Chapter XLIV: Idea Of The Roman Jurisprudence.—Part III. 第四十四章 罗马法学述要——第三节
¶
Among savage nations, the want of letters is imperfectly supplied by the use of visible signs, which awaken attention, and perpetuate the remembrance of any public or private transaction. The jurisprudence of the first Romans exhibited the scenes of a pantomime; the words were adapted to the gestures, and the slightest error or neglect in the forms of proceeding was sufficient to annul the substance of the fairest claim. The communion of the marriage-life was denoted by the necessary elements of fire and water; 49 and the divorced wife resigned the bunch of keys, by the delivery of which she had been invested with the government of the family. The manumission of a son, or a slave, was performed by turning him round with a gentle blow on the cheek; a work was prohibited by the casting of a stone; prescription was interrupted by the breaking of a branch; the clinched fist was the symbol of a pledge or deposit; the right hand was the gift of faith and confidence. The indenture of covenants was a broken straw; weights and scales were introduced into every payment, and the heir who accepted a testament was sometimes obliged to snap his fingers, to cast away his garments, and to leap or dance with real or affected transport. 50 If a citizen pursued any stolen goods into a neighbor’s house, he concealed his nakedness with a linen towel, and hid his face with a mask or basin, lest he should encounter the eyes of a virgin or a matron. 51 In a civil action the plaintiff touched the ear of his witness, seized his reluctant adversary by the neck, and implored, in solemn lamentation, the aid of his fellow-citizens. The two competitors grasped each other’s hand as if they stood prepared for combat before the tribunal of the praetor; he commanded them to produce the object of the dispute; they went, they returned with measured steps, and a clod of earth was cast at his feet to represent the field for which they contended. This occult science of the words and actions of law was the inheritance of the pontiffs and patricians. Like the Chaldean astrologers, they announced to their clients the days of business and repose; these important trifles were interwoven with the religion of Numa; and after the publication of the Twelve Tables, the Roman people was still enslaved by the ignorance of judicial proceedings. The treachery of some plebeian officers at length revealed the profitable mystery: in a more enlightened age, the legal actions were derided and observed; and the same antiquity which sanctified the practice, obliterated the use and meaning of this primitive language. 52
野蛮民族没有文字,只能用种种看得见的符号勉强弥补:这些符号足以引人注目,也能把某桩公私事务长久留存于记忆之中。早期罗马人的法律,宛如一出哑剧:言辞须与动作相配,程序上稍有差错或疏忽,纵是最正当的诉求,其实质也会因此化为乌有。夫妻共同生活,以水与火这两样必不可少之物为象征;49 妇人离异时,则须交还那一串钥匙——当初正是凭着这串钥匙的授受,她才获得了主持家务之权。解放一名儿子或奴隶,办法是在他脸颊上轻轻一击,同时让他转过身来;禁止某项工事,则投掷一块石头;折断一根树枝,便中断了时效;紧握的拳头,是质押或寄存的象征;伸出右手,则表示交付信义与信任。订立契约以一根折断的麦秸为凭;每一笔支付都要用上砝码与天平;继承人接受遗嘱时,有时还须弹响手指、抛掉衣衫,并或真或假地欢腾雀跃、又跳又舞。50 若有市民追索失窃之物、要进入邻家搜查,他得近乎赤身而入,仅以一条亚麻布巾遮住下体,又用面具或盆钵掩住脸面,以免与家中处女或主妇的目光相遇。51 民事诉讼中,原告要触碰证人的耳朵,揪住不情愿的对手的脖颈,并郑重其事、悲声哀叹地恳求同胞相助。争讼双方彼此紧握对方的手,仿佛就要在裁判官的法庭前决斗一般;裁判官命他们出示争执之物,两人便迈着一板一眼的步子走开、又走回,将一块泥土掷在他脚边,用以代表他们所争夺的那片田地。这套关于法律言辞与动作的隐秘学问,是祭司团与贵族世代相传的家产。他们像迦勒底的占星家一样,向求教者宣告哪些日子宜于办事、哪些日子宜于休憩;这些看似要紧的琐碎名堂,与努马所定的宗教交织在一起;即便《十二铜表法》已经公布,罗马人民仍因不明诉讼程序而备受束缚。后来,几名平民出身的官吏背信泄密,终于揭开了这门大有油水的秘术:到了较为开明的时代,人们一面照旧沿用这些法律仪式,一面又加以讥笑;而那使这套做法神圣化的古老年月,也同样把这套原始“语言”的用途与含义一并抹去了。52
¶
A more liberal art was cultivated, however, by the sages of Rome, who, in a stricter sense, may be considered as the authors of the civil law. The alteration of the idiom and manners of the Romans rendered the style of the Twelve Tables less familiar to each rising generation, and the doubtful passages were imperfectly explained by the study of legal antiquarians. To define the ambiguities, to circumscribe the latitude, to apply the principles, to extend the consequences, to reconcile the real or apparent contradictions, was a much nobler and more important task; and the province of legislation was silently invaded by the expounders of ancient statutes. Their subtle interpretations concurred with the equity of the praetor, to reform the tyranny of the darker ages: however strange or intricate the means, it was the aim of artificial jurisprudence to restore the simple dictates of nature and reason, and the skill of private citizens was usefully employed to undermine the public institutions of their country. 