Crete, the fear of too numerous a progeny was an authorized ground of separation.

The Athenians permitted slight considerations to lead to it. Perhaps the laxity of their laws, as well as those of the Romans, presently to be considered, above those of the Hebrew, may be partly explained by the circumstance of their not having received a law from Heaven; they might thus deem themselves under fewer restraints in contracting marriage and dissolving it. It was sometimes the case, that the matrimonial union was severed by the consent of both parties, when they were at liberty to dispose of themselves in a second marriage. Plutarch mentions one of this kind in the Life of Pericles, who, not being able to agree with his wife, parted with her to another man, and, with her consent, was himself united to the celebrated Aspasia.

The Spartans, on the other hand, far from delicate, as they were, in the choice of their wives, yet seldom divorced them; but perhaps this infrequency of Divorce did not originate in causes the most pure and virtuous. Allusion has before been made to the custom

* Plut. in Vit. Pericles.

of lending and borrowing a night's rest in a neighbour's bed.

Although the Athenians permitted Divorce, yet it was not without some restrictions; and certain rules must have been observed to render the separation legal. The parties were obliged to give a Bill of Divorce containing the reasons for the act, and which, if the party divorced made an appeal, was to be laid before the chief magistrate for his approval.

Demosthenes states, that he who divorced his wife was to restore her portion, or to pay, in lieu of it, nine oboli every month; if he refused, her guardian might prosecute him in the Odeum with the action called σTOU DIXN, (actio de alimentis,) for her maintenance.*

So far Divorce has been considered as a remedy which might be sought, attended with some cost and inconvenience to the party, who might purchase it, or not, at his option; but, in reference to Adultery, it assumed a very different aspect. In this case, Divorce was not optional, but compulsory. Demosthenes states, that the Grecian laws rendered it obligatory on a man to put away his wife after the discovery of an adulterous intercourse. No husband was allowed to live with his wife after

* Demosth. in Neæram.

she had defiled his bed; and if he did not put her away, but allowed his returning affection to prompt a condonation, he was to be termed, ariμos, infamous. ατιμος,

A few remarks are necessary on the permission of this liberty of Divorce to the women. It is supposed that the Grecian laws did not generally allow this liberty, but it is clear that the Athenians permitted the wives to separate from their husbands. They have express provisions on the subject. From a passage in Euripides, it would seem, that it was thought a scandalous thing for a woman to do so, except on very strong grounds. In that case a Bill of her Grievances was to be presented to the Archon, f called Γραμματα απολείψεως, and this with her own hand.

*

The terms employed to describe the cases of the husband's parting from his wife, and the wife's leaving her husband, are significantly varied. The former was said to loose the obligation, (añoλeviv,) to dismiss; (TOTE

Ου γαρ ευκλεείς απαλλαγαι

Γυναιξαν, ουδ' οιον τ' ανηνασθαι ποσιν.

Eurip. Medea.

† Grotius, on the Institute of Justinian, has this remark: "Athenia mulier quæ repudium marito dare volebat, ipsa eâ de re instrumentum ad magistratum deferre debebat." Grotius. Instit. Justin.

TE,) to send away, (apieva,) to cast out, (εκβαλλειν ;) but the wife's was merely απολειπELY, to depart, or leave; and the reason is immediately obvious,-the woman was received into the man's family, and therefore she could not be said to аTожEμTE, send him away, αποπέμπειν,

though she might aroλETE, forsake him, and retire to a scene of greater ease and security.

Of this power of the woman, Hipparete, the wife of Alcibiades, is an instance. Plutarch relates, that, impatient of the injuries done to her marriage bed, this virtuous lady departed from her husband, and retired to her brother's house, but she was obliged, by the law, to deliver to the Archon the instrument whereby she sought a Divorce.*

Isæus mentions, in these cases of the wife's forsaking her husband, that a return of dowry was customary.

From all these facts it appears, that the Greeks had not that sense of the binding nature of the marriage vow which appeared in the consideration of the Jewish code; that Divorce was permitted for more trifling causes; that the punishment of Adultery was not capital, except where the parties were caught in

* Plut. in Vità Alcibiadis.

flagrante delicto, and that the liberty of Divorce was, by custom, distinctly allowed to the women. In these respects, there was a wide difference between the Grecian customs and the Israelitish: yet the provision and requirement of a Bill of Divorce, the terms of this Bill, γυναι πραττε τα συα, οι τα σεαυτου πραττε, uxor res tuas age, &c.; and the making the personal delivery of this Bill part of a judicial proceeding necessary to its validity, tend to assimilate it to the case of the Hebrew enactments.

But we pass to the consideration of the view taken of these matters by the Romans.

In the earliest ages of Rome we have accounts neither of the crime of Adultery, nor the use of Divorce; but, as the prosperity of this people introduced a profligacy of manners before unknown, this crime became one of the features of their moral history, and severe enactments were framed respecting it. Laws had indeed always existed on the subject of Divorce, but we shall (as before) first speak of the crime of Adultery.

Several of the Latin poets have made allusion to this crime, from which we may infer that some of the penal consequences which