Index of Legal Citations

D. 51 c. 5, 252

D. 54 c. 20, 353

D. 56 d.p.c. ι, 248

D. 56 c. 3-8, 248

D. 56 c. 4, 249

D. 56 d.p.e. 9, 306

D. 56 d.p.c. 13, 248-49,

252

D- 74 c. 7, 355

D. 81 c. 1, 252

D. 81 c. 10, 252

D. 81 c. 11, 252

D. 81 c. 12, 317, 404

D. 81 c. 15, 404

D. 81 c. 20-21, 251

D. 81 c. 28, 392

D. 81 c. 30, 252, 317

D. 82 c. 2, 251

D. 82 c. 5, 305, 317

D. 83 c. 1, 251

D. 86 c. 7, 393

D. 89d.p.c. 5, 303

D. 90 c. 2, 393

D. 92 c- 7> 355

C. 1 q. 1 c. 27, 393

C. 1 q. 1 c. 54, 353

C. 1 q. 1 c. 101, 271

C. 1 q. 7 d.a.c. 6, 243, 289

C. 1 q. 7 c. 14-17, 243

C. 2 q. 1 pr., 305

C. 2 q. 1 c. 13, 321

C. 2 q. 3, 320

C. 2 q. 3d.p.c. 7, 307, 310,

374

C. 2 q. 3 d.p.c. 8, 313

C. 2 q. 4 c. 1, 253

C. 2 q. 5 d.a.c. 22, 253

C. 2 q. 5 c. 24, 253

C. 2 q. 5 c. 25, 253, 319

C. 2 q. 5d.p.c. 26, 253

C. 2 q. 6, 322

C. 2 q. 7 c. 38, 321

C. 2 q. 8 pr., 321

C. 3 q. 2 c. 4, 252

^c∙ 3 q∙ 4> 32θ

C. 3 q. 4 c. 4, 253, 275, 277

C- 3 q∙ 5 C- 9> 253

C. 3 q. 5 c∙ 12, 253

C- 3q- 7d∙p∙c∙ 1. 253

C. 3 q. 10 c. 3, 320

C. 3 q. 11 pr., 322

C. 3q. 11 d.p.c. 3, 247,

322

C. 4 q. 1 c. 1, 249

C. 4 q. 2 & 3 c. 3, 322, 412

C. 4 q. 3 c. 3, 249

C. 4 q. 6 pr., 320

C. 4 q. 6 c. 2, 359

C. 6 q. 1 pr., 394

C. 6 q. 1 c. 15-19, 253

C. 7 q. 1 d.p.c. 18, 304

C. 7 q. 2 c. 29, 322

C. 11 q. 3 c. 14, 401

C. 11 q. 3 c. 23, 368

C. 11 q. 3 c. 103, 368

C. 12 q. 1 c. 18, 301

C. 12 q. 2 d.p.c. 58, 386

C- 14 q- 5 P^r-> 3^o9> 393

c. 14 q∙ 5 c- 7> 309

C. 14 q. 6 c. 4, 247

C. 15 q. 1 pr., 246, 301

C. 15 q. 1, 301

C. 15 q. 1 d.ρ.e. 2, 246

C. 15 q. ιd.ρ.c. 3, 313

C- 15 q∙ 3. 322

C- 15 q- 3 c. ^lz> 253

C. 15 q∙ 7PΓ∙, 320

C. 15 q. 8 c. 1, 381

C. 15 q∙ 8 c. 3, 252, 475,

481

C. 16 q. 1 c. 66, 394

C. 17 q. 4 c. 12, 305

C. 20 q. 1 pr., 358

C. 20 q. 3, 275

C. 22 q. 4 d.a.c. 19, 307

C. 22 q. 4 c. 21, 247, 307

C. 22 q. 5 c. 1, 311

C. 22 q. 5 c. 11, 520

C. 23 q. 1 d.ρ.c. 2, 238

C. 23 q. 2 c. 25, 290

C. 23 q. 5 c. 6, 307

C. 23 q. 5c. 23, 411

C- 23 q. 5 c. 40, 248

C. 24 q. 1 c. 24, 401

C. 24 q. 1 c. 28, 350

C. 25 q. 1 d.p.c. 16, 254

C. 27 q. 1, 288, 352

C. 27 q. 1 pr., 263, 266, 290, 31θ

C. 27 q, 1 c. 2, 350

C. 27 q. 1 c. 4, 246, 301, 304, 316, 322, 413-14

C. 27 q. 1 c. 5, 316, 372

C. 27 q. 1 c. 9, 304, 316

C. 27 q. 1 c. 10, 380

C. 27 q. 1 c. 20, 247, 366

C. 27 q. 1 c. 21, 252, 316

C. 27 q. 1 c. 23, 252

C. 27 q. 1 c. 24, 252, 405

C. 27 q. 1 c. 25, 252

C. 27 q. 1 c. 27-30, 252

C. 27 q. 1 c. 29, 322

C. 27 q. 1 c. 34-35, 252

C. 27 q. 1 c. 37, 252

C. 27 q. 1 c. 40, 252

C. 27 q. 1 d.p.c. 40, 252, 4⁰3

C. 27 q. 1 c. 41, 272, 285-86, 308, 316, 35¹~5²> 387. 390

C. 27 q. 1 c. 42, 316

C. 27 q. 1 d.p.c. 43, 238

C, 27 q. 2, 236, 263, 275, 282, 353, 360, 363, 373, 396, 413, 453

C. 27 q. 2 pr., 263, 265-66, 268, 270-71, 273-74, 280-89, 296, 305, 353-54, 387, 453

C. 27 q. 2 c. 1, 294

C. 27 q. 2 d.p.c. 1, 375

C. 27 q. 2 d.p.c. 2, 235

448

C. 27 q. 2 c. 3, 265, 274, 285, 354

C. 27 q. 2 c. 5, 263, 265, 280, 354, 361

C. 27 q. 2 c. 6, 274

C. 27 q. 2 c. 8, 278

C. 27 q. 2 c. 9, 274, 278, 282, 288

C. 27 q. 2 c. 10, 268, 270-71, 273-74, 282, 288, 364, 367, 448

C. 27 q. 2 d.p.c. 10, 267

C. 27 q. 2C. 11, 355

C. 27 q. 2 c. 13, 296

C. 27 q. 2 c. 14, 267

C. 27 q. 2 c. 16, 237, 263, 268, 271

C. 27 q. 2 c. 17, 237, 263, 266, 297

C. 27 q. 2 c. 18, 237

C. 27 q. 2 d.p.c. 18, 236

C. 27 q. 2 c. 19, 296, 3°¹

C. 27 q. 2 c. 19-26, 236,

296

C. 27 q. 2 c. 21, 382

Decretum Gratiani (cont.)