521 The revolution of almost one thousand years, from the Twelve Tables to the reign of Justinian, may be divided into three periods, almost equal in duration, and distinguished from each other by the mode of instruction and the character of the civilians. 53 Pride and ignorance contributed, during the first period, to confine within narrow limits the science of the Roman law. On the public days of market or assembly, the masters of the art were seen walking in the forum ready to impart the needful advice to the meanest of their fellow-citizens, from whose votes, on a future occasion, they might solicit a grateful return. As their years and honors increased, they seated themselves at home on a chair or throne, to expect with patient gravity the visits of their clients, who at the dawn of day, from the town and country, began to thunder at their door. The duties of social life, and the incidents of judicial proceeding, were the ordinary subject of these consultations, and the verbal or written opinion of the juris-consults was framed according to the rules of prudence and law. The youths of their own order and family were permitted to listen; their children enjoyed the benefit of more private lessons, and the Mucian race was long renowned for the hereditary knowledge of the civil law. The second period, the learned and splendid age of jurisprudence, may be extended from the birth of Cicero to the reign of Severus Alexander. A system was formed, schools were instituted, books were composed, and both the living and the dead became subservient to the instruction of the student. The tripartite of Aelius Paetus, surnamed Catus, or the Cunning, was preserved as the oldest work of Jurisprudence. Cato the censor derived some additional fame from his legal studies, and those of his son: the kindred appellation of Mucius Scaevola was illustrated by three sages of the law; but the perfection of the science was ascribed to Servius Sulpicius, their disciple, and the friend of Tully; and the long succession, which shone with equal lustre under the republic and under the Caesars, is finally closed by the respectable characters of Papinian, of Paul, and of Ulpian. Their names, and the various titles of their productions, have been minutely preserved, and the example of Labeo may suggest some idea of their diligence and fecundity. That eminent lawyer of the Augustan age divided the year between the city and country, between business and composition; and four hundred books are enumerated as the fruit of his retirement. Of the collection of his rival Capito, the two hundred and fifty-ninth book is expressly quoted; and few teachers could deliver their opinions in less than a century of volumes. In the third period, between the reigns of Alexander and Justinian, the oracles of jurisprudence were almost mute. The measure of curiosity had been filled: the throne was occupied by tyrants and Barbarians, the active spirits were diverted by religious disputes, and the professors of Rome, Constantinople, and Berytus, were humbly content to repeat the lessons of their more enlightened predecessors. From the slow advances and rapid decay of these legal studies, it may be inferred, that they require a state of peace and refinement. From the multitude of voluminous civilians who fill the intermediate space, it is evident that such studies may be pursued, and such works may be performed, with a common share of judgment, experience, and industry. The genius of Cicero and Virgil was more sensibly felt, as each revolving age had been found incapable of producing a similar or a second: but the most eminent teachers of the law were assured of leaving disciples equal or superior to themselves in merit and reputation.
