[368]. Lib. Poenit. Theod. xlii. § 4. 5. See also xxiii. § 13.
[369]. Theod. Poen. xvi. § 33. Ecgb. Poen. xxv.
[370]. Deut. Rechtsalt. p. 324.
[371]. Ibid. p. 324.
[372]. Sachs. iii. 73.
[373]. Leg. Hen. I. lxxvii. § 1, 2.
[374]. Commend. cap. xlii.
[375]. Lib. i. cap. 3. § 2.
[376]. “Sunt autem nativi a prima nativitate sua; quemadmodum si quis fuerit procreatus ex nativo et nativa, ille quidem nativus nascitur. Idem est si ex patre libero et matre nativa. Sed si ex matre libera et patre nativo, idem est dicendum quantum ad status integritatem.” Lib. v. cap. 6. But the passage in italic is wanting in some manuscripts, and may possibly have been the gloss or addition of a civilian.
[377]. Of course (except under circumstances which the Christian clergy, and probably even the heathen priesthood,—and if neither of these, yet the universal human feeling—would condemn,) the issue of such marriage could not have been treated as unfree, during the life of the father. But a question might arise after death, and on subsequent inheritance by third parties. And cases might occur where the public right rendered it necessary to take care that the unfree should not enjoy the advantages of freedom.