Crimen Laesae Maiestatis in the Lex Romana Wisigothorum (F. L. Lear).pdf

8/13/2019 Crimen Laesae Maiestatis in the Lex Romana Wisigothorum (F. L. Lear).pdf

1/16

Medieval Academy of America

Crimen Laesae Maiestatis in the Lex Romana WisigothorumAuthor(s): Floyd Seyward LearSource: Speculum, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Jan., 1929), pp. 73-87Published by: Medieval Academy of AmericaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2847127.

Accessed: 23/06/2013 09:06

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Medieval Academy of Americais collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Speculum.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 150.214.40.140 on Sun, 23 Jun 2013 09:06:54 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=medacadhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2847127?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2847127?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=medacad


2/16

CRIMEN LAESAE MAIESTATIS IN THELEX ROMANA WISIGOTHORUM1BY FLOYD SEYWARD LEAR

THE crimes f tese-majestgnd treason nder he RomanLawhave been nvestigatedith arebyTheodorMommsennhisRomischestrafrechtLeipzig, 899),while ome dditionalvidencehas beenbrought orwardn thearticles nMaiestas ndPerduellioby G. HumbertndCh.LecrivainnDarembergndSaglio'sDic-tionaire esAntiquites recquestRomaines.2Morerecently brief

I The standard edition of the Breviary s Lex Romana Visigothorum,d., G. Haenel(Leipzig, 1849). In the present tudy I refer o the provisions f the Breviary n Haenel'seditionunder theabbreviation .R.V., whileotherreferenceso this workwill be designatedsimplyHaenel. A valuable aid to researchs M. Conrat,BreuiariumAlaricianum.R6mischesRecht m Frdnkischen eich in Systematischerarstellung Leipzig, 1903), whichprovidesasystematic opical arrangement f the material n the Breviary. For the various textsandredactions ftheBreviary nd its epitomes, ee the ProlegomenaVol. I, part 1) of theMomm-sen-Meyer ditionof the TheodosianCode Berlin,1905), pp. lxv-cvi.For essentialsecondaryworks, ee R. SchroSder,ehrbuch er DeutschenRechtsgeschichte(6thed. byE. von Klinstberg, erlin nd Leipzig: de Gruyter, 922), pp. 252-253,withnn.5-6 (Bibliography);H. Brunner, eutscheRechtsgeschichte2d ed.,Leipzig, 1906), I, 510-516;0. Karlowa,RimischesRechtsgeschichteLeipzig,1885), II, 976-982; M. Conrat,GeschichteerQuellenund Literatur es R6mischen echtsm FriiherenMittelalterLeipzig, 1891), I, 41-46;89-90; 218-252; P. Kruger,GeschichteerQuellen nd Litteratur esRimischen echts2d ed.,Leipzig, 1912), pp. 308-316, in SystematischesandbuchderDeutschenRechtswissenschaft;R. de Urefiay Smenjaud,La Legislaci6nG6tico-Hispana Madrid, 1905), pp. 296-323; F. C.von Savigny,GeschichteesR6mischen echts m Mittelalter2d ed., Heidelberg,1834), II,37-67; Haenel, pp. v-xl; A. Tardif,HistoiredesSourcesdu DroitFranCais,OriginesRomaines(Paris, 1890), pp. 129-143; H. 0. Taylor.TheMediaevalMind (4thed.,NewYork: Macmillan,1925), II, 272-273,278; SelectEssays inAnglo-Americanegal History, ompiled and editedbya Committee f the Association f American aw Schools Boston,1907), I, 15 ff.;H. D.Hazeltine, Roman and Canon Law in the Middle Ages,' Cambridge edievalHistoryCam-bridge: Macmillan, 1926),V, 721-722.

2 Mommsenwas, byno means, hefirst cholar o deal with hisphaseofRoman Law, asonemayobserve fhe scanthrough he ists nthevarious ditions fthe Bibliothecauridica,an extensive ibliography f egal literaturewidelyused inthe 18th centurynd compiledbyM. Lipenius,but ratherhis Strafrechtepresentshe culminatingccomplishmentfmodernstudy nthisfield. Alsothe writers fthe 16th,17th, nd 18thcenturieswere, s a rule, om-mentators r legaltheorists,whereasMommsen determined acts n accordance with modernscientificmethodsof research. Note the works of Mommsen's immediatepredecessors:G. Geib,Geschichtees Riimischenriminalprocessesis zum Tode Justinian's Leipzig,1842),pp. 50-66; W. Rein, Das CriminalrechterR6mervon Romulusbis aufJustinianus Leipzig,1844), pp. 504-597; A. Zumpt,Das CriminalrechterRbmischen epublik Berlin,1865-69)especiallyI (2), 324-338on perduellio; I (1), 226-264; 376-392 on perduelliond maiestas;II (2), 62-78 on crimenalsi. 73

