[PAULUS libro secundo ad legem Aeliam Sentiam. ] §37.14.6.prAdigere iureiurando, ne nubat liberta uel liberos tollat, intellegitur etiam is, qui libertum iurare patitur.
[PAULUS, in the second book on the Lex Aelia Sentia.] To compel by oath that a freedwoman shall not marry or rear children is understood to include also him who allows his freedman to swear.
sed si ignorante eo suus filius adegerit stipulatus fuerit, nihil ei nocebit: certe si iussu patroni is qui in potestate est idem fecerit, dicendum est eum hac lege teneri.
But if, without his knowledge, his son has compelled him or made a stipulation, it will do him no harm; certainly, if the person in his power has done the same by order of the patron, it must be said that he is bound by this law.
§37.14.6.1Stipulatus est centum operas aut in singulas aureos quinos dari: non uidetur contra legem stipulatus, quia in potestate liberti est operas dare.
He has stipulated for a hundred days of labor, or for five aurei to be paid for each day: he does not seem to have stipulated contrary to the law, because it is in the power of the freedman to perform the labor.
§37.14.6.2Quamuis nulla persona lege excipiatur, tamen intellegendum est de his legem sentire, qui liberos tollere possunt.
Although no person is excepted by the law, yet it must be understood that the law refers to those who are able to rear children.
itaque si castratum libertum iureiurando quis adegerit, dicendum est non puniri patronum hac lege.
Therefore, if anyone has compelled a castrated freedman by oath, it must be said that the patron is not punished under this law.
§37.14.6.3Si patronus libertam iureiurando adegerit, ut sibi nuberet, si quidem ducturus eam adegit, nihil contra legem fecisse uidebitur: si uero non ducturus propter hoc solum adegit, ne alii nuberet, fraudem legi factam Iulianus ait et perinde patronum teneri, ac si coegisset iurare libertam non nupturam.
If a patron has compelled a freedwoman by oath to marry him, if indeed he compelled her with the intention of marrying her, he will not seem to have done anything contrary to the law; but if he did not intend to marry her, and compelled her for this reason alone, that she should not marry someone else, Julian says that a fraud is committed against the law, and that the patron is held liable just as if he had compelled the freedwoman to swear that she would not marry.
§37.14.6.4Lege Iulia de maritandis ordinibus remittitur iusiurandum, quod liberto in hoc impositum est, ne uxorem duceret, libertae, ne nuberet, si modo nuptias contrahere recte uelint.
By the Lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus, the oath which was imposed on a freedman to the effect that he should not marry a wife, or on a freedwoman that she should not marry, is remitted, provided only they wish to contract a marriage lawfully.