Corpus iurisprudentiae Romanae

Repertorium zu den Quellen des römischen Rechts

Digesta Iustiniani Augusti

Recognovit Mommsen (1870) et retractavit Krüger (1928)
Convertit in Anglica lingua Scott (1932)
Call.cogn.
De cognitionibus lib.Callistrati De cognitionibus libri

De cognitionibus libri

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

Ex libro I

Dig. 1,18,9Cal­lis­tra­tus li­bro pri­mo de co­gni­tio­ni­bus. Ge­ne­ra­li­ter quo­tiens prin­ceps ad prae­si­des pro­vin­cia­rum re­mit­tit neg­otia per re­scrip­tio­nes, vel­uti ‘eum qui pro­vin­ciae prae­est ad­ire poteris’ vel cum hac ad­iec­tio­ne ‘is aes­ti­ma­bit, quid sit par­tium sua­rum’, non im­po­ni­tur ne­ces­si­tas pro­con­su­li vel le­ga­to sus­ci­pien­dae co­gni­tio­nis, quam­vis non sit ad­iec­tum ‘is aes­ti­ma­bit quid sit par­tium sua­rum’: sed is aes­ti­ma­re de­bet, utrum ip­se co­gnos­cat an iu­di­cem da­re de­beat.

Callistratus, On Judicial Inquiries, Book I. Generally speaking, whenever the Emperor issues a Rescript referring any matter to the Governor of a province, as for instance, when he says: “You can apply to him who presides over the province,” or with this addition, “He will consider what his duty requires”, no obligation is imposed upon the Proconsul or his Deputy to take cognizance of the case; but even where the words “He will consider what his duty requires” are not added, he must make up his mind whether he will hear it himself or appoint a judge to do so.

Dig. 1,18,19Cal­lis­tra­tus li­bro pri­mo de co­gni­tio­ni­bus. Ob­ser­van­dum est ius red­den­ti, ut in ad­eun­do qui­dem fa­ci­lem se prae­beat, sed con­tem­ni non pa­tia­tur. un­de man­da­tis ad­ici­tur, ne prae­si­des pro­vin­cia­rum in ul­te­rio­rem fa­mi­lia­ri­ta­tem pro­vin­cia­les ad­mit­tant: nam ex con­ver­sa­tio­ne ae­qua­li con­temp­tio dig­ni­ta­tis nas­ci­tur. 1Sed et in co­gnos­cen­do ne­que ex­can­des­ce­re ad­ver­sus eos, quos ma­los pu­tat, ne­que pre­ci­bus ca­la­mi­to­so­rum in­la­cri­ma­ri opor­tet: id enim non est con­stan­tis et rec­ti iu­di­cis, cu­ius ani­mi mo­tum vul­tus de­te­git. et sum­ma­tim ita ius red­di de­bet, ut auc­to­ri­ta­tem dig­ni­ta­tis in­ge­nio suo au­geat.

Callistratus, On Judicial Inquiries, Book I. He who administers justice must be careful to be easy of access, but not permit anyone to treat him disrespectfully, for which reason it is stated in their directions: “That the Governors of provinces must not admit provincials to great familiarity with them”; for contempt of rank arises from equality of intercourse. 1But, in the trial of cases, it is not proper for an official to become inflamed against those of whom he thinks ill, or be moved to tears by the supplications of the unfortunate; for it is not the part of a resolute and upright judge to let his countenance disclose the emotions of his mind. In a word, he should so administer justice as to increase the authority of his rank by the force of his mental qualities.

Dig. 2,4,3Cal­lis­tra­tus li­bro pri­mo co­gni­tio­num. vel qui ca­da­ver pro­se­quun­tur, quod et­iam vi­de­tur ex re­scrip­to di­vo­rum fra­trum com­pro­ba­tum es­se:

Callistratus, Judicial Inquiries, Book I. Nor can those who are attending a funeral be summoned, which appears to be established by a Rescript of the Divine Brothers.

Dig. 5,1,36Cal­lis­tra­tus li­bro pri­mo co­gni­tio­num. In­ter­dum ex ius­tis cau­sis et ex cer­tis per­so­nis sus­ti­nen­dae sunt co­gni­tio­nes: vel­uti si in­stru­men­ta li­tis apud eos es­se di­can­tur qui rei pu­bli­cae cau­sa ab­erunt: id­que di­vi fra­tres in haec ver­ba re­scrip­se­runt. hu­ma­num est prop­ter for­tui­tos ca­sus di­la­tio­nem ac­ci­pi, vel­uti quod pa­ter li­ti­ga­tor fi­lium vel fi­liam vel uxor vi­rum vel fi­lius pa­ren­tem amis­e­rit, et in si­mi­li­bus cau­sis co­gni­tio­nem ad ali­quem mo­dum sus­ti­ne­ri. 1Se­na­tor si neg­otiis alie­nis se op­tu­le­rit in pro­vin­cia, non de­bet iu­di­cium re­cu­sa­re neg­otio­rum ges­to­rum, sed ac­tio­nem eum ex­ci­pe­re opor­te­re Iu­lia­nus re­spon­dit, cum sua spon­te si­bi hanc ob­li­ga­tio­nem con­tra­xe­rit.

Callistratus, Inquiries, Book I. Sometimes hearings are postponed for good reasons and on account of certain parties; as, for instance, where documents relating to a case are said to be in possession of persons who will be absent on public business. Therefore the Divine Brothers stated the following in a Rescript: “Humanity demands that postponement should be granted on account of accidental misfortunes; for example, where a father who was a party to the case has lost his son, or his daughter; or a wife her husband; or a son his parent; and in similar cases the hearing should be postponed for a reasonable time.” 1Where a Senator voluntarily undertakes to attend to the affairs of another in a province, he can not refuse to defend an action on the ground of business transacted; and Julianus says that he must defend the action, since he voluntarily assumed this obligation.

Dig. 48,19,26Cal­lis­tra­tus li­bro pri­mo de co­gni­tio­ni­bus. Cri­men vel poe­na pa­ter­na nul­lam ma­cu­lam fi­lio in­fli­ge­re pot­est: nam­que unus­quis­que ex suo ad­mis­so sor­ti sub­ici­tur nec alie­ni cri­mi­nis suc­ces­sor con­sti­tui­tur, id­que di­vi fra­tres Hie­rapo­li­ta­nis re­scrip­se­runt.

Callistratus, On Judicial Inquiries, Book I. The crime or the punishment of a father can place no stigma upon his son; for each one is subjected to fate in accordance with his conduct, and no one. is appointed the successor of the crime of another. This was stated by the Divine Brothers in a Rescript addressed to the people of Hierapolis.

Dig. 50,1,37Cal­lis­tra­tus li­bro pri­mo de co­gni­tio­ni­bus. De iu­re om­nium in­co­la­rum, quos quae­que ci­vi­ta­tes si­bi vin­di­cant, prae­si­dum pro­vin­cia­rum co­gni­tio est. cum ta­men se quis ne­gat in­co­lam es­se, apud eum prae­si­dem pro­vin­ciae age­re de­bet, sub cu­ius cu­ra est ea ci­vi­tas, a qua vo­ca­tur ad mu­ne­ra, non apud eam, ex qua ip­se se di­cit ori­un­dum es­se: id­que di­vus Ha­d­ria­nus re­scrip­sit. 1Mu­lie­ris, quae ali­un­de or­ta, ali­bi nup­ta est, li­ber­tos eo lo­co mu­nus fa­ce­re de­be­re, un­de pa­tro­na erit et ubi ip­si do­mi­ci­lium ha­be­bunt, pla­cet. 2Mu­lie­res, quae in ma­tri­mo­nium se de­de­rint non le­gi­ti­mum, non ibi mu­ne­ri­bus fun­gen­das, un­de ma­ri­ti ea­rum sunt, scien­dum est, sed un­de ip­sae or­tae sunt: id­que di­vi fra­tres re­scrip­se­runt.

Callistratus, On Judicial Inquiries, Book I. The Governors of provinces have jurisdiction over all the inhabitants which any towns claim as their own; but still, where anyone denies that he is a resident, he must bring suit before the Governor of the province in whose jurisdiction the town, by which he is called to discharge a public employment, is situated, and not before the Governor of the one where he himself alleges that he was born. This the Divine Hadrian stated in a Rescript with reference to a woman who married in another place than the one in which she was born. 1It has been decided that freedmen can hold public office where their patron is, or where they themselves have their domicile. 2It should be remembered that women who form an illegal connection with men can only discharge public duties where they themselves have been born, and not where their husbands are. This the Divine Brothers stated in a Rescript.

Dig. 50,2,11Cal­lis­tra­tus li­bro pri­mo co­gni­tio­num. Non tan­tum qui te­ne­rae ae­ta­tis, sed et­iam qui gran­des na­tu sunt de­cu­rio­nes fie­ri pro­hi­ben­tur. il­li qua­si in­ha­bi­les rem pu­bli­cam tue­ri ad tem­pus ex­cu­san­tur, hi ve­ro in per­pe­tuum amo­ven­tur: non alias se­nio­res, ne se­nio­rum ex­cu­sa­tio­ne iu­nio­res one­ren­tur ad om­nia mu­ne­ra pu­bli­ca sus­ci­pien­da so­li re­lic­ti. ne­que enim mi­no­res vi­gin­ti quin­que an­nis de­cu­rio­nes al­le­gi ni­si ex cau­sa pos­sunt, ne­que hi, qui an­num quin­qua­gen­si­mum et quin­tum ex­ces­se­runt. non­num­quam et­iam lon­ga con­sue­tu­do in ea re ob­ser­va­ta re­spi­cien­da erit. quod et­iam cus­to­dien­dum prin­ci­pes nos­tri con­sul­ti de al­le­gen­dis in or­di­ne Ni­com­eden­sium hu­ius ae­ta­tis ho­mi­ni­bus re­scrip­se­runt.

Callistratus, Judicial Inquiries, Book I. Not only those who are of tender years but also aged persons are forbidden to become decurions. The former are, as it were, unable to protect the interests of the State, and are temporarily excused, but the latter are perpetually excluded; still, persons of advanced age should not be excused except for good reasons, lest those who are younger, through their elders not having been chosen, will be left alone to sustain all the public responsibilities of government; for minors under twenty-five years of age cannot be created decurions unless for some good cause, nor are those eligible who have passed their fifty-fifth year. Sometimes, long-established custom should be considered in this matter; for our Emperors, having been consulted by the people of Nicomedia as to whether persons of that age could be elected to the order, stated in a Rescript that this could be done.

Dig. 50,4,14Cal­lis­tra­tus li­bro pri­mo de co­gni­tio­ni­bus. Ho­nor mu­ni­ci­pa­lis est ad­mi­nis­tra­tio rei pu­bli­cae cum dig­ni­ta­tis gra­du, si­ve cum sump­tu si­ve si­ne ero­ga­tio­ne con­tin­gens. 1Mu­nus aut pu­bli­cum aut pri­va­tum est. pu­bli­cum mu­nus di­ci­tur, quod in ad­mi­nis­tran­da re pu­bli­ca cum sump­tu si­ne ti­tu­lo dig­ni­ta­tis sub­imus. 2Via­rum mu­ni­tio­nes, prae­dio­rum col­la­tio­nes non per­so­nae, sed lo­co­rum mu­ne­ra sunt. 3De ho­no­ri­bus si­ve mu­ne­ri­bus ge­ren­dis cum quae­ri­tur, in pri­mis con­si­de­ran­da per­so­na est eius, cui de­fer­tur ho­nor si­ve mu­ne­ris ad­mi­nis­tra­tio: item ori­go na­ta­lium: fa­cul­ta­tes quo­que an suf­fi­ce­re in­iunc­to mu­ne­ri pos­sint: item lex, se­cun­dum quam mu­ne­ri­bus quis­que fun­gi de­beat. 4Ple­be­ii fi­lii fa­mi­lias pe­ri­cu­lo eius qui no­mi­na­ve­rit te­ne­bun­tur, id­que im­pe­ra­tor nos­ter Se­ve­rus Au­gus­tus in haec ver­ba re­scrip­sit: ‘Si in nu­me­ro ple­be­io­rum fi­lius tuus est, quam­quam in­vi­tus ho­no­res ex per­so­na fi­lii sus­ci­pe­re co­gi non de­beas, ta­men re­sis­te­re, quo mi­nus pa­triae ob­se­qua­tur pe­ri­cu­lo eius qui no­mi­na­vit, iu­re pa­triae po­tes­ta­tis non potes’. 5Ge­ren­do­rum ho­no­rum non pro­mis­cua fa­cul­tas est, sed or­do cer­tus huic rei ad­hi­bi­tus est. nam ne­que prius ma­io­rem ma­gis­tra­tum quis­quam, ni­si mi­no­rem sus­ce­pe­rit, ge­re­re pot­est, ne­que ab om­ni ae­ta­te, ne­que con­ti­nua­re quis­que ho­no­res pot­est. 6Si alii non sint qui ho­no­res ge­rant, eos­dem com­pel­len­dos, qui ges­se­rint, con­plu­ri­mis con­sti­tu­tio­ni­bus ca­ve­tur. di­vus et­iam Ha­d­ria­nus de ite­ran­dis mu­ne­ri­bus re­scrip­sit in haec ver­ba: ‘Il­lud con­sen­tio, ut, si alii non erunt ido­nei qui hoc mu­ne­re fun­gan­tur, ex his, qui iam func­ti sunt, creen­tur’.

Callistratus, Judicial Inquiries, Book I. Municipal honor is the administration of public affairs, with the title of the office, whether the payment of expenses is required or not. 1An employment is either public or private. A public employment is one in which we undertake to administer public affairs, with the payment of expenses, and without the title of dignity. 2The collection of expenses for repairing the highways and of taxes on land are not personal, but local employments. 3When a question arises with reference to municipal honors and the administration of public employments, the person upon whom the honor or the employment is conferred must be taken into consideration, together with the origin of his birth, and whether his means are sufficient to enable him to administer the employment entrusted to him; and also the law, in accordance with which every one should discharge his official duties. 4A plebeian son under paternal control holds his office at the risk of the person who nominated him. Our Emperor, Severus, stated the following on this point in a Rescript: “If your son is a plebeian, you should not be compelled, against your will, to be responsible for his administration of the magistracy, because you cannot exercise your right of paternal authority to resist his appointment, but his administration will be at the risk of him who nominated him.” 5The power of administering a public office is not a promiscuous one, but a certain order should be observed; for no one can discharge the higher functions of the magistracy before having discharged those of a lower degree, nor can anyone continue to perform the duties of a public office at any age. 6It is provided by many Imperial Constitutions that, where there are no others to hold the office, those who had it previously can be compelled to continue to administer it. The Divine Hadrian stated in a Rescript with reference to continuance in office: “If there are no others who are competent to perform the duties of the office, I consent that they shall be chosen from those who already have performed them.”

