De adulteriis libri
Ex libro I
Dig. 22,5,13Papinianus libro primo de adulteriis. Quaesitum scio, an in publicis iudiciis calumniae damnati testimonium iudicio publico perhibere possunt. sed neque lege remmia prohibentur et Iulia lex de vi et repetendarum et peculatus eos homines testimonium dicere non vetuerunt. verumtamen quod legibus omissum est, non omittetur religione iudicantium ad quorum officium pertinet eius quoque testimonii fidem, quod integrae frontis homo dixerit, perpendere.
Papinianus, On Adultery, Book I. I know that the question has arisen whether those who have been convicted of calumny in public trials can testify in a public prosecution. They are not, however, forbidden to do so by the Lex Remmia; and the Lex Julia relating to violence, extortion, and peculation, does not prohibit such persons from giving evidence, nevertheless, what is omitted by the laws should not be omitted by the conscientious judge, whose duty it is to carefully weigh the credibility of the witness and determine whether he gives his testimony as a man of integrity should do.
Dig. 23,5,12Papinianus libro primo de adulteriis. Etiam si dirempto matrimonio dotale praedium esse intellegitur. 1Soceri voluntas in distrahendo dotali praedio nulla est.
Papinianus, On Adultery, Book I. Even though the marriage should be dissolved, the land is still understood to be dotal. 1The consent of a father-in-law to the sale of land belonging to a dowry is of no force or effect.
Dig. 24,2,7Papinianus libro primo de adulteriis. Si paenituit eum, qui libellum tradendum divortii dedit, isque per ignorantiam mutatae voluntatis oblatus est, durare matrimonium dicendum, nisi paenitentia cognita is qui accepit ipse voluit matrimonium dissolvere: tunc enim per eum qui accepit solvitur matrimonium.
Papinianus, On Adultery, Book I. Where one party who has given the other notice of divorce repents, and the other is ignorant of the change of mind, the marriage must be held to continue to exist; unless the one who received the notice and is aware of the change of mind, himself or herself desires to dissolve the marriage, for then it will be dissolved by the one who received the notice.
Dig. 46,3,41Papinianus libro primo de adulteriis. Reo criminis postulato interim nihil prohibet recte pecuniam a debitoribus solvi: alioquin plerique innocentium necessario sumptu egebunt.
Papinianus, On Adultery, Book I. Where a creditor is accused of a crime, there is nothing to prevent the payment of money by his debtors; otherwise, many innocent persons would be deprived of the necessary means of defence.
Dig. 48,2,2Papinianus 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.
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.
Dig. 48,3,2Papinianus libro primo de adulteriis. Si servus capitali crimine postuletur, lege publicorum cavetur, ut sistendum vel a domino vel ab extero satisdato promittatur: quod si non defendatur, in vincula publica coici iubetur, ut ex vinculis causam dicat. 1Solet itaque tractari, an postea domino permittendum sit oblata satisdatione servum suum vinculis liberare. dubitationem auget edictum Domitiani, quo cautum est abolitiones ex senatus consulto factas ad huiusmodi servos non pertinere. nam et lex ipsa prohibet eum absolvi, priusquam de eo iudicetur. sed haec interpretatio perdura, pernimium severa est in eo, cuius dominus absens fuit vel quod per inopiam illo momento temporis satisdationem implere non potuit: neque enim pro indefenso derelictus recte dici potest, qui dominum praesentem non habuit vel habuit paratum defendere, pauperem tamen. quod utique facilius admitti poterit, si non post longum temporis spatium hoc desideretur. 2Qui exhibendi postulati sunt propter aliam causam, alterius criminis, quod ante admissum est, rei non recipiuntur ex senatus consulto. quod in privatis quoque causis et hominibus sub fideiussore factis observatur, nisi ex hoc temporalis actio in periculum cadat.
