De servo corrupto
(Concerning the corruption of a slave.)
1 Ulpianus libro vicensimo tertio ad edictum. Ait praetor: ‘Qui servum servam alienum alienam recepisse persuasisseve quid ei dicetur dolo malo, quo eum eam deteriorem faceret, in eum quanti ea res erit in duplum iudicium dabo.’ 1Qui bona fide servum emit, hoc edicto non tenebitur, quia nec ipse poterit servi corrupti agere, quia nihil eius interest servum non corrumpi: et sane, si quis hoc admiserit, eveniet, ut duobus actio servi corrupti competat, quod est absurdum. sed nec eum, cui bona fide homo liber servit, hanc actionem posse exercere opinamur. 2Quod autem praetor ait ‘recepisse’, ita accipimus, si susceperit servum alienum ad se: et est proprie recipere refugium abscondendi causa servo praestare vel in suo agro vel in alieno loco aedificiove. 3Persuadere autem est plus quam compelli atque cogi sibi parere. sed persuadere τῶν μέσων ἐστίν, nam et bonum consilium quis dando potest suadere et malum: et ideo praetor adiecit ‘dolo malo, quo eum deteriorem faceret’: neque enim delinquit, nisi qui tale aliquid servo persuadet, ex quo eum faciat deteriorem. qui igitur servum sollicitat ad aliquid vel faciendum vel cogitandum improbe, hic videtur hoc edicto notari. 4Sed utrum ita demum tenetur, si bonae frugi servum perpulit ad delinquendum, an vero et si malum hortatus est vel malo monstravit, quemadmodum faceret? et est verius etiam si malo monstravit, in quem modum delinqueret, teneri eum. immo et si erat servus omnimodo fugiturus vel furtum facturus, hic vero laudator huius propositi extitit, tenetur: non enim oportet laudando augeri malitiam. sive ergo bonum servum fecerit malum sive malum fecerit deteriorem, corrupisse videbitur. 5Is quoque deteriorem facit, qui servo persuadet, ut iniuriam faceret vel furtum vel fugeret vel alienum servum ut sollicitaret vel ut peculium intricaret, aut amator existeret vel erro vel malis artibus esset deditus vel in spectaculis nimius vel seditiosus: vel si actori suasit verbis sive pretio, ut rationes dominicas intercideret adulteraret vel etiam ut rationem sibi commissam turbaret:
1 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXIII. The Prætor says: “Where anyone is alleged to have harbored a male or female slave belonging to another, or have persuaded him or her maliciously to do anything which would depreciate the value of him or her, I will grant an action for double the value of the property.” 1He will not be liable under this Edict who purchases a slave in good faith, nor can he bring an action for the corruption of the slave, because he has no interest in the slave not being corrupted; and, in fact, if anyone should admit that this is true, the result would be that an action would lie in favor of two parties for the corruption of the slave, which is absurd. We are of the opinion that this action cannot be brought by a party whom a free man is serving as a slave in good faith. 2When the Prætor says “harbors,” we understand this to mean where anyone takes under his protection a slave belonging to another; and this, properly speaking, signifies giving him refuge for the purpose of concealing him, either on his own premises, or in a place or building belonging to another. 3“To persuade” does not exactly mean to compel and force anyone to obey you, but it is a term of moderate signification; for anyone can persuade another by either good or bad advice, and therefore the Prætor adds “maliciously,” by which he “diminishes the value,” hence, a party does not commit the offence unless he persuades the slave to do something by which his value may be lessened, and therefore, where a party solicits a slave either to do something or to contrive something which is dishonorable, he is held to be subject to this Edict. 4Shall a person, however, be liable where he has driven a slave of good habits to commit a crime, or instigates a bad slave, or shows him how to perpetrate the act? The better opinion is that even if he showed the bad slave how to perpetrate the offence he will be liable. And, in fact, if the slave had already intended to take to flight, or to commit a theft, and the person referred to should have approved of his intention, he will be liable, for the malice of the slave should not be increased by praising him; therefore, whether he made a good slave bad or a bad slave worse, he will still be held to have corrupted him. 5He also makes a slave worse who persuades him to commit some injury or theft, or induces him to take to flight, or instigates the slave of another to do these things, or to confuse his peculium, or to be a lover of women, or to wander about, or to devote himself to magical arts, or to be present too often at exhibitions, or to be riotous; or to persuade a slave who is a court official either by words or by bribery to mutilate or falsify the accounts of his master, or even to render an account of which he has been placed in charge unintelligible;
