罗马帝国衰亡史 Vol. 4 · Chapter 44 · Part 2

Chapter XLIV: Idea Of The Roman Jurisprudence.—Part II. 第四十四章 罗马法学述要——第二节

Whatever might be the origin or the merit of the twelve tables, 20 they obtained among the Romans that blind and partial reverence which the lawyers of every country delight to bestow on their municipal institutions. The study is recommended by Cicero 21 as equally pleasant and instructive. “They amuse the mind by the remembrance of old words and the portrait of ancient manners; they inculcate the soundest principles of government and morals; and I am not afraid to affirm, that the brief composition of the Decemvirs surpasses in genuine value the libraries of Grecian philosophy. How admirable,” says Tully, with honest or affected prejudice, “is the wisdom of our ancestors! We alone are the masters of civil prudence, and our superiority is the more conspicuous, if we deign to cast our eyes on the rude and almost ridiculous jurisprudence of Draco, of Solon, and of Lycurgus.” The twelve tables were committed to the memory of the young and the meditation of the old; they were transcribed and illustrated with learned diligence; they had escaped the flames of the Gauls, they subsisted in the age of Justinian, and their subsequent loss has been imperfectly restored by the labors of modern critics. 22 But although these venerable monuments were considered as the rule of right and the fountain of justice, 23 they were overwhelmed by the weight and variety of new laws, which, at the end of five centuries, became a grievance more intolerable than the vices of the city. 24 Three thousand brass plates, the acts of the senate of the people, were deposited in the Capitol: 25 and some of the acts, as the Julian law against extortion, surpassed the number of a hundred chapters. 26 The Decemvirs had neglected to import the sanction of Zaleucus, which so long maintained the integrity of his republic. A Locrian, who proposed any new law, stood forth in the assembly of the people with a cord round his neck, and if the law was rejected, the innovator was instantly strangled.
《十二铜表法》无论其来历如何、价值几何20，在罗马人心目中都赢得了一种盲目而偏私的尊崇——各国的法律家对本国的法律制度，向来乐于奉上这般敬意。西塞罗21便极力称道研习此法，谓其既怡情又益智。“重温其中的古字古语，端详其中所描摹的先民风习，足以怡悦心神；它所训诲的，又是治国与修身的至正之道；我更敢断言：十人委员会这部简短的著作，其真正的价值胜过希腊哲学的满架典籍。我们祖先的智慧，”西塞罗又说道——这偏见或出于真心，或出于矫饰——“何其令人叹服！论民事政略之精通，天下唯我罗马人为宗匠；倘若我们肯屈尊一顾德拉古、梭伦、来库古那些粗陋乃至近乎可笑的法制，便更见我们的高明。”《十二铜表法》，少者背诵成习，老者潜心玩味；学者勤加钞录、详为疏解；它躲过了高卢人焚城的烈焰，直到查士丁尼的时代仍存于世；后来虽告散佚，经近世校勘家的努力也只勉强复原了残篇。22然而，这些可敬的古老丰碑虽被奉为权利的准绳、正义的源泉23，却终究淹没于纷繁杂沓的新法之中；五个世纪之后，法令之多之乱，竟成了比这座城市种种恶行更教人难以忍受的祸患。24铜牌三千方，铭刻着元老院与人民的历次立法，庋藏于卡皮托利山25；其中有些法案，如惩治勒索的《尤利亚法》，竟多达百余章。26十人委员会却疏忽了一点，未曾把扎莱乌库斯所定的那条禁例引入罗马——正是这条禁例，长久地维系了他那共和邦国立法的纯正。在洛克里斯，凡提议新法者，须颈缠绳索立于人民大会之前；提案一旦遭否决，倡议者当场便被勒死。
The Decemvirs had been named, and their tables were approved, by an assembly of the centuries, in which riches preponderated against numbers. To the first class of Romans, the proprietors of one hundred thousand pounds of copper, 27 ninety-eight votes were assigned, and only ninety-five were left for the six inferior classes, distributed according to their substance by the artful policy of Servius. But the tribunes soon established a more specious and popular maxim, that every citizen has an equal right to enact the laws which he is bound to obey. Instead of the centuries, they convened the tribes; and the patricians, after an impotent struggle, submitted to the decrees of an assembly, in which their votes were confounded with those of the meanest plebeians. Yet as long as the tribes successively passed over narrow bridges 28 and gave their voices aloud, the conduct of each citizen was exposed to the eyes and ears of his friends and countrymen. The insolvent debtor consulted the wishes of his creditor; the client would have blushed to oppose the views of his patron; the general was followed by his veterans, and the aspect of a grave magistrate was a living lesson to the multitude. A new method of secret ballot abolished the influence of fear and shame, of honor and interest, and the abuse of freedom accelerated the progress of anarchy and despotism. 29 The Romans had aspired to be equal; they were levelled by the equality of servitude; and the dictates of Augustus were patiently ratified by the formal consent of the tribes or centuries. Once, and once only, he experienced a sincere and strenuous opposition. His subjects had resigned all political liberty; they defended the freedom of domestic life. A law which enforced the obligation, and strengthened the bonds of marriage, was clamorously rejected; Propertius, in the arms of Delia, applauded the victory of licentious love; and the project of reform was suspended till a new and more tractable generation had arisen in the world. 30 Such an example was not necessary to instruct a prudent usurper of the mischief of popular assemblies; and their abolition, which Augustus had silently prepared, was accomplished without resistance, and almost without notice, on the accession of his successor. 31 Sixty thousand plebeian legislators, whom numbers made formidable, and poverty secure, were supplanted by six hundred senators, who held their honors, their fortunes, and their lives, by the clemency of the emperor. The loss of executive power was alleviated by the gift of legislative authority; and Ulpian might assert, after the practice of two hundred years, that the decrees of the senate obtained the force and validity of laws. In the times of freedom, the resolves of the people had often been dictated by the passion or error of the moment: the Cornelian, Pompeian, and Julian laws were adapted by a single hand to the prevailing disorders; but the senate, under the reign of the Caesars, was composed of magistrates and lawyers, and in questions of private jurisprudence, the integrity of their judgment was seldom perverted by fear or interest. 32
