marriage and its constant effort to protect the wife as much as
possible. A wife could not be held in a criminal action if she committed
theft against her husband. The various statements of the jurists make
the matter clear. Thus Paulus[79]: "A special action for the recovery of
property removed [_rerum amotarum iudicium_] has been introduced
against her who was a wife, because it has been decided that it is not
possible to bring a criminal action for theft against her [_quid non
placuit cum ea furti agere posse_]. Some--as Nerva Cassius--think she
cannot even commit theft, on the ground that the partnership in life
made her mistress, as it were. Others--like Sabinus and Proculus--hold
that the wife can commit theft, just as a daughter may against her
father, but that there can be no criminal action by established law."
"As a mark of respect to the married state, an action involving disgrace
for the wife is refused."[80] "Therefore she will be held for theft if
she touches the same things after being divorced. So, too, if her slave
commits theft, we can sue her on the charge. But it is possible to bring
an action for theft even against a wife, if she has stolen from him
whose heirs we are or before she married us; nevertheless, as a mark of
respect we say that in each case a formal claim for restitution alone is
admissible, but not an action for theft."[81] "If any one lends help or
advice to a wife who is filching the property of her husband, he shall
be held for theft. If he commits theft with her, he shall be held for
theft, although the woman herself is not held."[82]

A husband who did not avenge the murder of his wife lost all claims to
her dowry, which was then confiscated to the state; this by order of the
Emperor Severus.[83]

The laws on adultery are rather more lenient to the woman than to the
man. In the first place, the Roman law insisted that it was unfair for a