titur. ei vero qui plures quam x neque plures quam XXX servos habebit, usque ad tertiam partem eius numeri manumittere permittitur. at ei qui plures quam XXX, neque plures quam centum habebit, usque ad partem quartam manumittere permittitur, nec latior licentia datur. novissime ei qui plures quam c habebit, nec plures quam D, amplius non permittitur, quam ut quintam partem, neque plures manumittat. sed praescribit lex, ne cui plures manumittere liceat quam c. igitur si quis unum servum omnino aut duos habet, de eo hac lege nihil cautum est; et ideo liberam habet potestatem manumittendi. § 44. Ac nec ad eos quidem omnino haec lex pertinet, qui sine testamento manumittunt. itaque licet iis, qui vindicta aut censu aut inter amicos manumittunt, totam familiam suam liberare, scilicet si alia causa non inpediat libertatem. § 45. Sed quod de numero servorum testamento manumittendorum diximus, ita intellegemus, ut ex eo numero, ex quo dimidia aut tertia aut quarta aut quinta pars liberari potest, utique tot manumittere liceat, quot ex antecedenti numero licuit. et hoc ipsa lege provisum est. erat enim sane absurdum, ut x servorum domino quinque liberare liceret, quia usque ad dimidiam partem ex eo numero manumittere ei conceditur, ulterius autem XII servos habenti non plures liceret manumittere quam IIII. at eis qui plures quam x neque [desunt lin. 24]. § 46. Nam et si testamento scriptis in orbem servis libertas data sit, quia nullus ordo manumissionis invenitur, nulli liberi erunt; quia lex Furia Caninia quae in fraudem eius facta sint rescindit. sunt etiam more than ten and not more than thirty is allowed to manumit a third of that number; he who has more than thirty and not more than a hundred is allowed to manumit a fourth; lastly, he who has more than a hundred and not more than five hundred is allowed to manumit a fifth and, however many a man possesses, he is never allowed to manumit more than this number, for the law prescribes that no one shall manumit more than a hundred. On the other hand, if a man has only one or only two, the law is silent, and the owner has unrestricted power of manumission. § 44. Nor does the statute apply to any but testamentary manumission, so that by means of fictitious vindication or inscription on the censor's register, or by attestation of friends, a proprietor of slaves may manumit his whole household, provided that there is no other let or hindrance to impede their manumission. § 45. But the limitation of the number of slaves that a testator is allowed to manumit is subject to the following proviso: that out of each of the numbers from which a half, a third, a fourth, a fifth, may respectively be enfranchised, as many may always be enfranchised as out of the preceding number, a proviso expressed in the statute; indeed, it would have been irrational if the owner of ten slaves had been entitled to enfranchise five, and the owner of twelve could only manumit four.... § 46. If a testator manumits in excess of the permitted number, and arranges their names in a circle, as no order of manumission can be discovered, none of them can obtain their freedom, as both the lex Furia specialia senatusconsulta, quibus rescissa sunt ea quae in fraudem eius legis excogitata sunt. § 47. In summa sciendum est, cum lege Aelia Sentia cautum sit, ut qui creditorum fraudandorum causa manumissi sint liberi non fiant, etiam hoc ad peregrinos pertinere (senatus ita censuit ex auctoritate Hadriani); cetera vero iura eius legis ad peregrinos non pertinere. Caninia itself and certain subsequent decrees of the senate declare null and void all dispositions contrived for the purpose of eluding the statute. § 47. Finally, it is to be noted that the provision in the lex Aelia Sentia making manumissions in fraud of creditors inoperative, was extended to aliens by a decree of the senate passed on the proposition of the Emperor Hadrian; whereas the remaining dispositions of that statute are inapplicable to aliens. § 47. The lex Furia Caninia, passed A.D. 8, four years after the lex Aelia Sentia, in the consulate of Furius Camillus and Caius Caninius Gallus, was abrogated by Justinian. DE HIS QUI SUI VEL ALIENI IURIS SINT. § 48. Sequitur de iure personarum alia divisio. nam quaedam personae sui iuris sunt, quaedam alieno iuri sunt subiectae. § 49. Sed rursus earum personarum, quae alieno iuri subiectae sunt, aliae in potestate, aliae in manu, aliae in mancipio sunt. § 50. Videamus nunc de iis quae alieno iuri subiectae sint si cognoverimus quae istae personae sint, simul intellegemus quae sui iuris sint. § 