C. 27 q. 2 c. 24, 242, 382

C. 27 q. 2 c. 25, 290

C. 27 q. 2 c. 26, 307, 373

C. 27 q. 2 d.p.c. 26, 236, 241, 296

C. 27 q. 2 d.p.c. 28, 236, 241, 291

C. 27 q. 2 c. 29, 265, 318-19, 322

C. 27 q. 2 d.p.c. 29, 235-3θ, 274, 318

C. 27 q. 2 c. 30, 236, 289

C. 27 q. 2 c. 31, 236, 289, 3°4

C. 27 q. 2 c. 32, 236

C. 27 q. 2 d.p.c. 32, 236, 244

C. 27 q. 2 c. 33, 236, 250, 263

C. 27 q. 2 c. 34, 236, 250, 263. 296

C. 27 q. 2 d.p.c. 34, 236

C. 27 q. 2 c. 35, 265

C. 27 q. 2 c. 36, 274

C. 27 q. 2 d.p.c. 39, 236, 265, 274

C. 27 q. 2 c. 42, 353

C. 27 q. 2 d.p.c. 45, 235, 250, 268

C. 27 q. 2 c. 46-47, 250

C. 27 q. 2 d.p.c. 47, 249-50

C. 27 q. 2 c. 48, 249

C. 27 q. 2 c. 49, 249, 312

C. 27 q. 2d.p.c. 49, 249

C. 27 q. 2 c. 50, 263, 267, 305

C. 27 q. 2 c. 51, 274

C. 28 pr., 361

C. 28 q. 1, 267, 380

C. 28 q. 1 c. 4, 304, 372

C. 28 q. 1 c. 5, 246, 304­

305. 372

C. 28 q. 1 c. 9, 285, 350, 399

C. 28 q. 1 c. 15, 282

C. 28 q. 1 c. 15-17, 238

C. 28 q. 1 d.a.c. 15, 238

C. 28 q. 1 d.p.c. 17, 238-39, 245

C. 28 q. 2, 298

C. 28 q. 2 c. 1, 244

C. 28 q. 2 c. 2, 244, 373

C. 28 q. 2 d.p.c. 2, 244, 292> 373, 379

C. 29q.1 pr., 243-44, 305

C. 29 q. 2, 361

C. 29 q. 2 c. 4, 361, 382

C. 29 q. 2 c. 5, 361

C. 29 q. 3 d.p.c. 7, 303, 31°, 374

C. 29 q. 7pr., 321

C. 29 q. 8pr., 321

C. 30 q. 1 d.a.c. 1, 238

C. 30 q. 1 pr., 288, 294

C. 30 q. 1 c. 9, 252

C. 30 q. 2, 361

C. 30 q. 2 pr., 238, 243,

275, 288

C. 30 q. 2 c. 1, 353

C. 30 q. 4 c. 3, 299

C. 30 q∙ 5, 265,27θ, 363,

441

^c∙ 3° q∙ 5 P^r-> 265, 276,

288, 362—63, 441

c. 30 q- 5 c. 1, 278,354

C. 3° q∙ 5 c∙ 3, 352, 357, 5θ3

C- 30 q. 5 c. 4, 244, 276

C. 30 q. 5 c. 6, 239, 362

C- 30q.,5d∙P∙c. 8, 363

C- 39^,q- 5 c. 9, 279

C. 30 q. 5d.p.c. 9, 362,

441

C. 30 q. 5 d.a.c. 10, 239

C- 30 q. 5 c. 10, 276

C. 31 q. 1 pr., 273, 281,

295, 3°8, 35θ, 389

C. 31 q. 1 c. 1, 247, 384

C. 31 q. 1 c. 2, 247

C. 31 q. 1 d.p.e. 2, 238,

248

c. 31 q∙ 1 c. 3,247,3θ9

C. 31 q. 1 d.p.c. 3, 248

C. 31 q. 1 c. 4, 248, 389

C. 31 q. 1 c. 5, 248, 308

c. 31 q∙ 1 c. 7,305

C. 31 q. 1 d.p.c. 7, 238,

371

C. 31 q. 1 c. 8, 273, 318,

405

C. 31 q. 1 c. 9, 273, 304, 318, 37¹

C. 31 q. 1 c. 10, 245, 352,

386, 405

C. 31 q. 1 d.p.c. 10, 245

C. 31 q. 1 c. 11, 245, 266, 37θ

C. 31 q. 1 c. 12, 245

C. 31 q. 1 c. 13, 245, 376

C. 31 q. 2pr., 275, 354-55, 407

C. 31 q. 2 c. 1, 275, 397

C. 31 q. 2 c. 1-4, 238

C. 31 q. 2 d.p.c. 4, 238

C. 31 q. 2 c. 4, 384, 460

C. 31 q. 3pr., 275

C. 31 q. 4 c, 4, 308

^c∙ 32 q- 1, 3°7, 3^o9

C. 32 q. 1 pr., 309-10

C. 32 q. 1 c. 1, 249, 309

C. 32 q. 1 c. 2, 249, 321, 410

C. 32 q∙ 1 c. 3, 249, 307, 360, 385, 453

C. 32 q. 1 c. 4, 249, 295, 3¹⁰> 385> 412

C. 32 q. 1 c. 4—8, 247

c. 32 q∙ 1 C. 5, 388

C. 32 q. 1 c. 7, 241, 411

C. 32 q. 1 c. 10, 310

C. 32 q. 1 d.p.c. 10, 235, 241, 245, 247, 249, 305, 307, 320, 392, 410-11, 467

C. 32 q. 1 c. 11, 241, 280, 282, 284, 390

C. 32 q. 1 d.p.c. 11, 235

C. 32 q. 1 c. 12, 261, 351, 358, 405-406

C. 32 q. 1 d.p.c. 13, 249