不过,罗马的贤哲们所研习的,是一门更为高雅的学问;严格说来,正是这些人堪称市民法的缔造者。随着罗马人语言与风俗的变迁,《十二铜表法》的文体对一代代后人愈发陌生,其中晦涩难解的条文,虽有钻研古法的学者加以诠释,却也讲不透彻。厘清歧义,划定尺度,运用原则,推演后果,调和种种或真实或表面的抵牾——这是一桩远为崇高、也远为紧要的工作;于是,阐释古代法条的人便悄然侵入了立法者的领地。他们精微的解释,与裁判官所主持的衡平相辅相成,一同革除着蒙昧时代遗留的暴虐之制:无论手段何等离奇曲折,这门刻意经营的法学,其宗旨终究是要恢复自然与理性那些质朴的训诫;而私人的才智竟被用来暗中拆解本国的公共制度,也算派上了有益的用场。521 从《十二铜表法》到查士丁尼在位,其间近千年的演变,大致可分为三个时期,各期长短相当,彼此以传授方式与法学家的品格相区别。53 第一个时期,罗马法这门学问受骄矜与无知所限,局促于狭小的天地之内。每逢集市或议会的公共日子,人们便可见到这门学问的大师们在广场上踱步,随时准备向最卑微的同胞提供所需的忠告——因为有朝一日,他们或许还要向这些人索取选票,作为知恩图报的回礼。待到年事渐高、荣衔日增,他们便端坐家中的座椅或高位之上,庄重而耐心地等候求教者登门;这些人天刚破晓便从城里乡下赶来,把他们的门敲得震天响。社会生活中的种种义务,以及诉讼过程中遇到的疑难,是这类咨询寻常的主题;法学家或口头或书面给出的意见,都依照审慎与法律的准则来斟酌拟定。本阶层与本家族的年轻人获准在旁聆听;他们自己的子弟则享有更私密的传授之惠——穆奇乌斯一门,便长久以其世代相承的市民法学识而享有盛名。第二个时期,是法学博洽而辉煌的时代,可从西塞罗诞生一直延伸到亚历山大·塞维鲁在位之时。体系于是建立,学派于是兴办,著作于是撰成;无论生者死者,都成了教导学子的凭借。埃利乌斯·帕图斯(绰号卡图斯,意即“精明者”)所著的《三编法书》,乃是留存至今最古老的法学著作。监察官加图凭着自己以及其子在法律上的钻研,又添了几分声名;穆奇乌斯·斯凯沃拉这一同宗的名号,则有三位法学贤者共同为之增辉;然而,使这门学问臻于完善的功绩,却归于他们的弟子、西塞罗的挚友塞尔维乌斯·苏尔皮基乌斯;这一绵长的谱系,无论在共和时代还是在诸恺撒治下都同样光彩夺目,最终以帕皮尼安、保卢斯、乌尔比安这几位可敬的人物而告收束。他们的姓名,连同其著作的种种名目,都巨细无遗地保存了下来;单看拉贝奥一例,便可略窥这些人何其勤勉、何其多产。这位奥古斯都时代的杰出法学家,把一年光阴分作两半,一半在城、一半在乡,一半处理事务、一半著书立说;据统计,他退隐期间的成果竟多达四百卷。至于他的对手卡皮托的文集,有人还明确引到过其中第二百五十九卷;而当时的法学名师,能把自己的见解压缩在百卷以内的,实在寥寥无几。到了第三个时期,即从亚历山大·塞维鲁到查士丁尼两朝之间,法学的神谕几乎归于沉寂。人们探究的兴致已到尽头:宝座上坐着的是暴君与蛮族,活跃的头脑都转而投入宗教争辩,罗马、君士坦丁堡、贝鲁图斯三地的法学教授,只肯谦卑地复述前代那些更为开明的先师的旧课。从这些法学研究进展之迟缓、衰败之迅速,不难推知:这类学问非有太平与文雅的环境不能兴盛。至于充塞于这段中间时期的众多法学家,个个著作等身,这又表明:只要具备寻常的判断力、阅历与勤勉,这类研究便可从事,这类著作便可写成。西塞罗与维吉尔的天才之所以令人愈发感佩,正因一代又一代过去,始终无人能与之比肩、更无第二人出现;而法学中最负盛名的宗师,却大可放心:他们必会留下一批在才学与声望上与自己旗鼓相当、甚至青出于蓝的门徒。
¶
The jurisprudence which had been grossly adapted to the wants of the first Romans, was polished and improved in the seventh century of the city, by the alliance of Grecian philosophy. The Scaevolas had been taught by use and experience; but Servius Sulpicius 5311 was the first civilian who established his art on a certain and general theory. 54 For the discernment of truth and falsehood he applied, as an infallible rule, the logic of Aristotle and the stoics, reduced particular cases to general principles, and diffused over the shapeless mass the light of order and eloquence. Cicero, his contemporary and friend, declined the reputation of a professed lawyer; but the jurisprudence of his country was adorned by his incomparable genius, which converts into gold every object that it touches. After the example of Plato, he composed a republic; and, for the use of his republic, a treatise of laws; in which he labors to deduce from a celestial origin the wisdom and justice of the Roman constitution. The whole universe, according to his sublime hypothesis, forms one immense commonwealth: gods and men, who participate of the same essence, are members of the same community; reason prescribes the law of nature and nations; and all positive institutions, however modified by accident or custom, are drawn from the rule of right, which the Deity has inscribed on every virtuous mind. From these philosophical mysteries, he mildly excludes the sceptics who refuse to believe, and the epicureans who are unwilling to act. The latter disdain the care of the republic: he advises them to slumber in their shady gardens. But he humbly entreats that the new academy would be silent, since her bold objections would too soon destroy the fair and well ordered structure of his lofty system. 55 Plato, Aristotle, and Zeno, he represents as the only teachers who arm and instruct a citizen for the duties of social life. Of these, the armor of the stoics 56 was found to be of the firmest temper; and it was chiefly worn, both for use and ornament, in the schools of jurisprudence. From the portico, the Roman civilians learned to live, to reason, and to die: but they imbibed in some degree the prejudices of the sect; the love of paradox, the pertinacious habits of dispute, and a minute attachment to words and verbal distinctions. The superiority of form to matter was introduced to ascertain the right of property: and the equality of crimes is countenanced by an opinion of Trebatius, 57 that he who touches the ear, touches the whole body; and that he who steals from a heap of corn, or a hogshead of wine, is guilty of the entire theft. 58
早期罗马人的法律,本是为应付实际需要而粗粗拼凑起来的;到建城后的第七个世纪,因与希腊哲学结盟,才得到打磨与提升。历代斯凯沃拉都是从实务与经验中习得法学的;而塞尔维乌斯·苏尔皮基乌斯 5311 则是头一位为这门技艺奠定确定而普遍之理论根基的法学家。54 为辨别真伪,他把亚里士多德与斯多葛派的逻辑奉为万无一失的准绳,将个别案例归结为普遍原则,又以条理与辞采之光,照亮了原本杂乱无形的一大堆材料。西塞罗是他同时代的友人,本人虽不肯以专业法学家自居,却以其无与伦比的天才为祖国的法学增光添彩——那天才所触之物,无不点化成金。他仿效柏拉图,写下一部论理想国的著作;又为这想象中的国家撰就一部法律专论,力图把罗马政制的智慧与公正追溯到某种天上的本源。依照他那崇高的设想,整个宇宙构成一个浩大无比的邦国:神与人既同禀一样的本质,便同属一个共同体;理性规定着自然法与万民法;而一切实定的制度,无论怎样因偶然或习俗而有所变异,归根到底都出自那“正义的法则”——神已将它铭刻在每一颗有德之心上。对于这些哲学的奥义,他温和地把两类人排除在外:一是拒不信从的怀疑派,二是不愿行动的伊壁鸠鲁派。后者既不屑于操心国事,便劝他们只管在浓荫遮蔽的花园里酣睡去吧。至于新学园派,他却谦卑地恳求他们缄口不言,因为他们那些大胆的诘难,转瞬便会把他这套崇高体系精巧而有序的架构摧毁殆尽。55 在他看来,唯有柏拉图、亚里士多德与芝诺三家,才是能够武装并教导公民、使之胜任社会义务的良师。三家之中,又数斯多葛派的甲胄 56 锻造得最为坚韧;无论为着实用还是装点门面,法学各派所披挂的,主要也正是这一副。罗马的法学家们从斯多葛柱廊那里学会了如何生活、如何思辨、如何赴死;但他们也或多或少沾染了该派的偏执:好发悖论,争论起来死不松口,又斤斤计较于字眼与措辞上的分毫之别。为断定财产权的归属,他们抬出“形式高于实质”的说法;至于“罪行一律等同”之论,则有特雷巴提乌斯的一条意见为其撑腰:57 谁碰了耳朵,就等于碰了整个身体;谁从一堆谷子或一桶酒里偷走一点,便要按盗窃全部论罪。58
