De quaestionibus
(Concerning torture.)
1 Ulpianus libro octavo de officio proconsulis. In criminibus eruendis quaestio adhiberi solet. sed quando vel quatenus id faciendum sit, videamus. et non esse a tormentis incipiendum et divus Augustus constituit neque adeo fidem quaestioni adhibendam, sed et epistula divi Hadriani ad Sennium Sabinum continetur. 1Verba rescripti ita se habent: ‘Ad tormenta servorum ita demum veniri oportet, cum suspectus est reus et aliis argumentis ita probationi admovetur, ut sola confessio servorum deesse videatur’. 2Idem divus Hadrianus Claudio Quartino rescripsit: quo rescripto illud expressit a suspectissimo incipiendum et a quo facillime posse verum scire iudex crediderit. 3Ad quaestionem non esse provocandos eos, quos accusator de domo sua produxit, nec facile credendum subiectam eam, quam ambo parentes dicuntur caram filiam habuisse rescripto divorum fratrum ad Lucium Tiberianum emisso declaratur. 4Idem Cornelio Proculo rescripserunt non utique in servi unius quaestione fidem rei constituendam, sed argumentis causam examinandam. 5Divus Antoninus, et divus Hadrianus Sennio Sabino, rescripserunt, cum servi pariter cum domino aurum et argentum exportasse dicerentur, non esse de domino interrogandos: ne quidem, si ultro aliquid dixerint, obesse hoc domino. 6Divi fratres Leliano Longino rescripserunt de servo heredum non esse habendam quaestionem in res hereditarias, quamvis suspectum fuisset, quod imaginaria venditione dominium in eo quaesisse heres videretur. 7Servum municipum posse in caput civium torqueri saepissime rescriptum est, quia non sit illorum servus, sed rei publicae. idemque in ceteris servis corporum dicendum est: nec enim plurium servus videtur, sed corporis. 8Si servus bona fide mihi serviat, etiamsi dominium in eo non habui, potest dici torqueri eum in caput meum non debere. idem est et in libero homine, qui bona fide servit. 9Sed nec libertum torqueri in patroni caput constitutum est. 10Nec fratrem quidem in fratris imperator noster cum divo patre suo rescripsit, addita ratione, quod in eum, in quem quis invitus testimonium dicere non cogitur, in eum nec torqueri debet. 11Servum mariti in caput uxoris posse torqueri divus Traianus Sernio Quarto rescripsit. 12Idem Mummio Lolliano rescripsit damnati servos, quia desierunt esse ipsius, posse in eum torqueri. 13Si servus ad hoc erit manumissus, ne torqueatur, dummodo in caput domini non torqueatur, posse eum torqueri divus Pius rescripsit. 14Sed et eum, qui cognitionis susceptae tempore alienus fuit, licet postea rei sit effectus, torqueri in caput posse divi fratres rescripserunt. 15Si quis dicatur nullo iure emptus, non prius torqueri poterit, quam si constiterit venditionem non valuisse: et ita imperator noster cum divo patre suo rescripsit. 16Item Severus Spicio Antigono ita rescripsit: ‘Cum quaestio de servis contra dominos neque haberi debeat neque, si facta sit, dicturi sententiam consilium instruat: multo minus indicia servorum contra dominos admittenda sunt’. 17Divus Severus rescripsit confessiones reorum pro exploratis facinoribus haberi non oportere, si nulla probatio religionem cognoscentis instruat. 18Cum quidam deponere pretium servi paratus esset, ut servus torqueretur contra dominum, imperator noster cum divo patre suo id non admiserunt. 19Si servi quasi sceleris participes in se torqueantur deque domino aliquid fuerint confessi apud iudicem: prout causa exegerit, ita pronuntiare eum debere divus Traianus rescripsit. quo rescripto ostenditur gravari dominos confessione servorum. sed ab hoc rescripto recessum constitutiones posteriores ostendunt. 