Corpus iurisprudentiae Romanae

Repertorium zu den Quellen des römischen Rechts

Digesta Iustiniani Augusti

Recognovit Mommsen (1870) et retractavit Krüger (1928)
Convertit in Anglica lingua Scott (1932)
Ulp.l. Ael. Sent.
Ad legem Aeliam Sentiam lib.Ulpiani Ad legem Aeliam Sentiam libri

Ad legem Aeliam Sentiam libri

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

Ex libro I

Dig. 50,16,216Ul­pia­nus li­bro pri­mo ad le­gem Ae­liam Sen­tiam. Ve­rum est eum, qui in car­ce­re clu­sus est, non vi­de­ri ne­que ‘vinc­tum’ ne­que ‘in vin­cu­lis’ es­se, ni­si cor­po­ri eius vin­cu­la sint ad­hi­bi­ta.

Ulpianus, On the Lex Ælia Sentia, Book I. It is true that when anyone is imprisoned, he is not held to be either chained or placed in chains unless they are attached to his body.

Ex libro II

Dig. 40,2,12Idem li­bro se­cun­do ad le­gem Ae­liam Sen­tiam. Vel si san­gui­ne eum con­tin­git (ha­be­tur enim ra­tio co­gna­tio­nis):

The Same, On the Lex Ælia Sentia, Book II. Or if they are related to him by blood (for such relationship is taken into consideration).

Dig. 40,2,16Ul­pia­nus li­bro se­cun­do ad le­gem Ae­liam Sen­tiam. Il­lud in cau­sis pro­ban­dis me­mi­nis­se iu­di­ces opor­tet, ut non ex lu­xu­ria, sed ex af­fec­tu de­scen­den­tes cau­sas pro­bent: ne­que enim de­li­ciis, sed ius­tis af­fec­tio­ni­bus de­dis­se ius­tam li­ber­ta­tem le­gem Ae­liam Sen­tiam cre­den­dum. 1Si quis mi­no­ri vi­gin­ti an­nis hac le­ge ser­vum de­de­rit aut pre­tio ac­cep­to vel do­na­tio­nis cau­sa, ut eum li­be­rum fa­ciat, pot­est il­le cau­sam ma­nu­mis­sio­nis is­tius pro­ba­re, hoc ip­sum al­le­gans le­gem da­tam, et per­du­ce­re ad li­ber­ta­tem: er­go hic de­bet os­ten­de­re hoc in­ter ip­sos ac­tum, ut pro­in­de vel ex le­ge do­na­tio­nis vel ex af­fec­tio­ne eius qui de­dit res aes­ti­me­tur.

Ulpianus, On the Lex Ælia Sentia, Book II. The judges, when hearing the reasons for manumissions, must remember that these must be based, not on dissoluteness, but on affection; for the Lex Ælia Sentia is understood to grant lawful freedom, not for the purpose of pleasure, but on account of sincere attachment. 1If anyone should transfer a slave to a minor of twenty-one years of age, either in consideration of a price paid, or as a donation, under the condition that he shall liberate him, he can offer this as a just reason for manumission, stating the condition which had been imposed, and can then grant the slave his freedom. He, however, will be required to show that this was the agreement between the parties, so that the matter may be decided in accordance with the condition of the donation, or with the affection of the person who gave the slave to be manumitted.

Ex libro IV

Dig. 40,9,30Ul­pia­nus li­bro quar­to ad le­gem Ae­liam Sen­tiam. Si quis hac le­ge ser­vum eme­rit, ut ma­nu­mit­tat, et non ma­nu­mit­ten­te eo ser­vus ad li­ber­ta­tem per­ve­ne­rit ex con­sti­tu­tio­ne di­vi Mar­ci, an pos­sit ut in­gra­tum ac­cu­sa­re, vi­dea­mus. et di­ci pot­est, cum non sit ma­nu­mis­sor, hoc ius eum non ha­be­re. 1Si fi­lius meus ex vo­lun­ta­te mea ma­nu­mi­se­rit, an ut in­gra­tum eum ac­cu­san­di ius ha­beam, du­bi­ta­ri pot­erit id­cir­co, quia non ma­nu­mi­si: sed pro eo ha­ben­dus sum, ac si ma­nu­mis­sis­sem. 2Sed si cas­tren­sem ser­vum fi­lius meus ma­nu­mit­tat, du­bio pro­cul hoc ius non ha­be­bo, quia non ip­se ma­nu­mi­si: ip­se pla­ne fi­lius ac­cu­sa­re pot­erit. 3Tam­diu au­tem ac­cu­sa­re quis pot­erit, quam­diu per­se­ve­rat pa­tro­nus. 4Quo­tiens au­tem pa­tro­ni li­ber­tum vo­lunt ac­cu­sa­re, utrum om­nium con­sen­sus ne­ces­sa­rius sit an ve­ro et unus pos­sit, vi­dea­mus. et est ve­rius, si sal­tem in unum hoc com­mi­se­rit, eum ut in­gra­tum ac­cu­sa­ri, sed om­nium con­sen­sum ne­ces­sa­rium, si sint eius­dem gra­dus. 5Si pa­ter li­ber­tum uni ex fi­liis ad­sig­na­ve­rit, so­lum eum ac­cu­sa­re pos­se Iu­lia­nus scrip­sit: so­lum enim pa­tro­num es­se.

Ulpianus, On the Lex Ælia Sentia, Book IV. If anyone should purchase a slave under the condition of manumitting him, and, not having done so, the slave obtains his freedom under the Constitution of the Divine Marcus, let us see whether he can be accused of ingratitude. It may be said that, as the purchaser did not manumit him, he is not entitled to this right of action. 1If my son should manumit my slave with my consent, it may be doubted whether I have the right to accuse him of ingratitude for the reason that I did not manumit him. I should, however, be considered as having manumitted him. 2But if my son manumits a slave forming part of his castrense peculium, there is no doubt that I will not have this right, because I, myself, did not manumit him. It is clear that my son himself can accuse him. 3Anyone can accuse a freedman of ingratitude as long as he remains his patron. 4If, however, several patrons desire to accuse their freedman of ingratitude, let us see whether the consent of all of them will be necessary, or whether only one can do so. The better opinion is that, if the freedman displayed ingratitude against only one of his patrons, he can accuse him; but the consent of all of them will be necessary, if they are all in the same degree. 5If a father should assign a freedman to one of his children, Julianus says he alone can accuse him of ingratitude, for he alone is his patron.