罗马帝国衰亡史 Vol. 4 · Chapter 44 · Part 1

Chapter XLIV: Idea Of The Roman Jurisprudence.—Part I. 第四十四章 罗马法学述要——第一节

Idea Of The Roman Jurisprudence.—The Laws Of The Kings—The Twelve Of The Decemvirs.—The Laws Of The People.—The Decrees Of The Senate.—The Edicts Of The Magistrates And Emperors—Authority Of The Civilians.—Code, Pandects, Novels, And Institutes Of Justinian:—I. Rights Of Persons.—II. Rights Of Things.—III. Private Injuries And Actions.—IV. Crimes And Punishments.
罗马法学述要。——诸王之法——十人委员会的《十二铜表法》。——人民的法律。——元老院的决议。——官吏与皇帝的敕令——法学家的权威。——查士丁尼的《法典》、《学说汇纂》、《新律》与《法学阶梯》：一、人的权利；二、物的权利；三、私人侵害与诉讼；四、犯罪与刑罚。
Note: In the notes to this important chapter, which is received as the text-book on Civil Law in some of the foreign universities, I have consulted,
按：本章极为重要，若干外国大学径以之为民法教科书；为本章作注时，我参阅了以下诸书：
I. the newly-discovered Institutes of Gaius, (Gaii Institutiones, ed. Goeschen, Berlin, 1824,) with some other fragments of the Roman law, (Codicis Theodosiani Fragmenta inedita, ab Amadeo Peyron. Turin, 1824.)
一、新近发现的盖尤斯《法学阶梯》（拉丁文本作 Gaii Institutiones，戈申校订，柏林，1824年），以及若干其他罗马法残篇（拉丁文本作 Codicis Theodosiani Fragmenta inedita，即《狄奥多西法典未刊残篇》，阿梅代·佩龙辑录，都灵，1824年）。
II. The History of the Roman Law, by Professor Hugo, in the French translation of M. Jourdan. Paris, 1825.
二、胡果教授所著《罗马法史》，儒尔当先生的法译本，巴黎，1825年。
III. Savigny, Geschichte des Romischen Rechts im Mittelalter, 6 bande, Heidelberg, 1815.
三、萨维尼，Geschichte des Romischen Rechts im Mittelalter（《中世纪罗马法史》），共六卷，海德堡，1815年。
IV. Walther, Romische Rechts-Geschichte, Bonn. 1834. But I am particularly indebted to an edition of the French translation of this chapter, with additional notes, by one of the most learned civilians of Europe, Professor Warnkonig, published at Liege, 1821. I have inserted almost the whole of these notes, which are distinguished by the letter W.—M. The vain titles of the victories of Justinian are crumbled into dust; but the name of the legislator is inscribed on a fair and everlasting monument. Under his reign, and by his care, the civil jurisprudence was digested in the immortal works of the Code, the Pandects, and the Institutes: 1 the public reason of the Romans has been silently or studiously transfused into the domestic institutions of Europe, 2, and the laws of Justinian still command the respect or obedience of independent nations. Wise or fortunate is the prince who connects his own reputation with the honor or interest of a perpetual order of men. The defence of their founder is the first cause, which in every age has exercised the zeal and industry of the civilians. They piously commemorate his virtues; dissemble or deny his failings; and fiercely chastise the guilt or folly of the rebels, who presume to sully the majesty of the purple. The idolatry of love has provoked, as it usually happens, the rancor of opposition; the character of Justinian has been exposed to the blind vehemence of flattery and invective; and the injustice of a sect (the Anti-Tribonians,) has refused all praise and merit to the prince, his ministers, and his laws. 3 Attached to no party, interested only for the truth and candor of history, and directed by the most temperate and skilful guides, 4 I enter with just diffidence on the subject of civil law, which has exhausted so many learned lives, and clothed the walls of such spacious libraries. In a single, if possible in a short, chapter, I shall trace the Roman jurisprudence from Romulus to Justinian, 5 appreciate the labors of that emperor, and pause to contemplate the principles of a science so important to the peace and happiness of society. The laws of a nation form the most instructive portion of its history; and although I have devoted myself to write the annals of a declining monarchy, I shall embrace the occasion to breathe the pure and invigorating air of the republic.