20In causa tributorum, in quibus esse rei publicae nervos nemini dubium est, periculi quoque ratio, quod servo fraudis conscio capitalem poenam denuntiat, eiusdem professionem exstruat. 21Qui quaestionem habiturus est, non debet specialiter interrogare, an Lucius Titius homicidium fecerit, sed generaliter, quis id fecerit: alterum enim magis suggerentis quam requirentis videtur. et ita divus Traianus rescripsit. 22Divus Hadrianus Calpurnio Celeriano in haec verba rescripsit: ‘Agricola Pompei Valentis servus de se potest interrogari. si, dum quaestio habetur, amplius dixerit, rei fuerit indicium, non interrogationis culpa’. 23Quaestioni fidem non semper nec tamen numquam habendam constitutionibus declaratur: etenim res est fragilis et periculosa et quae veritatem fallat. nam plerique patientia sive duritia tormentorum ita tormenta contemnunt, ut exprimi eis veritas nullo modo possit: alii tanta sunt inpatientia, ut quodvis mentiri quam pati tormenta velint: ita fit, ut etiam vario modo fateantur, ut non tantum se, verum etiam alios criminentur. 24Praeterea inimicorum quaestioni fides haberi non debet, quia facile mentiuntur. nec tamen sub praetextu inimicitiarum detrahenda erit fides quaestionis, 25causaque cognita habenda fides aut non habenda. 26Cum quis latrones tradidit, quibusdam rescriptis continetur non debere fidem haberi eis in eos, qui eos tradiderunt: quibusdam vero, quae sunt pleniora, hoc cavetur, ut neque destricte non habeatur, ut in ceterorum persona solet, sed causa cognita aestimetur, habenda fides sit nec ne. plerique enim, dum metuunt, ne forte adprehensi eos nominent, prodere eos solent, scilicet impunitatem sibi captantes, quia non facile eis indicantibus proditores suos creditur. sed neque passim impunitas eis per huiusmodi proditiones concedenda est, neque transmittenda allegatio dicentium idcirco se oneratos, quod eos ipsi tradidissent: neque enim invalidum argumentum haberi debet mendacii sive calumniae in se instructae. 27Si quis ultro de maleficio fateatur, non semper ei fides habenda est: nonnumquam enim aut metu aut qua alia de causa in se confitentur. et extat epistula divorum fratrum ad Voconium Saxam, qua continetur liberandum eum, qui in se fuerat confessus, cuius post damnationem de innocentia constitisset. cuius verba haec sunt: ‘Prudenter et egregia ratione humanitatis, Saxa carissime, Primitivum servum, qui homicidium in se confingere metu ad dominum revertendi suspectus esset, perseverantem falsa demonstratione damnasti quaesiturus de consciis, quos aeque habere se commentitus fuerat, ut ad certiorem ipsius de se confessionem pervenires. nec frustra fuit tam prudens consilium tuum, cum in tormentis constiterit neque illos ei conscios fuisse et ipsum de se temere commentum. potes itaque decreti gratiam facere et eum per officium distrahi iubere, condicione addita, ne umquam in potestatem domini revertatur, quem pretio recepto certum habemus libenter tali servo cariturum’. hac epistula significatur, quasi servus damnatus, si fuisset restitutus, ad eum pertinebit, cuius fuisset, antequam damnetur. sed praeses provinciae eum quem damnavit restituere non potest, cum nec pecuniariam sententiam suam revocare possit. quid igitur? principi eum scribere oportet, si quando ei, qui nocens videbatur, postea ratio innocentiae constitit.