十人委员会的委任，及其法表的通过，都出自百人团大会——在那里，财富的分量压过了人数的多寡。罗马公民中的第一等级，即拥有十万磅铜赀财者27，独得九十八票；余下六个较低等级，则按塞尔维乌斯精心设计的制度依资产分列，总共只分到九十五票。但保民官不久便立下一条更中听、更得民心的原则：既然人人都须服从法律，那么人人在立法上也就应有平等之权。于是他们弃百人团大会不用，改召部族会议；贵族们徒然抗争一番，终究只得俯首听命于这样一个会议——在其中，他们的一票与最卑微的平民毫无二致。不过，只要各部族仍是鱼贯走过窄桥28、高声表决，每个公民的举止便都暴露在亲友与同胞的耳目之下。无力偿债的欠债人得看债主的脸色行事；门客若违逆恩主的主张，自会羞愧难当；将军身后自有麾下老兵追随效仿；而一位庄重的官长往那里一站，本身便是给众人的一堂活生生的训诫。后来有了秘密投票这一新法，畏惧与羞耻、荣誉与利害的种种牵制便一概荡除；自由既遭滥用，无政府之乱与专制之祸也随之加速降临。29罗马人本一心追求平等，到头来却是在同为奴仆这一点上被拉平了；奥古斯都的旨意，只消部族会议或百人团大会走一道形式上认可的过场，便逆来顺受地一一获准。他一生只遇到过一次真心而顽强的反抗，仅此一次。他的臣民已交出了一切政治自由，却仍要力保家室生活的自由。有一部法律，强制人们履行婚姻义务、加固婚姻纽带，却在一片鼓噪声中遭到否决；普罗佩提乌斯偎在得利娅怀中，为放荡之爱的这场胜利拍手称快；改革的方案于是搁置下来，直等到世上另有一代更驯顺的人成长起来。30其实用不着这样一桩事例，一个精明的僭权者也早已看透民众大会的祸害；奥古斯都暗中已为废除它们铺好道路，及至其继任者即位，这一步便波澜不惊地完成，未遇任何抵抗，几乎无人察觉。31六万名平民立法者，仗着人多势众而可畏、家徒四壁而无从收买，如今被六百名元老取而代之——而这些元老的尊荣、财产乃至性命，全系于皇帝的宽仁一念之间。元老院虽失去了行政之权，却得了立法之权作为补偿；两百年的惯例既定，乌尔比安便可断言：元老院的决议已具有法律的效力与约束力。在自由的年代，人民的决议往往是一时激情或谬见的产物：《科尔内利亚法》、《庞培法》、《尤利亚法》，无非是由某一人之手针对当时的乱象仓促裁定的；而在诸恺撒治下的元老院，成员多为官长与法学家；遇到私法上的问题，他们的判断公允，鲜少为畏惧或私利所扭曲。32
The silence or ambiguity of the laws was supplied by the occasional edicts 3211 of those magistrates who were invested with the honors of the state. 33 This ancient prerogative of the Roman kings was transferred, in their respective offices, to the consuls and dictators, the censors and praetors; and a similar right was assumed by the tribunes of the people, the ediles, and the proconsuls. At Rome, and in the provinces, the duties of the subject, and the intentions of the governor, were proclaimed; and the civil jurisprudence was reformed by the annual edicts of the supreme judge, the praetor of the city. 3311 As soon as he ascended his tribunal, he announced by the voice of the crier, and afterwards inscribed on a white wall, the rules which he proposed to follow in the decision of doubtful cases, and the relief which his equity would afford from the precise rigor of ancient statutes. A principle of discretion more congenial to monarchy was introduced into the republic: the art of respecting the name, and eluding the efficacy, of the laws, was improved by successive praetors; subtleties and fictions were invented to defeat the plainest meaning of the Decemvirs, and where the end was salutary, the means were frequently absurd. The secret or probable wish of the dead was suffered to prevail over the order of succession and the forms of testaments; and the claimant, who was excluded from the character of heir, accepted with equal pleasure from an indulgent praetor the possession of the goods of his late kinsman or benefactor. In the redress of private wrongs, compensations and fines were substituted to the obsolete rigor of the Twelve Tables; time and space were annihilated by fanciful suppositions; and the plea of youth, or fraud, or violence, annulled the obligation, or excused the performance, of an inconvenient contract. A jurisdiction thus vague and arbitrary was exposed to the most dangerous abuse: the substance, as well as the form, of justice were often sacrificed to the prejudices of virtue, the bias of laudable affection, and the grosser seductions of interest or resentment. But the errors or vices of each praetor expired with his annual office; such maxims alone as had been approved by reason and practice were copied by succeeding judges; the rule of proceeding was defined by the solution of new cases; and the temptations of injustice were removed by the Cornelian law, which compelled the praetor of the year to adhere to the spirit and letter of his first proclamation. 34 It was reserved for the curiosity and learning of Adrian, to accomplish the design which had been conceived by the genius of Caesar; and the praetorship of Salvius Julian, an eminent lawyer, was immortalized by the composition of the Perpetual Edict. This well-digested code was ratified by the emperor and the senate; the long divorce of law and equity was at length reconciled; and, instead of the Twelve Tables, the perpetual edict was fixed as the invariable standard of civil jurisprudence. 35
法律凡有缄默不言或语意含混之处，便由那些身膺国家荣职的官长33随时颁布告示3211，予以补足。这一古老的特权原属罗马诸王，后按各自职权分授于执政官与独裁官、监察官与裁判官；保民官、市政官与代执政官也一并揽取了类似的权力。无论在罗马城还是各行省，臣民的义务与治理者的意图都借此公之于众；而民事法学，则经由那位最高审判者——即掌理都城的裁判官——每年颁布的告示而不断革新。3311裁判官一登上审判席，便先由传令官高声宣布，继而书之于粉白的墙壁，公告他打算依循哪些准则来裁断疑难案件，又将本着公道，对古老律条那分毫不让的严苛给予怎样的宽宥。于是共和国引入了一种更合乎君主政体口味的自由裁量原则：历任裁判官把一门手艺越磨越精——既维持法律的名义于不坠，又暗中架空其实效；他们发明种种诡辩与拟制，专为挫败十人委员会那些最浅白的原意；纵使目的良善，所用的手段却往往荒唐。死者暗藏于心、或可推想的遗愿，竟得以压倒法定的继承次序与遗嘱的既定格式；某个申领者，本被排除于继承人之列，却照样从宽仁的裁判官手中领受亡故亲属或恩主的遗产占有权，心满意足。在纠正私人侵害时，赔偿与罚金取代了《十二铜表法》那业已过时的严刑；凭着种种异想天开的假定，时间与空间竟被一笔抹去；而但凡援引年幼、欺诈或胁迫为由，一纸不便履行的契约，其义务便可作废，或其履行可获宽免。如此含糊而专断的裁判权，最易招致极危险的滥用：正义的实质与形式，往往一并被牺牲——有时是为了德行上的成见，有时是出于虽属可嘉却难免偏私的情感，更有甚者，则是屈从于利害或私怨这类更为鄙下的诱惑。好在每位裁判官的过失或恶行，都随其一年的任期而终止；唯有那些经理性与实践检验而站得住脚的准则，才为后来的法官所沿袭；审理的规程，也在一桩桩新案的裁断中日益明晰；至于以权谋私的种种诱惑，则由《科尔内利亚法》一举革除——该法强令当年的裁判官严守自己上任之初那道公告的精神与字句。34恺撒的天才曾构想出的宏图，最终留待哈德良以其博学与好奇之心去玉成；而名法学家萨尔维乌斯·尤利安努斯，则因编成《永久告示》而使其裁判官任期永垂不朽。这部条理井然的法典经皇帝与元老院批准；法律与公道久相乖离，至此终得弥合；从此《永久告示》取代《十二铜表法》，确立为民事法学恒定不移的准绳。35
From Augustus to Trajan, the modest Caesars were content to promulgate their edicts in the various characters of a Roman magistrate; 3511 and, in the decrees of the senate, the epistles and orations of the prince were respectfully inserted. Adrian 36 appears to have been the first who assumed, without disguise, the plenitude of legislative power. And this innovation, so agreeable to his active mind, was countenanced by the patience of the times, and his long absence from the seat of government. The same policy was embraced by succeeding monarchs, and, according to the harsh metaphor of Tertullian, “the gloomy and intricate forest of ancient laws was cleared away by the axe of royal mandates and constitutions.” 37 During four centuries, from Adrian to Justinian the public and private jurisprudence was moulded by the will of the sovereign; and few institutions, either human or divine, were permitted to stand on their former basis. The origin of Imperial legislation was concealed by the darkness of ages and the terrors of armed despotism; and a double tiction was propagated by the servility, or perhaps the ignorance, of the civilians, who basked in the sunshine of the Roman and Byzantine courts. 