四、瓦尔特，Romische Rechts-Geschichte（《罗马法史》），波恩，1834年。不过，我尤其得益于本章法译本的一个版本——该版附有增补的注释，出自欧洲最博学的民法学家之一瓦恩克尼希教授之手，1821年刊于列日。这些注释我几乎悉数收入，并以字母 W 标示。—M 查士丁尼那些炫耀武功的头衔早已化为尘土；然而作为立法者，他的名字却镌刻在一座光洁而不朽的丰碑之上。正是在他治下、经他悉心擘画，罗马的民法汇纂成三部不朽的巨著——《法典》、《学说汇纂》和《法学阶梯》1；罗马人的公共理性，或于无声之间、或经苦心研求，融入了欧洲各国的内部制度 2，而查士丁尼的法律，至今仍令独立诸邦或敬重、或遵从。君主若能把自身声名系于一个绵延不绝的行业群体之荣誉或利害，则不是明智，便是幸运。为其奠基者辩护，历来是头等大事，激发着世世代代民法学家的热忱与勤勉。他们虔敬地颂扬他的德行，遮掩乃至矢口否认他的过失，并对那些胆敢玷污紫袍威严的悖逆之徒痛加挞伐，斥其罪愆与愚妄。一如常情，这种近乎偶像崇拜的爱戴，激起了反对者的怨恨；于是查士丁尼其人，便任由谄媚与诋毁这两种盲目的激情肆意摆布；某一派人（即反特里波尼安派）更出于偏执，竟不肯承认这位君主、他的臣僚以及他的法律有丝毫可称道之处 3。我不依附任何派别，唯以历史的真实与公允为念，又有最为持平、最为精熟的向导为我指引 4；如今我怀着理所应有的踌躇，踏入民法这一领域——多少博学之士曾在此耗尽毕生心血，多少宏大的图书馆四壁尽为此类典籍所充塞。我要在一章之内——若有可能，尽量简短——追溯罗马法学自罗慕路斯以迄查士丁尼的历程 5，评估这位皇帝的功业，并驻足省思这门学问所依据的原理——此学于社会的安宁与福祉，关系至重。一个民族的法律，是其历史中最富教益的部分；我虽已立志撰写一个衰亡帝国的编年史，却也乐得借此良机，呼吸一番共和时代那清新而振奋人心的空气。
The primitive government of Rome 6 was composed, with some political skill, of an elective king, a council of nobles, and a general assembly of the people. War and religion were administered by the supreme magistrate; and he alone proposed the laws, which were debated in the senate, and finally ratified or rejected by a majority of votes in the thirty curiae or parishes of the city. Romulus, Numa, and Servius Tullius, are celebrated as the most ancient legislators; and each of them claims his peculiar part in the threefold division of jurisprudence. 7 The laws of marriage, the education of children, and the authority of parents, which may seem to draw their origin from nature itself, are ascribed to the untutored wisdom of Romulus. The law of nations and of religious worship, which Numa introduced, was derived from his nocturnal converse with the nymph Egeria. The civil law is attributed to the experience of Servius: he balanced the rights and fortunes of the seven classes of citizens; and guarded, by fifty new regulations, the observance of contracts and the punishment of crimes. The state, which he had inclined towards a democracy, was changed by the last Tarquin into a lawless despotism; and when the kingly office was abolished, the patricians engrossed the benefits of freedom. The royal laws became odious or obsolete; the mysterious deposit was silently preserved by the priests and nobles; and at the end of sixty years, the citizens of Rome still complained that they were ruled by the arbitrary sentence of the magistrates. Yet the positive institutions of the kings had blended themselves with the public and private manners of the city, some fragments of that venerable jurisprudence 8 were compiled by the diligence of antiquarians, 9 and above twenty texts still speak the rudeness of the Pelasgic idiom of the Latins. 10
罗马最初的政体 6，颇具几分政治匠心，由三部分构成：一位经推选而立的国王、一个贵族议事会，以及一场全体人民的大会。战争与宗教由最高长官（即国王）掌理；唯有他能提出法律，交元老院辩议，最终在全城三十个库里亚（即城区）中付诸表决，以多数决定批准或否决。罗慕路斯、努马与塞尔维乌斯·图利乌斯，被尊为最古老的立法者；在法学的三重划分中，各自都占有其独特的一份 7。婚姻之法、子女之教养、父母之权威——凡此看似本就渊源于自然者——都归于罗慕路斯那未经雕琢的智慧。努马所创立的万民法与宗教祭仪之法，据说得自他夜间与仙女埃格里娅的密谈。市民法则归功于塞尔维乌斯的阅历：他权衡了七个公民等级各自的权利与财产，又以五十条新规，确保契约得到履行、罪行受到惩处。这个原本经他引向民主的国家，到末代塔尔昆手中变成了无法无天的专制；及至王政废除，贵族却将自由的种种好处尽揽为己有。诸王之法，或遭憎恶，或成具文；那批神秘的法律秘藏，由祭司与贵族默默保管；六十年过去，罗马公民仍在抱怨自己受制于长官们专断的裁决。然而，诸王所定的种种成文制度，早已同这座城市的公私风习融为一体；那套可敬古法的若干残篇 8，赖好古之士的勤勉得以辑存 9，其中二十余条文句，至今仍透露着拉丁人佩拉斯吉方言的粗朴 10。
I shall not repeat the well-known story of the Decemvirs, 11 who sullied by their actions the honor of inscribing on brass, or wood, or ivory, the Twelve Tables of the Roman laws. 12 They were dictated by the rigid and jealous spirit of an aristocracy, which had yielded with reluctance to the just demands of the people. But the substance of the Twelve Tables was adapted to the state of the city; and the Romans had emerged from Barbarism, since they were capable of studying and embracing the institutions of their more enlightened neighbors. 1211 A wise Ephesian was driven by envy from his native country: before he could reach the shores of Latium, he had observed the various forms of human nature and civil society: he imparted his knowledge to the legislators of Rome, and a statue was erected in the forum to the perpetual memory of Hermodorus. 13 The names and divisions of the copper money, the sole coin of the infant state, were of Dorian origin: 14 the harvests of Campania and Sicily relieved the wants of a people whose agriculture was often interrupted by war and faction; and since the trade was established, 15 the deputies who sailed from the Tyber might return from the same harbors with a more precious cargo of political wisdom. The colonies of Great Greece had transported and improved the arts of their mother country. Cumae and Rhegium, Crotona and Tarentum, Agrigentum and Syracuse, were in the rank of the most flourishing cities. The disciples of Pythagoras applied philosophy to the use of government; the unwritten laws of Charondas accepted the aid of poetry and music, 16 and Zaleucus framed the republic of the Locrians, which stood without alteration above two hundred years. 17 From a similar motive of national pride, both Livy and Dionysius are willing to believe, that the deputies of Rome visited Athens under the wise and splendid administration of Pericles; and the laws of Solon were transfused into the twelve tables. If such an embassy had indeed been received from the Barbarians of Hesperia, the Roman name would have been familiar to the Greeks before the reign of Alexander; 18 and the faintest evidence would have been explored and celebrated by the curiosity of succeeding times. But the Athenian monuments are silent; nor will it seem credible that the patricians should undertake a long and perilous navigation to copy the purest model of democracy. In the comparison of the tables of Solon with those of the Decemvirs, some casual resemblance may be found; some rules which nature and reason have revealed to every society; some proofs of a common descent from Egypt or Phoenicia. 19 But in all the great lines of public and private jurisprudence, the legislators of Rome and Athens appear to be strangers or adverse at each other.
