Justinian•DIGESTA
Abbo Floriacensis1 work
Abelard3 works
Addison9 works
Adso Dervensis1 work
Aelredus Rievallensis1 work
Alanus de Insulis2 works
Albert of Aix1 work
HISTORIA HIEROSOLYMITANAE EXPEDITIONIS12 sections
Albertano of Brescia5 works
DE AMORE ET DILECTIONE DEI4 sections
SERMONES4 sections
Alcuin9 works
Alfonsi1 work
Ambrose4 works
Ambrosius4 works
Ammianus1 work
Ampelius1 work
Andrea da Bergamo1 work
Andreas Capellanus1 work
DE AMORE LIBRI TRES3 sections
Annales Regni Francorum1 work
Annales Vedastini1 work
Annales Xantenses1 work
Anonymus Neveleti1 work
Anonymus Valesianus2 works
Apicius1 work
DE RE COQUINARIA5 sections
Appendix Vergiliana1 work
Apuleius2 works
METAMORPHOSES12 sections
DE DOGMATE PLATONIS6 sections
Aquinas6 works
Archipoeta1 work
Arnobius1 work
ADVERSVS NATIONES LIBRI VII7 sections
Arnulf of Lisieux1 work
Asconius1 work
Asserius1 work
Augustine5 works
CONFESSIONES13 sections
DE CIVITATE DEI23 sections
DE TRINITATE15 sections
CONTRA SECUNDAM IULIANI RESPONSIONEM2 sections
Augustus1 work
RES GESTAE DIVI AVGVSTI2 sections
Aurelius Victor1 work
LIBER ET INCERTORVM LIBRI3 sections
Ausonius2 works
Avianus1 work
Avienus2 works
Bacon3 works
HISTORIA REGNI HENRICI SEPTIMI REGIS ANGLIAE11 sections
Balde2 works
Baldo1 work
Bebel1 work
Bede2 works
HISTORIAM ECCLESIASTICAM GENTIS ANGLORUM7 sections
Benedict1 work
Berengar1 work
Bernard of Clairvaux1 work
Bernard of Cluny1 work
DE CONTEMPTU MUNDI LIBRI DUO2 sections
Biblia Sacra3 works
VETUS TESTAMENTUM49 sections
NOVUM TESTAMENTUM27 sections
Bigges1 work
Boethius de Dacia2 works
Bonaventure1 work
Breve Chronicon Northmannicum1 work
Buchanan1 work
Bultelius2 works
Caecilius Balbus1 work
Caesar3 works
COMMENTARIORUM LIBRI VII DE BELLO GALLICO CUM A. HIRTI SUPPLEMENTO8 sections
COMMENTARIORUM LIBRI III DE BELLO CIVILI3 sections
LIBRI INCERTORUM AUCTORUM3 sections
Calpurnius Flaccus1 work
Calpurnius Siculus1 work
Campion8 works
Carmen Arvale1 work
Carmen de Martyrio1 work
Carmen in Victoriam1 work
Carmen Saliare1 work
Carmina Burana1 work
Cassiodorus5 works
Catullus1 work
Censorinus1 work
Christian Creeds1 work
Cicero3 works
ORATORIA33 sections
PHILOSOPHIA21 sections
EPISTULAE4 sections
Cinna Helvius1 work
Claudian4 works
Claudii Oratio1 work
Claudius Caesar1 work
Columbus1 work
Columella2 works
Commodianus3 works
Conradus Celtis2 works
Constitutum Constantini1 work
Contemporary9 works
Cotta1 work
Dante4 works
Dares the Phrygian1 work
de Ave Phoenice1 work
De Expugnatione Terrae Sanctae per Saladinum1 work
Declaratio Arbroathis1 work
Decretum Gelasianum1 work
Descartes1 work
Dies Irae1 work
Disticha Catonis1 work
Egeria1 work
ITINERARIUM PEREGRINATIO2 sections
Einhard1 work
Ennius1 work
Epistolae Austrasicae1 work
Epistulae de Priapismo1 work
Erasmus7 works
Erchempert1 work
Eucherius1 work
Eugippius1 work
Eutropius1 work
BREVIARIVM HISTORIAE ROMANAE10 sections
Exurperantius1 work
Fabricius Montanus1 work
Falcandus1 work
Falcone di Benevento1 work
Ficino1 work
Fletcher1 work
Florus1 work
EPITOME DE T. LIVIO BELLORUM OMNIUM ANNORUM DCC LIBRI DUO2 sections
Foedus Aeternum1 work
Forsett2 works
Fredegarius1 work
Frodebertus & Importunus1 work
Frontinus3 works
STRATEGEMATA4 sections
DE AQUAEDUCTU URBIS ROMAE2 sections
OPUSCULA RERUM RUSTICARUM4 sections
Fulgentius3 works
MITOLOGIARUM LIBRI TRES3 sections
Gaius4 works
Galileo1 work
Garcilaso de la Vega1 work
Gaudeamus Igitur1 work
Gellius1 work
Germanicus1 work
Gesta Francorum10 works
Gesta Romanorum1 work
Gioacchino da Fiore1 work
Godfrey of Winchester2 works
Grattius1 work
Gregorii Mirabilia Urbis Romae1 work
Gregorius Magnus1 work
Gregory IX5 works
Gregory of Tours1 work
LIBRI HISTORIARUM10 sections
Gregory the Great1 work
Gregory VII1 work
Gwinne8 works
Henry of Settimello1 work
Henry VII1 work
Historia Apolloni1 work
Historia Augusta30 works
Historia Brittonum1 work
Holberg1 work
Horace3 works
SERMONES2 sections
CARMINA4 sections
EPISTULAE5 sections
Hugo of St. Victor2 works
Hydatius2 works
Hyginus3 works
Hymni1 work
Hymni et cantica1 work
Iacobus de Voragine1 work
LEGENDA AUREA24 sections
Ilias Latina1 work
Iordanes2 works
Isidore of Seville3 works
ETYMOLOGIARVM SIVE ORIGINVM LIBRI XX20 sections
SENTENTIAE LIBRI III3 sections
Iulius Obsequens1 work
Iulius Paris1 work
Ius Romanum4 works
Janus Secundus2 works
Johann H. Withof1 work
Johann P. L. Withof1 work
Johannes de Alta Silva1 work
Johannes de Plano Carpini1 work
John of Garland1 work
Jordanes2 works
Julius Obsequens1 work
Junillus1 work
Justin1 work
HISTORIARVM PHILIPPICARVM T. POMPEII TROGI LIBRI XLIV IN EPITOMEN REDACTI46 sections
Justinian3 works
INSTITVTIONES5 sections
CODEX12 sections
DIGESTA50 sections
Juvenal1 work
Kepler1 work
Landor4 works
Laurentius Corvinus2 works
Legenda Regis Stephani1 work
Leo of Naples1 work
HISTORIA DE PRELIIS ALEXANDRI MAGNI3 sections
Leo the Great1 work
SERMONES DE QUADRAGESIMA2 sections
Liber Kalilae et Dimnae1 work
Liber Pontificalis1 work
Livius Andronicus1 work
Livy1 work
AB VRBE CONDITA LIBRI37 sections
Lotichius1 work
Lucan1 work
DE BELLO CIVILI SIVE PHARSALIA10 sections
Lucretius1 work
DE RERVM NATVRA LIBRI SEX6 sections
Lupus Protospatarius Barensis1 work
Macarius of Alexandria1 work
Macarius the Great1 work
Magna Carta1 work
Maidstone1 work
Malaterra1 work
DE REBUS GESTIS ROGERII CALABRIAE ET SICILIAE COMITIS ET ROBERTI GUISCARDI DUCIS FRATRIS EIUS4 sections
Manilius1 work
ASTRONOMICON5 sections
Marbodus Redonensis1 work
Marcellinus Comes2 works
Martial1 work
Martin of Braga13 works
Marullo1 work
Marx1 work
Maximianus1 work