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/16

74 CrimenLaesae Maiestatistreatmentfthese ffencesas appearednPart ofa monographbyPandiasM. Schisas f heUniversityfLondon, ntitled ffencesagainsthe taten Roman aw.' This tudys ncompleteutrepre-sents ndependentesearch.However,Mommsenemainstillourstandard uthority,ndit seems nlikelyhatthenearfuture illadd greatlyo hisdefinitiveontributionn the ield fRoman ubliccriminalaw. Unfortunatelyommsen id notcarry hese tudiesinto ither heBreviaryorthePapianus;and an analysis fthesebodies f aw must e made,fwe areto knowwhat rovisionsf heRoman Law dealingwithoffencesgainst he state werecarriedover ntotheleges omanaewhen he Visigothicnd Burgundiankings urned o the taskof providingodes for heirRomansub-jects. Of thetwo,theLex RomanaWisigothorumr BreuiariumAlariciBreviary)s by far hemore ignificantnd far-reachingnitsinfluence,nd it alone constituteshe objectofexaminationnthis rticle.The history fthe Breviaryas beendealt with t length y anumberf accepted pecialistsnlegalhistoryndhistoricaluris-prudence,ndrequires o detailed iscussion.t wascompiled ortheuseof he rouincialesf outhern aulby commissionf uristswhowere ppointedy KingAlaric I to examineuchRoman awsas were n current se in his dominions.3he resultingode wasapprovedn 506 at an assemblytAire nGasconynd waspromul-

1 P. M. Schisas,Offencesgainst heState n Roman Law (London: University f LondonPress, 1926),pp. 3-15.2 Variousnames have been applied to this compilation.The confusionn terminologyseems tohave arisen mainlybecause ofthevariations fthe manuscriptources. The follow-ing istgives severaltitleswhich have chanced uponinthecourseof thepreparation f thisstudy, nd does not exhaust thepossibilities: ex Romana,Lex RomanaWisigothorum,iberLegumRomanorum, iber LegumRomanarum, ex Romanorum, iber Aniani, LiberLegum,LiberLegis, LiberLegisDoctorum, riginaliaLegum,CorpusLegum,Liber uris, Liberluri-dicus,Lex Theodosii,CorpusTheodosii,CorpusTheodosianum,iber Breuiatus,Breuiarium,BreuiariumAlarici, nd BreuiariumAlaricianum. See H. Brunner, p. cit., , 512; P. Kruger,op. cit.,p. 309; Haenel, p. vi,n. 6.The Lex Romana Wisigothorumelongsto the groupof laws designated eges romanaeand must be distinguishedarefully rom he LegesWisigothorumrForum udicumof ater

datewhich re properlyermed egesbarbarorum.3 Brunner elievesthat Alaric'ssudden nterestn his Roman provincialswas caused byno altruistic mpulsebut by the threatof impendingttack at thehands of Clovis and hisFranks. Cf.H. Brunner, p. cit., , 511.



4/16

CrimenLaesae Maiestatis 75gatedby the king s the sole code forhisRomansubjects.Con-structedirectlypon hefoundationsfRoman aw, t s a curiouscollectionfmaterialsrawnn arge artfrom he Thzeodosianodeand Sentencesf Paulus.' The textoftheRoman Law is quoteduerbatim,2nd manyprovisionsre accompanied yan interpreta-tion interpretatio)hich sually xpressesn brieferorm he enseof he ext.3 hese nterpretationeso notreflectVisigothicttemptto restateheRomanLaw intermswhich hey ouldbetter nder-stand,but,as HenryOsbornTaylorremarks, robably epresent'the approved xpositionfthe leges,withtheexpositionf thealready rchaic entencesf Paulus, currentn the aw schools fGaul inthefifthentury.' Maitland ays n hishelpfulrticlenthe Select ssays n Anglo-AmericanegalHistory:It is thoughtnowadays hatthis interpretationndthe orry ersion f Gaiusrepresent,ot Gothicbarbarism,ut degenerate oman science.A timehad come when awyers ouldno longer nderstandheir

1 These are the onlyportions f theBreviaryontainingmaterialbearingon treason ndrelated ffences. he textsderived rom he Nouellaeof Theodosius nd succeeding mperors,Gregorian nd HermogenianCodes, Responsaof Papinian, and LiberGaii yieldnothing fimportance.

2 Save for he Institutesf Gaius which ppear inthecorrupted orm ftheLiberGaii.3 Cf. Codex Theodosianus, , 1, 1 (L.R. V. Codex 7, 1, 1) with its interpretatio. he in-vidious relationbetweenbarbari nd Romani n theconstitutioisappears in the nterpretatioand epitomes. Maraudingbarbarians giveway to plundering rigands, .e., the interpretatiogeneralizeshe law. Cf. another imilar ase inC. Th., 15, 14,14 (L.R.V. C. 15,3. 1). Also theomissions f the interpretationesre sometimes uggestive. However, ll evidenceofthis sortis, in themain,negative. The Visigothicnterpretationesre not complete nalyses and com-mentarieswith some re-formulationr re-statementomparable o portions f the Lombard

