¹ See Preisen, , Geschichte des kanonischen Eherechts bis zum Verfall der Glossenliteratur § 8 at 53 (2d ed. 1893).Google Scholar As to England, see Engdahl, “Medieval Metaphysics and English Marriage Law”, soon to be published.

² In the classic canonical view, matrimonium ratum depended upon divine interposition of the metaphysical vinculum, or marriage bond.

³ See, e.g., a thirteenth century decretal of Pope Innocent III sent to the French, c.13, X, 4, 17. This principle still holds in modern canon law. See Bouscaren, , Ellis, , & Korth, , Canon Law 470–71 (4th ed. 1963).Google Scholar

⁴ See, e.g., 1 Howard, History of Matrimonial Institutions ch. 9 (1904), which contains an excellent collection of the sources and older literature. See also Schul-thess-Rechberg, Luther, Zwingli und Calvin in ihren Ansichten über das Verhältnis von Staat und Kirche 155–58, in Zürcher Beiträge zur Rechtswissenschaft, heft 34 (1909).

⁵ At mid-century, one Jurist wrote: “Sum autem in hoc scripto ius canonicum secutus, quod hoc tempore Imperii Romani in concipiendis sententiis causarum matrimonialium usitatum ius est.” Melchior Kling, in the preface to his Matri-monialium causarum tractatus (1553), quoted in Friedberg, Das Recht der Eheschliessung in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung 227 n. 1 (1865).

Some years later, another jurist wrote: “[I]n materia matrimonij, tãquàm spirituali, ius Canonicu sequimur …” Andreas Gayll, Practicarum Observationum lib. 2, obs. 141, nu. 5 (ad ed. 1580). (Matrimonial causes, however, were not to be determined in the secular court. After describing a case involving such a matter, Gayll said, “Scire tarnen oportet causas matrimoniales ad Cameram non pertinere, & memini in causa quadam matrimoniali ad Cameram appellatum, sed appellationem non admissam fuisse…” Op. cit. lib. 1, obs. 112, nu. 17.)

Even nearer the close of the sixteenth century, a German jurist writing at length about the law of marriage consistently followed the principles of the canon law, without considering as possibly applicable any alternative rules. Hugo Donellus, Commentarii de lure Civili lib. 13, cap. 18–21 (1595).

On marriage law in Germany after the Reformation generally, see Friedberg, Das Recht der Eheschleissung in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung 153–305 (1865); Sohm, Trauung und Verlobung 110–123 (1876); Sohm, Das Recht der Eheschliessung aus dem deutschen und canonischen Recht geschichtlich entwickelt 197–249 (1875).

⁶ “Iusta matrimonia iustos liberos faciunt … illegitima coniunctio iniustos. Iusta est quae de moribus & ex disciplina Ecclesiastica coiit.” Argentraeus, Commentarii ad Iuns Britannici, De bastarais, gl. 1, nu. 1–3 (Paris, 1605). The third edition added “legibus:” “lusta est quae moribus, legibus, & ex disciplina Ecclesiastica coiit.” Commentarii, in Patrias Britonum leges, seu Consuetudines generales antiquissimi ducatus Britanniae col. 1749–A (3d ed. 1621). See also Consilia et responsa illustria cons, 1, nu. 39, in Commentarii ad luris Britannici (1605); Commentarii, in Patrias Britonum leges col. 2419–8 (3d ed. 1621), where Argentraeus wrote: “Adiungis, & in gradu prohibito conuenisse matrimonium, ex quo si ita necesse est, illegitimam sobolem nasci. … tametsi haec magno ausu istud quoque inter canonica praecepta contemnêre, vt decreta alia omnia Ecclesiae coepere, sed & clam & sine bannis celebratimi scelus, & vetitam coniunctionem coarguit.” See also Coquille, La Coustume de Niuernois, ch. 4 Des Fiefs, art. 20, in Les Œuvres at 61–2 (Paris, 1646). It was not until 1787, on the eve of thoroughgoing secularization of marriage in France, that French law made provision for the marriage of protestants other than according to the Catholic forms. See 1 Burge, , Commentaries on Colonial and Foreign Laws 176 (1838).Google Scholar

In England the situation was considerably different, see Engdahl, “The Secularization of English Marriage Law,” 16 Kansas Law Review—(06 1968).Google Scholar

⁷ “Rursus deducitur, nee valere matrim. si haereticus aut apostat acum infideli contrahat. Quòd illi tanquam verè baptizad subdantur legibus ecclesiae matrim. hoc irritantibus.” Sanchez, De sancto matrimonii, lib. 7, disp. 71, nu. 4 (lyons, 1739). The rule is different today, Code of Canon Law c. 1070.

⁸ See Bouscaren, , Ellis, , & Korth, , Canon Law 538–39 (4th ed. 1963).Google Scholar

⁹ In France, for example, Guy Coquille, while emphasizing that the essence of marriage was to be judged by the canon law, insisted that some additional requirements must be met before a marriage could entail such effects as dower and the legitimacy of children for purposes of succession. La Coustume de Niuernois, Des Fiefs, art. xx, at 61–2, in Les Œuvres (Paris, 1646); id., Des droits appartenans a gens mariez, art. 1, at 233. (The rule was uniform throughout France. See Coquille, Insti-tuion au Droict François, Des droicts de mariez, p. 74, in Les Œuvres (Paris, 1640).