1 Ulpianus, On the Duties of Proconsul, Book VIII. It is customary for torture to be applied for the purpose of detecting crime. Let us see when, and to what extent, this should be done. A beginning ought not to be made by the actual infliction of the question, and the Divine Augustus decided that confidence should not unreservedly be placed in torture. 1This is also contained in a letter of the Divine Hadrian addressed to Sennius Sabinus. The terms of the Rescript are as follows: “Slaves are to be subjected to torture only when the accused is suspected, and proof is so far obtained by other evidence that the confession of the slaves alone seems to be lacking.” 2The Divine Hadrian also stated the same thing in a Rescript to Claudius Quartinus, and in this Rescript he decided that a beginning should be made with the person who was most suspected, and from whom the judge believed that the truth could most easily be ascertained. 3Those whom the accuser produces from his own house should not be tortured, for it is not easy to believe that a substitution has been made for one whom both parents consider their dear daughter; as is stated in a Rescript of the Divine Brothers addressed to Lucius Tiberianus. 4They also stated in a Rescript to Cornelius Proculus, that confidence should not be reposed in the torture of a single slave, but that the case should be investigated after the evidence has been given. 5The Divine Antoninus and the Divine Hadrian stated in a Rescript to Sennius Sabinus that where it was alleged that slaves, in company with their master, had carried away gold and silver, they should not be interrogated against their master, and not even anything which they may have said when not under torture will prejudice him. 6The Divine Brothers stated in a Rescript addressed to Lelianus Longinus that torture should not be applied to a slave belonging to the heirs, to obtain information with reference to the estate, even though it was suspected that the heir had obtained the ownership of the property by means of a fictitious sale. 7It has frequently been stated in Rescripts that a slave belonging to a municipality can be tortured when citizens are accused, because he is not their slave, but the slave of the community. The same thing should be stated with reference to the slaves of other corporations, for a slave is not considered to belong to several masters, but to the corporate body. 8When a slave is serving me in good faith, even though I do not have the ownership of him, it may be said that he can not be tortured to obtain evidence against me. The same rule applies to a freeman who is serving in good faith as a slave. 9It has also been established that a freedman cannot be tortured in a case where his patron is accused of a capital crime. 10Our Emperor, together with his Divine Father, stated in a Rescript that one brother could not be put to the question on account of another; and added as the reason that he should not be tortured to obtain evidence to implicate one against whom he could not be compelled to testify, if he was unwilling to do so. 11The Divine Trajan stated in a Rescript to Servius Quartus that the slave of a husband could be tortured to obtain evidence to convict his wife. 12He also stated in a Rescript to Mummius Lollianus that the slaves of a person who had been convicted could be tortured to obtain evidence against him, because they had ceased to be his. 13When a slave has been manumitted to prevent him from being put to torture, the Divine Pius stated in a Rescript that he could be tortured, provided this was not done to obtain evidence against his master. 14But where a slave belonged to another at the time when the investigation was begun, but afterwards became the property of the defendant, the Divine Brothers stated in a Rescript that he could, nevertheless, be tortured in the case in which his master was involved. 15If anyone should allege that a slave has been purchased at a sale which was void, he cannot be tortured before it has been established that the sale was not valid. This our Emperor, with his Divine Father, stated in a Rescript. 16Severus also stated in a Rescript to Spicius Antigonus: “As the torture of slaves should not be inflicted against their masters, and, if this has been done, as it cannot be used to influence the decision of the judge about to render it, still less should the statements of slaves against their masters be admitted.” 17The Divine Severus stated in a Rescript, that the confessions of accused persons should not be considered as proofs of crime, if no other evidence is offered to influence the sense of duty of the judge who is to decide the case. 18When anyone is ready to deposit the price of a slave, in order that he may be tortured to give evidence against his master, our Emperor, with his Divine Father, did not permit this to be done. 19Where slaves are tortured as accomplices in a crime, and they confess something in court which involves their master, the Emperor Trajan stated in a Rescript that the judge should render his decision as circumstances demand. It is shown by this Rescript that masters can be implicated by the confessions of their slaves, but more recent constitutions indicate that it is no longer in force. 20When tributes, which no one doubts are the sinews of the republic, are concerned, consideration of the danger which menaces with capital punishment a slave who is the accomplice of a fraud should cause his statements to be rejected. 