De officio proconsulis libri
Ex libro VII
Dig. 1,18,13Ulpianus libro septimo de officio proconsulis. Congruit bono et gravi praesidi curare, ut pacata atque quieta provincia sit quam regit. quod non difficile optinebit, si sollicite agat, ut malis hominibus provincia careat eosque conquirat: nam et sacrilegos latrones plagiarios fures conquirere debet et prout quisque deliquerit, in eum animadvertere, receptoresque eorum coercere, sine quibus latro diutius latere non potest. 1Furiosis, si non possint per necessarios contineri, eo remedio per praesidem obviam eundum est: scilicet ut carcere contineantur. et ita divus Pius rescripsit. sane excutiendum divi fratres putaverunt in persona eius, qui parricidium admiserat, utrum simulato furore facinus admisisset an vero re vera compos mentis non esset, ut si simulasset, plecteretur, si fureret, in carcere contineretur.
Ulpianus, On the Office of Proconsul, Book VII. It is proper for every good and worthy Governor to take care that the province over which he presides is peaceable and quiet. This he will accomplish without difficulty if he exerts himself to expel bad men, and diligently seek for them, as he must apprehend all sacrilegious persons, robbers, kidnappers, and thieves, and punish each one in proportion to his crime; he should also restrain those who harbor them, as without their assistance a robber cannot long remain concealed. 1In the case of insane persons who cannot be controlled by their relatives, it is the duty of the Governor to apply a remedy, namely, that of confinement in prison, as the Divine Pius stated in a Rescript. The Divine Brothers were of the opinion that where a man had committed parricide, a personal investigation should be made to learn whether he had perpetrated the deed while simulating insanity, or whether, in fact, he was not in possession of his faculties, for if he was feigning he should be punished, and if he was actually insane, he should be confined in prison.
Dig. 2,12,9Ulpianus libro septimo de officio proconsulis. Divus Traianus Minicio Natali rescripsit ferias a forensibus tantum negotiis dare vacationem, ea autem, quae ad disciplinam militarem pertinent, etiam feriatis diebus peragenda: inter quae custodiarum quoque cognitionem esse.
Ulpianus, On the Office of Proconsul, Book VII. The Divine Trajan stated in a Rescript to Minicius Natalus that holidays only cause suspension of judicial business, and that those matters which relate to military discipline can also be transacted on holidays. This also includes the examination of persons who are in prison.
Dig. 11,4,3Ulpianus libro septimo de officio proconsulis. Divus Pius rescripsit eum, qui fugitivum vult requirere in praediis alienis, posse adire praesidem litteras ei daturum et, si ita res exegerit, apparitorem quoque, ut ei permittatur ingredi et inquirere, et poenam eundem praesidem in eum constituere, qui inquiri non permisserit. sed et divus Marcus oratione, quam in senatu recitavit, facultatem dedit ingrediendi tam Caesaris quam senatorum et paganorum praedia volentibus fugitivos inquirere scrutarique cubilia atque vestigia occultantium.
Ulpianus, On the Office of Proconsul, Book VII. The Divine Pius stated in a Rescript that, where a party wishes to search for a fugitive slave on the premises of another, he can apply to the Governor for letters to be furnished him; and, if the case demands it, an officer also, in order that he may be permitted to enter and make search, and the Governor can also inflict a penalty upon him who does not permit the search to be made. The Divine Marcus, in an Address which he delivered before the Senate, granted power to parties who wished to search for fugitive slaves to enter upon and search the land of the Emperor, as well as that of Senators and private individuals for fugitive slaves, and to examine the bed-rooms and tracks of those who concealed them.
Dig. 48,2,7Idem 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.
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.
Dig. 48,3,3Ulpianus libro septimo de officio proconsulis. Divus Pius ad epistulam Antiochensium Graece rescripsit non esse in vincula coiciendum eum, qui fideiussores dare paratus est, nisi si tam grave scelus admisisse eum constet, ut neque fideiussoribus neque militibus committi debeat, verum hanc ipsam carceris poenam ante supplicium sustinere.