C. 32 q. 1 d.a.c. 14, 249, 320

C. 32 q. 1 c. 14, 249

C. 32 q. 2 pr., 265, 272, 279, 35θ, 3⅛

C. 32 q. 2 c. 1, 448

C. 32 q. 2 d.p.c. 1, 240

C. 32 q. 2 c. 2, 240, 279, 358

C. 32 q. 2 d.p.c. 2, 240-41, 262, 280-82, 285-86, 295, 349, 352

C. 32 q. 2 c. 3, 240, 286, 295, 349- 3⁶4, 3θθ

C. 32 q. 2 d.p.c. 3, 240,271

C. 32 q. 2 c. 4, 271, 280, 282, 366

C. 32 q. 2 d.p.c. 4, 283

C. 32 q. 2 c. 5, 245

C. 32 q. 2 d.p.c. 5, 240 41

C. 32 q. 2 d.a.c. 6, 23g, 271

C. 32 q. 2 c. 6, 280, 353, 355> 35⁸, 3 3^ol> 3^o3> 44θ~47

C. 32 q. 2 c. 12, 245, 298, 300, 447

C. 32 q. 2 c. 13, 355

C. 32 q. 2 d.p.c. 16, 241

C. 32 q. 2 c. 22, 366

C. 32 q. 3 c. 8, 389

c. 32 q∙ 4,358,3⁶9

C. 32 q. 4 pr., 298, 306

c. 32 q∙ 4 e. 1, 245

C. 32 q. 4 c. 2, 305

c. 32 q∙ 4 c. 3> 3^o5, 348,

464

c. 32 q∙ 4 ^c∙ 4, 246-47, 295, 297, 301, 304, 306, 358, 3⅝, 381, 384, 386

C. 32 q. 4 c. 5, 241,

280-81, 285-87, 306, 366-67, 450, 452-53

C. 32 q. 4 c. 7, 240, 303,

SM, 359, 4⁰7

C. 32 q∙ 4 c∙ 9> 245> 249,

369

C. 32 q. 4 d.p.c. 10, 247,

305

C. 32 q. 4 c. 11, 246, 304- 305, 3°⁸, 39°, 445, 4θ3

C. 32 q. 4 c. 12, 241, 286,

299, 305, 35θ, 358, 381-82, 399, 424, 445,

452

C. 32 q. 4 c. 14, 241, 285-86, 358

C. 32 q∙ 5, 3θθ

C. 32 q∙ 5 P^r∙> 398

C. 32 q. 5 c. 1, 310, 387

C. 32 q. 5 c. 1-10, 250

c. 32 q∙ 5 c- 3, 391, 39θ

C. 32 q. 5 c. 4, 306, 387,

397

C. 32 q. 5 c. 6, 397 c. 32 q∙ 5 ^c∙ 9,385

C. 32 q. 5 c. 11, 246, 349, 3θ7, 398

C- 32 q. 5 c. 12, 246, 301, 35⁰> 55°

C. 32 q∙ 5 c. 13, 246, 385

c. 32 q. 5 d∙P∙C. 13, 250

C. 32 q. 5 c. 14, 247, 250, 348

C. 32 q. 5d.p.c. 14, 247,

250

c. 32 q∙ 5 c. 15, 246, 247,

387

C. 32 q. 5 c. 16, 247, 284,

455

C. 32 q. 5 d.p.c. 16, 239,

244

C. 32 q. 5 c. 18, 292, 430

C. 32 q. 5 c. 18-22, 244

C. 32 q∙ 5 c- 21, 445

C. 32 q. 5 d.p.c. 22, 247

C. 32 q∙ 5 C. 23, 247, 306, 386, 409

C. 32 q. 6, 295, 321

C. 32 q. 6 pr., 247, 284,

410

C. 32 q. 6 c. 1, 244, 292,

411

C. 32 q. 6 c. 2, 359

C. 32 q. 6 c. 4, 247, 284, 306, 462

C. 32 q. 6 c. 5, 247, 462

C. 32 q. 6 d.p.c. 5, 244

C. 32 q. 7, 294, 306

C. 32 q∙ 7 c. 1, 307, 371

C. 32 q. 7 c. 1-10, 244

C. 32 q. 7 c. 2, 373

C. 32 q∙ 7 c. 3, 411, 455

C. 32 q. 7 c. 6, 385

C. 32 q. 7 c. 7, 367, 377,

4∞, 455, 534

C. 32 q. 7 c. 10, 244, 305, 505

C. 32 q. 7 d.p.c. 10, 241, 247, 305, 534

C. 32 q. 7 c. 11, 247, 400

C. 32 q. 7 c. 12, 241, 251, 313, 421-22

C. 32 q∙ 7 c. 13, 241, 251, 313, 387, 399-400

C. 32 q. 7 c. 14, 241, 251, 280, 367, 399

C. 32 q. 7 c. 15, 246, 304,

519

C. 32 q. 7 c. 16, 246, 305,

306, 388

C. 32 q. 7 d.p.c. 16, 244

C. 32 q. 7 c. 17, 284, 372

C. 32 q. 7 c. 18, 265, 284,

292, 372-73, 389

C. 32 q. 7 d.p.c. 18, 244

C. 32 q. 7 d.a.c. 19, 307

C. 32 q. 7 c. 19, 412

C. 32 q. 7 c. 21, 356

C. 32 q. 7 c. 22, 294, 308

C. 32 q. 7 c. 23, 294, 388

C. 32 q. 7 d.p.c. 24, 381

C. 32 q. 7 c. 25, 292, 377

C. 32 q. 7 c. 27, 238, 247,

288, 294, 306, 352, 377 C. 32 q. 7 c. 28, 375 C. 32 q. 8 pr., 238 C. 32 q. 8 c. 1, 361 c. 33 q∙ 1, 372> 380 c. 33 q∙ 1 P^r∙, 288, 290-91,