十人委员会那段人所共知的故事 11，我不再复述；正是他们，以自身的行径，玷污了将罗马诸法——即《十二铜表法》——镌于铜、木或象牙之上的荣耀 12。这部法律，出自一个僵硬而猜忌的贵族阶层之手，是他们勉强向人民正当诉求让步的产物。但《十二铜表法》的内容切合当时罗马的实情；而罗马人既已能够研习并采纳邻邦更为开化的制度，便说明他们早已走出蒙昧 1211。一位睿智的以弗所人，因遭人妒忌而被逐出故土；还未抵达拉丁姆海岸，他就已遍观人性与文明社会的种种形态；他把自己的学识传授给罗马的立法者，罗马人遂在广场上为他立像，以永志赫尔莫多鲁斯之名 13。这个初生之邦唯一的货币是铜币，其名称与分值皆源出多利安 14；坎帕尼亚与西西里的收成，缓解了这个民族的匮乏——他们的农事屡屡为战争与党争所打断；而自从这条贸易通道确立起来 15，那些从台伯河启航的使节，便可能从同样的港口带回一船更为珍贵的货物：政治智慧。大希腊的那些殖民城邦，把母邦的种种技艺移植过来，并加以精进。库迈与雷吉乌姆、克罗托纳与塔兰图姆、阿格里根图姆与叙拉古，都跻身于最繁盛的城市之列。毕达哥拉斯的门徒把哲学用于治国之道；卡隆达斯那些不成文的法律，借助了诗歌与音乐之力 16；扎莱乌库斯则为洛克里斯人缔造了一套共和政制，历两百余年而原样不改 17。出于同样的民族自豪，李维与狄奥尼修斯都乐于相信：罗马的使节曾在伯里克利贤明而辉煌的当政时期造访雅典，梭伦的法律也由此融入了《十二铜表法》。倘若希腊人当真接待过来自赫斯珀里亚蛮族的这样一个使团，那么早在亚历山大在位之前，罗马之名便该为希腊人所熟知 18；后世的好奇心，也定会把哪怕最微弱的证据搜罗出来、大加张扬。然而雅典的碑铭文献对此默然无语；再者，要说那些贵族竟会为抄录一套最纯粹的民主典范，而甘冒漫长凶险的航程，也实在难以令人置信。将梭伦的法表与十人委员会的法表相较，或许能找出若干偶然的雷同——那不过是自然与理性向每一个社会都昭示过的一些规则，或是二者同出于埃及或腓尼基这一共同渊源的若干佐证罢了 19。但在公法与私法的所有重大脉络上，罗马与雅典的立法者，彼此看来都形同陌路，甚至互相抵牾。

Notes 注释

1 ↩
The civilians of the darker ages have established an absurd and incomprehensible mode of quotation, which is supported by authority and custom. In their references to the Code, the Pandects, and the Institutes, they mention the number, not of the book, but only of the law; and content themselves with reciting the first words of the title to which it belongs; and of these titles there are more than a thousand. Ludewig (Vit. Justiniani, p. 268) wishes to shake off this pendantic yoke; and I have dared to adopt the simple and rational method of numbering the book, the title, and the law. Note: The example of Gibbon has been followed by M Hugo and other civilians.—M
蒙昧时代的民法学家们确立了一种荒谬而费解的引证方式，如今却靠权威与积习撑持着。他们援引《法典》、《学说汇纂》和《法学阶梯》时，标出的不是卷次，而只是律条的编号；至于该律条所隶属的篇目，他们仅满足于抄录其起首的几个字了事——而这类篇目多达一千余种。路德维希（Vit. Justiniani, p. 268）有意挣脱这道迂腐的枷锁；我则斗胆采用了一种简单而合理的办法，即依次标明卷、篇、条的编号。按：吉本此例，已为胡果先生及其他民法学家所仿效。—M
2 ↩
Germany, Bohemia, Hungary, Poland, and Scotland, have received them as common law or reason; in France, Italy, &c., they possess a direct or indirect influence; and they were respected in England, from Stephen to Edward I. our national Justinian, (Duck. de Usu et Auctoritate Juris Civilis, l. ii. c. 1, 8—15. Heineccius, Hist. Juris Germanici, c. 3, 4, No. 55-124, and the legal historians of each country.) * Note: Although the restoration of the Roman law, introduced by the revival of this study in Italy, is one of the most important branches of history, it had been treated but imperfectly when Gibbon wrote his work. That of Arthur Duck is but an insignificant performance. But the researches of the learned have thrown much light upon the matter. The Sarti, the Tiraboschi, the Fantuzzi, the Savioli, had made some very interesting inquiries; but it was reserved for M. de Savigny, in a work entitled “The History of the Roman Law during the Middle Ages,” to cast the strongest right on this part of history. He demonstrates incontestably the preservation of the Roman law from Justinian to the time of the Glossators, who by their indefatigable zeal, propagated the study of the Roman jurisprudence in all the countries of Europe. It is much to be desired that the author should continue this interesting work, and that the learned should engage in the inquiry in what manner the Roman law introduced itself into their respective countries, and the authority which it progressively acquired. For Belgium, there exists, on this subject, (proposed by the Academy of Brussels in 1781,) a Collection of Memoirs, printed at Brussels in 4to., 1783, among which should be distinguished those of M. de Berg. M. Berriat Saint Prix has given us hopes of the speedy appearance of a work in which he will discuss this question, especially in relation to France. M. Spangenberg, in his Introduction to the Study of the Corpus Juris Civilis Hanover, 1817, 1 vol. 8vo. p. 86, 116, gives us a general sketch of the history of the Roman law in different parts of Europe. We cannot avoid mentioning an elementary work by M. Hugo, in which he treats of the History of the Roman Law from Justinian to the present Time, 2d edit. Berlin 1818 W.
