Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §38.2.37.pr-38.2.37.1

Loss of Patronal Rights from Remission and Neglect

Passage 5973 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

Discusses how the release of manumission duties affects the estate claims of the patron and his son, and how a patron loses the right to possess goods if he fails to seek justice for a murdered freedman.

[ULPIANUS libro undecimo ad legem Iuliam et Papiam. ] §38.2.37.prIulianus ait, si patronus libertatis causa imposita libertae reuendiderit, filium eius a bonorum possessione summoueri, scilicet quia nec contra tabulas testamenti liberti bonorum possessionem accipiat, quotiens pater eius donum munus operas liberto reuendiderit.
[ULPIAN, in the eleventh book on the Lex Julia et Papia.] Iulianus states that if a patron has sold back to a freedwoman the obligations imposed on her for the sake of her freedom, his son is excluded from the possession of goods; namely because he does not receive possession of goods contrary to the will of the freedman whenever his father has sold back the gift, service, or labor to the freedman.
plane si patroni filius libertatis causa imposita reuendiderit, nihilo minus familiam bonorum possessionem contra tabulas liberti accipere ait, quia filius reuendendo libertatis causa imposita fratrem suum non summouet.
Clearly, if the son of a patron has sold back the obligations imposed for the sake of freedom, he says that the family nevertheless receives possession of goods contrary to the will of the freedman, because the son, by selling back the obligations imposed for the sake of freedom, does not exclude his own brother.
§38.2.37.1Si libertus heredem scripserit isque prius, quam de familia quaestionem haberet, adierit hereditatem, patronum ad contra tabulas bonorum possessionem non admitti Iulianus ait: debuit enim et patronus liberti necem uindicare.
If a freedman has appointed an heir, and that heir enters upon the inheritance before he has held an inquiry regarding the slaves, Iulianus states that the patron is not admitted to the possession of goods contrary to the will; for the patron also ought to have avenged the death of the freedman.
quod et in patrona erit dicendum.
This must also be said in the case of a female patron.

Notes

  1. §38.2.37.prlibertatis causa imposita — Meaning 'things imposed for the sake of freedom.' `imposita` is the neuter plural perfect passive participle of `imponere` used substantively, referring to the obligations (later specified as `donum`, `munus`, `operae`) imposed on a slave upon manumission. `libertatis causa` is an adverbial phrase of cause or purpose.
  2. §38.2.37.1de familia quaestionem haberet — Here, `familia` refers to the 'household slaves,' and `quaestionem habere` means 'to hold an inquiry (accompanied by torture).' Under the Senatusconsultum Silanianum, if a master died under suspicious circumstances, it was forbidden to open the will or enter upon the inheritance before an official inquiry had been conducted on the household slaves.
  3. §38.2.37.1debuit enim et patronus liberti necem uindicare — The indicative perfect `debuit` of the modal verb `debere` combined with the infinitive `uindicare` (to avenge/seek justice) expresses an unfulfilled past obligation ('the patron also ought to have avenged'). Since the patron himself neglected the duty to seek justice for the murder of the freedman, he is barred from claiming the possession of goods contrary to the will on the ground of the heir's premature and illegal entry upon the inheritance.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §38.2.37.pr-38.2.37.1. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:38.2.37.pr-38.2.37.1

Please note the AI-draft status of the translation and the date accessed.

Translation, notes and summary are AI-generated drafts, revised through reader feedback.