2 Paulus libro nono decimo ad edictum. vel luxuriosum vel contumacem fecit: quive ut stuprum pateretur persuadet.
2 Paulus, On the Edict, Book XIX. Or makes him extravagant or disobedient, or persuades him to indulge in debauchery.
3 Ulpianus libro vicensimo tertio ad edictum. Dolo malo adiecto calliditatem notat praetor eius qui persuadet: ceterum si quis sine dolo deteriorem fecerit, non notatur, et si lusus gratia fecit, non tenetur. 1Unde quaeritur, si quis servo alieno suaserit in tectum ascendere vel in puteum descendere et ille parens ascenderit vel descenderit et ceciderit crusque vel quid aliud fregerit vel perierit, an teneatur: et si quidem sine dolo malo fecerit, non tenetur, si dolo malo, tenebitur.
3 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXIII. By the addition of the term “maliciously” the Prætor refers to the deceit of the party who persuades the slave, but if anyone should depreciate the value of the slave without malicious intent, he does not incur disgrace; and he is not liable if he does this for a joke. 1For this reason a question arises if anyone should persuade a slave belonging to another to climb up on a roof, or to descend into a well, and he, obeying, ascends or descends and breaks a leg or any other limb, or loses his life; will the party be liable? If he did this without malicious intent he will not be liable, but if he did it maliciously he will be;
4 Paulus libro nono decimo ad edictum. Sed commodius est utili lege Aquilia eum teneri.
4 Paulus, On the Edict, Book XIX. It is more convenient, however, to hold him liable to a prætorian action under the Lex Aquilia.
5 Ulpianus libro vicensimo tertio ad edictum. Doli verbum etiam ad eum qui recepit referendum est, ut non alius teneatur, nisi qui dolo malo recepit: ceterum si quis, ut domino custodiret, recepit vel humanitate vel misericordia ductus vel alia probata atque iusta ratione, non tenebitur. 1Si quis dolo malo persuaserit quid servo quem liberum putabat, mihi videtur teneri eum oportere: maius enim delinquit, qui liberum putans corrumpit: et ideo, si servus fuerit, tenebitur. 2Haec actio etiam adversus fatentem in duplum est, quamvis Aquilia infitiantem dumtaxat coerceat. 3Si servus servave fecisse dicetur, iudicium cum noxae deditione redditur. 4Haec actio refertur ad tempus servi corrupti vel recepti, non ad praesens, et ideo et si decesserit vel alienatus sit vel manumissus, nihilo minus locum habebit actio, nec extinguitur manumissione semel nata actio:
5 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXIII. The term “maliciously” also has reference to a person who harbors a slave, so that he is not liable unless he acted maliciously in doing so. If, however, anyone harbors a slave in order to hold him for his master, or, induced by humanity or pity, or for some other reason which is praiseworthy and just, he will not be liable. 1Where anyone maliciously persuades a slave whom he thought to be free to commit some act, it seems to me that he should be held liable; for he is guilty of a greater offence who, thinking a man is free, corrupts him, and therefore if he is a slave the party will be liable. 2This action is for double damages, even against a party who confesses, although the Lex Aquilia only imposes this penalty upon one who makes a denial. 3Where a male or female slave is said to have committed the act, an action is granted with the privilege of surrendering the slave by way of reparation. 4This action has reference to the time when the slave was corrupted or harbored, and not to the present time; and therefore if the slave should die, or be sold or manumitted, the action can, nevertheless, be brought; and where the right has once arisen, it is not extinguished by manumission;
6 Paulus libro nono decimo ad edictum. praeteritae enim utilitatis aestimatio in hoc iudicium versatur:
6 Paulus, On the Edict, Book XIX. For the estimate of former value is made for the purposes of this action;
7 Ulpianus libro vicensimo tertio ad edictum. nam et mali servi forsitan consequuntur libertatem et posterior causa interdum tribuit manumissionis iustam rationem.
7 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXIII. Since bad slaves may perhaps obtain their freedom, and sometimes good reasons may arise subsequently for their manumission.
8 Paulus libro nono decimo ad edictum. Sed et heres eius, cuius servus corruptus est, habet hanc actionem, non solum si manserit in hereditate servus, sed et si exierit, forte legatus.
8 Paulus, On the Edict, Book XIX. An heir, whose slave was corrupted, is entitled to this action, not only where the slave continues to be a portion of the estate, but also where he has ceased to be such; for instance, where he has been bequeathed.
