that it is far easier to say in what degree any one is related to some one else than to indicate his relationship by the proper 8 specific term. The degrees of agnation are also reckoned in 9 the same manner; but as truth is fixed in the mind of man much better by the eye than by the ear, we have deemed it necessary, after giving an account of the degrees of relationship, to have a table of them inserted in the present book, that so the youth may be able by both ears and eyes to gain a most perfect knowledge of them.

10

11

It is certain that the part of the Edict in which the possession of goods is promised to the next of kin has nothing to do with the relationships of slaves with one another, nor is there any old statute by which such relationships were recognised. However, in the constitution which we have issued with regard to the rights of patrons-a subject which up to our times had been most obscure, and full of difficulties and confusion-we have been prompted by humanity to grant that if a slave shall beget children by either a free woman or another slave, or conversely if a slave woman shall bear children of either sex by either a freeman or a slave, and both the parents and the children (if born of a slave woman) shall become free, or if the mother being free, the father be a slave, and subsequently acquire his freedom, the children shall in all these cases succeed their father and mother, and the patron's rights lie dormant. And such children we have called to the succession not only of their parents, but also of one another reciprocally, by this enactment, whether those born in slavery and subsequently manumitted are the only children, or whether there be others conceived after their parents had obtained their freedom, and whether they all have the same father or mother, or the same father and different mothers, or vice versa; the rules applying to children born in lawful wedlock being applied here also.

To sum up all that we have said, it appears that persons related in the same degree of cognation to the deceased are not always called together, and that even a remoter is sometimes preferred to a nearer cognate. For as self-successors and those whom we have enumerated as equivalent to selfsuccessors have a priority over all other claimants, it is clear

that a great-grandson or great-great-grandson is preferred to a brother, or the father or mother of the deceased; and yet the father and mother, as we have remarked above, are in the first degree of cognation, and the brother is in the second, while the great-grandson and great-great-grandson are only in the third and fourth respectively. And it is immaterial whether the descendant who ranks among self-successors was in the power of the deceased at the time of his death, or out of it through having been emancipated or through being the child of an emancipated child or of a child of the female sex. When there are no self-successors, and none of those persons 12 who we have said rank as such, an agnate who has lost none of his agnatic rights, even though very many degrees removed from the deceased, is usually preferred to a nearer cognate; for instance, the grandson or great-grandson of a paternal uncle has a better title than a maternal uncle or aunt. Accordingly, in saying that the nearest cognate is preferred in the succession, or that, if there are several cognates in the nearest degree, they are called equally, we mean that this is the case if no one is entitled to priority, according to what we have said, as either being or ranking as a self-successor, or as being an agnate; the only exceptions to this being emancipated brothers and sisters of the deceased who are called to succeed him, and who, in spite of their loss of status, are preferred to other agnates in a remoter degree than themselves.

:

TITLE VII.

OF THE SUCCESSION TO FREEDMEN.

Let us now turn to the property of freedmen. These were originally allowed to pass over their patrons in their wills with impunity for by the statute of the Twelve Tables the inheritance of a freedman devolved on his patron only when he died intestate without leaving a self-successor. If he died intestate, but left a self-successor, the patron was not entitled to any portion of this property, and this, if the self-successor was a natural child, seemed to be no grievance; but if he was an adoptive child, it was clearly unfair that the patron should be debarred from all right to the succession. Accordingly 1

this injustice of the law was at a later period corrected by the praetor's Edict, by which, if a freedman made a will, he was commanded to leave his patron half his property; and, if he left him nothing at all, or less than a half, possession of such half was given to him against the testament. If, on the other hand, he died intestate, leaving as self-successor an adoptive son, the patron could obtain even against the latter possession of the goods of the deceased to the extent of one-half. But the freedman was enabled to exclude the patron if he left natural children, whether in his power at the time of his death, or emancipated or given in adoption, provided that he made a will in which he instituted them heirs to any part of the succession, or that, being passed over, they demanded possession against the will under the Edict : 2 if disinherited, they did not avail to bar the patron. At a still later period the lex Papia Poppaea augmented the rights of patrons who had more wealthy freedmen. By this it was enacted that, whenever a freedman left property amounting in value to a hundred thousand sesterces and upwards, and not so many as three children, the patron, whether he died testate or intestate, should be entitled to a portion equal to that of a single child. Accordingly, if the freedman left a single son or daughter as heir, the patron could claim half the property, exactly as if he had died without leaving any children if he left two children as heirs, the patron could claim a third: if he left three, the patron was excluded altogether. 3 In our constitution, however, which we have drawn up in a convenient form and in the Greek language, so as to be known by all, we have established the following rules for application to such cases. If the freedman or freedwoman is less than a centenarius, that is, has a fortune of less than a hundred aurei (which we have reckoned as equivalent to the sum of a hundred thousand sesterces fixed by the lex Papia), the patron shall have no right to any share in the succession if they make a will; while, if they die intestate without leaving any children, we have retained unimpaired the rights conferred on the patron by the Twelve Tables. If they are possessed of more than a hundred aurei, and leave a descendant or descendants of either sex and any degree to

