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)
Dig. XLVIII15,
De lege Fabia de plagiariis
Liber quadragesimus octavus
XV.

De lege Fabia de plagiariis

(Concerning the Favian Law With Reference to Kidnappers.)

1Ul­pia­nus li­bro pri­mo re­gu­la­rum. Si li­be­rum ho­mi­nem emp­tor sciens eme­rit, ca­pi­ta­le cri­men ad­ver­sus eum ex le­ge Fa­bia de pla­gio nas­ci­tur, quo ven­di­tor quo­que fit ob­no­xius, si sciens li­be­rum es­se ven­di­de­rit.

1Ulpianus, Rules, Book I. Anyone who knowingly purchases a freeman incurs liability for a capital offence under the Favian Law against kidnapping; and the vendor also can be prosecuted under it if he sold the man being aware that he was free.

2Idem li­bro no­no de of­fi­cio pro­con­su­lis. Scien­dum est le­gem Fa­biam ad eos non per­ti­ne­re, qui, cum ab­sen­tes ser­vos ha­be­rent, eos ven­di­de­runt: aliud est enim ab­es­se, aliud in fu­ga es­se. 1Item non per­ti­ne­re ad eum, qui man­da­vit ser­vum fu­gi­ti­vum per­se­quen­dum et dis­tra­hen­dum: nec enim fu­gam ven­di­dit. 2Am­plius di­cen­dum est et si quis Ti­tio man­da­ve­rit ser­vum fu­gi­ti­vum ad­pre­hen­den­dum, ut, si ad­pre­hen­dis­set, eum emp­tum ha­be­ret, ces­sa­re se­na­tus con­sul­tum. 3Hoc au­tem se­na­tus con­sul­to do­mi­ni quo­que con­ti­nen­tur, qui fu­gam ser­vo­rum suo­rum ven­di­de­runt.

2The Same, On the Duties of Proconsul, Book IX. It must be remembered that the Favian Law does not relate to those who, having in their hands absent slaves, sell them; for it is one thing to be absent, and another to be in flight. 1Again, it does not apply to a person who has ordered his fugitive slave to be pursued and sold; for he did not sell a fugitive slave. 2It can further be said that if anyone orders Titius to arrest a fugitive slave, and, if he should do so, to hold him as purchased, the Decree of the Senate does not apply. 3Masters who have sold their slaves when in flight are also liable under this Decree of the Senate.

3Mar­cia­nus li­bro pri­mo iu­di­cio­rum pu­bli­co­rum. Le­gis Fa­biae cri­mi­ne sup­pres­si man­ci­pii bo­na fi­de pos­ses­sor non te­ne­tur, id est qui igno­ra­bat ser­vum alie­num, et qui vo­lun­ta­te do­mi­ni pu­ta­bat id eum age­re. et ita de bo­na fi­de pos­ses­so­re ip­sa lex scrip­ta est: nam ad­ici­tur ‘si sciens do­lo ma­lo hoc fe­ce­rit’: et sae­pis­si­me a prin­ci­pi­bus Se­ve­ro et An­to­ni­no con­sti­tu­tum est, ne bo­nae fi­dei pos­ses­so­res hac le­ge te­nean­tur. 1Il­lud non est omit­ten­dum, quod ex­em­plo le­gis Aqui­liae, si is, prop­ter quem quis in Fa­biam com­mi­sit, de­ces­se­rit, ad­huc ac­cu­sa­tio et poe­na le­gis Fa­biae su­per­est, ut et di­vus Se­ve­rus et An­to­ni­nus re­scrip­se­runt.

3Marcianus, Public Prosecutions, Book I. A bona fide possessor is not liable to the penalty imposed by the Favian Law for having wrongfully withheld a slave; that is to say, if he did not know that the slave belonged to another, or if he thought that he acted with the consent of his master. And the law itself is framed in this way with reference to a bona fide possessor, for there is added, “If he did this knowingly and fraudulently.” It has very frequently been decided by the Emperors Severus and Antoninus that bona fide possessors are not liable under this law. 1It should not be forgotten that, as under the Aquilian Law, if the person on whose account the Favian Law was violated should die, the accusation and the penalty prescribed by the Favian Law will continue to exist, as the Divine Severus and Antoninus stated in a Rescript.

4Gaius li­bro vi­cen­si­mo se­cun­do ad edic­tum pro­vin­cia­le. Le­ge Fa­bia te­ne­tur, qui sciens li­be­rum ho­mi­nem do­na­ve­rit vel in do­tem de­de­rit, item qui ex ea­rum qua cau­sa sciens li­be­rum es­se ac­ce­pe­rit, in ea­dem cau­sa ha­be­ri de­beat, qua ven­di­tor et emp­tor ha­be­tur. idem et si pro eo res per­mu­ta­ta fue­rit.

4Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book XXII. He is liable under the Favian Law who either donates, or gives by way of dowry, a man whom he knows to be free; likewise, anyone who, knowing a man to be free, accepts him under such circumstances, should be included in the same class to which a vendor and a purchaser belong. The same rule will apply where property is given in exchange for such a man.

5Mo­des­ti­nus li­bro sep­ti­mo de­ci­mo re­spon­so­rum. Re­spon­dit eum, qui fu­gi­ti­vum alie­num sus­ce­pis­se et ce­las­se do­cea­tur, ex eo, quod pro­prie­ta­tis quaes­tio­nem re­fer­ret, cri­men, si pro­be­tur, evi­ta­re mi­ni­me pos­se.

5Modestinus, Opinions, Book XVII. Gave it as his opinion that he who is alleged to have received a fugitive slave belonging to another, and to have concealed him, even if he asserts that he is his property, can, by no means, escape the penalty, if he is proved to be guilty.

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.

6Callistratus, 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.”

7Her­mo­ge­nia­nus li­bro quin­to iu­ris epi­to­ma­rum. Poe­na pe­cu­nia­ria sta­tu­ta le­ge Fa­bia in usu es­se de­siit: nam in hoc cri­mi­ne de­tec­ti pro de­lic­ti mo­do co­er­cen­tur et ple­rum­que in me­tal­lum dam­nan­tur.

7Hermogenianus, Epitomes of Law, Book VI. The pecuniary penalty prescribed by the Favian Law has now ceased to be imposed; for those who are convicted of this crime are punished in proportion to its gravity, and are usually sentenced to the mines.