¶
Arms, eloquence, and the study of the civil law, promoted a citizen to the honors of the Roman state; and the three professions were sometimes more conspicuous by their union in the same character. In the composition of the edict, a learned praetor gave a sanction and preference to his private sentiments; the opinion of a censor, or a counsel, was entertained with respect; and a doubtful interpretation of the laws might be supported by the virtues or triumphs of the civilian. The patrician arts were long protected by the veil of mystery; and in more enlightened times, the freedom of inquiry established the general principles of jurisprudence. Subtile and intricate cases were elucidated by the disputes of the forum: rules, axioms, and definitions, 59 were admitted as the genuine dictates of reason; and the consent of the legal professors was interwoven into the practice of the tribunals. But these interpreters could neither enact nor execute the laws of the republic; and the judges might disregard the authority of the Scaevolas themselves, which was often overthrown by the eloquence or sophistry of an ingenious pleader. 60 Augustus and Tiberius were the first to adopt, as a useful engine, the science of the civilians; and their servile labors accommodated the old system to the spirit and views of despotism. Under the fair pretence of securing the dignity of the art, the privilege of subscribing legal and valid opinions was confined to the sages of senatorian or equestrian rank, who had been previously approved by the judgment of the prince; and this monopoly prevailed, till Adrian restored the freedom of the profession to every citizen conscious of his abilities and knowledge. The discretion of the praetor was now governed by the lessons of his teachers; the judges were enjoined to obey the comment as well as the text of the law; and the use of codicils was a memorable innovation, which Augustus ratified by the advice of the civilians. 61 6111
武功、辩才与市民法的钻研,都能把一个公民抬举到罗马国家的荣显之位;而这三项本领若集于一人之身,有时反倒更为引人注目。在拟订告示时,一位博学的裁判官便可给自己的私人见解披上权威的外衣,使之优先施行;一位监察官或一位顾问的意见,人们也会恭敬地予以采纳;对法律含糊之处的某种解释,甚至可能靠法学家本人的德望或战功来撑腰。贵族的这套本领,长久以来一直裹在神秘的帷幕之下受到庇护;到了较为开明的年代,人们得以自由探究,才确立起法学的一般原则。精微繁复的案件,在广场上的辩论中得到阐明;种种规则、公理与定义 59 被公认为理性的真正训诫;法学家们的一致意见,也就此织入了各级法庭的实务之中。然而,这些释法之人既不能制定、也无权执行共和国的法律;法官尽可不理会哪怕是斯凯沃拉家诸贤的权威——而这种权威,也常被机敏的辩护人凭其口才或诡辩推翻。60 奥古斯都与提比略,是最早把法学家的学问当作有用工具来加以利用的人;而这些法学家甘效鹰犬之劳,也就把旧有的法律体系改造得合乎专制的精神与意图。他们打着维护法学尊严的漂亮幌子,把签署法律意见、使其具备法律效力的特权,只授予元老或骑士等级中事先经元首认可的贤达;这种垄断一直通行,直到哈德良才把从事此业的自由重新交还给每一个自信有此才学的公民。裁判官行使裁量之权,如今须受其师所授之说的约束;法官则奉命不仅遵从法律的正文,还要遵从对它的注释;而附书遗嘱的采用更是一项值得铭记的创举,奥古斯都正是听从法学家的建议才予以认可的。61 6111
¶
The most absolute mandate could only require that the judges should agree with the civilians, if the civilians agreed among themselves. But positive institutions are often the result of custom and prejudice; laws and language are ambiguous and arbitrary; where reason is incapable of pronouncing, the love of argument is inflamed by the envy of rivals, the vanity of masters, the blind attachment of their disciples; and the Roman jurisprudence was divided by the once famous sects of the Proculians and Sabinians. 62 Two sages of the law, Ateius Capito and Antistius Labeo, 63 adorned the peace of the Augustan age; the former distinguished by the favor of his sovereign; the latter more illustrious by his contempt of that favor, and his stern though harmless opposition to the tyrant of Rome. Their legal studies were influenced by the various colors of their temper and principles. Labeo was attached to the form of the old republic; his rival embraced the more profitable substance of the rising monarchy. But the disposition of a courtier is tame and submissive; and Capito seldom presumed to deviate from the sentiments, or at least from the words, of his predecessors; while the bold republican pursued his independent ideas without fear of paradox or innovations. The freedom of Labeo was enslaved, however, by the rigor of his own conclusions, and he decided, according to the letter of the law, the same questions which his indulgent competitor resolved with a latitude of equity more suitable to the common sense and feelings of mankind. If a fair exchange had been substituted to the payment of money, Capito still considered the transaction as a legal sale; 64 and he consulted nature for the age of puberty, without confining his definition to the precise period of twelve or fourteen years. 