1. To the prayer of the ancient Caesars, the people or the senate had sometimes granted a personal exemption from the obligation and penalty of particular statutes; and each indulgence was an act of jurisdiction exercised by the republic over the first of her citizens. His humble privilege was at length transformed into the prerogative of a tyrant; and the Latin expression of “released from the laws” 38 was supposed to exalt the emperor above all human restraints, and to leave his conscience and reason as the sacred measure of his conduct. 2. A similar dependence was implied in the decrees of the senate, which, in every reign, defined the titles and powers of an elective magistrate. But it was not before the ideas, and even the language, of the Romans had been corrupted, that a royal law, 39 and an irrevocable gift of the people, were created by the fancy of Ulpian, or more probably of Tribonian himself; 40 and the origin of Imperial power, though false in fact, and slavish in its consequence, was supported on a principle of freedom and justice. “The pleasure of the emperor has the vigor and effect of law, since the Roman people, by the royal law, have transferred to their prince the full extent of their own power and sovereignty.” 41 The will of a single man, of a child perhaps, was allowed to prevail over the wisdom of ages and the inclinations of millions; and the degenerate Greeks were proud to declare, that in his hands alone the arbitrary exercise of legislation could be safely deposited. “What interest or passion,” exclaims Theophilus in the court of Justinian, “can reach the calm and sublime elevation of the monarch? He is already master of the lives and fortunes of his subjects; and those who have incurred his displeasure are already numbered with the dead.” 42 Disdaining the language of flattery, the historian may confess, that in questions of private jurisprudence, the absolute sovereign of a great empire can seldom be influenced by any personal considerations. Virtue, or even reason, will suggest to his impartial mind, that he is the guardian of peace and equity, and that the interest of society is inseparably connected with his own. Under the weakest and most vicious reign, the seat of justice was filled by the wisdom and integrity of Papinian and Ulpian; 43 and the purest materials of the Code and Pandects are inscribed with the names of Caracalla and his ministers. 44 The tyrant of Rome was sometimes the benefactor of the provinces. A dagger terminated the crimes of Domitian; but the prudence of Nerva confirmed his acts, which, in the joy of their deliverance, had been rescinded by an indignant senate. 45 Yet in the rescripts, 46 replies to the consultations of the magistrates, the wisest of princes might be deceived by a partial exposition of the case. And this abuse, which placed their hasty decisions on the same level with mature and deliberate acts of legislation, was ineffectually condemned by the sense and example of Trajan. The rescripts of the emperor, his grants and decrees, his edicts and pragmatic sanctions, were subscribed in purple ink, 47 and transmitted to the provinces as general or special laws, which the magistrates were bound to execute, and the people to obey. But as their number continually multiplied, the rule of obedience became each day more doubtful and obscure, till the will of the sovereign was fixed and ascertained in the Gregorian, the Hermogenian, and the Theodosian codes. 4711 The two first, of which some fragments have escaped, were framed by two private lawyers, to preserve the constitutions of the Pagan emperors from Adrian to Constantine. The third, which is still extant, was digested in sixteen books by the order of the younger Theodosius to consecrate the laws of the Christian princes from Constantine to his own reign. But the three codes obtained an equal authority in the tribunals; and any act which was not included in the sacred deposit might be disregarded by the judge as epurious or obsolete. 48
自奥古斯都至图拉真，历代恺撒尚知谦抑，只满足于以罗马官长的种种名义颁布告示3511；而元老院的决议中，也不过恭敬地援引元首的书翰与演说罢了。哈德良36似乎是头一个毫不掩饰地把立法全权揽于一身的人。这一变革既极合他那勤于政务、好动不居的性情，又因世人的隐忍、加之他长年远离朝廷所在而得以通行。后世君主纷纷承袭此策；用德尔图良那个刻毒的比喻来说：“古代法律那片幽暗而盘错的密林，被御旨与敕令的斧钺砍伐一空。”37自哈德良至查士丁尼，四百年间，公法与私法一概由君主的意志所塑造；无论人间的还是神圣的典章，鲜有几种还能保留其旧日的根基。帝国立法的由来，为岁月的幽晦与武力专制的威慑所遮蔽；而那些法学家，沐浴在罗马与拜占庭宫廷的阳光下，或出于奴颜婢膝，或竟出于无知，散布了一套双重的虚构。其一。古时诸恺撒有所吁请，人民或元老院有时便准其个人豁免某项律条的义务与刑罚；每一次这样的通融，都是共和国对其首席公民行使管辖权的一种表现。这本是谦卑求来的一点特惠，到后来却蜕变为暴君的特权；而“免于法律拘束”（legibus solutus）38这句拉丁成语，便被用来抬举皇帝，使其凌驾于一切人世约束之上，仿佛唯有他自己的良知与理性才是衡量其行止的神圣尺度。其二。元老院的决议中也暗含着类似的从属关系：历朝历代，正是这些决议界定了一位民选官长的名号与权限。然而，直到罗马人的观念乃至语言都已败坏之后，才有所谓“王法”39、所谓人民一次授予而不可撤回的赠与之说——这出自乌尔比安的臆想，或更可能出自特里波尼安本人的杜撰40；于是帝国权力的来历，尽管于史实为虚妄、其后果为奴役，竟被建立在一条自由与正义的原则之上。“皇帝的意旨即具有法律的效力与威权，因为罗马人民已凭那部王法，把自身权力与主权的全部，尽数移交给了他们的元首。”41于是一人的意志——说不定还是个孩童的意志——竟得以凌驾于历代的智慧与千百万人的意愿之上；而堕落的希腊人还引以为荣地宣称：唯有交在他一人手中，那专断的立法之权才能得到稳妥的托付。“有什么私利或情欲，”塞奥菲鲁斯在查士丁尼的朝廷上高声说道，“够得着君主那沉静而崇高的境界呢？他早已是臣民生死与财富的主宰；凡触怒了他的人，也早已与死者同列。”42史家不屑作此谄媚之辞，却也不妨承认：在私法的问题上，一个泱泱大国的专制君主，确实鲜少会受什么私人考量的左右。凭着德行，甚或仅凭理性，便足以使他那不偏不倚的心智明白：他是和平与公道的守护者，社会的利益与他自身的利益本就密不可分。即便在最孱弱、最邪恶的统治之下，审判之席上仍坐着帕皮尼安与乌尔比安这般睿智而正直的人43；《法典》与《学说汇纂》中最纯正的材料，也镌刻着卡拉卡拉及其群臣的名字。44罗马城的暴君，有时倒是各行省的恩主。一柄短剑终结了图密善的累累罪行；然而涅尔瓦出于审慎，仍确认了他的种种法令——元老院庆幸重获解脱，群情激愤，本已将这些法令一举废除。45不过在批答46（即对官长咨询所作的回复）当中，纵是最英明的君主，也可能为案情的片面陈述所蒙蔽。这种流弊把君主仓促之间的裁断，抬到了与深思熟虑的立法同等的地位；图拉真虽以其见识与身体力行加以谴责，却终归无济于事。皇帝的批答、其恩准与裁决、其告示与国事诏令，一律以紫墨签署47，作为通行或专门的法律颁行各行省，官长必须执行，百姓必须遵从。然而这类文书日积月累，愈来愈多，人们该遵从哪一条也就一天比一天更含糊难明，直到《格雷戈里安努斯法典》《赫尔莫格尼安努斯法典》与《狄奥多西法典》才把君主的意志固定下来、厘定清楚。4711前两部法典如今尚存若干残篇，皆出自两位私人法学家之手，意在保存自哈德良至君士坦丁历代异教皇帝的敕令。第三部至今完整传世，乃奉小狄奥多西之命纂成，分为十六卷，以珍存自君士坦丁至其本朝历代基督教君主的法律。这三部法典在法庭上具有同等的权威；凡未收入这一神圣汇编的法令，法官尽可视为伪造或过时而置之不理。48

Notes 注释

20 ↩
It is the praise of Diodorus, (tom. i. l. xii. p. 494,) which may be fairly translated by the eleganti atque absoluta brevitate verborum of Aulus Gellius, (Noct. Attic. xxi. 1.)
此语出自狄奥多罗斯的赞辞（tom. i. l. xii. p. 494），恰可用奥卢斯·革利乌斯（Noct. Attic. xxi. 1）那句 eleganti atque absoluta brevitate verborum（“措辞优雅而精当洗练”）来贴切地转述。
21 ↩
Listen to Cicero (de Legibus, ii. 23) and his representative Crassus, (de Oratore, i. 43, 44.)
且听西塞罗（de Legibus, ii. 23）以及作为其代言人的克拉苏（de Oratore, i. 43, 44）之言。
22 ↩
See Heineccius, (Hist. J. R. No. 29—33.) I have followed the restoration of the xii. tables by Gravina (Origines J. C. p. 280—307) and Terrasson, (Hist. de la Jurisprudence Romaine, p. 94—205.) Note: The wish expressed by Warnkonig, that the text and the conjectural emendations on the fragments of the xii. tables should be submitted to rigid criticism, has been fulfilled by Dirksen, Uebersicht der bisherigen Versuche Leipzig Kritik und Herstellung des Textes der Zwolf-Tafel-Fragmente, Leipzug, 1824.—M.
参见海涅克丘斯（Hist. J. R. No. 29—33）。关于《十二铜表法》的复原，我采用了格拉维纳（Origines J. C. p. 280—307）与特拉松（Hist. de la Jurisprudence Romaine, p. 94—205）的方案。按：瓦恩克尼希曾期望有人对《十二铜表法》残篇的文本及其臆测性的校订作一番严格的考订，此愿已由迪尔克森的 Uebersicht der bisherigen Versuche Leipzig Kritik und Herstellung des Textes der Zwolf-Tafel-Fragmente（Leipzug, 1824）一书达成。—M
23 ↩
Finis aequi juris, (Tacit. Annal. iii. 27.) Fons omnis publici et privati juris, (T. Liv. iii. 34.) * Note: From the context of the phrase in Tacitus, “Nam secutae leges etsi alquando in maleficos ex delicto; saepius tamen dissensione ordinum * * * latae sunt,” it is clear that Gibbon has rendered this sentence incorrectly. Hugo, Hist. p. 62.—M.
Finis aequi juris（“公平法权之极致”，Tacit. Annal. iii. 27）；Fons omnis publici et privati juris（“一切公法与私法之源泉”，T. Liv. iii. 34）。*按：塔西佗此语的上下文为 “Nam secutae leges etsi alquando in maleficos ex delicto; saepius tamen dissensione ordinum * * * latae sunt”，由此可见吉本对这句话的理解有误。参见胡果，Hist. p. 62。—M
24 ↩
De principiis juris, et quibus modis ad hanc multitudinem infinitam ac varietatem legum perventum sit altius disseram, (Tacit. Annal. iii. 25.) This deep disquisition fills only two pages, but they are the pages of Tacitus. With equal sense, but with less energy, Livy (iii. 34) had complained, in hoc immenso aliarum super alias acervatarum legum cumulo, &c.
De principiis juris, et quibus modis ad hanc multitudinem infinitam ac varietatem legum perventum sit altius disseram（“我将更深入地探讨法律的原理，以及法律如何积累到这般无穷之多、这般纷繁之杂”，Tacit. Annal. iii. 25）。这番精深的论述仅占两页篇幅，然而那是塔西佗的两页。李维（iii. 34）也曾发过同样的感慨，只是笔力稍逊：in hoc immenso aliarum super alias acervatarum legum cumulo（“身处这一部部层层堆叠、浩如烟海的法律之中”），云云。
25 ↩
Suetonius in Vespasiano, c. 8.
Suetonius in Vespasiano, c. 8.
26 ↩
Cicero ad Familiares, viii. 8.
Cicero ad Familiares, viii. 8.
27 ↩
Dionysius, with Arbuthnot, and most of the moderns, (except Eisenschmidt de Ponderibus, &c., p. 137—140,) represent the 100,000 asses by 10,000 Attic drachmae, or somewhat more than 300 pounds sterling. But their calculation can apply only to the latter times, when the as was diminished to 1-24th of its ancient weight: nor can I believe that in the first ages, however destitute of the precious metals, a single ounce of silver could have been exchanged for seventy pounds of copper or brass. A more simple and rational method is to value the copper itself according to the present rate, and, after comparing the mint and the market price, the Roman and avoirdupois weight, the primitive as or Roman pound of copper may be appreciated at one English shilling, and the 100,000 asses of the first class amounted to 5000 pounds sterling. It will appear from the same reckoning, that an ox was sold at Rome for five pounds, a sheep for ten shillings, and a quarter of wheat for one pound ten shillings, (Festus, p. 330, edit. Dacier. Plin. Hist. Natur. xviii. 4:) nor do I see any reason to reject these consequences, which moderate our ideas of the poverty of the first Romans. * Note: Compare Niebuhr, English translation, vol. i. p. 448, &c.—M.
狄奥尼修斯，连同阿巴思诺特及大多数近代学者（唯艾森施密特 de Ponderibus 等书 p. 137—140 例外），都把十万阿斯折算为一万阿提卡德拉克马，约合三百余英镑。但他们的算法只适用于后世——那时阿斯的重量已减至古时的二十四分之一；我也不能相信，在最初的年代，罗马纵然极缺贵金属，一盎司白银竟能换得七十磅铜。更简便也更合理的办法，是按当今的行情来估铜价：比对铸币价与市价、罗马衡制与常衡（avoirdupois）之后，可将原始的阿斯（即一罗马磅铜）估作一英国先令，则第一等级的十万阿斯便相当于五千英镑。依同一算法还可推知：在罗马，一头牛售价五镑，一只羊十先令，一夸特小麦一镑十先令（Festus, p. 330, edit. Dacier. Plin. Hist. Natur. xviii. 4）；这些结论使我们对早期罗马人贫困程度的估想有所节制，我看不出有何理由加以否弃。*按：可参较尼布尔，英译本，vol. i. p. 448 及以下。—M
28 ↩
Consult the common writers on the Roman Comitia, especially Sigonius and Beaufort. Spanheim (de Praestantia et Usu Numismatum, tom. ii. dissert. x. p. 192, 193) shows, on a curious medal, the Cista, Pontes, Septa, Diribitor, &c.
关于罗马民众大会（Comitia），可查阅一般论者的著述，尤以西戈尼乌斯与博福尔为要。斯潘海姆（de Praestantia et Usu Numismatum, tom. ii. dissert. x. p. 192, 193）曾据一枚奇异的纪念章，展示了 Cista、Pontes、Septa、Diribitor（票箱、投票桥、围栏、计票官）等物。
29 ↩
Cicero (de Legibus, iii. 16, 17, 18) debates this constitutional question, and assigns to his brother Quintus the most unpopular side.
西塞罗（de Legibus, iii. 16, 17, 18）辩论了这一宪制问题，并把最不得人心的一方分派给了他的兄弟昆图斯。
30 ↩
Prae tumultu recusantium perferre non potuit, (Sueton. in August. c. 34.) See Propertius, l. ii. eleg. 6. Heineccius, in a separate history, has exhausted the whole subject of the Julian and Papian Poppaean laws, (Opp. tom. vii. P. i. p. 1—479.)
Prae tumultu recusantium perferre non potuit（“因反对者鼓噪喧腾，他未能将此法推行到底”，Sueton. in August. c. 34）。参见普罗佩提乌斯，l. ii. eleg. 6。海涅克丘斯另有专史，把《尤利亚法》与《帕皮亚·波培亚法》这一整个题目论述殆尽（Opp. tom. vii. P. i. p. 1—479）。
31 ↩
Tacit. Annal. i. 15. Lipsius, Excursus E. in Tacitum. Note: This error of Gibbon has been long detected. The senate, under Tiberius did indeed elect the magistrates, who before that emperor were elected in the comitia. But we find laws enacted by the people during his reign, and that of Claudius. For example; the Julia-Norbana, Vellea, and Claudia de tutela foeminarum. Compare the Hist. du Droit Romain, by M. Hugo, vol. ii. p. 55, 57. The comitia ceased imperceptibly as the republic gradually expired.—W.
