[62] Woolsey, op. cit., 94. Cf. on the survival of the principles of Roman law, Geffcken, op. cit., 24, 25.

[63] Nov., 117, c. 10.

[64] Geffcken, op. cit., 25.

[65] Nov., 140; cf. Geffcken, loc. cit.

[66] Geffcken, op. cit., 25: L. 1. C. Theod. de repud., 3, 16. Cf. also Woolsey, op. cit., 96, 97. On the legislation of Constantine and his successors see Wächter, Ehescheidungen, 201 ff., 259 ff.; Glasson, Le mariage civil et le divorce, 203 ff.; Esmein, Mélanges, 157 ff.; Luckock, Hist. of Marriage, 112 ff.; Combier, Du divorce, 81 ff.; Tissot, Le mariage, 88 ff.; Tebbs, Essay, 139 ff.; Bennecke, Ehebruch, 16 ff.; Hennet, Du divorce, 25 ff.; Popp, Ehescheidung, 62 ff.

[67] Woolsey, op. cit., 97; Wächter, op. cit., 207 ff.

[68] Constantine allowed the wife the right of divorce whose husband had been four years absent in the army without sending her word. Justinian first raised the period of waiting to ten years, and then entirely abolished divorce for this cause. "Dagegen blieb die Scheidungsbefugniss bestehen für den Fall der Impotenz, wobei jedoch nach Justinians Bestimmung eine Probezeit von zwei, später von drei Jahren eingehalten werden sollte." A vow of chastity or imprisonment was also counted a legal ground of separation by Justinian: Geffcken, op. cit., 27. Cf. also Glasson, Le mariage civil et le divorce, 205, who appears to confuse divorce ex consensu and bona gratia.

[69] L. 2, C. Theod. de dotib., 3, 13. Cf. Geffcken, op. cit., 25; Wächter, op. cit., 202, 213.

[70] L. 2, C. Theod. de repud., 3, 16. Cf. Wächter, op. cit., 215, 216.

[71] L. 8, C. de repud., 5, 17.

[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.

[73] See the summary of the act in Geffcken op. cit., 25, 26; and Wächter, op. cit., 218-20.

[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.

[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.

[76] Nov., 117, cc. 8, 9. Cf. Geffcken, op. cit., 26, 27; Woolsey, Divorce, 99, 100; Wächter, op. cit., 206, 207, 222 ff.

[77] On divorce bona gratia see Wächter, op. cit., 224 ff.

[78] Cf. the conclusions of Geffcken, op. cit., 28, 29; Woolsey, op. cit., 101.

[79] Geffcken, op. cit., 33, 34, 43, 44. With this view Jeaffreson, Brides and Bridals, II, 295, 296, agrees: The Anglo-Saxon wife, he says, could be repudiated at will by her "master." But many writers hold that divorce by mutual consent is recognized in the ancient Teutonic law. Thus Heusler, Institutionen, II, 291, 292, declares that there was absolute liberty of separation by agreement, and that one-sided divorce (by Kündigung) was very restricted. A similar opinion is held by Zoepfl, Deutsche Rechtsg., III, 37, 38; Pollock and Maitland, Hist. of English Law, II, 390; Glasson, Le mariage civil et le divorce, 185 ff., 195; Freisen, Geschichte des can. Eherechts, 779-81; Loening, Geschichte des deut. Kirchenrechts, II, 617; Schroeder, Rechtsgeschichte, I, 174. In general, cf. Brunner, Rechtsgeschichte, 302 ff.; Weinhold, Deutsche Frauen, II, 43 ff.; Grimm, Rechtsalt., 454; Walter, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte, I, 134-36; Glasson, Histoire du droit et des inst. de l' Angleterre, I, 119, 120.

[80] For examples among Franks and Alamanni see Meyrick, in Dict. Christ. Ant., II, 1111.