Dig. 50,6,6Cal­lis­tra­tus li­bro pri­mo de co­gni­tio­ni­bus. Sem­per in ci­vi­ta­te nos­tra se­nec­tus ve­ne­ra­bi­lis fuit: nam­que ma­io­res nos­tri pae­ne eun­dem ho­no­rem se­ni­bus, quem ma­gis­tra­ti­bus tri­bue­bant. cir­ca mu­ne­ra quo­que mu­ni­ci­pa­lia sub­eun­da idem ho­nor se­nec­tu­ti tri­bu­tus est. sed eum, qui in se­nec­tu­te lo­cu­ples fac­tus est et an­te nul­lo pu­bli­co mu­ne­re func­tus est, di­ci pot­est non ex­imi ab hoc one­re pri­vi­le­gio ae­ta­tis, ma­xi­me si non tam cor­po­ris ha­beat ve­xa­tio­nem quam pe­cu­niae ero­ga­tio­nem in­dic­ti mu­ne­ris ad­mi­nis­tra­tio, et ex ea sit ci­vi­ta­te, in qua non fa­ci­le suf­fi­cien­tes vi­ri pu­bli­cis mu­ne­ri­bus in­ve­nian­tur. 1Le­gem quo­que re­spi­ci cu­ius­que lo­ci opor­tet, an, cum ali­quas im­mu­ni­ta­tes no­mi­na­tim com­plec­te­re­tur, et­iam de nu­me­ro an­no­rum in ea con­me­mo­re­tur. id­que et­iam col­li­gi pot­est ex lit­te­ris di­vi Pii, quas emi­sit ad En­nium Pro­cu­lum pro­con­su­lem pro­vin­ciae Afri­cae. 2De­mons­tra­tur va­rie nec abs­ci­se nu­me­rum li­be­ro­rum ad ex­cu­sa­tio­nem mu­ni­ci­pa­lium mu­ne­rum prod­es­se ex re­scrip­tis di­vi Hel­vii Per­ti­na­cis. nam­que Sil­vio Can­di­do in haec ver­ba re­scrip­sit: ‘Εἰ καὶ μὴ πασῶν λειτουργιῶν ἀφίησιν τοὺς πατέρας ὁ τῶν τέκνων ἀριθμός, ἀλλ’ οὖν ἐπειδὴ ἑκκαίδεκα παῖδας ἔχειν διὰ τοῦ βιβλίου ἐδήλωσας, οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλογον, ὥστε συγχωρῆσαι σχολάζειν τῇ παιδοτροφίᾳ καὶ ἀνέσθαι σε τῶν λειτουργιῶν’. 3Neg­otia­to­res, qui an­no­nam ur­bis ad­iu­vant, item na­vi­cu­la­rii, qui an­no­nae ur­bis ser­viunt, im­mu­ni­ta­tem a mu­ne­ri­bus pu­bli­cis con­se­quun­tur, quam­diu in eius­mo­di ac­tu sunt. nam re­mu­ne­ran­da pe­ri­cu­la eo­rum, quin et­iam ex­hor­tan­da prae­miis me­ri­to pla­cuit, ut qui per­egre mu­ne­ri­bus et qui­dem pu­bli­cis cum pe­ri­cu­lo et la­bo­re fun­gan­tur, a do­mes­ti­cis ve­xa­tio­ni­bus et sump­ti­bus li­be­ren­tur: cum non sit alie­num di­ce­re et­iam hos rei pu­bli­cae cau­sa, dum an­no­nae ur­bis ser­viunt, ab­es­se. 4Im­mu­ni­ta­ti, quae na­vi­cu­la­riis prae­sta­tur, cer­ta for­ma da­ta est: quam im­mu­ni­ta­tem ip­si dum­ta­xat ha­bent, non et­iam li­be­ris aut li­ber­tis eo­rum prae­sta­tur: id­que prin­ci­pa­li­bus con­sti­tu­tio­ni­bus de­cla­ra­tur. 5Di­vus Ha­d­ria­nus re­scrip­sit im­mu­ni­ta­tem na­vium ma­ri­ti­ma­rum dum­ta­xat ha­be­re, qui an­no­nae ur­bis ser­viunt. 6Li­cet in cor­po­re na­vi­cu­la­rio­rum quis sit, na­vem ta­men vel na­ves non ha­beat nec om­nia ei con­gruant, quae prin­ci­pa­li­bus con­sti­tu­tio­ni­bus cau­ta sunt, non pot­erit pri­vi­le­gio na­vi­cu­la­riis in­dul­to uti. id­que et di­vi fra­tres re­scrip­se­runt in haec ver­ba: ‘Ἦσαν καὶ ἄλλοι τινὲς ἐπὶ προφάσει τῶν ναυκλήρων καὶ τὸν σῖτον καὶ ἔλαιον ἐμπορευομένων εἰς τὴν ἀγορὰν τοῦ δήμου τοῦ Ῥωμαϊκοῦ ὄντων ἀτελῶν ἀξιοῦντες τὰς λειτουργίας διαδιδράσκειν, μήτε ἐπιπλέοντες μήτε τὸ πλέον μέρος τῆς οὐσίας ἐν ταῖς ναυκληρίαις καὶ ταῖς ἐμπορίαις ἔχοντες. ἀφαιρεθήτω τῶν τοιούτων ἡ ἀτέλεια’. 7Hoc cir­ca va­ca­tio­nes di­cen­dum est, ut, si an­te quis ad mu­ne­ra mu­ni­ci­pa­lia vo­ca­tus sit, quam neg­otia­ri in­ci­pe­ret, vel an­te­quam in col­le­gium ad­su­me­re­tur quod im­mu­ni­ta­tem pa­riat, vel an­te­quam sep­tua­ge­na­rius fie­ret. vel an­te­quam pu­bli­ce pro­fi­te­re­tur, vel an­te­quam li­be­ros sus­ci­pe­ret, com­pel­la­tur ad ho­no­rem ge­ren­dum. 8Neg­otia­tio pro in­cre­men­to fa­cul­ta­tium ex­er­cen­da est. alio­quin si quis ma­io­re pe­cu­niae suae par­te neg­otia­tio­nem ex­er­ce­bit, rur­sus lo­cu­ples fac­tus in ea­dem quan­ti­ta­te neg­otia­tio­nis per­se­ve­ra­ve­rit, te­ne­bi­tur mu­ne­ri­bus, sic­uti lo­cu­ple­tes, qui mo­di­ca pe­cu­nia com­pa­ra­tis na­vi­bus mu­ne­ri­bus se pu­bli­cis sub­tra­he­re temp­tant: id­que ita ob­ser­van­dum epis­tu­la di­vi Ha­d­ria­ni scrip­ta est. 9Di­vus quo­que Pius re­scrip­sit, ut, quo­tiens de ali­quo na­vi­cu­la­rio quae­ra­tur, il­lud ex­cu­tia­tur, an ef­fu­gien­do­rum mu­ne­rum cau­sa ima­gi­nem na­vi­cu­la­rii ind­uat. 10Con­duc­to­res et­iam vec­ti­ga­lium fis­ci ne­ces­si­ta­te sub­eun­do­rum mu­ni­ci­pa­lium mu­ne­rum non ob­strin­gun­tur: id­que ita ob­ser­van­dum di­vi fra­tres re­scrip­se­runt. ex quo prin­ci­pa­li re­scrip­to in­tel­le­gi pot­est non ho­no­ri con­duc­to­rum da­tum, ne com­pel­lan­tur ad mu­ne­ra mu­ni­ci­pa­lia, sed ne ex­te­nuen­tur fa­cul­ta­tes eo­rum, quae sub­sig­na­tae sint fis­co. un­de sub­sis­ti pot­est, an pro­hi­ben­di sint a prae­si­de vel pro­cu­ra­to­re Cae­sa­ris et­iam si ul­tro se of­fe­rant mu­ni­ci­pa­li­bus mu­ne­ri­bus: quod pro­pius est de­fen­de­re, ni­si si pa­ria fis­co fe­cis­se di­can­tur. 11Co­lo­ni quo­que Cae­sa­ris a mu­ne­ri­bus li­be­ran­tur, ut ido­nio­res prae­diis fis­ca­li­bus ha­bean­tur. 12Qui­bus­dam col­le­giis vel cor­po­ri­bus, qui­bus ius co­eun­di le­ge per­mis­sum est, im­mu­ni­tas tri­bui­tur: sci­li­cet eis col­le­giis vel cor­po­ri­bus, in qui­bus ar­ti­fi­cii sui cau­sa unus­quis­que ad­su­mi­tur, ut fa­b­ro­rum cor­pus est et si qua ean­dem ra­tio­nem ori­gi­nis ha­bent, id est id­cir­co in­sti­tu­ta sunt, ut ne­ces­sa­riam ope­ram pu­bli­cis uti­li­ta­ti­bus ex­hi­be­rent. nec om­ni­bus pro­mis­cue, qui ad­sump­ti sunt in his col­le­giis, im­mu­ni­tas da­tur, sed ar­ti­fi­ci­bus dum­ta­xat. nec ab om­ni ae­ta­te al­le­gi pos­sunt, ut di­vo Pio pla­cuit, qui re­pro­ba­vit proli­xae vel in­be­cil­lae ad­mo­dum ae­ta­tis ho­mi­nes. sed ne qui­dem eos, qui au­geant fa­cul­ta­tes et mu­ne­ra ci­vi­ta­tium sus­ti­ne­re pos­sunt, pri­vi­le­giis, quae te­nuio­ri­bus per col­le­gia dis­tri­bu­tis con­ces­sa sunt, uti pos­se plu­ri­fa­riam con­sti­tu­tum est. 13Eos, qui in cor­po­ri­bus al­lec­ti sunt, quae im­mu­ni­ta­tem prae­bent na­vi­cu­la­rio­rum, si ho­no­rem de­cu­rio­na­tus ad­gno­ve­rint, com­pel­len­dos sub­ire pu­bli­ca mu­ne­ra ac­ce­pi: id­que et­iam con­fir­ma­tum vi­de­tur re­scrip­to di­vi Per­ti­na­cis.

Callistratus, On Judicial Inquiries, Book I. Old age has always been greatly venerated in our City. For our ancestors treated old men with almost the same reverence as magistrates, and the same honor was granted to old age with reference to municipal obligations which were required to be performed. Anyone, however, who became rich in his old age, and had not previously exercised the functions of any public employment, cannot be said to be exempt from such a charge by the privilege of his years, and especially if the administration of the office imposed upon him does not require corporeal exertion as much as the payment of money, because it is not easy to find men enough properly qualified in the City to discharge public duties. 1It is also necessary to take into consideration the custom of every place, and see whether any immunities are expressly granted, and also whether anything is mentioned with reference to the number of years required to obtain them. This can also be ascertained from the Rescripts of the Divine Pius, which he sent to Ennius, Proconsul of the Province of Africa. 2It is clearly and plainly stated, according to Rescripts of the Divine Ælius Pertinax, that the number of children affords a valid excuse from municipal employments; for he stated the following in a Rescript addressed to Julius Candidus: “Although the number of children does not exempt a father from all public employments, still because you have notified me in your petition that you have sixteen, it is not unreasonable for us to grant you exemption from public office, to enable you to bring up your children.” 3Traders, who assist in furnishing provisions to a city, as well as sailors who also provide for its necessities, will obtain exemption from public office, as long as they continue to do this; for it very properly has been decided that the risks which they incur should be suitably recompensed, so that those who perform such public duties outside of their own country with risk and labor should be exempt from annoyances and expenses at home; as it may not incorrectly be said that even they are absent on business for the government when they are employed in collecting provisions for a city. 4A certain specific character is given to the immunity bestowed upon the owners of vessels, which immunity they alone are entitled to; for it is not conferred either upon their children or their freedmen. This is set forth in the Imperial Constitutions. 5The Divine Hadrian stated in a Rescript that only those ship owners should be entitled to immunity who provided subsistence for the City. 6Although anyone may belong to the association of ship owners, if he has neither a ship nor vessels, nor anything else which is provided for by the Imperial Constitutions, he cannot avail himself of the privilege granted to ship owners; and the Divine Brothers stated the following in a Rescript: “Where there are any persons who claim that they are immune from public employments, under the pretext of transporting grain and oil by sea, for the benefit of the Roman people, and they are not engaged in maritime traffic, and have not the greater portion of their property invested in maritime business and commodities, they shall be deprived of the immunity which they enjoy.” 7It must be said with reference to the. following exemptions that where anyone was called to municipal employments before he engaged in commerce, and before he was admitted to an association formed by those engaged in the same pursuit (for the reason that he obtained immunity), whether before he became seventy years of age and publicly stated the fact, or had the requisite number of children, he should be compelled to assume the duties of the office to which he was appointed. 8Maritime commerce is prosecuted for the purpose of increasing one’s property, otherwise, if anyone should carry it on with the greater part of his money, and he, having become still more wealthy, should continue to transact the same volume of business, he will be liable to public service, just as wealthy persons who having purchased ships for a small sum attempt to evade the duties of municipal office. It is stated in a Rescript of the Divine Hadrian that this rule should be observed. 9The Divine Pius stated in a Rescript that, whenever a question arose as to whether anyone belonged to the association of ship owners, it should be ascertained whether he had assumed the character of one for the purpose of avoiding public employment. 10Farmers of the revenue, also, are not reduced to the necessity of exercising municipal employments. The Divine Brothers stated in a Rescript that this rule should be observed. From this Imperial Rescript it can be understood that it is not granted as a privilege to farmers of the revenue, that they should not be compelled to exercise municipal employments; but to prevent their property, which is already bound to the Treasury, from being subjected to further liability. Wherefore, it may be doubted if they should voluntarily offer to accept public office, whether they should be prevented from doing so by the Governor of the province, or by the Manager of the Imperial Revenues. The latter opinion is the more easy to maintain, unless they are said to be ready to settle their accounts with the Treasury. 11Farmers of the Imperial demesnes are exempt from municipal employments in order that they may be better adapted to the cultivation of the land belonging to the Treasury. 12Immunity is conceded to certain associations or corporate bodies, to which the right of assembly has been granted by law; that is to say, to associations or corporate bodies to which each person is admitted on account of his occupation, as, for instance, the Society of Artisans, provided they have the same origin; for instance, if they have been organized in order to perform labor necessary for the public welfare. Immunity is not indiscriminately granted to all those who are admitted to these associations, but only to artisans, for it was decided by the Divine Pius that persons of every age could not be chosen; and he disapproved of the admission of those of an advanced or decrepit age. And, in order that individuals who had become wealthy might not avoid the responsibility attaching to civil office, it was decided in many places that persons could avail themselves of the privileges which had been granted by such associations to anyone in reduced circumstances. 13I have been informed that when persons who have been elected to membership in corporate bodies, which afford immunity to their members, as, for instance, that of ship owners, obtain the honor of the decurionate, they should be compelled to exercise public employments. This seems to be confirmed by a Rescript of the Divine Pertinax.