Tacit. Annal. i. 15。Lipsius, Excursus E. in Tacitum。按：吉本此处之误早已被人察觉。在提比略治下，元老院确曾选举官长——在此帝之前，这些官长是由民众大会选出的。但我们发现，在提比略及克劳狄乌斯两朝，仍有法律由人民制定，例如 Julia-Norbana、Vellea 以及 Claudia de tutela foeminarum 诸法。可参较胡果先生的 Hist. du Droit Romain, vol. ii. p. 55, 57。民众大会是随着共和国的逐渐消亡而不知不觉停摆的。—W
32 ↩
Non ambigitur senatum jus facere posse, is the decision of Ulpian, (l. xvi. ad Edict. in Pandect. l. i. tit. iii. leg. 9.) Pomponius taxes the comitia of the people as a turba hominum, (Pandect. l. i. tit. ii. leg 9.) * Note: The author adopts the opinion, that under the emperors alone the senate had a share in the legislative power. They had nevertheless participated in it under the Republic, since senatus-consulta relating to civil rights have been preserved, which are much earlier than the reigns of Augustus or Tiberius. It is true that, under the emperors, the senate exercised this right more frequently, and that the assemblies of the people had become much more rare, though in law they were still permitted, in the time of Ulpian. (See the fragments of Ulpian.) Bach has clearly demonstrated that the senate had the same power in the time of the Republic. It is natural that the senatus-consulta should have been more frequent under the emperors, because they employed those means of flattering the pride of the senators, by granting them the right of deliberating on all affairs which did not intrench on the Imperial power. Compare the discussions of M. Hugo, vol. i. p. 284, et seq.—W.
Non ambigitur senatum jus facere posse（“元老院能够制定法律，此点无可置疑”），此乃乌尔比安的论断（l. xvi. ad Edict. in Pandect. l. i. tit. iii. leg. 9）。庞波尼乌斯则讥讽人民的民众大会不过是 turba hominum（“乌合之众”，Pandect. l. i. tit. ii. leg 9）。*按：本书作者采信这样一种看法，以为唯有在皇帝治下元老院才分享立法之权。然而元老院在共和时期已然参与立法，因为有若干关涉民事权利的元老院决议（senatus-consulta）保存至今，其年代远早于奥古斯都或提比略两朝。诚然，在皇帝治下元老院行使此权更为频繁，而人民大会已变得稀少得多——尽管在乌尔比安的时代，这类大会于法仍属容许（见乌尔比安残篇）。巴赫已明白证实，元老院在共和时期便握有同样的权力。元老院决议在皇帝治下之所以更为频繁，本属情理之中：皇帝借授予元老们议决一切不触及帝权之事务的权利，以此逢迎他们的自尊。可参较胡果先生的论述，vol. i. p. 284 及以下。—W
3211 ↩
There is a curious passage from Aurelius, a writer on Law, on the Praetorian Præfect, quoted in Lydus de Magistratibus, p. 32, edit. Hase. The Praetorian præfect was to the emperor what the master of the horse was to the dictator under the Republic. He was the delegate, therefore, of the full Imperial authority; and no appeal could be made or exception taken against his edicts. I had not observed this passage, when the third volume, where it would have been more appropriately placed, passed through the press.—M
法学著作家奥勒留有一段颇堪玩味的文字论及禁卫军长官，为吕多斯 de Magistratibus（p. 32, edit. Hase）所征引。禁卫军长官之于皇帝，正如共和时代骑兵长官之于独裁官。因此他是帝国全权的代理者，其告示不容上诉，也不容异议。此段文字本更宜置于第三卷，惜第三卷付印时我尚未留意及此。—M
33 ↩
The jus honorarium of the praetors and other magistrates is strictly defined in the Latin text to the Institutes, (l. i. tit. ii. No. 7,) and more loosely explained in the Greek paraphrase of Theophilus, (p. 33—38, edit. Reitz,) who drops the important word honorarium. * Note: The author here follows the opinion of Heineccius, who, according to the idea of his master Thomasius, was unwilling to suppose that magistrates exercising a judicial could share in the legislative power. For this reason he represents the edicts of the praetors as absurd. (See his work, Historia Juris Romani, 69, 74.) But Heineccius had altogether a false notion of this important institution of the Romans, to which we owe in a great degree the perfection of their jurisprudence. Heineccius, therefore, in his own days had many opponents of his system, among others the celebrated Ritter, professor at Wittemberg, who contested it in notes appended to the work of Heineccius, and retained in all subsequent editions of that book. After Ritter, the learned Bach undertook to vindicate the edicts of the praetors in his Historia Jurisprud. Rom. edit. 6, p. 218, 224. But it remained for a civilian of our own days to throw light on the spirit and true character of this institution. M. Hugo has completely demonstrated that the praetorian edicts furnished the salutary means of perpetually harmonizing the legislation with the spirit of the times. The praetors were the true organs of public opinion. It was not according to their caprice that they framed their regulations, but according to the manners and to the opinions of the great civil lawyers of their day. We know from Cicero himself, that it was esteemed a great honor among the Romans to publish an edict, well conceived and well drawn. The most distinguished lawyers of Rome were invited by the praetor to assist in framing this annual law, which, according to its principle, was only a declaration which the praetor made to the public, to announce the manner in which he would judge, and to guard against every charge of partiality. Those who had reason to fear his opinions might delay their cause till the following year. The praetor was responsible for all the faults which he committed. The tribunes could lodge an accusation against the praetor who issued a partial edict. He was bound strictly to follow and to observe the regulations published by him at the commencement of his year of office, according to the Cornelian law, by which these edicts were called perpetual, and he could make no change in a regulation once published. The praetor was obliged to submit to his own edict, and to judge his own affairs according to its provisions. These magistrates had no power of departing from the fundamental laws, or the laws of the Twelve Tables. The people held them in such consideration, that they rarely enacted laws contrary to their provisions; but as some provisions were found inefficient, others opposed to the manners of the people, and to the spirit of subsequent ages, the praetors, still maintaining respect for the laws, endeavored to bring them into accordance with the necessities of the existing time, by such fictions as best suited the nature of the case. In what legislation do we not find these fictions, which even yet exist, absurd and ridiculous as they are, among the ancient laws of modern nations? These always variable edicts at length comprehended the whole of the Roman legislature, and became the subject of the commentaries of the most celebrated lawyers. They must therefore be considered as the basis of all the Roman jurisprudence comprehended in the Digest of Justinian. ——It is in this sense that M. Schrader has written on this important institution, proposing it for imitation as far as may be consistent with our manners, and agreeable to our political institutions, in order to avoid immature legislation becoming a permanent evil. See the History of the Roman Law by M. Hugo, vol. i. p. 296, &c., vol. ii. p. 30, et seq., 78. et seq., and the note in my elementary book on the Industries, p. 313. With regard to the works best suited to give information on the framing and the form of these edicts, see Haubold, Institutiones Literariae, tom. i. p. 321, 368. All that Heineccius says about the usurpation of the right of making these edicts by the praetors is false, and contrary to all historical testimony. A multitude of authorities proves that the magistrates were under an obligation to publish these edicts.—W. ——With the utmost deference for these excellent civilians, I cannot but consider this confusion of the judicial and legislative authority as a very perilous constitutional precedent. It might answer among a people so singularly trained as the Romans were by habit and national character in reverence for legal institutions, so as to be an aristocracy, if not a people, of legislators; but in most nations the investiture of a magistrate in such authority, leaving to his sole judgment the lawyers he might consult, and the view of public opinion which he might take, would be a very insufficient guaranty for right legislation.—M.
