casuri sunt. Cum autem in compluribus aliis causis postumi 4 pro iam natis habentur, et in hac causa placuit non minus postumis quam iam natis testamento tutores dari posse, si modo in ea causa sint, ut, si vivis parentibus nascerentur, sui et in potestate eorum fierent. Sed si emancipato filio tutor 5 a patre testamento datus fuerit, confirmandus est ex sententia praesidis omnimodo, id est sine inquisitione.

XIV.

QUI DARI TUTORES TESTAMENTO POSSUNT.

Dari autem potest tutor non solum pater familias, sed etiam filius familias. Sed et servus proprius testamento 1 cum libertate recte tutor dari potest. sed sciendum est eum et sine libertate tutorem datum tacite et libertatem directam

§ 4. Postumi liberi are children born after the execution of the will: whether after the death of the testator or in his life-time is immaterial. A paterfamilias could not give a testamentary guardian to a posthumous grandson, if, supposing he had died immediately after the execution of the will, the grandson would have been born in the potestas of his own father, the testator's son: for in that case, the father being in the same potestas, the child would not have been a suus heres to the testator. Guardianship was only intended as a substitute for patria potestas, and the existence of the latter barred the possibility of the former.

§ 5. There were five other cases in which magisterial confirmation of a testamentary appointment was required, viz. (1) where a father gave by will a guardian to his natural child, Dig. 26. 3. 7; (2) where the appointment was made in unconfirmed codicils or in an invalid will, Dig. ib. 1.1; (3) where the appointment violated the SC. Libonianum by being written by the guardian himself; here a 'praevia inquisitio' was necessary, Dig. ib. 2. 29: 48. 10. 18. 1; (4) where a mother attempted to give a testamentary guardian to her child, the appointment would be confirmed only 'ex inquisitione,' and only if the child were instituted heir in the will, Dig. ib. 2. 4; (5) if a man appointed a testamentary guardian to the child of some other person, the appointment would be confirmed ex inquisitione if the child were instituted heir in the will, and had no other property, Dig. ib. 3. 4. 5. In all these cases, or at any rate where an inquisitio was held, the appointment was deemed magisterial rather than testamentary, Dig. ib. 2. 26. 2: 48. 10. 18. 1.

Tit. XIV. The two main rules of testamentary appointments are, (1) there must be testamentifactio (Bk. ii. 19. 4 inf.) between testator and the intended guardian, Dig. 26. 2. 21, and (2) the person must be clearly specified, Bk. ii. 20. 27 inf.

§ 1. Ulpian (Dig. 26. 2. 10. 4) and Paulus (Dig. ib. 32. 2) both say that

accepisse videri et per hoc recte tutorem esse. plane si per errorem quasi liber tutor datus sit, aliud dicendum est. servus autem alienus pure inutiliter datur testamento tutor: sed ita 'cum liber erit' utiliter datur. proprius autem servus inutiliter 2 eo modo datur tutor. Furiosus vel minor viginti quinque annis tutor testamento datus tutor erit, cum compos mentis aut maior viginti quinque annis fuerit factus.

3

Ad certum tempus et ex certo tempore vel sub condicione vel ante heredis institutionem posse dari tutorem non dubitatur. 4 Certae autem rei vel causae tutor dari non potest, quia personae, non causae vel rei datur.

the appointment of a servus proprius as tutor implied a gift of freedom. But this was not so if the slave was instituted heir until Justinian's own time, Tit. 6. 2 supr., Cod. 6. 27. 5. pr.

The words 'libertatem directam' are possibly a reference to Dig. 26. 2. 28. I'verbis fidei commissi manumissus non iure tutor testamento datur.' But it seems doubtful whether this was really the law: see Cod. 7. 4. 9, Dig. 26. 2. 10. 4.

Ulpian says in Dig. 26. 2. 10. 4 that even an unconditional (purè) appointment of a servus alienus as testamentary guardian implied the condition 'cum liber erit,' and a gift of fidei-commissaria libertas 'si voluntas apertissime non refragetur.' It seems impossible to reconcile this with the text.

§ 2. Until the minor reached twenty-five or the lunatic recovered his senses, a tutor or curator would be appointed by the magistrate ad interim, Tit. 23. 5 inf.