In the Empire, Joachim Mynsinger weighed whether mere espousals de praesenti without intercourse or cohabitation, while sufficient to make a marriage according to the still effective canon law, would be enough to give the wife all the benefits afforded to wives by the secular law. Singularium observationum imperialis camerae centuriae VI, cent. 6, obs. 78 (Reyger ed. 1609).

In the Catholic province of Brabant in the Spanish Netherlands in the seventeenth century, a court had to decide if any secular effect could be accorded to a putative marriage which had since the death of the woman been held invalid by an ecclesiastical court; and among the numerous arguments and citations of authority offerred one which seems to have helped tip the balance of decision was the argument that “marriage” has a double aspect: the real essence is determined according to the canon law, but the civil effects are assigned by the secular law; and the two aspects are not so inseparable that a defect in the real marriage bond itself must necessarily preclude all the civil effects. Peter Stockmans, Decisiones Brabantinae, decis. 62, nu. 5, at p. 150, in Opera Omnia (Brussels, 1695). Compare the principle developed to settle the conflicts which appeared in England in the thirteenth century, discussed in Engdahl, “English Marriage Conflicts Law Before the Time of Bracton,” 15 American Journal of Comparative Law 109 (1967).Google Scholar

¹⁰ In 1540 the Emperor Charles V decreed for the Netherlands that men beneath twenty-five and women beneath twenty were not to marry without the advice and consent of their parents or the public authorities. Eeuwich Edict van Keyser Karel, Oct. 4, 1540, § 17, 1 Groot Placaet-Boeck col. 311, 319–20 (1658). Charles' Edict, however, was careful to note that the clandestine marriages it proscribed were already disfavored by the canon law as being inconsistent with edification (eerbaerheyt) and proper obedience; and the sanctions prescribed for violation of the Edict did not pretend to affect the essential validity of the marriage, but only inhibited its merely civil effects.

Ordinances of similar import were enacted in Austria, see Friedberg, Das Recht der Eheschliessung in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung 140 (1865); in Spain, see id. at 73–4; and in France, see Pothier, Traité du contrat de mariage pt. 4, ch. 1, nu. 324, in 6 Œuvres de Pothier (1846). The French edict disinherited minors for their impertinence in marrying without parental consent, but did not purport to invalidate the marriage. Pothier gave a weak conjectural explanation for this restraint, consistent with his opinion (id., nu. 321 ) that even the tometsi decree of the Council ot Trent did not deny secular power to affect the essence of marriage. But we cannot agree that even in France the secular power thought the essence of marriage within its reach so early. See Lacey, , Marriage in Church and State 153 n. 2 and accompanying text (revised ed. 1947).Google Scholar

¹¹ In the case of the Netherlands, this can be well documented. A case which arose in Brabant in the year 1556 involved a marriage of a minor which had been contracted in 1542, two years after the Emperor Charles' edict, without the required consent. The forfeiture of civil effects imposed by the edict was enforced, but it was held that the marriage itself was good. 6 Consultation en Advysen cons. 101 (1556). Early in the seventeenth century Grotius noted in his Inleiding tot de Hollandsche Rechts-geleertheyd bk. 1, deel 5, par. 14 (1631); The Jurisprudence of Holland 25 (Lee trans. 1926), that until 1580, when Holland enacted its Political Ordinance, discussed infra, marriages without proper consent were punishable but not invalid. Other Dutch jurisconsults of the early seventeenth century, too, confirm that marriages contracted in violation of the Placaat of 1540 were nonetheless “rata.” E.g., 3, pt. 1, Consultation en Advysen cons. 167, at 343; same opinion, 6 Consultation en Advysen cons. 111, at 201.

¹² Waterworth, Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent ccxlii–ccxliv (1848).

¹³ Various provincial church councils had earlier forbidden clandestine marriages, but without going so far as to invalidate them. See Friedberg, Das Recht der Eheschliessung in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung 64 n. 5 (concerning France); id. at 74 (concerning Spain).

¹⁴ Since its development in the twelfth century, the principle that marriage was concluded by the mere exchange, even clandestinely, of consents de praesenti was conceived as a principle of divine law, and thus beyond amendment by any human power, even that of the Church. See Decretum de reformatione matrimonii, cap. 1, in Schroeder, Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent 454, 183 (1941).

¹⁵ Decretum de reformatione matrimonii, cap. 1, in Schroeder, , op. cit. supra note 14, at 455, 184.Google Scholar

¹⁶ See Bouscaren, , Ellis, , & Korth, , Canon Law 581–82 (4th ed. 1963).Google Scholar

¹⁷ See Waterworth, , Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent ccxliv–ccxlvi (1848).Google Scholar

¹⁸ Id. at ccxlv.