21The magistrate in charge of the torture ought not directly to put the interrogation whether Lucius Titius committed the homicide, but he should ask in general terms who did it; for the other way rather seems to suggest an answer than to ask for one. This the Divine Trajan stated in a Rescript. 22The Divine Hadrian stated the following in a Rescript addressed to Calpurnius Celerianus: “Agricola, the slave of Pompeius Valens, may be interrogated concerning himself; but if, while undergoing torture, he should say anything more, it will be considered as proof against the defendant, and not the fault of him who asked the question.” 23It was declared by the Imperial Constitutions that while confidence should not always be reposed in torture, it ought not to be rejected as absolutely unworthy of it, as the evidence obtained is weak and dangerous, and inimical to the truth; for most persons, either through their power of endurance, or through the severity of the torment, so despise suffering that the truth can in no way be extorted from them. Others are so little able to suffer that they prefer to lie rather than to endure the question, and hence it happens that they make confessions of different kinds, and they not only implicate themselves, but others as well. 24Moreover, faith should not be placed in evidence obtained by the torture of enemies, because they lie very readily; still, under the pretext of enmity, its employment should not be rejected. 25After the case has been duly investigated, it can be decided whether confidence is to be placed in torture, or not. 26When anyone has betrayed robbers, it is stated by certain rescripts that no confidence should be placed in those who betrayed them. In others, however, which are more specific, it is provided that the evidence should not be entirely rejected, as is usual in similar cases; but, after proper consideration, it should be determined whether it is entitled to credit or not. For the majority of such persons, who fear that those who have been arrested may mention them, are accustomed to betray the latter for the purpose of themselves obtaining immunity, because accused persons who denounce those who have betrayed them are not readily believed; nor should immunity indiscriminately be granted to them as a reward for betrayals of this kind; nor should their allegations be believed, when they say that they have been accused by the others for having given them up, for this weak proof based on mendacity or calumny ought not to be considered against them. 27If anyone voluntarily confesses a crime, faith should not always be reposed in him; for sometimes one makes a confession through fear, or for some other reason. An Epistle of the Divine Brothers addressed to Voconius Saxa declares that a man who had made a confession against himself, and whose innocence was established, must be discharged after his conviction. The terms of the Epistle are as follows: “It is in compliance with the dictates of prudence and humanity, my dear Saxa, that, where a slave was suspected of having falsely confessed himself guilty of homicide, through fear of being restored to his master, you condemned him, still persevering in his false statement, with the intention of subjecting to torture his alleged accomplices, whom he had also accused falsely, in order that you might render his statements with reference to himself more certain. “Nor was your judicious intention in vain, as it was established by the torture that the persons referred to were not his accomplices, but that he had accused himself falsely. You can then set aside the judgment, and order him to be officially sold, under the condition that he never shall be returned to the power of his master, who, having received the price, will certainly be very willing to be rid of such a slave.” The Rescript indicates that, when a slave is condemned, if he should subsequently be discharged from liability, he will belong to the person whose property he was before his conviction. The Governor of the province, however, cannot restore anyone whom he has condemned to his original condition, as he cannot even revoke a decision in which money is involved. What then should be done? He should have recourse to the Emperor when anyone who at first appeared to be guilty, afterwards has his innocence established.
2 Ulpianus libro trigensimo nono ad edictum. Hereditarii servi, quamdiu incertum est ad quem bona pertineant, non possunt videri in caput domini torqueri.
2 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXXIX. Slaves forming part of an estate cannot be put to the torture to obtain evidence against their masters, as long as it is uncertain to whom the property belongs.
3 Idem libro quinquagensimo ad edictum. Constitutione imperatoris nostri et divi Severi placuit plurium servum in nullius caput torqueri posse.
3 The Same, On the Edict, Book LVI. It was established by a Constitution of Our Emperor and the Divine Severus that a slave belonging to several owners cannot be subjected to torture against any of them.
4 Idem libro tertio disputationum. In incesto, ut Papinianus respondit et est rescriptum, servorum tormenta cessant, quia et lex Iulia cessat de adulteriis.
4 The Same, Disputations, Book III. In a case of incest (according to the opinion of Papinianus, which is also set forth in a Rescript), slaves are not liable to torture, because the Julian Law relating to Adultery does not apply.