[81] Geffcken, op. cit., 34, 43, 44. "Das erste Volksrecht, welches die freiwillige Scheidung ganz analog dem römischen divortium communi consensu gestattet, ist der seiner Entstehung nach in die erste Hälfte des 7. Jahrhunderts fallende pactus Alamannorum."—Ibid., 44. The first formulary (libellum or libellus repudii) for a divorce by mutual consent in the folk-laws appears in the formulae Andegavenses, a collection made in the last quarter of the same century: ibid., 44; also Brunner, Rechtsgeschichte, 403, 404; Freisen, op. cit., 778, 779. The following formulary for such a divorce is taken from Marculf (II, 30) by Glasson, op. cit., 186, though it may have been intended for the Roman population living on Frankish territory: "Idcirco dum et inter illo et conjuge sua ... discordia regnat ... placuit utriusque voluntas ut se a consortio separare deberent.... Propterea has epistolas inter se uno tenore conscriptas fieri et adfirmare decreverunt, ut unusquisque ex ipsis, sive ad servitium Dei in monasterio aut ad copulam matrimonii se sociare voluerit, licentiam habeat."

[82] Lex Visig., III, 6, c. 2 (adultery); Lex Burgund., 34, 3 (adultera, maleficia, sepulcrorum violatrix): Freisen, op. cit., 779.

[83] Pact. Alam., III, 3; Lex Bajuw., VII, 14; Lex Burg., tit. 34, c. 2; Lex Vis., III 6, c. 2; Freisen, op. cit., 779.

[84] Wilda, Strafrecht, 821 ff. Cf. Walter, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte, II, 398 ff.; Glasson, Hist. du droit, I, 120.

[85] Geffcken, op. cit., 33. The following provision of the old English law illustrates this principle in all its harsh reality: "If a freeman lie with a freeman's wife, let him pay for it with his wer-geld, and provide another wife with his own money, and bring her to the other." Here doubtless the guilty woman had been slain: Laws of Æthelberht, 31: Haddan and Stubbs, Councils, III, 45. For the same offense with an "esne's" wife, sec. 85 of the same laws requires a man to "make two-fold bot": ibid., III, 50. Cf. also secs. 10, 11: ibid., III, 43; Cleveland, Woman under the English Law, 9, 51 ff. (adultery and divorce).

[86] Geffcken, op. cit., 33. Cf. in general Tacitus, Germania, c. 19; Grimm, Rechtsalt., 454; Freisen, Geschichte des can. Eherechts, 779; Weinhold, Deutsche Frauen, II, 25-27, who shows that the guilty woman's paramour might lawfully be slain by the husband when seized in the act.

For discussion of the customs of the early Germans regarding the punishment of adultery and summaries of the provisions of the folk-laws, the capitularies, and later legislation on the subject see Rosenthal, Rechtsfolgen des Ehebruchs, 40 ff.; and Bennecke, Die strafrechtliche Lehre vom Ehebruch, 82 ff. Of some service is Heller, Ueber die Strafe des Ehebruchs, 17 ff., passim.

[87] On the Lex romana Burgundionum, the Lex romana Visigothorum, and the Lex romana curiensis, see Freisen, op. cit., 776-78. Cf. also Geffcken, op. cit., 42, 43. The folk-laws are clearly reviewed by Meyrick in Dict. Christ. Ant., II, 1111.

[88] Boehmer, Ehegesetze im Zeitalter Karls des Grossen, 89 ff., summarizes the provisions of the folk-laws and capitularies regarding divorce, enumerating twelve different causes of separation, some of them being properly grounds of nullity.

[89] See Geffcken's interesting discussion of tit. 34, c. 4, Lex Burgundionum, in Ehescheidung, 35-38. He shows, following Loening, Geschichte des deut. Kirchenrechts, II, 619, note, that the clause in question is of later origin than the rest of tit. 34, probably under Christian influence. Cf. Glasson, Le mariage civil et le divorce, 187, 188. For the text see Salis's edition of the Burgundian laws in Mon. Germ. hist.: Legum, sec. i, tom. ii, p. 68; and compare sec. xxiv, "De mulieribus Burgundiis ad secundas aut tertias nuptias transeuntibus," ibid., pp. 61-63; and sec. lxviii, "De adulteriis," ibid., p. 95.

[90] The Lex Bajuwariorum, near the end of the eighth century, likewise admits divorce only for the one cause: Geffcken, op. cit., 46.