¹⁹ “As to Germany, the Emperor Ferdinand and his son Maximilian declared themselves ready to receive the Council … The power, however, of the Protestants, in the Germanic Diet, rendered it next to impossible to enforce the acceptation of the Council, as a law of the Empire. Hence it was left to the prelates, to adopt and promulgate the decrees, in their respective dioceses, and to carry them into effect, so far as their peculiar circumstances permitted.” Waterworth, Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent ccxlv (1848). And, of course, Elizabeth's England was beyond the Council's grasp. The circumstances of Elizabethan England are discussed in Engdahl, “The Secularization of English Marriage Law,” 16 Kansas Law Review —(06 1968).Google Scholar

²⁰ See Groenewegen, Tractatus de legibus abrogatis et inusitatis in Hollandia vicinisque regionibus C., lib. 1, tit. 9, 1. 6 (1649); Waterworth, Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent ccxxvii (1848).

²¹ See, e.g., Canon 5 on matrimony, in Waterworth, Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent 194 (1848).

²² The secular jurists addressed themselves to questions of the conflict of laws, but they took no account of problems respecting the essence of marriage, as distinguished from its merely civil effects. See, e.g., Andraes Gayll, Practicarum observationum, lib. 2, obs. 123–24 (2d ed. 1580); Joachim Mynsinger, Singularium observationum imperalis camerae centuriae VI cent. 5, obs. 19–20 (Reyger ed. 1609); Tiraqueau, De legibus connubialibus et iure maritali, in 2 Operum 1 (1616); Tiraqueau, De iure primigeniorum, in 1 Operum 277. Argentraeus, for example, discussed conflicts concerning rules disabling a married woman to contract, but none concerning rules disabling a woman to contract marriage. Commentarii, in Patrias Britonum leges, seu Consuetudines generales antiquissimi Ducatus Britanniae col. 677–C. Molinaeus, distinguishing between laws concerning the formalities of acts and laws concerning personal disabilities or capacity to act, gave a number of examples to illustrate his principles; but marriage was not one of them. Commentarius in codicem sacratissimi imperatoris Justiniani, tit. 1, Conclusiones de statutis & consuetudinibus localibus, in 3 Opera Omnia 554 at 556 (Paris 1681). So important a matter as the essential validity of marriages could hardly have escaped specific mention in the context of this distinction if it had been considered to be a matter of concern for the secular law.

²³ “Tametsi dubitandum non est, clandestina matrimonia, libero contrahentium consensu facta, rata et vera esse matrimonia, … nihilominus sancta Dei ecclesia ex justissimis causis illa semper detestata est atque prohibuit.” Decretum de reformatione matrimonii, cap. 1, in Schroeder, Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent 454, 183 (1941). Clandestine marriages had been condemned in England as early as the year 1200. Decreta Huberti Cantuariensis archiepiscopi, c. 11, in 4 Roger Hoveden, Chronica 135 (Stubbs ed. 1871); 2 Hoveden, Annals 496–97 (Riley trans. 1853). See also note 13 supra.

²⁴ “Cęterum, quoad coniugij solemnia peragenda, ac celebrãda, leges loci, in quo contractus sit, exacté seruanda esse, nemo ambigit…” Diego Covarrubias y Leyva, In librum quartum Decretalium Epitome (de sponsalibus et matrimoniis) par. a, cap. 7, in fin. princ., in 2 Opera omnia 108 at 171 (1606).

²¹ In librum quartum Decretalium Epitome (de sponsalibus et matrimoniis) par. 2, cap. 6, in princ. nu. 7–13, in 2 Opera omnia 108 at 147–48 (1606).

²⁶ See text accompanying notes 63 and 92 infra.

²⁷ On the life and works of Sanchez see 7 Sommervogel, Bibliothéque de la Compagnie de Jésus col. 530–37 (1896); 3 Schulte, Canonisches Recht 737–38 (1880).

²⁸ De sancto matrimonii.

²⁹ “Haec tarnen II. sent, ut non teneantur peregrini legibus & consuetudinibus loci per quem transeunt, triplicem patitur exceptionem. I. est, quoad contractuum so-lemnitatem, nam quicumque forenses & pergrini tenentur servare solemnitates in contractu requisitas legibus & consuetudinibus oppidi in quo contrahunt: ratione enim contractus quilibet forum sortitur in loco contractus… Hinc est contractum absolute initum censeri celebratum juxta consuetudines & statuta loci, in quo initur:… quod inde provenit, quia contractus sequitur consuetudines & statuta loci in quo celebratur.

“Unicus autem contractus ex hac regula excipitur, nempé contractus dotis…” Sanchez, De sancto matrimonii lib. 3, disp. 18, nu. 10–11 (Lugdunum 1739).

³⁰ “An si incolae locorum in quibus decretum Tridentini irritans clandestina matr. receptum non est, divertant ad alia oppida per modum transitus, & hospitii, ubi obligat id decretum, possint absque parocho & testibus validé contrahare, juxta proprii domicilii leges Quidam existimare possent, validé hos contrahere absque parocho: cum non teneantur observare leges loci transitus…juxta leges autem proprii domicilii, validum est tale matrimonium.

“Dicendum tarnen, id matrimonium esse irritum… Quia illa opinio exceptionem patitur, nisiquoad contractus solemnitatem: nam…ea solemnitas adhibenda est, quam petunt leges loci, ubi contractus initur: cum ergo locus ubi celebratur matr. ab his peregrinis, exigat solemnitatem Tridentini, in eo vigentis, aliter contractum, nullum erit.” Sanchez, De sancto matrimonii, lib. 3, disp. 18, nu. 25–6 (Lugdunum 1739).