372, 377

C. 33 q. 1 c. 2, 377, 483

C. 33 q. 1 d.p.c, 3, 243,

353

C. 33 q. 1 c. 4, 377-78

C- 33 q∙ 1 c. 5, 372

C. 33 q. 1 d.p.c. 10, 321

C. 33 q∙ 2, 388, 454

C. 33 q. 2 pr., 289, 294-95

C. 33 q. 2 c. 1, 372, 410

C. 33 q. 2 c. 2, 289,

37¹~72

C. 33 q. 2 c. 3, 359

C. 33 q. 2 c. 4, 411

C. 33 q. 2 c. 5, 307

C. 33 q. 2 c. 6, 388

C. 33 q. 2 c. 8, 388

C. 33 q. 2 c. 9, 248

C. 33 q. 2d.p.c. 9, 294

D. 1 de pen. c. 6, 250

D. 1 de pen. c. 12, 246

D. 1 de pen. c. 15, 251

D. 1 de pen. d.p.c. 18, 250

C. 33 q. 4, 242, 284

C. 33 q∙ 4 P^r∙> 283-85, 368

C. 33 q. 4 c. 1, 242, 366

C. 33 q∙ 4 c. 7, 246, 282,

3⁶4, 3θθ

C- 33 q∙ 4 c. 8-11, 242

C. 33 q. 4 c. 10, 284

C. 33 q. 4 d.p.c. 11, 242

C. 33 q. 4 c. 13, 242

4.13.1, 374, 382

¹¹ On the other hand, sexual practices that many Westerners regard as “natural” some­times strike members of other cultures as horrid, disgusting, and perverse. Thus in the 1950s, for example, a married woman complained to the Ndola Urban Court in Zambia that her husband was a sexual pervert; she also feared that his weird sexual practices might be a method of casting a spell on her. Upon examination of the facts it appeared that the husband’s perversion consisted in his attempting to kiss and suck his wife’s breasts as a preliminary to intercourse. The elders of the court agreed that this was un­

⁶⁷Paul Gide, “De la condition de Γenfant naturel et de la concubine dans la legislation romaine,” published as an appendix to his Etude sur la condition privee de Iafemme dans Ie droit ancien et moderne et en particulier sur Ie senatus-consulte Velleien, 2d ed. by Adhemar Esmein (Paris: L. Larone et Forcel, 1885), pp. 564-65; Henri Leclercq, “Concubinat,” in Dictionnaire d’archeologie chretienne et de Iiturgie, ed. F. Cabrol et al., 15 vols. (Paris: Letouzey et Ane, 1907-53; cited hereafter as DACL) 38:2498; Paul

⁷⁷Herter, “Soziologie,” pp. 95-106; on the accomplishments expected from male harlots, see Cicero, In Catalinam 2.10.23. Some prostitutes clearly took pride in their professional standing and skills; see CIL 9:186 (no. 2029) and see also James N. Adams, The Latin Sexual Vocabulary (London: Duckworth, 1982), p. 194. It is not likely that many ancient contraceptive practices had much practical value in avoiding pregnancy; for descriptions of some of the methods prescribed in antiquity see John T. Noonan, Jr.,

⁸⁹The classical period of Roman law is usually deemed to run from the reign of Au­gustus (27 B.c.-A.D. 14) to the reign of Alexander Severus (a.d. 222-35). θⁿ its charac­teristics and major figures see Fritz Schulz, History of Roman Legal Science (Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1946), pp. 99-101; H.F. Jolowicz, Historical Introduction to the Study of Roman Law (Cambridge: At the University Press, 1932), p. 6; Roscoe Pound, The Lawyerfrom Antiquity to Modern Times, with Particular Reference to the Develop­ment of Bar Associations in the United States (St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co., 1953), p. 46; Joseph C. Smith, “The Sword and Shield of Perseus: Some Mythological Dimen­sions of the Law,” typescript of paper presented to the Faculty of Law of the University of British Columbia, 11 December 1983, p. 23. On class stratification and sexuality see

⁹⁴Dig. 48.5.35(34) pr., 1: “Stuprum committit, qui liberam mulierem consuetudinis causa, non matrimonii continet, excepta videlicet concubina. Adulterium in nupta ad­

¹²⁷Scholars have disagreed for nearly a century over the question of whether or not some portions of Ulpians statement about marital consent in Dig. 24.1.32.13 may have been interpolated by Justinian’s codifiers in the sixth century. Scc B. Kiibler, “Emenda- tionen des Pandektentextes,” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftungfilr Rechtsgeschichte, ro- manistische Abteilung (cited hereafter as ZRC, RA) 11 (1890) 49; Wolff, Written and Un­written Marriages, pp. 93-94, 98; Franco Edoardo Adami, " Precizazione in tema di consenso matrimoniale nel pensiero patristico,” Il diritto ecclessiastico 76 (1965) 211-12; Riccardo Orestano, La Struttura giuridica del matrimonio romano dal diritto classico al diritto giustinianeo (Milan: A. Giuffre, 1951), pp. 187-88; Gian Carlo Caselli, “Con­cubina pro uxore: Osservazioni in merito al C. 17 del primo concilio di Toledo,” Rivista di storia del diritto italiano 37/38 (1964/65) 173; Volterra, Conception, p. 43; Emilio

