§5.5.1contra tabulas quoque saepe dicendum est, cum eas non solum refelli sed etiam accusari sciamus esse usitatum.
One must also often speak against documents, since we know it is customary for them not only to be refuted but even to be accused.
cum sit autem in his aut scelus signatorum aut ignorantia, tutius ac facilius id, quod secundo loco diximus, tractatur, quod pauciores rei fiunt.
However, since there is in these cases either the crime of the signers or their ignorance, that which we mentioned in the second place is treated more safely and easily, because fewer people are made defendants.
§5.5.2sed hoc ipsum argumenta ex causa trahit, si forte aut incredibile est id actum esse, quod tabulae continent, aut, ut frequentius evenit, aliis probationibus aeque inartificialibus solvitur; si aut is in quem signatum est, aut aliquis signator dicitur afuisse vel prius esse defunctus; si tempora non congruunt; si vel antecedentia vel insequentia tabulis repugnant.
But this very point draws arguments from the case itself, if for instance it is incredible that what the documents contain was actually done, or, as more frequently happens, it is refuted by other equally inartificial proofs; if either the person against whom the document was signed, or one of the signers, is said to have been absent or to have died beforehand; if the dates do not agree; or if either preceding or subsequent events conflict with the documents.
inspectio etiam ipsa saepe falsum deprehendit.
Even a physical inspection itself often detects a forgery.