65 This opposition of sentiments was propagated in the writings and lessons of the two founders; the schools of Capito and Labeo maintained their inveterate conflict from the age of Augustus to that of Adrian; 66 and the two sects derived their appellations from Sabinus and Proculus, their most celebrated teachers. The names of Cassians and Pegasians were likewise applied to the same parties; but, by a strange reverse, the popular cause was in the hands of Pegasus, 67 a timid slave of Domitian, while the favorite of the Caesars was represented by Cassius, 68 who gloried in his descent from the patriot assassin. By the perpetual edict, the controversies of the sects were in a great measure determined. For that important work, the emperor Adrian preferred the chief of the Sabinians: the friends of monarchy prevailed; but the moderation of Salvius Julian insensibly reconciled the victors and the vanquished. Like the contemporary philosophers, the lawyers of the age of the Antonines disclaimed the authority of a master, and adopted from every system the most probable doctrines. 69 But their writings would have been less voluminous, had their choice been more unanimous. The conscience of the judge was perplexed by the number and weight of discordant testimonies, and every sentence that his passion or interest might pronounce was justified by the sanction of some venerable name. An indulgent edict of the younger Theodosius excused him from the labor of comparing and weighing their arguments. Five civilians, Caius, Papinian, Paul, Ulpian, and Modestinus, were established as the oracles of jurisprudence: a majority was decisive: but if their opinions were equally divided, a casting vote was ascribed to the superior wisdom of Papinian. 70
即便是最专断的敕令,充其量也只能要求法官附和法学家的意见——前提是法学家们彼此意见一致。可是,实定的制度往往不过是习俗与偏见的产物;法律与语言又含糊而随意;凡理性无从裁断之处,同侪的嫉妒、宗师的虚荣、门徒的盲目依附,便一齐煽起了好辩之风;于是,罗马法学便被曾经赫赫有名的普罗库卢斯派与萨比努斯派割裂为二。62 两位法学贤者——阿泰乌斯·卡皮托与安提斯提乌斯·拉贝奥 63 ——为奥古斯都时代的太平岁月增添了光彩;前者以获得君主的恩宠而显达,后者却因鄙弃这份恩宠、并对罗马的僭主抱持严正而无害的对抗姿态,反倒更为世人所敬重。两人的法学研究,各自染上了其性情与信念的不同色调。拉贝奥眷恋旧共和国的形制,他的对手则拥抱新兴君主制那更为实惠的实质。然而,廷臣的秉性总是驯顺而恭谨:卡皮托极少敢于背离前人的见解,至少不敢背离前人的措辞;那位大胆的共和派却径自推行己见,全不惧怕背上悖谬或标新立异的骂名。不过,拉贝奥的这份自由,反被他自己那些严苛的结论所束缚:同样的问题,他一律照法律的字面来裁断,而他那位较为宽和的对手,却以更合乎人之常情与常理的衡平尺度来化解。若以对等的实物交换代替了货币支付,卡皮托仍旧把这桩交易视为合法的买卖;64 论及成年(青春期)的年龄,他也径向自然请教,而不把界定死死框定在十二岁或十四岁这一确切年限。65 这种见解上的对立,通过两位创派者的著作与讲授而流传后世;卡皮托与拉贝奥两派积怨已深的争执,从奥古斯都时代一直延续到哈德良时代;66 而这两派的名称,则取自它们各自最负盛名的宗师——萨比努斯与普罗库卢斯。同样这两派,也有卡西乌斯派与佩加索斯派之称;只是奇怪地颠倒了过来:代表平民立场的一方,竟落在佩加索斯手中——此人是图密善一名怯懦的奴才;67 而深得诸恺撒宠幸的一方,却由卡西乌斯为其代表,68 后者反以自己出身于那位刺杀暴君的爱国者之后而自豪。借着《永久告示》,两派间的争议大体上有了定断。为完成这一重要工作,哈德良皇帝选中了萨比努斯派的首领:拥护君主制的一方于是占了上风;不过,萨尔维乌斯·尤利安努斯为人温和持中,在不知不觉间调和了胜者与败者。与同时代的哲学家一样,安敦尼诸帝时代的法学家也不再唯某一宗师之言是从,而是博采各家体系中最为可信的学说。69 不过,倘若他们的取舍能更趋一致,其著述本可不必如此浩繁。众多相互抵牾、又各有分量的权威论断,把法官的良心搅得无所适从;而无论他出于私情还是私利宣下怎样的判决,总能搬出某个德高望重的名字来为之开脱。小狄奥多西一道宽厚的敕令,替法官免去了比较、权衡各家论据的这番劳苦。五位法学家——盖尤斯、帕皮尼安、保卢斯、乌尔比安与莫德斯提努斯——被确立为法学的神谕:以多数意见为准;若各家意见恰好势均力敌、平分秋色,便把决定性的一票判归智慧更胜一筹的帕皮尼安。70
Notes 注释
49
↩
Scaevola, most probably Q. Cervidius Scaevola; the master of Papinian considers this acceptance of fire and water as the essence of marriage, (Pandect. l. xxiv. tit. 1, leg. 66. See Heineccius, Hist. J. R. No. 317.)
此处的斯凯沃拉,最可能是指昆图斯·凯尔维狄乌斯·斯凯沃拉,即帕皮尼安之师;他把“接受水与火”看作婚姻的本质所在(Pandect. l. xxiv. tit. 1, leg. 66. 参见 Heineccius, Hist. J. R. No. 317.)。
50
↩
Cicero (de Officiis, iii. 19) may state an ideal case, but St. Am brose (de Officiis, iii. 2,) appeals to the practice of his own times, which he understood as a lawyer and a magistrate, (Schulting ad Ulpian, Fragment. tit. xxii. No. 28, p. 643, 644.) * Note: In this passage the author has endeavored to collect all the examples of judicial formularies which he could find. That which he adduces as the form of cretio haereditatis is absolutely false. It is sufficient to glance at the passage in Cicero which he cites, to see that it has no relation to it. The author appeals to the opinion of Schulting, who, in the passage quoted, himself protests against the ridiculous and absurd interpretation of the passage in Cicero, and observes that Graevius had already well explained the real sense. See in Gaius the form of cretio haereditatis Inst. l. ii. p. 166.—W.