[91] Lex Visig., lib. iii, tit. iv, c. 3; tit. v, c. 5; tit. vi, c. 2. For sodomy or for forcing her to adultery, the wife may put away the husband and marry again. Cf. Geffcken, op. cit., 38-40; Glasson, op. cit., 187. There is a similar provision in the Longobard code: Geffcken, op. cit., 41. As a general rule, the woman is not allowed one-sided divorce; indeed, for attempting such a separation, the Lex Burgund., tit. xxxiv, c. 1, prescribes the death penalty: cf. Freisen, op. cit., 780, who holds that the woman cannot by German law have the right of one-sided divorce, because she cannot dissolve the mund which belongs solely to the man; and he contends against Sohm, Schroeder, and Loening that when the woman, as in exceptional cases cited, has the right of separating, it is not she who dissolves the marriage, but the law indirectly by depriving the man of the mund.

[92] So by the Burgundian, West Gothic, and Longobard laws: Geffcken, op. cit., 35, 39, 41.

[93] C. 6 of the laws of the Longobard Grimoald appended to the Edictus Rothari in 668, after acceptance of orthodox Catholicism, permits the wife not guilty of a culpa legitima to leave the husband who keeps permanently in the house a concubine whom he prefers to the wife. It may be noted that occasional fornication is not mentioned; and that c. 8 of the law assumes as a rule that there will be a reconciliation: Geffcken, op. cit., 41, 42. Cf. Freisen, op. cit., 780, who holds that, according to c. 8 of the Lex Grimoald., bigamy does not allow the wife a divorce.

[94] Esmein, Le mariage en droit canonique, II, 59; Freisen, op. cit., 782; Luckock, Hist. of Marriage, 154-72.

[95] On Gregory's two decisions see Esmein, op. cit., II, 59, 60; and Freisen, op. cit., 331 ff., 782, who tries to explain away the contradiction, claiming that here is a case of declaring a marriage void ab initio. Cf. Perrone, De mat. christ., III, 332 ff.; Loening, Geschichte des deut. Kirchenrechts, II, 623.

[96] Esmein, op. cit., II, 57, 58.

[97] Ibid., 57; Freisen, op. cit., 781.

[98] Decret. Grat., c. 1 C. 33 qu. 2. Cf. Freisen, op. cit., 781; Esmein, op. cit., II, 57.

[99] The statements of the text are probably sustained by Æthelberht, 31, 77-83: in Haddan and Stubbs, Councils, III, 45, 49; Thorpe, Anc. Laws, I, 11, 33, taking into account the usual effects of wife-purchase. Cf. however, Jeaffreson, Brides and Bridals, II, 294-98, who holds that among the pagan Britons and Anglo-Saxons divorce may be described as "simple repudiation of wives at the will of their masters." In the tenth century, he adds, Howell Dha, sovereign of Wales, "decreed that a husband might righteously eject from his home the wife who had given a single kiss to any man but himself." See also Glasson, Le mariage et le divorce, 195, whose references to the laws of Æthelberht do not seem to warrant all his conclusions; also his Histoire du droit, I, 120; and Pollock and Maitland, Hist. of Eng. Law, II, 390. In general see Rosenthal, Rechtsfolgen des Ehebruchs, 55 ff.

[100] Haddan and Stubbs, op. cit., III, 118. Esmein, op. cit., II, 57, regards the last clause as merely advising the man not to marry again; and Freisen, op. cit., 782, thinks it not quite certain that it applies to the case of separation for adultery. Cf. also Luckock, Hist. of Marriage, 167-69; and Cigoi, Unauflös. der ch. Ehe, 79.

[101] Law of Northumbrian Priests, secs. 35, 64, 65: Thorpe, Anc. Laws, II, 296, 300. Cf. Luckock, op. cit., 170, 171; Johnson, Canons, I, 950, 35, 54.

[102] Johnson, op. cit., I, 963, 27.

[103] Ibid., 1009, 8.

[104] The ecclesiastical laws of Howell the Good of Wales (928) show more clearly, perhaps, than is done anywhere else the way in which the church was often constrained to put up with barbarian custom. One-sided divorce with remarriage is allowed each party, under penalty for repudiation without legal cause. If the husband desert the wife within seven years, he must pay her the dower (agweddi), the maiden-fee (cowyll), and the maiden-dues (gobyr) for the lord. "If after seven years, he leave her; let all be shared between them, unless privilege should give precedence to the husband: two parts of the children go to the husband, and the third to the mother. The eldest and the youngest go to the father." "A man is free to forsake his wife, if she notoriously attach herself to another man; and she is to obtain nothing of her right excepting the three things [cowyll, argyvren (paraphernalia), wyneb-werth (fine for husband's fornication)] which are not to be taken from a woman, and the seducer is to pay to the lawful husband his saraad," or injury fine. "If a man deserts his wife unlawfully and takes another; the rejected wife is to remain in her house until the end of the ninth day; and then, if she be suffered to depart entirely from her husband, everything belonging to her is to go in the first place out of the house; and then she is to go last out of the house, after all her property; after that, on bringing the other into the house, he is to give dilysdawd (assurance) to the first wife; because no man, by law, is to have two wives." "Whoever shall leave his wife, and shall repent leaving her, she having been given to another husband; if the first husband overtake her with one foot in the bed and the other out; the first husband by law is to have her." "For three causes, if a woman desert her husband, she is not to lose her dower: for leprosy; want of connection; and bad breath."—Haddan and Stubbs, Councils, I, 246-51.