¹⁷⁷Percy Elwood Corbett, “Matrimonium iuris gentium,” LQR 44 (1928) 309—10; Joseph Freisen, Geschichte des kanonischen Fherechts bis mm Verfall der Glossen-

^2βS. Legasse, “Jesus et les prostituees,” Revue theologique de Louvain 7 (1976)

⁴¹Matt. 19:3-6; Willy Rordorf, “Marriage in the New Testament and in the Early

¹⁵⁴Council of Gangra (before 341) c. 13, in Mansi 2:1101; of. Deut. 22:5; JoAnn

²⁰⁶Nov. 14 pr.: “Agnovimus enim quosdam vivere quidem illicite, ex causis autem crudelibus et odiosis occasionem sibimet nefandorum invenire lucrorum, et circuire pro­vincias et loca plurima et iuvenculas miserandas decipere promittentes calciamcnta et vestimenta quaedam, et his venari eas et deducere ad hanc felicissimam civitatem et habere constitutas in suis habitationibus et cibum eis miserandum dare et vestem et deinceps tradere ad luxuriam eas volentibus, et omnem quaestum miserabilem ex cor­pore earum accedentem ipsos accipere et celebrare conscriptiones, quia usque ad tem­pus, quod eis placuerit, observabunt impiam et scelerem hanc functionem implentes;

⁹Rudolf Kostler₁ “Raub-, Kauf- mid Friedelehe bei den Germanen₁ ” ZRG₁ Ger- manistische AbteiIung [hereafter GA] 63 (1943) 95-98; Brunner, “Die frankish-ro- manische Dos,” in Abhandlungen zur Rechtsgeschichte 2:91; Christian GeIlinek₁ “Mar­riage by Consent in Literary Sources of Medieval Germany,” Studia Gratiana 12 (1967) 559; WempIe₁ Women in Frankish Society, pp. 12₁ 35; Baumann, Zivilrechtliche Be- deutung, p. 17; Burge, Comparative Law, pp. 10-11. Bride purchase was also common in Polish and other non-Germanic folklaw during the early middle ages; Marian Zurow- ski₁ “Einfliisse des kanonischen Rechts auf das urspriiungliche polnische Eherecht,” Oesterreichisches Archivfur Kirchenrecht 25 (1974) 354; Sir Henry Maine, Lectures on

¹⁶Pact. leg. Sal. 13.11, in MGH₁ LL nat. germ. 4/1:62-63; Leg. Visig. 4.1.1-7₁ in MGH₁ LL nat. germ. 1:171-73; Codex Euriciani 2, in MGH₁ LL 1:28; Wemple₁ Women in Frankish Society, p. 36; P.D. King, Law and Society in the Visigothic King­dom, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 3d ser., vol. 5 (Cambridge: At the University Press, 1972)₁ p. 233; and see generally John H. Fowler₁ “The Develop­

³The label comes from the title of an immensely influential book by Charles Homer Haskins, The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927; repr. New York: Meridian Books, 1958). See also the volume commemo­

⁶The scanty evidence for Pepo’s career is analyzed by Hermann Kantorowicz and Beryl Smalley, “An English Theologian’s View of Roman Law: Pepo, Irnerius, Ralph Niger,” Medieval and Renaissance Studies 1 (1941; appeared 1943) 237-52, reprinted in Kantorowiczs Rechtshistorische Schriften, ed. Helmut Coing and Gerhard Immel, Freiburger Rechts- und Staatswissenschaftliche Abhandlungen, vol. 30 (Karlsruhe: C. F. Muller, 1970), pp. 231-44. Hastings Rashdall, The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages, 2d ed. by F. M. Powicke and A. B. Emden, 3 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1936) 1:111-12, credits Pepo with inaugurating the teaching of law at Bologna, but for this there is no sound evidence. See also Giorgio Cencetti, “ Studiumfuit Bononie: note sulla storia delΓUniversita di Bologna nel primo mezzo secolo della sua esistenza,” Studi me­dieval! 7 (1966) 795-96; Giovanni Santini, “La contessa Matilde, Io â€?studium e Bologna, â€?Citti aperta’ dell’XI secolo,” in Studi Matildici: Atti e memorie del II Convegno di Studi Matildici, Modena-Reggio E., 1-4 maggio 1970, Deputazione di Storia Patria per Ie

⁷⁹Burehard, Decretum 9.78 (= Ivo, Decretum 8.204), ⅛ PL 140:830. Examples in the Holy Land are mentioned by Fuleher of Chartres, Historia Hierosolymitana 3.37.4, ed. Heinrich Hagenmeyer (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1913), p. 748; Pierre Tudebode, Historia de Hierosolymitano itinere, ed. John Hugh Hill and Laurita L. Hill, Docu­

⁸⁸Burchard, Decretum 9.24 (= Ivo, Decretum 8.162), in PL 140:819; Ivo, Decretum

¹³³Burchard, Decretum 9.45 (= Ivo, Decretum 8.183), 9.46(= Ivo, Decretum 8.184, Panormia 6.82), 9.47 (= Ivo, Decretum 8.185 and 9.124), 9.47 (= Ivo, Decretum 8.185), 9.48 (= Ivo, Decretum 8.186, Panormia 6.84, and Coll. 74T 64.274), 9.49 (= Ivo, De-

¹⁴⁹Burchard, Decretum 9.68 (= Ivo, Decretum 8.205); 9∙7o; 17∙5, 13; 19∙5> *ⁿ PL 140: 826-27, 920, 922, 957-58, 966; Coll 5L 2.64, 71, 78, ed. Fornasari, pp. 217-18,

¹⁷³Burchard, Decretum 8.52 (= Ivo, Decretum 7.70), 9.32 (= Ivo, Decretum 8.170), 9.37 (= Ivo, Decretum 8.175), 9∙3^ (= Ivo, Decretum 8.176, Panormia 6.19), 9.39

