~  XXXI  ~

S. P. Scott, The Civil Law, XVII, Cincinnati, 1932 ).

The Same Emperor to the Same Stylianus.

  God, who created man from clay, and formed woman from one of his ribs, joined her to him as one of his members, that she, being aware of her origin, might learn from this to preserve her kindness and affection uncontaminated for her husband. Therefore she who is animated by such feelings, and who reserves all her love for her husband, is, indeed, a support for him, and does not violate the intention of her Creator. One, however, who entertains contrary sentiments, not only seems to be ignorant of the end of her existence, but cannot be considered as joined to her husband, although by marriage she is deemed only to form a single being with him. Hence two laws have been enacted, one against a woman who, through dislike to her husband, takes pains to produce an abortion upon herself, and accomplishes the death of her unborn child, and another enacted against the husband requiring him to repudiate a woman who has been guilty of such an outrage; but We think it advisable to adopt that which authorizes divorce, as being much more advantageous. It is unreasonable and absolutely wicked for a woman who displays such decided hatred towards a husband as to destroy in her womb the germ of his posterity (without taking into consideration the violation of Nature's law), to still have the right to cohabit with him; for if We avoid as a malefactor a person who injures the work of another, how can a husband retain near him as a member of his family, instead of repulsing her as a dangerous enemy, a woman who has attempted to destroy a work of such excellent character, and one so necessary as procreation, when he experiences the greatest injury from her act? What more conclusive evidence of the hatred she entertains for him could she disclose? Is it not clear that it is his part to establish the fact that she has prevented the child begotten by him from coming alive in the world? Thus, as We have previously stated, the law which decrees their separation under such circumstances shall be the only one observed, and a husband can leave his wife if he learns that she has been guilty of a crime of this description. For if the law permits a marriage to be dissolved because the wife has passed a night away from home, or is proved to have attended a banquet in the company of men with whom it is not proper to associate, which circumstances do not show the same aversion for her husband, and do not always even establish her disgrace, why should he not be separated from her when she has committed a crime which is an outrage both against Nature and himself, but be obliged to live with a woman who may plot against his life?