May1 work
SUPPLEMENTUM PHARSALIAE8 sections
Melanchthon4 works
Milton1 work
Minucius Felix1 work
Mirabilia Urbis Romae1 work
Mirandola1 work
CARMINA9 sections
Miscellanea Carminum42 works
Montanus1 work
Naevius1 work
Navagero1 work
Nemesianus1 work
ECLOGAE4 sections
Nepos3 works
LIBER DE EXCELLENTIBUS DVCIBUS EXTERARVM GENTIVM24 sections
Newton1 work
PHILOSOPHIÆ NATURALIS PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA4 sections
Nithardus1 work
HISTORIARUM LIBRI QUATTUOR4 sections
Notitia Dignitatum2 works
Novatian1 work
Origo gentis Langobardorum1 work
Orosius1 work
HISTORIARUM ADVERSUM PAGANOS LIBRI VII7 sections
Otto of Freising1 work
GESTA FRIDERICI IMPERATORIS5 sections
Ovid7 works
METAMORPHOSES15 sections
AMORES3 sections
HEROIDES21 sections
ARS AMATORIA3 sections
TRISTIA5 sections
EX PONTO4 sections
Owen1 work
Papal Bulls4 works
Pascoli5 works
Passerat1 work
Passio Perpetuae1 work
Patricius1 work
Tome I: Panaugia2 sections
Paulinus Nolensis1 work
Paulus Diaconus4 works
Persius1 work
Pervigilium Veneris1 work
Petronius2 works
Petrus Blesensis1 work
Petrus de Ebulo1 work
Phaedrus2 works
FABVLARVM AESOPIARVM LIBRI QVINQVE5 sections
Phineas Fletcher1 work
Planctus destructionis1 work
Plautus21 works
Pliny the Younger2 works
EPISTVLARVM LIBRI DECEM10 sections
Poggio Bracciolini1 work
Pomponius Mela1 work
DE CHOROGRAPHIA3 sections
Pontano1 work
Poree1 work
Porphyrius1 work
Precatio Terrae1 work
Priapea1 work
Professio Contra Priscillianum1 work
Propertius1 work
ELEGIAE4 sections
Prosperus3 works
Prudentius2 works
Pseudoplatonica12 works
Publilius Syrus1 work
Quintilian2 works
INSTITUTIONES12 sections
Raoul of Caen1 work
Regula ad Monachos1 work
Reposianus1 work
Ricardi de Bury1 work
Richerus1 work
HISTORIARUM LIBRI QUATUOR4 sections
Rimbaud1 work
Ritchie's Fabulae Faciles1 work
Roman Epitaphs1 work
Roman Inscriptions1 work
Ruaeus1 work
Ruaeus' Aeneid1 work
Rutilius Lupus1 work
Rutilius Namatianus1 work
Sabinus1 work
EPISTULAE TRES AD OVIDIANAS EPISTULAS RESPONSORIAE3 sections
Sallust10 works
Sannazaro2 works
Scaliger1 work
Sedulius2 works
CARMEN PASCHALE5 sections
Seneca9 works
EPISTULAE MORALES AD LUCILIUM16 sections
QUAESTIONES NATURALES7 sections
DE CONSOLATIONE3 sections
DE IRA3 sections
DE BENEFICIIS3 sections
DIALOGI7 sections
FABULAE8 sections
Septem Sapientum1 work
Sidonius Apollinaris2 works
Sigebert of Gembloux3 works
Silius Italicus1 work
Solinus2 works
DE MIRABILIBUS MUNDI Mommsen 1st edition (1864)4 sections
DE MIRABILIBUS MUNDI C.L.F. Panckoucke edition (Paris 1847)4 sections
Spinoza1 work
Statius3 works
THEBAID12 sections
ACHILLEID2 sections
Stephanus de Varda1 work
Suetonius2 works
Sulpicia1 work
Sulpicius Severus2 works
CHRONICORUM LIBRI DUO2 sections
Syrus1 work
Tacitus5 works
Terence6 works
Tertullian32 works
Testamentum Porcelli1 work
Theodolus1 work
Theodosius16 works
Theophanes1 work
Thomas à Kempis1 work
DE IMITATIONE CHRISTI4 sections
Thomas of Edessa1 work
Tibullus1 work
TIBVLLI ALIORVMQUE CARMINVM LIBRI TRES3 sections
Tünger1 work
Valerius Flaccus1 work
Valerius Maximus1 work
FACTORVM ET DICTORVM MEMORABILIVM LIBRI NOVEM9 sections
Vallauri1 work
Varro2 works
RERVM RVSTICARVM DE AGRI CVLTURA3 sections
DE LINGVA LATINA7 sections
Vegetius1 work
EPITOMA REI MILITARIS LIBRI IIII4 sections
Velleius Paterculus1 work
HISTORIAE ROMANAE2 sections
Venantius Fortunatus1 work
Vico1 work
Vida1 work
Vincent of Lérins1 work
Virgil3 works
AENEID12 sections
ECLOGUES10 sections
GEORGICON4 sections
Vita Agnetis1 work
Vita Caroli IV1 work
Vita Sancti Columbae2 works
Vitruvius1 work
DE ARCHITECTVRA10 sections
Waardenburg1 work
Waltarius3 works
Walter Mapps2 works
Walter of Châtillon1 work
William of Apulia1 work
William of Conches2 works
William of Tyre1 work
HISTORIA RERUM IN PARTIBUS TRANSMARINIS GESTARUM24 sections
Xylander1 work
Zonaras1 work
Dig. 25.3.0. De agnoscendis et alendis liberis vel parentibus vel patronis vel libertis.
25.2.0. On the action for removed property.
Dig. 25.3.0. On recognizing and maintaining children or parents or patrons or freedmen.
Dig. 25.6.0. Si mulier ventris nomine in possessione calumniae causa esse dicetur.
25.5.0. If, under the name of the womb, the woman has been put into possession, and that same possession is alleged to have been transferred to another by fraud.
Dig. 25.6.0. If a woman, under the name of the womb, is said to be in possession for the sake of calumny.
Inter necessarias impensas esse labeo ait moles in mare vel flumen proiectas. sed et si pistrinum vel horreum necessario factum sit, in necessariis impensis habendum ait. proinde fulcinius inquit, si aedificium ruens quod habere mulieri utile erat refecerit, aut si oliveta reiecta restauraverit, vel ex stipulatione damni infecti ne committatur praestiterit,
Among necessary expenses Labeo says are breakwaters cast out into the sea or a river. But also, if a bakehouse or a granary has been made out of necessity, he says it is to be held among necessary expenses. Accordingly, Fulcinius says, if someone has repaired a collapsing building which it was useful for the woman to have, or if he has restored olive-groves thrown down, or has furnished performance under the stipulation concerning threatened damage, so that it not be committed,
Nos generaliter definiemus multum interesse, ad perpetuam utilitatem agri vel ad eam quae non ad praesentis temporis pertineat, an vero ad praesentis anni fructum: si in praesentis, cum fructibus hoc compensandum: si vero non fuit ad praesens tantum apta erogatio, necessariis impensis computandum.