Papinianus, On Adultery, Book I. Where a slave is accused of a capital offence, it is provided by the law of criminal prosecutions that he must furnish security for his appearance in court, even though his surety be a stranger. If he is not defended in this way, he should be thrown into the public prison, so that he may defend himself while under restraint. 1Therefore, the question is usually discussed whether the master should afterwards, by giving security, be permitted to release his slave from confinement. The Edict of Domitian, by which it is provided that releases obtained under the Decree of the Senate are not applicable to slaves of this kind, increases the already existing doubt, for the law itself forbids him to be discharged before his case has been disposed of. This interpretation, which is somewhat hard, is too severe when applied to a slave whose master is absent, or who, through poverty, was at that time unable to furnish security. For it cannot be said that a slave is left without defence whose master is present, or is ready to defend him, but is too poor to do so. This can the more readily be admitted, if too long a time to find security has not been taken. 2Those who are required to appear in court on account of some other crime previously committed are not included in the number of accused persons, according to a Decree of the Senate. This rule is also observed in private cases, where the parties have given sureties, unless on this account a temporary action is in danger of being extinguished through lapse of time.
Dig. 48,5,6Papinianus libro primo de adulteriis. Inter liberas tantum personas adulterium stuprumve passas lex Iulia locum habet. quod autem ad servas pertinet, et legis Aquiliae actio facile tenebit et iniuriarum quoque competit nec erit deneganda praetoria quoque actio de servo corrupto: nec propter plures actiones parcendum erit in huiusmodi crimine reo. 1Lex stuprum et adulterium promiscui et καταχρηστικώτερον appellat. sed proprie adulterium in nupta committitur, propter partum ex altero conceptum composito nomine: stuprum vero in virginem viduamve committitur, quod Graeci φθορὰν appellant. 2Filius familiae maritus ab eo, qui sui iuris est, in ea lege non separatur. divus quoque Hadrianus rosiano gemino rescripsit et invito patre filium hac lege reum facere. 3Maritus etsi duo reos ex alio crimine habeat, poterit iure viri tertium accusare, quoniam ea causa non cedit in numerum ceterarum.
Papinianus, On Adultery, Book I. The Julian Law only applies to free persons who have been the victims of adultery or debauchery. With reference to female slaves, recourse can easily be had to the action authorized by the Aquilian Law, and that for injury will also lie, and the Prætorian action for the corruption of a slave will not be refused; so that the person guilty of this crime will not escape on account of the multiplicity of actions. 1The law promiscuously and incorrectly designates the same crime by the terms debauchery and adultery. Properly speaking, adultery is only committed with a married woman; this name having been adopted on account of the child being begotten by another than the husband. Debauchery, which the Greeks call “corruption,” is committed with a virgin, or a widow. 2A son under paternal control, who is a husband, is not, by this law, distinguished from one who is his own master. The Divine Hadrian stated in a Rescript addressed to Rosianus Geminus, that even without the consent of his father, a son under paternal control could bring an accusation under this law. 3The husband, although he may be already prosecuting two persons for another crime, can, by his marital right, accuse a third party, because this case is not included among the others.
Dig. 48,5,21Papinianus libro primo de adulteriis. Patri datur ius occidendi adulterum cum filia quam in potestate habet: itaque nemo alius ex patribus idem iure faciet: sed nec filius familias pater:
Papinianus, On Adultery, Book I. The right is granted to the father to kill a man who commits adultery with his daughter while she is under his control. Therefore no other relative can legally do this, nor can a son under paternal control, who is a father, do so with impunity.
Dig. 48,5,23Papinianus libro primo de adulteris. Nec in ea lege naturalis ab adoptivo pater separatur. 1In accusationem viduae filiae non habet pater ius praecipuum. 2Ius occidendi patri conceditur domi suae, licet ibi filia non habitat, vel in domo generi: sed domus et pro domicilio accipienda est, ut in lege Cornelia de iniuriis. 3Sed qui occidere potest adulterum, multo magis contumelia poterit iure adficere. 4Ideo autem patri, non marito mulierem et omnem adulterum remissum est occidere, quod plerumque pietas paterni nominis consilium pro liberis capit: ceterum mariti calor et impetus facile decernentis fuit refrenandus.
Papinianus, On Adultery, Book I. In this law, the natural father is not distinguished from the adoptive father. 1In the accusation of his daughter, who is a widow, the father is not entitled to the preference. 2The right to kill the adulterer is granted to the father in his own house, even though his daughter does not live there, or in the house of his son-in-law. The house should be understood to mean the residence, as in the Cornelian Law relating to injuries. 3He, however, who can kill an adulterer, has a much greater right to treat him with contumely. 4Hence the father, and not the husband, has the right to kill the woman and every adulterer; for the reason that, in general, paternal affection is solicitous for the interests of the children, but the heat and impetuosity of the husband, who decides too quickly, should be restrained.