5 Marcianus libro secundo institutionum. Si quis viduam vel alii nuptam cognatam, cum qua nuptias contrahere non potest, corruperit, in insulam deportandus est, quia duplex crimen est et incestum, quia cognatam violavit contra fas, et adulterium vel stuprum adiungit. denique hoc casu servi in personam domini torquentur.
5 Marcianus, Institutes, Book II. Where anyone debauches a widow or a woman married to another, with whom he could not legally have contracted matrimony, he should be deported to an island, as the crime is a double one; incest, because, contrary to Divine Law, he has violated a woman related to him, and has added adultery or fornication to this offence. Finally, in a case of this kind, slaves can be tortured for the purpose of obtaining evidence against their masters.
6 Papinianus libro secundo de adulteriis. Patre vel marito de adulterio agente et postulantibus de servis rei ut quaestio habeatur, si vere causa perorata testibus prolatis absolutio secuta fuerit, mancipiorum, quae mortua sunt, aestimatio habetur: secuta vero damnatione quae supersunt publicantur. 1Cum de falso testamento quaeritur, hereditarii servi possunt torqueri.
6 Papinianus, On Adultery, Book II. When a father or a husband brings an accusation of adultery, and a demand is made that the slaves of the party accused be put to the question, if an acquittal should result, after the case has been argued, and the witnesses produced, an estimate must be made of the value of the slaves who have died; but if a conviction should be obtained, the surviving slaves shall be confiscated. 1When the case is one involving a forged will, the slaves belonging to the estate can be tortured.
7 Ulpianus libro tertio de adulteriis. Quaestionis modum magis est iudices arbitrari oportere: itaque quaestionem habere oportet, ut servus salvus sit vel innocentiae vel supplicio.
7 Ulpianus, On Adultery, Book III. The judges must determine the measure of torture, and therefore it should be inflicted in such a way that the slave may be preserved either for his acquittal, or his punishment.
8 Paulus libro secundo de adulteris. Edictum divi Augusti, quod proposuit Vibio Habito et Lucio Aproniano consulibus, in hunc modum exstat: ‘Quaestiones neque semper in omni causa et persona desiderari debere arbitror, et, cum capitalia et atrociora maleficia non aliter explorari et investigari possunt quam per servorum quaestiones, efficacissimas eas esse ad requirendam veritatem existimo et habendas censeo’. 1Statuliber in adulterio postulari poterit, ut quaestio ex eo habeatur, quod servus heredis est: sed spem suam retinebit.
8 Paulus, On Adultery, Book II. The Edict of the Divine Augustus, which he published during the Consulate of Vivius Avitus and Lucius Apronianus, is as follows: “I do not think that torture should be inflicted in every instance, and upon every person; but when capital and atrocious crimes cannot be detected and proved except by means of the torture of slaves, I hold that it is most effective for ascertaining the truth, and should be employed.” 1The slave who is to be free under a condition may be subjected to torture, because he is the slave of the heir, but he will still retain his hope of freedom.
9 Marcianus libro secundo de iudiciis publicis. Divus Pius rescripsit posse de servis haberi quaestionem in pecuniaria causa, si aliter veritas inveniri non possit. quod et aliis rescriptis cavetur. sed hoc ita est, ut non facile in re pecuniaria quaestio habeatur: sed si aliter veritas inveniri non possit nisi per tormenta, licet habere quaestionem, ut et divus Severus rescripsit. licet itaque et de servis alienis haberi quaestionem, si ita res suadeat. 1Ex quibus causis quaestio de servis adversus dominos haberi non debet, ex his causis ne quidem interrogationem valere: et multo minus indicia servorum contra dominos admittenda sunt. 2De eo, qui in insulam deportatus est, quaestio habenda non est, ut divus Pius rescripsit. 3Sed nec de statulibero in pecuniariis causis quaestio habenda est nisi deficiente condicione.
