De accusationibus et inscriptionibus
(Concerning accusations and inscriptions.)
1 Pomponius libro primo ad Sabinum. Non est permissum mulieri publico iudicio quemquam reum facere, nisi scilicet parentium liberorumque et patroni et patronae et eorum filii filiae nepotis neptis mortem exequatur.
1 Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book I. A woman is not permitted to accuse anyone in a criminal case unless she does so on account of the death of her parents or children, her patron or patroness, and their son, daughter, grandson, or granddaughter.
2 Papinianus libro primo de adulteriis. Certis ex causis concessa est mulieribus publica accusatio, veluti si mortem exequantur eorum earumque, in quos ex lege testimonium publicorum invitae non dicunt. idem et in lege Cornelia testamentaria senatus statuit: sed et de testamento paterni liberti vel materni mulieribus publico iudicio dicere permissum est. 1Pupillis ex consilio tutorum patris mortem, item pupillae avi sui mortem exequi concessum est. lege autem testamentaria nam de patris quidem testamento pupillis agere divus Vespasianus permisit: sed quasi non exhibeantur tabulae, per interdictum possunt experiri.
2 Papinianus, On Adultery, Book I. Women are permitted to bring a public accusation for certain causes, for instance, if they do so on account of the death of any of those persons of either sex against whom they, if unwilling, can not be compelled to appear as witnesses, under the provisions of the law relating to public testimony. The Senate arrived at the same conclusion with reference to the Cornelian Law on Evidence. Women, however, are allowed to testify publicly in a criminal prosecution concerning the will of a freedman of their father or their mother. 1By the law relating to testaments, the right was conceded to wards, with the advice of their guardians, to institute a prosecution for the death of their father, just as a female ward is allowed to institute one for the death of her grandfather, since the Divine Vespasian permitted wards to bring suit with reference to the will of their father; but they could proceed by means of the interdict just as if the will had not been produced.
3 Paulus libro tertio de adulteriis. Libellorum inscriptionis conceptio talis est. ‘consul et dies. apud illum praetorem vel proconsulem Lucius Titius professus est se Maeviam lege Iulia de adulteriis ream deferre, quod dicat eam cum Gaio Seio in civitate illa, domo illius, mense illo, consulibus illis adulterium commisisse’. utique enim et locus designandus est, in quo adulterium commissum est, et persona, cum qua admissum dicitur, et mensis: hoc enim lege Iulia publicorum cavetur et generaliter praecipitur omnibus, qui reum aliquem deferunt: neque autem diem neque horam invitus conprehendet. 1Quod si libelli inscriptionum legitime ordinati non fuerint, rei nomen aboletur et ex integro repetendi reum potestas fiet. 2Item subscribere debebit is qui dat libellos se professum esse, vel alius pro eo, si litteras nesciat. 3Sed et si aliud crimen obiciat, veluti quod domum suam praebuit, ut stuprum mater familias pateretur, quod adulterum deprehensum dimiserit, quod pretium pro comperto stupro acceperit, et si quid simile, id ipsum libellis comprehendendum erit. 4Si accusator decesserit aliave quae causa ei impedierit, quo minus accusare possit, et si quid simile, nomen rei aboletur postulante reo: idque et lege Iulia de vi et senatus consulto cautum est, ita ut liceat alii ex integro repetere reum. sed intra quod tempus, videbimus: et utique triginta dies utiles observandi sunt.
3 Paulus, On Adultery, Book III. The following is the form of an accusation, by inscription: “The Consul, and the date. Before So-and-So, Prætor and Proconsul, Lucius Titius declared that he accused Mævia under the Lex Julia de Adulteriis; and alleged that she committed adultery with Gaius Seius, in such-and-such a house, on such-and-such a month, during such-and-such a consulate.” It is first necessary to designate the place in which the adultery occurred, as well as the person with whom it is alleged to have been committed, and the month; for this is provided by the Julian Law relating to public prosecutions, and generally speaking, it applies to all who bring an accusation against anyone. If the prosecutor is unwilling, he need not include the day or the hour. 1Where inscriptions are not drawn up according to law, the name of the defendant is erased, and the prosecutor has power to renew the accusation. 2He who presents the inscription must sign what he has stated, or another can do so for him if he does not know how to write. 3But if he makes an accusation of another crime, as for instance, that of having lent a house in order that a matron might use it for the purpose of debauchery, or that of having released a man caught with her in adultery, or that of having received money after having surprised the guilty parties in the act, or anything else of this description, it must be included in the document. 4If the accuser should die, or, for some other reason, be prevented from making the accusation, or anything of this kind occurs, the name of the defendant will be erased, if he requests this to be done. This is provided by the Julian Law relating to force, as well as by the Decree of the Senate, so that another can again begin the prosecution of the defendant. Let us see within what time this can take place. It can be done within thirty available days.
