1Ulpianus, Opinions, Book I. The filial affection due to parents should also be manifested by soldiers. Wherefore, if a son, who is a soldier, commits any improper act towards his father, he must be punished in proportion to his offence. 1Filial affection between a mother and a son who have been liberated from slavery together should be maintained in accordance with natural law. 2If a son, by the use of abusive language, should insult his father or his mother, whom it is his duty to respect, or should lay impious hands upon either of them, the Prefect of the City shall punish the crime, which affects public order, in proportion to its gravity. 3A son should be considered as unworthy to be a soldier, who calls his father and his mother, by whom he acknowledges that he has been brought up, malefactors.

2Julianus, Digest, Book XIV. The respect due to parents and patrons is of such a character that an action for fraud or injury can not be granted against them, even though they may appear by an attorney; for although, by the terms of the Edict, if judgment be rendered against them, they might not be considered infamous; still, according to public opinion itself, they will not escape the imputation of infamy through the very proceeding. 1Judgment for forcible possession is also forbidden to be rendered against them.

3Marcellus, Opinions. Titius purchased a boy slave, and after the lapse of several years ordered him to be sold, but subsequently having been begged to manumit him, did so, having received from him a sum of money as his value. I ask whether the son and heir of the master who manumitted him can accuse the freedman of being ungrateful. The answer was that he could, if there was no other obstacle; for it makes a great deal of difference where anyone has given freedom to his slave in consideration of money obtained from him, or from a friend of his, and where a slave, who had belonged to another, becomes his property and pays him a sum of money for his freedom. For the former confers a benefit upon him, although it is not gratuitous; the latter, however, can be considered to have done nothing more than to have lent him his aid.

4Marcianus, Public Decisions, Book II. The Divine Severus and Antoninus stated in a Rescript that an ungrateful freedman could be accused by the agent of his patron.

5Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book X. A parent, a patron, a patroness, or the children of relatives of the latter, will not be liable to an action in factum on account of a transaction, in which they are said to have received a sum of money, in consideration of either the performance or nonperformance of some act. 1Neither will actions implying moral turpitude, nor such as are based upon bad faith, or fraud, be granted against them.

6Paulus, On the Edict, Book XI. Nor can suit be brought against them for corrupting a slave:

7Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book X. Although such actions may not imply moral turpitude. 1And judgment shall be rendered against them only for the amount which they are able to pay. 2Nor can they be opposed by exceptions on the ground of bad faith, or for force, or fear, or by interdicts unde vi, or for any injury suffered through violence. 3When these persons tender an oath, they are not compelled to swear that this is not done maliciously. 4When a freedman alleges that his patroness has fraudulently been placed in possession of an estate in the name of her unborn child, he shall not be heard, because he cannot accuse his patroness of fraud, for such persons are entitled to respect; as is stated in the Sections of the Edict. 5Respect, however, is only due to them personally, and not to those who represent them; but if they themselves should appear for others, they will still be entitled to respect.

8Paulus, On the Edict, Book X. The heir of a freedman is entitled to all the rights of a stranger against the patron of the deceased.

9Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXVI. The persons of a father and a patron should always appear honorable and sacred in the eyes of a freedman and a son.

10Tryphoninus, Disputations, Book XVII. A father has no right to place any obligation upon his emancipated son, in consideration of having granted him his freedom, for the reason that nothing of this kind can be imposed upon children. Nor can anyone say that a son is bound by an oath to his father, who manumits him, in the same way as a freedman is to his patron, as children owe their parents affection and not menial services.

11Papinianus, Opinions, Book XIII. A freedwoman is not considered ungrateful because she works at her trade in opposition to the wishes of her patron.