9 Marcianus, On Public Prosecutions, Book II. The Divine Pius stated in a Rescript that torture could be inflicted upon slaves in cases where money was involved, if the truth could not otherwise be ascertained, which is also provided by other rescripts. This, however, is true to the extent that this expedient should not be resorted to in a pecuniary case, but only where the truth cannot be ascertained unless by the employment of torture is it lawful to make use of it, as the Divine Severus stated in a Rescript. Hence it is permitted to put the slaves of others to the question if the circumstances justify it. 1In cases in which torture should not be inflicted upon slaves to obtain evidence against their masters they cannot even be interrogated, and still less can the statements of slaves against their masters be admitted. 2Torture should not be inflicted upon one who is deported to an island, as the Divine Pius stated in a Rescript. 3Nor should it be inflicted, in a pecuniary case, upon a slave who is to be free under a condition, unless the condition fails to be fulfilled.
10 Arcadius Charisius libro singulari de testibus. De minore quattuordecim annis quaestio habenda non est, ut et divus Pius Caecilio Iuventiano rescripsit. 1Sed omnes omnino in maiestatis crimine, quod ad personas principum attinet, si ad testimonium provocentur, cum res exigit, torquentur. 2Potest quaeri, an de servis filii castrensis peculii in caput patris quaestio haberi non possit: nam patris non debere torqueri in filium constitutum est. et puto recte dici nec filii servos in caput patris esse interrogandos. 3Tormenta autem adhibenda sunt, non quanta accusator postulat, sed ut moderatae rationis temperamenta desiderant. 4Nec debet initium probationum de domo rei accusator sumere, dum aut libertos eius quem accusat aut servos in testimonium vocat. 5Plurimum quoque in excutienda veritate etiam vox ipsa et cognitionis suptilis diligentia adfert: nam et ex sermone et ex eo, qua quis constantia, qua trepidatione quid diceret, vel cuius existimationis quisque in civitate sua est, quaedam ad inluminandam veritatem in lucem emergunt. 6In causis quoque liberalibus non oportet per eorum tormenta, de quorum statu quaeritur, veritatem requiri.
10 Arcadius, Charisius, On Witnesses. Torture should not be inflicted upon a minor under fourteen years of age, as the Divine Pius stated in a Rescript addressed to Cæcilius Jubentinus. 1All persons, however, without exception, shall be tortured in a case of high treason which has reference to princes, if their testimony is necessary, and circumstances demand it. 2It may be asked whether torture cannot be inflicted upon slaves belonging to the castrense peculium of a son in order to obtain evidence against his father. For it has been established that a father’s slave should not be tortured to obtain evidence against his son. I think that it may be properly held that the slaves of a son should not be tortured to obtain evidence against his father. 3Torture should not be applied to the extent that the accuser demands, but as reason and moderation may dictate. 4The accuser should not begin proceedings with evidence derived from the house of the defendant, when he calls as witnesses the freedmen or the slaves of the person whom he accuses. 5Frequently, also, in searching for the truth, even the tone of the voice itself, and the diligence of a keen examination afford assistance. For matters available for the discovery of truth emerge into the light from the language of the witness, and the composure or trepidation he displays, as well as from the reputation which each one enjoys in his own community. 6In questions where freedom is involved, it is not necessary to seek for the truth by the torture of those whose status is in dispute.
11 Paulus libro secundo de officio proconsulis. Etiamsi redhibitus fuerit servus, in caput emptoris non torquebitur.
11 Paulus, On the Duties of Proconsul, Book II. Even if a slave should be returned under a condition of the sale, he shall not be tortured to obtain evidence against his master.
12 Ulpianus libro quinquagensimo quarto ad edictum. Si quis, ne quaestio de eo agatur, liberum se dicat, divus Hadrianus rescripsit non esse eum ante torquendum quam liberale iudicium experiatur.
12 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LIV. When anyone, to avoid being tortured, alleges that he is free, the Divine Hadrian stated in a Rescript that he should not be put to the question before the case brought to decide his freedom has been tried.
13 Modestinus libro quinto regularum. Certo pretio servum aestimatum in quaestionem dari interposita stipulatione receptum est.