4 Ulpianus libro secundo de adulteriis. Is, qui iudicio publico damnatus est, ius accusandi non habet, nisi liberorum vel patronorum suorum mortem eo iudicio vel rem suam exequatur. sed et calumnia notatis ius accusandi ademptum est, item his, qui cum bestiis depugnandi causa in harenam intromissi sunt, quive artem ludicram vel lenocinium fecerint, quive praevaricationis calumniaeve causa quid fecisse iudicio publico pronuntiatus erit, quive ob accusandum negotiumve cui facessendum pecuniam accepisse iudicatus erit.
4 Ulpianus, On Adultery, Book II. A man who has been condemned in a criminal prosecution has no right to accuse anyone himself, unless, under the terms of the decision he is authorized to institute criminal proceedings for the death of his children or his patrons, or the loss of his own property. The right of accusation is also taken away from those who have been rendered infamous on account of malicious prosecution, as well as from those who have entered the arena for the purpose of contending with wild beasts, or who follow the profession of buffoons, or keep women for prostitution, or have been convicted of prevarication or calumny, or of having received money in consideration of their accusing anyone, or injuring his business.
5 Idem libro tertio de adulteriis. Servos quoque adulterii posse accusari nulla dubitatio est: sed qui prohibentur adulterii liberos homines accusare, idem servos quoque prohibebuntur. sed ex rescripto divi Marci etiam adversus proprium servum accusationem instituere dominus potest. post hoc igitur rescriptum accusandi necessitas incumbet domino servum suum: ceterum iuste mulier nupta praescriptione utetur.
5 The Same, On Adultery, Book III. There is no doubt that slaves can also be accused of adultery. Those, however, who are forbidden to accuse freemen of adultery are themselves forbidden to accuse slaves. A master, however, can, under a Rescript of the Divine Marcus, bring an accusation against his own slave for this offence. Therefore, since the promulgation of this rescript, the master is obliged to accuse his slave, but if his wife is legally married she can plead an exception in bar.
6 Idem libro secundo de officio proconsulis. Levia crimina audire et discutere de plano proconsulem oportet et vel liberare eos, quibus obiciuntur, vel fustibus castigare vel flagellis servos verberare.
6 The Same, On the Duties of Proconsul, Book VII. The Proconsul must hear and discuss clearly all accusations of slight importance, and either release those against whom they are brought, or whip them with rods, or, if they are slaves, scourge them.
7 Idem libro septimo de officio proconsulis. Si cui crimen obiciatur, praecedere debet crimen subscriptio. quae res ad id inventa est, ne facile quis prosiliat ad accusationem, cum sciat inultam sibi accusationem non futuram. 1Cavent itaque singuli, quod crimen obiciant, et praeterea perseveraturos se in crimine usque ad sententiam. 2Isdem criminibus, quibus quis liberatus est, non debet praeses pati eundem accusari, et ita divus Pius Salvio Valenti rescripsit: sed hoc, utrum ab eodem an nec ab alio accusari possit, videndum est. et putem, quoniam res inter alios iudicatae alii non praeiudicant, si is, qui nunc accusator exstitit, suum dolorem persequatur doceatque ignorasse se accusationem ab alio institutam, magna ex causa admitti eum ad accusationem debere. 3Si tamen alio crimine postuletur ab eodem, qui in alio crimine eum calumniatus est, puto non facile admittendum eum qui semel calumniatus sit: quamvis filium accusatoris admitti oportere aliam accusationem instituentem adversus eum, quem pater accusaverat divus Pius Iulio Candido rescripsit. 4Idem imperator rescripsit servos ibi puniendos, ubi deliquisse arguantur, dominumque eorum, si velit eos defendere, non posse revocare in provinciam suam, sed ibi oportere defendere, ubi deliquerint. 5Cum sacrilegium admissum esset in aliqua provincia, deinde in alia minus crimen, divus Pius Pontio Proculo rescripsit, postquam cognoverit de crimine in sua provincia admisso, ut reum in eam provinciam remitteret, ubi sacrilegium admisit.
