Dictionary of Greek and Roman antiquities. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by numerous engravings on wood.

SERVUS. SERVUS. 1.031
if the cruelty of the master was intolerable, he branch of industry. It may easily be conceived
might be compelled to sell the slave; and the that under these circumstances, especially as they
slave was empowered to make his complaint to were often intrusted with property to a large
the proper authority. (Senec. de Benef. iii. 22.) amount, there must have arisen a practice of alA Constitution of Claudius enacted that if a man lowing the slave to consider partof his gains as
exposed his slaves, who were infirm, they should his own: this was his Peculium, a term also apbecome free; and the Constitution also declared plicable to such acquisitions of a filiusfamilias as
that if they were put to death, the act should be his father allowed him to consider as his own.
murder. (Steton. Claud. 25.) It was also enacted [PATRIA POTESTAS.] According to strict law,
(Cod. 3. tit. 38. s. 11) that in sales or division the Peculium was the property of the master, but
of property, slaves, such as husband and wife, according to usage it was considered to be the
parents and children, brothers and sisters, should property of the slave. Sometimes it was agreed
not be separated. between master and slave, that the slave should
A slave could not contract a marriage. His purchase his freedom with his Peculium when it
cohabitation with a woman was Contubernium; amounted to a certain sum. (Tacit. Annz. xiv. 42,
and no legal relation between him and his children and the note of Lipsius,) If a slave was mannwas recognized. Still nearness of blood was con- mitted by the owner in his lifetime, the Peculium
sidered an impediment to marriage after manumis- was considered to be given together with Libertas,
sion: thus a manumitted slave could not marry his unless it was expressly retained. (Dig. 15. tit. 1.
manumitted sister. (Dig. 23. tit. 2. s. 14,) s..53 de Peculio.) Transactions of borrowing and
A slave could have no property. He was not lending could take place between the master and
incapable of acquiring property, bitt his acquisi- slave with respect to the Peculium, though no
tions belonged to his master; which Gaius consi- right of action arose on either side out of such
ders to be a rule of the Jus Gentiltu (i. 52). A dealings, conformably to a general principle of
slave could acquire for his master by Mancipatio, Roman Law. (Gaiis, iv. 78.) If after the slave's
Traditio, Stipulatio, or in any other way. In this manumission, the master paid him a debt which
capacity of the slave to take, though he could not had arisen in the manner above mentioned, he
keep, his condition was assimilated to that of a could not recover it. (Dig. 12. tit. 6. s. 64.) In
filiusfamilias, and he was regarded as a person. If case of the claim of creditors on the slave's Pecuone person had a Nudum Jus Quiritium in a slave, lium, the debt of the slave to the master was first
and he was another's In bonis, his acquisitions be- taken into the account, and deducted from the Pelonged to the person whose he was In bonis. If a culium. So far was the law modified, that in the
man bona fide possessed another man's slave or a case of natumrles obligationes, as the Romans
free person, he only acquired through the slave in called them, between master and slave, a fidejussor
two cases: he was entitled to all that the slave could be bound for a slave; and he could also be
acquired out of or by means of the property of the bound, if the creditor was an extraneus.
possessor (ex re ejus); and he was entitled to all A naturalis obligatio might result fiom the dealthat the slave acquired by his own labour (ex ings of a slave with other persons than his mas.operis suis) 3 the law was the same with respect ter; but the master was not at all affected by
to a slave of whom a man had the Ususfructus such dealings. The master was only bound by the
only. All other acquisitions of such slaves or free acts and dealings of the slave, when the slave was
persons belonged to their owner or to themselves, employed as his agent or instrument, in which
according as they were slaves or free men. (Ulp. case the master might be liable to an Actio EXERF-ag. tit. 19.) If a slave was appointed heres, CITORIA or INSTITORIA. (Gaius, iv. 71.) There
he could only accept the hereditas with the consent was of course an actio against the master, when the
of his master, and he acquired the hereditas for slave acted by his orders. [Jussu, QuoD, &c.]
his master: in the same way, the slave acquired a If a slave or filiusfamilias traded with his peculium
legacy for his master. (Gaius, ii. 87, &c,) with the knowledge of the dominus or father, the
A master could also acquire Possessio through peculium and all that was produced by it were dihis slave, and thus have a commencement of Usu- visible among the creditors and master or father in
capion (Gaius, ii. 89); but the owner must have due proportions (pro rata portione), and if ant- of
the possession of the slave in order that he might the creditors complained of getting less than his
acquire possession through him, and consequently share, he had a tributoria actio against the master
a man could not acquire possession by means of a or father, to whom the law gave the power of dispignorated slave. [PIGNUS.] A bonae fidei pos- tribution among the creditors. (Gaius, iv. 72, &c.)
sessor, that is, one who believed the slave to be The master was not liable for anything beyond
his own, could acquire possession through him in the amount of the peculium, and his own demamld
such cases as he could acquire property; conse- was payable first. (Dig. 14. tit. 4. de T'ibmutoriut
quently a pledgee could not acquire possession Actione.) Sometimes a slave would have another
through a pignorated slave, though ihe had the slave under himi, who had a peculium with respect
possession of him bona fide, for this bona fides to the first slave, just as the first slave had a pecuwas not that which is meant in the phrase bonae iium with respect to his master. On this practice
fidei possessor. The Usufructuarius acquired pos- was founded the distinction between Servi Ordisession through the slave in the stane cases in narii and Vicarii. (Dig. 15. tit. 1. s. 17.) These
which the bonae fidei possessor acquired it. (Sa- subordinate peculia were however legally considered
vigny, Das ReetU des Besitzes, p. 314, ed. 5.) as included in the principal peculium. In the case
Slaves were not only employed in the usual do- of a slave dying, being sold or manunlitted, the
mestic offices and inl the labours of the field, but Edict required that ally action in respect of the
also as factors or agents for their masters in the Peculium must be brought within a year. (Dig. 15.
management of business [INSTITORIA ACTIO, tit. 2. s. 1, %whvich contains the words of the Edict.)
&cJ], and as mechalsics, artisans, and in every If a slave or filiusfamilias had carried on dealings