德国、波希米亚、匈牙利、波兰与苏格兰，都把罗马法奉为普通法或理性之法而加以采纳；在法国、意大利等地，它或直接或间接地发挥着影响；在英格兰，从斯蒂芬王直到我们本国的查士丁尼——爱德华一世——治下，罗马法一直备受尊重（Duck. de Usu et Auctoritate Juris Civilis, l. ii. c. 1, 8—15. Heineccius, Hist. Juris Germanici, c. 3, 4, No. 55-124，以及各国的法律史家）。按：罗马法随着这门学问在意大利复兴而重光，这段历史本是最重要的分支之一，但在吉本写作之时，学界对它的探讨尚不完备。亚瑟·达克的那部著作不过是无足轻重之作。所幸博学之士的钻研，已使此事大为明朗。萨尔蒂、蒂拉博斯基、凡图齐、萨维奥利诸家，都做过一些颇有意味的考索；然而，真正使这段历史豁然开朗的，则非萨维尼先生莫属——见其题为《中世纪罗马法史》的著作。他无可辩驳地证明：从查士丁尼直到注释法学派的时代，罗马法始终得以保存，而正是注释法学派以其不倦的热忱，把罗马法学的研究传播到欧洲各国。人们极愿这位作者能续成这一饶有兴味的工作，也愿学界着手探究：罗马法当初究竟以何种方式传入各国，其权威又是如何逐步确立起来的。就比利时而言，此题（由布鲁塞尔学院于1781年悬为课题）已有一部《文集》，1783年以四开本印于布鲁塞尔，其中尤以德贝格先生的论文最为出色。贝里亚·圣普里先生已让我们有望不久便读到他一部专论此题、尤其涉及法国的著作。施潘根贝格先生在其《〈国法大全〉研究导论》（汉诺威，1817年，八开本一卷，第86、116页）中，为罗马法在欧洲各地的历史勾勒了一个总体轮廓。我们还不能不提到胡果先生的一部入门之作，其中论述了从查士丁尼直至当代的罗马法史（第2版，柏林，1818年）。—W
3 ↩
Francis Hottoman, a learned and acute lawyer of the xvith century, wished to mortify Cujacius, and to please the Chancellor de l’Hopital. His Anti-Tribonianus (which I have never been able to procure) was published in French in 1609; and his sect was propagated in Germany, (Heineccius, Op. tom. iii. sylloge iii. p. 171—183.) * Note: Though there have always been many detractors of the Roman law, no sect of Anti-Tribonians has ever existed under that name, as Gibbon seems to suppose.—W.
弗朗西斯·奥特曼，十六世纪一位博学而敏锐的法学家，一心想羞辱屈雅斯，并讨好掌玺大臣德·洛皮塔尔。他的《反特里波尼安》（此书我始终未能觅得）于1609年以法文刊行，他的学派在德国流传开来（Heineccius, Op. tom. iii. sylloge iii. p. 171—183）。按：尽管历来诋毁罗马法者不乏其人，却从未有过一个如吉本所设想的、以“反特里波尼安派”为名的派别。—W
4 ↩
At the head of these guides I shall respectfully place the learned and perspicuous Heineccius, a German professor, who died at Halle in the year 1741, (see his Eloge in the Nouvelle Bibliotheque Germanique, tom. ii. p. 51—64.) His ample works have been collected in eight volumes in 4to. Geneva, 1743-1748. The treatises which I have separately used are, 1. Historia Juris Romani et Germanici, Lugd. Batav. 1740, in 8 vo. 2. Syntagma Antiquitatum Romanam Jurisprudentiam illustrantium, 2 vols. in 8 vo. Traject. ad Rhenum. 3. Elementa Juris Civilis secundum Ordinem Institutionum, Lugd. Bat. 1751, in 8 vo. 4. Elementa J. C. secundum Ordinem Pandectarum Traject. 1772, in 8vo. 2 vols. * Note: Our author, who was not a lawyer, was necessarily obliged to content himself with following the opinions of those writers who were then of the greatest authority; but as Heineccius, notwithstanding his high reputation for the study of the Roman law, knew nothing of the subject on which he treated, but what he had learned from the compilations of various authors, it happened that, in following the sometimes rash opinions of these guides, Gibbon has fallen into many errors, which we shall endeavor in succession to correct. The work of Bach on the History of the Roman Jurisprudence, with which Gibbon was not acquainted, is far superior to that of Heineccius and since that time we have new obligations to the modern historic civilians, whose indefatigable researches have greatly enlarged the sphere of our knowledge in this important branch of history. We want a pen like that of Gibbon to give to the more accurate notions which we have acquired since his time, the brilliancy, the vigor, and the animation which Gibbon has bestowed on the opinions of Heineccius and his contemporaries.—W
在这些向导之首，我要恭敬地推举博学而明晰的海涅克丘斯——一位德国教授，1741年卒于哈雷（其行状见 Nouvelle Bibliotheque Germanique, tom. ii. p. 51—64）。他卷帙浩繁的著作已辑为四开本八卷（日内瓦，1743—1748年）。我曾单独征引过的论著有：一、Historia Juris Romani et Germanici（Lugd. Batav. 1740，八开本）；二、Syntagma Antiquitatum Romanam Jurisprudentiam illustrantium（八开本，两卷，Traject. ad Rhenum）；三、Elementa Juris Civilis secundum Ordinem Institutionum（Lugd. Bat. 1751，八开本）；四、Elementa J. C. secundum Ordinem Pandectarum（Traject. 1772，八开本，两卷）。按：我们这位作者并非法律家，势必只能满足于追随当时最具权威的那些著述家的见解；然而海涅克丘斯虽以研治罗马法而享有盛名，可他对自己所论的题目其实一无所知，所知者不过是从各家汇编中撷取而来。于是，吉本追随这些向导，采信其中时而失之轻率的见解，便难免陷入种种谬误，我们将逐一设法予以纠正。巴赫论罗马法学史的著作——吉本并不知晓——远胜于海涅克丘斯之作；此后，我们又得益于近世治法律史的诸位民法学家，他们不倦的钻研极大地拓宽了我们在这一重要历史分支上的知识领域。我们所欠缺的，是一支吉本那样的健笔，好把他身后我们获得的那些更精确的见识，写得如他当年写海涅克丘斯及其同侪之说那般光彩、有力而生动。—W
5 ↩
Our original text is a fragment de Origine Juris (Pandect. l. i. tit. ii.) of Pomponius, a Roman lawyer, who lived under the Antonines, (Heinecc. tom. iii. syl. iii. p. 66—126.) It has been abridged, and probably corrupted, by Tribonian, and since restored by Bynkershoek (Opp. tom. i. p. 279—304.)