7 The Same, On the Duties of Proconsul, Book VII. When anyone accuses another of a crime, he must, first of all, sign the accusation. This rule has been introduced for the purpose of preventing anyone from rashly denouncing another, when he knows that his accusation, if false, will not go unpunished. 1Therefore, each accuser must state what crime is the subject of the accusation, and also that he will persevere in the prosecution until judgment has been rendered. 2The Governor should not permit the same person to be again accused of crime of which he has been acquitted. This the Divine Pius stated in a Rescript addressed to Salvius Valens. But let us see, while under this Rescript a person cannot be accused by the same individual, whether he can not be by another. Where a case has been decided so far as certain persons are concerned, this does not prejudice others, if he who now appears as an accuser prosecutes on account of some injury of his own, and proves that he did not know that the accusation had been brought by another, I think there is good reason that he should be permitted to make the accusation. 3If, however, he should be prosecuted for another crime by the same accuser, who in the first proceeding calumniated him, I think he who has once been convicted of malicious prosecution should not readily be permitted to make a different accusation, although the son of the prosecutor must be allowed to do so, when he brings another criminal charge against the person whom his father had accused, as the Divine Pius stated in a Rescript to Julius Candidus. 4The same Emperor stated in a Rescript that slaves should be punished in the place where they are alleged to have perpetrated the offence, and if their master desires to defend them, he cannot have them sent back into his province, but must undertake their defence where the illegal act was committed. 5The Divine Pius stated in a Rescript addressed to Pontius Proculus that, where a sacrilegious act had been committed in one province, and afterwards a less serious crime was perpetrated in another, after having taken cognizance of the offence committed in his own province, he must send the defendant into the one where he had been guilty of sacrilege.
8 Macer libro secundo de publicis iudiciis. Qui accusare possunt, intellegemus, si scierimus, qui non possunt. itaque prohibentur accusare alii propter sexum vel aetatem, ut mulier, ut pupillus: alii propter sacramentum, ut qui stipendium merent: alii propter magistratum potestatemve, in qua agentes sine fraude in ius evocari non possunt: alii propter delictum proprium, ut infames: alii propter turpem quaestum, ut qui duo iudicia adversus duos reos subscripta habent nummosve ob accusandum vel non accusandum acceperint: alii propter condicionem suam, ut libertini contra patronos:
8 Macer, On Public Prosecutions, Book II. We will more readily understand who can bring an accusation if we know who cannot do so. Hence, certain persons are forbidden to prosecute a crime on account of their sex or their age, as women, or minors. Many are disqualified because of their oath, for instance, those who are serving in the army; others cannot be brought into court on account of their magistracy, or their power, so long as they exercise this without the commission of fraud. Others, again are forbidden as the result of their own criminality, for example, infamous persons. Some are excluded on account of dishonorable gain, such as those who have filed two accusations signed by them against two different individuals; or who have received money in consideration of accusing, or not accusing others. Some are incompetent in consequence of their condition, as, for instance, freedmen cannot proceed against their patrons.
9 Paulus libro quinto sententiarum. alii propter suspicionem calumniae, ut illi, qui falsum testimonium subornati dixerunt:
9 Paulus, Sentences, Book V. Others are excluded on account of the suspicion of calumny, for instance those who, having been suborned, have given false testimony.
10 Hermogenianus libro sexto iuris epitomarum. nonnulli propter paupertatem, ut sunt qui minus quam quinquaginta aureos habent.
10 Hermogenianus, Epitomes of Law, Book VI. Some cannot bring an accusation on. account of their poverty, such as those who have less than fifty aurei.
11 Macer libro secundo de publicis iudiciis. Hi tamen omnes, si suam iniuriam exequantur mortemve propinquorum defendent, ab accusatione non excluduntur. 1Liberi libertique non sunt prohibendi suarum rerum defendendarum gratia de facto parentium patronorumve queri, veluti si dicant vi se a possessione ab his expulsos, scilicet non ut crimen vis eis intendant, sed ut possessionem recipiant. nam et filius non quidem prohibitus est de facto matris queri, si dicat suppositum ab ea partum, quo magis coheredem haberet, sed ream eam lege Cornelia facere permissum ei non est. 2Ab alio delatum alius deferre non potest: sed eum, qui abolitione publica vel privata interveniente aut desistente accusatore de reis exemptus est, alius deferre non prohibetur.
11 Macer, On Public Prosecutions, Book II. Still, all these persons, if they are prosecuting injuries sustained by them, or the death of near relatives, are not excluded from bringing accusations. 1When children and freedmen desire to protect their interests they should not be prevented from complaining of the acts of their parents and patrons; for instance, where they state that they have been forcibly expelled from possession, and do not do so for the purpose of bringing an accusation of the crime of violence, but in order that they may recover possession of the property. For, indeed, a son is not forbidden to complain of the act of his mother, if he alleges that a child has been falsely substituted by her in order that he might have a co-heir, but he will not be permitted to accuse his mother under the Cornelian Law. 2One person cannot accuse another who has been already accused by a third party; but anyone who has been publicly or privately acquitted, or whose accuser has desisted from prosecution, and has been removed from a number of defendants, may be accused by another.
