The Same, On the Lex Julia et Papia, Book I. We should consider him to be freeborn who has been legally declared such, even though he is in fact a freedman; for the reason that whatever is judicially determined is accepted as truth.

Ulpianus, On the Lex Julia et Papia, Book I. We should understand by the terms “the son of a Senator”, not only a natural son but also an adopted one, and it does not matter by whom or in what way he has been adopted. Nor does it make any difference whether he was already invested with Senatorial rank when he adopted him, or whether this was done subsequently.

Ulpianus, On the Lex Julia et Papia, Book I. It is established that the son of a Senator emancipated by his father is always considered a Senator’s son. 1Labeo also declares that a child born after the death of his father who was a Senator, shall be considered the son of the Senator. Proculus and Pegasus are of the opinion, however, that a child who was conceived and born after the expulsion of its father from the Senate, should not be considered a Senator’s son. This opinion is correct, for he whose father has been expelled from the Senate before he was born, cannot properly be called the son of a Senator; but where a child has been conceived before its father was expelled from the Senate, and born after his father had lost his rank, the better opinion is that he should be understood to be the son of a Senator. It is held by many that the time of conception should only be considered under such circumstances. 2Anyone whose father and grandfather have been Senators is understood to be both the son and the grandson of a Senator; if, however, his father lost his rank before the conception of the former, the question might arise whether he should not be considered the grandson of a Senator, even though he was no longer regarded as the son of one? It is the better opinion that he ought to be, so that the rank of his grandfather may be of advantage to him, rather than he should be injured by the condition of his father.

Ulpianus, On the Lex Julia et Papia, Book I. We hold that a woman openly practices prostitution, not only where she does so in a house of ill-fame, but also if she is accustomed to do this in taverns, or in other places where she manifests no regard for her modesty. 1We understand the word “openly” to mean indiscriminately, that is to say, without choice, and not if she commits adultery or fornication, but where she sustains the role of a prostitute. 2Moreover, where a woman, having accepted money, has intercourse with only one or two persons, she is not considered to have openly prostituted herself. 3Octavenus, however, says very properly that where a woman publicly prostitutes herself without doing so for money, she should be classed as a harlot. 4The law brands with infamy not only a woman who practices prostitution, but also one who has formerly done so, even though she has ceased to act in this manner; for the disgrace is not removed even if the practice is subsequently discontinued. 5A woman is not to be excused who leads a vicious life under the pretext of poverty. 6The occupation of a pander is not less disgraceful than the practice of prostitution. 7We designate those women as procuresses who prostitute other women for money. 8We understand the term “procuress” to mean a woman who lives this kind of a life on account of another. 9Where one woman conducts a tavern, and keeps others in it who prostitute themselves, as many are accustomed to do under the pretext of employing women for the service of the house; it must be said that they are included in the class of procuresses. 10The Senate decreed that it was not proper for a Senator to marry or keep a woman who had been convicted of a criminal offence, the accusation for which could be made by any of the people; unless he was prohibited by law from bringing such an accusation in court. 11Where a woman has been publicly convicted of having made a false accusation, or prevarication, she is not held to have been convicted of a criminal offence. 12Where a woman is caught in adultery, she is considered to have been convicted of a criminal offence. Hence if she is proved to have been guilty of adultery, she will be branded with infamy, not only because she was caught flagrante delicto, but also because she was convicted of a criminal offence. If, however, she was not caught, but was, nevertheless, found guilty, she becomes infamous because she was convicted of a criminal offence; and, indeed, if she was caught but was not convicted, she would still be infamous. I think that even if she should be acquitted after having been caught, she will still remain infamous, because it is certain that she was taken in adultery, and the law renders the act infamous and does not make this dependent upon the judicial decision. 13It is not mentioned here, as in the Lex Julia on adultery, by whom or where the woman must be caught; hence she is considered infamous whether she was caught by her husband or by anyone else. She will also be infamous according to the terms of the law, even if she was not caught in the house of her husband or her father.

Ulpianus, On the Lex Julia et Papia, Book I. Julianus says that, in estimating the portion due under the Falcidian Law, the following rule should be observed, namely, where there are two promising, or two stipulating debtors, and they are partners, the common obligation should be divided between them; just as if each one had stipulated or promised to pay the amount individually. If, however, no partnership existed between them, the matter would remain in abeyance, and a calculation should be made in order to determine what is due to the estates of the creditors, or what should be deducted from those of the debtors. 1Any property belonging to the estate of the deceased must be estimated at its value, that is to say, at the price it will bring at the present time; and it should be understood that the appraisement must not be made of the value which the property would have under certain conditions.

Ulpianus, On the Lex Julia et Papia, Book I. A freedman who has obtained the right to wear a gold ring (although he may obtain the right attaching to the condition of being freeborn, reserving the rights of his patron), is still considered as freeborn. This the Divine Hadrian stated in a Rescript.

Ulpianus, On the Lex Julia et Papia, Book I. Where a freedman, through collusion, has been declared to be entitled to the rights of a freeborn person, and the collusion has been established, he is, in some respects regarded, as a freedman. In the meantime, however, before the collusion has been exposed, and after the decision with reference to his rights as a freeborn person has been rendered, he will be regarded as freeborn.

Ulpianus, On the Lex Julia et Papia, Book I. The term “eunuch” is one of general application, and under it are included not only persons who are eunuchs by nature, but also those made such by crushing or pressure, as well as every other kind of eunuch whatsoever.

Ulpianus, On the Lex Julia et Papia, Book I. Where a matter has been decided, it is considered as true.