CASE 22: Cohabitation and Marriage
D. 24.1.66.1 (Scaevola libro nono Digestorum)
Virgini in hortos deductae ante diem tertium quam ibi nuptiae fierent, cum in separata diaeta ab eo esset, die nuptiarum, priusquam ad eum transiret et priusquam aqua et igni acciperetur, id est nuptiae celebrentur, optulit decem aureos dono: quaesitum est, post nuptias contractas divortio facto an summa donata repeti possit.
respondit id, quod ante nuptias donatum proponeretur, non posse de dote deduci.(Scaevola in the ninth book of his Digests)
A virgin (bride-to-be) was led into (her future husband’s) suburban estate two days before the marriage took place there; she stayed in a separate chamber from him. On the day of the marriage, before she crossed to him and before she was received with water and fire, that is, before the wedding celebration, he provided her with ten gold coins as a gift. It was asked whether, when they divorced after having contracted the marriage, the sum that was given can be reclaimed (by him).
He (Scaevola) responded that in this hypothetical case the gift was made before the wedding and (so) cannot be deducted from the dowry (as an invalid gift).
1. Living in the Same Property prior to Marriage. In this Case, the bride-to-be, evidently for reasons of personal convenience, was led (deductae) into her husbands estate and took up residence there a few days before the marriage ceremony was scheduled to occur; but she lived apart from him during the intervening period. On the day of the marriage ceremony, he gave her some money, and she then “crossed to him and...
was received with water and fire,” in a variant of the traditional deductio. “Crossing to him” apparently means moving into his quarters within the estate. How easy is it to reconcile Scaevola's response here with the one he gives in Case 21? For Scaevola, would it have changed the outcome if, prior to their scheduled wedding ceremony, the couple had lived together in the same apartment? If they had had sexual relations?2. Prior Residence in the Same Property. With this Case, compare Ulpian, D. 35.1.15 (= D. 50.17.30 in part): “A legacy was left to a woman under the condition: ‘if she had married within the familia.’ The condition is regarded as fulfilled as soon as she is taken as a wife, even though she has not yet entered her husbands bedroom. For it is not sleeping together, but rather agreement, that makes a marriage.” The woman is a freedwoman who can receive the legacy once she has married a fellow freedman. She and her intended are, however, already living in the same household, even though they have not yet slept together. According to Ulpian, when do they become married?
3. Virginity. The Latin word virgo, frequently used to describe a woman (especially one of respectable status) prior to her first marriage, is hard to translate; but at times (as in the following Case) it clearly does refer to physical virginity, which in any case was a culturally valued quality.
color=black face="Book Antiqua">
More on the topic CASE 22: Cohabitation and Marriage:
- CASE 22: Cohabitation and Marriage
- Contents
- CASE 31: The Bride Gets Cold Feet
- CASE 26: Betrothal and Marriage
- CASE 35: The Burdens of Marriage
- CASE 41: Free Marriage: The Principle of Noninterference
- Billeting, Cohabitation
- Frier Bruce W., McGinn Thomas A.J.. A casebook on Roman family law. Oxford University Press,2004. — xxi+506 p., 2004
- Marriage and Child-rearing
- Index