³¹ “Probabilius tarnen est non teneri coram parocho, & testibus contrahere. Prob, primò ex dictis n. 18. ubi tanquam verius defendimus, peregrinos à domicilio absentes non teneri legibus illius, si contrariae vigent in loco ubi reperiuntur. 2: Quia esto sentiremus obligari legibus domicilii, at (ut diximus n. 10. [see note 29 supra]) quoad solemnitatem adhibendam in conractibus, solae leges loci in quo contractus celebra-tus, inspiciuntur: locus autem ubi hoc matrimonium initur, non petit earn parochi, & testium solemnitatem ad matrimonii valorem, cùm ibi decretum Trident, non obliget: ergo.” Sanchez, De sancto matrimonii lib. 3, disp. 18, nu. 28 (Lugdunum 1739).

³² 1 Rabel, The Conflict of Laws: A Comparative Study 282–83 (2d ed. 1958).

³³ Henri Henriquez, see 4 Sommervogel, Bibliothèque de la Compagnie de Jésus col. 275–76 (1896); and one Manuel, perhaps Manuel González Téllez. For his own opinions, Sanchez acknowledged his debt to one “Petr. de Ledes.,” probably Pedro de Ledesma, whose De magno matrimonii sacramento, first published in 1958, this writer has not had opportunity to consult.

³⁴ “An si incolae locorum in quibus decretum Tridentini obligat, confluant eò, ubi non obligat, possint juxta illius loci legem absque parocho, & testibus contrahere? Si animo ibi constituendi domicilium tendant, certum est posse ibi, absque parocho, & testibus contrahere: quia fiunt illius loci incolae, & subinde jam non astringuntur legibus prioris domicilii. Tota autem difficultas est, quando solum confluunt per modum transitas Petr de Led. de matr. q. 45. a. 5 punct. 3. dub. ult. f. 198. §. In hac difficultate, censet juxta sententiam illorum, quos retuli num. 17. tenentium peregrinos, dum absunt à proprio domicilio, obligari legibus illius, dicendum esse, matri-monium hoc absque parocho, & testibus irritum, esse invalidimi. Et videntur tenere Henriquez lib. II. de matr. c. 3. n. 8. & Manuel I. in sum. I. edit. c. 219. n. 2. fine, dicunt enim semel publicatum Tridentini decretum in aliquorum parochia, afficere parochianos, quocumque migrent: solumque excusare videntur proficiscentes animo ibi constituendi domicilium. Et prob, quia advenientes ex locis ubi Tridentinum obligat, jam contraxere Obligationeni servandi id decretum: ergo quocumque adeant per modum transitus, tenentur id servare. Et confirm, quia Tridentinum irritat clandestina, redditque ipsas personas inhabiles ad ita contrahendum, sed inhabilitas personam afficiens, cum sit quid personale, comitatur personam quocumque euntem: ergo semel propter legitimam Trident. publicationem redditus inhabilis ad clam contrahendum, nullibi terrarum potent ita contrahere. 2. Quia jam persona illa decreto Tridentini astricta fuit in sua patria, ergo loci mutatione non cessat obligatio: sicut semel applicato combustibili intra ignis sphaeram, conservatur calor re-ceptus, ad alium locum extra illius sphaeram traducto. Tandem quia ille peregri-nusubicumque sit, est membrum Ecclesiae, ipsique subditur, ergo post legitimam promulgationem ligatur ubicumque terrarum, praedicta Ecclesiae lege.” Sanchez, De sancto matrimonii lib. 3, disp. 18, nu. 27 (Lugdunum 1739).

³⁵ “Limitant aliqui hanc sent, nisi adirent ea loca, in fraudem decreti Tridentini, ut ibi possent libere absque parocho, & testibus matrimonio copulan: tune enim aiunt esse invalidum. 1. quia fraus nemini patrocinan débet, … at patrocinaretur, si hoc matrimonium validum esse…” Sanchez, De sancto matrimonii lib. 3, disp. 18, nu. 29 (Lugdunum 1739).

³⁶ “Das Werk ist für die Bearbeitung der im practischen Leben vorkommenden Fragen das eingehendste; die Casuistik ist bisweilen eine unglaublich minutiöse und bezüglich einzelner Punkte…ekelerregend, die Methode ist die scholastische in der denkar crassesten Form. Für die wirklich juristische Durchdringen des Stoffes ist wenig, für die geschichtliche Seite nichts geleistet. Die Autorität des Buches war, was schon die vielen Auflagen beweisen, eine unbedingte.” 3 Schulte, , Canonisches Recht 738 (1880).Google Scholar

³⁷ See 3 Schulte, , Canonisches Recht 737–38 (1880).Google Scholar

³⁸ Ordonnantie vande Policien binnen Hollant, April 1, 1580, in 1 Groot Placaet-Boeck col. 329–342 (1658). The sections of the Political Ordinance dealing with marriage appear again in 3 Groot Placaet-Boeck 502–04 (1683). These same sections are translated into English in 1 Maasdorp, Institutes of South African Law, App. I (6th ed. 1936. Subsequent editions omit this material.)

³⁹ Placaet van de Staten Generael der Geunieerde Nederlanden, July 26, 1581, in 1 Groot Placaet-Boeck co. 25–36 (1658).

