^{page 186 note 1} See Cuq, Institutions juridiques des Romains, p. 208. “II faut reconnaître que la loi s'est abstenue de poser des règles sur la formation du mariage … La loi s'est bornée à établir certaines solennités qui peuvent s'ajouter aux cérémonies ordinaires du mariage et qui lui font produire des effets particuliers.” I believe this to be the right account.

^{page 186 note 2} The distinction between marriage and manus is best brought out by E. Cuq, op. cit. p. 206 foll. On the subject of confarreatio generally, Rossbach's Römische Ehe is the foundation of most modern work on the subject; Marquardt, Privatleben, p. 27 foll.; De Marchi, La Religions nella vita domestica, p. 145 foll.; art. ‘Matrimonium,“ in Daremberg-Saglio's Dictionnaire. The article in Pauly-Wissowa on ‘Confarreatio’ does not seem to me an improvement on that of Rein in the old edition of Pauly. All comprehensive works on Roman law of course deal with the subject of marriage more or less closely.

^{page 186 note 3} Dionysius of Halicarnassus saw this quite clearly; in 2, 25 he calls confarreatio the sacred form of marriage as compared with the other two.

^{page 187 note 1} Marquardt, Privatleben, 34, note 4.

^{page 187 note 2} Marq. ib. His view has been largely adopted in place of the older one of Rossbach and Rein, e.g. in Daremb.-Saglio (article by L'Écrivain).

^{page 187 note 3} This is distinctly stated by Servius (Inter-polator) Georg. i, 31: ‘ex quibus nuptiis (i.e. by confarreatio) patrimi et matrimi nascebantur.’ If the commentator is right here, the importance of the words is obvious. No doubt it was also necessary that these boys and girls should be the children of living parents, according to a rule more familiar to us in Greek ritual; and thus the idea arose that this was the sole or primary meaning of the words patrimi et matrimi (so in Festus, s.v. Flaminia, p. 82, Lindsay; cp. 113). In ancient times no doubt the camilli and camillae would be the children of the priest on whom they attended. But as that rule had to be relaxed for obvious reasons, it was necessary to make sure that those children chosen for the work had the same qualification of birth as the flamen and his wife, i.e. were born of a marriage by confarreatio: then, too, the question of living parents came up for the first time. When Horace (Carm. iv, 6, 31)Google Scholar is speaking of the children whom he was training for the performance of his Carmen saeculare (children who were of course patrimi et matrimi), he writes ‘virginum primae puerique claris patribus orti.’

^{page 188 note 1} These ten witnesses, of whom Gaius is careful to tell us, have occasioned a good deal of trouble and speculation. Many have held that they represented the ten curiae of the tribe to which the parties belonged. The view of the writer in Daremberg-Saglio is that they represented the ten gentes of the curia to which the parties belonged. But the number ten is so usual in matters of administration all through Roman history that it is perhaps needless to indulge in speculation on meagre data.

^{page 188 note 2} See Peet, Stone and Bronze Age in Italy, p. 362 foll.; Roman Festivals, p. 149, note 3.

^{page 188 note 3} See my Roman Ideas of Deity, lecture ii.

^{page 189 note 1} Privatleben der Römer, p. 34. Prof. Reid suggests the Regia, which to me seems less likely.

^{page 189 note 2} See my paper, ‘Ancient Italy and Modern Borneo,’ J.R.S. 1916, p. 14.

^{page 189 note 3} There is no real evidence that the curia was at any time a division of kinship; the gens on the other hand was such theoretically if not in actuality. The curia was a military and territorial division, also used for political purposes, with a centre point in the form of a house. Pelham's description, in his Essays on Roman History, p. 4 foll. (cp. 9), is accurate and useful, though his theory has not met with approval, and his recent reading of Stubbs's Constitutional Hist. of England, vol. i, had biased him in favour of an origin too entirely military.

^{page 189 note 4} ib. p. 7.

^{page 189 note 5} Mos enim apud veteres fuit Flamini ac Flaminicae ut per farreationem in nuptias convenirent, sellas duas iugatas ovili pelle superiniecta poni, eius ovis quae hostia fuisset, et ibi nubentes velatis capitibus in confarreatione Flamen ac Flaminica residerent: Servius (Interp.) ad Aen. iv, 374.

^{page 191 note 1} Crawley, Mystic Rose, p. 320, and the whole of chapter xiv.

^{page 191 note 2} See Halliday's Greek Divination, 132; R. Smith, Religion of the Semites, 417; Pley, de lanae in antiquorum ritibus usu, p. 15; Samter, Familienfeste, 100 foll.

^{page 191 note 3} See the text of Gaius 112, quoted above, p. I. Prof. Reid tells me that he takes farreo here not as a cult-title, but as abl. of farreum. But if so, why does Gaius think a further explanation necessary— ‘in quo farreus panis adhibetur’?

^{page 191 note 4} Mystic Rose, p. 378 foll.

^{page 192 note 1} Plin. N.H. xviii, 7Google Scholar.

^{page 192 note 2} Essays and Studies presented to William Ridgeway, p. 153 foll.; Harrison, Themis, p. 306 foll.

^{page 192 note 3} Festus (Lindsay), p. 65; Gell. x. 15: Matrimonium flaminis nisi morte dirimi ius non est. So Dionys. ii, 25. The available evidence seems to show that among primitive peoples divorce is more difficult the higher the social position of the married pair; in other words, the more ‘holy’ or precious they are, the less easy it is to break a bond once solemnly consecrated: Westermarck, Hist. of Human Marriage, p. 535. In India the higher castes rarely divorce, ib. 525. Thus we can well understand how the flamen, having religious duties in common with his wife, could not legally divorce her; and we may take it that the case mentioned by Plutarch (Q.R. 50) was an innovation. The sacerdos confarreationum et diffarreationum of C.I.L. x, 6662 (Dessau, Inscr. Lat. Sel. 1455) seems to be of the age of Commodus.

^{page 193 note 1} ad Am. iv, 374: Mos apud veteres fuit Flamini et Flaminicae ut per farreationem in nuptias convenient, sellas duas iugatas ovili pelle superiniecta poni, eius ovis quae hostia fuisset, et (ut) ibi nubentes velatis capitibus in confarreatione Flamen et Flaminica residerent. Cp. the same commentator on iv. 103 : ‘farreatas nuptias, quibus Flaminem et Flaminicam iure pontificio in matrimonium necesse est convenire.’ Gaius, i, 112 ad fin.

^{page 193 note 2} Gell, x, 15, 22; Frazer, Adonis, Attis, Osiris, ed. 2, appendix ii.

^{page 193 note 3} Tac. Ann. iv, 16Google Scholar.

^{page 193 note 4} Suet. Jul. iGoogle Scholar init.

^{page 194 note 1} Possibly Gaius was thinking of this when he wrote (i. 112 ad fin.) ‘ac ne ipsi quidem sine confarreatione sacerdotium habere possunt.’

^{page 194 note 2} Marquardt, , Staatsverwaltung, iii, 330,Google Scholar note I. Varro's words, from his second book Rerum divinarum, are quoted by Aulus Gellius, x, 15, 32Google Scholar. Samentum was the name at Anagnia of the head-dress of a flamen made of a victim's skin. See Fronto, ed. Naber, p. 671.