西塞罗(de Officiis, iii. 19)所说或许只是一个假想的例子,但圣安布罗斯(de Officiis, iii. 2)援引的却是他自己那个时代的惯例——身为法学家兼行政官,他对此了如指掌(Schulting ad Ulpian, Fragment. tit. xxii. No. 28, p. 643, 644.)。*按:在这一段里,作者力图把他所能找到的一切诉讼程式的实例都搜罗进来。然而他举作“继承受领”(cretio haereditatis)程式的那一例,纯属谬误。只要瞥一眼他所引的西塞罗那段原文,便可看出二者毫不相干。作者搬出斯胡尔廷的意见为据,可斯胡尔廷本人在那段被引用的文字里,恰恰对西塞罗此段那种荒唐悖谬的解释表示抗议,并指出格雷维乌斯早已把它的真义解释得很清楚了。关于“继承受领”的程式,见盖尤斯《法学阶梯》(Inst. l. ii. p. 166)。—W
51
↩
The furtum lance licioque conceptum was no longer understood in the time of the Antonines, (Aulus Gellius, xvi. 10.) The Attic derivation of Heineccius, (Antiquitat. Rom. l. iv. tit. i. No. 13—21) is supported by the evidence of Aristophanes, his scholiast, and Pollux. * Note: Nothing more is known of this ceremony; nevertheless we find that already in his own days Gaius turned it into ridicule. He says, (lib. iii. et p. 192, Sections 293,) prohibiti actio quadrupli ex edicto praetoris introducta est; lex autem eo nomine nullam poenam constituit. Hoc solum praecepit, ut qui quaerere velit, nudus quaerat, linteo cinctus, lancem habens; qui si quid invenerit. jubet id lex furtum manifestum esse. Quid sit autem linteum? quaesitum est. Sed verius est consuti genus esse, quo necessariae partes tegerentur. Quare lex tota ridicula est. Nam qui vestitum quaerere prohibet, is et nudum quaerere prohibiturus est; eo magis, quod invenerit ibi imponat, neutrum eorum procedit, si id quod quaeratur, ejus magnitudinis aut naturae sit ut neque subjici, neque ibi imponi possit. Certe non dubitatur, cujuscunque materiae sit ea lanx, satis legi fieri. We see moreover, from this passage, that the basin, as most authors, resting on the authority of Festus, have supposed, was not used to cover the figure.—W. Gibbon says the face, though equally inaccurately. This passage of Gaius, I must observe, as well as others in M. Warnkonig’s work, is very inaccurately printed.—M.
到安敦尼诸帝时代,人们已不再明白“furtum lance licioque conceptum”(持盘束带的搜赃之窃)究竟是怎么回事了(Aulus Gellius, xvi. 10.)。海涅克丘斯所主张的阿提卡词源(Antiquitat. Rom. l. iv. tit. i. No. 13—21),有阿里斯托芬及其注疏家、还有波卢克斯的材料为佐证。*按:关于这一仪式,我们所知不过如此;然而可以看到,早在盖尤斯自己的时代,他便已对它加以讥嘲。他说(lib. iii. et p. 192, Sections 293,):prohibiti actio quadrupli ex edicto praetoris introducta est; lex autem eo nomine nullam poenam constituit. Hoc solum praecepit, ut qui quaerere velit, nudus quaerat, linteo cinctus, lancem habens; qui si quid invenerit. jubet id lex furtum manifestum esse. Quid sit autem linteum? quaesitum est. Sed verius est consuti genus esse, quo necessariae partes tegerentur. Quare lex tota ridicula est. Nam qui vestitum quaerere prohibet, is et nudum quaerere prohibiturus est; eo magis, quod invenerit ibi imponat, neutrum eorum procedit, si id quod quaeratur, ejus magnitudinis aut naturae sit ut neque subjici, neque ibi imponi possit. Certe non dubitatur, cujuscunque materiae sit ea lanx, satis legi fieri. 此外,从这段文字还可看出:那只盆钵——多数作者依据费斯图斯的说法,都以为是用来遮蔽形体的——其实并非作此用途。—W 吉本说是用来遮脸,同样不确。我必须指出,盖尤斯这段文字,连同瓦恩克尼希著作中的其他若干处,印得都很不准确。—M
52
↩
In his Oration for Murena, (c. 9—13,) Cicero turns into ridicule the forms and mysteries of the civilians, which are represented with more candor by Aulus Gellius, (Noct. Attic. xx. 10,) Gravina, (Opp p. 265, 266, 267,) and Heineccius, (Antiquitat. l. iv. tit. vi.) * Note: Gibbon had conceived opinions too decided against the forms of procedure in use among the Romans. Yet it is on these solemn forms that the certainty of laws has been founded among all nations. Those of the Romans were very intimately allied with the ancient religion, and must of necessity have disappeared as Rome attained a higher degree of civilization. Have not modern nations, even the most civilized, overloaded their laws with a thousand forms, often absurd, almost always trivial? How many examples are afforded by the English law! See, on the nature of these forms, the work of M. de Savigny on the Vocation of our Age for Legislation and Jurisprudence, Heidelberg, 1814, p. 9, 10.—W. This work of M. Savigny has been translated into English by Mr. Hayward.—M.