我们所依据的原始文本，是庞波尼乌斯的一段残篇 de Origine Juris（Pandect. l. i. tit. ii.）；庞波尼乌斯是一位罗马法律家，生活于安敦尼诸帝之世（Heinecc. tom. iii. syl. iii. p. 66—126）。此文经特里波尼安删节，或许还遭其窜改，后由宾克斯胡克予以校复（Opp. tom. i. p. 279—304）。
6 ↩
The constitutional history of the kings of Rome may be studied in the first book of Livy, and more copiously in Dionysius Halicarnassensis, (l. li. p. 80—96, 119—130, l. iv. p. 198—220,) who sometimes betrays the character of a rhetorician and a Greek. * Note: M. Warnkonig refers to the work of Beaufort, on the Uncertainty of the Five First Ages of the Roman History, with which Gibbon was probably acquainted, to Niebuhr, and to the less known volume of Wachsmuth, “Aeltere Geschichte des Rom. Staats.” To these I would add A. W. Schlegel’s Review of Niebuhr, and my friend Dr. Arnold’s recently published volume, of which the chapter on the Law of the XII. Tables appears to me one of the most valuable, if not the most valuable, chapter.—M.
罗马诸王时期的政制史，可读李维书的第一卷，狄奥尼修斯·哈利卡尔纳苏斯的记述则更为详备（l. li. p. 80—96, 119—130, l. iv. p. 198—220）——尽管他时而流露出希腊修辞家的本色。按：瓦恩克尼希先生提到博福尔论《罗马史最初五个世纪之不确定性》的著作（吉本大概读过此书），又提到尼布尔，以及瓦克斯穆特那部名气较小的《罗马国家早期史》（Aeltere Geschichte des Rom. Staats）。我还想补上 A. W. 施莱格尔评论尼布尔的文章，以及我的朋友阿诺德博士新近出版的那卷书——其中论《十二铜表法》的一章，在我看来即便不是最有价值的一章，也是最有价值者之一。—M
7 ↩
This threefold division of the law was applied to the three Roman kings by Justus Lipsius, (Opp. tom. iv. p. 279;) is adopted by Gravina, (Origines Juris Civilis, p. 28, edit. Lips. 1737:) and is reluctantly admitted by Mascou, his German editor. * Note: Whoever is acquainted with the real notions of the Romans on the jus naturale, gentium et civile, cannot but disapprove of this explanation which has no relation to them, and might be taken for a pleasantry. It is certainly unnecessary to increase the confusion which already prevails among modern writers on the true sense of these ideas. Hugo.—W
将法律的这一三重划分套在三位罗马国王身上，出自尤斯图斯·利普修斯（Opp. tom. iv. p. 279）；格拉维纳采纳了此说（Origines Juris Civilis, p. 28, edit. Lips. 1737），而格拉维纳的德国校订者马斯科夫则勉强予以认可。按：凡真正了解罗马人心目中自然法、万民法与市民法（jus naturale, gentium et civile）之本义者，无不否定这种解释——它与那些概念毫不相干，简直可当作一句玩笑话。现代论者对这几个概念的真义本已聚讼纷纭，实在无须再添混乱。胡果。—W
8 ↩
The most ancient Code or Digest was styled Jus Papirianum, from the first compiler, Papirius, who flourished somewhat before or after the Regifugium, (Pandect. l. i. tit. ii.) The best judicial critics, even Bynkershoek (tom. i. p. 284, 285) and Heineccius, (Hist. J. C. R. l. i. c. 16, 17, and Opp. tom. iii. sylloge iv. p. 1—8,) give credit to this tale of Pomponius, without sufficiently adverting to the value and rarity of such a monument of the third century, of the illiterate city. I much suspect that the Caius Papirius, the Pontifex Maximus, who revived the laws of Numa (Dionys. Hal. l. iii. p. 171) left only an oral tradition; and that the Jus Papirianum of Granius Flaccus (Pandect. l. L. tit. xvi. leg. 144) was not a commentary, but an original work, compiled in the time of Caesar, (Censorin. de Die Natali, l. iii. p. 13, Duker de Latinitate J. C. p. 154.) Note: Niebuhr considers the Jus Papirianum, adduced by Verrius Fiaccus, to be of undoubted authenticity. Rom. Geschichte, l. 257.—M. Compare this with the work of M. Hugo.—W.