9 Ulpianus libro vicensimo tertio ad edictum. Si quis servum communem meum et suum corruperit, apud Iulianum libro nono digestorum quaeritur, an hac actione teneri possit, et ait teneri eum socio: praeterea poterit et communi dividundo et pro socio, si socii sint, teneri, ut Iulianus ait. sed cur deteriorem facit Iulianus condicionem socii, si cum socio agat, quam si cum extraneo agit? nam qui cum extraneo agit, sive recepit sive corruperit agere potest, qui cum socio, sine alternatione, id est si corrupit. nisi forte non putavit Iulianus hoc cadere in socium: nemo enim suum [ed. maior recipit] <ed. minor recepit>. sed si celandi animo recepit, potest defendi teneri eum. 1Si in servo ego habeam usum fructum, tu proprietatem, si quidem a me sit deterior factus, poteris mecum experiri, si tu id feceris, ego agere utili actione possum; ad omnes enim corruptelas haec actio pertinet et interesse fructuarii videtur bonae frugi servum esse, in quo usum fructum habet. et si forte alius eum receperit vel corruperit, utilis actio fructuario competit. 2Datur autem actio quanti ea res erit eius dupli. 3Sed quaestionis est, aestimatio utrum eius dumtaxat fieri debeat, quod servus in corpore vel in animo damni senserit, hoc est quanto vilior servus factus sit, an vero et ceterorum. et Neratius ait tanti condemnandum corruptorem, quanti servus ob id, quod subpertus sit, minoris sit.
9 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXIII. The question is asked by Julianus in the Ninth Book of the Digest, whether a party who corrupts a slave owned in common by myself and him, can be held liable to this action; and he says that he can be held liable by the other joint-owner; and, moreover, that suit can be brought against him for the partition of common property, and also on the ground of partnership, if the joint-owners are partners. But why does Julianus make the condition of the partner worse when he brings suit as such, than where he institutes proceedings against a stranger? Where an action is brought against a stranger, this can be done whether he harbored or corrupted the slave, but when it is brought on the ground of partnership, this is done without the alternative, that is to say, without the allegation of harboring him; for perhaps Julianus thought that this did not affect the partner, for no one can harbor his own slave; but if he did so for the purpose of concealing him, it can be maintained that he is liable. 1Where I have the usufruct in a slave and you the mere ownership, and the said slave is deteriorated by me, you can institute proceedings against me; but if you committed the act, I can proceed against you by means of a prætorian action; for this action is applicable to all kinds of corruption, and it is to the interest of the usufructuary for the slave in whom he enjoys this right to be of good habits. The usufructuary is also entitled to a prætorian action if another party should harbor or corrupt the slave. 2This action is also granted for double the value of the property. 3But it is still a question whether an estimate of the damage sustained by the slave in body or disposition should only be made, that is to say, of the amount of diminution of the value of the slave, or whether other things should be also taken into consideration. Neratius states that the party guilty of corrupting the slave should be compelled to pay damages to the amount to which the value of the slave is diminished on account of his being corrupted.
10 Paulus libro nono decimo ad edictum. In hoc iudicium etiam rerum aestimatio venit, quas secum servus abstulit, quia omne damnum duplatur, neque intererit, ad eum perlatae fuerint res an ad alium sive etiam consumptae sint: etenim iustius est eum teneri, qui princeps fuerit delicti, quam eum quaeri, ad quem res perlatae sunt.
10 Paulus, On the Edict, Book XIX. In this case an appraisement of the property which the slave took away with him is also included, as all the loss is doubled, and it makes no difference whether the property was brought to the defendant or to another, or was even consumed; for it is more just that the party who was the principal in the offence should be held liable, than for him to be sought for to whom the property was brought.
