[CALLISTRATUS libro quarto de cognitionibus. ] §22.5.3.prTestium fides diligenter examinanda est.
[CALLISTRATUS, On Cognitions, Book 4.] The credibility of witnesses must be carefully examined.
Ideoque in persona eorum exploranda erunt in primis condicio cuiusque, utrum quis decurio an plebeius sit: et an honestae et inculpatae uitae an uero notatus quis et reprehensibilis: an locupletes uel egens sit, ut lucri causa quid facile admittat: uel an inimicus ei sit, aduersus quem testimonium fert, uel amicus ei sit, pro quo testimonium dat.
Therefore, in their person, the condition of each must be investigated first of all, whether one is a decurion or a plebeian; and whether they are of an honorable and blameless life, or indeed marked with disgrace and reprehensible; whether one is wealthy or needy, so that they might easily admit something for the sake of gain; or whether they are an enemy to the person against whom they bear testimony, or a friend to the person for whom they give testimony.
nam si careat suspicione testimonium uel propter personam a qua fertur (quod honesta sit) uel propter causam (quod neque lucri neque gratiae neque inimicitiae causa fit), admittendus est.
For if the testimony is free from suspicion either because of the person by whom it is borne (because they are honorable) or because of the cause (because it is done neither for the sake of gain, nor favor, nor enmity), [the witness] is to be admitted.
§22.5.3.1Ideoque diuus Hadrianus Uibio Uaro legato prouinciae Ciliciae rescripsit eum qui iudicat magis posse scire, quanta fides habenda sit testibus.
And therefore, the divine Hadrian wrote back to Vibius Varus, the legate of the province of Cilicia, that the one who judges is better able to know how much credibility is to be given to witnesses.
uerba epistulae haec sunt: 'Tu magis scire potes, quanta fides habenda sit testibus, qui et cuius dignitatis et cuius existimationis sint, et qui simpliciter uisi sint dicere utrum unum eundemque meditatum sermonem attulerint an ad ea quae interrogaauerat ex tempore uerisimilia responderint'. §22.5.3.2Eiusdem quoque principis exstat rescriptum ad Ualerium Uerum de excutienda fide testium in haec uerba: 'Quae argumenta ad quem modum probandaque cuique rei sufficiant, nullo certo modo satis definiri potest.
The words of the letter are these: 'You are better able to know how much credibility is to be given to the witnesses, who they are, of what standing, and of what reputation, and whether those who seemed to speak simply brought a single, pre-meditated speech, or answered plausibly on the spot to those things which you had questioned.' There also exists a rescript of the same emperor to Valerius Verus concerning the examination of the credibility of witnesses in these words: 'What arguments and in what manner are sufficient to prove each matter cannot be defined enough in any certain way.
sicut non semper, ita saepe sine publicis monumentis cuiusque rei ueritas deprehenditur.
Just as it is not always the case, so often the truth of each matter is discovered without public records.
alias numerus testium, alias dignitas et auctoritas, alias ueluti consentiens fama confirmat rei de qua quaeritur fidem.
Sometimes the number of witnesses, sometimes their standing and authority, and sometimes a seemingly consensual rumor confirms the credibility of the matter under inquiry.
hoc ergo solum tibi rescribere possum summatim non utique ad unam probationis speciem cognitionem statim alligari debere, sed ex sententia animi tui te aestimare oportere, quid aut credas aut parum probatum tibi opinaris'. §22.5.3.3Idem diuus Hadrianus Iunio Rufino proconsuli Macedoniae rescripsit testibus non testimoniis crediturum.
This alone, therefore, I can write back to you in summary: that the cognition ought not by any means to be bound immediately to one kind of proof, but you ought to estimate according to the judgment of your mind what you either believe or consider to be insufficiently proven to you.' The same divine Hadrian wrote back to Junius Rufinus, the proconsul of Macedonia, that he would believe witnesses, not written testimonies.
uerba epistulae ad hanc partem pertinentia haec sunt: 'Quod crimina obiecerit apud me Alexander Apro et quia non probabat nec testes producebat, sed testimoniis uti uolebat, quibus apud me locus non est (nam ipsos interrogare soleo), quem remissi ad prouinciae praesidem, ut is de fide testium quaereret et nisi implesset quod intenderat, relegaretur'. §22.5.3.4Gabinio quoque Maximo idem princeps in haec uerba rescripsit: 'Alia est auctoritas praesentium testium, alia testimonium nunc recitari solent: tecum ergo delibera, ut, si retinere eos uelis, des eis 'impendia'. §22.5.3.5Lege Iulia de ui cauetur, ne hac lege in rerum testimonium dicere liceret, qui se ab eo parenteue eius liberauerit, quiue impuberes erunt, quique iudicio publico damnatus erit qui eorum in integrum restitutus non est, quiue in uinculis custodiaue publica erit, quiue ad bestias ut depugnaret se locauerit, quaeue palam quaestum faciet feceritue, quiue ob testimonium dicendum uel non dicendum pecuniam accepisse iudicatus uel conuictus erit.
The words of the letter pertaining to this part are these: 'As to the charges which Alexander brought before me against Aper, and because he did not prove them nor produce witnesses, but wished to use written testimonies, for which there is no place before me (for I am accustomed to question the witnesses themselves), I sent him back to the governor of the province so that he might inquire into the credibility of the witnesses, and unless he fulfilled what he had intended, he should be relegated.' The same emperor also wrote back to Gabinius Maximus in these words: 'The authority of present witnesses is one thing, that of written testimonies which are now accustomed to be read is another; therefore, deliberate with yourself so that, if you wish to retain them, you may give them "expenses".' By the Lex Julia de vi, it is provided that under this law it should not be permitted to give testimony concerning matters for anyone who has been freed by that person or their parent, or who is under age, or who has been condemned in a public trial and has not been restored to his previous status, or who is in chains or public custody, or who has hired himself out to fight against wild beasts, or any woman who openly makes or has made a gain, or who has been judged or convicted of having accepted money for giving or not giving testimony.
nam quidam propter reuerentiam personarum, quidam propter lubricum consilii sui, alii uero propter notam et infamiam uitae suae admittendi non sunt ad testimonii fidem.
For some, on account of reverence for persons, some on account of the slipperiness of their judgment, and others indeed on account of the mark and infamy of their life, are not to be admitted to the credibility of testimony.
§22.5.3.6Testes non temere euocandi sunt per longum iter et multo minus milites auocandi sunt a signis uel muneribus perhibendi testimonii causa, idque diuus Hadrianus rescripsit.
Witnesses are not to be summoned heedlessly through a long journey, and much less are soldiers to be called away from their standards or duties for the sake of giving testimony; and the divine Hadrian wrote this back.
sed et diui fratres rescripserunt: 'Quod ad testes euocandos pertinet, diligentiae iudicantis est explorare, quae consuetudo in ea prouincia, in quam iudicat, fuerit'. Nam si probabitur saepe in aliam ciuitatem testimonii gratia plerosque euocatos, non esse dubitandum, quin euocandi sint, quos necessarios in ipsa cognitione deprehenderit qui iudicat.
But the divine brothers also wrote back: 'As far as summoning witnesses is concerned, it is the diligence of the one who judges to investigate what custom there has been in that province in which he judges.' For if it is proved that many have often been summoned to another city for the sake of testimony, there is no doubt that those whom the one who judges finds necessary in the cognition itself ought to be summoned.