最古的一部法典或汇纂被称为《帕皮里安法》（Jus Papirianum），得名于其最初的编纂者帕皮里乌斯——此人约活跃于“逐王”之变（Regifugium）前后（Pandect. l. i. tit. ii.）。最优秀的法律考据家，甚至宾克斯胡克（tom. i. p. 284, 285）与海涅克丘斯（Hist. J. C. R. l. i. c. 16, 17，以及 Opp. tom. iii. sylloge iv. p. 1—8），都相信庞波尼乌斯这段说法，却未充分掂量：在那座尚不通文墨的城邦里，一件属于建城第三个世纪的这类文献，其价值与稀有当是何等惊人。我颇疑心：那位重订努马诸法的最高祭司长盖乌斯·帕皮里乌斯（Dionys. Hal. l. iii. p. 171），留下的不过是口传而已；而格拉尼乌斯·弗拉库斯的《帕皮里安法》（Pandect. l. L. tit. xvi. leg. 144），并非一部注释，而是一部独立的原创著作，成于恺撒时代（Censorin. de Die Natali, l. iii. p. 13, Duker de Latinitate J. C. p. 154）。按：尼布尔认为，维里乌斯·弗拉库斯所援引的《帕皮里安法》，其真实性无可置疑。Rom. Geschichte, l. 257。—M 请将此与胡果先生的著作参看。—W
9 ↩
A pompous, though feeble attempt to restore the original, is made in the Histoire de la Jurisprudence Romaine of Terasson, p. 22—72, Paris, 1750, in folio; a work of more promise than performance.
特拉松在其《罗马法学史》（Histoire de la Jurisprudence Romaine, p. 22—72, Paris, 1750, 对开本）中，曾大张声势地尝试复原原文，惜乎力有未逮；这部书终究是期许有余而成就不足。
10 ↩
In the year 1444, seven or eight tables of brass were dug up between Cortona and Gubio. A part of these (for the rest is Etruscan) represents the primitive state of the Pelasgic letters and language, which are ascribed by Herodotus to that district of Italy, (l. i. c. 56, 57, 58;) though this difficult passage may be explained of a Crestona in Thrace, (Notes de Larcher, tom. i. p. 256—261.) The savage dialect of the Eugubine tables has exercised, and may still elude, the divination of criticism; but the root is undoubtedly Latin, of the same age and character as the Saliare Carmen, which, in the time of Horace, none could understand. The Roman idiom, by an infusion of Doric and Aeolic Greek, was gradually ripened into the style of the xii. tables, of the Duillian column, of Ennius, of Terence, and of Cicero, (Gruter. Inscript. tom. i. p. cxlii. Scipion Maffei, Istoria Diplomatica, p. 241—258. Bibliotheque Italique, tom. iii. p. 30—41, 174—205. tom. xiv. p. 1—52.) * Note: The Eugubine Tables have exercised the ingenuity of the Italian and German critics; it seems admitted (O. Muller, die Etrusker, ii. 313) that they are Tuscan. See the works of Lanzi, Passeri, Dempster, and O. Muller.—M
1444年，人们在科尔托纳与古比奥之间掘出七八块铜表。其中一部分（余下的属伊特鲁里亚文）呈现了佩拉斯吉字母与语言的原初面貌；希罗多德把这种字母语言归于意大利的那一地区（l. i. c. 56, 57, 58），不过这段费解的文字，或许指的是色雷斯的一处克雷斯托纳（Notes de Larcher, tom. i. p. 256—261）。这些欧古比翁铜表所用的粗野方言，历来令考据的推断煞费苦心，如今恐怕仍难索解；但其词根无疑是拉丁语，与《萨利祭司之歌》（Saliare Carmen）同其年代、同其性质——而后者到贺拉斯的时代已无人能懂。罗马人的语言，因注入了多利安与埃俄利斯的希腊成分，渐次成熟为《十二铜表法》、杜伊利乌斯纪功柱铭文，以及恩尼乌斯、泰伦提乌斯与西塞罗的文体（Gruter. Inscript. tom. i. p. cxlii. Scipion Maffei, Istoria Diplomatica, p. 241—258. Bibliotheque Italique, tom. iii. p. 30—41, 174—205. tom. xiv. p. 1—52）。按：欧古比翁铜表曾令意大利与德国的考据家们绞尽脑汁；如今似已公认（O. Muller, die Etrusker, ii. 313）它们属托斯卡纳（伊特鲁里亚）文。参看兰齐、帕塞里、登普斯特与奥·米勒诸家的著作。—M
11 ↩
Compare Livy (l. iii. c. 31—59) with Dionysius Halicarnassensis, (l. x. p. 644—xi. p. 691.) How concise and animated is the Roman—how prolix and lifeless the Greek! Yet he has admirably judged the masters, and defined the rules, of historical composition.
试将李维（l. iii. c. 31—59）与狄奥尼修斯·哈利卡尔纳苏斯（l. x. p. 644—xi. p. 691）相比照。那位罗马人何等简练而生动——这位希腊人又何等冗赘而呆板！然而，正是这位希腊人，对历史写作的诸位大家评骘精当，对其法度界说分明。
12 ↩
From the historians, Heineccius (Hist. J. R. l. i. No. 26) maintains that the twelve tables were of brass—aereas; in the text of Pomponius we read eboreas; for which Scaliger has substituted roboreas, (Bynkershoek, p. 286.) Wood, brass, and ivory, might be successively employed. Note: Compare Niebuhr, vol. ii. p. 349, &c.—M.
海涅克丘斯（Hist. J. R. l. i. No. 26）依据史家之说，主张十二铜表是铜制的——aereas；而在庞波尼乌斯的文本中，我们读到的却是 eboreas（象牙的），斯卡利杰将此字改作 roboreas（栎木的）（Bynkershoek, p. 286）。木、铜、象牙，或许曾先后用作其材质。按：参看尼布尔，vol. ii. p. 349 等处。—M
1211 ↩
Compare Niebuhr, 355, note 720.—M. It is a most important question whether the twelve tables in fact include laws imported from Greece. The negative opinion maintained by our author, is now almost universally adopted, particularly by Mm. Niebuhr, Hugo, and others. See my Institutiones Juris Romani privati Leodii, 1819, p. 311, 312.—W. Dr. Arnold, p. 255, seems to incline to the opposite opinion. Compare some just and sensible observations in the Appendix to Mr. Travers Twiss’s Epitome of Niebuhr, p. 347, Oxford, 1836.—M.