11 Ulpianus libro vicensimo tertio ad edictum. Neratius ait postea furta facta in aestimationem non venire. quam sententiam veram puto: nam et verba edicti ‘quanti ea res erit’ omne detrimentum recipiunt. 1Servo persuasi, ut chirografa debitorum corrumpat: videlicet tenebor. sed si consuetudine peccandi postea et rationes ceteraque similia instrumenta subtraxerit vel interleverit deleverit, dicendum erit corruptorem horum nomine non teneri. 2Quamvis autem rerum subtractarum nomine servi corrupti competat actio, tamen et furti agere possumus, ope enim consilio sollicitatoris videntur res abesse: nec sufficiet alterutra actione egisse, quia altera alteram non minuit. idem et in eo, qui servum recepit et celavit et deteriorem fecit, Iulianus scribit: sunt enim diversa maleficia furis et eius qui deteriorem servum facit: hoc amplius et condictionis nomine tenebitur. quamvis enim condictione hominem, poenam autem furti actione consecutus sit, tamen et quod interest debebit consequi actione servi corrupti,
11 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXIII. Neratius says that where thefts are committed afterwards, they are not to be included in the estimate. This opinion I think to be correct, for the words of the Edict, “As much as the value of the property,” embrace all damage. 1I persuade a slave to deface notes of debtors, and I undoubtedly will be liable; but if, on account of the habit of committing breaches of the law which he has contracted, the slave steals, defaces, or destroys, other documents of this kind, it must be said that the person who corrupted him is not liable on account of these acts. 2Although an action will lie for the corruption of slaves with reference to property which is stolen, we can, nevertheless, bring an action for theft, as it must be held that the articles were removed with the aid and advice of the party who made the solicitation; nor will it be sufficient to bring either one of the actions, because the employment of one does not cause the other to be dispensed with. Julianus says the same thing with reference to a party who harbors and conceals a slave, and deteriorates him; for the offences of theft and of deteriorating a slave are distinct. In addition to this, the party will be liable to a personal action for the recovery of the property; for although the other may have obtained the slave by means of a suit of this kind, as well as a penalty by an action for theft, still, he is entitled to an action for the corruption of the slave to the amount of his interest:
12 Paulus libro nono decimo ad edictum. quia manet reus obligatus etiam rebus redditis.
12 Paulus, On the Edict, Book XIX. For the reason that the defendant is still bound, although the property has been restored.
13 Ulpianus libro vicensimo tertio ad edictum. Haec actio perpetua est, non temporaria: et heredi ceterisque successoribus competit, in heredem non dabitur, quia poenalis est. 1Sed et si quis servum hereditarium corruperit, hac actione tenebitur: sed et petitione hereditatis quasi praedo tenebitur,
13 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXIII. This action is a perpetual one, and is not limited by time, and lies in favor of the heir and other successors; but it will not be granted against an heir, because it is a penal one. 1A party is also liable to this action if he corrupts a slave belonging to an estate; and he is also liable in a suit for the estate as a depredator,
14 Paulus libro nono decimo ad edictum. ut tantum veniat in hereditatis petitionem quantum in hanc actionem. 1De filio filiave familias corruptis huic edicto locus non est, quia servi corrupti constituta actio est, qui in patrimonio nostro esset, et pauperiorem se factum esse dominus probare potest dignitate et fama domus integra manente: sed utilis competit officio iudicis aestimanda, quoniam interest nostra animum liberorum nostrorum non corrumpi. 2Si servus communis meus et tuus proprium meum servum corruperit, Sabinus non posse agi cum socio, perinde atque si proprius meus servus corrupisset conservum. item si servus communis extraneum corruperit, videndum est, utrum cum duobus agi debeat an et cum singulis exemplo ceterarum noxarum: et magis est, ut unusquisque in solidum teneatur, altero autem solvente alterum liberari. 3Si is, in quo usum fructum habeo, servum meum corruperit, erit mihi actio cum domino proprietatis. 4Pignoris dati nomine debitor habet hanc actionem. 5In hac actione non extra rem duplum est: id enim quod damni datum est duplatur. 6His consequenter et illud probatur, ut si servo meo persuaseris, ut Titio furtum faciat, non solum in id teneris, quo deterior servus effectus est, sed et in id quod Titio praestaturus sim. 7Item non solum si mihi damnum dederit consilio tuo, sed etiam si extraneo, eo quoque nomine mihi teneris, quod ego lege Aquilia obnoxius sim: aut si ex conducto teneor alicui, quod ei servum locavi et propter te deterior factus sit, teneberis et hoc nomine, et si qua talia sint. 8Aestimatio autem habetur in hac actione, quanti servus vilior factus sit, quod officio iudicis expedietur: 9Interdum tamen et inutilis sit, ut non expediat talem servum habere. utrum ergo et pretium cogitur dare sollicitator et servum dominus lucrifacit, an vero cogi debet dominus restituere servum et pretium servi accipere? et verius est electionem domino dari, sive servum detinere cupit et damnum, quanti deterior servus factus est, in duplum accipere, vel servo restituto, si copiam huius rei habeat, pretium consequi, quod si non habeat, pretium quidem simili modo accipere, cedere autem sollicitatori periculo eius de dominio servi actionibus. quod tamen de restitutione hominis dicitur, tunc locum habet, cum homine vivo agitur. quid autem si manumisso eo agatur? non facile apud iudicem audietur dicendo ideo se manumississe, quoniam habere noluerat domi, ut et pretium habeat et libertum.
