62. Fratris filiam uxorem ducere licet: idque primum in usum venit, cum divus Claudius Agrippinam, fratris sui filiam, uxorem duxisset. sororis vero filiam uxorem ducere non licet. et haec ita principalibus constitutionibus significantur. Item amitam et materteram uxorem ducere non licet.

63. Item eam quae nobis quondam socrus aut nurus aut privigna aut noverca fuit. ideo autem diximus quondam, quia si adhuc constat eae nuptiae per quas talis adfinitas quaesita est, alia ratione inter nos nuptiae esse non possunt, quia neque eadem duobus nupta esse potest, neque idem duas uxores habere.

64. Ergo si quis nefarias atque incestas nuptias contraxerit, neque uxorem habere videtur, neque liberos. hi enim qui ex eo coitu nascuntur, matrem quidem habere videntur, patrem vero non utique: nec ob id in potestate eius sunt, sed quales sunt ii quos mater vulgo concepit. nam nec hi patrem habere omnino intelleguntur, cum his etiam incertus sit; unde solent

62. It is lawful to marry a brother's daughter, and this first came into practice when Claudius took to wife Agrippina, the daughter of his brother'. But it is not lawful to marry a sister's daughter. And these things are so laid down in constitutions of the emperors. Likewise it is unlawful to marry a father's or mother's sister.

63. Likewise one who has aforetime been our mother-in-law or daughter-in-law or step-daughter or step-mother. The reason for our saying "aforetime" is that if the marriage still subsists whereby such affinity has been brought about, marriage between us is impossible for another reason, since neither can the same woman be married to two husbands, nor can the same man have two wives.

64. If then any man has contracted an unholy and incestuous marriage, he is considered as having neither wife nor children. For the offspring of such a cohabitation are regarded as having a mother indeed, but no father at all: and hence they are not in his potestas, but are as those whom a mother has conceived out of wedlock. For these too are considered to have no father at all, inasmuch as in their case he is besides

1 This connection was again prohibited by Constantine, see Inst. 1. 10, § 3.

spurii filii appellari, vel a Graeca voce quasi σжоpádη concepti, vel quasi sine patre filii.

65. Aliquando autem evenit, ut liberi qui statim ut nati sunt parentum in potestate non fiant, ii postea tamen redigantur in potestatem. (66.) Itaque si Latinus ex lege Aelia Sentia uxore ducta filium procreaverit, aut Latinum ex Latina, aut civem Romanum ex cive Romana, non habebit eum in potestate at causa probata civitatem Romanam consequitur cum filio: simul ergo eum in potestate sua habere incipit.

67. Item si civis Romanus Latinam aut peregrinam uxorem duxerit per ignorantiam, cum eam civem Romanam esse crederet, et filium procreaverit, hic non est in potestate, quia ne quidem civis Romanus est, sed aut Latinus aut peregrinus, id est eius condicionis cuius et mater fuerit, quia non aliter quisquam ad patris condicionem accedit, quam si inter patrem et

uncertain: and therefore they are called spurious children, either from a Greek word, being as it were conceived σπopádηv (at random), or as children without a father'.

65. Sometimes, however, it happens that descendants, who at the moment of their birth are not in the potestas of their ascendants, are subsequently brought into their potestas. 66. For instance, if a Latin, having married a wife in accordance with the Lex Aelia Sentia, have begotten a son, whether a Latin son by a Latin wife or a Roman citizen by a Roman wife, he will not have him in his potestas, but when his case has been proved, he and his son together attain to Roman citizenship: and therefore at the same instant he will begin to have him in his potestas.

67. Likewise if a Roman citizen through ignorance have married a Latin or a foreign woman, believing her to be a Roman citizen, and have begotten a son, this son is not in his potestas, because he is not even a Roman citizen, but either a Latin or a foreigner, that is, of the condition of which his mother is, since a man does not follow his father's condition unless there be conubium between his father and mother: yet

1 Ulpian, IV. 2. Sinepatrii according to the second derivation is contracted down into spurii.

21. 29. Ulp. VII. 4.

matrem eius conubium sit: sed ex senatusconsulto permittitur causam erroris probare, et ita uxor quoque et filius ad civitatem Romanam perveniunt, et ex eo tempore incipit filius in potestate patris esse. Idem iuris est, si eam per ignorantiam uxorem duxerit quae dediticiorum numero est, nisi quod uxor non fit civis Romana. (68.) Item si civis Romana per errorem nupta sit peregrino tamquam civi Romano, permittitur ei causam erroris probare, et ita filius quoque et maritus ad civitatem Romanam perveniunt. et aeque simul incipit filius in potestate patris esse. Idem iuris est si peregrino tamquam Latino ex lege Aelia Sentia nupta sit: nam et de hoc specialiter senatusconsulto cavetur. Idem iuris est aliquatenus, si ei qui dediticiorum numero est, tamquam civi Romano aut Latino e lege Aelia Sentia nupta sit: nisi quod scilicet qui dediticiorum numero est, in sua condicione permanet, et ideo filius, quamvis

by a senatusconsultum' he is allowed to prove a case of error, and so both the wife and son attain to Roman citizenship, and from that time the son begins to be in the potestas of his father. The rule is the same if through ignorance he marry a woman who is in the category of the dediticii, except that the wife does not become a Roman citizen2. 68. Likewise if a Roman woman by mistake be married to a foreigner thinking him to be a Roman citizen, she is allowed to prove a case of error3, and thus both the son and the husband attain to Roman citizenship, and at the same time the son begins to be in his father's potestas. The rule is the same, if she be married in accordance with the Lex Aelia Sentia to a foreigner, under the impression that he is a Latin, for as to this special provision is made by the senatusconsultum3. The rule is the same to some extent, if she be married in accordance with the Lex Aelia Sentia to one who is in the category of the dediticii, under the impression that he is a Roman citizen or a Latin, except, that is to say, that he who is in the category of the dediticii remains in his condition, and therefore the son, although he becomes a

1 Temp. Vespasiani, according to Gans.

2 1. 15. 26, 27.