12 Venuleius Saturninus libro secundo de iudiciis publicis. Hos accusare non licet: legatum imperatoris, id est praesidem provinciae, ex sententia Lentuli dicta Sulla et Trione consulibus: item legatum provincialem eius dumtaxat criminis, quod ante commiserit, quam in legationem venerit: item magistratum populi Romani eumve, qui rei publicae causa afuerit, dum non detractandae legis causa abest. 1Hoc beneficio etiam in reos recepti uti possunt, si abolitione interveniente repeti se non debere contendant, secundum epistulam divi Hadriani ad Glabrionem consulem scriptam. 2Lege Iulia iudiciorum publicorum cavetur, ne eodem tempore de duobus reis quis quereretur nisi suarum iniuriarum causa. 3Si servus reus postulabitur, eadem observanda sunt, quae si liber esset, ex senatus consulto Cotta et Messala consulibus. 4Omnibus autem legibus servi rei fiunt excepta lege Iulia de vi privata, quia ea lege damnati partis tertiae bonorum publicatione puniuntur, quae poena in servum non cadit. idemque dicendum est in ceteris legibus, quibus pecuniaria poena irrogatur vel etiam capitis, quae servorum poenis non convenit, sicuti relegatio. item nec lex Pompeia parricidii, quoniam caput primum eos adpraehendit, qui parentes cognatosve aut patronos occiderint: quae in servos, quantum ad verba pertinet, non cadunt: sed cum natura communis est, similiter et in eos animadvertetur. item Cornelia iniuriarum servum non debere recipi reum Cornelius Sulla auctor fuit: sed durior ei poena extra ordinem imminebit.
12 Venuleius Saturninus, On Public Prosecutions, Book II. It is not lawful to accuse the following persons, namely: the Deputy of the Emperor, that is to say, the Governor of a province; according to the decision of Lentulus, rendered during the Consulate of Sylla and Trio; nor the Deputy of a Governor, for a crime which he committed before he obtained his office; nor a magistrate of the Roman people; nor anyone who is absent on business for the State; provided he did not depart for the purpose of evading the law. 1Persons who are classed as offenders can make use of this privilege, if, having been discharged, they contend that they should not again be accused, which is in accordance with the Epistle of the Divine Hadrian addressed to Glabrio, Consul. 2It is provided by the Julian Law relating to criminal proceedings that no one can prosecute two persons at the same time, unless on account of an injury which he himself has sustained. 3When an accusation is brought against a slave, the same rule should be observed as if he were free, according to a Decree of the Senate promulgated when Cotta and Messala were consuls. 4Slaves can be accused under all laws, with the exception of the Julian Law relating to private violence; because those who are condemned under it are punished by the confiscation of the third part of their property, which penalty cannot be imposed upon a slave. The same must be said with reference to other laws, by which either a pecuniary or a capital penalty is inflicted, which does not apply to slaves, as for instance, relegation. The Pompeian Law relating to parricide is placed in this category, because the First Section includes those who have killed their parents, their blood-relatives, or their patrons; which does not apply to slaves, so far as the provisions of the law are concerned. But as their nature is similar, they are punished in the same way. Again Cornelius Sylla was the author of the decision that a slave is not included in the Cornelian Law which has reference to injuries; but he is punished arbitrarily by a more severe penalty.
13 Marcianus libro primo de publicis iudiciis. Mulierem propter publicam utilitatem ad annonam pertinentem audiri a praefecto annonae deferentem divus Severus et Antoninus rescripserunt. famosi quoque accusantes sine ulla dubitatione admittuntur. milites quoque, qui causas alienas deferre non possunt, qui pro pace excubant, vel magis ad hanc accusationem admittendi sunt. servi quoque deferentes audiuntur.
13 Marcianus, On Public Prosecutions, Book I. The Divine Severus and Antoninus stated in a Rescript that a woman should be heard by the Prefect of Subsistence on the ground of the public welfare, if she brought an accusation relating to the excessive price of provisions. There is no doubt that persons who have been rendered infamous should be permitted to institute proceedings of this kind. Soldiers, also, who cannot prosecute the cases of others, because they guard the peace, can all the more readily be permitted to bring this accusation. When slaves bring it, they should also be heard.
14 Paulus libro secundo de officio proconsulis. Senatus censuit, ne quis ob idem crimen pluribus legibus reus fieret.
14 Paulus, On the Duties of Proconsul, Book II. The Senate decreed that no one can be accused of the same crime under several laws.