expositiones.They were often not so muchexplanatory f the textas qualificative r cor-rective.' Cf. H. Goudy, 'Roman Law,' EncyclopaediaBritannica Ilth ed., Cambridge,1911), XXIII, 572.4 H. 0. Taylor,op. cit., I, 272. Cf. 0. Karlowa,op. cit., I, 977-979, regarding basis ofearlier commentaries orconstructinghe interpretationesnd givingthe views of Fitting,Dernbergand Degenkolb; H. Brunner, p. cit., , 514; P. KrUger, p. cit.,pp. 311-313; M.Conrat, Quellen, , 89-90; Haenel, pp. x-xi, especiallynotes37-38. Haenel remarks:'Finis interpretationisuplex potissimumrat: ut explanarenturegeset ad praesentemRomanorum statum accommodarentur,uare compluriumegum interpretatiod uerbumfacta est, contraaliarumeum in modum, quem praesensRomanorum status et usus pro-uinciae postulauit. Ad hoc genus nterpretationesertinent, uibus leges correctae ebusuealiundesumtis mplificataeunt, ut inquibusaliorum ibrorumimilesegescommemorantur.Eae moueruntdoctos,ut a Wisigothisfactamesse interpretationemxistimarent,t huncquidem nfinem, t ius Gothorumd Romanos deferretur,uam sententiam eramesse nego.'For theoldercontrary iew,see F. von Savigny,op. cit., I, 54-55.



5/16

76 CrimenLaesae Maiestatisownold texts nd were ontentwith ebased bridgments.'Littlecontrastetween oman ndGermanicegal deasmaybeobtainedby comparinghe nterpretatioith hetextwhich t accompanies.Thus,theBreviaryossessesittle aluearising rom ny originalityof ts own,but tdoes serve o indicatewhatRoman aws,bearingon treason nd other elatedpublicoffences,ere ransmittedothe western ermansince tremainedhegreat egalcompend orthosepeoples utsidetaly,as lateas theCarolingian eriod.2Be-tween he eighth nd tenth enturiest was reduced o epitomesmakingheworkessbulky ndcombininghe exand the nterpre-tatio.3 n general, owever,ittlenew ight s castupon the pro-

SelectEssays in Anglo-Americanegal HistoryBoston,1907), I, 15.2 Cf. 0. Karlowa, op. cit., I, 977: 'Sie (Savigny,Haenel, Fitting)habengezeigt,dass sieals einewichtigeErkenntnisquelle ur die damaligenZustainde es westgotischen eichs zubetrachtenst,fernerber auch,wenn ieauch keinenWerthatfur ie Kenntnisdes klassischenromischenRechts, doch Aufschluss iebttiberden Rechtszustand m westromischen eichum die Scheidedes 5. und 6. Jahrhr. ach Chr.'H. Brunner, p. cit., , 515, discussesthe laterhistory f the Breviarynd shows that itremainedthe chiefbook on Roman Law in France,Germany, nd England as late as the

twelfth entury. It was retained n the Frankish ands, although ts use in Spain had beendiscontinyed y Recceswinth.Cf. H. 0. Taylor, op. cit., I, 272.In determining reciselywhatcontributionsheBreviarymade to subsequent egislation,no student fmediaeval aw shouldoverlook hehighly etailedanalysisofAlfred onWret-schko nVol. I, Part 1, ofthe Mommsen-Meyerdition f the Theodosian ode Berlin,1905),pp. cccvii-ccclx De Usu BreuiariiAlariciani Forensiet Scholastico er Hispaniam,Galliam,ItaliamRegionesque icinas).The influence f the Lex Romana BurgundionumPapianus) and of the Edictum Theo-doriciwas much morecircumscribed,nd the possible influence f a Roman 'Vulgdrrecht'whereinRoman law became debased to a kind ofpopularcustom among the Gallo-Romanprovincialsmustbe subjectedto specialstudybefore eaching ositive onclusions.However,I doubt that this customaryRoman law transmittedmuch material,not contained n theBreviary.Cf. H. 0. Taylor,op. cit., I, 268, 275,277,on Romanesque or popularRoman law;also C. H. Haskins, TheRenaissance ftheTwelfth enturyCambridge:HarvardUniversityPress,1927), pp. 195-196,whosays: For mostpeople in partsof talyand in Southern rance)theRoman aw came to restupon ocal custom, popularized nd, nsomerespectsdegenerateform f aw,which ore somewhat he ame relation o theclassical urisprudences theVulgarLatin oftheprovinces ore to theclassicalspeech.'Also it shouldbe borne in mindthat therewere otherchannels, ess obvious than theBreviary, herebyRoman legal ideas mightfindtheirway into the legesbarbarorum.Cf.M. Conrat,Quellen, , 3,withnotes8-9, 13-14, regardinglementsnthe Bavarian and Lom-bard laws derivedfrom heCorpus uris Ciuilis and ecclesiasticalegislation.

3 As a rule, he epitomes endto be based uponthe nterpretationesather hantheoriginaltextoftheRonianlex nd ius. Cf. H. Brunner, p.cit., , 515-516. The best discussions ftheepitomes nd glosses reHaenel, pp.xxiii-xl,nd M. Conrat,Quellen,, 292-252,286-292,withnotes,and A. Tardif,Histoiredes Sources,pp. 136-142. Haenel, Conrat,and Tardif agree,



