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)
Dig. XXV4,
De inspiciendo ventre custodiendoque partu
Liber vicesimus quintus
IV.

De inspiciendo ventre custodiendoque partu

(Concerning the Examination of Pregnant Women, and the Precautions to be Taken With Reference to Their Delivery.)

1Ul­pia­nus li­bro vi­ce­si­mo quar­to ad edic­tum. Tem­po­ri­bus di­vo­rum fra­trum cum hoc in­ci­dis­set, ut ma­ri­tus qui­dem prae­gna­tem mu­lie­rem di­ce­ret, uxor ne­ga­ret, con­sul­ti Va­le­rio Pris­cia­no prae­to­ri ur­ba­no re­scrip­se­runt in haec ver­ba: ‘No­vam rem de­si­de­ra­re Ruti­lius Se­ve­rus vi­de­tur, ut uxo­ri, quae ab eo di­ver­te­rat et se non es­se prae­gna­tem pro­fi­tea­tur, cus­to­dem ap­po­nat, et id­eo ne­mo mi­ra­bi­tur, si nos quo­que no­vum con­si­lium et re­me­dium sug­ge­ra­mus. igi­tur si per­stat in ea­dem pos­tu­la­tio­ne, com­mo­dis­si­mum est eli­gi ho­nes­tis­si­mae fe­mi­nae do­mum, in qua Do­mi­tia ve­niat, et ibi tres ob­ste­tri­ces pro­ba­tae et ar­tis et fi­dei, quae a te ad­sump­tae fue­rint, eam in­spi­ciant. et si qui­dem vel om­nes vel duae re­nun­tia­ve­rint prae­gna­tem vi­de­ri, tunc per­sua­den­dum mu­lie­ri erit, ut per­in­de cus­to­dem ad­mit­tat at­que si ip­sa hoc de­si­de­ras­set: quod si eni­xa non fue­rit, sciat ma­ri­tus ad in­vi­diam ex­is­ti­ma­tio­nem­que suam per­ti­ne­re, ut non im­me­ri­to pos­sit vi­de­ri cap­tas­se hoc ad ali­quam mu­lie­ris in­iu­riam. si au­tem vel om­nes vel plu­res non es­se gra­vi­dam re­nun­tia­ve­rint, nul­la cau­sa cus­to­dien­di erit’. 1Ex hoc re­scrip­to evi­den­tis­si­me ap­pa­ret se­na­tus con­sul­ta de li­be­ris agnos­cen­dis lo­cum non ha­buis­se, si mu­lier dis­si­mu­la­ret se prae­gna­tem vel et­iam ne­ga­ret, nec im­me­ri­to: par­tus enim an­te­quam eda­tur, mu­lie­ris por­tio est vel vis­ce­rum. post edi­tum pla­ne par­tum a mu­lie­re iam pot­est ma­ri­tus iu­re suo fi­lium per in­ter­dic­tum de­si­de­ra­re aut ex­hi­be­ri si­bi aut du­ce­re per­mit­ti. ex­tra or­di­nem igi­tur prin­ceps in cau­sa ne­ces­sa­ria sub­ve­nit. 2Se­cun­dum quod re­scrip­tum evo­ca­ri mu­lier ad prae­to­rem pot­erit et apud eum in­ter­ro­ga­ri, an se pu­tet prae­gna­tem, co­gen­da­que erit re­spon­de­re. 3Quid er­go, si non re­spon­de­rit aut non ve­niat ad prae­to­rem? num­quid se­na­tus con­sul­ti poe­nam ad­hi­be­mus, sci­li­cet ut li­ceat ma­ri­to non agnos­ce­re? sed fin­ge non es­se eo con­ten­tum ma­ri­tum, qui se pa­trem po­tius op­tet quam ca­re­re fi­lio ve­lit. co­gen­da igi­tur erit re­me­diis prae­to­ris et in ius venire, si venit, re­spon­de­re: pi­g­no­ra­que eius ca­pien­da et dis­tra­hen­da, si con­tem­nat, vel mul­tis co­er­cen­da. 4Quid er­go, si in­ter­ro­ga­ta di­xe­rit se prae­gna­tem? or­do se­na­tus con­sul­tis ex­po­si­tus se­que­tur. quod si ne­ga­ve­rit, tunc se­cun­dum hoc re­scrip­tum prae­tor de­be­bit ob­ste­tri­ces ad­hi­be­re. 5Et no­tan­dum, quod non per­mit­ti­tur ma­ri­to vel mu­lie­ri ob­ste­tri­cem ad­hi­be­re, sed om­nes a prae­to­re ad­hi­ben­dae sunt. 6Item prae­tor do­mum ho­nes­tae ma­tro­nae eli­ge­re de­bet, in qua mu­lier ve­niat, ut pos­sit in­spi­ci. 7Quid er­go, si in­spi­ci se non pa­tia­tur vel ad do­mum non ve­niat? ae­que prae­to­ris auc­to­ri­tas in­ter­ve­niet. 8Si om­nes vel plu­res re­nun­tia­ve­rint prae­gna­tem non es­se, an mu­lier pos­sit in­iu­ria­rum ex­per­i­ri ex hac cau­sa? et ma­gis pu­to age­re eam in­iu­ria­rum pos­se, sic ta­men, si in­iu­riae fa­cien­dae cau­sa id ma­ri­tus de­si­de­ra­vit: ce­te­rum si non in­iu­riae fa­cien­dae ani­mo, sed quia ius­te cre­di­dit vel ni­mio vo­to li­be­ro­rum sus­ci­pien­do­rum duc­tus est vel ip­sa eum il­le­xe­rat ut cre­de­ret, quod con­stan­te ma­tri­mo­nio hoc fin­ge­bat, ae­quis­si­mum erit ignos­ci ma­ri­to. 9Me­mi­nis­se au­tem