120 On the Rommi Coloni. similar relations, that the child followed the baser blood ^^ Justinian abolisht this, and at first declared the child to be perfectly free : only he gave the master of the husband the right of compelling him to separate from his wife ^^. Sub- sequently he subjected this freedom of the children to the following restrictions: they were to be capable of holding property of their own, but were to be personally bound to remain on the estate to which their father belonged, and to till it, unless they wanted to settle on and cultivate an estate of their own, which he allowed them to do ^^ In a still later constitution he deprived the children even of this limited free- dom, and reduced them entirely to the condition of coloni^^. Not long after however this limited freedom of the children was assumed in certain constitutions of Justin II and Tiberius as notorious and prevalent, without mention of the later severer ordinance of Justinian ^^. Fourthly, both parents might be colonic but in the service of different masters. That in this case the children also would be coloni could not be questioned ; but to which of the masters they were to belong was a point which was never permanently arranged. At first the master of the mother was to have a third part of the children ^^. Then all of them were assigned to him^^. Lastly it was settled that each of the two masters should have half the number of chil- dren, and that, if the number was an odd one, the larger half should fall to the mother'^s share ^^ In direct opposition
- "* Eichhom Deutsche Staats-imd Rechtsgeschichte i, § 50.
15 L.24. C. J. de agric. (xi. 47) ; confirmed in Nov. 54. pr. C. 1, only with a proviso against its acting retrospectively. Subsequently the marriage was even declared to be invalid: Nov. 22. C. 17. »6 Nov. 162. C. 2. 17 Const, de adscriptitiis. 18 Justini const, de filiis liberarum. Tiberii const, de filiis colonorum. It is diffi- cult to make out the exact relation between these contradictory ordmances. Cujacius (Observ. iv. 28) assumes that Justinian's last constitution was never actually intro- duced ; and by the help of this supposition all may be explained very easily. 19 L. un. C. Theod. de inquilinis (v, 10). 2i> L. 3. C.J. ut nemo (xi. 53). 21 Nov. 162. C. 3. Nov. 156. The most questionable passage is L. 13. pr. C. J. de agric. (xi. 47) : Definimus ut inter inquilinos colonosve — suscepti liberi, vel utroque vel neutro parente censito, statum paternae conditionis agnoscant. Even the text is doubtful. Pillius says: utroque parente censito vel ultro (utro ?) i. e. altero Sed in multis codicibus inveni vel neutro^ quod subtilioribus relinquo. Azo in his commen- tary on this passage remarks: in libro IM. (Martini) deest vel utroque. The gloss:
