De sepulchro violato
(Concerning the violation of sepulchres.)
1 Ulpianus libro secundo ad edictum praetoris. Sepulchri violati actio infamiam irrogat.
1 Ulpianus, On the Edict of the Prætor, Book II. The action for violating a sepulchre brands a person with infamy.
2 Idem libro octavo decimo ad edictum praetoris. Si sepulchrum quis diruit, cessat Aquilia: quod vi tamen aut clam agendum erit: et ita de statua de monumento evolsa Celsus scribit. idem quaerit, si neque adplumbata fuit neque adfixa, an pars monumenti effecta sit an vero maneat in bonis nostris: et Celsus scribit sic esse monumenti ut ossuaria et ideo quod vi aut clam interdicto locum fore.
2 The Same, On the Edict of the Prætor, Book XVIII. Where anyone demolishes a sepulchre, the Aquilian Law does not apply, but proceedings can be instituted under the interdict Quod vi out clam. This opinion was also stated by Celsus with reference to a statue torn from a monument. He also asks if it was not fastened with lead, or attached to the tomb, in any way, whether it should be considered a part of the monument, or a part of our property. Celsus says that it is a part of the monument, as a receptacle of bones, and therefore the interdict Quod vi aut clam, will be applicable.
3 Ulpianus libro vicensimo quinto ad edictum praetoris. Praetor ait: ‘Cuius dolo malo sepulchrum violatum esse dicetur, in eum in factum iudicium dabo, ut ei, ad quem pertineat, quanti ob eam rem aequum videbitur, condemnetur. si nemo erit, ad quem pertineat, sive agere nolet: quicumque agere volet, ei centum aureorum actionem dabo. si plures agere volent, cuius iustissima causa esse videbitur, ei agendi potestatem faciam. si quis in sepulchro dolo malo habitaverit aedificiumve aliud, quamque sepulchri causa factum sit, habuerit: in eum, si quis eo nomine agere volet, ducentorum aureorum iudicium dabo’. 1Prima verba ostendunt eum demum ex hoc plecti, qui dolo malo violavit. si igitur dolus absit, cessabit eiusdem. personae igitur doli non capaces, ut admodum impuberes, item omnes, qui non animo violandi accedunt, excusati sunt. 2Sepulchri autem appellatione omnem sepulturae locum contineri existimandum est. 3Si quis in hereditarium sepulchrum inferat, quamvis heres, tamen potest sepulchri violati teneri, si forte contra voluntatem testatoris intulit: licet enim cavere testatori, ne quis eo inferatur, ut rescripto imperatoris Antonini cavetur: servari enim voluntatem eius oportere. ergo et si cavit, ut unus tantum heredum inferret, servabitur, ut solus inferat. 4Non perpetuae sepulturae tradita corpora posse transferri edicto divi Severi continetur, quo mandatur, ne corpora detinerentur aut vexarentur aut prohiberentur per territoria oppidorum transferri. divus tamen Marcus rescripsit nullam poenam meruisse eos, qui corpus in itinere defuncti per vicos aut oppidum transvexerunt, quamvis talia fieri sine permissu eorum, quibus permittendi ius est, non debeant. 5Divus Hadrianus rescripto poenam statuit quadraginta aureorum in eos qui in civitate sepeliunt, quam fisco inferri iussit, et in magistratus eadem qui passi sunt, et locum publicari iussit et corpus transferri. quid tamen, si lex municipalis permittat in civitate sepeliri? post rescripta principalia an ab hoc discessum sit, videbimus, quia generalia sunt rescripta et oportet imperialia statuta suam vim optinere et in omni loco valere. 6Si quis in sepulchro habitasset aedificiumve habuisset, ei qui velit agendi potestas fit. 7Adversus eos, qui cadavera spoliant, praesides severius intervenire, maxime si manu armata adgrediantur, ut, si armati more latronum id egerint, etiam capite plectantur, ut divus Severus rescripsit, si sine armis, usque ad poenam metalli procedunt. 8Qui de sepulchri violati actione iudicant, aestimabunt, quatenus intersit, scilicet ex iniuria quae facta est, item ex lucro eius qui violavit, vel ex damno quod contigit, vel ex temeritate eius qui fecit: numquam tamen minoris debent condemnare, quam solent extraneo agente. 9Si ad plures ius sepulchri pertineat, utrum omnibus damus actionem an ei qui occupavit? Labeo omnibus dandam dicit recte, quia in id, quod uniuscuiusque interest, agitur. 10Si is cuius interest sepulchri violati agere nollet, potest paenitentia acta, antequam lis ab alio contestetur, dicere velle se agere et audietur. 11Si servus in sepulchro habitat vel aedificavit, noxalis actio cessat et in eum praetor hanc actionem pollicetur. si tamen non habitet, sed domunculam ibi habeat servus, noxale iudicium erit dandum, si modo habere posse videtur. 12Haec actio popularis est.
3 Ulpianus, On the Edict of the Prætor, Book V. The Prætor says: “If a sepulchre is said to have been violated by anyone maliciously, I will grant an action in factum against him, in order that he may be condemned for an amount which may appear to be just, in favor of the party interested. If there is no one who is interested, or if there is and he declines to bring suit, and anyone else is willing to do so, I will grant him an action for a hundred aurei. If several persons should desire to institute proceedings, I will grant power to do so to him whose cause appears to be the most just. Where anyone, with malicious intent, inhabits a sepulchre, or constructs any other edifice than that which is intended for a tomb, I will grant an action for two hundred aurei to anyone who is willing to bring it in his own name.” 1The first words of this Edict show that he who violates a sepulchre with malicious intent is punished by it. Therefore, if there is no malicious intent, the penalty will not apply. Hence, those who are not capable of criminality, as, for instance, children under the age of puberty, as well as persons who did not approach the sepulchre with the intention of violating it, are excused. 2Every place of sepulture is understood to be included in the term sepulchre. 3If anyone should place a body in an hereditary tomb, even though it be the heir, he will still be liable to the action for violation of a sepulchre, if he did so against the wish of the testator; for a testator is permitted to provide that no one shall be buried in his tomb, as is stated in the Rescript of the Emperor Antoninus, for his wish must be complied with. Therefore, if he says that only one of the heirs can inter persons therein, this must be observed, so that the designated heir alone may do so. 4It is provided by an Edict of the Divine Severus that bodies may be transferred, which have not been buried in one place for all time; and by this Edict it is directed that the transportation of bodies shall not be delayed, or meddled with, or they shall not be prevented from being conveyed through territory belonging to cities. The Divine Marcus, however, stated in a Rescript that those who transported bodies on the highways through villages or towns were not liable to any penalty, although this should not be done without the permission of those who have the right to grant it. 5The Divine Hadrian, by a Rescript, fixed a penalty of forty aurei against those who buried dead bodies in cities, and he ordered the penalty to be paid to the Treasury. He also directed the same penalty to be inflicted against magistrates who suffered this to be done; and ordered the place to be sold by auction, and the body to be removed. But what if the municipal law permits burial in a city? Let us see whether this right has been annulled by the Imperial Rescripts, for the reason that Rescripts are of general application. The Imperial Rescripts must be enforced and are valid everywhere. 6Where anyone lives in a sepulchre or has a building on the ground, whoever desires to do so can bring the action. 7Governors are accustomed to proceed more severely against those who despoil dead bodies, especially if they go armed; for if they commit the offence armed like robbers, they are punished capitally, as the Divine Severus provided in a Rescript; but if they commit it unarmed, any penalty can be inflicted up to sentence to the mines. 8Those who have jurisdiction of the action for violating a sepulchre must estimate the amount of the interest in proportion to the injury which has been inflicted, as well as in proportion to the advantage obtained by the person guilty of the violation; or to the damage which resulted; or to the audacity of him who committed the offence. Still, judgment should be rendered for a smaller sum where the parties interested are the accusers than where a stranger brought the suit. 9If the right of sepulture belongs to several persons, shall we grant an action to all of them, or to the one who manifested the most diligence? Labeo very properly says that the action ought to be granted to all, because it is brought for the individual interest of each one. 10If the party in interest does not wish to bring suit for violation of the sepulchre, but, having changed his mind before issue was joined, says that he desires to proceed, he shall be heard. 11If a slave lives in a sepulchre, or builds a house there, a noxal action will not lie, and the Prætor promises this action against him. If, however, he does not live there, but uses the place as a resort, a noxal action will be granted, provided he appears to retain possession of the ground. 12This action is a popular one.
4 Paulus libro vicensimo septimo ad edictum praetoris. Sepulchra hostium religiosa nobis non sunt: ideoque lapides inde sublatos in quemlibet usum convertere possumus: non sepulchri violati actio competit.
4 Paulus, On the Edict of the Prætor, Book XXVII. The sepulchres of enemies are not religious places in our eyes, and therefore we can make use of any stones which have been removed from them for any purpose whatsoever, without becoming liable to the action for violating a sepulchre.
5 Pomponius libro sexto ex Plautio. Utimur eo iure, ut dominis fundorum, in quibus sepulchra fecerint, etiam post venditos fundos adeundorum sepulchrorum sit ius. legibus namque praediorum vendundorum cavetur, ut ad sepulchra, quae in fundis sunt, item eius aditus ambitus funeri faciendi sit.
5 Pomponius, On Plautius, Book IX. It is our practice to hold that the owners of land, in which they have set apart places of sepulture, have the right of access to the sepulchres, even after they have sold the land. For it is provided by the laws relating to the sale of real property that a right of way is reserved to sepulchres situated thereon, as well as the right to approach and surround them for the purpose of conducting funeral ceremonies.
6 Iulianus libro decimo digestorum. Sepulchri violati actio in primis datur ei, ad quem res pertinet. quo cessante si alius egerit, quamvis rei publicae causa afuerit dominus, non debebit ex integro adversus eum, qui litis aestimationem sustulerit, dari. nec potest videri deterior fieri condicio eius, qui rei publicae causa afuit, cum haec actio non ad rem familiarem eiusdem, magis ad ultionem pertineat.
6 Julianus, Digest, Book X. The action for violating a sepulchre is, first of all, granted to him to whom the property belongs, and if he does not proceed, and someone else does, even though the owner may be absent on business for the State, the action should not be granted a second time against one who has paid the damages assessed. The condition of the person who was absent on business for the State cannot be held to have become worse, as this action does not so much concern his private affairs as it does the public vengeance.
7 Marcianus libro tertio institutionum. Sepulchri deteriorem condicionem fieri prohibitum est: sed corruptum et lapsum monumentum corporibus non contactis licet reficere.
7 Marcianus, Institutes, Book III. It is forbidden to make the condition of a sepulchre worse, but it is lawful to repair a monument which has become decayed, and ruined, but without touching the bodies contained therein.
8 Macer libro primo publicorum. Sepulchri violati crimen potest dici ad legem Iuliam de vi publica pertinere ex illa parte, qua de eo cavetur, qui fecerit quid, quo minus aliquis funeretur sepeliaturve: quia et qui sepulchrum violat, facit, quo quis minus sepultus sit.
8 Macer, Public Prosecutions, Book I. The crime of violating a sepulchre may be considered as coming within the terms of the Julian Law relating to public violence, and that part in which it is provided that he shall be punished who prevents anyone from celebrating funeral ceremonies, or burying a corpse; because he who violates a sepulchre commits an act preventing interment.
9 Idem libro secundo publicorum iudiciorum. De sepulchro violato actio quoque pecuniaria datur.
9 The Same, Public Prosecutions, Book II. A pecuniary action is also granted for violating a sepulchre.
10 Papinianus libro octavo quaestionum. Quaesitum est, an ad heredem necessarium, cum se bonis non miscuisset, actio sepulchri violati pertineret. dixi recte eum ea actione experiri, quae in bonum et aequum concepta est: nec tamen si egerit, hereditarios creditores timebit, cum etsi per hereditatem optigit haec actio, nihil tamen ex defuncti capiatur voluntate, neque id capiatur, quod in rei persecutione, sed in sola vindicta sit constitutum.
10 Papinianus, Questions, Book VIII. The question arose whether the right of action for violating a sepulchre belongs to the necessary heir, when he has not meddled with the property of the estate. I held that he can very properly bring this action, which is introduced in accordance with what is good and just. And, if he should bring it, he need have no apprehension of the creditors of the estate; for although this action is derived from it, still nothing is received through the will of the deceased, nor is anything obtained from the pursuit of the property, but only in consequence of the punishment inflicted by the law.
11 Paulus libro quinto sententiarum. Rei sepulchrorum violatorum, si corpora ipsa extraxerint vel ossa eruerint, humilioris quidem fortunae summo supplicio adficiuntur, honestiores in insulam deportantur. alias autem relegantur aut in metallum damnantur.
11 Paulus, Sentences, Book V. Persons guilty of having violated sepulchres, and who have removed bodies or the bones, are punished with the extreme penalty if they are of low rank; those of higher rank are deported to some island; others still are either relegated, or condemned to the mines.