man, as the weaker partner, will be
found to remain in servitude. It can never be through the
strengthening of moral prohibitions, but only by their modification to
suit the growing needs of society that freedom will come to women.

The history of the development of marriage in Rome illustrates this
very forcibly. Even in the days of the Twelve Tables a wholly
different and free union had begun to take the place of the legally
recognised marriage forms. It was developed from the early marriage by
_usus_. We have seen that this marriage depended on the cohabitation
of the man and the woman continued for one year, which gave the right
of ownership to the husband in exactly the same way as possession for
a year gave the right over others' property. But in Rome, if the
enjoyment of property was broken for any period during the year, no
title to it arose out of the _usufruct_. This idea was cleverly
applied to marriage by _usus_. The wife by passing three nights in the
year out of the conjugal domicile broke the _manus_ of the husband and
did not become his property.

When, or how, it became a custom to convert this breach of
cohabitation into a system and establish a form of marriage, which
entirely freed the wife from the _manus_ of the husband, we do not
know. What is certain is that this new form of free marriage by
consent rapidly replaced the older forms of the _coemptio_, and even
the solemn _confarreatio of the patricians_.

It will be readily seen that this expansion of marriage produced a
revolution in the position of woman. The bride now remained a member
of her own family, and though nominally under the control of her
father or guardian, she was for all purposes practically free, having
complete control over her own property, and was, in fact, her own
mistress.

The law of divorce evolved rapidly, and the changes were wholly in
favour of women. Marriage was now a private contract, of which the
basis was consent; and, being a contract, it could be dissolved for
any reason, with no shame attached to the dissolution, provided it was
carried out with the due legal form, in the presence of competent
witnesses. Both parties had equal liberty of divorce, only with
certain pecuniary disadvantages, connected with the forfeiting of the
wife's dowry, for the husband whose fault led to the divorce.[300] It
was expressly stated that the husband had no right to demand fidelity
from his wife unless he practised the same hi