We will define in general that it matters much whether it is for the perpetual utility of the field, or for that which does not pertain to the present time, or rather for the fruit of the present year: if for the present, this is to be compensated with the fruits; but if the outlay was not suited only to the present, it is to be accounted among necessary expenses.
Et in totum id videtur necessariis impensis contineri, quod si a marito omissum sit, iudex tanti eum damnabit, quanti mulieris interfuerit eas impensas fieri. sed hoc differt, quod factarum ratio habetur, etsi res male gesta est, non factarum ita, si ob id res male gesta est: itaque si fulserit insulam ruentem eaque exusta sit, impensas consequitur, si non fecerit, deusta ea nihil praestabit.
And in general this seems to be contained under necessary expenses: that if it has been omitted by the husband, the judge will condemn him for as much as it was in the woman’s interest that those expenses be made. But it differs in this respect: account is had of expenses that were made, even if the matter turned out badly; of those not made, only so if on that account the matter turned out badly. Thus, if he has shored up a collapsing tenement and it has been burned down, he recovers the expenses; if he has not done it, the building having been burned, he will provide nothing.
Quod dicitur necessarias impensas dotem minuere, sic erit accipiendum, ut et pomponius ait, non ut ipsae res corporaliter deminuantur, ut puta fundus vel quodcumque aliud corpus: etenim absurdum est deminutionem corporis fieri propter pecuniam. ceterum haec res ^ ^ faciet ^ efficiet^ desinere esse fundum dotalem vel partem eius. manebit igitur maritus in rerum detentationem, donec ei satisfiat: non enim ipso iure corporum, sed dotis fit deminutio.
What is said—that necessary expenses diminish the dowry—is to be understood thus, as Pomponius also says: not that the things themselves are diminished corporeally, for instance an estate or any other corporeal thing; for it is absurd that there be a diminution of a body on account of money. Rather, this matter ^ ^ will make ^ will effect^ that the estate, or a part of it, cease to be dotal. The husband, therefore, will remain in detention of the things until satisfaction is made to him; for the diminution is not in the very right of the bodies, but of the dowry.
Where then do we admit that diminution of the dowry is effected by the law itself? Where there are not corporeal things, but money: for in money reason admits that diminution be made. Accordingly, if corporeal things have been given into the dowry at a valuation, the dowry will be diminished by the law itself through necessary expenses.
Si dos tota soluta sit non habita ratione impensarum, videndum est, an condici possit id, quod pro impensis necessariis compensari solet. et Marcellus admittit condictioni esse locum: sed etsi plerique negent, tamen propter aequitatem Marcelli sententia admittenda est.
If the dowry has been paid in full, no account having been taken of the expenditures, it must be considered whether that which is wont to be compensated for necessary expenditures can be reclaimed by condictio. And Marcellus admits that there is room for a condictio; but even if the majority deny it, nevertheless, on account of equity, Marcellus’s opinion is to be admitted.
Utilium nomine ita faciendam deductionem quidam dicunt, si voluntate mulieris factae sint: iniquum enim esse compelli mulierem rem vendere, ut impensas in eam factas solveret, si aliunde solvere non potest: quod summam habet aequitatis rationem.
Some say that a deduction under the head of useful expenses is to be made only if they were incurred with the woman’s consent: for it is unfair that a woman be compelled to sell the thing in order to pay the expenses laid out on it, if she cannot pay from elsewhere: which has the highest reasoning of equity.
Pro voluptariis impensis, nisi parata sit mulier pati maritum tollentem, exactionem patitur. nam si vult habere mulier, reddere ea quae impensa sunt debet marito: aut si non vult, pati debet tollentem, si modo recipiant separationem: ceterum si non recipiant, relinquendae sunt: ita enim permittendum est marito auferre ornatum quem posuit, si futurum est eius quod abstulit.
For voluptuary expenses, unless the woman is prepared to allow the husband removing them, she is subject to exaction. For if the woman wishes to have them, she ought to return to the husband the things that were expended; or if she does not wish it, she ought to allow him to remove them, provided only that they admit of separation; but if they do not admit of it, they must be left. For thus it is to be permitted to the husband to take away the adornment which he installed, if what he has removed will be his.
Quod dicitur impensas, quae in res dotales necessario factae sunt, dotem deminuere, ita interpretandum est, ut, si quid extra tutelam necessariam in res dotales impensum est, id in ea causa sit: nam tueri res dotales vir suo sumptu debet. alioquin tam cibaria dotalibus mancipiis data et quaevis modica aedificiorum dotalium refectio et agrorum quoque cultura dotem minuent: omnia enim haec in specie necessariarum impensarum sunt. sed ipsae res ita praestare intelleguntur, ut non tam impendas in eas, quam deducto eo minus ex his percepisse videaris.
What is said—that expenses which have been necessarily made upon dowry property diminish the dowry—is to be interpreted thus: if anything has been expended upon dowry property beyond necessary tutelage, that falls into that case; for the husband ought to protect/maintain the dowry property at his own expense. Otherwise, even rations given to dowry slaves, and any modest refection of dowry buildings, and also the cultivation of fields, would diminish the dowry; for all these are in the species (category) of necessary expenses. But the things themselves are understood to render performance in such a way that you are seen not so much to expend upon them, as—after that is deducted—to have received less from them.
Et ante omnia quaecumque impensae quaerendorum fructuum causa factae erunt, quamquam eaedem etiam colendi causa fiant ideoque non solum ad percipiendos fructus, sed etiam ad conservandam ipsam rem speciemque eius necessariae sint, eas vir ex suo facit nec ullam habet eo nomine ex dote deductionem.
And before all, whatever expenses shall have been made for the purpose of procuring fruits, although the same are also made for the purpose of cultivation and therefore are necessary not only for the taking/perception of the fruits, but also for conserving the thing itself and its appearance, the husband makes them out of his own, and under that title has no deduction from the dowry.
Rerum amotarum iudicium singulare introductum est adversus eam quae uxor fuit, quia non placuit cum ea furti agere posse: quibusdam existimantibus ne quidem furtum eam facere, ut nerva cassio, quia societas vitae quodammodo dominam eam faceret: aliis, ut sabino et proculo, furto quidem eam facere, sicut filia patri faciat, sed furti non esse actionem constituto iure, in qua sententia et iulianus rectissime est:
The singular action for things removed was introduced against her who had been a wife, because it did not seem good that one could bring an action for theft against her: some thinking that she does not even commit theft, as Nerva and Cassius [held], because the partnership of life in some measure made her mistress; others, as Sabinus and Proculus, that indeed she does commit theft, just as a daughter does against her father, but that the action for theft does not exist under the law as established—in which opinion Julian too is most correct:
Sed et cum uxore furti agere possibile est, si ei cui heredes simus furtum fecit, vel nobis antequam nuberet: tamen propter reverentiam personarum in utroque casu furtivam tantum condictionem competere, non etiam furti actionem dicimus.
But also it is possible to sue a wife for theft, if she committed theft against him of whom we are the heirs, or against us before she married: nevertheless, on account of the reverence of the persons, in both cases we say that only the furtive condiction is available, not also the action for theft.
Si filia familias res amoverit, mela fulcinius aiunt de peculio dandam actionem, quia displicuit eam furti obligari: vel in ipsam ob res amotas dari actionem. sed si pater adiuncta filia de dote agat, non aliter ei dandam actionem, quam si filiam rerum amotarum iudicio in solidum et cum satisdatione defendat. sed mortua filia in patrem rerum amotarum actionem dari non oportere proculus ait, nisi quatenus ex ea re pater locupletior sit.
