A History of Matrimonial Institutions, Vol. 2 of 3

by George Elliott Howard

[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.