Ulpianus, On the Duties of Proconsul, Book VII. The Divine Pius stated in a Rescript, in Greek, to the people of Antioch, that anyone who was ready to furnish sureties for his appearance should not be placed in prison, unless it was evident that he had committed so serious a crime that he should not be entrusted to the care of any sureties, or soldiers; but that he must undergo the penalty of imprisonment before suffering that for the crime of which he is guilty.
Dig. 48,4,1Ulpianus libro septimo de officio proconsulis. Proximum sacrilegio crimen est, quod maiestatis dicitur. 1Maiestatis autem crimen illud est, quod adversus populum Romanum vel adversus securitatem eius committitur. quo tenetur is, cuius opera dolo malo consilium initum erit, quo obsides iniussu principis interciderent: quo armati homines cum telis lapidibusve in urbe sint conveniantve adversus rem publicam, locave occupentur vel templa, quove coetus conventusve fiat hominesve ad seditionem convocentur: cuiusve opera consilio malo consilium initum erit, quo quis magistratus populi Romani quive imperium potestatemve habet occidatur: quove quis contra rem publicam arma ferat: quive hostibus populi Romani nuntium litterasve miserit signumve dederit feceritve dolo malo, quo hostes populi Romani consilio iuventur adversus rem publicam: quive milites sollicitaverit concitaveritve, quo seditio tumultusve adversus rem publicam fiat:
Ulpianus, On the Duties of Proconsul, Book VII. The crime of lese majesty may closely resemble that of sacrilege. 1The crime of lese majesty is committed against the Roman people, or against their safety, and he is guilty of it by whose agency measures are maliciously taken for the death of hostages, without the order of the Emperor; or when men armed with weapons or stones appear in the city, or are assembled against the State, and occupy public places or temples; or where assemblies have been called together, or men convoked for sedition; or where, by the malicious aid and advice of anyone, plans have been formed by which the magistrates of the Roman people, or other officials invested with command or authority may be killed; or where anyone bears arms against the government, or sends a messenger or letter to the enemies of the Roman people, or communicates to them any password; or commits any act with malicious intent by means of which the enemies of the Roman people may be assisted in their designs against the government; or where anyone solicits or inflames soldiers, in order that a sedition or a tumult may be excited against the State.
Dig. 48,6,6Ulpianus libro septimo de officio proconsulis. Et eum, qui puerum ingenuum rapuit, puniendum divus Pius rescripsit in haec verba: ‘Exemplum libelli dati mihi a Domitio Silvano nomine Domitii Silvani patrui subici iussi, motus querella eius, qua significavit filium suum ingenuum, iuvenem admodum, raptum atque conclusum, mox verberibus ac tormentis usque ad summum periculum adflictum, gemine carissime: velim audias eum et, si compereris haec ita admissa, rem severe exequaris’.
Ulpianus, On the Duties of Proconsul, Book VII. The Divine Pius stated in a Rescript that whoever ravishes a freeborn boy should be punished, as follows: “I have ordered the submission to me of a petition presented by Domitius Silvanus, in the name of Domitius Silvanus, his paternal uncle, who, having been influenced by his complaint, in which it is stated that his son who was freeborn, and still very young, was carried away by force, shut up, and afterwards subjected to blows and tortures, with great danger to his life. My dear brother, I request you to hear him, and, if you ascertain that these offences have been committed, punish them severely.”