If a daughter in paternal power has removed property, Mela and Fulcinius say that an action de peculio should be granted, because it has displeased that she be bound for theft; or that an action be given against her herself on account of the removed things. But if the father, with the daughter joined, proceeds concerning the dowry, an action is to be given to him only if he defends the daughter in the suit for removed things in solidum and with surety. But Proculus says that, if the daughter has died, an action for removed things ought not to be given against the father, except insofar as the father is more enriched from that matter.
Iurare autem tam vir quam uxor cogetur. pater autem amoventis iurare non cogitur, cum iniquum sit de alieno facto alium iurare: is ergo cogitur iurare, qui amovisse dicitur. et idcirco nec heres eius, qui quaeve amovisse dicetur, iurare cogetur.
However, both the husband and the wife will be compelled to swear. But the father of the remover is not compelled to swear, since it is inequitable for one to swear concerning another’s act: therefore he is compelled to swear who is said to have removed. And for that reason neither the heir of him or her who will be said to have removed will be compelled to swear.
Uxor et nurus et pronurus viro et socero et prosocero furtum facere possunt, furti autem non tenentur, nisi forte emancipatus sit filius: tunc enim nurus patri eius et furtum facit et furti tenetur.
The wife and the daughter-in-law and the granddaughter-in-law can commit theft against the husband and the father-in-law and the grandfather-in-law, but they are not held liable for theft, unless perhaps the son has been emancipated: for then the daughter-in-law, as to his father, both commits theft and is held liable for theft.
Si concubina res amoverit, hoc iure utimur, ut furti teneatur: consequenter dicemus, ubicumque cessat matrimonium, ut puta in ea, quae tutori suo nupsit vel contra mandata convenit vel sicubi alibi cessat matrimonium, cessare rerum amotarum actionem, quia competit furti.
If a concubine has removed goods, we use this law, that she is held for theft: consequently we shall say that wherever matrimony is lacking, for instance in the case of one who has married her tutor (guardian) or has entered into a union contrary to mandates, or wherever else matrimony fails, the action for removed things ceases, because an action for theft lies.
Sed et si divortii tempore fures in domum mariti induxerit et per eos res amoverit, ita ut ipsa non contrectaverit, rerum amotarum iudicio tenebitur. verum est itaque quod labeo scripsit uxorem rerum amotarum teneri, etiamsi ad eam res non pervenerit.
But also, if at the time of divorce she has introduced thieves into the husband’s house and through them has removed property, such that she herself did not handle it, she will be held by the action for removed goods. Therefore it is true what Labeo wrote: that the wife is held under the action for removed goods, even if the property has not come to her.
Si servus mulieris iussu dominae divortii causa res amoverit, pedius putat nec furtum eum facere, quoniam nihil lucri sui causa contrectet nec videri furtum facienti opem ferre, cum mulier furtum non faciat, quamvis servus in facinoribus domino dicto audiens esse non debeat: sed rerum amotarum actio erit.
If a woman’s slave, at the order of his mistress, for the sake of divorce, has removed things, Pedius thinks that he does not commit theft, since he handles nothing for the sake of his own lucre, nor does he seem to be bringing aid to one committing theft, since the woman does not commit theft, although a slave ought not to be obedient to his master in crimes; but there will be an action for removed property.
Si propter res amotas egero cum muliere et lis aestimata sit, an actio ei danda sit, si amiserit possessionem? movet me, quia dolo adquisiit possessionem. respondi: qui litis aestimationem suffert, emptoris loco habendus est.
If, on account of removed goods, I shall have brought suit against a woman and the lawsuit has been assessed, whether an action should be granted to her if she has lost possession? What concerns me is that she acquired possession by fraud. I answered: he who bears the assessment of the suit is to be held in the place of a buyer.
Rerum quidem amotarum iudicium sic habet locum, si divortii consilio res amotae fuerint et secutum divortium fuerit. sed si in matrimonio uxor marito res subtraxerit, licet cessat rerum amotarum actio, tamen ipsas res maritus condicere potest: nam iure gentium condici puto posse res ab his, qui non ex iusta causa possident.
Indeed, the suit for things removed has a place in this way, if with the intention of divorce the things have been removed and a divorce has followed. But if, in matrimony, the wife has removed things from her husband, although the action for things removed does not lie, nevertheless the husband can bring a condictio for the things themselves: for by the law of nations I think that things can be demanded by condictio from those who possess without a just cause.
Rerum amotarum aestimatio ad tempus quo amotae sunt referri debet: nam veritate furtum fit, et si lenius coercetur mulier. quare nec a bonae fidei possessore ita res amotae usucapiuntur: sed si pluris factae non restituuntur quae amotae sunt, crescit aestimatio, ut in condictione furtivae rei.
The appraisal of removed things ought to be referred to the time at which they were removed: for in truth theft is committed, even if the woman is dealt with more leniently. Wherefore, neither are things so removed usucapted by a good‑faith possessor; but if the things removed are not restored and have become of greater value, the appraisal rises, as in the condictio for a stolen thing.
Permittit igitur mulieri parentive in cuius potestate est vel ei cui mandatum ab eis est, si se putet praegnatem, denuntiare intra dies triginta post divortium connumerandos ipsi marito vel parenti in cuius potestate est, aut domum denuntiare, si nullius eorum copiam habeat.
Therefore it permits the woman, or the parent in whose power she is, or the one to whom a mandate from them has been given, if she thinks herself pregnant, to give notice within thirty days to be counted after the divorce, to the husband himself or to the parent in whose power he is, or to give notice to the household, if she has no access to any of them.
Denuntiare autem hoc tantum esse mulierem ex eo praegnantem. non ergo hoc denuntiat, ut mittat custodes maritus: sufficit enim mulieri hoc notum facere, quod sit praegnas. mariti est iam aut mittere custodes aut ei denuntiare, quod non sit ex se praegnas: hoc autem vel ipsi marito vel alii nomine eius facere permittitur.
To give notice, however, is only this: that the woman is pregnant by him. Therefore he does not give notice to the effect that the husband should send guards: for it suffices for the woman to make this known, that she is pregnant. It is now the husband’s part either to send guards or to give her notice that she is not pregnant by him: and this is permitted to be done either by the husband himself or by another in his name.
Poena autem mariti ea est, ut, nisi aut custodes praemiserit aut contra denuntiaverit non esse ex se praegnatem, cogatur maritus partum agnoscere: et, si non agnoverit, extra ordinem coercetur. debebit igitur respondere non esse ex se praegnatem aut nomine eius responderi: quod si factum fuerit, non alias necesse habebit agnoscere, nisi vere filius fuerit.
But the husband’s penalty is this, that, unless he has either sent guards in advance or has given notice to the contrary that she is not pregnant by him, the husband is compelled to acknowledge the birth; and, if he does not acknowledge it, he is coerced by extraordinary procedure. therefore he ought to respond that she is not pregnant by him, or to have it answered in his name: and if this shall have been done, he will not otherwise be obliged to acknowledge, unless he is truly the son.
Sed si maritus ultro custodes offerat et ea non admittat, vel si non denuntiaverit mulier, aut si denuntiaverit quidem, custodes autem arbitrio iudicis non admiserit, liberum est marito parentive eius partum non agnoscere.
But if the husband of his own accord should offer custodians and she not admit them, or if the woman should not give notice, or if indeed she should give notice but should not admit the custodians at the judge’s arbitrament, it is free to the husband or to her parent not to acknowledge the offspring.
