A rescript of one of the Antonines commences in the following terms: Rem illicitam et inhonestam admisisse te confiteris, quia proponis filios ingenuos a te venundatos, Cod. 7, 16, 1: You are guilty, by your own admission, of an unlawful and disgraceful act, as you state that you sold your freeborn children.' Justinian increased the penalties of the law against creditors who took possession of the freeborn child of a debtor as a security for a debt. He enacted that the creditor should forfeit the debt, should pay an equal sum to the child or parent, and in addition should undergo corporal punishment, Novella, 134, 7. In the time of Gaius, the only genuine sale of a child into bondage was in the case of noxal surrender, i.e. when a father sued for the trespass of a child, in lieu of damages, surrendered his delinquent son or daughter as a bondsman (mancipium) to the plaintiff, § 140. The sale of the child in adoption and emancipation was merely fictitious; even noxal surrender was practically obsolete in the time of Justinian, by whom it was formally abolished, Inst. 4, 8, 7. Constantine, however, in cases of extreme poverty permitted parents to sell their children immediately after birth (sanguinolentos), and this constitution was retained in the code of Justinian, Cod. 4, 43, 2.

2. In respect of property, filiusfamilias was capable of obligation but not of right; he could be debtor but not creditor; in any transaction where an independent person (sui juris) would have been creditor, filiusfamilias was merely a conduit-pipe through which a right vested in his father as creditor or proprietor. Even in domestic relations filiusfamilias could only figure as inferior, not as superior; he owed obedience, but could not exercise command (jus, in the special sense which it has in the phrases, sui juris, alieni juris); he could only be an instrument by which his father acquired a right of command. Thus, filiusfamilias had commercium, and could take by mancipatio, but the property he thus took vested in his father; he could make a valid contract, but the contractual right vested in his father; he had testamentifactio, that is, he could be witness, libripens, familiae emptor, but he could not make a will, for he had no property to leave; and if he took under a will as legatee or heir, the legacy or succession vested in his father. He had the other element of civitas, connubium; that is, he could contract a civil marriage and beget civil children; but the patria potestas over these children vested not in the father but in the grandfather, and if the marriage was accompanied with power of

E

hand (manus), marital power over the wife, this vested not in the husband but in the husband's father. Any property which the son was allowed by his father to manage was called his peculium, i.e. was held on the same terms as property which a slave administered by permission of his proprietor. In respect of debts which he incurred, the son did not act as conduit-pipe, but (except for a loan of money, which the Sc. Macedonianum made irrecoverable,) was liable in his own person. Filiusfamilias ex omnibus causis tanquam paterfamilias obligatur, et ob id agi cum eo tanquam cum patrefamilias potest, Dig. 44, 7, 39. 'A son under power incurs obligation by the same titles, and may be sued on the same grounds of action as an independent person.' The same rule applied to the son as to the slave Melior conditio nostra per servos fieri potest, deterior fieri non potest, Dig. 50, 17, 133. The melioration of his proprietor's condition is in the power of a slave, but not the deterioration.'

In his political functions (munus publicum), filiusfamilias was entirely beyond the sphere of patria potestas. Quod ad jus publicum attinet non sequitur jus potestatis, Dig. 36, 1, 14, 1. The magisterial power of a filiusfamilias is unaffected by patria potestas.' Thus, a son could act as praetor, ibid, or as judex, Dig. 5, 1, 17, in a suit to which his father was a party. He could even preside as magistrate over his own adoption or emancipation: Si consul vel praeses filiusfamilias sit, posse eum apud semetipsum vel emancipari vel in adoptionem dari constat, Dig. 1, 7, 3, (which makes it. doubtful how far political functions were suspended even by the state of mancipium or bondage). He could also be appointed guardian (tutor), for guardianship (tutela) was regarded as a public office. Filiusfamilias in publicis causis loco patrisfamilias habetur, veluti si vel magistratum gerat vel tutor detur, Dig. 1, 6, 9. 'A filiusfamilias in his public relations is deemed independent, for instance, as magistrate or as guardian.'