opor­tet tem­pus non es­se prae­sti­tu­tum re­scrip­to, quam­vis in se­na­tus con­sul­tis de li­be­ris agnos­cen­dis tri­gin­ta dies prae­sti­tuan­tur mu­lie­ri. quid er­go? sem­per di­ce­mus ma­ri­to li­ce­re uxo­rem ad prae­to­rem evo­ca­re, an ve­ro et ip­si tri­gin­ta dies prae­sti­tui­mus? et pu­tem prae­to­rem cau­sa co­gni­ta de­be­re ma­ri­tum et post tri­gin­ta dies au­di­re. 10De in­spi­cien­do ven­tre cus­to­dien­do­que par­tu sic prae­tor ait: ‘Si mu­lier mor­tuo ma­ri­to prae­gna­tem se es­se di­cet, his ad quos ea res per­ti­ne­bit pro­cu­ra­to­ri­ve eo­rum bis in men­se de­nun­tian­dum cu­ret, ut mit­tant, si ve­lint, quae ven­trem in­spi­cient. mit­tan­tur au­tem mu­lie­res li­be­rae dum­ta­xat quin­que hae­que si­mul om­nes in­spi­ciant, dum ne qua ea­rum dum in­spi­cit in­vi­ta mu­lie­re ven­trem tan­gat. mu­lier in do­mu ho­nes­tis­si­mae fe­mi­nae pa­riat, quam ego con­sti­tuam. mu­lier an­te dies tri­gin­ta, quam pa­ri­tu­ram se pu­tat, de­nun­tiet his ad quos ea res per­ti­net pro­cu­ra­to­ri­bus­ve eo­rum, ut mit­tant, si ve­lint, qui ven­trem cus­to­diant. in quo con­cla­vi mu­lier pa­ri­tu­ra erit, ibi ne plu­res ad­itus sint quam unus: si erunt, ex utra­que par­te ta­bu­lis prae­fi­gan­tur. an­te os­tium eius con­cla­vis li­be­ri tres et tres li­be­rae cum bi­nis com­iti­bus cus­to­diant. quo­tiens­cum­que ea mu­lier in id con­cla­ve aliud­ve quod si­ve in ba­li­neum ibit, cus­to­des, si vo­lent, id an­te pro­spi­ciant et eos qui in­tro­ie­rint ex­cu­tiant. cus­to­des, qui an­te con­cla­ve po­si­ti erunt, si vo­lunt, om­nes qui con­cla­ve aut do­mum in­tro­ie­rint ex­cu­tiant. mu­lier cum par­tu­ri­re in­ci­piat, his ad quos ea res per­ti­net pro­cu­ra­to­ri­bus­ve eo­rum de­nun­tiet, ut mit­tant, qui­bus prae­sen­ti­bus pa­riat. mit­tan­tur mu­lie­res li­be­rae dum­ta­xat quin­que, ita ut prae­ter ob­ste­tri­ces duas in eo con­cla­vi ne plu­res mu­lie­res li­be­rae sint quam de­cem, an­cil­lae quam sex. hae quae in­tus fu­tu­rae erunt ex­cu­tian­tur om­nes in eo con­cla­vi, ne qua prae­gnas sit. tria lu­mi­na ne mi­nus ibi sint’, sci­li­cet quia te­ne­brae ad sub­icien­dum ap­tio­res sunt. ‘quod na­tum erit, his ad quos ea res per­ti­net pro­cu­ra­to­ri­bus­ve eo­rum, si in­spi­ce­re vo­lent, os­ten­da­tur. apud eum edu­ca­tur, apud quem pa­rens ius­se­rit. si au­tem ni­hil pa­rens ius­se­rit aut is, apud quem vo­lue­rit edu­ca­ri, cu­ram non re­ci­piet: apud quem edu­ce­tur, cau­sa co­gni­ta con­sti­tuam. is apud quem edu­ca­bi­tur quod na­tum erit, quo­ad trium men­sum sit, bis in men­se, ex eo tem­po­re quo­ad sex men­sum sit, se­mel in men­se, a sex men­si­bus quo­ad an­ni­cu­lus fiat, al­ter­nis men­si­bus, ab an­ni­cu­lo quo­ad fa­ri pos­sit, se­mel in sex men­si­bus ubi vo­let os­ten­dat. si cui ven­trem in­spi­ci cus­to­di­ri­ve ad­es­se par­tui li­ci­tum non erit fac­tum­ve quid erit, quo mi­nus ea ita fiant, uti su­pra com­pre­hen­sum est: ei quod na­tum erit pos­ses­sio­nem cau­sa co­gni­ta non da­bo. si­ve quod na­tum erit, ut su­pra cau­tum est, in­spi­ci non li­cue­rit, quas uti­que ac­tio­nes me da­tu­rum pol­li­ceor his qui­bus ex edic­to meo bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio da­ta sit, eas, si mi­hi ius­ta cau­sa vi­de­bi­tur es­se, ei non da­bo.’ 11Quam­vis sit ma­ni­fes­tis­si­mum edic­tum prae­to­ris, at­ta­men non est neg­le­gen­da in­ter­pre­ta­tio eius. 12De­nun­tia­re igi­tur mu­lie­rem opor­tet his sci­li­cet, quo­rum in­ter­est par­tum non edi, vel to­tam ha­bi­tu­ris he­redi­ta­tem vel par­tem eius si­ve ab in­tes­ta­to si­ve ex tes­ta­men­to. 13Sed et si ser­vus he­res in­sti­tu­tus fue­rit, si ne­mo na­tus sit, Aris­to scri­bit, huic quo­que ser­vo quam­vis non om­nia, quae­dam ta­men cir­ca par­tum cus­to­dien­dum ar­bi­trio