⁴⁰ Political Ordinance § 3, supra note 38. See also Abraham à Wesel, Commentarius ad Novellas Constitutiones Ultrajectinas art. 2, nu. 8 (1666), in Opera omnia (Amsterdam 1701).

⁴¹ Political Ordinance § 3, supra note 38.

⁴² “nul ende van onweerden ende niet to mogen bestaen.” Politicial Ordinance § 13, supra note 38. It was regarded as really no marriage at all, see, e.g., 4 Gonsultatien en Advysen cons. 400 (1641).

⁴³ Christian Rodenburg, Tractatus de jure conjugum tit. 2, ch. 4, nu. 10, at 248 (1653). See also Abraham à Wesel, Commentarius ad Novellas Constitutiones Ultra-jectinas art. 2, nu. 10–12 (1666), in Opera omnia (Amsterdam 1701).

⁴⁴ See note 10 supra.

⁴⁵ Political Ordinance § 3, supra note 38.

⁴⁶ See note 42 supra. See Grotius, Inleiding tot de Hollandsche Rechtsgeleertheyd bk. 1, deel 5, par. 14 (1631); The Jurisprudence of Holland 25 (Lee trans. 1926); Abraham à Wesel, Commentarius ad Novellas Constitutiones Ultrajectinas art. 14, nu. 1–13 (1666), in Opera omnia (Amsterdam 1701). See also 3, pt. 2, Consultatien en Advysen cons. 86 (1640). To the same effect was a placaat of Feb. 16, 1594, see 3, pt. 2, Consultatien en Advysen cons. 90, at 286 nu. 17.

⁴⁷ See, e.g., Abraham à Wesel, Commentarius ad Novellas Constitutiones Ultrajectinas art. 14, nu. 46–53 (1666), in Opera omnia (Amsterdam 1701).

⁴⁸ Political Ordinance § 3, supra note 38. An opinion of Grotius, quoted in note 53 infra, seems premised on the assumption that failure to publish banns in the case of a marriage in Holland would render the marriage void. See also 4 Consultatien en Advysen cons. 400 (1641); and Johannis Voet, Commentarius ad Pandectas lib. 23, tit. 2, § 3;4 The Selective Voet 36 (Gane trans. 1956). In other provinces the interpretation of similar legislation was different. See, e.g., loannis à Sande, Decisiones aureae sive rerum in suprema Frisiorum curia iudicatarum lib. 2, tit. 1, def. 1, in Opera omnia 1698.

⁴⁹ See note 1 and accompanying text supra.

⁵⁰ The acceptance of the Tridentine decrees by Phillip II of Spain 1564, see Water-worth, Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent ccxlv (1848), was considered effective for the Spanish-held Netherlands. See 3, pt. 2, Consultatien en Advysen cons. 90, at 286 nu. 16–17.

⁵¹ Paul Voet ascribed certain of the traditional fundamentals of marriage, such as monogamy and the principles of incest, to the law of nature, and insisted that they were not alterable by man. De statutis eorumque concursu sec. 1, cap. 1, nu. 10, 13 (Leodii 1700). Grotius, while he traced the rule of monogamy back to the ancient laws of the Germans, emphasized that these ancient laws agreed “with the first institution of marriage confirmed by Christ.” Inleiding tot de Hollandsche Rechts-geleertheyd bk. 1, deel 5, par. 2 (1631); The Jurisprudence of Holland 23 (Lee trans. 1926). Grotius indicated that the prohibited degrees receive their stigma from notions of what is decent and edifying; but these notions were religiously based, as both the Political Ordinance itself and cases decided afterward explicitly recognized, 1 Groot Placaet-Boeck col. 332 (1658); loannis à Sande, Decisiones aureae sive rerum in suprema Frisiorum curia iudicatarum lib. 2, tit. 1, def. 8, in Opera omnia (1698), citing cases decided in 1630 and 1625. Adultery was assailed in the Political Ordinance with religious language and fervor, see 1 Groot Placaet-Boeck col. 334 (1658); and both Grotius (Inleiding tot de Hollandsche Rechts-geleertheyd bk. 1, deel 5, par. 18) and Huber (Heedendaegse Rechtsgeleertheyt bk. 1, kap. 6, § 2) as well as other writers (e.g., Abraham à Wesel, Elenchus Materiarum, tract, a, cap. 4 De finenda vel continuanda connubiali bonorum societate, nu. 26–7, in Opera omnia [Amsterdam 1701]) emphasized the religious basis of the rule making adultery a ground for complete divorce and remarriage.