Eleganter autem apud iulianum libro nono decimo digestorum quaeritur, si intra dies triginta mulier marito non denuntiaverit et intra triginta partum ediderit, an senatus consulto locus sit. et ait plancianum senatus consultum cessare, quia de eo partu non videtur sentire, qui intra diem trigesimum nascatur: quippe dies triginta ad denuntiandum praestituit senatus. sed hanc rem non facere praeiudicium partui arbitror.
Elegantly, however, in Julian, book 19 of the Digest, the question is raised whether, if within thirty days a woman does not give notice to her husband and within thirty she brings forth a child, there is room for the senatorial decree. And he says that the Plancian senatorial decree does not apply, because it does not seem to contemplate that birth which occurs within the thirtieth day: for the senate prescribed thirty days for giving notice. But I think that this circumstance does not prejudice the birth.
Quemadmodum per contrarium si maritus uxore denuntiante custodes miserit, nullum praeiudicium sibi facit. licebit igitur ei partum editum ex se negare nec ei nocebit, quod ventrem custodierit: et ita Marcellus libro septimo digestorum scripsit: ait enim, sive quis neget uxorem sive ex se praegnatem, sine praeiudicio recte mittet custodes, maxime si missurus id ipsum protestetur.
Just as, conversely, if a husband, upon the wife’s denunciation, has sent guards, he creates no prejudice for himself. Therefore it will be permitted to him to deny that the child brought forth is from him, nor will it harm him that he guarded the womb: and thus Marcellus wrote in book 7 of the Digests; for he says that, whether one denies that the wife is pregnant or that she is pregnant by him, he will rightly send guards without prejudice, especially if, when about to send them, he protests that very point.
Iulianus libro nono decimo digestorum scripsit: quod senatus consulto comprehensum est, si mulier viro denuntiaverit se ex eo concepisse et is cui denuntiatum erit custodes ad ventrem custodiendum inspiciendumque non miserit neque contestato dixerit eam ex se praegnatem non esse, ut ei id quod editum sit agnoscere sit necesse, non eo pertinet, ut, si quis agnoscere se filium diceret, suum heredem haberet, quamvis ex alio conceptus sit: quandoque enim, inquit, coepit causa agi, grande praeiudicium adfert pro filio confessio patris.
Julian wrote in the nineteenth book of the Digesta: that which is contained in a senatorial decree—if a woman shall have notified a man that she has conceived by him, and he, to whom it has been notified, has not sent guards to guard and inspect the belly, nor, after the contestatio, has said that she is not pregnant by him, that it is necessary for him to acknowledge whatever shall have been brought forth—does not extend to this, that, if someone should say that he acknowledges a son as his, he would have him as his heir, although he was conceived by another: for whenever, he says, the case has begun to be litigated, the father’s confession brings a great prejudgment in favor of the son.
Idem per contrarium quoque ait, si mulier divortio facto non fecerit ea, quae senatus consulto praecipiuntur, ut liceat patri non agnoscere, non eo pertinere, ut filius natus suum se dicere non possit, sed ad id tantum, ut ita pater alere eum cogatur, si constiterit eum filium esse.
He likewise says conversely that, if after a divorce the woman has not done those things which are prescribed by the senatorial decree (senatus consultum) so that it may be permitted to the father not to acknowledge, this does not extend to the point that the son born cannot declare himself to be his; but only to this extent, that the father is thus compelled to support him, if it is established that he is his son.
Idem iulianus scribit, si uxore denuntiante se praegnatem maritus non negaverit, non utique suum illi partum effici, cogendum tamen alere: ceterum esse satis iniuriosum ait, si quis longo tempore afuerit et reversus uxorem praegnatem invenerit et idcirco reiecerit, si quid ex his, quae senatus consulto continentur, omiserit, suum heredem ei nasci.
The same Julian writes that, if, upon the wife giving notice that she is pregnant, the husband has not denied it, thereby the birth is not assuredly made his, yet he must be compelled to support the child; moreover, he says it is quite injurious that, if someone has been away for a long time and, upon returning, finds his wife pregnant and for that reason has repudiated her, if he has omitted anything of those things which are contained in the senatus consultum, his own heir should be born to him.
Ex his apparet, sive uxor omiserit, quae eam ex senatus consulto observare oportuit, nihil praeiudicare filio, si filius est, non tantum in iure sui, verum ne in alimentis quidem secundum divi pii rescriptum: sive maritus neglexerit facere, quae ex senatus consulto debet, natum cogitur omnimodo alere, ceterum recusare poterit filium.
From these points it appears that, whether the wife has omitted what it was proper for her to observe under the senatus consultum, nothing prejudices the son, if he is indeed a son, not only in his legal right, but not even as to maintenance, according to the rescript of the deified Pius; or whether the husband has neglected to do what he owes under the senatus consultum, he is compelled in every way to support the child that has been born, yet he will be able to repudiate the son.
Plane si denuntiante muliere negaverit ex se esse praegnatem, tametsi custodes non miserit, non evitabit, quo minus quaeratur, an ex eo mulier praegnas sit. quae causa si fuerit acta apud iudicem et pronuntiaverit, cum de hoc agetur quod ex eo praegnas fuerit nec ne, in ea causa esse, ut agnosci debeat: sive filius non fuit sive fuit, esse suum.
Plainly, if, upon the woman giving formal notice, he has denied that she is pregnant by him, although he has not sent custodians, he will not avoid an inquiry into whether the woman is pregnant from him. If this cause has been pleaded before a judge and he has pronounced, when the issue is being litigated whether she was pregnant by him or not, it is in such a position that it must be acknowledged: whether there was no son or there was one, it is his.
Quia plancianum senatus consultum ad eos partus pertinet qui post divortium eduntur, aliud senatus consultum temporibus divi hadriani factum est, ut, etiamsi constante matrimonio partus sit editus, de agnoscendo eo agatur.
Because the Plancian senatorial decree pertains to those offspring who are brought forth after a divorce, another senatorial decree was made in the times of the deified Hadrian, to the effect that, even if the offspring is brought forth while the marriage is still subsisting, there shall be litigation de agnoscendo concerning recognizing him.
Quid ergo, si quis post mortem patris nascatur avo superstite, in cuius potestate recasurus est, ut si ex filio eius susceptus probetur? videndum quid dici debeat. et certe probandum est cum avo praeiudicium de partu agnoscendo similiter agendum.
What then, if someone is born after the death of his father, the grandfather surviving, into whose power he is going to revert, namely, if he is proven to have been begotten by his son? It must be considered what ought to be said. And certainly it must be maintained that with the grandfather a prejudicial proceeding for recognizing the birth is to be conducted similarly.
Illud tenendum haec senatus consulta post mortem parentis cessare, si is supersit, in cuius potestate recasuri non sunt. quid ergo est? in petitione hereditatis, quam filius intendit, quaeretur, utrum ex eo natus sit cuius hereditatem petit an non.
This must be held: that these senatus consulta cease after the death of the parent, if the person survives into whose power they are not going to fall back. What then? In the petition of the inheritance which the son brings, it will be inquired whether he was born from him whose inheritance he seeks or not.
Sed utrum eos tantum liberos qui sunt in potestate cogatur quis exhibere, an vero etiam emancipatos vel ex alia causa sui iuris constitutos, videndum est. et magis puto, etiamsi non sunt liberi in potestate, alendos a parentibus et vice mutua alere parentes debere.