6/16

CrimenLaesae Maiestatis 77visions elating opublic riminalaw byeither he nterpretationesor theepitomes.New ideas arerarelydded,while lterationsndexcisions eldommodify heoriginalmeaningn a vital manner.'The chiefxceptionsothis ulemaybe found ntheEpitome anctiGalli.Following heclassificationftheRomanLaw, themost eriousoffencesgainst hestate re ncluded nder heprovisionsf aesamaiestas,2ndintheBreviaryhe crime f aesamaiestass definedinthe erms f hewell-knownassage romhe entencesfPaulus:inthe main,onproblems oncerninghe date andplace oforigin ftheepitomes, s here isted:EpitomeAegidii 8thcentury,outhern rance); Scintilla rEpitomeCodicisParisiensis10753(formerlyuppl. Lat. 215) (8th century, rance); EpitomeMonachi (8th century, rance);EpitomeCodicisGuelpherbytani8thcentury, rance?); EpitomeCodicisLugdunensis7th-9thcentury,France); EpitomeCodicis Seldeni (19th-century nglish MS., based on earlierFrankishsources?); and EpitomeSancti Galli, variouslyknown as Lex Romana Utinensis,Lex RomanaCuriensis,Lex RomanaRaetica,and Lex RomanaRaetica Curiensis ca. 8th cen-tury, witzerland). The exactplace oforigin ftheEpitome . Galli has longbeendisputedAVariousplaces have been suggested ncluding ombardy, stria,southernGermany, r i theregionofSwitzerlandRhaetia), which s generally ccepted at present. See C-- , I, 288,n. 6; 289,n. 1; 290, n. 4; 291, n. 1. The Epitome . Galli alonepossesses nylarge ignificancefor this studyinasmuchas it displays the influence fGermanicelementsmarkedly:DieLexRomanaCuriensis vongermanisch-rechtlicheninfltissentarkdurchsetztst' (Conrat,I, 9238); [La Rex Curiensis]nous fournit es renseignementsrecieuxsur le droit romainvulgairede cetteepoque' (Tardif,p. 141).1 This statements by no means trueof theprovisions elating o mattersnprivate aw,and mustnot be acceptedtoo narrowly n any case. For therelation fthe epitomes o thedevelopment fa Roman 'Vulgdrrecht' nder he influence fGermanic aw, see H. Brunner,op. cit., , 516,especiallyn. 26.

2 Note otheroffencesgainst the state, istedin the Bretiary,whichare closelyrelatedand sometimesnvolvedwith maiestas:C. Th., 9, 10, 1 and 3-4 (L. R. V. C. 9, 7, 1-3) AdLegem uliam de Vi Publica etPriuata; Paulus, Sententiae, , 26,1-4 (L.R.V. P. 5, 28, 1-4)Ad Legem uliam de Vi Publica etPriuata; C.Th., 9, 27, 1 and 4 (L.R.V. C. 9, 21, 1-2) AdLegem uliamRepetundarum; aul. Sent.,5, 28, 1 (L.R.V. P. 5, 30, 1) Ad Legem uliam Repe-tundarum; . Th., 9, 19, 1 and 4 (L.R.V. C. 9, 15, 1-2) Ad LegemCorneliam eFalso; Paul.Sent.,4, 7, 1-6 (L.R.V. P. 4, 7, 1-6) De LegeCornelia; 5, 25, 1-2 and 4-13 (L.R.V. P. 5, 27,1-12) Ad LegemCorneliamTestamentariam; . Th., 9, 34. 1 and 9 (L.R.V. C. 9, 24, 1-2) DeFamosis Libellis; 9, 39, 1-3 (L.R.V. C. 9, 29, 1-3) De Calumniatoribus;aul. Sent.,5, 27, 1(L.R.V. P. 5, 29, 1) Ad Legem uliam Peculatus; 5, 30a, 1 (L.R.V. P. 5, 32, 1) Ad LegemIuliam Ambitus.

3 Paul., Sent., , 29, 1-2 (L.R.V. P. 5, 31, 1-2) Ad Legem uliam Maiestatis:1. Lege Juliamaiestatistenetur s, cuius ope consilioaduersusimperatoremel rempublicam rma motasunt, exercitusue ius in insidias deductus est: quiue iniussu imperatoris ellumgesserit,dilectumuehabuerit,exercitum omparauerit, ollicitauerit, eseruerit mperatorem. Hisantea in perpetuum qua et igni nterdicebatur: uncuerohumiliores estiisobiiciuntur eluiui exuruntur; onestiores apite puniuntur. Quod crimennon solumfacto, sed et uerbisimpiis c maledictismaxime xacerbatur. 2. In reummaiestatisnquiri rius onuenit, uibus



7/16

78 CrimenLaesae MaiestatisI. According o theLex lulia Maiestatishe shall be held by whoseaidand counsel arms have been taken up against the emperor or public