裁判官及其他官长的 jus honorarium（裁判官法权），在《法学阶梯》拉丁文本（l. i. tit. ii. No. 7）中有严格的界定，而在塞奥菲鲁斯的希腊文释义本（p. 33—38, edit. Reitz）中则解说得较为宽泛——他还漏掉了 honorarium 这个要紧的词。*按：本书作者此处沿袭海涅克丘斯的见解；海涅克丘斯依其师托马修斯的思路，不肯设想行使司法之权的官长竟能分享立法之权，故而把裁判官的告示说成荒谬之举（见其著作 Historia Juris Romani, 69, 74）。然而海涅克丘斯对罗马人这一重要制度全然抱有错误的观念，而罗马法学之臻于完善，很大程度上正有赖于此制。因此，海涅克丘斯在世时，其学说便有众多反对者，其中就有维滕贝格的著名教授里特尔；里特尔在为海涅克丘斯著作所附的注释中对此加以驳斥，此后该书历次版本均保留了这些注释。继里特尔之后，博学的巴赫又在其 Historia Jurisprud. Rom.（第六版，p. 218, 224）中着手为裁判官的告示辩护。但真正阐明这一制度之精神与本来面目的，还得归功于我们当代的一位法学家。胡果先生已完全证实：裁判官的告示提供了一种有益的途径，使立法得以与时代的精神时时相合。裁判官乃是民意真正的喉舌。他们制定规条，并非任凭一己的臆断，而是依照当时的风俗与当代大民法学家的意见。我们从西塞罗本人的话里便可得知，在罗马人看来，能颁布一道构思精当、拟制周详的告示，是极大的荣耀。罗马最杰出的法学家都受裁判官延请，协助拟定这部一年一度的法令；而按其本旨，这法令不过是裁判官向公众所作的一份声明，用以宣告他将如何审判，并借此杜绝一切偏私的指责。凡有理由担心他见解不利于己的人，尽可把讼案拖到次年。裁判官须对自己所犯的一切过失负责。倘若哪位裁判官发布了偏私的告示，保民官便可对他提出控告。依《科尔内利亚法》，他必须严格遵行自己在就任之初所公布的规条（这些告示正因此法而被称为“永久的”），既经公布的规条，他便不得更改。裁判官必须服从自己的告示，处理自己的事务也须依其条款而断。这些官长无权背离根本大法或《十二铜表法》。人民对他们如此看重，以致极少制定与其规条相抵触的法律；然而，既有些条款被发现行之无效，另一些又与人民的风俗、与后世的精神相违，裁判官便在维持对法律的尊重之余，尽力借种种最切合案情性质的拟制，使之与当世的需要相协调。这类拟制虽荒诞可笑，可试问在哪一国的立法中——即便在现代各民族的古老法律里——寻不见它们的踪影？它们至今犹存。这些随时变通的告示，最终涵盖了罗马立法的全部，成为最负盛名的法学家们注疏的对象。因此，它们必须被视为查士丁尼《学说汇纂》所囊括的整个罗马法学的根基。——施拉德尔先生论及这一重要制度，正是本此意旨；他主张，凡与我们的风俗相合、与我们的政治体制不悖者，皆可仿而效之，以免不成熟的立法酿成永久之弊。参见胡果先生的《罗马法史》，vol. i. p. 296 及以下，vol. ii. p. 30 及以下、p. 78 及以下，以及拙著入门书中论及此制度处（p. 313）的注释。至于最宜于了解这些告示如何拟订、其体例如何的著作，可参见 Haubold, Institutiones Literariae, tom. i. p. 321, 368。海涅克丘斯有关裁判官僭夺告示制定权的种种说法，全属虚妄，与一切史证相悖。大量文献证明，官长本负有公布这些告示的义务。—W ——尽管我对这几位卓越的法学家极为敬重，却仍不能不认为，如此把司法权与立法权混为一谈，乃是一个极其危险的宪制先例。在罗马这样一个民族当中，此制或许行得通——他们因习惯与民族性格而对法律制度心怀异乎寻常的敬重，其立法者纵非全体人民，也俨然是一个立法者的贵族阶层；但在多数民族里，把这样的权力授予一位官长，任凭他一人裁量该咨询哪些法学家、又该如何揣度民意，那对于正当立法而言，实在是极不充分的保障。—M
3311 ↩
Compare throughout the brief but admirable sketch of the progress and growth of the Roman jurisprudence, the necessary operation of the jusgentium, when Rome became the sovereign of nations, upon the jus civile of the citizens of Rome, in the first chapter of Savigny. Geschichte des Romischen Rechts im Mittelalter.—M.
关于罗马法学的演进与成长，以及当罗马成为万邦主宰之后万民法（jus gentium）对罗马公民的市民法（jus civile）所必然产生的作用，萨维尼在其《中世纪罗马法史》（Geschichte des Romischen Rechts im Mittelalter）第一章中有一段简短却极精彩的勾勒，可通篇参较。—M
34 ↩
Dion Cassius (tom. i. l. xxxvi. p. 100) fixes the perpetual edicts in the year of Rome, 686. Their institution, however, is ascribed to the year 585 in the Acta Diurna, which have been published from the papers of Ludovicus Vives. Their authenticity is supported or allowed by Pighius, (Annal. Rom. tom. ii. p. 377, 378,) Graevius, (ad Sueton. p. 778,) Dodwell, (Praelection. Cambden, p. 665,) and Heineccius: but a single word, Scutum Cimbricum, detects the forgery, (Moyle’s Works, vol. i. p. 303.)
狄奥·卡西乌斯（tom. i. l. xxxvi. p. 100）把永久告示的确立系于罗马建城第六八六年。然而据从卢多维库斯·维韦斯遗稿中刊行的《每日纪事》（Acta Diurna），此制的创立却被定在第五八五年。皮吉乌斯（Annal. Rom. tom. ii. p. 377, 378）、格雷维乌斯（ad Sueton. p. 778）、多德韦尔（Praelection. Cambden, p. 665）与海涅克丘斯，或支持或认可其真实性；然而 Scutum Cimbricum（“辛布里之盾”）这一个词，便揭穿了它的伪造（Moyle’s Works, vol. i. p. 303）。
35 ↩
The history of edicts is composed, and the text of the perpetual edict is restored, by the master-hand of Heineccius, (Opp. tom. vii. P. ii. p. 1—564;) in whose researches I might safely acquiesce. In the Academy of Inscriptions, M. Bouchaud has given a series of memoirs to this interesting subject of law and literature. * Note: This restoration was only the commencement of a work found among the papers of Heineccius, and published after his death.—G. ——Note: Gibbon has here fallen into an error, with Heineccius, and almost the whole literary world, concerning the real meaning of what is called the perpetual edict of Hadrian. Since the Cornelian law, the edicts were perpetual, but only in this sense, that the praetor could not change them during the year of his magistracy. And although it appears that under Hadrian, the civilian Julianus made, or assisted in making, a complete collection of the edicts, (which certainly had been done likewise before Hadrian, for example, by Ofilius, qui diligenter edictum composuit,) we have no sufficient proof to admit the common opinion, that the Praetorian edict was declared perpetually unalterable by Hadrian. The writers on law subsequent to Hadrian (and among the rest Pomponius, in his Summary of the Roman Jurisprudence) speak of the edict as it existed in the time of Cicero. They would not certainly have passed over in silence so remarkable a change in the most important source of the civil law. M. Hugo has conclusively shown that the various passages in authors, like Eutropius, are not sufficient to establish the opinion introduced by Heineccius. Compare Hugo, vol. ii. p. 78. A new proof of this is found in the Institutes of Gaius, who, in the first books of his work, expresses himself in the same manner, without mentioning any change made by Hadrian. Nevertheless, if it had taken place, he must have noticed it, as he does l. i. 8, the responsa prudentum, on the occasion of a rescript of Hadrian. There is no lacuna in the text. Why then should Gaius maintain silence concerning an innovation so much more important than that of which he speaks? After all, this question becomes of slight interest, since, in fact, we find no change in the perpetual edict inserted in the Digest, from the time of Hadrian to the end of that epoch, except that made by Julian, (compare Hugo, l. c.) The latter lawyers appear to follow, in their commentaries, the same texts as their predecessors. It is natural to suppose, that, after the labors of so many men distinguished in jurisprudence, the framing of the edict must have attained such perfection that it would have been difficult to have made any innovation. We nowhere find that the jurists of the Pandects disputed concerning the words, or the drawing up of the edict. What difference would, in fact, result from this with regard to our codes, and our modern legislation? Compare the learned Dissertation of M. Biener, De Salvii Juliani meritis in Edictum Praetorium recte aestimandis. Lipsae, 1809, 4to.—W.