Dig. 50,13,5Cal­lis­tra­tus li­bro pri­mo de co­gni­tio­ni­bus. Co­gni­tio­num nu­me­rus cum ex va­riis cau­sis de­scen­dat, in ge­ne­ra di­vi­di fa­ci­le non pot­est, ni­si sum­ma­tim di­vi­da­tur. nu­me­rus er­go co­gni­tio­num in quat­tuor fe­re ge­ne­ra di­vi­di pot­est: aut enim de ho­no­ri­bus si­ve mu­ne­ri­bus ge­ren­dis agi­ta­tur, aut de re pe­cu­nia­ria dis­cep­ta­tur, aut de ex­is­ti­ma­tio­ne ali­cu­ius co­gnos­ci­tur, aut de ca­pi­ta­li cri­mi­ne quae­ri­tur. 1Ex­is­ti­ma­tio est dig­ni­ta­tis in­lae­sae sta­tus, le­gi­bus ac mo­ri­bus com­pro­ba­tus, qui ex de­lic­to nos­tro auc­to­ri­ta­te le­gum aut mi­nui­tur aut con­su­mi­tur. 2Mi­nui­tur ex­is­ti­ma­tio, quo­tiens ma­nen­te li­ber­ta­te cir­ca sta­tum dig­ni­ta­tis poe­na plec­ti­mur: sic­uti cum rele­ga­tur quis vel cum or­di­ne mo­ve­tur vel cum pro­hi­be­tur ho­no­ri­bus pu­bli­cis fun­gi vel cum ple­be­ius fus­ti­bus cae­di­tur vel in opus pu­bli­cum da­tur vel cum in eam cau­sam quis in­ci­dit, quae edic­to per­pe­tuo in­fa­miae cau­sa enu­me­ra­tur. 3Con­su­mi­tur ve­ro, quo­tiens mag­na ca­pi­tis mi­nutio in­ter­ve­nit, id est cum li­ber­tas ad­imi­tur: vel­uti cum aqua et ig­ni in­ter­di­ci­tur, quae in per­so­na de­por­ta­to­rum eve­nit, vel cum ple­be­ius in opus me­tal­li vel in me­tal­lum da­tur: ni­hil enim re­fert, nec di­ver­sa poe­na est ope­ris et me­tal­li, ni­si quod re­fu­gae ope­ris non mor­te, sed poe­na me­tal­li sub­iciun­tur.

Callistratus, On Judicial Inquiries, Book I. The number of judicial inquiries is derived from various sources, and cannot easily be divided into different kinds, unless this is done cursorily. Hence the number of judicial inquiries is generally divided into four kinds; for they usually have reference to the administration of offices or employments; or to disputes concerning pecuniary matters; or inquiry is made concerning someone’s reputation; or a capital crime is investigated. 1Reputation is the condition of unimpaired dignity approved by law and custom, which is either diminished or destroyed by legal authority on account of some offence which we have committed. 2Reputation is impaired whenever we, while retaining our liberty, are punished by a penalty affecting our status; as, for instance, when anyone is relegated or dismissed from his order; or when he is forbidden to discharge the duties of a public office; or when a plebeian is whipped, or sentenced to the public works; or when anyone is in such a condition as to be considered infamous under the terms of the Perpetual Edict. 3Reputation is entirely lost when a great change of civil condition takes place, that is to say, when liberty is forfeited; for example, where anyone is prohibited the use of water and fire, which results when a person is deported, or when a plebeian is condemned to labor connected with the mines, or to the mines; for there is no difference between these two sentences, nor are the penalty of labor connected with the mines and sentence to the mines dissimilar, except that in the former the penalty of civil death is not inflicted, but in the second, the offender is liable to it.

Ex libro II

Dig. 42,1,31Cal­lis­tra­tus li­bro se­cun­do co­gni­tio­num. De­bi­to­ri­bus non tan­tum pe­ten­ti­bus dies ad sol­ven­dum dan­di sunt, sed et pro­ro­gan­di, si res ex­igat: si qui ta­men per con­tu­ma­ciam ma­gis, quam quia non pos­sint ex­pli­ca­re pe­cu­niam, dif­fe­rant so­lu­tio­nem, pig­no­ri­bus cap­tis com­pel­len­di sunt ad sa­tis­fa­cien­dum ex for­ma, quam Cas­sio pro­con­su­li di­vus Pius in haec ver­ba re­scrip­sit: ‘His, qui fa­te­bun­tur de­be­re aut ex re iu­di­ca­ta ne­ces­se ha­be­bunt red­de­re, tem­pus ad sol­ven­dum de­tur, quod suf­fi­ce­re pro fa­cul­ta­te cu­ius­que vi­de­bi­tur: eo­rum, qui in­tra diem vel ab in­itio da­tum vel ex ea cau­sa post­ea pro­ro­ga­tum si­bi non red­di­de­rint, pi­g­no­ra ca­pi ea­que, si in­tra duos men­ses non sol­ve­rint, ven­dan­tur: si quid ex pre­tiis su­per­sit, red­da­tur ei, cu­ius pi­g­no­ra ven­di­ta erant’.

Callistratus, Judicial Inquiries, Book II. Time for payment should not only be granted to debtors who request it, but it should also be prolonged, if circumstances demand it. Where, however, anyone defers payment, rather through obstinacy than because he cannot obtain the money, he should be compelled to pay by taking his property in execution to satisfy the claim, according to the following rule which the Divine Pius prescribed to the Proconsul Cassius, namely, “Time for payment should be granted to those who admit that they owe a debt, or who are required to pay by a judgment, and the time should be such as appears to be sufficient in accordance with their means. If they do not make payment within the time granted in the beginning, or after it has been prolonged, their property can be levied on and sold, if they do not satisfy the claim or the judgment within two months; and if anything remains out of the price, it shall be returned to him whose property was taken in execution.”

Dig. 50,9,5Cal­lis­tra­tus li­bro se­cun­do de co­gni­tio­ni­bus. Quod se­mel or­do de­cre­vit, non opor­te­re id re­scin­di di­vus Ha­d­ria­nus Ni­com­eden­si­bus re­scrip­sit ni­si ex cau­sa: id est si ad pu­bli­cam uti­li­ta­tem re­spi­ciat re­s­cis­sio prio­ris de­cre­ti.

Callistratus, On Judicial Inquiries, Book II. The Divine Hadrian stated in a Rescript addressed to the people of Nicomedia that where the Order of Decurions had once issued a decree it should not be rescinded, except for some good reason; that is to say, where the annulment of the decree had reference to the public welfare.

Dig. 50,10,7Cal­lis­tra­tus li­bro se­cun­do de co­gni­tio­ni­bus. Pe­cu­niam, quae in ope­ra no­va le­ga­ta est, po­tius in tu­te­lam eo­rum ope­rum quae sunt con­ver­ten­dam, quam ad in­choan­dum opus ero­gan­dam di­vus Pius re­scrip­sit: sci­li­cet si sa­tis ope­rum ci­vi­tas ha­beat et non fa­ci­le ad re­fi­cien­da ea pe­cu­nia in­ve­nia­tur. 1Si quis opus ab alio fac­tum ad­or­na­re mar­mo­ri­bus vel alio quo mo­do ex vo­lun­ta­te po­pu­li fac­tu­rum se pol­li­ci­tus sit, no­mi­nis pro­prii ti­tu­lo scri­ben­do: ma­nen­ti­bus prio­rum ti­tu­lis, qui ea ope­ra fe­cis­sent, id fie­ri de­be­re se­na­tus cen­suit. quod si pri­va­ti in ope­ra, quae pu­bli­ca pe­cu­nia fiant, ali­quam de suo ad­ie­ce­rint sum­mam, ita ti­tu­lo in­scrip­tio­nis uti eos de­be­re is­dem man­da­tis ca­ve­tur, ut quan­tam sum­mam con­tu­le­rint in id opus, in­scri­bant.

Callistratus, On Judicial Inquiries, Book II. The Divine Pius stated in a Rescript that where money had been bequeathed for the construction of a new work, it was better for it to be employed for the preservation of works already existing than to be expended in the construction of new ones; that is to say, if the city had enough public works, and money was not easily obtained for their repair. 1When anyone wishes to adorn with marble, or in any other manner a work constructed by another, and he promises to do so according to the will of the people, the Senate decreed that this could be done if he inscribed his own name upon the work, but that he should allow the name of the person who built it in the first place to remain. Where, however, private individuals expend a sum of money of their own to the embellishment of a work already constructed with the public funds, it is provided by the same Imperial Mandates that they can have their names inscribed upon the work and state the amount of money which they had contributed to it.

Ex libro III

Dig. 8,3,16Cal­lis­tra­tus li­bro ter­tio de co­gni­tio­ni­bus. Di­vus Pius au­cu­pi­bus ita re­scrip­sit: οὐκ ἔστιν εὔλογον ἀκόντων τῶν δεσποτῶν ὑμᾶς ἐν ἀλλοτρίοις χωρίοις ἰξεύειν.

Callistratus, On Judicial Inquiries, Book III. The Divine Pius stated in a Rescript to bird-catchers, “It is not proper for you to catch birds on the land of others without the consent of the owners”.

Dig. 33,10,14Cal­lis­tra­tus li­bro ter­tio de co­gni­tio­ni­bus. Fun­do le­ga­to in­stru­men­tum eius non ali­ter le­ga­to ce­dit, ni­si spe­cia­li­ter id ex­pres­sum sit: nam et do­mo le­ga­ta ne­que in­stru­men­tum eius ne­que su­pel­lex ali­ter le­ga­to ce­dit, quam si id ip­sum no­mi­na­tim ex­pres­sum a tes­ta­to­re fue­rit.

Callistratus, On Judicial Inquiries, Book III. When a tract of land is devised, its equipment will not be embraced in the legacy, unless this was expressly mentioned; for where a house is devised, neither its utensils nor its furniture are included, unless this was explicitly stated by the testator.

Dig. 40,8,3Cal­lis­tra­tus li­bro ter­tio de co­gni­tio­ni­bus. Eum, qui ita venit, ut in­tra tem­pus ma­nu­mit­te­re­tur, cum dies prae­stan­dae li­ber­ta­tis ve­ne­rit vi­ven­te ven­di­to­re et per­se­ve­ran­te in ea­dem vo­lun­ta­te, per­in­de ha­be­ri, ac si ab eo, a quo de­buit ma­nu­mit­ti, ma­nu­mis­sus es­set: mor­tuo au­tem ven­di­to­re non es­se he­redum eius vo­lun­ta­tem ex­plo­ran­dam di­vus Mar­cus cum fi­lio suo re­scrip­sit.

Callistratus, On Judicial Inquiries, Book III. Where a slave has been sold on condition of being manumitted within a certain time, and the day appointed for Eis freedom arrives during the lifetime of the vendor, and the latter has not changed his mind, the result is that the slave will be manumitted, just as if this had been done by the person who should have liberated him; but if the vendor should be dead, the Divine Marcus and his son stated in a Rescript that it was not necessary to obtain the consent of his heirs.

Dig. 42,1,32Idem li­bro ter­tio co­gni­tio­num. Cum pro­la­tis con­sti­tu­tio­ni­bus con­tra eas pro­nun­tiat iu­dex, eo quod non ex­is­ti­mat cau­sam, de qua iu­di­cat, per eas iu­va­ri, non vi­de­tur con­tra con­sti­tu­tio­nes sen­ten­tiam de­dis­se. id­eo­que ab eius­mo­di sen­ten­tia ap­pel­lan­dum est: alio­quin rei iu­di­ca­tae sta­bi­tur.

The Same, Judicial Inquiries, Book III. Where a judge rules against constitutions which are cited, for the reason that he does not think them to be applicable to the case in question, he is not considered to have ruled against them improperly, and therefore an appeal can be taken from his decision; otherwise the matter will be held to have been finally determined.

Dig. 47,21,2Cal­lis­tra­tus li­bro ter­tio de co­gni­tio­ni­bus. Di­vus Ha­d­ria­nus in haec ver­ba re­scrip­sit: ‘Quin pes­si­mum fac­tum sit eo­rum, qui ter­mi­nos fi­nium cau­sa po­si­tos pro­pu­le­runt, du­bi­ta­ri non pot­est. de poe­na ta­men mo­dus ex con­di­cio­ne per­so­nae et men­te fa­cien­tis ma­gis sta­tui pot­est: nam si splen­di­dio­res per­so­nae sunt, quae con­vin­cun­tur, non du­bie oc­cu­pan­do­rum alie­no­rum fi­nium cau­sa id ad­mi­se­runt, et pos­sunt in tem­pus, ut cu­ius­que pa­tia­tur ae­tas, rele­ga­ri, id est si iu­ve­nior, in lon­gius, si se­nior, re­ci­sius. si ve­ro alii neg­otium ges­se­runt et mi­nis­te­rio func­ti sunt, cas­ti­ga­ri et ad opus bi­en­nio da­ri. quod si per igno­ran­tiam aut for­tui­to la­pi­des fu­ra­ti sunt, suf­fi­ciet eos ver­be­ri­bus de­ci­de­re’.