[105] Geffcken, op. cit., 45, who gives, 44-46, 52-55, an interesting discussion of the reasons for the absence of divorce regulations during the Merovingian era.

[106] Esmein, op. cit., II, 58, 64; Geffcken, op. cit., 55.

[107] The dates are uncertain. In general, on these synods see Freisen, op. cit., 782-84; Geffcken, op. cit., 55-57; and especially Esmein, op. cit., II, 64-69; who gives a clear summary of their decrees. Cf. Perrone, De mat. christ., III, 332, 338 ff.

[108] Esmein, op. cit., II, 69.

[109] C. ix of the decree runs: "Si quis necessitate inevitabili cogente in alium ducatum seu provinciam fugerit, aut seniorem suum, cui fidem mentiri non poterit, secutus fuerit, et uxor ejus, cum valet et potest, amore parentum aut rebus suis, eum sequi noluerit, ipsa omni tempore, quamdiu vir ejus, quem secuta non fuerit, vivet, semper innupta permaneat. Nam ille vir ejus ... si se abstinere non potest, aliam uxorem cum poenitentia potest accipere." Cf. Esmein, op. cit., II, 66, note. In contrast with this decision, the Synod of Compiègne forbids both parties to remarry when the husband abandons his wife in order to escape private vengeance: ibid., 66.

[110] Esmein, op. cit., II, 68; I, 325: ap. c. vi, decree of Verberie. Cf. also Freisen, op. cit., 788; and Cigoi, Unauflös. der ch. Ehe., 74, who regards this synod more as an imperial diet than an ecclesiastical assembly, and so excuses its action. Cf. Hefele, Konzilien-Geschichte, III, 537.

[111] Esmein, op. cit., II, 65.

[112] These decrees are for the most part included in the collection of Gratian; "mais il se fera tout un travail pour les mettre d'accord avec la règle triomphante de l'indissolubilité; elles contribueront néanmoins à introduire, dissimulées sous la forme de nullités, de véritables exceptions à cette règle."—Esmein, op. cit., II, 69.

[113] Ibid., 66, 67.

[114] Cf. Geffcken, Ehescheidung, 57-62; Freisen, Geschichte des can. Eherechts, 792 ff.

[115] The Poenitentiale Theodori is contained in Haddan and Stubbs, Councils, III, 173-213; also that of Ecgberht, ibid., III, 413-31. Versions of these may be found in Thorpe, Ancient Laws, II, 1 ff., 129 ff.; also with many others in Wasserschleben, Bussordnungen; and in Schmitz, Bussbücher, 510 ff., 565 ff., who, contrary to the generally accepted view, traces (3 ff.) all the penitentials to Roman models. In general, see Geffcken, op. cit., 61-67; Freisen, op. cit., 785-92; Esmein, op. cit., II, 60-64; Perrone, De mat. christ., III, 374 ff.; Hinschius, "Das Ehescheidungsrecht nach den angelsächsischen und fränkischen Bussordnungen," Zeitsch. für deut. Recht, XX, 66 ff.; Rosenthal, Rechtsfolgen des Ehebruchs, 2 ff.; and especially Bennecke, Ehebruch, 34 ff. Luckock, Hist. of Marriage, 165-67, tries, of course, to take away the authenticity of Theodore's Penitential.

[116] Poenitentiale Theod., II, xii, 5, 6: Haddan and Stubbs, Councils, III, 199: cf. Thorpe, Anc. Laws, II, 17. For similar provisions, see Poenitentiale XXXV Capitulorum, c. 9, § 1: Wasserschleben, Bussordnungen, 511; and the Excerptiones Ecgberti, c. 121: Thorpe, op. cit., II, 114, 115.