But whether one is compelled to produce only those children who are in his power, or indeed also those emancipated or constituted sui iuris by another cause, must be considered. And I am more inclined to think that, even if the children are not in power, they are to be supported by their parents, and in mutual turn ought to support their parents.
Utrum autem tantum patrem avumve paternum proavumve paterni avi patrem ceterosque virilis sexus parentes alere cogamur, an vero etiam matrem ceterosque parentes et per illum sexum contingentes cogamur alere, videndum. et magis est, ut utrubique se iudex interponat, quorundam necessitatibus facilius succursurus, quorundam aegritudini: et cum ex aequitate haec res descendat caritateque sanguinis, singulorum desideria perpendere iudicem oportet.
Whether, moreover, we are compelled to support only the father and the paternal grandfather and the great‑grandfather, the father of the paternal grandfather, and the other parents of the male sex, or indeed whether we are also compelled to support the mother and the other parents and those connected through that sex, must be considered. And it is rather the case that the judge should interpose himself in both directions, more readily succoring the necessities of some, the distress of others: and since this matter descends from equity and the charity of blood, the judge ought to weigh the desires of individuals.
Sed si filius possit se exhibere, aestimare iudices debent, ne non debeant ei alimenta decernere. denique idem pius ita rescripsit: " aditi a te competentes iudices ali te a patre tuo iubebunt pro modo facultatium eius, si modo, cum opificem te esse dicas, in ea valetudine es, ut operis sufficere non possis".
But if the son can exhibit himself (i.e., support himself), the judges ought to assess whether they ought not to decree maintenance to him. denique the same Pius thus wrote back by rescript: " aditi by you, competent judges will order you to be fed by your father according to the measure of his resources, provided that, since you say yourself to be a workman, you are in such a condition of health that you cannot suffice for labor".
Si vel parens neget filium idcircoque alere se non debere contendat, vel filius neget parentem, summatim iudices oportet super ea re cognoscere. si constiterit filium vel parentem esse, tunc ali iubebunt: ceterum si non constiterit, nec decernent alimenta.
If either a parent denies the child and for that reason contends that he ought not to support, or the child denies the parent, the judges ought summarily to take cognizance of the matter. if it is established that the person is a child or a parent, then they will order support; but if it is not established, they will not decree maintenance.
Si mater alimenta, quae fecit in filium, a patre repetat, cum modo eam audiendam. ita divus marcus rescripsit antoniae montanae in haec verba: " sed et quantum tibi alimentorum nomine, quibus necessario filiam tuam exhibuisti, a patre eius praestari oporteat, iudices aestimabunt, nec impetrare debes ea, quae exigente materno affectu in filiam tuam erogatura esses, etiamsi a patre suo educaretur".
If a mother seeks to recover from the father the maintenance which she has expended upon a son, when is she to be heard? thus the deified Marcus wrote back to Antonia Montana in these words: " but also how much, under the title of maintenance, which you have of necessity provided for your daughter, ought to be furnished by her father, the judges will assess; nor ought you to obtain those things which, urged by maternal affection, you would be ready to expend upon your daughter even if she were being brought up by her father".
Solent iudices cognoscere et inter patronos et libertos, si alendis his agatur: itaque si negent se esse libertos, cognoscere eos oportebit: quod si libertos constiterit, tunc demum decernere, ut alant: nec tamen alimentorum decretum tollet liberto facultatem, quo minus praeiudicio certare possit, si libertum se neget.
Judges are wont to take cognizance also between patrons and freedmen, if it is a matter of maintaining them; accordingly, if they deny that they are freedmen, it will be proper for them to inquire; but if it is established that they are freedmen, then and only then to decree that they provide maintenance. Nor, however, will a decree of alimenta take from the freedman the faculty, without prejudice, of contesting the matter, if he denies that he is a freedman.
Utrum autem tantum patroni alendi sint an etiam patronorum liberi, tractari potest. et puto causa cognita iudices et liberos quoque patronorum alendos decernere, non quidem tam facile ut patronos, sed nonnumquam et ipsos: nam et obsequium non solum patronis, verum etiam liberis eorum debere praestari.
Whether, however, only patrons are to be maintained or also the children of patrons can be discussed. And I think that, upon cognizance of the cause, judges also decide that the children of patrons are to be maintained—not indeed as readily as patrons, but sometimes even they; for deference ought to be rendered not only to patrons, but also to their children.
Si quis a liberti liberto ali se desideret vel ab eo, quem ex causa fideicommissi manumisit quemque suis nummis redemit, non debet audiri, ut et Marcellus scribit, exaequatque eum, qui mercedes exigendo ius libertorum amisit.
If anyone should desire to claim someone for himself from the freedman of his freedman, or from him whom he manumitted by reason of a fideicommissum and whom he redeemed with his own money, he ought not to be heard, as Marcellus also writes; and he equates him with the one who, by exacting wages, has lost the right over freedmen.
Imperatoris commodi constitutio talis profertur: " cum probatum sit contumeliis patronos a libertis esse violatos vel illata manu atroci esse pulsatos aut etiam paupertate vel corporis valetudine laborantes relictos, primum eos in potestate patronorum redigi et ministerium dominis praebere cogi: sin autem nec hoc modo admoneantur, vel a praeside emptori addicentur et pretium patronis tribuetur".
The constitution of Emperor Commodus is set forth as follows: " when it has been proven that patrons have been violated by contumelies by their freedmen, or have been struck by an atrocious laying-on of hands, or even have been left while suffering poverty or bodily ill-health, first they are to be reduced into the power of the patrons and compelled to render service to their masters: but if they are not brought to their senses even in this way, then they shall be adjudged by the governor to a purchaser, and the price shall be granted to the patrons".
Si neget qui maritus fuisse dicitur matrimonium esse contractum eo, quod eam quae se uxorem fuisse dicit ancillam esse probare paratus sit, alimenta quidem liberis praestare interim compellendum, sin autem constiterit eam servam fuisse, nihil ei, qui pascendos curavit, ex hoc praeiudicium generare respondi.
If the one who is said to have been the husband denies that a marriage was contracted, on the ground that he is prepared to prove that the woman who says she was his wife was a slave, he is to be compelled in the meantime to provide maintenance for the children; but if it is established that she was a slave, I replied that nothing from this generates any prejudice to him who took care to have them fed.
In bonis superstitum libertorum nullum omnino ius patroni liberive patronorum habent, nisi si tam esse infirmos tamque pauperes praesidibus probaverint, ut merito menstruis alimentis a libertis suis adiuvari debeant. idque ius ita plurimis principum constitutionibus manifestatur.
in the goods of surviving freedmen patrons or the children of patrons have absolutely no right, unless they have proved to the governors that they are so infirm and so poor that they ought deservedly to be helped by their freedmen with monthly alimentary support. and this right is thus made clear by very many constitutions of the emperors.
Temporibus divorum fratrum cum hoc incidisset, ut maritus quidem praegnatem mulierem diceret, uxor negaret, consulti valerio prisciano praetori urbano rescripserunt in haec verba: " novam rem desiderare rutilius severus videtur, ut uxori, quae ab eo diverterat et se non esse praegnatem profiteatur, custodem apponat, et ideo nemo mirabitur, si nos quoque novum consilium et remedium suggeramus. igitur si perstat in eadem postulatione, commodissimum est eligi honestissimae feminae domum, in qua domitia veniat, et ibi tres obstetrices probatae et artis et fidei, quae a te adsumptae fuerint, eam inspiciant. et si quidem vel omnes vel duae renuntiaverint praegnatem videri, tunc persuadendum mulieri erit, ut perinde custodem admittat atque si ipsa hoc desiderasset: quod si enixa non fuerit, sciat maritus ad invidiam existimationemque suam pertinere, ut non immerito possit videri captasse hoc ad aliquam mulieris iniuriam.