告示的历史，以及永久告示文本的复原，皆出自海涅克丘斯的大手笔（Opp. tom. vii. P. ii. p. 1—564）；对他的研究成果，我尽可放心信从。在铭文学院，布沙先生就法律与文献这一有趣题目提交过一系列论文。*按：此项复原不过是海涅克丘斯遗稿中一部著作的开端，该书于其身后方才付梓。—G ——按：吉本此处与海涅克丘斯、乃至几乎整个学界一样，对所谓哈德良“永久告示”的真义陷入了误解。自《科尔内利亚法》以来，告示便是“永久的”，但其含义仅在于：裁判官在其任职的一年之内不得更改告示。诚然，看来在哈德良治下，法学家尤利安努斯曾编成、或协助编成一部完整的告示汇编（而这在哈德良之前显然也有人做过，例如奥菲利乌斯，qui diligenter edictum composuit——“他曾勤谨地编纂告示”）；然而，对于世人通行的那种看法——即裁判官告示经哈德良宣布为永久不可更改——我们并无充分证据可以采信。哈德良之后论法的著作家（其中包括庞波尼乌斯在其《罗马法学纲要》中），谈到告示时，仍按其在西塞罗时代的样子来论说。倘若民法这一最重要的渊源当真发生过如此显著的变动，他们断不会缄口不提。胡果先生已确凿地证明：欧特罗皮乌斯等作家笔下的种种段落，不足以坐实海涅克丘斯所提出的看法。可参较胡果，vol. ii. p. 78。盖尤斯的《法学阶梯》又提供了一条新证据：他在著作的开篇诸卷中，也是照旧那般论说，丝毫未提哈德良所作的任何变动。然而，倘若确有其事，他必会加以留意——正如他在 l. i. 8 论及 responsa prudentum（“法学家的解答”）时，就曾就哈德良的一道批答有所论列。此处文本并无残缺。那么，对于一项远比他所论者更为重要的革新，盖尤斯又何以竟保持沉默呢？归根结底，这一问题其实无关宏旨，因为事实上，自哈德良至那一时代之末，我们在《学说汇纂》所收的永久告示中，除尤利安努斯所作的改动外，找不到任何变动（参较胡果同上）。后世的法学家在其注疏中，似乎沿用着与前人相同的文本。可以想见：经过如此众多杰出法学家的辛勤劳作，告示的拟订必已臻于至善，以致难以再作任何革新。我们无从发现《学说汇纂》的法学家们曾就告示的措辞或撰拟有过争议。而这一点，对于我们的法典与现代立法，实际上又能造成什么差别呢？可参较比纳先生那篇渊博的论文 De Salvii Juliani meritis in Edictum Praetorium recte aestimandis（Lipsae, 1809, 4to）。—W
3511 ↩
It is an important question in what manner the emperors were invested with this legislative power. The newly discovered Gaius distinctly states that it was in virtue of a law—Nec unquam dubitatum est, quin id legis vicem obtineat, cum ipse imperator per legem imperium accipiat. But it is still uncertain whether this was a general law, passed on the transition of the government from a republican to a monarchical form, or a law passed on the accession of each emperor. Compare Hugo, Hist. du Droit Romain, (French translation,) vol. ii. p. 8.—M.
皇帝究竟以何种方式获得这一立法之权，是个重要的问题。新发现的盖尤斯文本明白指出，此权系凭一部法律而来——Nec unquam dubitatum est, quin id legis vicem obtineat, cum ipse imperator per legem imperium accipiat（“从来无人怀疑此具有法律的效力，因为皇帝本人的治权正是凭法律而获得”）。但这究竟是政体由共和转为君主之际所通过的一部通则性法律，还是每位皇帝即位时另行通过的一部法律，则仍属未定。可参较胡果《罗马法史》（法译本）vol. ii. p. 8。—M
36 ↩
His laws are the first in the code. See Dodwell, (Praelect. Cambden, p. 319—340,) who wanders from the subject in confused reading and feeble paradox. * Note: This is again an error which Gibbon shares with Heineccius, and the generality of authors. It arises from having mistaken the insignificant edict of Hadrian, inserted in the Code of Justinian, (lib. vi, tit. xxiii. c. 11,) for the first constitutio principis, without attending to the fact, that the Pandects contain so many constitutions of the emperors, from Julius Caesar, (see l. i. Digest 29, l) M. Hugo justly observes, that the acta of Sylla, approved by the senate, were the same thing with the constitutions of those who after him usurped the sovereign power. Moreover, we find that Pliny, and other ancient authors, report a multitude of rescripts of the emperors from the time of Augustus. See Hugo, Hist. du Droit Romain, vol. ii. p. 24-27.—W.
他（哈德良）的法律在《法典》中列于首位。参见多德韦尔（Praelect. Cambden, p. 319—340），其人读书含混、诡辩无力，行文每每离题。*按：此又是吉本与海涅克丘斯及众多作者所共有的一处错误。其根源在于：他们把插入查士丁尼《法典》（lib. vi, tit. xxiii. c. 11）中那道无足轻重的哈德良告示误当作头一道“元首敕令”（constitutio principis），却没有注意到，《学说汇纂》中收有自尤利乌斯·恺撒以来众多皇帝的敕令（见 l. i. Digest 29, l）。胡果先生的评断甚为中肯：经元老院批准的苏拉法令（acta），与其后历代僭夺君权者的敕令实属一回事。此外我们还发现，普林尼及其他古代作家载录了自奥古斯都以来皇帝的大量批答。参见胡果《罗马法史》vol. ii. p. 24-27。—W
37 ↩
Totam illam veterem et squalentem sylvam legum novis principalium rescriptorum et edictorum securibus truncatis et caeditis; (Apologet. c. 4, p. 50, edit. Havercamp.) He proceeds to praise the recent firmness of Severus, who repealed the useless or pernicious laws, without any regard to their age or authority.
Totam illam veterem et squalentem sylvam legum novis principalium rescriptorum et edictorum securibus truncatis et caeditis（“你们用元首批答与告示的新斧，把那一整片古老而荒芜的法律密林砍伐劈除”，Apologet. c. 4, p. 50, edit. Havercamp）。他接着称赞塞维鲁近来的果决：此帝废除了那些无用或有害的法律，全不顾其年代之久远或权威之高。
38 ↩
The constitutional style of Legibus Solutus is misinterpreted by the art or ignorance of Dion Cassius, (tom. i. l. liii. p. 713.) On this occasion, his editor, Reimer, joins the universal censure which freedom and criticism have pronounced against that slavish historian.
Legibus Solutus（“免于法律拘束”）这一宪制术语，被狄奥·卡西乌斯或出于机巧、或出于无知地曲解了（tom. i. l. liii. p. 713）。就此一处，他的校订者赖默尔也加入了世人的一致谴责——凡崇尚自由、讲求批判者，无不斥责这位卑躬屈膝的史家。
39 ↩
The word (Lex Regia) was still more recent than the thing. The slaves of Commodus or Caracalla would have started at the name of royalty. Note: Yet a century before, Domitian was called not only by Martial but even in public documents, Dominus et Deus Noster. Sueton. Domit. cap. 13. Hugo.—W.
