estate to his children, otherwise he had to state expressly why he disinherited them.[1] Justinian confirmed and reduced legislation of this class to a compact form, defining the relations of parents and children to each other as regards the disposition of their possessions in precise terms. Fourteen causes were enumerated, which the law would recognize as just grounds for a parent to disinherit a child, and eight which would confer the same right on the latter. Among these, lapse into heresy holds the most prominent place, and also neglect to ransom if the parent or child should be taken captive by an enemy.[2]
The dissolute tendencies of society under the early Empire induced the promulgation of laws which imposed a penalty on celibacy, and granted privileges to those citizens who were fertile in offspring. Legal incapacity to inherit was inflicted on a bachelor, whilst in the division of an estate larger amounts were assigned to the heirs in proportion to the number of their children.[3] With the introduction of Christianity and asceticism, qualities of this kind began to occupy reversed positions; and, if marriage did not fall altogether into disrepute, second nuptials, at least, were ranked almost as a crime deserving to be visited with penalties comparable to those decreed against heretics.[4] Justinian modified this stringency, remarking that natural passion might fairly lead persons of both sexes to re-marry, and that free procreation
- ↑ The Lex Falcidia, concerning which there is much matter in Code, Pand., and Nov., etc.; cf. Gaius, ii, 226.
- ↑ Nov. cxv. Other causes for disinheriting were a son going on the stage, or a daughter under twenty-five refusing to marry a certain person, etc.
- ↑ Lex Papia-Poppaea, Pand., XXXVIII, xi; XXIII, i, and commenators; Gaius, i, 178, etc.
- ↑ Cod., V, ix.