15 Ulpianus libro quinquagensimo sexto ad edictum. In eum, cuius dolo malo hominibus coactis damni quid datum esse dicatur, non debet cogi actor omissa actione civili crimen intendere.
15 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LVI. Where anyone, having assembled a number of persons, is alleged to have committed damage with malicious intent, the plaintiff should not be compelled to abandon his civil action for the purpose of prosecuting the crime.
16 Idem libro secundo de officio consulis. Si plures existant, qui eum in publicis iudiciis accusare volunt, iudex eligere debet eum qui accuset, causa scilicet cognita aestimatis accusatorum personis vel de dignitate, vel ex eo quod interest, vel aetate vel moribus vel alia iusta de causa.
16 The Same, On the Duties of Proconsul, Book II. Where several persons appear who desire to accuse the same man of a crime, the judge should select one of them to bring the accusation; that is to say, after proper cause has been shown by investigating the character, rank, interest, age, morals, or any other proper attributes of the accusers.
17 Modestinus libro sexto differentiarum. Si servum dominus in crimine capitali defendat, sistendum satisdato promittere iubetur.
17 Modestinus, Differences, Book VI. When a master defends his slave for a capital offence, he is ordered to give security for his appearance in court.
18 Idem libro septimo decimo responsorum. Cum Titia testamentum Gaii fratris sui falsum arguere minaretur et sollemnia accusationis non implevit intra tempus a praeside praefinitum, praeses provinciae iterum pronuntiavit non posse illam amplius de falso testamento dicere: adversus quas sententias Titia non provocavit, sed dixit se post finitum tempus de irrito testamento dicere. quaero, an Titia, quae non appellavit adversus sententiam praesidis, possit ad falsi accusationem postea reverti. respondit nihil aperte proponi, propter quod adversus sententiae auctoritatem de falso agens audienda sit.
18 The Same, Opinions, Book XVII. Titia threatened to prove the will of her brother Gaius to be forged, but did not comply with the formalities required by the accusation within the time prescribed by the Governor of the province. The latter decided a second time that she could not proceed further with the accusation of a forged will. Titia did not appeal from these decisions, but alleged that, after the time had expired, she could maintain that the will was void. As Titia did not appeal from the decision of the Governor, I ask whether she could afterwards renew the accusation that the will was forged. The answer was that it was not clearly stated for what reason she should be heard, if she instituted proceedings disputing the authority of the decision.
19 Callistratus 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.
20 Modestinus libro secundo de poenis. Ex iudiciorum publicorum admissis non alias transeunt adversus heredes poenae bonorum ademptionis, quam si lis contestata et condemnatio fuerit secuta, excepto repetundarum et maiestatis iudicio, quae etiam mortuis reis, cum quibus nihil actum est, adhuc exerceri placuit, ut bona eorum fisco vindicentur: adeo ut divus Severus et Antoninus rescripserunt, ex quo quis aliquod ex his causis crimen contraxit, nihil ex bonis suis alienare aut manumittere eum posse. ex ceteris vero delictis poena incipere ab herede ita demum potest, si vivo reo accusatio mota est, licet non fuit condemnatio secuta.
20 Modestinus, On Penalties, Book II. Penalties involving the loss of property as the result of criminal prosecutions do not pass to the heirs, unless issue has been joined and conviction has followed; except in the cases of extortion and treason, which it has been decided can still be prosecuted even after the death of the defendants, against whom no proceedings previously had been taken, in order that their property might be confiscated to the Treasury; with reference to which the Divine Severus and Antoninus stated in a Rescript that after anyone had committed such a crime, he could neither alienate any of his property, nor manumit any of his slaves. But so far as other offences were concerned, the penalty could begin to be inflicted upon the heir only where the accusation had been made during the lifetime of the guilty party, even though conviction did not follow.
21 Papinianus libro quinto decimo responsorum. Capitis reus suspenso crimine causam fisco deferre non prohibetur.
21 Papinianus, Opinions, Book XV. He who is accused of a capital crime is not, before judgment, forbidden to bring before the Treasury any matter in which he may be interested.
22 Idem libro sexto decimo responsorum. Alterius provinciae reus apud eos accusatur et damnatur, apud quos crimen contractum ostenditur. quod etiam in militibus esse observandum optimi principes nostri generaliter rescripserunt.
22 The Same, Opinions, Book XVI. Anyone belonging to another province, who is accused of crime, should be prosecuted and convicted where the crime is proved to have been committed, which our most excellent Emperor stated in general terms should also be observed with reference to soldiers.