prae­to­ris es­se con­ce­den­da. quam sen­ten­tiam pu­to ve­ram: pu­bli­ce enim in­ter­est par­tus non sub­ici, ut or­di­num dig­ni­tas fa­mi­lia­rum­que sal­va sit: id­eo­que et­iam ser­vus is­te, cum sit in spe con­sti­tu­tus suc­ces­sio­nis, qua­lis­qua­lis sit, de­bet au­di­ri rem et pu­bli­cam et suam ge­rens. 14De­nun­tia­ri au­tem opor­tet his, quos pro­xi­ma spes suc­ces­sio­nis con­tin­git, ut pu­ta pri­mo gra­du he­redi in­sti­tu­to (non et­iam sub­sti­tu­to) et, si in­tes­ta­tus pa­ter fa­mi­lias sit, ei qui pri­mum lo­cum ab in­tes­ta­to te­net: si ve­ro plu­res sint si­mul suc­ces­su­ri, om­ni­bus de­nun­tian­dum est. 15Quod au­tem prae­tor ait cau­sa co­gni­ta se pos­ses­sio­nem non da­tu­rum vel ac­tio­nes de­ne­ga­tu­rum, eo per­ti­net, ut, si per rus­ti­ci­ta­tem ali­quid fue­rit omis­sum ex his quae prae­tor ser­va­ri vo­luit, non ob­sit par­tui. qua­le est enim, si quid ex his, quae le­vi­ter ob­ser­van­da prae­tor edi­xit, non sit fac­tum, par­tui de­ne­ga­ri bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem: sed mos re­gio­nis in­spi­cien­dus est, et se­cun­dum eum et ob­ser­va­ri ven­trem et par­tum et in­fan­tem opor­tet.

1Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXIV. In the time of the Divine Brothers a husband appeared who stated that his wife was pregnant, but she denied it, and the Emperors having been consulted on the subject, addressed a Rescript to Valerius Priscianus, the Urban Prætor, in the following terms. “Rutilius Severus seems to ask for something extraordinary in applying for a custodian for his wife, who is divorced from him, and who asserts that she is not pregnant. Therefore, no one will be surprised if We also suggest a new plan and a remedy. If the husband persists in his demand, it will be most convenient for the house of a respectable woman to be chosen into which Domitia may go, and that three midwives, experienced in their profession and trustworthy, after having been selected by you, shall examine her. And if all of them, or only two, announce that she seems to be pregnant, then the woman must be persuaded to receive a custodian, just as if she herself had requested it. If she does not bring forth a child, her husband will know that he will incur dishonor, and that his reputation will be involved, and he will not unreasonably be held to have contrived this in order to injure his wife. If, however, all of said women, or the majority of them, declare that the woman is not pregnant, there will be no reason for the appointment of a custodian.” 1It is perfectly evident from this rescript that the Decrees of the Senate relating to the recognition of children will not apply, if the woman pretended that she was pregnant, or even denied that this was the case. Nor is this unreasonable, for the child is a part of the woman, or of her entrails, before it is born. After it is born, however, it is clear that the husband can, in accordance with his rights, by means of an interdict, demand that the child shall be produced in his presence, or that he shall be permitted by an extraordinary proceeding to remove it. Therefore the Emperor comes to his relief when it is necessary. 2In accordance with this rescript, a woman may be summoned before the Prætor and, having been interrogated as to whether she believes that she is pregnant, can be compelled to answer. 