authority,2r the armiesof the emperorhave been betrayed: or whohaswagedwarwithout helawfulconsentofthe emperor, r levied troops,4 rstirredup disturbancewithin the army,5 r deserted the emperor.6Allsuch shall be perpetually nterdictedrom ire nd water;7the morehumble(humiliores) hall be cast to the beastsor burned live whilethoseof higherrank (honestiores)hallbe punishedcapitally.8 Also this offence estsnoton overt ct alone but s particularly ggravatedby (impiousdisrespectful)words nd maledictions.10opibus, qua factione, uibus hoc auctoribus fecerit: anti enim criminis eus non obtentuadulationis alicuius,sed ipsiusadmissi causa puniendusest. Et ideo quum de eo quaeritur,nulla dignitas tormentis xcipitur.Cf. Digest,48, 4, 3 (Ad Legem uliam Maiestatis):Marcianus libro uartodecimonstitu-tionum . . lexautemJuliamaiestatis raecipit um,qui maiestatem ublicam aeserit, eneri:qualis est lle,qui in belliscesserit ut arcem enuerit ut castra concesserit. adem ege teneturet qui iniussuprincipis ellumgesserit ilectumuehabueritexercitum omparauerit: uiue,cumei inprouincia uccessum sset, exercitum uccessorinon tradidit, uiue imperiumxer-citumuepopuliRomani deseruerit: uiue priuatuspro potestatemagistratuue uid sciensdolomalo gesserit: uiue quid eorum, uae, supra scripta unt, facere urauerit.It shouldbe noted that neitherC. Th., 9, 4, 1, Si Quis ImperatoriMaledixerit or C. Th.,9, 5, 1 Ad Legem uliam Maiestatiswas taken over into the Breviary cf. Codex ustinianus,9, 7, 1 and 9, 8, 3). Hence mostpositive tatements n the Breviary efiningmaiestas re drawnfrom he uristic iterature, s indicated bove, and not from he constitutionesfthe emperors.Cf.Ulpian in Dig., 48, 4, 1-2, and Scaevola in Dig., 48, 4, 4.' Cf. T. Mommsen,RbmischestrafrechtLeipzig, 1899), pp. 549-555.

2 Cf.Dig., 48, 4, 1 and 3; C. Iust.,9, 8, 5 Ad Legem uliam Maiestatis.3 Cf. T. Mommsen, p. cit.,pp. 546-49; Dig., 48, 4, 3-4, Ad Legem uliam Maiestatis;48,4, 10: 'Maiestatis crimine ccusaripotest,cuius ope consiliodolo malo prouinciauel ciuitashostibusproditaest'; 49, 16, 6, 4 De Re Militari. 4 Cf. Dig.. 48, 4, 3.5 Cf.Dig., 48, 4, 1; 49, 16, 3, 20 De Re Militari; C. Iust.,9, 8, 5.6 Cf. T. Mommsen, p. cit.,pp. 537-538; Dig., 48, 4, 2-3; 49, 15, 19,8 De Captiuis et dePostliminio t Redemptis b Hostibus;49, 16, 3 De Re Militari; 4, 5, 5, 1 De Capite Minutis.

EpitomeAegidiisays: 'uel ipsum mperatoremn exercitudeseruerit.' Does this conveytheGermanic dea of deserting he armywhen the king s present r suggest heFrankish ffenceof herisliz? Cf. Ethelred, c. 5, 98; 6, 35; Cnut,2,77-78; LegesHenriciPrimi, 13, 19; 43, 7;EdictumRothari, . 7; LegesAlamannorum,. 90; CapitulareTicinense a. 801),c. 2; CapitulareBononiense a. 811), c. 4.7Cf. T. Mommsen, p. cit.,p. 549,for aquae et ignis nterdictio.'Cf. Dig., 48, 19, 2813-14 De Poenis forbreakiing he ban of exile.8 Cf. Dig., 48, 19, 38, 1-2 De Poenis; 49, 16, 3, 10 De Re Mllilitari;9, 16, 6; 3, 2, 11, 3De lIis Qui Notantur nfamia.9 TVerbismpiis refers n this passage to the addressing f unseemly anguageto a 'god-king' and is not farremoved rom lasphemy, ut among the Visigothswhowere now Chris-

tiansand their coniverted oman subjects,the force f mpiis mustbe considered s reducedto 'disrespectful' r somesimilar orrelativemeaning.10Note that malediction ppears a mitigating ather han an aggravating ircumstance,at least in certain ases,in C. Th.,9, 4, 1 Si Quis ImperatoriMaledixerit; . lust., 9, 7, 1. The



8/16

CrimenLaesae Maiestatis 79II. In any accusation of maiestas it should be asked throughwhatresources, y what faction,and throughwhat agents this act was per-formed: nd the person accused of so greata crimemust be punishednoitas a pretextforfawning latterynon obtentu dulationis)but on accountofacknowledged uilt.' Hence whenevidence s sought n such cases, nodignity hall be exempted rom orture.2It is noteworthy hat thisstatementof the crime,which s one of themost comprehensive in Roman Law, should have been incorporatedinto the Breviary. The authorities of the Digest expand and amplify

the subject, but adhere in a general way to the categoriesmentionedby Paulus. His rather bare outline preserved the essential featuresof the Roman theory of treason for the Latin West.3Under theheading Ne PraeterCrimenMaiestatis Seruus Dominumuel Patronum Libertus seu Familiaris Accuset,4L.R.V. C. 9, 3, 1-2,states the Roman Law relative to accusations of laesa maiestas 5andemphasizes the important exception, namely, that informationre-garding crimes against majesty is not included among the prohibiteddelations. The best summary s, perhaps, the Interpretatio f L.R.V.,C. 9, 3, 2:law can hardly e construed ronically: eum poenaenolumus ubiugarineque durum liquidnecasperum ustinere, uoniam si id ex leuitateprocesserit,ontemnendumst, si ex insania,miseratione ignissimum,i ab iniuria, emittendum.' Cf. Dig., 48,4, 7, 3. Note Dig., 48,4, 3:'facerecurauerit.'

