s this acceptance of fire and water as the essence
of marriage, (Pandect. l. xxiv. tit. 1, leg. 66. See Heineccius, Hist.
J. R. No. 317.)]

[Footnote 50: Cicero (de Officiis, iii. 19) may state an ideal case, but
St. Am brose (de Officiis, iii. 2,) appeals to the practice of his own
times, which he understood as a lawyer and a magistrate, (Schulting
ad Ulpian, Fragment. tit. xxii. No. 28, p. 643, 644.) * Note: In
this passage the author has endeavored to collect all the examples of
judicial formularies which he could find. That which he adduces as the
form of cretio haereditatis is absolutely false. It is sufficient to
glance at the passage in Cicero which he cites, to see that it has no
relation to it. The author appeals to the opinion of Schulting, who, in
the passage quoted, himself protests against the ridiculous and absurd
interpretation of the passage in Cicero, and observes that Graevius had
already well explained the real sense. See in Gaius the form of cretio
haereditatis Inst. l. ii. p. 166.--W.]

[Footnote 51: The furtum lance licioque conceptum was no longer
understood in the time of the Antonines, (Aulus Gellius, xvi. 10.) The
Attic derivation of Heineccius, (Antiquitat. Rom. l. iv. tit. i. No.
13--21) is supported by the evidence of Aristophanes, his scholiast, and
Pollux. * Note: Nothing more is known of this ceremony; nevertheless
we find that already in his own days Gaius turned it into ridicule. He
says, (lib. iii. et p. 192, Sections 293,) prohibiti actio quadrupli
ex edicto praetoris introducta est; lex autem eo nomine nullam poenam
constituit. Hoc solum praecepit, ut qui quaerere velit, nudus quaerat,
linteo cinctus, lancem habens; qui si quid invenerit. jubet id lex
furtum manifestum esse. Quid sit autem linteum? quaesitum est. Sed
verius est consuti genus esse, quo necessariae partes tegerentur. Quare
lex tota ridicula est. Nam qui vestitum quaerere prohibet, is et nudum
quaerere prohibiturus est; eo magis, quod invenerit ibi imponat, neutrum
eorum procedit, si id quod quaeratur, ejus magnitudinis aut naturae
sit ut neque subjici, neque ibi imponi possit. Certe non dubitatur,
cujuscunque materiae sit ea lanx, satis legi fieri. We see moreover,
from this passage, that the basin, as most authors, resting on
the authority of Festus, have supposed, was not used to cover the
figure.--W. Gibbon says the face, though equally inaccurately. This
passage of Gaius, I must observe, as well as others in M. Wa