[117] "Si mulier discesserit a viro suo despiciens eum, nolens revertere et reconciliari vero, post v. annos cum consensu Episcopi aliam accipere licebit uxorem."—Poenit. Theod., II, xii, 19: Haddan and Stubbs, op. cit., III, 200. The Poenit. Merseburgense, c. 104: Wasserschleben, op. cit., 402, seems to allow the man in such case to marry after one year: "Si mulier a viro discesserit et iterum reversa fuerit, suscipiat eam sine dote et ipsa ann. I poeniteat in p. e. a., similiter et ille, si aliam duxerit."—Hinschius, Das Ehescheidungsrecht, 80; but Geffcken thinks the second wife must be sent away when the first wife returns, the man doing penance: Ehescheidung, 63, 64. Cf. similar provisions in Poenit. Cummeani, c. 3, § 31, Poenit. XXXV Cap., c. 9, § 2: Wasserschleben, op. cit., 474, 511; and Poenit. Theod., I, xiv, 13: Haddan and Stubbs, op. cit., III, 188.

[118] Poenit. Theod., II, xii, 8: Haddan and Stubbs, op. cit., III, 199.

[119] In that case, "licet aliam accipere; melius est sic facere quam fornicationes": Poenit. Theod., II, xii, 23: Haddan and Stubbs, op. cit., III, 200, 201; cf. Thorpe, op. cit., II, 19.

[120] Poenit. Theod., II, xii, 17, 18: Haddan and Stubbs, op. cit., III, 200.

[121] Poenit. Theod., II, xii, 32, xiii, 5: Haddan and Stubbs, op. cit., III, 201, 202; cf. Esmein, Le mariage en droit canonique, II, 64.

[122] Poenit. Theod., II, xiii, 4: Haddan and Stubbs, op. cit., III, 202.

These provisions (notes 4 and 5) are similar to those of the synods of Verberie and Compiègne relating to error conditionis and loss of freedom. See p. 42, above; and Esmein, op. cit., I, 325; II, 68.

[123] "Legitimum conjugium non licet frangi sine consensu amborum."—Poenit. Theod., II, xii, 7: Haddan and Stubbs, op. cit., III, 199. Cf. Poenit. Mers., c. 123, Poenit. XXXV Cap., c. 9, § 1: Wasserschleben, Bussordnungen, 403, 511. Sometimes in such case remarriage is forbidden: Judicium Clementis, § 15: Wasserschleben, op. cit., 435. Cf. Esmein op. cit., II, 61; Geffcken, op. cit., 64; Glasson, op. cit., I, 130, who favors the view of the text; but Freisen, op. cit., 779, 780, thinks that § 7 of Poenit. Theod. is supplemented by § 12, which forbids separation on account of infirmity or even to enter religion cum consensu ambrorum. This view may be favored by Excerptiones Ecgberti, c. 120, 121: Thorpe, op. cit., II, 114, 115.

[124] For an illustration see the Poenit. pseudo-Theod., c. iv (19), § 24, in Wasserschleben, op. cit., 582. The best account of the three classes of penitentials is that of Geffcken, op. cit., 62-65, which is here followed. See also Esmein, op. cit., II, 60; Bennecke, Ehebruch, 54 ff.

[125] During the empire a written form, the libellus repudii, or letter of divorce, came into use; but the delivery of the libellus was not essential to the divorce: Geffcken, op. cit., 27: ap. Schlesinger, in Zeitschrift für Rechtsgeschichte, V (1866), 203 ff.

[126] Geffcken, op. cit., 26, 27; Esmein, op. cit., II, 89.

[127] The libellus was copied from the Roman model. For an example, see above p. 35, note.

[128] Geffcken, op. cit., 47, referring to the formulae salicae Merkelianae, where the intention of the parties must be personally announced "an Gerichtsstätte vor dem Grafen und der Gerichtsgemeinde." His view, he declares, is intermediate between that of Loening, Geschichte des deut. Kirchenrechts, II, 627 n. 1, who regards the count and judicial community as mere witnesses of the transaction (Solennitätszeugen); and that of Sohm, Trauung und Verlobung, 7, who sees here a judicial sentence.

[129] Geffcken, op. cit., 48, 49.

