[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.