Dig. 48,8,4Ulpianus libro septimo de officio proconsulis. Lege Cornelia de sicariis tenetur, qui, cum in magistratu est esset, eorum quid fecerit contra hominis necem, quod legibus permissum non sit. 1Cum quidam per lasciviam causam mortis praebuisset, comprobatum est factum ignatii taurini proconsulis baeticae a divo Hadriano, quod eum in quinquennium relegasset. 2Idem divus Hadrianus rescripsit: ‘Constitutum quidem est, ne spadones fierent, eos autem, qui hoc crimine arguerentur, Corneliae legis poena teneri eorumque bona merito fisco meo vindicari debere, sed et in servos, qui spadones fecerint, ultimo supplicio animadvertendum esse: et qui hoc crimine tenentur, si non adfuerint, de absentibus quoque, tamquam lege Cornelia teneantur, pronuntiandum esse. plane si ipsi, qui hanc iniuriam passi sunt, proclamaverint, audire eos praeses provinciae debet, qui virilitatem amiserunt: nemo enim liberum servumve invitum sinentemve castrare debet, neve quis se sponte castrandum praebere debet. at si quis adversus edictum meum fecerit, medico quidem, qui exciderit, capitale erit, item ipsi qui se sponte excidendum praebuit’.
Ulpianus, On the Duties of Proconsul, Book VII. He is liable under the Cornelian Law relating to Assassins who, while occupying the position of magistrate, commits some act involving the life of a man which is not authorized by law. 1When a man, through mere wantonness, causes the death of another, the decision of Ignatius Taurinus, Proconsul of Bsetica, who relegated the guilty party for a term of five years, was confirmed by the Divine Hadrian. 2The Divine Hadrian also stated the following in a Rescript: “It is forbidden by the Imperial Constitutions that eunuchs should be made, and they provide that persons who are convicted of this crime are liable to the penalty of the Cornelian Law, and that their property shall with good reason be confiscated by the Treasury. “But with reference to slaves who have made eunuchs, they should be punished capitally, and those who are liable to this public crime and do not appear, shall, even when absent, be sentenced under the Cornelian Law. It is clear that if persons who have suffered this injury demand justice, the Governor of the province should hear those who have lost their virility; for no one has a right to castrate a freeman or a slave, either against his consent or with it, and no one can voluntarily offer himself to be castrated. If anyone should violate my Edict, the physician who performed the operation shall be punished with death, as well as anyone who willingly offered himself for emasculation.”
Dig. 48,10,8Ulpianus libro septimo de officio proconsulis. Quicumque nummos aureos partim raserint, partim tinxerint vel finxerint: si quidem liberi sunt, ad bestias dari, si servi, summo supplicio adfici debent.
Ulpianus, On the Duties of Proconsul, Book VII. Anyone who scrapes gold coins, or stains them, or makes them, if he is a freeman, shall be thrown to wild beasts; if he is a slave, he shall undergo the extreme penalty.
Dig. 48,13,7Ulpianus libro septimo de officio proconsulis. Sacrilegii poenam debebit proconsul pro qualitate personae proque rei condicione et temporis et aetatis et sexus vel severius vel clementius statuere. et scio multos et ad bestias damnasse sacrilegos, nonnullos etiam vivos exussisse, alios vero in furca suspendisse. sed moderanda poena est usque ad bestiarum damnationem eorum, qui manu facta templum effregerunt et dona dei in noctu tulerunt. ceterum si qui interdiu modicum aliquid de templo tulit, poena metalli coercendus est, aut, si honestiore loco natus sit, deportandus in insulam est.
Ulpianus, On the Duties of Proconsul, Book VII. The Proconsul should inflict the penalty for sacrilege either with greater or less severity or clemency, in accordance with the rank and condition of the culprit, taking into consideration the time, as well as his or her age and sex. I know that several magistrates have sentenced persons guilty of sacrilege to be thrown to wild beasts, others to be burned alive, and still others to be hanged on a gallows. The penalty, however, should be regulated by having those thrown to wild beasts who, with an armed band, have broken into a temple, and carried away the gifts of the gods by night; but where a person takes something of trifling value from a temple, he should be punished by being sentenced to the mines, or if he was born in a superior position, he should be deported to an island.
