[IDEM libro secundo ad legem Iuliam de adulteriis. ] §48.5.18.prDenuntiasse qualiter accipiamus, utrum ad iudicem an uero simpliciter? ego, etsi non denuntiauit ad iudicem, sufficere credo, si adulterii se acturum denuntiauerit.
[THE SAME, in the second book on the Julian Law on Adultery.] How should we understand "to have warned" (denuntiasse), whether before a judge or indeed simply? I believe that, even if he did not warn her before a judge, it is sufficient if he warned her that he would bring an action for adultery.
§48.5.18.1Quid ergo, si non quidem denuntiauit, uerum libellos accusatorios dedit, antequam nuberet, eaque, cum id cognouisset, nupsit, uel ignorans? puto non uideri ei denuntiatum: idcirco non posse accusatorem ab ea incipere.
What then, if he indeed did not warn her, but filed accusatory libels before she married, and she, having known this, married, or even in ignorance? I think that she is not deemed to have been warned: therefore, the accuser cannot begin with her.
§48.5.18.2Quid ergo, si tantum denuntiauit, ne nuberet, sed non addidit, quare, num recte nupsisse uideatur? sed melius est illud sequi, ut eius denuntiatio uideatur electionem accusatori reseruare, qui crimen denuntiauit.
What then, if he only warned her not to marry, but did not add why, would she be deemed to have married lawfully? But it is better to follow this view, that his warning is deemed to reserve the choice to the accuser who warned of the crime.
omnino igitur si fecit adulterii criminis commemorationem in denuntiatione, etsi iudicem non monstrauit, magis putamus mulierem, quasi denuntiationem praecesserit, posse accusari.
Therefore, on the whole, if he made mention of the crime of adultery in the warning, even if he did not designate the judge, we rather think that the woman can be accused, as if the warning had preceded.
§48.5.18.3Quid tamen si specialiter, cum quo adulterium fecerit, denuntiationi complexus est, mox uelit eam ex alterius persona accusare? magis est, ut non debeat audiri: neque enim crimen quod denuntiauit obicit.
What however if he specifically included in the warning the person with whom she committed adultery, but soon wishes to accuse her in relation to another person? It is more reasonable that he should not be heard; for he does not charge her with the crime which he warned of.
§48.5.18.4Sed et si per procuratorem denuntiauerit, puto posse eum accusationem si uelit instituere sufficereque procuratoris denuntiationem.
But even if he warned through a proxy, I think he can institute the accusation if he wishes, and that the warning by the proxy is sufficient.
§48.5.18.5Ergo et si per actores denuntiauerit, id est seruum dominus denuntiauerit, rata erit denuntiatio.
Therefore, even if he warned through business managers, that is, if the master warned through a slave, the warning will be valid.
§48.5.18.6Quaeritur, an alius adulteram, alius adulterum postulare possit, ut, quamuis ab eodem ambo simul postulari non possint, a diuersis tamen singuli possint.
It is asked whether one person can accuse the adulteress and another the adulterer, so that, although both cannot be accused at the same time by the same person, they can nevertheless be accused individually by different persons.
sed non ab re est hoc probare diuersos accusatores admitti posse, dum, si ante denuntiationem nupserit, prior mulier accusari non possit.
But it is not unreasonable to approve this, that different accusers can be admitted, provided that, if she married before the warning, the woman cannot be accused first.
exspectabit igitur mulier sententiam de adultero latam: si absolutus fuerit, mulier per eum uincet nec ultra accusari potest: si condemnatus fuerit, mulier non est condemnata, sed aget causam suam, ¹fortassis et optinere uel gratia uel iustitia uel legis auxilio possit.
Therefore, the woman will await the sentence passed on the adulterer: if he is acquitted, the woman will win through him and cannot be accused further; if he is condemned, the woman is not condemned, but she will plead her own case, and perhaps she may prevail either by favor, or by justice, or by the help of the law.
quid enim, si adulter inimicitiis oppressus est uel falsis argumentis testibusque subornatis apud praesidem grauatus, qui aut noluit aut non potuit prouocare, mulier uero iudicem religiosum sortita pudicitiam suam defendet?
For what if the adulterer was crushed by enmities or burdened before the governor by false arguments and suborned witnesses, and either did not wish or was not able to appeal, whereas the woman, having obtained a conscientious judge, will defend her chastity?
§48.5.18.7Sed si antequam condemnetur
But if, before he is condemned,