²⁰²Peter Damian, Contra intemperantes clericos c. 4 (Rindel no. 112), in PL 145: 393-94: “Manus, quae deputatae fuerant ad ordinandas in coelestis mensae ferculo vi-

²¹⁵Burchard₁ Decretum 2.114, 2.148 (= Ivo₁ Decretum 5.59, 6.98, and 6.221, as well

⁴⁷C. 28 q. 1 d.p.c. 17 and C. 30 q. 5 d.a.c. 10; Alesandro, Gratians Notion, p. 85; Noonan, “Power to Choose,” p. 430; Decker, “Institutional Authority,” pp. 56-57₁ 61;

¹³Kuttner and Rathbone, “Anglo-Norman Canonists,” p. 293, as well as Kuttner₁ Re-

^2eHuguccio, Summa to D. 1 c. 7 v. viri et femine coniunctio, in Vat. Iat. 2280, fol. 2 va, and Weigand, Naturrechtslehre, p. 291: “Mihi tamen uidetur quod intelligatur de Coniunctione carnali matrimoniali, non fornicaria, eum ex iure naturali peccatum non

³⁰James A. Coriden, The Indissolubility Added to Christian Marriage by Consumma­

⁵⁸Notably the Questiones Cusanae, no. 18 and no. 33, written after the mid-1180s; see Gerard Fransen, “Les Quaestiones Cusanae-. questions disputees sur Ie mariage,”

⁸⁴Rolandus, Summa to C. 20 q. 3 and C. 31 q. 2, ed. Thaner, pp. 72-73, 157; Rufinus, Summa to C. 31 q. 2 pr., ed. Singer, p. 473; SP to C. 31 q. 2 c. 1 v. ne ignoran~

⁸⁹SP to C. 30 q. 5 ρr., ed. McLaughlin, p. 237; Rufinus, Summa to C. 30 q. 5 pr., ed. Singer, p. 468; Sicard of Cremona, Summa to C. 30 q. 5, B.L. MS Add. 18,367, fol.

¹¹²Huguccio, Summa to D. 5 c. 2 in Pembroke 72, fol. 119va: “Uoluptas id est delec­tatio que habeatur in coitu est culpa et peccatum; nunquam coitus coniugale potest exer-

¹¹⁴Rolandus, Summa to C. 27 pr., C. 28 q. 1 c. 15 v. ρrima Coniugiifides, ed. Thaner, pp. 114, 140-41; Rufinus, Summa to C. 27 q. 2 c. 9 v. a prima fide desponsationis, ed. Singer, p. 450; Simon of Bisignano, Summa to C. 27 q. 2 in B.L. MS Add. 24,659, fol. 29va-vb: “Item queritur si sponsa sponso debitum reddere compellatur, et dicemus eam non cogi ad soluendum debitum antequam fit, secus una caro effecta. Primo ergo coitus gratie est, non debiti.... A fide uero carnalis commixtionis debent sibi mutuam

^ll8IIuguccio, Summa to D. 5 c. 4 in Vat. Iat. 2280, fol. 6ra, and Pembroke 72, fol. 119vb: “Mulier ergo paciens menstrua, si uir exiget debitum revelet ei hic amodo; et si non exigit reuelet ut si illa tunc exigat ille neget; sic ergo in tali casu exigere est mortale

¹⁴⁹Peter Lombard had not taken a clear stance on this issue, but had urged caution in dealing with impotence situations and indicated his preference that couples who were unable to consummate their marriages not separate. He clearly ruled out remarriage for persons who separated on the grounds of sexual incapacity; Peter Lombard, Sententiae 4.34.2, Quaracchi ed., 2:954-55. Stephen of Tournai₁ who had refused to choose be­tween the French and Italian theories of marriage formation, also vacillated on the im­potence question. He noted that some people hold that marriages where one party is frigid or impotent were incomplete and could be dissolved. While he did not explicitly reject this solution, Stephen indicated his preference for a solution that was more com­patible with the consensual theory. Stephen’s preferred solution postulated that if, after exchanging consent, one party discovered that the other could not consummate the mar­riage, the first party was entitled to separate and remarry because the marriage had been contracted through an error of consent. Stephen, in other words, construed sexual capacity as an essential implied condition on which marital consent was premised. Thus there had been a failure to exchange true consent; the sexually capable party had ex­pected to get an equally capable partner and had consented to marriage on that basis. When the impotent party proved unable to perform sexually, the contract was null be­cause of failure to fulfill an essential condition of the bargain. Impotence furnished

¹⁸⁸Questiones Stuttgardienses in MS Add. 3321(2), fol. 30vb-31ra of the University Library, Cambridge [hereafter U.L.C.]: “luuenus quidam uxorem habens filiam cuius­dam de sacro fonte suscepit qui post susceptionem ex uxore sua filios generauit quos Compatris filiabus copulare studuit aut in eius uxor sorti mane postea accepta quandam concubinam et aliquanto interuallo tractato in domo propria retinere placuit. Quo mor­tuo eius compater superstes prefatam concubinam in matrimonium sibi collocare noluit. In hoc autem themate iii. questiones uidentur posse formari, quarum prima filii suscepti post Compaternitatem uel ante compatris filiabus copulari possint? Secunda questio est utrum concubinam eius derelictam Compatri in Coniugium ualeat accipere? Tertia questio est an extranei ad testificationem uel accusationem consanguineorum admittendi sunt.... Secunda questio de facile solui potest. Idem dicitur de concubina quam de uxore; si iste qui suscepit filium uel filiam alterius uiri de sacro fonte post susceptionem fuerit effectus una caro cum concubina sua, non potest eius compater superstes ducere in matrimonium....” Concubines sometimes tried to persuade their companions to regularize their relationship by a formal exchange of marriage vows. But this could also give rise to complex legal problems, particularly if the man later changed his mind and pleaded that his marital consent had been feigned, not real, as happened about 1181 in a

