Ulpianus, On Adultery, Book V. The legislator had in view that slaves should not by manumission be released from liability to torture; and therefore he forbade them to be manumitted, and prescribed a certain term within which it would not be lawful to set them free. 1Therefore, a woman who is separated from her husband is forbidden, under any circumstances, to manumit or alienate any of her slaves, because in the words of the law, “She cannot either manumit or alienate a slave who was not employed in her personal service, or on her land, or in the province,” which is, to a certain extent, a hardship, but it is the law. 2And even if the woman, after a divorce, purchases a slave, or obtains one in any way, she cannot manumit him under the provisions of the law. Sextus Cæcilius also mentions this. 3A father, however, whose daughter is under his control, is only forbidden to manumit or alienate such slaves as have been given to his daughter for her personal service. 4The law also prohibits a mother from manumitting or alienating any slaves which she has given for the service of her daughter. 5It also forbids a grandfather and grandmother fo manumit their slaves, as the intention of the law is that they also may be subjected to torture. 6Sextus Cæcilius very properly holds that the time prescribed by the law for alienating or manumitting slaves is too short. For he says, suppose a woman has been accused of adultery within the sixty days; how can the trial for adultery readily take place, so as to be concluded within the said sixty days? Still, according to the terms of the law the woman, even though she has been accused of adultery, is permitted, after this time, to manumit the slave who is suspected of having committed adultery with her, or another slave who should be put to torture. And, indeed, relief should be granted in this instance, so that slaves wlio are indicated as guilty, or who have knowledge of the crime, may not be manumitted before the trial is ended. 7If the father or mother of the woman should die within the sixty days, they can neither manumit nor alienate any of the slaves whom they have given to the daughter for her personal service.

Ulpianus, On Adultery, Book IV. If a husband should die within the sixty days, let us see whether the woman can manumit or alienate the slaves above referred to. I do not think that she can do so, although she may have no other accuser than her husband, as the father of the latter can accuse her. 1The law simply prohibits a woman from manumitting her slaves within sixty days after the divorce. 2Manumission is also prohibited whether she is divorced or repudiated. 3If the marriage is dissolved by the death of the husband, or on account of any penalty to which he has rendered himself liable, manumission will not be prevented. 4Even if the marriage is terminated by agreement, it is held that manumission or alienation is not prevented. 5When the woman, during the existence of the marriage but while she is contemplating divorce, manumits or alienates a slave, and this is established by conclusive evidence, the alienation or manumission will not be valid, as having been done to evade the law. 6We must understand every kind of alienation to be meant.

Ulpianus, On Adultery, Book IV. Anyone who lends the house of a friend is also liable. 1Where anyone encourages the commission of debauchery in a field, or in a bath, he should be included in the law. 2When, however, persons are accustomed to assemble in some house for the purpose of making arrangements to commit adultery, even if it was not committed in that place, still, the owner is considered to have lent his house for the commission of debauchery or adultery, because these offences would not have been perpetrated if these meetings had not taken place.

Ulpianus, On Adultery, Book IV. The law punishes the pandering of a husband who retains his wife, after she has been surprised in adultery, and permits the adulterer to depart. For the husband should be angry against his wife who has violated her marriage vow, and he ought also to be punished when he cannot excuse his ignorance, or conceal his indifference under the pretext that his information is incredible. Therefore, the law says he “shall permit the adulterer surprised in his house to depart,” because it wishes to punish the husband who caught her in such an infamous act. 1When the law says that anyone who marries a woman who has been convicted of adultery shall be legally liable, let us see whether this refers to fornication? The better opinion is that it does, for if the woman was condemned for any other reason under that law she could be married with impunity. 2He also is punished who accepts money on account of the fornication which he detected, and it does not make any difference whether the husband himself or someone else receives it, for he who accepts compensation for concealing his knowledge of fornication should be punished. The law, however, does not apply to him who keeps the secret gratuitously. 3Anyone who has pecuniarily profited by the adultery of his wife shall be punished; for he who acts as his wife’s pander does not commit a trivial offence. 4A man who receives anything in consideration of the adultery of his wife is held to have received it in order that she might commit adultery; and whether he has obtained it frequently or only once, he ought not to be exempt from punishment. He is correctly said to have profited by the adultery of his wife, who accepts something in order that she may be permitted to be debauched, as prostitutes are. Where, however, he permits his wife to commit the offence, not on account of gain, but through negligence, his own fault, or a certain degree of indifference, or excessive credulity, he is considered to have been placed outside the law. 5The division of the six months is made as follows: in the case of a married woman, the time is computed from the day of the divorce; in the case of a widow, from the day when the offence was committed. This seems to be indicated by a rescript addressed to the Consuls Tertyllus and Maximus. Moreover, if sixty days have elapsed since the divorce, and the term of five years has passed since the day when the crime was perpetrated, it must be said that the woman cannot be accused; so that when six available months are granted, this should be understood to mean that the accusation, having been extinguished by the uninterrupted period of five years, cannot be renewed. 6The legislator intended that this term of five years should be observed, when either of the defendants was accused of fornication, adultery, or pandering. Therefore what ought to be done if another crime derived from the Julian Law should be pleaded as a defence, as in the case of those who lend their houses for the purpose of fornication, and of others like them? The better opinion is, that all of the offences included in the Julian Law are prescribed after the lapse of five years. 7Moreover, the five years must be reckoned from the day when the crime was committed to the one on which the party was prosecuted, and not to that on which the judgment for adultery was carried into execution. 8It was also added in the Decree of the Senate that if several persons should prosecute the same defendant, reference must be had to the date of the information of the one who persevered in the prosecution; so that he who brings the accusation may rely upon his own information, and not on those of the others. 9There is no doubt that anyone who has committed fornication by means of force employed against the man or woman in question can be prosecuted without reference to the above-mentioned term of five years; for there is no doubt that he has committed a criminal act of violence.