51. Ac prius dispiciamus de iis qui in aliena potestate sunt. § 52. In potestate itaque sunt servi dominorum. quae quidem potestas iuris gentium est: nam aput omnes peraeque gentes animadvertere possumus dominis in servos vitae necisque potestatem esse. et quodcumque per servum adquiritur, id domino adquiritur. § 53. Sed hoc tempore neque civibus Romanis, nec ullis aliis hominibus qui sub imperio populi Romani § 48. Another division in the law of Persons classifies men as either dependent or independent. § 49. Those who are dependent or subject to a superior, are either in his power, in his hand, or in his mancipation. § 50. Let us first explain what persons are dependent on a superior, and then we shall know what persons are independent. § 51. Of persons subject to a superior, let us first examine who are in his power. § 52. Slaves are in the power of their proprietors, a power recognized by Gentile law, for all nations present the spectacle of masters invested with power of life and death over slaves; and by the Roman law the owner is entitled to everything acquired by servile labour. § 53. But in the present day neither citizens of Rome, nor any other persons under the empire of the sunt, licet supra modum et sine causa in servos suos saevire. Nam ex constitutione sacratissimi Imperatoris Antonini qui sine causa servum suum occiderit, non minus teneri iubetur, quam qui alienum servum occiderit. Sed et maior quoque asperitas dominorum per eiusdem Principis constitutionem coercetur. Nam consultus a quibusdam Praesidibus provinciarum de his servis, qui ad fana deorum vel ad statuas Principum confugiunt, praecepit, ut si intolerabilis videatur dominorum saevitia, cogantur servos suos vendere. Et utrumque recte fit; male enim nostro iure uti non debemus: qua ratione et prodigis interdicitur bonorum suorum administratio. § 54. Ceterum cum aput cives Romanos duplex sit dominium, (nam vel in bonis vel ex iure Quiritium vel ex utroque iure cuiusque servus esse intellegitur), ita demum servum in potestate domini esse dicemus, si in bonis eius sit, etiamsi simul ex iure Quiritium eiusdem non sit. nam qui nudum ius Quiritium in servo habet, is potestatem habere non intellegitur. people of Rome, are permitted to indulge in excessive or causeless harshness towards their slaves. By a constitution of the Emperor Pius Antoninus, a man who kills a slave of whom he is owner, is as liable to punishment as a man who kills a slave of whom he is not owner: and inordinate cruelty on the part of owners is checked by another constitution whereby the same emperor, in answer to enquiries from presidents of provinces concerning slaves who take refuge at temples of the gods, or statues of the emperor, commanded that on proof of intolerable cruelty a proprietor should be compelled to sell his slaves and both ordinances are just, for it is proper that the abuse of a lawful right should be restrained, a principle recognized in the interdiction of prodigals from the administration of their fortune. : § 54. Citizens of Rome having two kinds of dominion, bonitary and quiritary, or a union of bonitary and quiritary dominion, a slave is in the power of an owner who has bonitary dominion over him, even unaccompanied with quiritary dominion; if an owner has only naked quiritary dominion he is not deemed to have the slave in his power. The condition of the slave was at its worst in the golden period of Roman history. As soon as Rome found her power irresistible she proceeded to conquer the world, and each stage of conquest was the reduction of a vast portion of mankind to slavery. 30,000 Tarentines were sent as slaves to Rome by Fabius Cunctator, the captor of Tarentum; 150,000 Epirots by Paulus Aemilius, the subjugator of Epirus. Julius Caesar retrieved his shattered fortunes by enormous operations in the slave market during his campaigns in Gaul. Thus, unfortunately for the slave, the slave market was continually glutted and slave life was cheap. The condition of the slave gradually but slowly improved under the emperors. A lex Petronia of uncertain date required a slave-owner to obtain the permission of a magistrate before exposing a slave to be torn to pieces by wild beasts, and only allowed such permission to be granted for some offence committed by the slave, Dig. 48, 8, 11, 2. Claudius prohibited killing slaves who fell sick, and enacted that the exposure of a slave to perish in his sickness should operate as a manumission, conferring Latinitas, Sueton. Claud. 25, Cod. 7. 6. 