³⁰⁵Joannes Faventinus, Summa to C. 32 q. 1 c. 2 v. Calumpniam faceret, in B.L. Royal 9.E.VII, fol. 141vb: “Falso dicente uiro uxorem adulteram dimittere iubetur, sed

“Alexander occasionally inserted explicit notes declaring that he was trying some­thing new e.g., in X 4.4.3 (JL 14,091; WH 620): “[Qjuamvis alii aliter sentiant, et aliter etiam a quibusdam praedecessoribus nostris sit aliquando iudicatum....” Likewise in 1 Comp. 4.4.3(5), 4(6), and 5(7); see also Charles Donahue, Jr., “The Policy of Alexander

⁹⁴Although the second marriage was in theory null because it was bigamous, Alexan­der ruled as he did in order to prevent the husband from benefiting from his disobe­dience to the canons. The decretal also specified that the second wife could divorce the man, despite the fact that he could not divorce her. This part of the ruling was also in­consistent with the logic of established law, and evidently represented a further attempt by the pope to penalize the man for disobedience. Celestine III, in another decretal,

¹²⁷GZos. ord. to C. 32 q. 5 c. 11 v. aliam; Ecce vicit Ieo to C. 32 q. 2 c. 3 v. immod-

¹³³Backeljauw, “De uxoris statu sociali,” pp. 271-72. A classic literary expression of the myth of womans sexual voracity can be found in the poem “De coniuge non du­cenda,” attributed to Golias, esp. 11. 85-88, 145-65, in The Latin Poems Commonly At­tributed to Walter Mapes, ed. Thomas Wright (London: Camden Society, 1841; repr. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1968), pp. 80, 83. Guibert of Nogent, Self and Society 2.5,

¹⁸⁴GIoss to C. 30 q. 5 c. 3, in Caius 283/676, fol. 188ra: “Sed quod hic dicitur uerum est de quibusdam si defuit, ut est dos et instrumentum dotale inter modicis personas et pauperes; i.e. § sed obiicitur [C. 30 q. 5 d,p.c. 8] unde de hoc Ieuiter loquitur canon, D.

¹⁹⁰Glos. ord. to C. 32 q. 2 c. 3 v. Ab adulterio; Weigand, “Liebc und Ehe,” p. 54;

¹⁹⁴Gloss to C. 32 q. 2 pr, Caius 283/676, fol. 190vb: “Immo secundum Jo/annem de) Ti/nemuth) nullum est peccatum quia contrahere est bonum, uitare fornicacionem est bonum, ergo contrahere causa fornicationis uitande est bonum. Pari ratione et cog­

²⁸⁸For a striking instance in the field of matrimonial law see Regina v. Millis, [1843]

10 Clark and Finelley 534 at 655, 720, 8 English Reports 844 at 889, 913, where the House of Lords held that the presence of an ordained clergyman has been necessary for the formation of a valid marriage in England according to both common law and eccle­siastical law since the earliest times. This remarkable conclusion was affirmed in Beamish v. Beamish [1861], 9 House of Lords Cases 274 at 336, 11 Eng. Rep. 735 at 760. Another egregious example is the finding in the court of King’s Bench on 10 May 1727

³⁹⁹Thomas of Chobham, Summa 7.2.1.1, ed. Broomfield, p. 331; Robert of Flam­borough, Poenitentiale 4.224, 5.294, ed. Firth, pp. 196-97, 242. Maimonides, the most eminent Jewish moralist of the period, even held that masturbation was as serious an offense as murder, a view that no Christian writer at this time supported; Code 5.1.21.18, trans. Rabinowitzand Grossman, p. 137. Acenturylater, however, Christian moralists would treat masturbation as a far more serious matter; Jean-Louis Flandrin,

⁴³³JohannesTeutonicus, Glos. ord. toC. 31 q. 2pr. v. quod autem, citing 1 Cor. 7:39; but cf. Noonan, “Power to Choose,” pp. 419, 433-34. The canonists’ insistence on free­dom of choice ultimately influenced royal law: the provisions of the final version of Magna Carta (1217) relating to the rights of widows, for example, clearly reflected can­onists doctrine; Magna Carta, reissues of 1217 (c. 7, 8, 22) and 1225 (c. 7, 8, 18), in

⁸⁸Aliter debet to X 4.2.6, in Caius MS 23/12, fol. 45rb: “Statur iuramento ιiiri semper ubi per aspectum corporis Uirginitatem probet et uidetur si Iamigo [?] est necessaria ad hoc ut dicatur mulier uiri potens. Item tunc dicitur quis proximus etati quando deficiunt

¹⁴³Guido de Baysio, Rosarium to C. 35 q. 3 c. 17, fol. 376rb; William of Pagula, Summa summarum 5.16, Pembroke 201, fol. 239ra: “An sit Iicita habere concubinam?

¹⁷⁴Jean-Louis Flandrin, “La vie sexuelle des gens maries dans I ancienne societe: de la doctrine de Feglise a la realite des Comportements,” in Sexualites occidentales, p. 105,

¹⁷⁹In addition to the references cited in Lindner, Usus matrimonii, pp. 151-52, see also Pierre de La Paludc, Lucuhrationum 26.2.1. and 31.3.2, pp. 323, 367; Nicholas of

²⁶¹ Bologna, Statuti (1288) 4.34, ed. Fasoli and Sella 1:197-98; Sarzana, Statuti (1330)

²⁸⁹AlexandcrofHales, Summa 2-2.3.5.2.1.8.1; Hostiensis, Summa aurea, lib. 5, tit. De adulteriis § 15, fol. 245ra-rb; Nicholas of Lyra, Postilla to Rom. 1:24 v. propter quod-, Tubach, Index exemplorum, no. 3834, p. 296; David Jacoby, “The Difiusion of