In the times of the deified brothers, when this had occurred—that the husband indeed said the woman was pregnant, the wife denied it—upon being consulted by Valerius Priscianus, the urban praetor, they wrote back in these words: " novam rem desiderare rutilius severus videtur, to set a custodian upon a wife who had separated from him and professes that she is not pregnant; and therefore no one will wonder if we too suggest a new counsel and remedy. Therefore, if he persists in the same postulation, it is most suitable that the house of a most honorable woman be chosen, into which Domitia may come, and there three midwives, approved both in art and in good faith, who shall have been taken on by you, should inspect her. And if indeed either all or two have reported that she seems pregnant, then the woman must be persuaded to admit the custodian just as if she herself had desired this: but if she shall not have given birth, let the husband know that it pertains to ill-will and to his reputation, so that he may not without good reason seem to have contrived this for some injury to the woman.
Ex hoc rescripto evidentissime apparet senatus consulta de liberis agnoscendis locum non habuisse, si mulier dissimularet se praegnatem vel etiam negaret, nec immerito: partus enim antequam edatur, mulieris portio est vel viscerum. post editum plane partum a muliere iam potest maritus iure suo filium per interdictum desiderare aut exhiberi sibi aut ducere permitti. extra ordinem igitur princeps in causa necessaria subvenit.
From this rescript it most evidently appears that the senatorial decrees concerning acknowledging children had no place, if a woman should dissemble that she was pregnant or even deny it, and not without cause: for the offspring, before it is brought forth, is a portion of the woman, indeed of her viscera. After the birth has plainly been delivered by the woman, the husband can now, by his own right, demand by interdict that the son either be produced to him or that he be permitted to lead him away. Therefore the princeps, outside the ordinary course, gives aid in a necessary case.
Si omnes vel plures renuntiaverint praegnatem non esse, an mulier possit iniuriarum experiri ex hac causa? et magis puto agere eam iniuriarum posse, sic tamen, si iniuriae faciendae causa id maritus desideravit: ceterum si non iniuriae faciendae animo, sed quia iuste credidit vel nimio voto liberorum suscipiendorum ductus est vel ipsa eum illexerat ut crederet, quod constante matrimonio hoc fingebat, aequissimum erit ignosci marito.
If all or the majority have reported that she is not pregnant, can the woman bring an action for injuriae on this account? And I am more inclined to think that she can bring an action for injuriae, but only if the husband desired this for the purpose of committing an injury; otherwise, if not with a mind to do an injury, but because he reasonably believed it, or was led by an excessive desire for the procreation of children, or she herself had enticed him to believe it, in that, while the marriage was subsisting, she was feigning this, it will be most equitable that the husband be pardoned.
Meminisse autem oportet tempus non esse praestitutum rescripto, quamvis in senatus consultis de liberis agnoscendis triginta dies praestituantur mulieri. quid ergo? semper dicemus marito licere uxorem ad praetorem evocare, an vero et ipsi triginta dies praestituimus?
One must remember, however, that no time is prescribed by the rescript, although in senatorial decrees concerning the recognizing of children 30 days are prescribed for the woman. What then? Shall we always say that it is permitted to the husband to summon his wife before the praetor, or indeed do we also prescribe 30 days for him?
De inspiciendo ventre custodiendoque partu sic praetor ait: " si mulier mortuo marito praegnatem se esse dicet, his ad quos ea res pertinebit procuratorive eorum bis in mense denuntiandum curet, ut mittant, si velint, quae ventrem inspicient. mittantur autem mulieres liberae dumtaxat quinque haeque simul omnes inspiciant, dum ne qua earum dum inspicit invita muliere ventrem tangat. mulier in domu honestissimae feminae pariat, quam ego constituam.
Concerning inspection of the womb and the safeguarding of the birth, thus the praetor says: " if a woman, her husband having died, shall say that she is pregnant, let him take care that notice be given twice in a month to those to whom the matter will pertain, or to their procurators, that they may send, if they wish, women who will inspect the womb. Moreover, let free women be sent, at most five, and let these all together at the same time inspect, provided that none of them, while inspecting, touch the womb with the woman unwilling. Let the woman give birth in the house of a most respectable woman, whom I shall appoint.
The woman, thirty days before the time she thinks she will give birth, shall give notice to those to whom the matter pertains or to their procurators, that they may send, if they wish, persons to guard the pregnancy. In the room in which the woman will give birth, let there not be more than one entrance: if there are, let them be boarded up on both sides. Before the door of that room, let three freeborn men and three freeborn women, each with two attendants, keep watch.
whenever that woman goes into that chamber or any other place, or goes into the bath, the guards, if they wish, may inspect it beforehand and may search those who have entered. the guards who shall have been posted before the chamber, if they wish, may search all who have entered the chamber or the house. when the woman begins to be in labor, let her give notice to those to whom that matter pertains or to their procurators, that they may send persons in whose presence she may give birth.
let free women be sent, at most five, such that, besides two midwives, in that chamber there be not more free women than ten, nor maidservants than six. those who are going to be inside shall all be searched in that chamber, lest any be pregnant. " tria lumina ne minus ibi sint", namely because darkness is more apt for substitution.
" what shall be born, to those to whom that matter pertains, or to their procurators, if they wish to inspect, shall be shown. let it be brought up with the one with whom the parent shall have ordered. but if the parent shall have ordered nothing, or the person with whom the parent shall have wished it to be brought up will not accept the charge: with whom it shall be brought up, the case having been examined, I shall determine.
he with whom that which will be born will be reared, until it is of three months, twice in a month; from that time until it is of six months, once in a month; from six months until it becomes a one‑year‑old, every other month; from being a one‑year‑old until it can speak, once in six months, let him show it wherever he will. if it will not be permitted to anyone that the belly be inspected, or that there be guarding, or to be present at the delivery, or if anything will have been done whereby these things might not be done thus, as has been comprehended above: to him I will not give possession of that which will be born, the cause having been ascertained. or if it will not have been permitted, as has been provided above, for that which will be born to be inspected, the actions which in any case I promise to grant to those to whom, by my edict, possession of goods has been given, those, if a just cause shall seem to me to exist, I will not grant to him"
Sed et si servus heres institutus fuerit, si nemo natus sit, aristo scribit, huic quoque servo quamvis non omnia, quaedam tamen circa partum custodiendum arbitrio praetoris esse concedenda. quam sententiam puto veram: publice enim interest partus non subici, ut ordinum dignitas familiarumque salva sit: ideoque etiam servus iste, cum sit in spe constitutus successionis, qualisqualis sit, debet audiri rem et publicam et suam gerens.
But also, if a slave has been instituted heir, if no one has been born, Aristo writes that to this slave too—although not everything—yet certain measures concerning guarding the childbirth are to be conceded at the discretion of the praetor. Which opinion I judge true: for it is of public interest that the offspring not be foisted (substituted), so that the dignity of the orders and of families may be preserved; and therefore this slave also, since he is placed in the hope of succession, whatever sort he may be, ought to be heard, managing both a public matter and his own.
Denuntiari autem oportet his, quos proxima spes successionis contingit, ut puta primo gradu heredi instituto ( non etiam substituto) et, si intestatus pater familias sit, ei qui primum locum ab intestato tenet: si vero plures sint simul successuri, omnibus denuntiandum est.