1 Cf. Dig., 48, 4, 7, 3: 'Hoc tamencrimenudicibusnon noccasioneob principalismaies-tatisuenerationem abendum st, sed in ueritate.'2 Cf. C. Iust.,9,8, 3-5; C. Th.,9,5, 1AdLegem uliamMaiestatis;9,35, 1 De Quaestion.ibus.On thetorture f slaves, see C. Iust., 9, 8, 6, 1 Ad Legem uliamMaiestatis.I Paulus is comprehensiven the sense that his statement ncludes the mostimportantelemenits f laesa maiestas, ut his outline s bare because the separate topicshave notbeendeveloped n the completemanner f Digest48, 4 Ad Legem uliam Maiestatis.4 C. Th., 9, 6, 2-3 (L.R.V. C. 9, 3, 1-2). Cf. Paul. Sent.,5, 13, 3 (L.R.V. P. 5, 15, 3) ondelation (De Delatoribus). Cf. C. Th., 9, 5, 1 Ad Legem uliam Maiestatis, whichstates:'In seruis quoque uel libertis, ui dominos ut patronos accusareaut deferre emptauerint,professio am atrocisaudaciae statim in admissi ipsius exordioper sententiam udicis con-primatur c denegata audientia patibulo adfigatur.' This sentence s lacking in C. Iust.,9, 8, 3 Ad Legem uliam Maiestatis. Cf. C. Iust., 9, 8, 4-5; 9, 41, 1 De Quaestionibus; iq.,48, 4, 7, 1-2; 48, 4, 8; 5, 1, 53 De Iudiciis.5 Cf. L.R.V. C. 9, 3, 1, whichspeaks not of crimen aesae maiestatis crime of injuredmajesty) but employsthe unusual term, losely synonymous, f crimen ppetitaemaiestatis(crimeofattackedmajesty). Cf. C. Iust., 9, 24, 2 De Falsa Monetamentions rimen bnoxiimaiestatis, ut theexpression s not found n L.R.V. C. 9, 17, 1 De Falsa Moneta.



9/16

80 CrimenLaesae MaiestatisIf a slave shall accuse hismasteror informgainst himin the matterofanycrimewhatsoever r ifanyfollower rservant rfreedman halldo

likewise n the case of his patron, et the swordbe his punishmentmme-diatelyat the verybeginning f his accusation,since we wishto cut offsuch a voice,not listen to it: unless perchance hemasteror patron shallprove to have been involved n thecrime fmajesty.A most ignificantifferencerisesherebetweenhe textoftheconstitutiondthe nterpretatioL.R.V., C. 9,3, 2) onthe onehand,andthetext ftheEpitome . Gallion theother, s maybe noted:Interpretatio. i seruusdominum ut amicusuel domesticus iue ibertuspatronum ccusauerituel detulerit uiuslibet riminis eum, tatim n ipsoinitioaccusationisgladio puniatur:quia uocemtalemexstinguiuolumus,non audiri, nisifortedominum ut patronumde criminemaiestatistrac-tasse probauerit.Epitome S. Galli. Intrepretatio. Si quis seruusdominum suum autliberatuspatronum uumaccusareuoluerint isiforsitan robare otuerintquid ipsedominus ut patronus ontradominumblasfemassetut jpaganuseos probarepotuerit e taleaccusatione icenciam abeant et siuerodixerint

ipse liberatus aut seruussineomne iniuria iberi bscedantnam si de hocmentierintut si forsitan e alia qualecumque: causa liberatuspatronumaut seruusdominum uumad qualecumque:iudiceaccusauerint e presentein ipsaora accusatione udex eos capitepunirefaciat.Thus thegreat xceptionn theRomanLaw is transformedrommaiestas o blasphemy nd adherence o paganism.The EpitomeAegidii, pitomeMonachi, pitome ugdunensis,ndEpitome uel-pherbytani,ll follow heoriginalnterpretatiolosely nd representthe aw ofGallo-Romans,uttheEpitome . Galli xhibitsrofoundmodificationnder hristianndGermanicnfluence. hispassageoffersddedevidence oncerninghefrequentailure f theLegesBarbarorumo adopt theRoman idea of maiestas nd theverygeneral ailureoemploy hewordmaiestastself.'

1 Cf.headingofEpitome . Galli (L.R.V., C. 9, 3, 2),which eads NepropterrimenMagis-tatis eruusDominumvelPatronutiberatus euFamiliaresAcuset;Epit.S. Galli L.R.V. C. 10,5, 4): 'Si quis homo n criminemagistatisnuentus uerit';Epit. S. Galli (L.R.V. C. 9, 32, 1):'si de criminemagistatis cusatus fuerit.' I have found the genitive ormmagistatishreetimes ntheEpitome . Galli,once ina headingalthough here acking n theensuing ex, ndtwice nthemainbodyofthe ex, ll as indicated nthereferencesbove,but I have noted nootherdeclension orms f he wordmagistas.The entire ubjectof the ncorporationfthe con-



10/16

CrimenLaesae Maiestatis 81The great xception,ikewise,makes t appearancen the awsof nheritance,nd that nobleprinciplef the Roman Law whichsaysthat thecrime hallperishwithts author' s expresslyeniedapplicationn the cases of thechildren f thosewho have beencondemned or aesamaiestas.According o the constitutioMPP.

