Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §29.5.25.pr-29.5.25.2

Rewards for Accusing Fugitives and Popular Action

Passage 4571 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

Gaius explains the provisions of the Lex Cornelia concerning the interrogation of slaves and runaway slaves when a master is killed, including rewards for accusers and punishments for those found to be free, and further discusses the popular action against violations of the praetor's edict.

[GAIUS libro septimo decimo ad edictum prouinciale. ] §29.5.25.prLege Cornelia cauetur de praemio accusatoris, qui requisiuit et renuntiauit eos seruos, qui ex ea familia ante quaestionem fugerint, ut in singulos seruos quos conuicerit quinque aureos ex bonis occisi aut, si inde redigi ea quantitas non possit, ex publico accipiat.
[GAIUS in his seventeenth book on the Provincial Edict.] It is provided by the Lex Cornelia concerning the reward of an accuser who has searched for and reported those slaves who fled from that household before the inquiry, that he shall receive for each slave of whose guilt he has convicted five aurei from the property of the deceased, or, if that sum cannot be recovered therefrom, from the public treasury.
quod praemium non in omnes seruos, qui sub eodem tecto locoue fuerint, sed in eos solos, qui caedem admisissent, accusatori tribuitur.
This reward is given to the accuser not in respect of all the slaves who were under the same roof or in the same place, but only in respect of those who had committed the murder.
§29.5.25.1Praeterea cauetur, ut de his, qui ante quaestionem habitam fugerint, si aperto testamento liberi scripti inueniantur, lege de sicariis iudicium fiat ita, ut ex uinculis causam dicant et conuicti perinde ac serui puniantur et ei qui conuicerit deni aurei praemii nomine darentur ex bonis damnati.
Furthermore, it is provided that, concerning those who fled before the inquiry was held, if they are found written down as free when the will is opened, trial shall be held under the law concerning assassins in such a manner that they shall plead their cause in chains, and if convicted, be punished just as slaves, and that ten aurei shall be given as a reward from the property of the condemned to the person who has convicted them.
§29.5.25.2Ex hoc edicto actio proficiscitur contra eum, qui aduersus edictum praetoris tabulas testamenti aperuisse dicetur uel si quid aliud fecisse dicetur: nam ut ex supra dictis apparet, plura sunt, propter quae poena edicti constituta est.
From this edict, an action arises against him who is said to have opened the tablets of a will contrary to the edict of the praetor, or is said to have done anything else; for as appears from what has been said above, there are several things on account of which the penalty of the edict is established.
palam est autem popularem actionem esse, cuius poena in centum aureos ex bonis damnati extenditur: et inde partem dimidiam ei, cuius opera conuictus erit, praemii nomine se daturum praetor pollicetur, partem in publicum redacturum.
It is clear, moreover, that this is a popular action, the penalty of which extends to one hundred aurei from the property of the condemned; and the praetor promises that he will give half thereof, as a reward, to the person by whose effort the defendant is convicted, and will pay the other half into the public treasury.

Notes

  1. §29.5.25.prut ... accipiat — This is a noun clause (an appositive or explanatory subjunctive `ut` clause) indicating the specific content of the regulation introduced by the passive verb `cauetur` ('it is provided'). The prepositional phrase `de praemio` is presented first, and the specific amount and method of payment are detailed in this `ut` clause.
  2. §29.5.25.prqui caedem admisissent — The verb in the relative clause is in the pluperfect subjunctive (`admisissent`) because Gaius is quoting or reporting the terms of the law under indirect speech or as a subjective condition. The verb `admittere` broadly means 'to commit/bring about (a crime)' or 'to allow/acquiesce in.'
  3. §29.5.25.1darentur — Unlike the preceding present subjunctives `fiat`, `dicant`, and `puniantur`, this verb is in the imperfect subjunctive. This shift may be due to the sequence of tenses treating the main verb `cauetur` as a historical present (hence transitioning to secondary sequence), or it reflects the fluctuation of tense usage in later Latin legal texts, including manuscript variants.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §29.5.25.pr-29.5.25.2. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:29.5.25.pr-29.5.25.2

Please note the AI-draft status of the translation and the date accessed.

Translation, notes and summary are AI-generated drafts, revised through reader feedback.