Moreover, notice ought to be given to those whom the nearest hope of succession touches, for instance, in the first degree to the instituted heir ( not also to the substitute), and, if the paterfamilias is intestate, to him who holds the first place in intestate succession: if, however, there are several about to succeed at the same time, notice must be given to all.
Quod autem praetor ait causa cognita se possessionem non daturum vel actiones denegaturum, eo pertinet, ut, si per rusticitatem aliquid fuerit omissum ex his quae praetor servari voluit, non obsit partui. quale est enim, si quid ex his, quae leviter observanda praetor edixit, non sit factum, partui denegari bonorum possessionem: sed mos regionis inspiciendus est, et secundum eum et observari ventrem et partum et infantem oportet.
But as to the praetor’s saying that, once the case has been examined, he will not grant possession or will deny actions, the point is this: if, through rusticity, something has been omitted from those things which the praetor wished to be observed, it should not prejudice the offspring. For what sense would there be, if something among those matters which the praetor ordained to be observed only lightly has not been done, that possession of the goods be denied to the offspring? Rather, the custom of the region must be inspected, and in accordance with it the womb, the offspring, and the infant ought to be observed.
Is a quo, si sine liberis decessisset, quidquid ad eum ex bonis pervenisset, sorori fideicommissum relictum erat, decessit postuma herede instituta et substitutis aliis: quaesitum est, cum uxor defuncti praegnatem se dicat, an sorori procuratorive eius secundum formam edicti ventrem inspicere et partum custodire permittendum sit. respondi in eiusmodi specie, de qua quaereretur, posse videri ad eius, cui fideicommissum datum esset, sollicitudinem perspiciendum idque causa cognita statuendum.
The man from whom, if he had died without children, whatever from the estate had come to him had been left as a fideicommissum to his sister, died, with a posthumous heir instituted and others substituted. It was asked, since the wife of the deceased says she is pregnant, whether the sister or her procurator, according to the form of the edict, should be permitted to inspect the womb and guard the birth. I answered that in a case of this sort, about which inquiry was made, it could seem that the inspection belongs under the solicitude of the person to whom the fideicommissum was given, and that this should be determined after the case has been examined.
Idcirco constituit actionem in mulierem, quae in alium hanc possessionem dolo malo transtulit. non solum mulierem praetor coercet, verum eum quoque in cuius potestate ea fuerit, scilicet si dolo ipsorum alius in possessionem fuerit admissus, actionemque in tantum pollicetur in eos, quanti interfuit eius qui experitur.
Therefore he established an action against the woman who, by malicious fraud (dolus malus), transferred this possession to another. Not only does the praetor coerce the woman, but also the one in whose power she was, namely if by their fraud another has been admitted into possession; and he promises an action against them to the amount of the interest of the one who brings suit.
Si et patris et filiae factum arguetur, in alterum quem actor velit reddenda est actio. quia in id quod agentis interest datur, ideo, si id quod ei abest ab eo qui in potestate est servari possit, praeter sumptus litis causa factos inutilis erit ei haec actio.
If the act of both the father and the daughter is alleged, the action must be rendered against whichever one the actor (plaintiff) wishes. Because it is given up to the amount of the acting party’s interest, therefore, if that which is lacking to him can be safeguarded from the one who is in potestas, this action will be useless to him, except for the expenses made for the sake of the suit.
Si de possessione ventris nomine quaeratur et deferente herede mulier iuraverit praegnatem se esse, servandum est iusiurandum nec tenebitur mulier, quasi calumniae causa fuerit in possessionem missa, nec vis ei facienda est post iusiurandum. si tamen peperit, quaeretur veritas, an ex eo praegnas fuerit: alteri enim nec prodest nec nocet iusiurandum inter alios factum, nec partui igitur nocebit.
If inquiry be made concerning possession in the name of the womb, and, the heir tendering the oath, the woman shall have sworn that she is pregnant, the oath must be observed, and the woman will not be held liable as though she had been put into possession for the sake of calumny, nor is force to be applied to her after the oath. If, however, she has given birth, the truth will be inquired into, whether she was pregnant from that time: for an oath made among others neither benefits nor harms another person, and therefore it will not prejudice the issue.
Interesse autem videtur primum de alimentis, quae in ventrem sunt erogata: nec enim alias haec repetuntur, nisi per calumniam in possessionem venit: ceterum si res calumnia caret, nihil praestabit mulier, quae sine causa alta est sub praetextu ventris.
It seems, however, that the damages concern first the aliments which have been disbursed for the belly: for otherwise these are not reclaimed, unless she came into possession through calumny: moreover, if the matter is free from calumny, the woman will render nothing, who has been without cause supported under the pretext of the belly.
Nonnumquam augebitur quod interest, si quis forte dubitans, an praegnas sit, exclusus sit hereditate: nam heredi eius qui exclusus est dandam hanc actionem iulianus ait, siquidem eius quoque interfuit non fuisse calumniae causa in possessione mulierem, quia hoc si non fuisset, adeundo hereditatem institutus heredi suo locupletiorem hereditatem suam relinqueret. sed et hoc imputatur mulieri, quod deminuta sunt multa in hereditate, dum hic contemplatione ventris non attigit hereditatem.
Sometimes the damages will be augmented, if someone, perhaps doubting whether she is pregnant, has been excluded from the inheritance: for Julian says that this action is to be given to the heir of him who was excluded, since it was of his interest also that the woman should not have been in possession for the sake of calumny, because, if this had not been so, by entering upon the inheritance the instituted heir would have left to his own heir a more opulent inheritance. But this too is imputed to the woman, that many things in the inheritance were diminished, while this man, out of regard for the womb, did not touch the inheritance.
Libertati plane subveniendum erit adversus eum, qui propter hereditatem hac actione egit, scilicet ut fideicommissarias cogatur is praestare, qui pretium utique etiam eorum consequitur: sed et directis credo praetorem succurrere oportere, ut interventu suo tueatur eorum libertatem.
Aid must plainly be afforded to liberty against the one who, on account of the inheritance, has proceeded by this action—namely, that he who in any case also obtains their price be compelled to render the fideicommissary manumissions; but I think the praetor ought likewise to succor those with direct manumissions, so that by his intervention he may safeguard their liberty.
Quae in concubinatu est, ab invito patrono poterit discedere et alteri se aut in matrimonium aut in concubinatum dare? ego quidem probo in concubina adimendum ei conubium, si patronum invitum deserat, quippe cum honestius sit patrono libertam concubinam quam matrem familias habere.
She who is in concubinage, will she be able to depart against her patron’s will and give herself to another either into matrimony or into concubinage? I for my part approve that, as regards a concubine, the conubium should be taken from her, if she deserts her patron against his will, since it is more honorable for a patron to have a freedwoman as a concubine than as a materfamilias.
In concubinatu potest esse et aliena liberta et ingenua et maxime ea quae obscuro loco nata est vel quaestum corpore fecit. alioquin si honestae vitae et ingenuam mulierem in concubinatum habere maluerit, sine testatione hoc manifestum faciente non conceditur. sed necesse est ei vel uxorem eam habere vel hoc recusantem stuprum cum ea committere:
In concubinage there can be both another’s freedwoman and a freeborn woman, and especially one who was born in an obscure station or has made a living with her body. Otherwise, if he should prefer to have in concubinage a woman of honorable life and freeborn, without a declaration making this manifest it is not permitted. But he must either have her as a wife, or, she refusing this, commit stuprum (illicit intercourse) with her: