Note 898 — Chapter VI · OLD ENGLISH WIFE-PURCHASE YIELDS TO FREE MARRIAGE

His Eheschliessung (1875) called forth the Verlobung und Trauung (1876) of Friedberg; also a critique by Meyer, in the Jenaer Lit. Ztg., Jan., 1876, 501 ff. Sohm defends his position in Trauung und Verlobung (1876), 15 ff.; in his Zur Trauungsfrage, 11 ff.; and in the Strassburger Festgabe für Thöl, 84, 98 n. 27. The views of Sohm and others are examined by Habicht, Altdeutsche Verlobung (1879), who concludes (75) that "Die Verlobung ist nicht Beginn der Ehe, aber die rechtliche Grundlage und nothwendige Voraussetzung derselben." The Trauung is "fulfilment of the betrothal" and "constitutes the beginning of the marriage." Lehmann, Verlobung und Hochzeit (1882), examines the problem from the standpoint of northern law, and reaches the analogous result (124, 125) that the "betrothal is a primary and independent, the nuptials (Hochzeit) a secondary and dependent, act for joining in marriage (Eheschliessungsact); the betrothal is the real Eheschliessungsact, the nuptials an Ehevollziehungsact." Sohm's view is adopted by Spirgatis, Verlobung und Vermählung, 4 f.; it is attacked by Scheurl, Kirchliches Eheschliessungsrecht, 35 ff.; it is regarded as extreme (übertrieben), though in spirit right, by Schubert, Die evangelische Trauung, 15 n. 2; Loening, Gesch. d. deut. Kirchenrechts, II, 581, 600 n. 1; both betrothal and tradition are essential to a German marriage according to Sehling, Unterscheidung der Verlöbnisse, 30; while Heusler holds that neither betrothal nor tradition, but the copula carnalis, is the essential point: Institutionen, II, 284. Cf. Klein, Das Eheverlöbniss, 130-34; Schroeder, Rechtsgeschichte, 296, 297, and authorities there cited; and Dieckhoff, Kirchliche Trauung, 66, 67, note, 97, who favors and summarizes Sohm's view.