14 Paulus, On the Edict, Book XIX. So that the action for the recovery of an estate may have the same scope as this action. 1This Edict does not apply in the case of the corruption of a son or a daughter under paternal control, as the action was established for corrupting a slave who is part of our property, and it is one in which the owner can prove that he has become poorer, although the honor and reputation of his family remain unimpaired. An equitable action for damages, however, will lie for an amount to be decided by the judge, since it is for our interest not to have the minds of our children corrupted. 2Where a slave who is owned in common by yourself and me corrupts a slave who is mine individually; Sabinus says that an action cannot be brought against the joint-owner any more than if my own slave had corrupted another of my slaves. Moreover, if a slave owned in common corrupts one owned by another, it should be considered whether an action can be brought against both joint-owners, or against each separately, in the same way as other offences which are the subject of noxal actions. The better opinion is that each owner is liable for the entire amount, but if one of them pays, the other will be released. 3Where a slave in whom I have an usufruct corrupts a slave belonging to me, I have a right of action against the mere owner of the property. 4A debtor is entitled to this action on account of a slave who has been given in pledge for the debt. 5In this action the double damages are not estimated in addition to the property, for what was doubled is the loss sustained. 6The result of this is that if it is proved that you have persuaded my slave to steal something from Titius; you will not only be liable to the extent to which the slave is deteriorated, but also for what I shall be obliged to pay to Titius. 7Again, you will be liable to me not only if the slave caused me loss on account of your advice, but also if he caused it to a stranger as well, because I am responsible under the Lex Aquilia; but if I am liable to anyone for hiring because I leased a slave to him, and he became deteriorated through your influence, you will be liable on this account, and also under similar circumstances. 8The estimate of damages made in this action depends upon how much the value of the slave was diminished, which is the question to be decided by the judge. 9Sometimes, in fact, the slave becomes worthless, so that it is of no advantage to have such a slave. In this instance, can the party who influenced him be compelled to pay the value of the slave, and the owner still hold him and profit by this; or should the owner be compelled to surrender the slave and accept his value? The better opinion is, that the owner should have the choice as to whether he would prefer to retain the slave and receive damages equal to double the amount to which the slave was deteriorated; or to surrender the slave, if he has the power to do so, and accept his value; and if he has not power to do this, he should still accept his value, and assign to the party who solicited the slave his right of action to recover the slave at his own risk. Whatever has been stated with reference to the surrender of the slave is only applicable where the slave is alive when proceedings are instituted. But what if proceedings were instituted after the slave was manumitted? The defendant will not readily be heard by the judge, if he alleges that he manumitted him because he did not wish to have him in his house, as he desired to obtain the money as well as the freedman.
15 Gaius libro sexto ad edictum provinciale. Corrumpitur animus servi et si persuadeatur ei, ut dominum contemneret.
15 Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book VI. The mind of a slave is corrupted if he is persuaded to treat his master with contempt.
16 Alfenus Varus libro secundo digestorum. Dominus servum dispensatorem manumisit, postea rationes ab eo accepit et cum eis non constaret, conperit apud quandam mulierculam pecuniam eum consumpsisse: quaerebatur, possetne agere servi corrupti cum ea muliere, cum is servus iam liber esset. respondi posse, sed etiam furti de pecuniis quas servus ad eam detulisset.
16 Alfenus Varus, Digest, Book II. The owner of a slave who had employed him as a steward manumitted him, and subsequently caused him to produce his accounts, and finding that they were not correct, he ascertained that the slave had spent the money on some woman. The question arose whether he could bring suit against this woman for corrupting the slave, as the slave was already free? I answered that he could, and that he could also do this for theft on account of the money which the slave had given her.
17 Marcianus libro quarto regularum. Servi corrupti nomine et Constante matrimonio marito in mulierem datur actio, sed favore nuptiarum in simplum.
17 Marcianus, Rules, Book IV. An action is granted a husband against his wife on account of corrupting a slave, even while marriage exists, but only for simple damages in consideration of matrimony.