VALENTINIANVS ET VALENS AA. AD SYMMACHVM PE. v. (25Novem-ber, 64):1Substantiamamnatorumntegramd liberos eruenire,tinqualibetcausa positisparentibusiberosheredes sse praecipimus,xceptasolamaiestatis uaestione: uamsi quissacrilegonimo ssumit,ustepoenamad suos etiamposterosmittit.2

Thepropertyf traitor,huswithheldrom ischildrennisi ortemaiestatisrimineamnatusitaliquis, uorumtiam ilios ebonisdamnatiatris ieriubemuslienos),hallbe confiscateo the iscusalthoughheprince eserves heprivilegefmaking nsought iftsofsuchgoods t his discretion.3ceptionmaiestas nd of the wordmaiestasntotheLegesBarbarorums nowbeing nvestigatedby me in connectionwith the Leges Wisigothorum. f. H. Brunner, p. cit., II, 687-688;G. Waitz, DeutscheVerfassungsgeschichte3d ed., Berlin,1880), II (1), 195-196; PollockandMaitland,History fEnglishLaw beforehe Timeof Edward (2d ed., Cambridge, 898), II,502; also Fustel de Coulanges,Histoiredes Institutions olitiquesde l'Ancienne rance (LaMonarchie ranque), (5th ed., Paris: Hachette,1924), Ch. VII (.9tenduedu PouroirRoyal),especiallypp. 132-135.1 C.Th.,9, 491, (L.R. V. C. 9, 32, 1) De BonisProscriptorumeuDamnatorum.Cf. C. Iust.9, 49, 10.

2 I think hisstatement learly mplies ttainder fblood. In the Interpretatioheforceof the passage is weakenedto mere disinheritance. f one takes the liberty o combine exand interpretatio,e may secure this forcefulxpression:Si quis pro crimine uo occidiueldamnarimeruerit, rimencum auctore deficiat:nisi fortemaiestatiscriminedamnatus sitaliquis' (Int.), 'iuste poenamad suos etiamposterosmittit' lex). Cf.Dig.,48,4, 11, quotingUlpianus librooctauodisputationum:Is, qui in reatu decedit, ntegri tatus decedit: extin-guiturenim crimenmortalitate. nisi fortequis maiestatis reus fuit: nam hoc criminenisia successoribus urgetur, ereditasfiscouindicatur.' The use of purgeturmplies ttainderwhichmust be cleansedaway. SubsequentlyUlpian limits his harshrule to those guilty fperduellionly. Cf. C. Iust., 9, 49, 10, 5: 'Excepta sola maiestatis uaestione: quam si quissacrilegoanimo adsumpserit, uste poenam ad suos etiam posterosmittit' (ca. A.D. 426).However, note Dig., 48, 19, 26 De Poenis: 'Crimen uel poena paterna nullammaculam filioinfligere otest'; 48, 19, 20.3 Cf. C.Th., 10, 10, 15 (L.R.V., C. 10, 5, 4) De Petitionibust UltroDatis et Delatoribus:Interpretatio:Si quid tamennullopetente,proprio rbitrio e talibus boniscuiquam dederi-mus, donatiohuiusmodi firma ermaneat.'



11/16

82 CrimenLaesae Maiestatis]Keepersfprivate risonsresubject othepenaltiesor njuredmajesty.1Alsoby mplicationhemajesty ftheprinces njuredfsuit senteredhroughhe mperialreasury ithhe mperors heir,nec nim alumniandiacultatemxprincipalimaiestateapi oportet.2Similarlynemay nfer hat ese-majestgas incurred y anyonewhoconsultedstrologersrsoothsayersmathematici,arioli, ar-uspices, aticinatores)egardinghehealth rsecurityf theprinceorthewelfaref he tate, ndbythosewhomade eplies ndproph-ecies nsuchmatters,or he offence aspunished apitally.3And

whoever as discoveredo be inpossessionfbooks reatingfthemagic rts hould e exiled o an island,while isgoodswere o beseized nd burnednpublic. Humilioreshouldbe punished api-tally. Non tantumuius rtis rofessio,ed etiam cientia rohibitaest.4 uchwasthepalloffear ndsuspicionhatoverhunghe aterdespotsof Rome'sdeclining mpire.5 ven slaveswhoconsultedaboutthehealth f theirmasterswere rderedobe crucified,ndthe offendingoothsayer as either ondemnedo the minesorexiled pon n island.6Perhaps heparallel houldnotbe forcedoofar,butit is im-possibleoescape he uggestionhat hepotestasf hemaster verthe slavesandfreedmen ithin is dominium as similarnkind,thoughmoreimitednscope, o themaiestasftheprince ver hesubjects eneath isregnumr mperium.his ineof houghtinksup withparricide, hichmay originallyave beenpunished s a

1 C.Th., 9, 11, 1 (L.R.V. C. 9, 8, 1) De Priuati CarcerisCustodia. Note variant readingin Epit. S. Galli. Cf. C. Iust.,9, 5, 1 De Priuatis Carceribus nhibendis.2 L.R.V. P., 5, 14, 4-5 De Fisci Aduocato.