§ 4. It is possible that the rule 'certae rei vel causae tutor dari non potest' is true only of testamentary appointments (cf. the analogy in institution heredis institutio ex certa re inutiliter fit): at any rate there are many cases in which a guardian was appointed certae causae, Gaius i. 150 'vel in omnes res, vel in unam forte aut duas optare,' ib. 176 ad hereditatem adeundam,' ib. 178. 180 'dotis constituendae causa,' Ulpian, reg. 11. 22 ad nuptias contrahendas,' ib. 25 for a specific suit, cf. Tit. 21. 3 inf.: fragm. Vat. 229, Dig. 26. 5. 9: 27. 1. 21. 2 and 4, Cod. 5. 62. 11: 5. 44. 3 and 4. Some passages even go so far as to suggest that the tutor was given rei rather than personae, 'non numerus pupillorum plures tutelas facit, sed patrimoniorum separatio' Dig. 27. 1. 3 'non rebus duntaxat, sed etiam moribus' Dig. 26. 7. 12. 3. One explanation is that originally the guardian was appointed to the person and whole patrimony of the ward, but that gradually the practice grew up of allowing him to look after specific matters only; this being thought 'inelegans,' and inconsistent with the true nature of the institution, was discouraged, and the later lawyers inclined to support the rule stated in the text, treating the charge of specific matters as cura rather

Si quis filiabus suis vel filiis tutores dederit, etiam postumae 5 vel postumo videtur dedisse, quia filii vel filiae appellatione et postumus et postuma continentur. quid si nepotes sint, an appellatione filiorum et ipsis tutores dati sunt? dicendum est, ut ipsis quoque dati videantur, si modo liberos dixit. ceterum si filios, non continebuntur: aliter enim filii, aliter nepotes appellantur. plane si postumis dederit, tam filii postumi quam ceteri liberi continebuntur.

XV.

DE LEGITIMA ADGNATORUM TUTELA.

Quibus autem testamento tutor datus non sit, his ex lege duodecim tabularum adgnati sunt tutores, qui vocantur legitimi. Sunt autem adgnati per virilis sexus cognationem coniuncti, 1 quasi a patre cognati, veluti frater eodem patre natus, fratris filius neposve ex eo, item patruus et patrui filius neposve ex eo. at qui per feminini sexus personas cognatione iunguntur, non sunt adgnati, sed alias naturali iure cognati. itaque amitae tuae filius non est tibi adgnatus, sed cognatus (et invicem scilicet tu illi eodem iure coniungeris), quia qui

than tutela; cf. Tit. 21. 3 inf. 'non praetorius tutor, ut olim, sed curator in eius locum datur' Tit. 23. 2, 'curator enim et ad certam causam dari potest.' It cannot, however, be inferred from the word 'personae' that the guardian's main duty was the maintenance and education of the pupil for this is absolutely untrue of the tutela mulierum, and even with impuberes he had, generally speaking, nothing to do with the child's education, which was managed by the nearest relatives under magisterial supervision: the tutor had only to provide the means in proportion to the pupil's property, as determined by the magistrate.

Tit. XV. Agnates are also defined in Bk. iii. 2. I, from which we may apply here too the rule 'non tamen omnibus simul adgnatis dat lex hereditatem (tutelam), sed iis qui tunc proximiore gradu sunt cum certum esse coeperit aliquem intestatum decessisse,' for which cf. also Tit. 16. 7 inf. The definition, to be made perfectly accurate, requires both extension and restriction. It must be extended so as to include (1) adoptive relations, e.g. brothers and uncles: for these cannot properly be said to be cognati at all if cognates are persons related naturali iure, by the tie of blood: and (2) women who by passing in manum came to be filiae loco to their husbands, and thus (by a process analogous to adoption) became agnates to their own children and to their husband's agnates in general. It must, on the other hand, be restricted so as to

L

Quod

2 nascuntur patris, non matris familiam sequuntur. autem lex ab intestato vocat ad tutelam adgnatos, non hanc habet significationem, si omnino non fecerit testamentum is qui poterat tutores dare, sed si quantum ad tutelam pertinet intestatus decesserit. quod tunc quoque accidere intellegitur, 3 cum is qui datus est tutor vivo testatore decesserit. Sed adgnationis quidem ius omnibus modis capitis deminutione plerumque perimitur: nam adgnatio iuris est nomen. cognationis vero ius non omnibus modis commutatur, quia civilis ratio civilia quidem iura corrumpere potest, naturalia vero non utique.

XVI.

DE CAPITIS MINUTIONE.