⁵² See Lacey, , Marriage in Church and State 151–53 (rev'd ed. 1947).Google Scholar

⁵³ “Dunkt / onder correctie / dat de gehoude Perzoon / waar van in de voorgaande questie werd gesproken / niet tegenstaande hare Ouders altijd gewoont hadden in Holland / evenwel / nemende resolutie om in Duidsland te Huwelijken / en aldaar te blijven resideren / eo ipso facto ontslagen is van alle Wetten en Ordonnantien van Holland: nom moribus nostris domicilium totâ voluntate mutatur & mutato domicilio origo non attenditur, gelijk in Holland notoir is en ook wel op andere plaatsen werd geobser-veert / onaangezien het gene de beschreven Rechten ter contrarie zouden mogen disponeren. Videatur Gaillius lib. 2. obs. 36. Waar uit dan volgd dat den voors. Perzoon niet meer is geweest Ondersaat van de Staten van Holland: Et cum omnis potestas statuendi debeat fundari vel in loco ubi actas celebratur quorum neutrum hic obtinet, quad proinde leges Hollandiae in celebratone matrimonij extra Hollandiam contracti locum non habeant, zulks dat ook niet noodzakelijk is geweest / dat in Holland de Geboden zouden gaan / alzoo 't zelve bij de Politijcque Oronnantie / alleenlijk is gestatueert over die gene die onder de Regeeringe van Holland blijvende / of haar in Holland ten Huwelijk begeven / niet over de gene die ter goeder trouwe hare resolutie veranderen.” 5 Con-sultatien en Advysen cons. 129. In de Bruyn's translation: “I am of opinion that the person… who has resolved to get married in Germany and to take up his or her residence there, is released from all laws and ordinances of Holland, notwithstanding the fact that his or her parents had always lived in Holland. Nam moribus nostris domcilium tota voluntate mutatur et mutato domicilio origo non attenditur, which rule was observed in Holland, and also in other places, without considering what the Civil Law may lay down to the contrary [citing Gayll]. Hence it follows that the said person was no longer a subject of the States of Holland. Et cum omnis potestas statuendi debeat fundari vel in loco ubi oc tus celebratwr, quorum neutrum hic obtinet, quod proinde leges Hollandiae in celebratione matrimonii extra Hollandiam contradi locum non habeant. The publication of the banns in Holland was therefore unnecessary, since such was laid down by the Political Ordinance only in respect of those remaining subject to the Government of Holland, or who contract a marriage in Holland, but not in respect of those who alter their intention bona fide.” The Opinions of Grotius 25–6 (de Bruyn trans. 1894).

⁵⁴ 3 Schulte, , Canonisches Recht 737–38 (1880).Google Scholar

⁵⁵ See 1 Laine, , Introduction au Droit International Privé 409 (1888).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ See text accompanying notes 12–20 supra.

⁵⁷ See note 5 supra.

⁵⁸ “Quod ad contractus & delicta attinet, eatenus quis forum in loco contractus, vel delicti sortitur, si ibi loci, ubi cõtraxit, vel deliquit reperiatur, quemadmodum de originario dictum est,… Non tarnen ratione cõtractus vel delicti, aut ratione rei quis subditus dicitur illius loci vbi contraxit, deliquit, aut res sita est,… quia aliud est forum sortiri, & aliud subditum esse…” Practicarum observationum, lib. 2, obs. 36, nu. 13–14 (ad ed. 1580).

⁵⁹ The title of Gayll's lib. 2, obs. 36 is “Mutatio domicilij an eximat civem à iuris-dictione civitatis originariae.”

⁶⁰ “… de Ordonnantien op't stuck van / 't Contract ende solemniteyt van 't Huwe-lijck gemaneert / alleen plaets hebben in Huwelijcken gecontracteert binnen die Jurisdictie / en sich niet extenderen tot Huwelijcken van de Onderdanen in een ander Provintie / daer andere ordre vigeert / gecontracteert…” 3, pt. 1, Consultatien en Advysen cons. 184 at 372 (1640); same opinion, 6 id. cons. 129.

⁶¹ “… om dat Huwelijck een Contract is / ende in alle Contracten (soo veci de forme / solemniteyt of bondigheydt aen-gaet) alleen in-gesien wordt de plaets van 't Contract niet de Woon-plaets van de contrahenten of situatie der Goederen…” Ibid.

⁶² See text accompanying note 83 infra.

⁶³ See text accompanying notes 24–6 supra.

⁶⁴ 3 Pt 1, Consultatien en Advysen cons. 181, at 367–68.

⁶⁵ E.g., 3, pt. 2, Consultatien en Advysen cons. 90, at 285 nu. 15, 286 nu. 17 & 20, 291 nu. 44.

⁶⁶ This writer has not had access to Groehewegen's own edition; but he has seen William Schorer's edition of Grotius' Inleiding (Middleburg 1767) which incorporates the work of Groenewegen. In this edition, citations to Sanchez attributed to Groenewegen are appended to the title of the chapter on marriage (p. 32) and to Grotius' reference to separation from bed and board in section 20 of that chapter (p. 48).

⁶⁷ E.g., D., lib. 38, tit. 10, contrasting Dutch with canonical rules on consanguinity and affinity; C., lib. 1, tit. 9, 1. 6, concerning interfaith marriages; C., lib. 5, tit. 17, 1. 9 and C., lib. 9, tit. 9, 1. 1–2, concerning divorce a vinculo for adultery.

⁶⁸ E.g., D., lib. 24, tit. 3, 1. 22, § 9, relying upon Sanchez, De sancto matrimonii lib. 10, disp. 18, nu. 48 for the rule that madness cannot dissolve the bond of marriage. See also Groenewegens' citation of Sanchez with reference to Grotius' comments on separation from bed and board, see note 66 supra.