3What must be done in case she should not answer, or should not appear before the Prætor? Shall we apply the penalty fixed by the Decree of the Senate, namely, that the husband shall have the right not to acknowledge the child? But suppose that the husband is not content with this, and that he should prefer to be a father rather than be deprived of his son? Then the woman shall be compelled by the authority of the Prætor to come into court, and if she does come, to answer; and if she refuses, her property shall be taken in execution, and sold, or she shall be punished by a fine. 4But what if, having been interrogated, she should say that she is pregnant? The course prescribed by the Decree of the Senate must then be followed. If, however, she should deny that she is pregnant, then, in accordance with this rescript, the Prætor must summon midwives. 5It should be noted that neither the husband nor the wife is permitted to summon midwives, but they must all be summoned by the Prætor. 6The Prætor also must select the house of the respectable matron to which the woman must go, in order that she may be examined. 7What must be done if the woman will not permit herself to be examined, or refuses to go to the house? Under these circumstances, the authority of the Prætor must also be invoked. 8If all, or a majority of the midwives, declare that the woman is not pregnant, can she bring an action on the ground of injury committed? I think that the better opinion is, that she can bring such an action, provided, however, that her husband, by taking this course, desired to cause her injury. But if he had no intention to injure her, but, indeed, actually believed that she was pregnant, having been influenced by an extreme desire to have children, or because she herself induced him to think so, having during marriage pretended that this was the case, it will be perfectly just for the husband to be excused. 9Moreover, it should be remembered that no time has been fixed by the rescript, although in the Decrees of the Senate relating to the recognition of children, the term of thirty days was established for the woman to announce her pregnancy. What then should be done? Shall we say that the husband can always summon his wife before the Prætor or shall we appoint thirty days for him to do so? I think that, where proper cause is shown, the Prætor should also hear the husband after thirty days have elapsed. 10With reference to the examination of a pregnant woman, and the precautions to be taken at the time of delivery, the Prætor says: “If a woman, after the death of her husband, declares that she is pregnant, she must take care to notify the parties interested or their agent, twice within the month subsequent to his death, so that they may send persons to examine her, if they wish to do so. Free women to the number of five shall be sent, and all of them shall make the examination at one time, but none, while they are making the examination, shall touch the belly of the woman without her consent. The woman shall be delivered in the house of a respectable matron, whom I will appoint. Thirty days before she expects to be confined, she shall notify the parties interested or their agents to send persons to be present at her delivery, if they should desire to do so. There shall only be one entrance to the room where the woman is to be delivered and if there are more, they shall be closed by means of boards. Before the door of this room, three freemen and three freewomen, together with two companions, shall keep watch. Every time that the said woman enters this room, or any other, or goes to the bath, the custodians can previously make an examination of it, if they wish to do so, and also search any parties who may enter therein. The custodians who are placed in front of the room may search all persons who enter it or the house, if they so desire. When the woman begins to bring forth her child, she must notify all the parties interested, or their agents, in order that they may send persons to be present at her delivery. Freewomen to the number of five shall be sent, so that in addition to two midwives there shall not be present in the said room