Dig. 48,13,8Idem libro eodem. Qui, cum in moneta publica operarentur, extrinsecus sibi signant pecuniam forma publica vel signatam furantur, hi non videntur adulterinam monetam exercuisse, sed furtum publicae monetae fecisse, quod ad peculatus crimen accedit. 1Si quis ex metallis Caesarianis aurum argentumve furatus fuerit, ex edicto divi Pii exilio vel metallo, prout dignitas personae, punitur. is autem, qui furanti sinum praebuit, perinde habetur, atque si manifesti furti condemnatus esset, et famosus efficitur. qui autem aurum ex metallo habuerit illicite et conflaverit, in quadruplum condemnatur.
The Same, In the Same Book. Those who make public money, or stamp it with a public die, and manufacture it for themselves outside of the mint, or steal it after it has been stamped, are not considered to have counterfeited it, but as having committed a theft of the common coin which resembles the crime of peculation. 1If anyone should steal any gold or silver belonging to the State, he shall, according to an Edict of the Divine Pius, be punished with exile, or sentenced to the mines according to his rank. Anyone who lends his stamp to a thief is considered to have been convicted of manifest theft, and becomes infamous. He who has unlawfully extracted gold from a mine, and melted it, is condemned to quadruple damages.
Dig. 48,16,14Ulpianus libro septimo de officio proconsulis. Divus Hadrianus Salvio Caro proconsuli Cretae rescripsit tutorem, qui pupilli causa instituerat accusationem, defuncto pupillo, cuius causa accusare coeperat, non esse cogendum accusationem implere.
Ulpianus, On the Duties of Proconsul, Book VII. The Divine Hadrian stated in a Rescript addressed to Salvius Carus, Proconsul of Crete, that where a guardian had filed an accusation in the name of his ward, and the latter, in whose behalf he had filed it, had died, he should not be compelled to proceed with the accusation.
Dig. 48,19,5Ulpianus libro septimo de officio proconsulis. Absentem in criminibus damnari non debere divus Traianus Iulio Frontoni rescripsit. sed nec de suspicionibus debere aliquem damnari divus Traianus Adsidio Severo rescripsit: satius enim esse inpunitum relinqui facinus nocentis quam innocentem damnari. adversus contumaces vero, qui neque denuntiationibus neque edictis praesidum obtemperassent, etiam absentes pronuntiari oportet secundum morem privatorum iudiciorum. potest quis defendere haec non esse contraria. quid igitur est? melius statuetur in absentes pecuniarias quidem poenas vel eas, quae existimationem contingunt, si saepius admoniti per contumaciam desint, statui posse et usque ad relegationem procedi: verum si quid gravius irrogandum fuisset, puta in metallum vel capitis poenam, non esse absentibus irrogandam. 1In accusatorem autem absentem nonnumquam gravius statuendum, quam Turpilliani senatus consulti poena irrogatur, dicendum est. 2Refert et in maioribus delictis, consulto aliquid admittatur, an casu. et sane in omnibus criminibus distinctio haec poenam aut iustam elicere debet aut temperamentum admittere.
Ulpianus, On the Duties of Proconsul, Book VII. The Divine Trajan stated in a Rescript addressed to Julius Frontonus that anyone who is absent should not be convicted of crime. Likewise, no one should be convicted on suspicion; for the Divine Trajan stated in a Rescript to Assiduus Severus: “It is better to permit the crime of a guilty person to go unpunished than to condemn one who is innocent.” Persons, however, who are contumacious and do not obey either the notices or the edicts of Governors, can, even though absent, be sentenced, as is customary in private offences. Anyone can safely maintain that these things are not contradictory. What, then, should be done? With reference to parties who are absent it is better to decide that pecuniary penalties, or those which affect the reputation, even to the extent of relegation, can be imposed if they, having been frequently notified, do not appear through obstinacy; but if any more serious punishment should be inflicted, as, for instance, hard labor in the mines, or death, it cannot be imposed upon the parties while they are absent. 1It must be said that where an accuser is absent, heavier penalties are sometimes imposed than that prescribed by the Turpillian Decree of the Senate. 2A distinction must be made in more serious crimes, that is whether they have been committed intentionally, or accidentally. And, indeed, in all offences, this distinction should either induce a penalty to be inflicted in strict compliance with the law, or admit of moderation in this respect.