Est autem capitis deminutio prioris status commutatio. eaque tribus modis accidit: nam aut maxima est capitis deminutio aut minor, quam quidam mediam vocant, aut

exclude cognates who, even though per virilis sexus personas coniuncti, had by capitis deminutio left their (agnatic) family. This last error of Gaius' and Justinian's definition is avoided by Ulpian, reg. II. 4, who adds 'eiusdem familiae.' Agnates, in fact, are persons related to one another through males, whether the relationship be natural, adoptive, or quasi-adoptive as produced by manus, and between whom no barrier has been interposed by capitis deminutio; and agnation is the tie between two or more persons which is based on the potestas or manus to which all of them would be subject if the head of the familia were still alive see Maine, Ancient Law pp. 146-8. For the reason why the descendants of a woman were not agnates of her blood relations see on Tit. 9. 3 supr.

The praetorian changes in the law of intestate succession (between which and the tutela legitima there was such an intimate connection) were not accompanied by corresponding changes in the law of guardianship. By Nov. 118 Justinian revolutionized the former branch of law by substituting title by cognation for title by agnation, and modified the law of guardianship in accordance therewith, cognatic relationship alone in future conferring a claim to tutela legitima.

§ 3. This passage is borne out by Bk. iii. 1. 11 inf. 'naturalia enim iura civilis ratio perimere non potest,' but (as is observed by Mr. Poste on Gaius i. 158) is almost completely contradicted by Tit. 16. 6 inf., which expressly (and truly) says that the two higher kinds of capitis deminutio destroyed naturalia iura based on cognatio no less than civilia jura based on adgnatio.

Tit. XVI. By status, in a general sense, the Romans denote a man's

minima. Maxima est capitis deminutio, cum aliquis simul 1 et civitatem et libertatem amittit. quod accidit in his, qui servi poenae efficiuntur atrocitate sententiae, vel liberti ut ingrati circa patronos condemnati, vel qui ad pretium participandum se venumdari passi sunt. Minor sive media est 2 capitis deminutio, cum civitas quidem amittitur, libertas vero retinetur. quod accidit ei, cui aqua et igni interdictum fuerit, vel ei, qui in insulam deportatus est. Minima est capitis 3 deminutio, cum et civitas et libertas retinetur, sed status hominis commutatur. quod accidit in his, qui, cum sui iuris

position in respect of legal rights, and this is usually determined by reference to three 'momenta,' libertas, civitas, and familia, the importance of which in this connection was so great that they came to be regarded as specific status themselves, cf. p. 79 supr. Hence the dictum that no man can have a status unless, to begin with, he is free; and the statement of Paulus, adopted in § 4 inf., is amplified by Modestinus, Dig. 4. 5. 4, who adds, 'hodie enim incipit statum habere :' a slave, until he is manumitted, has no more a 'status' than he has a 'caput.' It is in this specific sense that status is used here: by defining capitis deminutio as prioris status commutatio Justinian means that when a man 'capite minuitur' he either (1) loses the freedom which he possessed before, or (2) though retaining his freedom, ceases to be a citizen of Rome, or finally (3) while remaining liber and civis, ceases to belong to the familia of which he has hitherto been a member. Similarly caput, in the expression capitis deminutio, bears a close analogy to status in this specific sense: it means the rights a man enjoys in virtue of being free, or a civis, or a member of a family: by being 'capite deminutus' he loses some or all of these rights.

§ 1. For some modes of capitis deminutio maxima which were obsolete in Justinian's time see on Tit. 3. 4 supr.: to them may be added surrender by the pater patratus to a foreign state for an offence against International Law, Livy 5. 36. For the cases mentioned here in the text see the note referred to.

§ 2. For deportatio and aquae et ignis interdictio see on Tit. 12. 1 supr. Capitis deminutio media occurred also when a Roman citizen became civis of another town, e.g. a civitas peregrina or a Latin colony, between which and Rome there was not a complete community of civil rights, Cic. pro Balbo 11. 12, pro Caec. 33. 34, de Orat. I. 40. In his note on Gaius i. 161 Mr. Poste supposes that there was a capitis deminutio media when a Latinus was degraded to peregrinus by interdiction or deportation, and this is not improbable, as Latinus had many of the rights of civitas (see on Tit. 5. 3 supr.), but there is no express authority for the statement.

§ 3. The essence of capitis deminutio minima is the leaving, by the