⁶⁹ See Hermann, , Johan Nikolaus Hert und die deutsche Statutenlehre 13–16, Neue Kölner Rechtswissenschaftliche Abhandlungen, Heft 25 (1963)Google Scholar; 1 Laine, , Introduction au Droit International Privé 401–03 (1888).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Rodenburg, De jure conjugum, containing his De jure, quod oritur ex statutorum vel consuetudinum discrepantium conflictu (1653).

⁷¹ Paul Voet, De statutis eorumque concursu sec. 5, cap. 2, nu. 1–3 (Leodii 1700).

⁷² See 6 Consultation en Advysen cons. 70 (1638). In this the Netherlands were unlike their Calvinist mentors at Geneva, see note 20 supra.

⁷³ Paul Voet, Institutionum Imperialium Commentarius lib. I, § 10, Initium, nu. 22 (Gorichemi 1668).

⁷⁴ Paul Voet, De statutis eorumque concursu, sec. 9, cap. 2, nu. 5.

⁷⁵ Id. at nu. 9.

⁷⁶ 1 Huber, The Jurisprudence Of My Time 14–15 (Gane trans. 1939). In the original: “Het houwelijk behoort mede tot desen Regel; Indien 't geoorlooft is ter plaetse, daer het gesloten ende voltrocken wordt, soo gelt het overal; By exempel, Een Brabander met dispensatie van den Paus hebbende getrout sijn Breeders dochter, mag alhier desweegen met sijn echtgenoodt niet gemoeyt worden; Maer Friesen tot dien einde nae Brabant zijnde getrocken, en aldaer 't verboden houwelyk op die wijfe hebbende aengestelt, souden hier, op een korten wederkomende, swaerlijk geleeden worden…

“Soo gebeurt het dikwils, dat jonge lieden alhier staende onder Curatoren, die het houwelijk willen en können beletten, een reisje doen in Oostfrieslandt of elders, daer men in dat stuk Keysers recht gebruikt; nae welke de Voogden geen houwelijk hunner minderjarige konnen beletten. Sy laten hun daer te zamen voegen, en komen ter-stont wederom in Frieslandt; het houwelijk is echter hier ongeoorloft, en kan by de Voogden dadelijk belet en te niete gedaen worden; om dat het selve kennelijk strekt tot onderkruipinge en onnut-makinge van onse Rechten.” Heedensdaegse Rechts-geleertheyt bk. 1, kap. 3, par. 31–2 (5th ed. Amsterdam, 1768).

⁷⁷ Huber, De conflictu legum nu. 8, in 18 Brit. Yb. Int'l L. 64, 71–2 (Davies trans. 1937). In tne original: “Si licitum est eo loco, ubi contractum & celebratum est, ubique validum erit eflectumque habebit, sub eâdem exceptione, praejudicii aliis non creandi; cui licet addere, si exempli nimis sit abominandi: ut is incestimi juris gentium in secundo gradu contingeret alicubi esse permissum; quod vix est ut usu venire possit. In Frisiâ matrimonium est, quando mas & foemina in nuptias con-senserunt & se mutuo pro conjugibus habent, etsi in Ecclesia nunquam sint con-juncti: Id in Hollandia pro matrimonio non habetur. Frisii tarnen Conjuges sine dubio apud Hollandos jure Conjugum, in lucris dotium, donationibus propter nuptias, successionibus liberorum aliisque fruentur. Similiter, Brabantus uxore ductà dispen-satione Pontificis, in gradu prohibito, si hue migret, tolerabitur; at tarnen si Frisius cum fratris filia se conferat in Brabantiam ibique nuptias celebret, hue reversus non vide tur tolerandus; quia sic jus nostrum pessimis exemplis eluderetur, eòque pertinet haec observado; Saepe sit, ut adolescentes sub Curatoribus agentes furtivos amores nuptiis conglutinare cupientes, abeant in Frisiam Orientalem, aliave loca, in quibus Curatorum consensus ad matrimonium non requiritur, juxta leges Romanas quae apud nos hac parte cessant. Celebrant ibi matrimonium & mox redeunt in Patriam. Ego ita existimo, hanc rem manifesto pertinere ad eversionem juris nostri; ac ideo non esse Magistratus heic obligates, ex jure Gentium, ejusmodi nuptias agnoscere & ratas habere…” De conflictu legum nu. 8, in 2 Praelectiones Juris Romani et Hodierni 33 (2d ed. 1707). The bracketed phrase in the translation quoted in the text is this writer's preferred rendition of Huber's “ratas habere.” Davies rendered this phrase “give effect to.”

⁷⁸ See note 35 supra.

⁷⁹ De conflictu legum nu. 2; Heedensdaegse Rechtslgeeertheyt bk. 1, kap. 3, par. 4–6.

⁸⁰ De conflictu legum nu. 13; Heedensdaegse Rechtsgeleertheyt bk. 1, kap. 3, par. 42.

⁸¹ De conflictu legum nu. 8—the ground of public policy as distinguished from fraude a la loi.

⁸² Johannis Voet, Commentarius ad Pandectas lib. 23, tit. 3, §4; 4 The Selective Voet 37–8 (Gane trans. 1956).

⁸³ Ibid.

⁸⁴ See 1 Howard, History of Matrimonial Institutions 347 (1904).