more than ten freewomen, nor more than six female slaves. All those who are to be present in the room shall be searched, for fear one of them may be pregnant. There shall not be less than three lights in said room, for the reason that darkness is better adapted for the substitution of a child. When the child is born, it shall be shown to the parties interested, or to their agents, if they desire to inspect it. It shall be brought up by whomever its father shall designate. If the father gives no directions in this respect, or the person by whom he desires it to be brought up will not take charge of it, this shall be done by someone appointed by me, after proper cause is shown. The person by whom the child is to be reared shall produce it, after it has reached the age of three months, twice every month until it is six months old; and then once a month, and from the time it is six months old until it has attained the age of a year, it shall be produced every other month; and after it is a year old, until it can speak, he shall exhibit it once every six months, wherever he wishes to do so. If the parties interested are not permitted to examine the woman, and to watch her, or to be present at her delivery, and anything is done to prevent what is set forth above, I will not grant permission for the possession of the child after I have taken cognizance of the case, nor will I do so where the child is not allowed to be examined, as is hereinbefore provided. Where it seems to me that a good reason exists, I will not grant those actions which I promise to those to whom the possession of property has been given in accordance with my Edict.” 11Although the Edict of the Prætor is perfectly clear, still its interpretation should not be neglected. 12Hence, the woman should give notice to the parties interested, that is to say, to those whose interest it is that she should have no children, or to those who are entitled to the entire estate or a part of the same, whether as heirs at law, or under a will. 13If, however, a slave has been appointed heir, and there are no children; Aristo states that in this case it is in the power of the Prætor to permit him to take not all, but some of the precautions with reference to the delivery. I think that this opinion is correct. For it is to the interest of the public that there should be no substitution of a child, in order that the honor of persons of rank, as well as that of families, may be preserved. Therefore, where a slave of this kind has been appointed with the expectation of the succession, he should be heard; no matter what his standing is, since he is acting both in the public interest and his own. 14Moreover, those also must be notified who are next in the line of succession; as, for instance, the heir appointed in the first degree, but not one who has been substituted; and if the head of the family died intestate, those should be notified who hold the first place in the line of succession. Where, however, there are several who have the right to succeed at the same time, all of them should be notified. 15Again, where the Prætor says that he will not grant possession after having taken cognizance of the case, or that he will refuse certain actions, this has reference to a case where, through ignorance, some provision has been neglected of those which the Prætor wished to be observed; but this does not prejudice the rights of the child. For what kind of a rule would it be if one of the trifling formalities which the Prætor declares must be observed should not be carried out, and the possession of the property be refused to the child? The custom of the neighborhood must be followed, and in accordance with it the woman must be examined, and the delivery and the child watched.