3 Ulp. VII. 4.

4 See note on 1. 78. At first sight it would seem that the son was already a Roman citizen, there being no conubium between the parents; but the Lex Mensia had ruled otherwise. 5 1.67.

fiat civis Romanus, in potestatem patris non redigitur. (69.) Item si Latina peregrino, quem Latinum esse crederet, nupserit, potest ex senatusconsulto filio nato causam erroris probare, et ita omnes fiunt cives Romani, et filius in potestate patris esse incipit. (70.) Idem iuris omnino est, si Latinus per errorem peregrinam quasi Latinam aut civem Romanam e lege Aelia Sentia uxorem duxerit. (71.) Praeterea si civis Romanus, qui se credidisset Latinum, duxisset Latinam, permittitur ei filio nato erroris causam probare, tamquam si ex lege Aelia Sentia uxorem duxisset. Item his qui licet cives Romani essent, peregrinos se esse credidissent et peregrinas uxores duxissent, permittitur ex senatusconsulto filio nato causam erroris probare: quo facto peregrina uxor civis Romana fit et filius quoque ita non solum ad civitatem Romanam pervenit, sed etiam in potestatem patris redigitur. (72.) Quaecumque de filio esse diximus, eadem et de filia dicta intellegemus. (73.) Et quantum ad erroris causam probandam attinet, nihil interest cuius aetatis filius sive filia sit Latinus

· nisi minor anniculo sit filius filiave,

Roman citizen, is not brought under his father's potestas. 69. Likewise if a Latin woman be married to a foreigner, thinking him to be a Latin, she can, by virtue of the senatusconsultum, after a son is born, prove a case of error, and so they all become Roman citizens, and the son is thenceforward in his father's potestas. 70. The same rule holds in every respect if a Latin by mistake marry a foreign woman in accordance with the Lex Aelia Sentia, under the impression that she is a Latin or a Roman citizen. 71. Further, if a Roman citizen, who believed himself to be a Latin, have married a Latin woman, he is permitted, after the birth of a son, to prove a case of error, just as though he had married in accordance with the Lex Aelia Sentia. Likewise men, who, although they were Roman citizens, believed themselves to be foreigners and married foreign wives, are allowed by the senatusconsultum, after the birth of a son, to prove a case of error: and on this being done the foreign wife becomes a Roman citizen, and the son also in this way not only attains to Roman citizenship, but is brought under the potestas of his father. 72. Whatever we have said of a son, we shall consider to be also said of a daughter. 73. And so far as regards the proving of a case

causa probari non potest. nec me praeterit in aliquo rescripto divi Hadriani ita esse constitutum, tamquam quod ad erroris quoque causam probandam [desunt 2. lin.] Imperator

tuendam dedit. (74.) Item peregrino [3 lin.] uxorem duxisset et filio nato alias civitatem Romanam consecutus esset, deinde cum quaereretur an causam probare posset, rescripsit Imperator Antoninus perinde posse eum causam probare, atque si peregrinus mansisset. ex quo colligimus etiam peregrinum causam probare posse. (75.) Ex iis quae diximus apparet. - peregrinus [1 lin.] quidem

errorem

errore matrimo

ea quae superius

76. [2 lin.] uxorem duxerit, sicut supra quoque diximus, justum matrimonium contrahi et tunc ex iis qui nascitur, civis Romanus est et in potestate patris erit. (77.) Itaque si civis Romana peregrino nupserit, is qui nascitur, licet omni modo peregrinus sit, tamen interveniente conubio iustus filius est, tam

of error, it matters not of what age the son or daughter be1...... 74. Likewise in the case of a foreigner...(who) had married, and after the birth of his son had obtained Roman citizenship in some other way, when afterwards the question was raised whether he could prove a case of error, the emperor Antoninus declared in a rescript that he could as well prove a case as if he had remained a foreigner. Whence we gather that a foreigner too can prove a case of error. 75.

2

.........

76. ...... has married,...... as we also said above, a lawful marriage is contracted, and then the child of such parents is a Roman citizen and in the potestas of his father. 77. Likewise if a Roman woman be married to a foreigner, although

1 The rest of this paragraph is corrupt, but it seems plain that Gaius goes on to say, that although in proving a case of error the age of the child is immaterial; yet it is not so when a Junian Latin applies to the Praetor in virtue of the Lex Aelia Sentia, for his claim is not entertained unless the child is above one

year of age.

2

$75 is so corrupt that any translation of it must be mere guess-work. The commencement of § 76 is also mutilated, but obviously Gaius is speaking of the case of a Roman marrying a woman of a nation with which there is conubium. See 1. 56.