³⁰¹Bartholomew of Brescia, Questiones dominicales 30, in B.L., Arundel 435, fol. 230ra: “Sacerdos quidam greens cum uxore sua se transtulit ad latinos ibique moram faciens, cum bene sciret Iatinam et officium Iatinorum uolebat diuinum officium cele­brare et uti uxore sua. Queritur an sit permittendus cum sit notus et de eius uita con­stet?... Solutio: satis credo quod non sit prohibendus sacerdos iste ministrare. Idem dicit t(ancredus}." See generally James A. Brundage, “The Decretalists and the Greek

⁵⁹Lefebvre-Teillard, “Regie et realite,” p. 50; Sheehan, “Choice of Marriage Partner,” p. 18. Beatrice Gottlieb, “The Meaning of Clandestine Marriage,” in Wheaton and Hareven, Family and Sexuality, pp. 70-72, argues that clandestine marriage was not marriage at all, but rather nothing more than informal betrothal and that court actions involving these unions were in effect suits for breach of promise of marriage. Clan­destine marriage was, according to Cottlieb, “a legal abstraction.” Gottlieb’s interpreta­tion of the records she has used—principally a series of marriage litigation documents from the diocese of Troycs between 1475 and j 525—is neither plausible nor well founded. Popes and academic lawyers clearly meant that clandestine marriage was true marriage, and the courts regularly took them at their word: this was no abstraction, legal or theological. Contrary to Gottlieb’s confident but unwarranted assertion, many clan­destine unions lasted for years, and couples had often produced children, sometimes a good many of them, before they were haled into court. In England both royal and eccle­siastical courts routinely determined property issues on the premise that private ex­change of consent constituted real marriage; see, e.g., Hog v. Latton (1267/68), Hykel-

⁷⁰“Dicimus ream teneri ad reddendum debitum coniugale actori in domo patris una

^15eRossiaud, “Prostitution, Youth, and Society,” p. 19; Lcah Lydia Otis, Prostitution in Medieval Society: The History of an Urban Institution in Languedoc (Chicago: Uni­versity of Chicago Press, 1985), pp. 63-72; Cipolla, Before the Industrial Revolution, pp. 85-86; Carol Z. Wiener, “Sex Roles and Crime in Latc Elizabethan Hertfordshire,”

²²⁰Concubinatum clericorum: Bedenken der Concubinen Wegen (1589), in MS Lea 376 (Ger) of the University OfPennsylvania Library, Philadelphia, fol. 2r, cites Decis. 72 of Nicolaus Boerius, who “Expresse tenet, quantum in casu notorii concubinatus, sub­diti scandalizati, querelas offerunt, quod tunc clerici et abbates Concubinarii per offi­ciales Regios (et sic magistratum secularem) iubentur sub certa poena seu emenda, a Conuersatione concubinarum abstinere, et si non parcant, puniantur per saeculares.” This short treatise is a legal opinion rendered for Count Fugger by a jurist who signed himself “H. F.” Statutes in point include Faenza, Ordinamenta, Constitutiones domini

²²⁹Elvey, Courts of the Archdeaconry of Buckingham, for example, shows six cases

²⁴⁴Alix₁ Statuta 24-25; Caluso₁ Statuta 16; and San Giorgio, Statuta 5, all in Corpus StatutorumCanavisii 1:73-74, 2:8, and3:253; Orvieto₁ Reformationes et decreta 2.74,

²⁶⁶Strongly antifeminist beliefs appeared in many writers of this period. See, for ex­ample, the Miroir de mariage of Eustache Desehamps (ca. 1346-ca. 1406), ed. Gaston Raynaud in vol. 9 of Deschamps’ Oeuvres completes, 11 vols. (Paris: Firmin Didot,

²²Luther, Siebente Kapitel zu den Chorinthern, in WA 12:101-102: “Es haben wol

²⁰Thus, for example, Pope John Paul II in an audience on 8 October 1980 reiterated as his own belief the dictum that St. Jerome borrowed from Sextus Empiricus to the effect that married men who felt sexual desire for their own wives were guilty of adultery; Nichols, Pope’s Divisions, p. 254; that John Paul should resurrect this patristic topos is not entirely surprising in the light of his scholarly work, prior to becoming pope, on the

²³G. de Broglie, “Le fondement de Γamour conjugal,” Doctor Communis 23 (1970) 192-216; Fuchs, Sexual Desire and Love, pp. 153-54, 168; Flandrin, “La vie sexuelle,” p. 107; Goody, Development of the Family, p. 77. Recent Catholic pronouncements on the matter are often inconsistent. Thus, for example, Pope John Paul II in a statement at an audience on 17 January 1980 implied strongly that there was a positive connection between marital sex and conjugal love. “The human body with its sex and its masculinity and its femininity,” the pope declared, “is not only directed towards fruitfulness and pro­creation, but towards the capacity to express love, that love in which the man-person becomes a gift and, by means of this gift, actuates the very sense of his being and his existence.” Thus, he continued, married couples are “free to give each other to each other and love each other mutually in full mastery of themselves.” Osservatore Romano, English ed., no. 616 (21 Jan. 1980), quoted in Nichols, Pope’s Divisions, p. 251. This

²⁶Fuchs, Sexual Desire and Love, pp. 110-13; Joseph C. Smith, “Sword and Shield of Perseus,” p. 24; cf. the perceptive remarks of another Smith, the eighteenth-century

³¹James Barr, Fundamentalism (London: SCM Press, 1977), p. 320, maintains that these attitudes are not central to fundamentalists, at least in Britain. Sexual issues are prominent, however, in U.S. fundamentalism; Marsden, Fundamentalism and American

¹⁴See for example Balthazar v. Superior Court of Massachusetts, 428 F. Supp. 425 at 433, 434 (¹977); Commonwealth v. Gallant, 369 N.E.2d 707 at 712 (Mass., 1977);

²²Lord Hodson, “Common Law Marriage,” International and Comparative Law Quarterly 7 (1958) 206; Christopher Lasch₁ “The Suppression of Clandestine Marriage