Callistratus, On Judicial Inquiries, Book III. The Divine Hadrian stated the following in a Rescript. There can be no doubt that those who remove monuments placed to establish boundaries are guilty of a very wicked act. In fixing the penalty, however, its degree should be determined by the rank and intention of the individual who perpetrated the crime, for if persons of eminent rank are convicted, there is no doubt that they committed the act for the purpose of obtaining the land of others, and they can be relegated for a certain time, dependent upon their age; that is to say, if the accused is very young, he should be exiled for a longer time; if he is old, for a shorter time. Where others have transacted their business, and have furnished their services, they shall be chastised and sentenced to hard labor on the public works for two years. If, however, they removed the monuments through ignorance, or accidentally, it will be sufficient to have them whipped.

Dig. 48,10,31Cal­lis­tra­tus li­bro ter­tio de co­gni­tio­ni­bus. Di­vus Pius Clau­dio re­scrip­sit pro men­su­ra cu­ius­que de­lic­ti con­sti­tuen­dum in eos, qui apud iu­di­ces in­stru­men­ta pro­tu­le­runt, quae pro­ba­ri non pos­sint: aut si plus me­ruis­se vi­dea­tur, quam ex for­ma iu­ris­dic­tio­nis pa­ti pos­sint, ut im­pe­ra­to­ri de­scri­ba­tur aes­ti­ma­tu­ro, qua­te­nus co­er­ce­ri de­beant. sed di­vus Mar­cus cum fra­tre suo pro sua hu­ma­ni­ta­te hanc rem tem­pe­ra­vit, ut, si (quod ple­rum­que eve­nit) per er­ro­rem hu­ius­mo­di in­stru­men­ta pro­fe­ran­tur, ignos­ca­tur eis, qui ta­le quic­quam pro­tu­le­rint.

Callistratus, On Judicial Inquiries, Book III. The Divine Pius stated in a Rescript addressed to Claudius: “Any persons who introduce instruments into court which cannot be proved shall be punished according to the nature of each offence; or, if they seem to have deserved a more serious penalty than can be imposed upon them under this jurisdiction, the facts may be stated to the Emperor, in order that he may determine what punishment shall be inflicted upon them.” The Emperor Marcus, along with his Brother, however, influenced by feelings of humanity, mitigated this punishment; so that if, (as frequently happens), such documents should be produced by mistake, those who did anything of this kind may be pardoned.

Dig. 50,11,2Cal­lis­tra­tus li­bro ter­tio de co­gni­tio­ni­bus. Si quis ip­sos cul­to­res agro­rum vel pis­ca­to­res de­fer­re uten­si­lia in ci­vi­ta­tem ius­se­rit, ut ip­si ea dis­tra­hant, de­sti­tue­tur an­no­nae prae­bitio, cum avo­cen­tur ab ope­re rus­ti­ci: qui con­fes­tim ubi de­tu­le­rint mer­cem, tra­de­re eam et ad ope­ra sua re­ver­ti de­beant. de­ni­que sum­mae pru­den­tiae et auc­to­ri­ta­tis apud Grae­cos Pla­to cum in­sti­tue­ret, quem­ad­mo­dum ci­vi­tas be­ne bea­te ha­bi­ta­ri pos­sit, in pri­mis is­tos neg­otia­to­res ne­ces­sa­rios du­xit. sic enim li­bro se­cun­do πολιτείας ait: δεῖ γὰρ πλειόνων ἄρα γεωργῶν τε καὶ τῶν ἄλλων δημιουργῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων διακόνων τῶν γε εἰσαξόντων καὶ ἐξαξόντων ἕκαστα· οὗτοι δέ εἰσιν ἔμποροι. κομίσας δὲ ὁ γεωργὸς εἰς τὴν ἀγοράν τι ὧν ποιεῖ ἤ τις ἄλλος τῶν δημιουργῶν μὴ εἰς τὸν αὐτὸν χρόνον ἥκῃ τοῖς δεομένοις τὰ παρ’ αὐτοῦ ἀνταλλὰξασθαι, ἀργήσει τῆς αὑτοῦ δημιουργίας καθήμενος ἐν ἀγορᾷ; οὐδαμῶς, ἦ δ’ ὅς, ἀλλ’ εἰσὶν οἳ τοῦτο ὁρῶντες ἑαυτοὺς ἐπὶ τὴν διακονίαν τάττουσι ταύτην.

Callistratus, Judicial Inquiries, Book III. When anyone orders the cultivators of land and fishermen to bring provisions into a city, in order that they themselves may dispose of them, for the reason that the supply of provisions will be diminished when the farmers are called away from their work, those who bring in the merchandise must deliver it immediately after doing so, and return to their labors. Hence, Plato displayed the highest wisdom and authority who while he was teaching among the Greeks, stated that in order for a city to be prosperous, and its people to be happy, it must, in the first place, attract all such merchants as were necessary; for, in the First Book on Civil Intercourse, he said: “A city is in need of many farmers, and other laborers and artisans, as well as of those who bring in and carry away articles of commerce, for these are traders. Where, however, a farmer brings to market anything which he produced, or any other laborer does so, and he does not immediately encounter someone who desires to exchange wares with him, will it be necessary for him to remain sitting in his place in the market until he disposes of his commodities? By no means, for there are those who, seeing this, may offer their services for the disposal of the merchandise.”

Ex libro IV

Dig. 22,5,3Cal­lis­tra­tus li­bro quar­to de co­gni­tio­ni­bus. Tes­tium fi­des di­li­gen­ter exa­mi­nan­da est. id­eo­que in per­so­na eo­rum ex­plo­ran­da erunt in pri­mis con­di­cio cu­ius­que, utrum quis de­cu­rio an ple­be­ius sit: et an ho­nes­tae et incul­pa­tae vi­tae an ve­ro no­ta­tus quis et re­pre­hen­si­bi­lis: an lo­cu­ples vel egens sit, ut lu­cri cau­sa quid fa­ci­le ad­mit­tat: vel an in­imi­cus ei sit, ad­ver­sus quem tes­ti­mo­nium fert, vel ami­cus ei sit, pro quo tes­ti­mo­nium dat. nam si ca­reat su­spi­cio­ne tes­ti­mo­nium vel prop­ter per­so­nam a qua fer­tur (quod ho­nes­ta sit) vel prop­ter cau­sam (quod ne­que lu­cri ne­que gra­tiae ne­que in­imi­ci­tiae cau­sa fit), ad­mit­ten­dus est. 1Id­eo­que di­vus Ha­d­ria­nus Vi­bio Va­ro le­ga­to pro­vin­ciae Ci­li­ciae re­scrip­sit eum qui iu­di­cat ma­gis pos­se sci­re, quan­ta fi­des ha­ben­da sit tes­ti­bus. ver­ba epis­tu­lae haec sunt: ‘Tu ma­gis sci­re potes, quan­ta fi­des ha­ben­da sit tes­ti­bus, qui et cu­ius dig­ni­ta­tis et cu­ius ex­is­ti­ma­tio­nis sint, et qui sim­pli­ci­ter vi­si sint di­ce­re, utrum unum eun­dem­que me­di­ta­tum ser­mo­nem at­tu­le­rint an ad ea quae in­ter­ro­ga­ve­ras ex tem­po­re ve­ri­si­mi­lia re­spon­de­rint’. 2Eius­dem quo­que prin­ci­pis ex­stat re­scrip­tum ad Va­le­rium Ve­rum de ex­cu­tien­da fi­de tes­tium in haec ver­ba: ‘Quae ar­gu­men­ta ad quem mo­dum pro­ban­dae cui­que rei suf­fi­ciant, nul­lo cer­to mo­do sa­tis de­fi­ni­ri pot­est. sic­ut non sem­per, ita sae­pe si­ne pu­bli­cis mo­nu­men­tis cu­ius­que rei ve­ri­tas de­pre­hen­di­tur. alias nu­me­rus tes­tium, alias dig­ni­tas et auc­to­ri­tas, alias vel­uti con­sen­tiens fa­ma con­fir­mat rei de qua quae­ri­tur fi­dem. hoc er­go so­lum ti­bi re­scri­be­re pos­sum sum­ma­tim non uti­que ad unam pro­ba­tio­nis spe­ciem co­gni­tio­nem sta­tim al­li­ga­ri de­be­re, sed ex sen­ten­tia ani­mi tui te aes­ti­ma­re opor­te­re, quid aut cre­das aut pa­rum pro­ba­tum ti­bi opi­na­ris’. 3Idem di­vus Ha­d­ria­nus Iu­nio Ru­fi­no pro­con­su­li Ma­ce­do­niae re­scrip­sit tes­ti­bus se, non tes­ti­mo­niis cre­di­tu­rum. ver­ba epis­tu­lae ad hanc par­tem per­ti­nen­tia haec sunt: ‘Quod cri­mi­na ob­ie­ce­rit apud me Ale­xan­der Apro et quia non pro­ba­bat nec tes­tes pro­du­ce­bat, sed tes­ti­mo­niis uti vo­le­bat, qui­bus apud me lo­cus non est (nam ip­sos in­ter­ro­ga­re so­leo), quem re­mis­si ad pro­vin­ciae prae­si­dem, ut is de fi­de tes­tium quae­re­ret et ni­si im­ples­set quod in­ten­de­rat, rele­ga­re­tur’. 4Ga­bi­nio quo­que Ma­xi­mo idem prin­ceps in haec ver­ba re­scrip­sit: ‘Alia est auc­to­ri­tas prae­sen­tium tes­tium, alia tes­ti­mo­nio­rum quae re­ci­ta­ri so­lent: te­cum er­go de­li­be­ra, ut, si re­ti­ne­re eos ve­lis, des eis im­pen­dia’. 5Le­ge Iu­lia de vi ca­ve­tur, ne hac le­ge in reum tes­ti­mo­nium di­ce­re li­ce­ret, qui se ab eo pa­ren­te­ve eius li­be­ra­ve­rit, qui­ve im­pu­be­res erunt, qui­que iu­di­cio pu­bli­co dam­na­tus erit qui eo­rum in in­te­grum re­sti­tu­tus non erit, qui­ve in vin­cu­lis cus­to­dia­ve pu­bli­ca erit, qui­ve ad bes­tias ut de­pug­na­ret se lo­ca­ve­rit, quae­ve pa­lam quaes­tum fa­ciet fe­ce­rit­ve, qui­ve ob tes­ti­mo­nium di­cen­dum vel non di­cen­dum pe­cu­niam ac­ce­pis­se iu­di­ca­tus vel con­vic­tus erit. nam qui­dam prop­ter re­ve­ren­tiam per­so­na­rum, qui­dam prop­ter lu­bri­cum con­si­lii sui, alii ve­ro prop­ter no­tam et in­fa­miam vi­tae suae ad­mit­ten­di non sunt ad tes­ti­mo­nii fi­dem. 6Tes­tes non te­me­re evo­can­di sunt per lon­gum iter et mul­to mi­nus mi­li­tes avo­can­di sunt a sig­nis vel mu­ne­ri­bus per­hi­ben­di tes­ti­mo­nii cau­sa, id­que di­vus Ha­d­ria­nus re­scrip­sit. sed et di­vi fra­tres re­scrip­se­runt: ‘Quod ad tes­tes evo­can­dos per­ti­net, di­li­gen­tiae iu­di­can­tis est ex­plo­ra­re, quae con­sue­tu­do in ea pro­vin­cia, in quam iu­di­cat, fue­rit’. nam si pro­ba­bi­tur sae­pe in aliam ci­vi­ta­tem tes­ti­mo­nii gra­tia ple­ros­que evo­ca­tos, non es­se du­bi­tan­dum, quin evo­can­di sint, quos ne­ces­sa­rios in ip­sa co­gni­tio­ne de­pre­hen­de­rit qui iu­di­cat.

Callistratus, Concerning Judicial Inquiries, Book IV. The integrity of witnesses should be carefully investigated, and in consideration of their personal characteristics, attention should be, in the first place, paid to their rank; as to whether the witness is a Decurion or a plebeian; whether his life is honorable and without blame, or whether he has been branded with infamy and is liable to censure; whether he is rich or poor, lest he may readily swear falsely for the purpose of gain; whether he is an enemy to him against whom he testifies, or whether he is a friend to him in whose favor he gives his evidence. For if the witness is free from suspicion, either because his personal character is beyond reproach, for the reason that he is neither influenced by the expectation of gain, nor by any inducements of favor or enmity, he will be competent. 1Therefore, the Divine Hadrian stated in a Rescript addressed to Vivius Verus, the Governor of Cilicia, that he who hears a case has the best means of judging how much confidence should be reposed in witnesses. The following are the terms of the Rescript: “You are best qualified to ascertain how much faith should be placed in witnesses, who they are, what is their rank and reputation, whether they seem to speak sincerely, whether or not they have agreed upon and planned the same statements together, and whether they, without hesitation, return suitable answers to the questions put to them.” 2Another Rescript of the same Emperor, addressed to Valerius Verus, on the subject of ascertaining the confidence to be placed in witnesses, is extant, and is in the following words: “It cannot be laid down with precision what evidence will be sufficient for the proof of any matter, just as it is not always essential to establish the existence of any fact by means of public documents, although this is frequently done. Otherwise, the number of witnesses, as well as their rank and authority, and their general reputation, would tend to confirm the proof of the subject under investigation. “I can only say to you in general terms, that a judicial inquiry should not be confined merely to one kind of evidence, but that it is necessary for you to form your opinion as to what you believe to have been proved, or what you may think has not been satisfactorily established, through the exercise of your own judgment.” 3The Divine Hadrian also stated in a Rescript to Julius Rufinus, Proconsul of Macedonia, that he must pay more attention to the witnesses than to their evidence. The words of the Rescript on this point are as follows: “Alexander accused Aper of certain crimes before me, but he did not prove them, or produce any witnesses; but he desired to use evidence which I am unwilling to admit, for I am accustomed to examine witnesses, and I have sent him back to the Governor of the province that he may make inquiry with reference to the credibility of the witnesses, and unless he proves what he alleges, he shall be sent into exile.” 4The same Emperor stated the following in a Rescript to Gabinius Maximus: “The weight to be attached to the oral evidence of witnesses who are present is one thing, and that of written testimony which is to be read is another. Therefore deliberate carefully whether you desire to retain them, and if you do, allow them their costs.” 5It is proved by the Lex Julia relating to violence, that those shall not be permitted to give testimony against a defendant who has been freed by him or by his father; or who have not yet arrived at puberty; or anyone who has been condemned for a public crime, and has not been restored to his former condition, or who is in chains, or in prison, or has hired himself out to fight with wild beasts; or any woman who openly prostitutes herself, or has already done so; or anyone who has been sentenced or convicted of having received money for giving or withholding testimony. For, indeed, certain persons should not be allowed to testify on account of the reverence due to their position; others on account of the unreliability of their judgment; and still others because of the notorious infamy of their lives. 6Witnesses should not hastily be summoned from a long distance, and still less should soldiers be called away from their standards or their stations for the purpose of giving evidence; and this the Divine Hadrian stated in a Rescript. The Divine Brothers also stated in a Rescript that: “With reference to the summoning of witnesses, the judge should carefully ascertain what is the custom in the province over which he presides; for if it should be proved that witnesses are frequently summoned to another city for the purpose of testifying, there is no doubt that those can be summoned whom the judge may decide are necessary to be called in the case.”

