."—Freisen, op. cit., 771.

[48] The canon itself provides: "De his, qui conjuges suas in adulterio deprehendunt, et iidem sunt adolescentes fideles et prohibentur nubere, placuit, ut, in quantum possit, consilium iis detur, ne viventibus uxoribus suis licet adulteris alias accipiant."

[49] This disparity is variously explained. Freisen, op. cit., 771, sees here the influence of the Roman law (c. 1, Cod. ad leg. Jul. [ix-9]), which he alleges judges the man more leniently than the woman; but Geffcken, op. cit., 22, 23, explains it more reasonably as the result of a difference of local practice, since such a discrimination between man and woman "the church had thus far zealously opposed;" and, besides, he insists that the passage from the code is not in point. It should be remembered, also, that some of the early Fathers, as we have seen, followed the illiberal principles of the Mosaic law discriminating against the woman; this prejudice may have prevailed at the Council of Arles. On these councils see also Esmein, op. cit., II, 55, 56; Loening, op. cit., II, 609 ff.

[50] Esmein, op. cit., II, 53. "Mais c'est vraiment dans saint Augustin que l'on voit établie pour la première fois une relation logique et nécessaire entre le sacrement et l'indissolubilité."—Ibid., I, 65. Cf. Woolsey, op. cit., 110; Zhishman, op. cit., 124.

[51] Esmein, op. cit., II, 51, 52, who collects the important passages from Augustine's De adult. conjug., and his other works. Cf. Freisen, op. cit., 772-74; Woolsey, op. cit., 69,110-12.

[52] Freisen, op. cit., 772-74; Woolsey, op. cit., 112 (Jerome). See Chrysostom, Homilia, XIX, in 1 Cor., chap. 7, as opposed to his De libello repudii, c. iii, already cited. Hieronymus, Epist. 77 ad Oceanum de morte Fabiolae, c. 3, thus expresses the doctrine of equality of the sexes: "Apud nos, quod non licet feminis, atque non licet viris." Such also is the view of Lactantius: Woolsey, op. cit., 116.

[53] "Placuit, ut secundum evangelicam et apostolicam disciplinam neque dimissus ab uxore, neque dimissa a marito alteri conjungantur, sed ita permaneant, aut sibimet reconcilientur. Quod si contempserint ad poenitentiam redigantur": contained in Decret. Grat., c. 5 C. 32 qu. 7. Cf. Freisen, op. cit., 774; Esmein, op. cit., II, 56, 57.

[54] Freisen, op. cit., 774, 775; Esmein, op. cit., II, 59.

[55] "Verily, if her husband do not take her back, he sins, and allows himself to commit a great sin; he ought to take back the sinning woman who has repented; but ought not to do this often. For there is one repentance for the servants of God."— Hermas, Lib. II, mandat. iv, c. 1; Woolsey's translation, Divorce, 108. Thus Hermas understands Paul in 1 Cor. 7:11 to refer to adultery as the cause of separation. Cf. Geffcken, op. cit., 18, 19; Freisen, op. cit., 770: Woolsey, op. cit., 107-9.

[56] Basilius, Epist. ad Amphiloch., c. 9: "Quare quae reliquit, est adultera, si ad alium virum accessit, qui autem relictus est, dignus est venia et, quae una cum eo habitat, non condemnatur." Cf. Freisen, op. cit., 772; Geffcken, op. cit., 30; Esmein, op. cit., II, 55; Perrone, op. cit., III, 263. Epiphanius (Penarion, lib. 59, c. 4) takes a similar position; Freisen, op. cit., 772.

[57] Jerome, Ad Oceanum, cc. iii, iv. Cf. Woolsey, op. cit., 112, 113; Esmein, op. cit., II, 55.

[58] Origines, Comment. in Matt., tom. xiv, no. 23. He declares this practice to be against the Scriptures; but still he is not inclined to judge severely, as it has been adopted to avoid worse evils. Cf. Freisen, op. cit., 771; Esmein, op. cit., II, 54

[59] Augustine, De conjug. adult., II, 17. See Freisen, op. cit., 772. Augustine also admits that the man who contracts a new marriage after putting away a guilty wife commits merely a venial sin: De fide et operibus, c. xix; Esmein, op. cit., II, 53; Woolsey, op. cit., 115.

[60] Woolsey, op. cit., 92, 93: Paulus, in Dig., XLV, 1, 134; Cod., viii, 39, 1, 2, de inutil. stip.

[61] The requirement of seven witnesses; the case of the freedwoman marrying her patron; and the obligation of the husband, under penalty, to put away a guilty wife: see above, p. 16.