3. Hadrian deprived proprietors of the power of putting slaves to death without a judicial sentence, Spartian, Had. 18. Antoninus Pius declared a proprietor who killed a slave to be guilty of murder, and subject to the penalty of the lex Cornelia de sicariis. We read in Justinian's Digest: Qui hominem occiderit punitur non habita differentia cujus conditionis hominem interemit, Dig. 48, 8, 12. 'Homicide is punished without regard to the status of the person killed.' The punishment was generally capital. Legis Corneliae de sicariis et veneficis poena insulae deportatio est et omnium bonorum ademptio. Sed solent hodie capite puniri nisi honestiore loco positi fuerint quam ut poenam legis sustineant: humiliores enim solent vel bestiis subici, altiores vero deportantur in insulam, Dig. 48, 8, 3, 5. The law of Cornelius Sylla touching assassins and poisoners, punishes with transportation to an island and forfeiture of all property. But at present the punishment is usually capital, unless the criminal is of exalted station; humbler criminals are thrown to wild beasts, only criminals of higher rank are transported.' Hadrian prohibited the castration of a slave, consenting or not consenting, under penalty of death, Dig. 48, 8, 4, 2. Antoninus Pius also protected slaves against cruelty and personal violation, Dig. 1, 6, 2. The Digest, 1, 6, 1, quoting Gaius, 1 § 53, after sine causa, interpolates, legibus cognita, thus placing slaves under the protection of the law, and almost recognizing in slaves some of the primordial rights of humanity, except that, as already observed, obligation does not necessarily imply a correlative right. Roman law to the end, unlike other legislations which have recognized forms of slavery, refused to admit any rights in the slave. Florentinus, however, not long after the time of Gaius, admitted that slavery was a violation of the law of nature. Servitus est constitutio juris gentium qua quis dominio alieno contra naturam subicitur, Dig. 1, 5,4. Slavery is an institution of Gentile law, making one man the property of another, in contravention of Natural law.' Ulpian says the same: Quod attinet ad jus civile, servi pro nullis habentur, non tamen et jure naturali; quia quod ad jus naturale attinet, omnes homines aequales sunt, Dig. 50, 17, 32. Before the Civil law a slave is nothing, but not before the Natural law; for in the eye of Natural law all men are equal.' The belief in a Natural law, more venerable than any Civil law, was very prevalent in the ancient world, and one of the principal contributions of Philosophy to civilization. Slaves being recapite non minuiA slave by manuCum servus manu The absolute privation of all rights was sometimes expressed by saying that a slave has no persona, caput, or status: e.g. Servos quasi nec personam habentes, Nov. Theod. 17. garded as impersonal men.' Servus manumissus tur quia nullum caput habet, Inst. 1, 16, 4. mission loses no rights, having none to lose.' mittitur, quia servile caput nullum jus habet, ideo nec minui potest, eo die enim incipit statum habere, Dig. 4, 5, 4. A slave who is manumitted, having no rights, cannot lose any, for all his rights date from the day of his manumission.' ever, is sometimes applied to slaves: nulla cadit obligatio, Dig. 50, 17, 22. tion; see also Gaius, 1 § 17. So is quoted passages. The word 'persona,' howe.g. in personam servilem A slave can owe no obligacaput in one of the above DE PATRIA POTESTATE. § 55. Item in potestate nostra sunt liberi nostri quos iustis nuptiis procreavimus. quod ius proprium eivium Romanorum est. fere enim nulli alii sunt homines, qui talem in filios suos habent potestatem, qualem nos habemus. idque divus Hadrianus edicto quod proposuit de his, qui sibi liberisque suis ab eo civitatem Romanam petebant, significavit. nec me praeterit Galatarum gentem credere, in potestatem parentum liberos esse. § 55. Again, a man has power over his own children begotten in civil wedlock, a right peculiar to citizens of Rome, for there is scarcely any other nation where fathers are invested with such power over their children as at Rome; and this the late Emperor Hadrian declared in the edict he published respecting certain petitioners for a grant of the Roman franchise to themselves and their children; though I am aware that among the Galatians parents are invested with power over their children. 55. The most peculiar portion of the Roman law of status is that which refers to patria potestas, or the relation of paterfamilias to filiusfamilias. Patria potestas was founded on consuetudinary law (quum jus potestatis moribus sit receptum, Dig. 1, 6, 8), and |