Dig. 26,7,33Cal­lis­tra­tus li­bro quar­to de co­gni­tio­ni­bus. A tu­to­ri­bus et cu­ra­to­ri­bus pu­pil­lo­rum ea­dem di­li­gen­tia ex­igen­da est cir­ca ad­mi­nis­tra­tio­nem re­rum pu­pil­la­rium, quam pa­ter fa­mi­lias re­bus suis ex bo­na fi­de prae­be­re de­bet. 1Of­fi­cium tu­to­rum cu­ra­to­ri­bus con­sti­tu­tis fi­nem ac­ci­pit id­eo­que om­nia neg­otia, quae in­ita sunt, ad fi­dem cu­ra­to­rum per­ti­nent: id­que et­iam di­vus Mar­cus cum fi­lio suo com­mo­do re­scrip­sit. 2He­redi­bus quo­que pu­pil­lo­rum elec­tio ea­dem ad­ver­sus tu­to­res, in quo po­tis­si­mum con­sis­te­re ve­lint, com­pe­tit, quae ip­sis quo­rum tu­te­la ad­mi­nis­tra­ta sit, prin­ci­pa­li­bus con­sti­tu­tio­ni­bus de­cla­ra­tur. 3Sump­tuum, qui bo­na fi­de in tu­te­lam, non qui in ip­sos tu­to­res fiunt, ra­tio ha­be­ri so­let, ni­si ab eo qui eum dat cer­tum so­la­cium ei con­sti­tu­tum est.

Callistratus, Concerning Investigations, Book IV. The same diligence is required of the guardians and the curators of minors with reference to the administration of their affairs, as the head of the family should conscientiously exercise in the transaction of his own business. 1The duties of a guardian terminate with the appointment of a curator; and therefore all matters which have been begun are entrusted for completion to the curator. This the Divine Marcus, together with his son Commodus, stated in a Rescript. 2The heirs of wards have the same right to choose against what guardians they may prefer to proceed, just as those whose guardianship is being administered can do. 3It is stated in the Imperial Constitutions that an account shall be rendered of any expenses incurred in good faith during the administration of the guardianship, but, not such as the guardians have incurred for themselves; unless a certain compensation was fixed by the party who appointed them.

Dig. 26,10,6Cal­lis­tra­tus li­bro quar­to de co­gni­tio­ni­bus. quia sa­tis­da­tio pro­pos­i­tum tu­to­ris ma­le­vo­lum non mu­tat, sed diu­tius gras­san­di in re fa­mi­lia­ri fa­cul­ta­tem prae­stat.

Callistratus, On Judicial Inquiries, Book IV. For the reason that security does not change the evil disposition of the guardian, but gives him an opportunity to more readily plunder the property of the ward.

Dig. 27,1,17Cal­lis­tra­tus li­bro quar­to de co­gni­tio­ni­bus. Non tan­tum mag­ni­tu­do pa­tri­mo­nio­rum in­eun­da est sus­cep­ta­rum trium tu­te­la­rum quae­que sus­ci­pien­da est, sed et­iam ae­tas pu­pil­lo­rum con­si­de­ran­da est: nam si prio­rum pu­pil­lo­rum ae­tas pro­pe pu­ber­ta­tem sit, ita ut tan­tum­mo­do se­mens­tre tem­pus re­li­quum fue­rit, aut eo­rum quo­rum sus­ci­pe­re tu­te­lam co­gi­tur, non da­bi­tur ex­cu­sa­tio: id­que prin­ci­pa­li­bus con­sti­tu­tio­ni­bus ca­ve­tur. 1Ilien­si­bus et prop­ter in­clu­tam no­bi­li­ta­tem ci­vi­ta­tis et prop­ter con­iunc­tio­nem ori­gi­nis Ro­ma­nae iam an­ti­qui­tus et se­na­tus con­sul­tis et con­sti­tu­tio­ni­bus prin­ci­pum ple­nis­si­ma im­mu­ni­tas tri­bu­ta est, ut et­iam tu­te­lae ex­cu­sa­tio­nem ha­beant, sci­li­cet eo­rum pu­pil­lo­rum, qui Ilien­ses non sint: id­que di­vus Pius re­scrip­sit. 2Eos, qui in cor­po­ri­bus sunt vel­uti fa­b­ro­rum, im­mu­ni­ta­tem ha­be­re di­ci­mus et­iam cir­ca tu­te­la­rum ex­te­ro­rum ho­mi­num ad­mi­nis­tra­tio­nem ha­be­bunt ex­cu­sa­tio­nem, ni­si si fa­cul­ta­tes eo­rum ad­auc­tae fue­rint, ut ad ce­te­ra quo­que mu­ne­ra pu­bli­ca sus­ci­pien­da com­pel­lan­tur: id­que prin­ci­pa­li­bus con­sti­tu­tio­ni­bus ca­ve­tur. 3Non om­nia ta­men cor­po­ra vel col­le­gia va­ca­tio­nem tu­te­la­rum ha­bent, quam­vis mu­ne­ri­bus mu­ni­ci­pa­li­bus ob­stric­ta non sint, ni­si no­mi­na­tim id pri­vi­le­gium eis in­dul­tum sit. 4Is qui ae­di­li­ta­te fun­gi­tur pot­est tu­tor da­ri: nam ae­di­li­tas in­ter eos ma­gis­tra­tus ha­be­tur qui pri­va­tis mu­ne­ri­bus ex­cu­sa­ti sunt se­cun­dum di­vi Mar­ci re­scrip­tum. 5Sa­ne no­tum est, quod ge­ren­ti­bus ho­no­rem va­ca­tio­nem tu­te­la­rum con­ce­di pla­cuit, va­ca­re au­tem eos, qui tunc pri­mum vo­cen­tur ad sus­ci­pien­dum of­fi­cium tu­te­lae: ce­te­rum eos, qui iam se mis­cue­rint ad­mi­nis­tra­tio­ni, ne tem­po­re qui­dem ma­gis­tra­tus va­ca­re ae­que no­tum est. 6Do­mi­ni na­vium non vi­den­tur ha­be­ri in­ter pri­vi­le­gia, ut a tu­te­lis va­cent, id­que di­vus Tra­ia­nus re­scrip­sit. 7In­qui­li­ni cas­tro­rum a tu­te­lis ex­cu­sa­ri so­lent ni­si eo­rum, qui et ip­si in­qui­li­ni sunt et in eo­dem cas­tro ea­dem­que con­di­cio­ne sunt.

Callistratus, On Judicial Inquiries, Book IV. Not only the value of the estate to be entered upon, the administration of which is to be undertaken in the case of three already existing guardianships, but also the ages of the wards, must be considered. For if the ages of the first wards are approaching puberty, so that only a term of six months remains, or if the age of those, the assumption of whose guardianship is involved, is not far from puberty, an excuse will not be allowed. This matter is provided for by the Imperial Constitutions. 1Complete exemption was long since granted to the Trojans, both by Decrees of the Senate and Constitutions of the Emperors, on account of the renowned nobility of their city and their connection with the origin of Rome, where wards are concerned who are not Trojans. This the Divine Pius stated in a Rescript. 2Those who belong to certain associations, as, for example, to that of artisans, We declare to be entitled to exemption, for they can be excused from the administration of the guardianship of persons who are not members of their organization, in order to compel them to undertake other public employments, even if their property has been subsequently increased. This is also provided for in the Imperial Constitutions. 3All bodies or associations, however, are not entitled to be released from the duties of guardianship, although they may not be obliged to assume municipal offices, unless this privilege has been expressly granted them. 4He who is performing the duties of ædile may be appointed a guardian; for the office of ædile is included among those magistracies whose incumbents are exempt from private employments, according to a Rescript of the Divine Marcus. 5It must, indeed, be noted that it has been settled that those invested with public office are released from the duties of guardianship. Those are exempt who, being already in office, are called upon to undertake the duties of guardianship; but it should also be noted that those who have already been concerned in the administration of its duties are not excused, even during the time of their magistracy. 6The masters of ships, among their other privileges, do not seem to enjoy that of being exempt from guardianship. This the Divine Trajan stated in a rescript. 7Those who dwell in camps are usually exempt from guardianship, except with reference to that of parties who themselves reside in the same camp, and are of the same condition.

Dig. 35,3,6Cal­lis­tra­tus li­bro quar­to de co­gni­tio­ni­bus. Cum non fa­ci­le sa­tis­da­tio­nem of­fer­re le­ga­ta­rius vel fi­dei­com­mis­sa­rius pos­sit et fu­tu­rum sit, ut prop­ter hoc a pe­ti­tio­ne li­be­ra­li­ta­tis ex tes­ta­men­to sub­mo­vean­tur, num­quid onus sa­tis­da­tio­nis eis re­mit­ten­dum erit? quod vi­de­tur ad­iu­va­ri re­scrip­to di­vi Com­mo­di in haec ver­ba: ‘is, cu­ius de ea re no­tio est, ad­itus si com­pe­re­rit id­eo cau­tio­nem a te ex­igi, ut a fi­dei­com­mis­si pe­ti­tio­ne aver­ta­ris, onus sa­tis­da­tio­nis ti­bi re­mit­ti cu­ra­bit’.

Callistratus, On Judicial Inquiries, Book IV. If the legatee or the beneficiary of the trust cannot readily furnish security, and for this reason runs the risk of being deprived of the benefit conferred by the will, shall he be released from the necessity of giving security? This opinion seems to be adopted in a Rescript of the Divine Commodus, which is in the following words: “If the court having jurisdiction of the case should ascertain that application has been made to him to compel you to give security in order to prevent you from claiming the benefit of the trust, he must see that you are released from the requirement of furnishing it.”

Dig. 40,16,3Cal­lis­tra­tus li­bro quar­to de co­gni­tio­ni­bus. Cum non ius­to con­tra­dic­to­re quis in­ge­nuus pro­nun­tia­tus est, per­in­de in­ef­fi­cax est de­cre­tum, at­que si nul­la iu­di­ca­ta res in­ter­ve­nis­set: id­que prin­ci­pa­li­bus con­sti­tu­tio­ni­bus ca­ve­tur.

Callistratus, On Judicial Inquiries, Book IV. Where anyone, without having any legal adversary, is judicially declared to be entitled to the rights of a freeborn person, the decision will be without effect, and just as if none had been rendered. This is provided by the Imperial Constitutions.

Dig. 50,16,127Cal­lis­tra­tus li­bro quar­to de co­gni­tio­ni­bus. ‘Ves­tis’ ap­pel­la­tio­ne tam vi­ri­lis quam mu­lie­bris et scae­ni­ca, et­iam­si tra­gi­ca aut ci­tha­roe­di­ca sit, con­ti­ne­tur.

Callistratus, Judicial Inquiries, Book IV. By the term “clothing” is meant that ordinarily worn by both men and women, as well as theatrical costumes, whether used in a tragedy or comedy.

Ex libro V

Dig. 4,2,13Cal­lis­tra­tus li­bro quin­to de co­gni­tio­ni­bus. Ex­stat enim de­cre­tum di­vi Mar­ci in haec ver­ba: ‘Op­ti­mum est, ut, si quas pu­tas te ha­be­re pe­ti­tio­nes, ac­tio­ni­bus ex­pe­ria­ris. cum Mar­cia­nus di­ce­ret: vim nul­lam fe­ci, Cae­sar di­xit: tu vim pu­tas es­se so­lum, si ho­mi­nes vul­ne­ren­tur? vis est et tunc, quo­tiens quis id, quod de­be­ri si­bi pu­tat, non per iu­di­cem re­pos­cit. quis­quis igi­tur pro­ba­tus mi­hi fue­rit rem ul­lam de­bi­to­ris vel pe­cu­niam de­bi­tam non ab ip­so si­bi spon­te da­tam si­ne ul­lo iu­di­ce te­me­re pos­si­de­re vel ac­ce­pis­se, is­que si­bi ius in eam rem di­xis­se: ius cre­di­ti non ha­be­bit’.

Ad Dig. 4,2,13Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 123, Note 1.Callistratus, On Judicial Inquiries, Book V. There is extant a Decree of the Divine Marcus in the following terms: “The best course to pursue if you think that you have any legal claim, is to test it by an action”; and when Marcianus said, “I have employed no force”; the Emperor replied, “Do you think that there is no force employed except where men are wounded? Force is employed just as much in a case where anyone who thinks that something is owing to him and makes a demand for it, without instituting judicial proceedings; therefore, if anyone is proved before Me to have boldly, and without judicial authority obtained possession of any property of his debtor, or any money which was due to him, and which was not voluntarily paid to him by the said debtor; and who has established the law for himself in the matter, he shall not be entitled to the right of a creditor”.

Dig. 5,1,37Idem li­bro quin­to co­gni­tio­num. Si de vi et pos­ses­sio­ne quae­ra­tur, prius co­gnos­cen­dum de vi quam de pro­prie­ta­te rei di­vus Ha­d­ria­nus τῷ κοινῷ τῶν Θεσσαλῶν Grae­ce re­scrip­sit.