3 Paul., Sent.,5, 21, 3 (L.R.V. P. 5, 23, 3) De VaticinatoribustMathematicis;nd 5, 23,17 (5, 25, 11) Ad LegemCorneliam eSicariisetVeneficis tates thatthepunishment or hose'magicae artisconscios' shall be the beasts or crucifixion,hile themagicians magi) them-selvesshallbe burned live. Cf.C.Th.,9, 16,3-4 and 7 (L.R.V. C. 1-3) De Maleficis tMathe-maticis t Ceteris imilibus.4 Paul. Sent.,5, 21, 4 (5, 23, 4); 5, 23, 18 (5, 25, 12) Ad LegemCorneliam e Sicariis etVieneficis.5 Cf. Lex Wisigothorumed. K. Zeumer),6, 2 De Maleficiset Consulentibusos adqueV'eneficis,n MonumentaGermaniae istorica Leges, ectio I, Tomus I). Note especially6, 2,

1 and 6, 2, 4, whichwere takenover fromtheBreviarynd hence indicatethe diffusionndcontinuance f older Roman ideas amongtheVisigoths f the seventh entury.1 Paul., Sent.,5, 21, 4 (5, 23, 4). In this connectiont mustbe remembered hat underordinary ircumstanceslaves couldnot informgainsttheirmasters.



12/16


13/16


14/16

CrimenLaesae Maiestatis 85duelliowhichhad a larger ignificancen the timeoftheRomanRepublic,while ll three reincorporatedventuallyntotheGer-manic rime fbreakinghepeace (pax) ofthe and Landesverrat),orperhaps volve nto candalumrspoliation.1A survey f theevidence ivenabove will ndicate hebroadscopeofRoman egalprincipleselatingo thegeneral ubjectoftreasonwhichweremade ccessible o thewestern ermanshroughthemedium ftheLex RomanaWisigothorum.he awsconcerningmajestas xtended he field fhigh treasonbeyond he limits fGermanicustomaryaw, ince hey epended n a differentoncep-tionofsovereignty.2he crimewasnot imited o suchovert ctsofviolence s wouldbring ersonalnjury otheruler utcametoincludemaledictionss well s mere ffensivexpressionsfopinion.Theconceptionfviolatedmajesty anged romggravatedssaultandattemptedssassinationfthemonarchocounterfeiting,hichhad longbeen a form f aesamaiestasnRomanLaw.' The pro-visions, egardinguiltyntentdolusmalus)which ppeared aterin theDigest,4o not seemto have beencarried ver nto theBreviary,lthoughnefinds o goodreason o suppose hatthesegeneraluristiculesdid notprevail mong heRomanprovincialsofSpainandGaul. The jusheldthe ntentquivalentothedeed,while nstigatorsnd accomplices,mbraced nderthe formulacuiusopeconsilio, ere unishednthesamewayas theauthors fthecrime,hough erhapswith omewhatessseverity.5Violatedmajesty,owever,omprehendedore han he lementswhichnteredaterntohigh reasonince tembracedreasongainstI Cf. EdictumRothari, . 8; 35-41, on scandalum;also c. 4 ('inimicu'sntra prouincia'),and c. 5 ('escamaras intraprouincia').

2 In the earliest nd purestGermanic ustom, reason onsistsnthemain of Landesverratand Treubruchinfidelitas),nd is closelyassociatedwithcrimesof infamy. See myEarlyHistory f Treason unpubl.HarvardUniv.diss.,1925),pp. 105ff.; 250ff., acitus,Germania,cap. 12-14; H. Brunner,op. cit. (Leipzig,1892), II, 685 if.; P. Bisoukides,Der Hochverrat(Berlin,1903), pp. 34-40; K. vonAmira,Das AltnorwegischeollstreckungsverfahrenMunich,1874), pp. 921-25; nd especiallyW. E. Wilda, Gesch. . deutschentrafrechts,(Halle, 1842),21, 989,quotingfrom heOld-Norwegian rostapingslgg.uggestivematerialmay be foundscattered hrough he celandicsagas. 3 T. Mommsen, p. cit.,pp. 580-587.4 Dig., 48, 4, 1, 1; 48, 4, 3; 48, 4, 7, 2; 48, 4, 10; 49, 16, 3, 11.5 Dig., 48, 4, 1, 1-3. Cf. Daremberg et Saglio, Dictionnaire es Antiquite's recques tRomaines, rticle Maiestas' by G. Humbert nd Ch. L6crivain Paris, 1904), III (2), 1559,1560.



15/16


16/16

CrimenLaesae Maiestatis 87andpracticenthe matter foffencesgainst hestate?Were hefields foperationfRomanpublic awandofGermanicustomarylaw mutually xclusive, r did they nteract nd combine?Theanswersothese uestionswait carefulnalysis fthepublic awmattern thebarbarianodes, nd its comparisonndcorrelationwith heRomanmaterialsccessible uringhe arlierMiddleAges.THE RICE INSTITUTE,HOUSTON, TEXAS

Documents

Crimen Laesae Maiestatis in the Lex Romana Wisigothorum (F. L. Lear).pdf