Note 637 — Chapter IV · RISE OF THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT

It is so regarded by Sohm, Institutes of Roman Law, 361 n. 3; by Westermarck, op. cit., 397; Schrader, op. cit., 382. Rossbach, Die römische Ehe, 65 ff., 93, 145, 245 ff., holds that there was one original form from which both coemptio and confarreatio were derived, and that it combined purchase with religious elements. Karlowa, Die Formen der röm. Ehe, 1 ff., 45., criticises Rossbach and holds that it remains to be proved that coemptio is a survival of real purchase, it being more likely a particular use of mancipatio arising perhaps under Servius Tullius; but Leist, op. cit., 128 ff., rejects this view and favors the theory of survival. Lange, Römische Alterthümer, I, 105, 106; and Bernhöft, Römische Königszeit, 186, are in practical agreement with Karlowa. Cf. Poste, Gaius, 89 ff.; Muirhead, Private Law of Rome, 441-43, who rejects the theory of survival; Letourneau, L'évolution du mariage, 149, 150; Monlezun, Femme mariée, 28-30.