The Same, Inquiries, Book V. Where inquiry is made concerning violence and the existence of possession, investigation must be made of the violence before the ownership of the property is considered; in accordance with a Rescript of the Divine Hadrian in the Greek language directed to the Commonwealth of Thessaly.

Dig. 29,5,2Cal­lis­tra­tus li­bro quin­to de co­gni­tio­ni­bus. Di­vus Mar­cus Com­mo­dus Pi­so­ni re­scrip­sit in haec ver­ba: ‘Cum con­sti­te­rit apud te, Pi­so ca­ris­si­me, Iu­lium Do­na­tum, post­ea­quam con­ter­ri­tus ad­ven­tu la­tro­num pro­fu­ge­rat vil­lam suam, vul­ne­ra­tum es­se, mox tes­ta­men­to fac­to pur­gas­se of­fi­cium ser­vo­rum suo­rum, nec pie­tas pro ser­vis nec sol­li­ci­tu­do he­redis op­ti­ne­re de­bet, ut ad poe­nam vo­cen­tur, quos ab­sol­vit do­mi­nus ip­se’.

Callistratus, Concerning Judicial Inquiries, Book V. The Divine Marcus Commodus stated in a Rescript to Piso the following: “Since it has been proved before you, my dear Piso, that Julius Donatus, after having been alarmed by the approach of robbers, took refuge in his country-house, and was wounded, and afterwards, having executed a will, manifested his affection for his slaves, neither his regard for them, nor the solicitude of the heir should allow punishment to be inflicted upon those whom the master himself has absolved”.

Dig. 42,1,33Idem li­bro quin­to co­gni­tio­num. Di­vus Ha­d­ria­nus, ad­itus per li­bel­lum a Iu­lio Ta­ren­ti­no et in­di­can­te eo fal­sis tes­ti­mo­niis, con­spi­ra­tio­ne ad­ver­sa­rio­rum tes­ti­bus pe­cu­nia cor­rup­tis, re­li­gio­nem iu­di­cis cir­cum­ven­tam es­se, in in­te­grum cau­sam re­sti­tuen­dam in haec ver­ba re­scrip­sit: ‘Ex­em­plum li­bel­li da­ti mi­hi a Iu­lio Ta­ren­ti­no mit­ti ti­bi ius­si: tu, si ti­bi pro­ba­ve­rit con­spi­ra­tio­ne ad­ver­sa­rio­rum et tes­ti­bus pe­cu­nia cor­rup­tis op­pres­sum se, et rem se­ve­re vin­di­ca et, si qua a iu­di­ce tam ma­lo ex­em­plo cir­cum­scrip­to iu­di­ca­ta sunt, in in­te­grum re­sti­tue’.

Ad Dig. 42,1,33ROHGE, Bd. 5 (1872), S. 213: Rescission eines auf eine falsche Urkunde gestützten Erkenntnisses. Einfluß des prozessualen Anerkenntnisses der Echtheit der Urkunde.The Same, Judicial Inquiries, Book V. The Divine Hadrian, having been presented with a petition by Julius Tarentinus, in which he alleged that a decision had been rendered against him through the judge having been deceived by forged evidence, and by a conspiracy of his adversaries, who had corrupted witnesses with money, the Emperor stated in a Rescript that he was entitled to complete restitution, as follows: “I have ordered a copy of the petition which was presented to me by Julius Tarentinus to be sent to you. If he proves that he has been oppressed by a conspiracy of his adversaries, and that their witnesses have been corrupted with money, you will inflict severe punishment; and if the decision of the judge was induced by false representations, you will grant complete restitution.”

Dig. 47,21,3Idem li­bro quin­to de co­gni­tio­ni­bus. Le­ge agra­ria, quam Gaius Cae­sar tu­lit, ad­ver­sus eos, qui ter­mi­nos sta­tu­tos ex­tra suum gra­dum fi­nes­ve mo­ve­rint do­lo ma­lo, pe­cu­nia­ria poe­na con­sti­tu­ta est: nam in ter­mi­nos sin­gu­los, quos eie­ce­rint lo­co­ve mo­ve­rint, quin­qua­gin­ta au­reos in pu­bli­co da­ri iu­bet: et eius ac­tio­nem pe­ti­tio­nem ei qui vo­let es­se iu­bet. 1Alia quo­que le­ge agra­ria, quam di­vus Ner­va tu­lit, ca­ve­tur, ut, si ser­vus ser­va­ve in­scien­te do­mi­no do­lo ma­lo fe­ce­rit, ei ca­pi­tal es­se, ni­si do­mi­nus do­mi­na­ve mul­tam suf­fer­re ma­lue­rit. 2Hi quo­que, qui fi­na­lium quaes­tio­num ob­scu­ran­da­rum cau­sa fa­ciem lo­co­rum con­ver­tunt, ut ex ar­bo­re ar­bus­tum aut ex sil­va no­va­le aut ali­quid eius­mo­di fa­ciunt, poe­na plec­ten­di sunt pro per­so­na et con­di­cio­ne et fac­to­rum vio­len­tia.

The Same, On Judicial Inquiries, Book V. A pecuniary penalty was established by the agrarian law which Gaius Cæsar enacted against those who fraudulently removed monuments beyond their proper place, and the boundaries of their land; for it directed that they should pay to the Public Treasury fifty aurei for every boundary mark which they took out or removed, and that an action should be granted to anyone who desired to bring it. 1By another agrarian law, introduced by the Divine Nerva, it is provided that if a male or female slave, without the knowledge of his or her master, commits this offence with malicious intent, he or she shall be punished with death, unless his or her master or mistress prefers to pay the fine. 2Those, also, who change the appearance of the place in order to render the location of the boundaries obscure, as by making a shrub out of a tree; or plowed land out of a forest; or who do anything else of this kind, shall be punished in accordance with their character and their rank, and the violence with which their acts were committed.

Dig. 48,2,19Cal­lis­tra­tus li­bro quin­to de co­gni­tio­ni­bus. Di­vi fra­tres re­scrip­se­runt non de­be­re co­gi he­redes ac­cu­sa­to­rum ex­equi cri­mi­na. 1Item non opor­te­re com­pel­li ac­cu­sa­to­rem plu­res reos fa­ce­re di­vus Ha­d­ria­nus re­scrip­sit.

Callistratus, On Judicial Inquiries, Book V. The Divine Brothers stated in a Rescript that the heirs of an accuser should not be compelled to prosecute the crime. 1Likewise, the Divine Hadrian stated in a Rescript that no one could be forced to prosecute several accused persons.

Dig. 48,3,12Cal­lis­tra­tus li­bro quin­to de co­gni­tio­ni­bus. Mi­li­tes si amis­e­rint cus­to­dias, ip­si in pe­ri­cu­lum de­du­cun­tur. nam di­vus Ha­d­ria­nus Sta­ti­lio Se­cun­do le­ga­to re­scrip­sit, quo­tiens cus­to­dia mi­li­ti­bus eva­se­rit, ex­qui­ri opor­te­re, utrum ni­mia neg­le­gen­tia mi­li­tum eva­se­rit an ca­su, et utrum unus ex plu­ri­bus an una plu­res, et ita de­mum ad­fi­cien­dos sup­pli­cio mi­li­tes, qui­bus cus­to­diae eva­se­rint, si cul­pa eo­rum ni­mia de­pre­hen­da­tur: alio­quin pro mo­do cul­pae in eos sta­tuen­dum. Sal­vio quo­que le­ga­to Aqui­ta­niae idem prin­ceps re­scrip­sit in eum, qui cus­to­diam di­mi­sit aut ita sciens ha­buit, ut pos­sit cus­to­dia eva­de­re, anim­ad­ver­ten­dum: si ta­men per vi­num aut de­si­diam cus­to­dis id eve­ne­rit, cas­ti­gan­dum eum et in de­te­rio­rem mi­li­tiam da­ri: si ve­ro for­tui­to amis­e­rit, ni­hil in eum sta­tuen­dum. 1Si pa­ga­nos eva­se­rit cus­to­dia, idem pu­to ex­qui­ren­dum, quod cir­ca mi­li­tum per­so­nas ex­plo­ran­dum ret­tu­li.

Callistratus, On Judicial Inquiries, Book V. If soldiers permit their prisoners to escape, they themselves are responsible, and run the risk of being punished. For the Divine Hadrian stated in a Rescript addressed to Statilius Secundus, his Deputy, that whenever anyone escapes from the custody of soldiers, if should be ascertained whether this was due to gross negligence of the soldiers, or to accident, and whether one among several, or several fled at the same time; and the soldiers should be delivered up to punishment when the prisoners escaped from their custody, if this occurred through gross negligence on their part; otherwise, a decision should be rendered in proportion to the blame attaching to them. The same Emperor stated in a Rescript to Salvius, the Governor of Aquitania, that anyone who permitted a prisoner to escape, or intentionally kept him in such a way that he could escape, should be punished. If, however, this occurred through indulgence in wine, or the laziness of the guard, he should be chastised, and degraded to the lowest military rank. But where he lost his prisoner through accident, no proceedings should be taken against him. 1When a prisoner escapes from the hands of civilians, I think that the same investigation should be made which I have mentioned should be done with reference to soldiers.

Dig. 48,7,7Cal­lis­tra­tus li­bro quin­to de co­gni­tio­ni­bus. Cre­di­to­res si ad­ver­sus de­bi­to­res suos agant, per iu­di­cem id, quod de­be­ri si­bi pu­tant, re­pos­ce­re de­bent: alio­quin si in rem de­bi­to­ris sui in­tra­ve­rint id nul­lo con­ce­den­te, di­vus Mar­cus de­cre­vit ius cre­di­ti eos non ha­be­re. ver­ba de­cre­ti haec sunt. ‘Op­ti­mum est, ut, si quas pu­tas te ha­be­re pe­ti­tio­nes, ac­tio­ni­bus ex­pe­ria­ris: in­ter­im il­le in pos­ses­sio­ne de­bet mo­ra­ri, tu pe­ti­tor es’. et cum Mar­cia­nus di­ce­ret: ‘vim nul­lam fe­ci’: Cae­sar di­xit: ‘tu vim pu­tas es­se so­lum, si ho­mi­nes vul­ne­ren­tur? vis est et tunc, quo­tiens quis id, quod de­be­ri si­bi pu­tat, non per iu­di­cem re­pos­cit. non pu­to au­tem nec ve­re­cun­diae nec dig­ni­ta­ti nec pie­ta­ti tuae con­ve­ni­re quic­quam non iu­re fa­ce­re. quis­quis igi­tur pro­ba­tus mi­hi fue­rit rem ul­lam de­bi­to­ris non ab ip­so si­bi tra­di­tam si­ne ul­lo iu­di­ce te­me­re pos­si­de­re, eum­que si­bi ius in eam rem di­xis­se, ius cre­di­ti non ha­be­bit’.

Ad Dig. 48,7,7Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 123, Note 1.Callistratus, On Judicial Inquiries, Book V. Creditors, who proceed against their debtors, should demand a second time, through the judge, what they think to be due to them. Otherwise, if they enter upon the property of the debtor without permission having been given them to do so, the Divine Marcus decreed that they had no longer any right to their claims. The following are the terms of the Decree: “It is very proper, where you think that you have claims, that you should attempt to collect them by means of actions. In the meantime, the other party should remain in possession, for you are merely the plaintiff.” And when Marcianus said that no force had been employed, the Emperor replied: “You think that force is only employed when men are wounded. Force is employed when anyone thinks that he can take what is due to him without demanding it a second time through the judge. I do not think that it is consistent either with your character for reserve or your dignity, to commit an act which is unauthorized by law. Therefore, whenever it is proved to me that any property of the debtor was not delivered by him to his creditor, but that the latter boldly took possession of it without being authorized by a court, and he has declared that he was entitled to the property, he will forfeit his right to the claim.”

Dig. 48,18,15Cal­lis­tra­tus li­bro quin­to de co­gni­tio­ni­bus. Ex li­be­ro ho­mi­ne pro tes­ti­mo­nio non va­cil­lan­te quaes­tio­nem ha­be­ri non opor­tet. 1De mi­no­re quo­que quat­tuor­de­cim an­nis in ca­put al­te­rius quaes­tio­nem ha­ben­dam non es­se di­vus Pius Mae­ci­lio re­scrip­sit, ma­xi­me cum nul­lis ex­trin­se­cus ar­gu­men­tis ac­cu­sa­tio im­plea­tur. nec ta­men con­se­quens es­se, ut et­iam si­ne tor­men­tis eis­dem cre­da­tur: nam ae­tas, in­quit, quae ad­ver­sus as­pe­ri­ta­tem quaes­tio­nis eos in­ter­im tue­ri vi­de­tur, su­spec­tio­res quo­que eos­dem fa­cit ad men­tien­di fa­ci­li­ta­tem. 2Eum, qui vin­di­can­ti ser­vum ca­vit, do­mi­ni lo­co ha­ben­dum et id­eo in ca­put eius ser­vos tor­que­ri non pos­se di­vus Pius in haec ver­ba re­scrip­sit: ‘Cau­sam tuam aliis pro­ba­tio­ni­bus in­sti­tue­re de­bes: nam de ser­vis quaes­tio ha­be­ri non de­bet, cum pos­ses­sor he­redi­ta­tis, qui pe­ti­to­ri sa­tis­de­dit, in­ter­im do­mi­ni lo­co ha­bea­tur’.

Callistratus, Judicial Inquiries, Book V. It is not necessary to inflict torture in the case of a freeman, where his testimony is not vacillating. 1In the case of a minor under fourteen years of age, the Divine Pius stated in a Rescript to Mæcilius that torture should not be inflicted to obtain evidence against another, especially as the accusation was by no means established by other evidence, since it did not result that the minor should be believed, even without the application of torture; for he says that age, which appears to protect persons against the harshness of torture, renders them also more suspected of falsehood. 2He who has given security to another claiming a slave should be considered as the master; and therefore such slaves cannot be put to torture to obtain evidence against him. The Divine Pius stated the following in a Rescript: “You must prove your case by other testimony, for torture should not be inflicted upon slaves, when the possessor of an estate has given security to a claimant, and in the meantime, is considered as the master.”

