[ULPIANUS libro secundo de officio consulis. ] §25.3.5.13Si impubes sit filius emancipatus, patrem inopem alere cogetur: iniquissimum enim quis merito dixerit patrem egere, cum filius sit in facultatibus.
If an emancipated son is a minor, he shall be compelled to maintain his needy father; for one might rightfully say that it is most unjust for a father to be in want when his son is in affluent circumstances.
§25.3.5.14Si mater alimenta, quae fecit in filium, a patre repetat, cum modo eam audiendam.
If a mother claims back from the father the maintenance which she expended on her son, she should be heard only with moderation.
ita diuus Marcus rescripsit Antoniae Montanae in haec uerba: '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'. §25.3.5.15A milite quoque filio, qui in facultatibus sit, exhibendos parentes esse pietatis exigit ratio.
Thus the Divine Marcus replied by rescript to Antonia Montana in these words: "But the judges shall also estimate how much ought to be paid to you by her father under the name of maintenance, with which you necessarily provided for your daughter; and you ought not to obtain those things which you would have expended on your daughter out of maternal affection, even if she were being brought up by her own father." The principle of filial piety demands that parents also be provided for by a son who is a soldier, provided he has the means.
§25.3.5.16Parens quamuis ali a filio ratione naturali debeat, tamen aes alienum eius non esse cogendum exsoluere filium rescriptum est.
Although a parent ought to be maintained by his son according to the law of nature, nevertheless it has been replied by rescript that the son should not be compelled to pay his parent's debts.
§25.3.5.17Item rescriptum est heredes filii ad ea praestanda, quae uiuus filius ex officio pietatis suae dabit, inuitos cogi non oportere, nisi in summam egestatem pater deductus est.
Likewise, it has been replied by rescript that the heirs of a son ought not to be compelled against their will to provide those things which the son, if alive, would have given out of his duty of filial piety, unless the father has been reduced to extreme poverty.
§25.3.5.18Solent 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 accustomed to investigate also between patrons and freedmen, if the question of maintaining the former is raised; therefore, if they deny that they are freedmen, it will be necessary to investigate this; but if it is established that they are freedmen, then at last to decree that they provide maintenance; and yet the decree of maintenance will not deprive the freedman of the opportunity to contest the matter by a preliminary judgment if he denies that he is a freedman.
§25.3.5.19Alimenta autem pro modo facultatium erunt praebenda, egentibus scilicet patronis: ceterum si sit unde se exhibeant, cessabunt partes iudicis.
Furthermore, maintenance must be provided according to means, namely to patrons who are in need; but if they have the means to support themselves, the role of the judge will cease.
§25.3.5.20Utrum autem tantum patroni alendi sint an etiam patronorum liberi, tractari potest.
Moreover, whether only patrons are to be maintained, or also the children of patrons, can be discussed.
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, uerum etiam liberis eorum debere praestari.
And I think that, after investigating the case, the judges also decree that the children of patrons are to be maintained, not indeed as easily as patrons, but sometimes even them; for respect ought to be shown not only to patrons but also to their children.
§25.3.5.21Sed et libertus maternus alere cogitur.
But a maternal freedman is also compelled to maintain his patroness.
§25.3.5.22Si quis a liberti liberto ali se desideret uel 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 desires to be maintained by a freedman of his freedman, or by one whom he has manumitted in accordance with a fideicommissum, or whom he has redeemed with his own money, he ought not to be heard, as Marcellus also writes, and he equates him with one who has lost the rights of a patron by demanding wages.
§25.3.5.23Sed et patroni filium, qui capitis accusauit libertum paternum, negat exhibendum.
And he also denies that the son of a patron who has accused his father's freedman of a capital crime should be provided for.
§25.3.5.24Sed et liberta cogitur patronum alere.
But a freedwoman is also compelled to maintain her patron.
§25.3.5.25De alimentis patroni arbiter solet dari arbitraturus, quantum sit in facultatibus, ut perinde possint alimenta moderari, quae tamdiu praestabuntur, quamdiu liberto supersit, patrono desit.
Concerning the maintenance of a patron, an arbiter is accustomed to be appointed to determine how much is in the freedman's means, so that the maintenance may be adjusted accordingly, which shall be provided as long as there is a surplus for the freedman and a deficiency for the patron.
§25.3.5.26Patrem et matrem patroni, cum patronus et filii eius minime supersint, alere egentes, ipsi si idonei facultatibus sunt, coguntur.
Freedmen are compelled to maintain the father and mother of their patron when they are in need, if the patron and his children are no longer alive, provided that they themselves have sufficient means.