[21] There is some ambiguity in this and in the preceding chapter, growing out of the use of the term _pupillus_ in the text; it denoting indiscriminately, minor, ward, and orphan. The provisions would apply with equal propriety to any or all of these, but it is most probable that minors alone were intended to be designated.--[ED.] [22] As the law of primogeniture, so popular with mediæval and modern nations, was not recognized by the Roman jurisprudence, so it was also rejected by the Visigothic legislator. The testamentary distribution of estates under the Code was governed by far more equitable principles than obtain, even in our time, among many peoples who have enjoyed, for centuries, the experience and advantages of a highly developed civilization. While the testator was, for the most part, unhampered in the final disposition of his property, he could not disinherit any of his children without just cause, and that cause was required to be specifically stated in his will. Where children or grandchildren shared equally in the estate of their parents or grandparents, all cause for family dissensions on account of favoritism or undue influence, was absolutely removed. As it was provided by law that the estate of the decedent must descend in the direct line, to the exclusion of stepchildren, another source of dissatisfaction and temptation to fraudulent interference with the rights of the next of kin was permanently disposed of. The interests of all heirs were jealously guarded. Even the dowry of the wife, peculiarly her own property, as it represented the purchase price paid for her by her husband, could not be alienated, to the prejudice of her children. The dutiful conduct of the latter was insured by the law which declared all their rights in the estates of their parents to be forfeited, in case they were guilty of gross insult or violence toward the former. In the case of wards and minors, there is probably no body of laws which protects with more solicitude the interests and property of such helpless beings, than do the provisions of the Visigothic Code.--[ED.] [23] This decree, promulgated about 660, is one of the first of the statutory declarations recognizing the principle of mortmain. The Codes of both Theodosius and Justinian contained similar, but far less sweeping provisions relating to the acquisition of property by the Church; but these were concerned, for the most part, with bequests. From the nature of the case, however, in the organization and perpetuation of ecclesiastical societies, custom and necessity must early have rendered real property inalienable by bodies which never die; and which are encouraged to add to their wealth by every expedient, honorable and dishonorable, but are prohibited by tradition, policy, and legal enactment from conveying their possessions to the laity.--[ED.]