Dig. 48,19,27Idem li­bro quin­to de co­gni­tio­ni­bus. Di­vi fra­tres Ar­run­tio Si­lo­ni re­scrip­se­runt non so­le­re prae­si­des pro­vin­cia­rum ea quae pro­nun­tia­ve­runt ip­sos re­scin­de­re. Ve­ti­nae quo­que Ita­li­cen­si re­scrip­se­runt suam mu­ta­re sen­ten­tiam ne­mi­nem pos­se id­que in­so­li­tum es­se fie­ri. si ta­men de se quis men­ti­tus fue­rit vel, cum non ha­be­ret pro­ba­tio­num in­stru­men­ta, quae post­ea rep­pererit, poe­na ad­flic­tus sit, non­nul­la ex­stant prin­ci­pa­lia re­scrip­ta, qui­bus vel poe­na eo­rum mi­nu­ta est vel in in­te­grum re­sti­tu­tio con­ces­sa. sed id dum­ta­xat a prin­ci­pi­bus fie­ri pot­est. 1De de­cu­rio­ni­bus et prin­ci­pa­li­bus ci­vi­ta­tium, qui ca­pi­ta­le ad­mi­se­runt, man­da­tis ca­ve­tur, ut, si quis id ad­mis­sis­se vi­dea­tur, prop­ter quod rele­gan­dus ex­tra pro­vin­ciam in in­su­lam sit, im­pe­ra­to­ri scri­ba­tur ad­iec­ta sen­ten­tia a prae­si­de. 2Alio quo­que ca­pi­te man­da­to­rum in haec ver­ba ca­ve­tur: ‘Si qui ex prin­ci­pa­li­bus ali­cu­ius ci­vi­ta­tis la­tro­ci­nium fe­ce­rint aliud­ve quod fa­ci­nus, ut ca­pi­ta­lem poe­nam me­ruis­se vi­dean­tur, com­mi­se­rint, vinc­tos eos cus­to­dies et mi­hi scri­bes et ad­icies, quid quis­que com­mi­se­rit’.

The Same, On Judicial Inquiries, Book V. The Divine Brothers stated in a Rescript to Harruntius Silo, that the Governors of provinces were not accustomed to rescind judgments which they themselves had rendered. They also stated in a Rescript addressed to Vetina of Italica, that no judge could change his own decision, and that this was an unusual thing to do. Where, however, anyone was falsely accused, and did not have at first the documents to establish his innocence, which he afterwards found, and was subjected to punishment, there are some Imperial Rescripts extant by which it is provided that the penalty of such persons shall either be lessened, or that they shall be entirely restored to their former condition. This, however, can only be done by the Emperor. 1It is provided by the Imperial Mandates with reference to Decurions, and civil officials who have been guilty of capital crimes, that if anyone appears to have committed an offence for which he should be relegated to an island outside of the province, the facts, together with the sentence imposed, should be submitted to the Emperor in writing by the Governor. 2In another Section of the Imperial Mandates, it is provided as follows: “When any of the officials of a town have committed robbery, or any other crime which seems to deserve capital punishment, you shall place them in chains, and write to me, and also state what crime each of them has perpetrated.”

Ex libro VI

Dig. 1,19,3Cal­lis­tra­tus li­bro sex­to de co­gni­tio­ni­bus. Cu­ra­to­res Cae­sa­ris ius de­por­tan­di non ha­bent, quia hu­ius poe­nae con­sti­tuen­dae ius non ha­bent. 1Si ta­men qua­si tu­mul­tuo­sum vel in­iu­rio­sum ad­ver­sus co­lo­nos Cae­sa­ris pro­hi­bue­rint in prae­dia Cae­sa­ria­na ac­ce­de­re, abs­ti­ne­re de­be­bit id­que di­vus Pius Iu­lio re­scrip­sit. 2De­in­de ne­que red­ire cui­quam per­mit­te­re pos­sunt id­que im­pe­ra­to­res nos­tri Se­ve­rus et An­to­ni­nus ad li­bel­lum Her­miae re­scrip­se­runt.

Callistratus, On Judicial Inquiries, Book VI. The Imperial Stewards cannot sentence to deportation, for the reason that they have not the right of imposing this penalty. 1If, however, they forbid anyone to enter upon the land of the Emperor because his riotous or violent conduct might injure the Imperial tenants, the person is obliged to withdraw; for this the Divine Pius stated in a Rescript to Julius. 2Stewards cannot give permission to anyone to return after deportation, and this our Emperors Severus and Antoninus stated in a Rescript in answer to a petition of Hermias.

Dig. 11,4,2Cal­lis­tra­tus li­bro sex­to co­gni­tio­num. Fu­gi­ti­vi sim­pli­ces do­mi­nis red­den­di sunt: sed si pro li­be­ro se ges­se­rint, gra­vius co­er­ce­ri so­lent.

Callistratus, Judicial Inquiries, Book VI. Slaves who are simply fugitives should be returned to their masters; but where they pretend to be free, it is customary to punish them severely.

Dig. 47,14,3Cal­lis­tra­tus li­bro sex­to de co­gni­tio­ni­bus. Oves pro nu­me­ro ab­ac­ta­rum aut fu­rem aut ab­igeum fa­ciunt. qui­dam de­cem oves gre­gem es­se pu­ta­ve­runt: por­cos et­iam quin­que vel quat­tuor ab­ac­tos, equum bo­vem vel unum ab­igea­tus cri­men fa­ce­re. 1Eum quo­que ple­nius co­er­cen­dum, qui a sta­bu­lo ab­egit do­mi­tum pe­cus, non a sil­va nec gre­ge. 2Qui sae­pius ab­ege­runt, li­cet sem­per unum vel al­te­rum pe­cus sub­ri­pue­rint, ta­men ab­igei sunt. 3Re­cep­to­res ab­igeo­rum qua poe­na plec­ti de­beant, epis­tu­la di­vi Tra­ia­ni ita ca­ve­tur, ut ex­tra ter­ram Ita­liam de­cem an­nis rele­ga­ren­tur.

Callistratus, On Legal Investigations, Book VI. Sheep, in proportion to the number driven away, either render a man a common thief, or an appropriator of cattle. Certain authorities have held that ten sheep constitute a flock, just as four or five hogs, when they are driven away from a drove; but a cattle-thief commits this crime if he steals but one horse or ox. 1He also should be more severely punished who drives away a tame flock from a stable, and not from a forest, or one forming part of a larger flock. 2Those who have often perpetrated this offence, although they may have taken only one or two animals at a time, are nevertheless, classed as cattle thieves. 3Those who harbor offenders of this kind should, according to an Epistle of the Divine Trajan, be punished by being banished from Italy for ten years.

Dig. 48,3,13Idem li­bro sex­to de co­gni­tio­ni­bus. In eos, qui, cum re­cep­ti es­sent in car­ce­rem, con­spi­ra­ve­rint, ut rup­tis vin­cu­lis et ef­frac­to car­ce­re eva­dant, am­plius, quam cau­sa ex qua re­cep­ti sunt re­pos­cit, con­sti­tuen­dum est quam­vis in­no­cen­tes in­ve­nian­tur ex eo cri­mi­ne, prop­ter quod in­pac­ti sunt in car­ce­re, ta­men pu­nien­di sunt: eos ve­ro, qui con­spi­ra­tio­nem eo­rum de­te­xe­rint, rele­van­dos.

The Same, On Judicial Inquiries, Book VI. Where persons who are confined in prison conspire to break their chains and escape, it has been decided that they must be punished without reference to the cause for which they were incarcerated. Although they may be found innocent of the crime for which they were kept in custody, still, they must be punished, and those who reveal their conspiracy should be released.

Dig. 48,8,14Cal­lis­tra­tus li­bro sex­to de co­gni­tio­ni­bus. Di­vus Ha­d­ria­nus in haec ver­ba re­scrip­sit: ‘in ma­le­fi­ciis vo­lun­tas spec­ta­tur, non ex­itus’.

Callistratus, On Judicial Inquiries, Book VI. The Divine Hadrian stated the following in a Rescript: “In the perpetration of crime, the intention, and not the event, is considered.”

Dig. 48,15,6Cal­lis­tra­tus li­bro sex­to de co­gni­tio­ni­bus. Non sta­tim pla­gia­rium es­se, qui fur­ti cri­mi­ne ob ser­vos alie­nos in­ter­cep­tos te­ne­tur, di­vus Ha­d­ria­nus in haec ver­ba re­scrip­sit: ‘Ser­vos alie­nos qui sol­li­ci­ta­ve­rit aut in­ter­ce­pe­rit, cri­mi­ne pla­gii, quod il­li in­ten­di­tur, te­n­ea­tur nec ne, fa­cit quaes­tio­nem: et id­eo non me con­su­li de ea re opor­tet, sed quod ve­ris­si­mum in re prae­sen­ti co­gnos­ci­tur, se­qui iu­di­cem opor­tet. pla­ne au­tem sci­re de­bet pos­se ali­quem fur­ti cri­mi­ne ob ser­vos alie­nos in­ter­cep­tos te­ne­ri nec id­cir­co ta­men sta­tim pla­gia­rium es­se ex­is­ti­ma­ri’. 1Idem prin­ceps de ea­dem re in haec ver­ba re­scrip­sit: ‘Apud quem unus aut al­ter fue­rit fu­gi­ti­vus in­ven­tus, qui ope­ras suas lo­ca­ve­rint ut pas­ce­ren­tur, et uti­que si idem ant­ea apud alios opus fe­ce­rint, hunc sup­pres­so­rem non iu­re quis di­xe­rit’. 2Le­ge Fa­bia ca­ve­tur, ut li­ber, qui ho­mi­nem in­ge­nuum vel li­ber­ti­num in­vi­tum ce­la­ve­rit in­vinc­tum ha­bue­rit eme­rit sciens do­lo ma­lo qui­ve in ea­rum qua re so­cius erit, qui­que ser­vo alie­no ser­vae­ve per­sua­se­rit, ut a do­mi­no do­mi­na­ve fu­giat, vel eum eam­ve in­vi­to vel in­scien­te do­mi­no do­mi­na­ve ce­la­ve­rit, in­vinc­tum ha­bue­rit eme­rit sciens do­lo ma­lo qui­ve in ea re so­cius erit, eius poe­na te­n­ea­tur.

Callistratus, On Judicial Inquiries, Book VI. He does not forthwith become a kidnapper who is guilty of theft, on the ground of withholding slaves belonging to another, for the Divine Hadrian stated in a Rescript: “He who has solicited or appropriated the slaves of another gives rise to the question whether he is, or is not liable for the crime of kidnapping, of which he is accused; and therefore it is not necessary to consult me on this point. The judge, however, in a case of this kind must decide what he knows to be perfectly true, for it is evident that he must be aware that a person can be guilty of the crime of theft with reference to slaves taken from others, and not necessarily for that reason, be considered guilty of kidnapping.” 1The same Emperor stated in a Rescript with reference to the same matter: “Where one or more fugitive slaves is found in the possession of anyone who has hired their services in consideration of their maintenance, and the said slaves had previously performed labor for others, no one can properly say that the above-mentioned person has appropriated them.” 2It is provided by the Favian Law that: “A freeman who conceals one who is freeborn or a freedman, against his will; or has kept him in fetters, and has knowingly and fraudulently purchased him; or has been associated with anyone in a transaction of this kind; or has persuaded the male or female slave of another to run away from his or her master or mistress; or has concealed such a slave without the knowledge or consent of his or her master or mistress; or has kept him or her chained; or knowingly and fraudulently has purchased the slave, or has been implicated in any of these crimes, shall suffer the penalty of the law.”

Dig. 48,19,7Cal­lis­tra­tus li­bro sex­to de co­gni­tio­ni­bus. (vel­uti fus­tium, ad­mo­ni­tio: fla­gel­lo­rum, cas­ti­ga­tio: vin­cu­lo­rum, ver­be­ra­tio)

Callistratus, On Judicial Inquiries, Book VI. Such as castigation with rods, scourging, and blows with chains,