[130] The church sought through excommunication and her system of penance to enforce her rules regarding divorce. Her relation to the state in this regard is thus forcibly described by Geffcken, op. cit., 51: "Da jedoch eine aufrichtige Busse in unserem Falle sinngemäss nur möglich ist, wenn die ungerechtfertigte Scheidung rückgängig gemacht wird, so operiert die Kirche hier mit einer lex plus quam perfecta, d. h. einem Gesetz, das die Zuwiderhandlung bestraft und gleichzeitig für nichtig erklärt, während dem weltlichen Richter nur eine lex minus quam perfecta zu Gebote steht, er also nur die Übertretung bestrafen, nicht aber den durch sie herbeigeführten Zustand redressieren kann. In dieser Sachlage ist die Erklärung der ganzen Geschichte des christlichen Ehescheidungsrechtes bis zum endgültigen Siege der kirchlichen Doktrin enthalten."

[131] C. 25, Council of Agde reads: "Saeculares, qui coniugale consortium nulla graviori culpa dimittunt vel etiam dimiserunt et nullas causas discidii probabiliter proponentes propterea sua matrimonia dimittunt, ut aut illicita aut aliena praesumant, si antequam apud episcopos comprovinciales discidii causas dixerint et priusquam iudicio damnentur, uxores suas abiecerint, a communione ecclesiae et sancto populi coetu pro eo, quod fidem et coniugia maculant, excludentur." Cf. Geffcken, op. cit., 50; Freisen, op. cit., 781.

[132] It is preferably cited by Hincmar of Rheims in his decree concerning the divorce of Lothar and Teutberge; and since Regino of Prüm it belongs to the standing armor of the canonists, until it receives its immortalization in the decree of Gratian (c. 33, qu. 2, c. 1): Geffcken, op. cit., 52, note.

[133] Geffcken, op. cit., 52. Cf. on this decree and its use by the canonists Esmein, op. cit., II, 89, notes.

[134] "Wenn trotzdem die Zeit der Karolinger als diejenige Epoche zu bezeichnen ist, in welcher die Kirche den ihren endgültigen Sieg im Kampfe um das Ehescheidungsrecht besiegelnden Fortschritt machte, so wird dieser Fortschritt weniger auf dem Gebiete des materiellen Rechtes als auf demjenigen des Ehescheidungsverfahrens gesucht werden müssen."—Geffcken, op. cit., 68.

Geffcken criticises Sdralek, Hincmars Gutachten über die Ehescheidung des Königs Lothar II., 108 ff., who holds that the Frankish civil court has full authority to decree divorces. According to Sohm, "Die geistliche Gerichtbarkeit im fränk. Reich," ZKR., IX, 218, 242 ff., the Frankish matrimonial law is "temporal law, and receives its development through temporal custom and legislation." The canons are statutes for the spiritual and not for the temporal law; and only through the public lawgiver do they have any effect upon the legal principles governing marriage. "By virtue of public law marriage is subordinate to the state and not to the church." The spiritual law is no law for the temporal court; and in matrimonial causes the spiritual court is no court according to public law. There exists, in fact, in the Frankish empire no spiritual jurisdiction in the sense of public law. With this view Geffcken, op. cit., 68 n. 3, agrees; while rejecting as inconsistent therewith Sohm's later statement in ZKR., XVII, 179, that the judgment of the temporal as well as that of the spiritual court was necessary for a divorce. Compare Boehmer, Ehegesetze im Zeitalter Karls des Grossen, 108-16, who explains the contradictory enactments of the period as the result of the two systems of jurisprudence—the temporal and the spiritual.

[135] See the remarkable capitulary of Lothar I., 825. For the correction of all sins and crimes (quibuslibet culpis atque criminibus) the count is associated with the bishop. When excommunication fails to correct the offender, "a comite vinculis constringatur": quoted by Geffcken, op. cit., 72; cf. Esmein, op. cit., I, 13, 14.

[136] Geffcken, op. cit., 74.

[137] See Geffcken's argument based on the Libri duo de synodalibus causis et disciplinis ecclesiasticis of Regino, abbot of Prüm (883-915): op. cit., 77-79. In England under King Cnut the bishop already appears to have had jurisdiction in divorce cases, although not until more than a century later was the matrimonial jurisdiction of the English ecclesiastical courts fully established: Pollock and Maitland, Hist. of Eng. Law, II, 364, 365.