参看尼布尔，355，注720。—M 《十二铜表法》是否当真包含从希腊输入的法律，是一个极为重要的问题。我们这位作者所持的否定意见，如今已几乎为众所公认，尼布尔、胡果诸位先生尤主此说。参见拙著 Institutiones Juris Romani privati（Leodii, 1819, p. 311, 312）。—W 阿诺德博士（p. 255）似乎倾向于相反的意见。特拉弗斯·特威斯先生《尼布尔缩编》附录中有若干公允而通达的评论（p. 347, Oxford, 1836），可以参看。—M
13 ↩
His exile is mentioned by Cicero, (Tusculan. Quaestion. v. 36; his statue by Pliny, (Hist. Nat. xxxiv. 11.) The letter, dream, and prophecy of Heraclitus, are alike spurious, (Epistolae Graec. Divers. p. 337.) * Note: Compare Niebuhr, ii. 209.—M. See the Mem de l’Academ. des Inscript. xxii. p. 48. It would be difficult to disprove, that a certain Hermodorus had some share in framing the Laws of the Twelve Tables. Pomponius even says that this Hermodorus was the author of the last two tables. Pliny calls him the Interpreter of the Decemvirs, which may lead us to suppose that he labored with them in drawing up that law. But it is astonishing that in his Dissertation, (De Hermodoro vero XII. Tabularum Auctore, Annales Academiae Groninganae anni 1817, 1818,) M. Gratama has ventured to advance two propositions entirely devoid of proof: “Decem priores tabulas ab ipsis Romanis non esse profectas, tota confirma Decemviratus Historia,” et “Hermodorum legum decemviralium ceri nominis auctorem esse, qui eas composuerit suis ordinibus, disposuerit, suaque fecerit auctoritate, ut a decemviris reciperentur.” This truly was an age in which the Roman Patricians would allow their laws to be dictated by a foreign Exile! Mr. Gratama does not attempt to prove the authenticity of the supposititious letter of Heraclitus. He contents himself with expressing his astonishment that M. Bonamy (as well as Gibbon) will be receive it as genuine.—W.
他的流放，西塞罗有所提及（Tusculan. Quaestion. v. 36）；他的塑像，则见于普林尼（Hist. Nat. xxxiv. 11）。至于赫拉克利特的那封书信、那个梦兆与那则预言，则同属伪托（Epistolae Graec. Divers. p. 337）。按：参看尼布尔，ii. 209。—M 参见 Mem de l’Academ. des Inscript. xxii. p. 48。要否认某位赫尔莫多鲁斯曾在《十二铜表法》的制定中出过一份力，是很难的。庞波尼乌斯甚至说，末尾两表即出自这位赫尔莫多鲁斯之手。普林尼称他为十人委员会的“释义人”，这或许使我们推想，他曾与他们一同参与该法的拟订。然而令人惊异的是，格拉塔马先生在其论文（De Hermodoro vero XII. Tabularum Auctore, Annales Academiae Groninganae anni 1817, 1818）中，竟敢提出两条全无证据的论断：“Decem priores tabulas ab ipsis Romanis non esse profectas, tota confirma Decemviratus Historia”（前十表并非出自罗马人自己之手，整部十人委员会的历史即可为证），以及“Hermodorum legum decemviralium ceri nominis auctorem esse, qui eas composuerit suis ordinibus, disposuerit, suaque fecerit auctoritate, ut a decemviris reciperentur”（赫尔莫多鲁斯才是十人委员会立法的真正作者，是他依自己的条理撰成、编排诸法，并凭其自身权威使十人委员会予以采纳）。那可真是一个罗马贵族甘愿让一名外邦流亡者替他们口授法律的时代啊！格拉塔马先生并未试图证明那封伪托的赫拉克利特书信为真，他只满足于表示惊讶：博纳米先生（连同吉本）竟会视之为真品。—W
14 ↩
This intricate subject of the Sicilian and Roman money, is ably discussed by Dr. Bentley, (Dissertation on the Epistles of Phalaris, p. 427—479,) whose powers in this controversy were called forth by honor and resentment.
西西里与罗马货币这一错综的题目，本特利博士曾精辟地加以讨论（Dissertation on the Epistles of Phalaris, p. 427—479）；在这场论争中，荣誉感与愤懑激发出了他的全副本领。
15 ↩
The Romans, or their allies, sailed as far as the fair promontory of Africa, (Polyb. l. iii. p. 177, edit. Casaubon, in folio.) Their voyages to Cumae, &c., are noticed by Livy and Dionysius.
罗马人及其盟友的航船，曾远抵非洲的“美岬”（Polyb. l. iii. p. 177, edit. Casaubon, 对开本）。他们前往库迈等地的航行，李维与狄奥尼修斯均有记载。
16 ↩
This circumstance would alone prove the antiquity of Charondas, the legislator of Rhegium and Catana, who, by a strange error of Diodorus Siculus (tom. i. l. xii. p. 485—492) is celebrated long afterwards as the author of the policy of Thurium.
单凭这一点，就足以证明卡隆达斯之古老——他是雷吉乌姆与卡塔纳的立法者，却因西西里的狄奥多罗斯一个奇怪的讹误（tom. i. l. xii. p. 485—492），在很久以后被推崇为图里翁政制的创制者。
17 ↩
Zaleucus, whose existence has been rashly attacked, had the merit and glory of converting a band of outlaws (the Locrians) into the most virtuous and orderly of the Greek republics. (See two Memoirs of the Baron de St. Croix, sur la Legislation de la Grande Grece Mem. de l’Academie, tom. xlii. p. 276—333.) But the laws of Zaleucus and Charondas, which imposed on Diodorus and Stobaeus, are the spurious composition of a Pythagorean sophist, whose fraud has been detected by the critical sagacity of Bentley, p. 335—377.