西塞罗在《为穆雷纳辩护》(c. 9—13)中,把法学家的种种程式与玄虚大加嘲讽;同样这些程式,奥卢斯·革利乌斯(Noct. Attic. xx. 10)、格拉维纳(Opp. p. 265, 266, 267)与海涅克丘斯(Antiquitat. l. iv. tit. vi)则叙述得较为公允。*按:对于罗马人所行的诉讼程式,吉本的看法未免过于武断。然而,法律之所以能有确定性,在各民族中恰恰都是建立在这些庄严的程式之上的。罗马人的程式与其古老的宗教关系极为密切,因此随着罗马文明日渐提升,它们势必要归于消亡。可是,即便最文明的近代民族,不也在自己的法律里塞进了千百种程式吗?——这些程式往往荒唐,且几乎无不琐碎。单是英格兰的法律,就能举出多少例子来!关于这些程式的性质,可参看萨维尼论《我们时代对立法与法学的使命》一书(海德堡,1814年,第9、10页)。—W 萨维尼这部著作已由海沃德先生译成英文。—M
521
↩
Compare, on the Responsa Prudentum, Warnkonig, Histoire Externe du Droit Romain Bruxelles, 1836, p. 122.—M.
关于“法学家解答”(Responsa Prudentum),可比较瓦恩克尼希《罗马法外部史》(Histoire Externe du Droit Romain, Bruxelles, 1836, p. 122.)。—M
53
↩
The series of the civil lawyers is deduced by Pomponius, (de Origine Juris Pandect. l. i. tit. ii.) The moderns have discussed, with learning and criticism, this branch of literary history; and among these I have chiefly been guided by Gravina (p. 41—79) and Hei neccius, (Hist. J. R. No. 113-351.) Cicero, more especially in his books de Oratore, de Claris Oratoribus, de Legibus, and the Clavie Ciceroniana of Ernesti (under the names of Mucius, &c.) afford much genuine and pleasing information. Horace often alludes to the morning labors of the civilians, (Serm. I. i. 10, Epist. II. i. 103, &c)
Agricolam laudat juris legumque peritus
Sub galli cantum, consultor ubi ostia pulsat.
——————
Romæ dulce diu fuit et solemne, reclusâ
Mane domo vigilare, clienti promere jura.
* Note: It is particularly in this division of the history of the Roman jurisprudence into epochs, that Gibbon displays his profound knowledge of the laws of this people. M. Hugo, adopting this division, prefaced these three periods with the history of the times anterior to the Law of the Twelve Tables, which are, as it were, the infancy of the Roman law.—W
Agricolam laudat juris legumque peritus
Sub galli cantum, consultor ubi ostia pulsat.
——————
Romæ dulce diu fuit et solemne, reclusâ
Mane domo vigilare, clienti promere jura.
* Note: It is particularly in this division of the history of the Roman jurisprudence into epochs, that Gibbon displays his profound knowledge of the laws of this people. M. Hugo, adopting this division, prefaced these three periods with the history of the times anterior to the Law of the Twelve Tables, which are, as it were, the infancy of the Roman law.—W
罗马历代民法学家的谱系,由庞波尼乌斯加以梳理(de Origine Juris Pandect. l. i. tit. ii.)。近人对这一文献史的分支已作过既博学又精审的探讨;其中,我主要依据的是格拉维纳(p. 41—79)与海涅克丘斯(Hist. J. R. No. 113-351.)。西塞罗的著作——尤其是《论演说家》《论著名演说家》《论法律》——以及埃内斯蒂所编的《西塞罗辞典》(在“穆奇乌斯”等条目下),都提供了大量真切而有趣的材料。贺拉斯也屡屡提到法学家清晨的忙碌(Serm. I. i. 10, Epist. II. i. 103, 等处):
Agricolam laudat juris legumque peritus
Sub galli cantum, consultor ubi ostia pulsat.
——————
Romæ dulce diu fuit et solemne, reclusâ
Mane domo vigilare, clienti promere jura.
*按:正是在把罗马法学史划分为若干时代这一点上,吉本显露了他对这个民族法律的精深造诣。胡果沿用了这一划分,只是在这三个时期之前,又冠以《十二铜表法》问世之前那段历史——那可以说是罗马法的襁褓期。—W
Agricolam laudat juris legumque peritus
Sub galli cantum, consultor ubi ostia pulsat.
——————
Romæ dulce diu fuit et solemne, reclusâ
Mane domo vigilare, clienti promere jura.
*按:正是在把罗马法学史划分为若干时代这一点上,吉本显露了他对这个民族法律的精深造诣。胡果沿用了这一划分,只是在这三个时期之前,又冠以《十二铜表法》问世之前那段历史——那可以说是罗马法的襁褓期。—W
5311
↩
M. Hugo thinks that the ingenious system of the Institutes adopted by a great number of the ancient lawyers, and by Justinian himself, dates from Severus Sulpicius. Hist du Droit Romain, vol.iii.p. 119.—W.
胡果认为,为众多古代法学家、乃至查士丁尼本人所采用的《法学阶梯》那套精巧体系,其源头可追溯至塞尔维乌斯·苏尔皮基乌斯(Hist. du Droit Romain, vol. iii. p. 119.)。—W
54
↩
Crassus, or rather Cicero himself, proposes (de Oratore, i. 41, 42) an idea of the art or science of jurisprudence, which the eloquent, but illiterate, Antonius (i. 58) affects to deride. It was partly executed by Servius Sulpicius, (in Bruto, c. 41,) whose praises are elegantly varied in the classic Latinity of the Roman Gravina, (p. 60.)
