after the emancipation of the adopted party, which might otherwise have been effected for the purpose".

In respect of the collateral or transverse line of relation the Roman law was very scrupulous, and strictly prohibited the marriage of brothers and sisters, whether they were born of the same father and mother, or only of the same father or the same mother'. Cornelius Nepos, in recording the marriage of Cimon with his sister, observes, that such marriages were not permitted by the Roman laws, and in truth the just provisions of these laws were never violated but by such monsters as Caligula and Otho. In the earlier and severer ages of the republic, when one Papyrius had debauched his sister, the father sent a sword to his daughter, with which she destroyed herself, and the son also expiated his crime by suicide. In collateral relations adoption was not an impediment to marriage. When the adoption was dissolved, a man might marry a woman who was his sister by adoption: he might also marry the mother, aunt, or granddaughter, of his adopting father; but not his wife, because there had been between them the relation of son-in-law and motherin-law without emancipation he might also marry the daughter of his sister by adoption, and, under certain limitations, the daughter of his own father by adoption. Thus Maximinus gave his daughter in marriage to Constantine, who was his grandson by adoption': so Claudius gave his daughter Octavia to Nero, who was his adopted son, previously trans

Fr. Hotman de Rit. Nu, et Matr. c. 4. • Ibid. c. 4.

Ibid. c. 5.

ferring his daughter into another family by adoption, that it might not be said that the brother had married the sistert.

The marriage of an uncle with a niece was also interdicted by the Roman law, and unknown before the reign of Claudius, whose passion for Agrippina, the daughter of his brother Germanicus, led him to procure a decree of the senate to justify the marriage of uncles with their brothers' daughters", which before that time had been held unjust, and to which there was afterwards such a natural repugnance that they were celebrated in very few instances, although the law and licence remained until it was repealed by Nerva. Constans and Constantius annexed a capital punishment to the offence, and their constitution was confirmed by Zeno*. It was not permitted to have a brother's daughter for a concubine, although she was the daughter of a freedman, without the imputation of incest: but Domitian was not ashamed to live in open debauchery with Julia his niece, and the pernicious precedent was followed by Heraclius,

The will of Claudius was the occasion of introducing a singular distinction into the Roman law, which now permitted the marriage of an uncle with his brother's daughter, but still restricted the marriage of an uncle with his sister's daughter, to whom

Brisson de Jure Con.

"See Tac. Ann. 1. xii. s. 5, 6. Beza, de Divortiis, considers this restriction one of the laws, ab ipsa natura parente, vel ab ipso Deo potius cordibus humanis insculptæ.

* Fr. Hotman de Rit. Nu. et Matr. c. 5.

y Brisson de Jure Con.

he bore the very same relation, marriage with whom was pronounced incestuous by the civil law, and called not marriage but contubernium, and expressly interdicted by the decrees of the Emperors Maximilian and Diocletian*.

If uncles were not permitted to marry their nieces, it seems to follow by analogy that nephews should not marry their aunts; and the incestuous nature of these marriages may be further inferred from the plea of Nero, in imputing to Silvanus the crime of incest, committed with Lepida his aunt, the wife of Cassius. These marriages were expressly prohibited in the Roman laws, on the ground that aunts participated in the parental relation.

The marriage of cousins can hardly be said to have been regulated by Roman law, and was never prohibited. Livy has preserved the speech of one Ligustinus, who had been married to his cousin, the daughter of his father's brother: and similar marriages were contracted by Brutus with the daughter of his uncle Cato; by Melinus with his cousin, the sister of Cluentius; and by Antoninus with Annia Faustina. Quintilian also, in deploring the premature death of his son, declares, that it had been his intention to give him in marriage to his cousin, the daughter of his father's brother. Tacitus however, or rather Vitellius, whose artful speech he is recording, affirms, that these marriages were for a long time unknown at Rome; and Plutarch relates, that it was only by a late constitution that they were allowed, when a man charged with the offence of

Fr. Hotman de Rit. Nu. et Matr. c. 5.

marrying his cousin was acquitted by the people, who passed a law on the occasion, giving sanction to the marriage of cousins, but forbidding the marriage of nearer relations. The infrequency of these marriages before the time of Plutarch and Tacitus, depended more upon the private will and opinion of individuals than upon the provisions of any public law. After this time these marriages became more frequent; and indeed the whole law of marriage was revised under the Christian emperors.

"The profane legislators of Rome," says Gibbon, "were never tempted, by interest or superstition, to multiply the forbidden degrees: but they inflexibly condemned the marriage of brothers and sisters; hesitated whether first-cousins should be touched by the same interdict; revered the parental character of aunts and uncles; and treated affinity and adoption as a just imitation of the ties of blooda." They were also resolute in the interdiction of all polygamy, and in insisting on the nullity of all marriages between persons of inadequate age; persons who were not citizens of Rome; who were of different ranks; or who held certain offices, whether public or private, which they might be under temptation to abuse. The general penalty of these unjust marriages, with variations adapted to particular circumstances, was the illegitimacy and consequent disinheritance of the children, and the forfeiture of all conjugal privileges, whether for the redress of injuries or the establishment of lawful rights. In many of these restrictions upon matrimony, there is

Rom. Emp. c. 44..

a striking conformity in the institution of the two great nations of antiquity.

The general prevalence of these restrictions, and the general abhorrence of the incest which they are intended to prevent, have been ascribed to a law of nature and an innate sense of propriety; and the supposition is rather confirmed than weakened by the exceptions which are alleged. The incestuous marriage of parents with children was contrary to the ancient law of Persia as well as of Greece: and it was only in the corruption of Persian manners, and under the pretence of preserving the purity of the royal blood, that these marriages were at first admitted, and eventually obtained such sanction and authority, that none but the issue of a mother by her son was worthy of the Magian priesthood. It is especially recorded, that the passion of Cambyses for his own sister introduced the marriage of brothers with sisters, which had been previously unknown; and when the king consulted the judges upon the question, it was subtly resolved, that there was no law which forbade the marriage, and that there was a law which suffered kings to do as they would'. The prevalence of these incestuous marriages in succeeding ages was a subject, to which the primitive writers frequently advert, in exposing the evils of the popular idolatry.

It is not necessary to dwell on the perverted

b Gerhard, s. 302.

Catullus in Gell.

Gerhard, s. 303. Herodot. Thalia. Cyrus is said to have married his mother's sister. See Cyropæd. 1. viii. c. 5. s. 28.

Tertull. Apologet. s. 9.

Min. Felix, s. 31. Recog. S. Clem.

1. ix. c. 20, 27, 29. Orac. Sibyll. p. 660. ed. Amst. 1689.