扎莱乌库斯的存在虽曾遭人轻率否认，但他确有一桩功绩与荣耀：把一伙亡命之徒（即洛克里斯人）改造成了希腊诸共和国中最有德行、最守秩序的一邦。（见德·圣克鲁瓦男爵论大希腊立法的两篇论文，sur la Legislation de la Grande Grece, Mem. de l’Academie, tom. xlii. p. 276—333。）然而，那些曾蒙骗过狄奥多罗斯与斯托拜乌斯的所谓扎莱乌库斯与卡隆达斯之法，实为某个毕达哥拉斯派诡辩家的伪作，其骗局早经本特利以犀利的考据识破（p. 335—377）。
18 ↩
I seize the opportunity of tracing the progress of this national intercourse 1. Herodotus and Thucydides (A. U. C. 300—350) appear ignorant of the name and existence of Rome, (Joseph. contra Appion tom. ii. l. i. c. 12, p. 444, edit. Havercamp.) 2. Theopompus (A. U. C. 400, Plin. iii. 9) mentions the invasion of the Gauls, which is noticed in looser terms by Heraclides Ponticus, (Plutarch in Camillo, p. 292, edit. H. Stephan.) 3. The real or fabulous embassy of the Romans to Alexander (A. U. C. 430) is attested by Clitarchus, (Plin. iii. 9,) by Aristus and Asclepiades, (Arrian. l. vii. p. 294, 295,) and by Memnon of Heraclea, (apud Photium, cod. ccxxiv. p. 725,) though tacitly denied by Livy. 4. Theophrastus (A. U. C. 440) primus externorum aliqua de Romanis diligentius scripsit, (Plin. iii. 9.) 5. Lycophron (A. U. C. 480—500) scattered the first seed of a Trojan colony and the fable of the Aeneid, (Cassandra, 1226—1280.) A bold prediction before the end of the first Punic war! * Note: Compare Niebuhr throughout. Niebuhr has written a dissertation (Kleine Schriften, i. p. 438,) arguing from this prediction, and on the other conclusive grounds, that the Lycophron, the author of the Cassandra, is not the Alexandrian poet. He had been anticipated in this sagacious criticism, as he afterwards discovered, by a writer of no less distinction than Charles James Fox.—Letters to Wakefield. And likewise by the author of the extraordinary translation of this poem, that most promising scholar, Lord Royston. See the Remains of Lord Royston, by the Rev. Henry Pepys, London, 1838.
我且借此机会，追述这一民族间往来的演进过程。其一，希罗多德与修昔底德（建城300—350年）似乎并不知晓罗马之名及其存在（Joseph. contra Appion tom. ii. l. i. c. 12, p. 444, edit. Havercamp）。其二，忒俄彭波斯（建城400年，Plin. iii. 9）提到过高卢人的入侵，蓬托斯的赫拉克利德斯亦以较含糊的措辞述及此事（Plutarch in Camillo, p. 292, edit. H. Stephan）。其三，罗马人向亚历山大遣使一事，无论确有其事抑或出于虚构（建城430年），克利塔尔库斯（Plin. iii. 9）、阿里斯图斯与阿斯克勒庇阿德斯（Arrian. l. vii. p. 294, 295），以及赫拉克利亚的门农（apud Photium, cod. ccxxiv. p. 725）都有所证实，虽然李维对此讳而不言。其四，泰奥弗拉斯托斯（建城440年）“primus externorum aliqua de Romanis diligentius scripsit”（是外邦人中最早较为详细地记述罗马之事者，Plin. iii. 9）。其五，吕科夫隆（建城480—500年）最先播下了特洛伊殖民与《埃涅阿斯纪》传说的种子（Cassandra, 1226—1280）。在第一次布匿战争结束之前，这可真是一个大胆的预言！按：可通篇参看尼布尔。尼布尔曾撰一文（Kleine Schriften, i. p. 438），依据这则预言以及别的确凿理由，论证《卡珊德拉》的作者吕科夫隆并非那位亚历山大里亚诗人。他后来发现，早在他之前，已有一位声望丝毫不逊于他的作者作出过同样精到的评断，那就是查尔斯·詹姆斯·福克斯（见《致韦克菲尔德书》）；此外，还有此诗那部非凡译本的译者、极有前途的学者罗伊斯顿勋爵，也先于他有此见解。参看亨利·佩皮斯牧师所编《罗伊斯顿勋爵遗稿》（伦敦，1838年）。
19 ↩
The tenth table, de modo sepulturae, was borrowed from Solon, (Cicero de Legibus, ii. 23—26:) the furtem per lancem et licium conceptum, is derived by Heineccius from the manners of Athens, (Antiquitat. Rom. tom. ii. p. 167—175.) The right of killing a nocturnal thief was declared by Moses, Solon, and the Decemvirs, (Exodus xxii. 3. Demosthenes contra Timocratem, tom. i. p. 736, edit. Reiske. Macrob. Saturnalia, l. i. c. 4. Collatio Legum Mosaicarum et Romanatum, tit, vii. No. i. p. 218, edit. Cannegieter.) *Note: Are not the same points of similarity discovered in the legislation of all actions in the infancy of their civilization?—W.
第十表“de modo sepulturae”（论丧葬之法）借自梭伦（Cicero de Legibus, ii. 23—26）；至于“furtem per lancem et licium conceptum”（以盘与腰带搜赃之俗），海涅克丘斯认为源出雅典的风习（Antiquitat. Rom. tom. ii. p. 167—175）。夜间行窃者可格杀之的权利，摩西、梭伦与十人委员会都曾申明（Exodus xxii. 3. Demosthenes contra Timocratem, tom. i. p. 736, edit. Reiske. Macrob. Saturnalia, l. i. c. 4. Collatio Legum Mosaicarum et Romanatum, tit, vii. No. i. p. 218, edit. Cannegieter）。按：凡处于文明幼年期的各民族，其立法之中，难道不都能发现同样的雷同之处吗？—W