“王法”（Lex Regia）这个名目，比其所指之物出现得还要晚。倘在康茂德或卡拉卡拉治下，纵是奴仆，一听“王权”之名也会悚然一惊。按：然而早在一个世纪之前，图密善便已被人称作 Dominus et Deus Noster（“我们的主与神”）——如此称呼他的不仅有马尔提亚利斯，甚至连官方文书亦然。见 Sueton. Domit. cap. 13。胡果。—W
40 ↩
See Gravina (Opp. p. 501—512) and Beaufort, (Republique Romaine, tom. i. p. 255—274.) He has made a proper use of two dissertations by John Frederic Gronovius and Noodt, both translated, with valuable notes, by Barbeyrac, 2 vols. in 12mo. 1731.
参见格拉维纳（Opp. p. 501—512）与博福尔（Republique Romaine, tom. i. p. 255—274）。博福尔恰当地采用了约翰·弗里德里希·格罗诺维乌斯与诺特的两篇论文，二文均由巴尔贝拉克译出并附有宝贵的注释（2 vols. in 12mo. 1731）。
41 ↩
Institut. l. i. tit. ii. No. 6. Pandect. l. i. tit. iv. leg. 1. Cod. Justinian, l. i. tit. xvii. leg. 1, No. 7. In his Antiquities and Elements, Heineccius has amply treated de constitutionibus principum, which are illustrated by Godefroy (Comment. ad Cod. Theodos. l. i. tit. i. ii. iii.) and Gravina, (p. 87—90.) ——Note: Gaius asserts that the Imperial edict or rescript has and always had, the force of law, because the Imperial authority rests upon law. Constitutio principis est, quod imperator decreto vel edicto, vel epistola constituit, nee unquam dubitatum, quin id legis, vicem obtineat, cum ipse imperator per legem imperium accipiat. Gaius, 6 Instit. i. 2.—M.
Institut. l. i. tit. ii. No. 6。Pandect. l. i. tit. iv. leg. 1。Cod. Justinian, l. i. tit. xvii. leg. 1, No. 7。海涅克丘斯在其《罗马古制》与《法学纲要》中详论了 de constitutionibus principum（“论元首敕令”），戈德弗鲁瓦（Comment. ad Cod. Theodos. l. i. tit. i. ii. iii.）与格拉维纳（p. 87—90）对此均有阐发。——按：盖尤斯断言，皇帝的告示或批答具有、且一向具有法律的效力，因为帝权本身即以法律为依据。Constitutio principis est, quod imperator decreto vel edicto, vel epistola constituit, nee unquam dubitatum, quin id legis, vicem obtineat, cum ipse imperator per legem imperium accipiat（“元首敕令，即皇帝以裁决、告示或书翰所确立者；从来无人怀疑其具有法律的效力，因为皇帝本人的治权正是凭法律而获得”）。见 Gaius, 6 Instit. i. 2。—M
42 ↩
Theophilus, in Paraphras. Graec. Institut. p. 33, 34, edit. Reitz For his person, time, writings, see the Theophilus of J. H. Mylius, Excurs. iii. p. 1034—1073.
塞奥菲鲁斯，见 Paraphras. Graec. Institut. p. 33, 34, edit. Reitz。关于其人、其时代及著述，参见 J. H. 米利乌斯所著《塞奥菲鲁斯》（Excurs. iii. p. 1034—1073）。
43 ↩
There is more envy than reason in the complaint of Macrinus (Jul. Capitolin. c. 13:) Nefas esse leges videri Commodi et Caracalla at hominum imperitorum voluntates. Commodus was made a Divus by Severus, (Dodwell, Praelect. viii. p. 324, 325.) Yet he occurs only twice in the Pandects.
马克里努斯的抱怨里，妒意多于道理（Jul. Capitolin. c. 13）：Nefas esse leges videri Commodi et Caracalla at hominum imperitorum voluntates（“把康茂德与卡拉卡拉这等无知之辈的意愿视作法律，实属亵渎”）。康茂德经塞维鲁封为“神”（Divus）（多德韦尔，Praelect. viii. p. 324, 325）；然而他在《学说汇纂》中仅出现过两次。
44 ↩
Of Antoninus Caracalla alone 200 constitutions are extant in the Code, and with his father 160. These two princes are quoted fifty times in the Pandects, and eight in the Institutes, (Terasson, p. 265.)
单是安敦尼·卡拉卡拉一人，《法典》中便存有其敕令二百道，连同其父则有一百六十道。这两位君主在《学说汇纂》中被征引五十次，在《法学阶梯》中八次（Terasson, p. 265）。
45 ↩
Plin. Secund. Epistol. x. 66. Sueton. in Domitian. c. 23.
Plin. Secund. Epistol. x. 66. Sueton. in Domitian. c. 23.
46 ↩
It was a maxim of Constantine, contra jus rescripta non valeant, (Cod. Theodos. l. i. tit. ii. leg. 1.) The emperors reluctantly allow some scrutiny into the law and the fact, some delay, petition, &c.; but these insufficient remedies are too much in the discretion and at the peril of the judge.
君士坦丁有一条格言：contra jus rescripta non valeant（“违背法律的批答无效”，Cod. Theodos. l. i. tit. ii. leg. 1）。皇帝们勉强允许对法律与事实作些审查，允许一定的延宕、申诉之类；然而这些救济手段并不充分，其行使过多地系于法官的裁量，也须由法官自担风险。
47 ↩
A compound of vermilion and cinnabar, which marks the Imperial diplomas from Leo I. (A.D. 470) to the fall of the Greek empire, (Bibliotheque Raisonnee de la Diplomatique, tom. i. p. 504—515 Lami, de Eruditione Apostolorum, tom. ii. p. 720-726.)
这是一种朱红与朱砂的混合物，自利奥一世（公元 470 年）起，直到希腊帝国覆亡，皇帝的诏书均以此签署（Bibliotheque Raisonnee de la Diplomatique, tom. i. p. 504—515；Lami, de Eruditione Apostolorum, tom. ii. p. 720-726）。
4711 ↩
Savigny states the following as the authorities for the Roman law at the commencement of the fifth century:— 1. The writings of the jurists, according to the regulations of the Constitution of Valentinian III., first promulgated in the West, but by its admission into the Theodosian Code established likewise in the East. (This Constitution established the authority of the five great jurists, Papinian, Paulus, Caius, Ulpian, and Modestinus as interpreters of the ancient law. * * * In case of difference of opinion among these five, a majority decided the case; where they were equal, the opinion of Papinian, where he was silent, the judge; but see p. 40, and Hugo, vol. ii. p. 89.) 2. The Gregorian and Hermogenian Collection of the Imperial Rescripts. 3. The Code of Theodosius II. 4. The particular Novellae, as additions and Supplements to this Code Savigny. vol. i. p 10.—M.
萨维尼列举了五世纪初罗马法的以下几种渊源：其一，法学家的著作，依瓦伦提尼安三世那道敕令的规定——该敕令先在西部颁行，后因收入《狄奥多西法典》而在东部同样确立。（此敕令确立了帕皮尼安、保卢斯、盖尤斯、乌尔比安与莫德斯提努斯这五大法学家作为古法阐释者的权威……五人意见相左时，以多数裁定案件；票数相等时，从帕皮尼安之说；帕皮尼安未置一词时，则由法官裁夺；但另见 p. 40 及胡果，vol. ii. p. 89。）其二，《格雷戈里安努斯法典》与《赫尔莫格尼安努斯法典》所辑的皇帝批答。其三，狄奥多西二世的《法典》。其四，作为该法典之增补的各道《新律》（Novellae）。见萨维尼，vol. i. p. 10。—M
48 ↩
Schulting, Jurisprudentia Ante-Justinianea, p. 681-718. Cujacius assigned to Gregory the reigns from Hadrian to Gallienus. and the continuation to his fellow-laborer Hermogenes. This general division may be just, but they often trespassed on each other’s ground
Schulting, Jurisprudentia Ante-Justinianea, p. 681-718。屈雅斯把自哈德良至加里恩努斯诸朝的部分归于格雷戈里乌斯，而把其后的续编归于其同事赫尔莫格尼斯。这一大致的划分或许不差，但两人时常侵入对方的领域。