| Keywords |
|
| ID |
5245 |
| Text |
Edictus Rothari (643 - 643) Rothari, Rothair |
| Quotation |
Si servus intra provincia in fuga vagatur, et dominus eum invenerit, et servus ipse fugiens in curtem alienam, et dominus eius insequens eum adprehensus fuerit, non reputetur culpa domini pro eo, quod in curte alterius furorem in servum suum habens rem suam prehindere visus est. Et si ille, cuius curtis fuerit, aut aliquis ex hominibus illius mancipium ipsum de manum tulerit aut antesteterit, nullum penitus, qui servum sequitur, in curte ipsa scandalum faciat; si fecerit, qualiter in hoc edictum legitur conponat… |
| Translation |
If an enslaved person flees within the provincia [country], and his lord discovers the enslaved man has taken reguge in another’s curtem [courtyard], and his lord subsequently siezes him, he shall not be blamed because he seized his property in another man's courtyard. If he to whom the court belongs, or any of his men, takes the bondsman from his lord's hand or blocks the way to him, that one who followed his slave within may not create a scandalum (disturbance) in that courtyard. If he does create it, he shall pay composition as is provided in this code…
(Emended from K. Fischer-Drew, trans., The Lombard Laws (1973), p. 107) |
| Summary |
Rothari, No. 273 establishes the situation when a lord seizes back his enslaved man from another man’s curtem [courtyard], stating that as he is reclaiming his property he should not be blamed for violating the other man's courtyard (which is called elsewhere in the laws with the langobardic legal term "hoberos"). However, if the man whose courtyard it is prevents him from taking the enslaved man back, and the lord then causes a disturbance [scandalum] trying to reclaim him, then he must pay composition. |
| Quotation source |
MGH, LL 4, 1868 (F. Bluhme), p. 66 |
| Temporal Coverage |
643 - 643 |
| Associated use case(s) |
|
| Comment |
The Edictus Rothari forms part of the collected Edictus Langobardorum [Text, ID:984]. |