⁸⁵ “L'Edict de Blois, de l'an mil cinq cens huictante, article quarante & quatre, defend aux Notaries de receuoir les paroles de present en contracts de mariage, & aux Prestres de faire espousailles sans proclamation de bans.” Coquille, La coustume de Niuernois, ch. 23 Des droits appartonans a gens mariez, art. 1, at 232, in Les œuvres (Paris 1646). “La tierce circonstace requise pour la legitimation par mariage sequent, est que le mariage ait esté solemnisé en face d'Eglise, auec les ceremonies accoustu-mées & publiques.… Selon les loix Canoniques le mariage, pour le lieu & obligation des personnes; qui est ce qu'on dit pro foedere est accomply, & vaut par les seules paroles de présent: mais en ce qui est pour l'effect du droict ciuil, public & politique, comme pout la puissance maritale, communauté de bien & douaire, & pour la legitime des enfans à l'effect des successions és biens; ie croy que ce n'est assez de ce consentement couuert, ains est necessaire la ceremonie publique.” id. eh. 4 Des Fiefs, art. 20, at 61–2, in Les œuvres.

⁸⁶ See notes 10–11 supra.

⁸⁷ Pothier, Traité du contrat de mariage pt. 2, ch. 2, nu. 69, in 6 Œuvres de Pothier 1846); id., pt. 4, ch. 1, nu. 325–26.

⁸⁸ See Pothier, Traité du contrat de mariage pt. 4, ch. 1, nu. 236, in 6 Œuvres de Pothier (1846).

⁸⁹ “Magistratum Politicum juste ordinationes secundum verbum DEI & jus scriptum de matrimoniis promulgare, judicia de iis instituere, quae consistoria seu Ehegericht appellantur,… enumque, cui in aliis causis cognitio competit vi & jure juris-dictionis, si aliud constitutio vel usus non invenerit, earn suscipere vel delegare posse. Quocirca non modo ex Protestantibus, qui immediate imperio subjecti sunt, istis judiciis funguntur, ita ut, si in iis per Pontificium Officialem turbentur, mandata & processus, auf den Religions-Frieden, in Camera decernantur. Sed etiam, qui Principi-bus Imperii subsunt, eo jurisdictionem, quam habent, omnimodam extendunt.” David Mevius, Commentarii in jus Lubecense lib. 1, tit. 4, in princ., nu. 40–43 (Francofurti & Lipsiae 1744). This marked a change since Gayll's day, see note 5 supra.

⁹⁰ “Nuptias consensus solus facit,… & cum hic de praesenti intervenerit, nihil am-plius desideratur, sed illae ratae sunt, etsi nee dotalia instrumenta conficiantur,… neque dos constituta sit,… nec deductio in domum mariti facta fuerit,… nec etiam benedictio Sacerdotalis in Ecclesiis Christianis usitata processerit, utpoté, quae non ad substantiam matrimonii inventa, sed pio ordini inservit,… ubi hanc sententiam piam & juridicam esse dicit. Hinc sponsalia de praesenti, quoad plerosque juris effectua, pro indissolubili & vero matrimonio, Sponsus & Sponsa pro conjugibus habentur, & pro paribus dijudicantur… Idque in statutis interpretandis oljservatur, quae, etsi de mari to vel uxore loquantur, locum tarnen in Sponsis inveniunt, nisi vel diversitatis ratio, vel singulare odium materiae strictiss. interpretationem exigant…” David Mevius, Commentarii in jus Lubecense lib. 1, tit. 5, art. 14, nu. 1–5. See also id., lib. 1, tit. 4, in princ., nu. 9.

⁹¹ E.g., David Mevius, Commentarii in jus Lubecense quaest. prael. 6, nu. 38–45; quaest. prael. 4, nu. 13–14.

⁹² Quod attinet solennitates actuum à statutis introductas, observandae eae sunt in dispositionibus hominum juxta locum, ubi negotium geritur, ita ut actus is validus sit, etiam quoad bona alibi sita, [citing Mevius, Gayll, and Rodenburg] quod idem in specie de solennitatibus matrimonii asserit Covarruvias de matrim. part. 2. cap. 7. num. 13…” Wolfgang-Adam Lauterbach, De societate bonorum conjugali cap. 2, § 10 (1661), in 21 Dissertationes juridicae, nu. 21.

⁹³ See note 22 supra.

⁹⁴ See note 92 supra. “Matrimonium juxta solennitates loci alicujus, ubi sponsus & sponsa commorabantur, contractum non polest praetextu ilio rescindi, quòd in domicilio aul patriâ mariti aliae solennitates observentur.” Joannis Nicolai Hertius, De collisione legum dissertatio sec. 4, nu. 10 (1688), in 1 Hertius, Commentationum atque opusculorum at 179 (1713). As to France, see Delaume, Les conflits de lois a la vielle du Code Civil 221–23 (1947).

⁹⁵ See, e.g., Heinrich von Cocceji, Disputado de fundala in territorio et plurium locorum concurrente potestate tit. 7, nu. 22 (1684), discussed in Herrmann, Johan Nikolaus Hert und die deutsche Statutenlehre 66, Neue Kölner Rechtswissenschaftliche Abhandlungen, Heft 25 (1963); Delaume, Les conflits de lois a la vielle du Code Civil 223–26 (1947).

⁹⁶ But van Coesvelt might have made the distinction. See note 61 supra.

⁹⁷ See note 70 supra.