13 Modestinus, Rules, Book V. It is established that a slave can be tortured after he has been appraised, or the required stipulation has been entered into.
14 Idem libro octavo regularum. Statuliber in delicto repertus sperandae libertatis praerogativa non ut servus ob ambiguum condicionis, sed ut liber puniendus est.
14 The Same, Rules, Book VIII. .A slave who is to be free under a condition, and who has been convicted of crime, will be entitled to the privilege of expecting his liberty, so that on account of the uncertainty of his status he will be punished as a freeman, and not as a slave.
15 Callistratus 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’.
15 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 Msecilius 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.”
16 Modestinus libro tertio de poenis. Repeti posse quaestionem divi fratres rescripserunt. 1Is, qui de se confessus est, in caput aliorum non torquebitur, ut divus Pius rescripsit.
17 Papinianus libro sexto decimo responsorum. Extrario quoque accusante servos in adulterii quaestione contra dominum interrogari placuit. quod divus Marcus ac postea maximus princeps iudicantes secuti sunt. 1Sed et in quaestione stupri servi adversus dominum non torquentur. 2De quaestione suppositi partus, vel si petat hereditatem, quem ceteri filii non esse fratrem suum contendunt, quaestio de servis hereditariis habebitur, quia non contra dominos ceteros filios, sed pro successione domini defuncti quaeritur. quod congruit ei, quod divus Hadrianus rescripsit: cum enim in socium caedis socius postularetur, de communi servo habendam quaestionem rescripsit, quod pro domino fore videretur. 3De servo in metallum damnato quaestionem contra eum qui dominus fuit, non esse habendam respondi: nec ad rem pertinere, si ministrum se facinoris fuisse confiteatur.
17 Papinianus, Opinions, Book XVI. Again, when a stranger brings an accusation, it has been established that slaves can be tortured to obtain evidence against their masters; a rule which the Divine Marcus, and afterwards the Emperor Maximus, followed in rendering their decisions. 1Slaves are not tortured against their master where a charge of fornication is made. 2In a case of fraudulent birth, if a person whom the other children assert is not their brother claims the estate, torture shall be applied to slaves belonging to the estate, for the reason that it is not employed against the other children as masters, but in order to determine the succession of the deceased owner. This agrees with what the Divine Hadrian stated in a Rescript, for when a man was accused of having murdered his partner, the Emperor decreed that a slave owned in common could be put to the question, because this appeared to be done in behalf of his master who had been killed. 3I gave it as my opinion that where a slave has been sentenced to the mines, he should not be tortured to obtain evidence against the person who had been his master, and that it made no difference if he had confessed that he had been the perpetrator of the crime.
18 Paulus libro quinto sententiarum. Unius facinoris plurimi rei ita audiendi sunt, ut ab eo primum incipiatur, qui timidior est vel tenerae aetatis videtur. 1Reus evidentioribus argumentis obpressus repeti in quaestionem potest, maxime si in tormenta animum corpusque duraverit. 2In ea causa, in qua nullis reus argumentis urguebatur, tormenta non facile adhibenda sunt, sed instandum accusatori, ut id quod intendat comprobet atque convincat. 3Testes torquendi non sunt convincendi mendacii aut veritatis gratia, nisi cum facto intervenisse dicuntur. 4Iudex cum de fide generis instrui non potest, poterit de servis hereditariis habere quaestionem. 5Servo qui ultro aliquid de domino confitetur, fides non accommodatur: neque enim oportet salutem dominorum servorum arbitrio committi. 6Servus in caput eius domini, a quo distractus est cuique aliquando servivit, in memoriam prioris dominii interrogari non potest. 7Servus, nec si a domino ad tormenta offeratur, interrogandus est. 8Sane quotiens quaeritur, an servi in caput domini interrogandi sint, prius de eorum dominio oportet inquiri. 9Cogniturum de criminibus praesidem oportet ante diem palam facere custodias se auditurum, ne hi, qui defendendi sunt, subitis accusatorum criminibus obprimantur: quamvis defensionem quocumque tempore postulante reo negari non oportet, adeo ut propterea et differantur et proferantur custodiae. 10Custodiae non solum pro tribunali, sed et de plano audiri possunt atque damnari.