take the inheritance civil or praetorian, we have given to such child or children the succession to their parents, to the exclusion of every patron and his issue. If however they leave no children, and die intestate, we have called the patron or patroness to their whole inheritance: while if they make a will, passing over their patron or patroness, and leaving no children, or having disinherited such as they have, or (supposing them to be mothers or maternal grandfathers) having passed them over without leaving them the right to impeach the testament as unduteous, then, under our constitution, the patron shall succeed, by possession against the will, not, as before, to one-half of the freedman's estate, but to one-third, or, if the freedman or freedwoman has left him less than this third in his or her will, to so much as will make up the difference. But this third shall be free from all charges, even from legacies or trust bequests in favour of the children of the freedman or freedwoman, all of which are to fall on the patron's coheirs. In the same constitution we have gathered together the rules applying to many other cases, which we deemed necessary for the complete settlement of this branch of law: for instance, a title to the succession of freedmen is conferred not only on patrons and patronesses, but on their children and collateral relatives to the fifth degree: all of which may be ascertained by reference to the constitution itself. If, however, there are several descendants of a patron or patroness, or of two or several, the nearest in degree is to take the succession of the freedman or freedwoman, which is to be divided, not among the stocks, but by counting the heads of those nearest in degree. And the same rule is to be observed with collaterals: for we have made the law of succession to freedmen almost identical with that relating to freeborn persons. All that has been 4 said relates nowadays to freedmen who are Roman citizens, for dediticii and Latini Juniani having been together abolished there are now no others. As to a statutory right of succession to a Latin, there never was any such thing; for men of this class, though during life they lived as free, yet as they drew their last breath they lost their liberty along with their life, and under the lex Junia their manumitters kept their property, like that of slaves, as a kind of peculium. It was

subsequently provided by the SC. Largianum that the manumitter's children, unless expressly disinherited, should be preferred to his external heirs in succession to the goods of a Latin; and this was followed by the edict of the Emperor Trajan, providing that a Latin who contrived, without the knowledge or consent of his patron, to obtain by imperial favour a grant of citizenship, should live a citizen, but die a Latin. Owing however to the difficulties accompanying these changes of condition, and others as well, we have determined by our constitution to repeal for ever the lex Junia, the SC. Largianum, and the edict of Trajan, and to abolish them along with the Latins themselves, so as to enable all freedmen to enjoy the citizenship of Rome: and we have converted in a wonderful manner the modes in which persons became Latins, with some additions, into modes of attaining Roman citizenship.

TITLE VIII.

OF THE ASSIGNMENT OF FREEDMEN.

Before we leave the subject of succession to freedmen, we should observe a resolution of the Senate, to the effect that, though the property of freedmen belongs in equal portions to all the patron's children who are in the same degree, it shall yet be lawful for a parent to assign a freedman to one of his children, so that after his own death the assignee shall be considered his sole patron, and the other children who, had it not been for such assignment, would be admitted equally with him, shall have no claim to the succession whatever though they recover their original rights if the assignee 1 dies without issue. It is lawful to assign freedwomen as well as freedmen, and to daughters and granddaughters no 2 less than to sons and grandsons; and the power of assignment is conferred on all who have two or more children in their power, and enables them to assign a freedman or freedwoman to such children while so subject to them. Accordingly the question arose, whether the assignment becomes void, if the parent subsequently emancipates the assignee? and the affirmative opinion, which was held by Julian and 3 many others, has now become settled law. It is immaterial