2Iu­lia­nus li­bro vi­ce­si­mo quar­to di­ges­to­rum. Edic­tum de cus­to­dien­do par­tu de­ro­ga­to­rium est eius, quod ad Car­bo­nia­ni de­cre­ti ex­em­plum com­pa­ra­tum est. 1Sed hoc ali­quan­do re­mit­te­re prae­tor de­bet, si non ma­li­tia, sed im­pe­ritia mu­lie­ris fac­tum fue­rit, ne ven­ter in­spi­ce­re­tur aut par­tus cus­to­di­re­tur.

2Julianus, Digest, Book XXIV. The Edict having reference to the inspection of pregnant women conflicts with the one granted in accordance with the provisions of the Carbonian Decree. 1Sometimes, however, the Prætor should dispense with these formalities, where the examination of the woman does not take place, or her delivery is not watched, and this occurs not through her malice but through her ignorance.

3Pau­lus li­bro quar­to de­ci­mo ad Plau­tium. Qui ven­tri sub­sti­tu­tus est vel in­sti­tu­tus, si ven­trem ser­va­re ve­lit, au­dien­dus est.

3Paulus, On Plautius, Book XIV. Where anyone is substituted for an unborn child, or is appointed heir in case there are no children, and he wishes to have the woman watched, he should be heard.

4Scae­vo­la li­bro vi­ce­si­mo di­ges­to­rum. Is a quo, si si­ne li­be­ris de­ces­sis­set, quid­quid ad eum ex bo­nis per­ve­nis­set, so­ro­ri fi­dei­com­mis­sum re­lic­tum erat, de­ces­sit pos­tu­ma he­rede in­sti­tu­ta et sub­sti­tu­tis aliis: quae­si­tum est, cum uxor de­func­ti prae­gna­tem se di­cat, an so­ro­ri pro­cu­ra­to­ri­ve eius se­cun­dum for­mam edic­ti ven­trem in­spi­ce­re et par­tum cus­to­di­re per­mit­ten­dum sit. re­spon­di in eius­mo­di spe­cie, de qua quae­re­re­tur, pos­se vi­de­ri ad eius, cui fi­dei­com­mis­sum da­tum es­set, sol­li­ci­tu­di­nem per­spi­cien­dum id­que cau­sa co­gni­ta sta­tuen­dum.

4Scævola, Digest, Book XX. A certain man by whom it was provided that, if he died without issue, whatever came into his hands should be left in charge of his sister as trustee, died after having appointed a posthumous heir, to whom he substituted others. The question arose whether the sister or her agent should be permitted to examine the woman, and watch over her delivery, in accordance with the terms of the Edict, since the wife of the deceased declared herself to be pregnant. I answered that in a case of the kind with reference to which the inquiry was made, it could be held that the solicitude manifested by the person charged with the trust ought to be respected, and that the request should be granted, if proper cause was shown.