Dig. 48,19,28Idem li­bro sex­to de co­gni­tio­ni­bus. Ca­pi­ta­lium poe­na­rum fe­re is­ti gra­dus sunt. sum­mum sup­pli­cium es­se vi­de­tur ad fur­cam dam­na­tio. item vi­vi cre­ma­tio: quod quam­quam sum­mi sup­pli­cii ap­pel­la­tio­ne me­ri­to con­ti­ne­re­tur, ta­men eo, quod post­ea id ge­nus poe­nae ad­in­ven­tum est, pos­te­rius pri­mo vi­sum est. item ca­pi­tis am­pu­ta­tio. de­in­de pro­xi­ma mor­ti poe­na me­tal­li co­er­ci­tio. post de­in­de in in­su­lam de­por­ta­tio. 1Ce­te­rae poe­nae ad ex­is­ti­ma­tio­nem, non ad ca­pi­tis pe­ri­cu­lum per­ti­nent, vel­uti rele­ga­tio ad tem­pus, vel in per­pe­tuum, vel in in­su­lam, vel cum in opus quis pu­bli­cum da­tur, vel cum fus­tium ic­tu sub­ici­tur. 2Non om­nes fus­ti­bus cae­di so­lent, sed hi dum­ta­xat qui li­be­ri sunt et qui­dem te­nuio­res ho­mi­nes: ho­nes­tio­res ve­ro fus­ti­bus non sub­iciun­tur, id­que prin­ci­pa­li­bus re­scrip­tis spe­cia­li­ter ex­pri­mi­tur. 3So­lent qui­dam, qui vol­go se iu­ve­nes ap­pel­lant, in qui­bus­dam ci­vi­ta­ti­bus tur­bu­len­tis se ad­cla­ma­tio­ni­bus po­pu­la­rium ac­com­mo­da­re. qui si am­plius ni­hil ad­mi­se­rint nec an­te sint a prae­si­de ad­mo­ni­ti, fus­ti­bus cae­si di­mit­tun­tur aut et­iam spec­ta­cu­lis eis in­ter­di­ci­tur. quod si ita cor­rec­ti in eis­dem de­pre­hen­dan­tur, ex­ilio pu­nien­di sunt, non­num­quam ca­pi­te plec­ten­di, sci­li­cet cum sae­pius sed­itio­se et tur­bu­len­te se ges­se­rint et ali­quo­tiens ad­pre­hen­si trac­ta­ti cle­men­tius in ea­dem te­me­ri­ta­te pro­pos­i­ti per­se­ve­ra­ve­rint. 4Ser­vi cae­si so­lent do­mi­nis red­di. 5Et ut ge­ne­ra­li­ter di­xe­rim, om­nes, qui fus­ti­bus cae­di pro­hi­ben­tur, ean­dem ha­be­re ho­no­ris re­ve­ren­tiam de­bent, quam de­cu­rio­nes ha­bent. est enim in­con­stans di­ce­re eum, quem prin­ci­pa­les con­sti­tu­tio­nes fus­ti­bus sub­ici pro­hi­bue­runt, in me­tal­lum da­ri pos­se. 6Di­vus Ha­d­ria­nus in haec ver­ba re­scrip­sit: ‘In opus me­tal­li ad tem­pus ne­mo dam­na­ri de­bet. sed qui ad tem­pus dam­na­tus est, et­iam­si fa­ciet me­tal­lic­um opus, non in me­tal­lum dam­na­tus es­se in­tel­le­gi de­bet: hu­ius enim li­ber­tas ma­net, quam­diu et­iam hi, qui in per­pe­tuum opus dam­nan­tur’. pro­in­de et mu­lie­res hoc mo­do dam­na­tae li­be­ros pa­riunt. 7Ad sta­tuas con­fu­ge­re vel ima­gi­nes prin­ci­pum in in­iu­riam al­te­rius pro­hi­bi­tum est. cum enim le­ges om­ni­bus ho­mi­ni­bus ae­qua­li­ter se­cu­ri­ta­tem tri­buant, me­ri­to vi­sum est in in­iu­riam po­tius al­te­rius quam sui de­fen­sio­nis gra­tia ad sta­tuas vel ima­gi­nes prin­ci­pum con­fu­ge­re: ni­si si quis ex vin­cu­lis vel cus­to­dia de­ten­tus a po­ten­tio­ri­bus ad hu­ius­mo­di prae­si­dium con­fu­ge­rit: his enim ve­nia tri­buen­da est. ne au­tem ad sta­tuas vel ima­gi­nes quis con­fu­giat, se­na­tus cen­suit: eum­que, qui ima­gi­nem Cae­sa­ris in in­vi­diam al­te­rius prae­tu­lis­set, in vin­cu­la pu­bli­ca co­er­ce­ri di­vus Pius re­scrip­sit. 8Om­nia ad­mis­sa in pa­tro­num pa­tro­ni­ve fi­lium pa­trem pro­pin­quum ma­ri­tum uxo­rem ce­te­ras­que ne­ces­si­tu­di­nes gra­vius vin­di­can­da sunt quam in ex­tra­neos. 9Ve­nena­rii ca­pi­te pu­nien­di sunt aut, si dig­ni­ta­tis re­spec­tum agi opor­tue­rit, de­por­tan­di. 10Gras­sa­to­res, qui prae­dae cau­sa id fa­ciunt, pro­xi­mi la­tro­ni­bus ha­ben­tur. et si cum fer­ro ad­gre­di et spo­lia­re in­sti­tue­runt, ca­pi­te pu­niun­tur, uti­que si sae­pius at­que in iti­ne­ri­bus hoc ad­mi­se­runt: ce­te­ri in me­tal­lum dan­tur vel in in­su­las rele­gan­tur. 11Ig­ni cre­man­tur ple­rum­que ser­vi, qui sa­lu­ti do­mi­no­rum suo­rum in­si­dia­ve­rint, non­num­quam et­iam li­be­ri ple­be­ii et hu­mi­les per­so­nae. 12In­cen­dia­rii ca­pi­te pu­niun­tur, qui ob in­imi­ci­tias vel prae­dae cau­sa in­cen­de­rint in­tra op­pi­dum: et ple­rum­que vi­vi ex­urun­tur. qui ve­ro ca­sam aut vil­lam, ali­quo le­nius. nam for­tui­ta in­cen­dia, si, cum vi­ta­ri pos­sent, per neg­le­gen­tiam eo­rum, apud quos or­ta sunt, dam­no vi­ci­nis fue­runt, ci­vi­li­ter ex­er­cen­tur (ut qui iac­tu­ra ad­fec­tus est, dam­ni dis­cep­tet) vel mo­di­ce vin­di­ca­re­tur. 13In ex­uli­bus gra­dus poe­na­rum con­sti­tu­ti edic­to di­vi Ha­d­ria­ni, ut qui ad tem­pus rele­ga­tus est, si red­eat in in­su­lam rele­ge­tur, qui rele­ga­tus in in­su­lam ex­ces­se­rit, in in­su­lam de­por­te­tur, qui de­por­ta­tus eva­se­rit, ca­pi­te pu­nia­tur. 14Ita et in cus­to­diis gra­dum ser­van­dum es­se idem prin­ceps re­scrip­sit, id est ut, qui in tem­pus dam­na­ti erant, in per­pe­tuum dam­na­ren­tur, qui in per­pe­tuum dam­na­ti erant, in me­tal­lum dam­na­ren­tur, qui in me­tal­lum dam­na­ti id ad­mi­se­rint, sum­mo sup­pli­cio ad­fi­ce­ren­tur. 15Fa­mo­sos la­tro­nes in his lo­cis, ubi gras­sa­ti sunt, fur­ca fi­gen­dos com­plu­ri­bus pla­cuit, ut et con­spec­tu de­ter­rean­tur alii ab is­dem fa­ci­no­ri­bus et so­la­cio sit co­gna­tis et ad­fi­ni­bus in­ter­emp­to­rum eo­dem lo­co poe­na red­di­ta, in quo la­tro­nes ho­mi­ci­dia fe­cis­sent: non­nul­li et­iam ad bes­tias hos dam­na­ve­runt. 16Ma­io­res nos­tri in om­ni sup­pli­cio se­ve­rius ser­vos quam li­be­ros, fa­mo­sos quam in­te­grae fa­mae ho­mi­nes pu­nie­runt.

The Same, On Judicial Inquiries, Book VI. The following is the gradation of capital crimes. The extreme penalty is considered to be sentence to the gallows, or burning alive. Although the latter seems, with good reason, to have been included in the term “extreme penalty,” still, because this kind of punishment was invented subsequently, it appears to come after the first, just as decapitation does. The next penalty to death is that of labor in the mines. After that comes deportation to an island. 1Other penalties have reference to reputation, without incurring the danger of death; as, for instance, relegation for a certain term of years, or for life, or to an island; or sentence to labor on the public works; or where the culprit is subjected to the punishment of whipping. 2It is not customary for all persons to be whipped, but only men who are free and of inferior station; those of higher rank are not subjected to the penalty of castigation. This is specially provided by the Imperial Rescripts. 3Some persons who are ordinarily called young are, in some turbulent cities, accustomed to encourage the clamors of the mob. If they have not done anything more than this, and have not previously been warned by the Governor, they are punished by being whipped, or are even forbidden to be present at exhibitions. If, however, after having been corrected in this way they are again detected committing the same offence, they should be punished with exile, and sometimes with death; that is to say, when they have frequently acted in a seditious or turbulent manner, and, having been arrested several times, and treated with too much clemency, they have persevered in their bold designs. 4Slaves who have been whipped are usually restored to their masters. 5And, generally speaking, I should say that all those whom it is not permitted to punish by whipping are persons that should have the same respect shown them that decurions have. For it would be inconsistent to hold that anyone whom the Emperors have, by their Constitutions, forbidden to be whipped, should be sentenced to the mines. 6The Divine Hadrian stated in a Rescript: “No one should be condemned to the mines for a specified term, but anyone who is sentenced for a term, and performs labor connected with the mines, ought not to be understood to be condemned to the mines; for his liberty continues to exist as long as he is not condemned to labor for life.” Hence, women sentenced in this way have children who are free. 7It is forbidden to seek sanctuary at the statues or portraits of the Emperor, in order to cause another injury; for as the laws afford equal security to all men, it seems reasonable that he who takes refuge at the statues or the portraits of the Emperor does so rather in order to injure another than to provide for his own safety, unless someone who was confined in chains or in prison by persons more powerful than himself has recourse to this safeguard; for such persons ought to be excused. The Senate decreed that no one shall flee for refuge to the statues or portraits of the Emperor; and the Divine Pius stated in a Rescript that anyone who carried before him an image of the Emperor, for the purpose of incurring the hatred of another, should be punished by being placed in chains. 8All offences committed against a patron or the son of a patron, a father, a near relative, a husband, a wife, or other persons to whom anyone is nearly related, should be punished with more severity than if they were committed against strangers. 9Poisoners should be punished with death, or if it is necessary to show respect to their rank, they should be deported. 10Highwaymen, who pursue this occupation for the sake of booty, are regarded as greatly resembling thieves; and when they make an attack and rob while armed, they are punished with death, if they have committed this crime repeatedly and on the highways; others are sentenced to the mines, or relegated to islands. 11Slaves who have plotted against the lives of their masters are generally put to death by fire; sometimes freemen, also, suffer this penalty, if they are plebeians and persons of low rank. 12Incendiaries are punished with death when, either induced by enmity or for the sake of plunder, they have caused a fire in the interior of a town; and they are generally burned alive. Those also who have “burned a house or a hut, in the country, are punished a little more leniently. For if accidental fires could have been avoided, and were caused by the negligence of those on whose premises they originated, and resulted in injury to the neighbors; the responsible parties are prosecuted civilly to enable anyone who has suffered loss to recover damages, or they may be subjected to moderate punishment. 13A graduated scale of penalties with reference to exiles was established by an Edict of the Divine Hadrian, so that if anyone who was relegated for a term returned before it expired, he should be relegated to an island; and if one who was relegated to an island left it, he should be deported to an island; and if anyone, after having been deported, escaped, he should be punished with death. 14The same Emperor stated in a Rescript, that a certain gradation should be observed with reference to prisoners, that is to say, those who were sentenced for a certain term should, under similar circumstances, be sentenced for life; those who had been sentenced for life should be condemned to the mines; and when those have been condemned to the mines committed such an act, they should suffer the extreme penalty. 15It has been held by many authorities that notorious robbers should be hanged in those very places which they had subjected to pillage, in order that others might be deterred by their example from perpetrating the same crimes, and that it might be a consolation to the relatives and connections of the persons who had been killed that the penalty should be inflicted in the same place where the robbers committed the homicides. Some also condemned them to be thrown to wild beasts. 16Our ancestors, in inflicting every penalty, treated slaves more harshly than persons who are free; and they punished those who are notorious with greater severity than men of good reputation.

Dig. 48,20,2Idem li­bro sex­to de co­gni­tio­ni­bus. Non ut quis in car­ce­rem duc­tus est, spo­lia­ri eum opor­tet, sed post con­dem­na­tio­nem: id­que di­vus Ha­d­ria­nus re­scrip­sit.

The Same, On Judicial Inquiries, Book VI. It is not necessary to strip a person of his clothing when he is placed in prison, but only after he has been sentenced. This was stated by the Divine Hadrian in a Rescript.

Dig. 49,14,12Cal­lis­tra­tus li­bro sex­to de co­gni­tio­ni­bus. In me­tal­lum dam­na­tis li­ber­tas ad­imi­tur, cum et­iam ver­be­ri­bus ser­vi­li­bus co­er­cen­tur. sa­ne per hu­ius­mo­di per­so­nam fis­co ni­hil ad­quiri di­vus Pius re­scrip­sit: et id­eo quod le­ga­tum erat ei, qui post­ea in me­tal­lum dam­na­tus erat, ad fis­cum non per­ti­ne­re re­scrip­sit ma­gis­que ait poe­nae eos quam fis­ci ser­vos es­se.

Callistratus, On Judicial Inquiries, Book VI. Persons condemned to the mines are deprived of their freedom, as they are punished with the blows of a slave. The Divine Pius stated in a Rescript that nothing is acquired by the Treasury through persons of this kind; and therefore he decided that anything which was bequeathed to a man who was afterwards condemned to the mines would not belong to the Treasury, for he says that such persons are rather penal slaves than slaves of the Treasury.

Dig. 50,2,12Idem li­bro sex­to co­gni­tio­num. Eos, qui uten­si­lia neg­otian­tur et ven­dunt, li­cet ab ae­di­li­bus cae­dun­tur, non opor­tet qua­si vi­les per­so­nas neg­le­gi. de­ni­que non sunt pro­hi­bi­ti hu­ius­mo­di ho­mi­nes de­cu­rio­na­tum vel ali­quem ho­no­rem in sua pa­tria pe­te­re: nec enim in­fa­mes sunt. sed ne qui­dem ar­cen­tur ho­no­ri­bus, qui ab ae­di­li­bus fla­gel­lis cae­si sunt, quam­quam iu­re suo ita ae­di­les of­fi­cio is­to fun­gan­tur. in­ho­nes­tum ta­men pu­to es­se hu­ius­mo­di per­so­nas fla­gel­lo­rum ic­ti­bus sub­iec­tas in or­di­nem re­ci­pi, et ma­xi­me in eis ci­vi­ta­ti­bus, quae co­piam vi­ro­rum ho­nes­to­rum ha­beant: nam pau­ci­tas eo­rum, qui mu­ne­ri­bus pu­bli­cis fun­gi de­beant, ne­ces­sa­ria et­iam hos ad dig­ni­ta­tem mu­ni­ci­pa­lem, si fa­cul­ta­tes ha­beant, in­vi­tat.

The Same, Judicial Inquiries, Book VI. Those who trade in and sell the necessaries of life should not be despised as degraded persons, although they are subject to chastisement by the Ædiles. For men of this kind are not prohibited from seeking the office of decurion, or any other honor in their own country, as they are not infamous; and they are not excluded from public employments, even after they have been scourged by the Ædiles, who are only discharging their lawful duty in doing so. I do not, however, think that it is honorable to receive persons of this kind, who have been subjected to blows with a scourge, into the order; and especially in towns which contain a number of honest men, but the scarcity of those who should discharge the duties of a public office necessarily calls such persons to municipal honors, if they possess the requisite qualifications.