The above-stated incapacities of filiusfamilias were subject, however, to certain exceptions and modifications, which may now be briefly considered.

a. In certain cases filiusfamilias had an anomalous right of suing in his own name (suo nomine), i. e. not merely as procurator or attorney of his father, and even in opposition to his father's wishes. Filiusfamilias suo nomine nullam actionem habet nisi injuriarum, et quod vi aut clam, et depositi, et commodati, ut Julianus putat, Dig. 44, 7, 9. ́A filiusfamilias can only sue in his own name for

outrage, by interdict for violent or clandestine disturbance, for deposit, for loan, according to Julian.' These suits, which, in spite of the statement in the text, were not the only, though perhaps the oldest, actions maintainable by a person under power, deserve a brief explanation. Without the right to Honour, one of the primordial rights of humanity, a man is scarcely a freeman, and, accordingly, this right vests definitively in filiusfamilias, and does not again pass out of him to vest in his father. Any dishonouring outrage, therefore, gave filiusfamilias a right of bringing a civil action, called actio injuriarum, in his own name and, if the offence was atrocious, or his father's character dubious, without his father's consent, Dig. 47, 10, 17, 13, although any pecuniary damages that he thereby recovered, being in the nature of property, were recovered for his father. The son under power was recognized, then, as invested with a vindictive right, though not with a proprietary right. The actio injuriarum was an action in bonum et aequum concepta (compare Dig. 44, 10, 11, 1, and Dig. 44, 7, 34, pr.), that is, the terms of the formula (conceptio) directed the judex to assess the damages not on any principle of civil law, but by his own sense of natural equity (aequum et bonum), and this form may have helped to make the action maintainable by one who on the principles of civil law was incompetent to sue. The interdict quod vi aut clam was maintainable by filiusfamilias on the same principle as the actio injuriarum, being a means of vindicating a dishonouring outrage inflicted on filiusfamilias by some violent disturbance of real property in defiance of his prohibitio or summons to stay operations and let the matter abide the result of a judicial trial. On the same principle a filiusfamilias disinherited or passed over in the will of his mother or maternal grandfather, as such disinheritance or pretermission was an implied imputation of turpitude or unworthiness and therefore dishonouring, might without the consent of his father (Dig. 5, 2, 22, pr.) vindicate his honour by impeaching the will of inofficiositas (immorality, or want of natural affection) although such querela inofficiosi testamenti, being in another point of view an hereditatis petitio or real action, was not properly maintainable by a filiusfamilias. If the plaintiff filiusfamilias could show that the disinheritance or omission was not due to his own demerits, he invalidated the will by a fictitious presumption of the testator's lunacy and made the testator intestate; and thus filiusfamilias vindicated his own character, but

whatever share he recovered in the intestate succession vested in his father.

The right of filiusfamilias to sue by actio commodati or depositi was founded on a different principle. Suppose that filiusfamilias had borrowed or hired a thing that he afterwards lent or deposited ; his father, not being responsible for his son's debts, would not be interested in the recovery of the thing, and therefore was not entitled to sue the depositary or borrower: the son, however, would be answerable to the original lender or letter, and accordingly was allowed to sue in his own name. To avoid, however, contravening the civil law by affirming a proprietary right vested in a filiusfamilias, he did not sue by a formula in jus concepta, i. e. of the form, si paret oportere, 'if the plaintiff establish a right,' but by a formula in factum, of the form, si paret factum esse, ' if the plaintiff establish a fact.' It is remarkable that Gaius instances precisely the actio commodati and the actio depositi as having two forms, one in jus and another in factum (4 § 47); and we may conjecture that the latter was invented to be used under these very circumstances by filiusfamilias.

b. The latter periods of Roman law present a gradual emancipation of filiusfamilias by successive inventions of new kinds of peculium. As early as the time of Augustus the earnings of a filiusfamilias in military service were called castrense peculium and belonged to him in absolute proprietorship. Filiifamilias in castrensi peculio vice patrumfamiliarum funguntur, Dig. 4, 6, 2. ‘A filiusfamilias in respect of his military acquisitions has the right of a paterfamilias.' Subsequently the earnings of filiifamilias in the civil service of the State, in holy orders, in the liberal professions, were assimilated to their earnings in the army, under the name of peculium quasi castrense. Further, whatever came to the son from his mother or from the maternal line, or from any source but the paternal estate, was called peculium adventicium, and in this the father had only a usufruct or life estate, while the son had the reversion in fee (proprietas). Only such peculium as was derived from the paternal estate (ex re patris) continued, under the name of peculium profecticium, subject to the old rules and belonged in absolute property to the father.

The Gallic race, of which the Galatians were a branch, are mentioned by Caesar as having the institution of patria potestas: Viri in uxores, sicuti in liberos, vitae necisque habent potestatem, De Bello Gall. 6, 19. Husbands and fathers have power of life and

death over wives and children.' St. Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians alludes to the peculiarity of their law: The heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;' 4, 1.

DE NUPTIIS.