[ULPIANUS libro uicensimo quinto ad edictum praetoris. ] §47.12.3.prPraetor ait: 'Cuius dolo malo sepulchrum uiolatum esse dicetur, in eum in factum iudicium dabo, ut ei, ad quem pertineat, quanti ob eam rem aequum uidebitur, condemnetur.
[ULPIANUS in the twenty-fifth book on the Edict of the Praetor.] The Praetor says: 'If it is alleged that anyone's sepulchre has been violated with malicious intent, I will grant an action in factum against him, so that he may be condemned to pay to the person to whom it belongs whatever amount shall seem fair on account of that matter.
si nemo erit, ad quem pertineat, siue agere nolet: quicumque agere uolet, ei centum aureorum actionem dabo.
If there is no one to whom it belongs, or if he is unwilling to sue, I will grant an action for one hundred aurei to whoever is willing to sue.
si plures agere uolent, cuius iustissima causa esse uidebitur, ei agendi potestatem faciam.
If several persons wish to sue, I will give the power of suing to the one whose cause appears to be the most just.
si quis in sepulchro dolo malo habitauerit aedificiumue aliud, quamque sepulchri causa factum sit, habuerit: in eum, si quis eo nomine agere uolet, ducentorum aureorum iudicium dabo'. §47.12.3.1Prima uerba ostendunt eum demum ex hoc plecti, qui dolo malo uiolauit.
If anyone has with malicious intent inhabited a sepulchre or has held any building other than what was built for the sake of the sepulchre, I will grant an action for two hundred aurei against him, if anyone is willing to sue on that account.' The first words show that only he who has violated with malicious intent is punished under this.
si igitur dolus absit, cessabit eiusdem.
Therefore, if malicious intent is absent, the action against the same person will cease.
personae igitur doli non capaces, ut admodum impuberes, item omnes, qui non animo uiolandi accedunt, excusati sunt.
Consequently, persons not capable of malicious intent, such as those who are very young, and likewise all who approach without the intention of violating, are excused.
§47.12.3.2Sepulchri autem appellatione omnem sepulturae locum contineri existimandum est.
Moreover, by the term 'sepulchre,' it must be understood that every place of burial is included.
§47.12.3.3Si quis in hereditarium sepulchrum inferat, quamuis heres, tamen potest sepulchri uiolati teneri, si forte contra uoluntatem testatoris intulit: licet enim cauere testatori, ne quis eo inferatur, ut rescripto imperatoris Antonini cauetur: seruari enim uoluntatem eius oportere.
If anyone brings a body into a hereditary sepulchre, even if he is an heir, he can nevertheless be held liable for violating a sepulchre, if by chance he brought it in against the will of the testator; for it is permitted to a testator to provide that no one be brought into it, as is provided in a rescript of the Emperor Antoninus; for his will ought to be observed.
ergo et si cauit, ut unus tantum heredum inferret, seruabitur, ut solus inferat.
Therefore, even if he provided that only one of the heirs should bring a body in, it shall be observed that he alone brings it in.
§47.12.3.4Non perpetuae sepulturae tradita corpora posse transferri edicto diui Seueri continetur, quo mandatur, ne corpora detinerentur aut uexarentur aut prohiberentur per territoria oppidorum transferri.
That bodies not committed to permanent burial can be transferred is contained in an edict of the deified Severus, by which it is ordered that bodies should not be detained or harassed or prohibited from being carried through the territories of towns.
diuus tamen Marcus rescripsit nullam poenam meruisse eos, qui corpus in itinere defuncti per uicos aut oppidum transuexerunt, quamuis talia fieri sine permissu eorum, quibus permittendi ius est, non debeant.
However, the deified Marcus wrote in a rescript that those who carried the body of a deceased person on a journey through villages or a town deserved no penalty, although such things ought not to be done without the permission of those who have the right of permitting.
§47.12.3.5Diuus Hadrianus rescripto poenam statuit quadraginta aureorum in eos qui in ciuitate sepeliunt, quam fisco inferri iussit, et in magistratus eadem qui passi sunt, et locum publicari iussit et corpus transferri.
The deified Hadrian, by a rescript, established a penalty of forty aurei against those who bury in a city, which he ordered to be paid to the treasury, and the same against magistrates who permitted it, and he ordered the place to be confiscated and the body to be transferred.
quid tamen, si lex municipalis permittat in ciuitate sepeliri? post rescripta principalia an ab hoc discessum sit, uidebimus, quia generalia sunt rescripta et oportet imperialia statuta suam uim optinere et in omni loco ualere.
But what if a municipal law permits burial in a city? We shall see whether there has been a departure from this after the imperial rescripts, because rescripts are general, and it is necessary that imperial statutes should maintain their force and be valid in every place.
§47.12.3.6Si quis in sepulchro habitasset aedificiumue habuisset, ei qui uelit agendi potestas fit.
If anyone has inhabited a sepulchre or has held a building there, the power of suing is given to whoever wishes to do so.
§47.12.3.7Aduersus eos, qui cadauera spoliant, praesides seuerius interuenire, maxime si manu armata adgrediantur, ut, si armati more latronum id egerint, etiam capite plectantur, ut diuus Seuerus rescripsit, si sine armis, usque ad poenam metalli procedunt.
Against those who despoil corpses, governors should intervene more severely, especially if they attack with an armed force, so that, if being armed they have done this in the manner of robbers, they may even be punished with death, as the deified Severus wrote in a rescript; if without arms, they go as far as the penalty of the mines.
§47.12.3.8Qui de sepulchri uiolati actione iudicant, aestimabunt, quatenus intersit, scilicet ex iniuria quae facta est, item ex lucro eius qui uiolauit, uel ex damno quod contigit, uel ex temeritate eius qui fecit: numquam tamen minoris debent condemnare, quam solent extraneo agente.
Those who judge concerning the action for violating a sepulchre will estimate how much it matters, namely from the injury which was done, likewise from the gain of him who violated, or from the damage which occurred, or from the rashness of him who did it; however, they ought never to condemn for less than they are accustomed to do when an outsider sues.
§47.12.3.9Si ad plures ius sepulchri pertineat, utrum omnibus damus actionem an ei qui occupauit? Labeo omnibus dandam dicit recte, quia in id, quod uniuscuiusque interest, agitur.
If the right of a sepulchre belongs to several, do we give the action to all or to the one who first took possession? Labeo rightly says that it should be given to all, because the action is brought for that which is of interest to each individual.
§47.12.3.10Si is, cuius interest, sepulchri uiolati agere nollet, potest paenitentia acta, antequam lis ab alio contestetur, dicere uelle se agere et audietur.
If he who has an interest should be unwilling to sue for violating a sepulchre, he can, having changed his mind, before joinder of issue by another, say that he wishes to sue, and he will be heard.
§47.12.3.11Si seruus in sepulchro habitat uel aedificauit, noxalis actio cessat et in eum praetor hanc actionem pollicetur.
If a slave inhabits a sepulchre or has built there, the noxal action ceases, and the praetor promises this action against him.
si tamen non habitet, sed domunculam ibi habeat seruus, noxale iudicium erit dandum, si modo habere posse uidetur.
If, however, he does not inhabit, but the slave has a small hut there, a noxal judgment must be given, provided only that he is seen to be able to hold it.
§47.12.3.12Haec actio popularis est.
This action is popular.