18 Paulus, Sentences, Book V. Where several persons are accused of the same offence, they should be heard in such a way as to begin with the one who is the most timid, or appears to be of tender age. 1An accused person who is overwhelmed with conclusive evidence can be tortured a second time; especially if he has hardened his mind and body against the torments. 2In a case in which nothing has been proved against the defendant, torture should not be applied without due consideration; but the accuser should be urged to confirm and substantiate what he has alleged. 3Witnesses should not be tortured for the purpose of convicting them of falsehood, or to ascertain the truth; unless they are alleged to have been present when the deed was committed. 4When a judge cannot otherwise obtain reliable information concerning a family, he can torture the slaves belonging to the estate. 5No confidence should be placed in a slave who voluntarily makes charges against his master, for the safety of masters must not be left to the discretion of their slaves. 6A slave cannot be interrogated to obtain evidence against his master, by whom he has been sold, and whom for some time he served as a slave, in remembrance of his former ownership. 7A slave should not be interrogated, even if his master offers to have him put to the torture. 8It is clear that every time an inquiry is made whether slaves should be interrogated to obtain evidence against their masters, it must first be ascertained that the latter are entitled to their ownership. 9A Governor who is to take cognizance of a criminal accusation must publicly appoint a day when he will hear the prisoners, for those who are to be defended should not be oppressed by the sudden accusation of crime; although, if at any time the defendant requests it, he should not be refused permission to defend himself, and on this account, the day of the hearing, whether it has been designated or not, may be postponed. 10Prisoners can not only be heard and convicted in court, but also elsewhere.
19 Tryphoninus libro quarto disputationum. Is, cui fideicommissa libertas debetur, non aliter ut servus quaestioni applicetur, nisi aliorum quaestionibus oneretur.
19 Tryphoninus, Disputations, Book IV. He who is entitled to freedom under the terms of a trust cannot be tortured as a slave, unless he is accused by others who already have been subjected to torture.
20 Paulus libro tertio decretorum. Maritus quidam heres uxoris suae petebat a suro pecuniam, quam apud eum deposuisse defunctam se absente dicebat, et in eam rem unum testem liberti sui filium produxerat apud procuratorem: desideraverat et quaestionem haberi de ancilla. surus negabat se accepisse et testimonium non oportere unius hominis admitti nec solere a quaestionibus incipi, etsi aliena esset ancilla. procurator quaestionem de ancilla habuerat. cum ex appellatione cognovisset imperator, pronuntiavit quaestione illicite habita unius testimonio non esse credendum ideoque recte provocatum.
20 Paulus, Decisions, Book III. A husband, as the heir of his wife, brought suit against Surus for money which he alleged the deceased had deposited with him during his absence, and, in proof of it, he produced a single witness, the son of his freedman. He demanded before the Agent of the Treasury that a certain female slave should be put to torture. Surus denied that he had received the money, and stated that the testimony of one man should not be admitted; and that it was not customary to begin proceedings with torture, even though the female slave belonged to another. The Agent of the Treasury caused the female slave to be tortured. The Emperor decided, on appeal, that torture had been unlawfully inflicted, and that the testimony of one witness should not be believed, and therefore that the appeal had been properly taken.
21 Idem libro singulari de poenis paganorum. Quaestionis habendae causa neminem esse damnandum divus Hadrianus rescripsit.
21 The Same, On the Punishments of Civilians. The Divine Hadrian stated in a Rescript that no one should be condemned because he was liable to be subjected to torture.
22 Idem libro primo sententiarum. Qui sine accusatoribus in custodiam recepti sunt, quaestio de his habenda non est, nisi si aliquibus suspicionibus urgueantur.
22 The Same, Sentences, Book I. Those who have been arrested without having any accusers, can not be tortured, unless well-grounded suspicion is attached to them.