The Ancient Library

Scanned text contains errors.

On this page: Pauperie – Pauperies – Pausarii – Pavimentum – Pavonaceum – Pechus



equal share' (virilispars) with the children, whether the freedman died testate or intestate ; and a patrona ingenua, who had three children, enjoyed the same privilege. Before the Lex Papia, Patronae had only the rights which the Twelve Tables gave them ; but this Lex put Ingenuae patronae who had two children, and Libertinae patronae who had three children, on the same footing with re­spect to the Bonorum possessio contra tabulas and with respect to an adopted son, a wife in manu, or a nurus in manu filii, as the Edict had placed Pa-troni. The Lex did the same for daughters of the Patronus who had three children. The Lex also gave to a Patrona ingenua, but not to a Libertina, who had three children, the same rights that it gave to a Patronus.

According to the old law, as the liberta was in the legitima tutela of her patron, she could make no disposition of her property without his consent (patrono auctore). The Lex Papia freed a liberta from this tutela, if she had four children, and she could consequently then make a will without the consent of her patronus, but the law provided that the patronus should have an equal share with her surviving children.

In the case of a liberta dying intestate, the Lex Papia gave no further rights to a Patrona, who had children (liberis bonoratae) than she had before ; and therefore if there had been no capitis dimmutio of the Patrona or the Liberta, the Pa­trona inherited the property, even if she had no children, to the exclusion of the children of the liberta. If the liberta made a will, the Lex Papia gave to the Patrona, who had the number of chil­dren required by that law, the same rights which the Edict gave to the Patronus .contra tabulas li-berti. The same Lex gave to the daughter of a patrona, who had a single child, the same rights that the patronus had contra tabulas liberti. (Gains, iii. 53 ; a passage which Unterholzner proposes to correct, but on very insufficient grounds, Zeitsclirift^ v. p. 45.)

The rules of law as to the succession of the Patronus to the property of Latini Liberti differed in various respects from those that have been ex­plained. Being viewed as a peculium, it had the incidents of such property. It came to the extranei heredes of the manumissor, but not to his exhere-dated children, in both which respects it differed from the property of a Libertus who was a Civis Ilomanus. If there were several patrons, it came to them in proportion to their interests in the former slave, and it was consistent with this doc­trine that the share of a deceased patronus should go to his heres. The Senatusconsultum Largianum, which was passed in the time of Claudius, enacted that the property of Latini should go first to those who had manumitted them, then to their liberi who were not expressly exheredated, according to proximity, and then according to the old law, to the heredes of the manumissor. The only effect of this Senatusconsultum was to prefer liberi, who were not expressly exheredated, to extranei heredes. Accordingly, an emancipated son of the patronus, who was praeteritus, and who could not claim the Bonorum possessio of his father's property contra tabulas testamenti, had a claim to the property of a Latinus prior to the extranei heredes.

As to the Dediticii under the Lex Aelia Sentia, there were two rules. The property of those who on their manumission would have become Roman


citizens, but for the impediments thereto, came to their patroni as if they had been Roman citizens: they had not however the testamenti factio. Ths property of those, who on their manumission would have become Latini, but for the impediments thereto, came to their patroni as if they had been Latini; on this Gaius remarks that in this matter the legislator had not very clearly expressed his in­tentions. He had already made a similar remark as to a provision of the Lex Papia (iii. 47).

As to the other meanings of the word Patronus, see cliens and orator.

The subject of the Patronatus is one of con­ siderable importance towards a right understanding of many parts of the Roman polity. This imperfect outline may be filled up by referring to the follow­ ing authorities. (Gaius, iii. 39—76 : Ulpian, Frag. tit. xxvii. xxix. ; Dig. 37. tit. 14, 15 ; 38. tit. 1, 2, 3, £e.; the Index to Paulus, Sent. Recept.; and for Justinian's legislation, Inst. 3. tit. 8, &c. ; Unter- holzner, Ueber das patronatisclie Erbrecht, Zeit- schrift, v., and the article gens, with the references in Rein, Das Rom. PrivatrecJit, p. 285, and in Walter, GescJtichte des Rom. Rechts, pp. 507—516, and 684—689.) [G. L.]

PAVIMENTUM. [domus, p. 431, a; viae.]

PAVONACEUM. [tegula.]

PAUPERIE, ACTIO DE. [pauperies.]

PAUPERIES was the legal term for mischief done by an animal (quadrupes) contrary to the nature of the animal, as if a man's ox gored an­ other man. In such cases, the law of the Twelve Tables gave the injured person an action against the owner of the animal for .the amount of the damage sustained. The owner was bound either to pay the full amount of damages or to give up the animal to the injured person (noxae dare). Pauperies excluded the notion of Injuria ; it is de­ fined to be " damnuin sineinjuriafacientis faction,"" for an animal could not be said to have done a thing "injuria, quod sensu caret." The actio da pauperie belonged to the class of Noxales Actiones. According to the old law, if a bear got away from his master, he was not liable ; because when the animal got away, it ceased to be the master's pro­ perty. But the Aedile's edict declared that it was not lawful to keep a dog, boar, wild boar, bear, or lion, in any place which was a place of public resort. If this rule was violated, and any damage was done by one of these beasts to a free­ man, the judex might condemn the owner in such sum as he should think to be "bonum et aequum." If damage was done to any thing else, the judex might condemn the owner in double the amount of the damage. There might also be an actio de pauperie in addition to the aedilitiae actiones. (Dig. 9. tit. 3 ; Inst. 4. tit. 9.) [G. L.]

PAUSARII, was the name given to the priests of Isis at Rome, because they were accustomed in the processions in honour of Isis to make pauses (pausae} at certain chapels or places, called man-siones, by the road's side, to sing hymns and per­form other sacred rites. (Orelli, Inscr. n. 1885 ; Sparfcian. Fescen. Nig. 6, Caracall. 9; Salrn. ad loc.)

The portisculus, or commander of the rowers in a vessel, was sometimes called pausarius (Sen. Ep. 56), because the rowers began and ceased (pausa) their strokes according to his commands. [portis­culus.]


About | First | English Index | Classified Index | Latin Index | Greek Index



page #  
Search this site
All non-public domain material, including introductions, markup, and OCR © 2005 Tim Spalding.
Ancient Library was developed and hosted by Tim Spalding of