克拉苏——或者不如说西塞罗本人——在《论演说家》(de Oratore, i. 41, 42)中提出了一种关于法学这门技艺或学问的构想,而口才虽好却不学无术的安东尼乌斯(i. 58)却故作姿态地对之加以讥笑。这一构想,后来由塞尔维乌斯·苏尔皮基乌斯部分地付诸实现(in Bruto, c. 41);罗马人格拉维纳则以其典雅的古典拉丁文,对他极尽变化地大加赞美(p. 60)。
55
↩
Perturbatricem autem omnium harum rerum academiam, hanc ab Arcesila et Carneade recentem, exoremus ut sileat, nam si invaserit in haec, quae satis scite instructa et composita videantur, nimis edet ruinas, quam quidem ego placare cupio, submovere non audeo. (de Legibus, i. 13.) From this passage alone, Bentley (Remarks on Free-thinking, p. 250) might have learned how firmly Cicero believed in the specious doctrines which he has adorned.
Perturbatricem autem omnium harum rerum academiam, hanc ab Arcesila et Carneade recentem, exoremus ut sileat, nam si invaserit in haec, quae satis scite instructa et composita videantur, nimis edet ruinas, quam quidem ego placare cupio, submovere non audeo. (de Legibus, i. 13.) 单凭这一段文字,本特利(Remarks on Free-thinking, p. 250)本可看出:西塞罗对他所润饰的那些华而不实的学说,信奉得何等坚定。
56
↩
The stoic philosophy was first taught at Rome by Panaetius, the friend of the younger Scipio, (see his life in the Mem. de l’Academis des Inscriptions, tom. x. p. 75—89.)
斯多葛派哲学最早在罗马讲授,是由小西庇阿的友人帕奈提乌斯开创的(其生平见 Mem. de l’Academie des Inscriptions, tom. x. p. 75—89.)。
57
↩
As he is quoted by Ulpian, (leg.40, 40, ad Sabinum in Pandect. l. xlvii. tit. ii. leg. 21.) Yet Trebatius, after he was a leading civilian, que qui familiam duxit, became an epicurean, (Cicero ad Fam. vii. 5.) Perhaps he was not constant or sincere in his new sect. * Note: Gibbon had entirely misunderstood this phrase of Cicero. It was only since his time that the real meaning of the author was apprehended. Cicero, in enumerating the qualifications of Trebatius, says, Accedit etiam, quod familiam ducit in jure civili, singularis memoria, summa scientia, which means that Trebatius possessed a still further most important qualification for a student of civil law, a remarkable memory, &c. This explanation, already conjectured by G. Menage, Amaenit. Juris Civilis, c. 14, is found in the dictionary of Scheller, v. Familia, and in the History of the Roman Law by M. Hugo. Many authors have asserted, without any proof sufficient to warrant the conjecture, that Trebatius was of the school of Epicurus—W.
这话是乌尔比安引用的(leg. 40, 40, ad Sabinum in Pandect. l. xlvii. tit. ii. leg. 21.)。不过,特雷巴提乌斯在成为一位首屈一指的法学家(que qui familiam duxit)之后,却转投了伊壁鸠鲁派(Cicero ad Fam. vii. 5.);也许他对这个新宗派并不专一,也不真诚。*按:吉本完全误解了西塞罗这句话。其真正含义直到吉本身后才被人领会。西塞罗在历数特雷巴提乌斯的种种资质时说:Accedit etiam, quod familiam ducit in jure civili, singularis memoria, summa scientia——意思是说,特雷巴提乌斯身为市民法的研习者,还另有一项至关重要的长处,即记性过人,等等。这一解释,梅纳日早已在其《市民法拾趣》(Amaenit. Juris Civilis, c. 14)中作过推测,如今又见于舍勒的辞典(v. Familia)以及胡果的《罗马法史》。许多作者断言特雷巴提乌斯属于伊壁鸠鲁学派,却拿不出任何足以支撑此说的证据。—W
58
↩
See Gravina (p. 45—51) and the ineffectual cavils of Mascou. Heineccius (Hist. J. R. No. 125) quotes and approves a dissertation of Everard Otto, de Stoica Jurisconsultorum Philosophia.
参见格拉维纳(p. 45—51),以及马斯科夫那些无济于事的吹毛求疵。海涅克丘斯(Hist. J. R. No. 125)引述并赞同埃弗拉德·奥托的一篇论文《法学家的斯多葛派哲学》(de Stoica Jurisconsultorum Philosophia)。
59
↩
We have heard of the Catonian rule, the Aquilian stipulation, and the Manilian forms, of 211 maxims, and of 247 definitions, (Pandect. l. i. tit. xvi. xvii.)
我们听说过“加图规则”、“阿奎利乌斯要式口约”与“曼利乌斯程式”,还有211条准则和247条定义(Pandect. l. i. tit. xvi. xvii.)。
60
↩
Read Cicero, l. i. de Oratore, Topica, pro Murena.
可参阅西塞罗《论演说家》第一卷、《论题篇》与《为穆雷纳辩护》(Cicero, l. i. de Oratore, Topica, pro Murena)。
61
↩
See Pomponius, (de Origine Juris Pandect. l. i. tit. ii. leg. 2, No 47,) Heineccius, (ad Institut. l. i. tit. ii. No. 8, l. ii. tit. xxv. in Element et Antiquitat.,) and Gravina, (p. 41—45.) Yet the monopoly of Augustus, a harsh measure, would appear with some softening in contemporary evidence; and it was probably veiled by a decree of the senate
参见庞波尼乌斯(de Origine Juris Pandect. l. i. tit. ii. leg. 2, No 47)、海涅克丘斯(ad Institut. l. i. tit. ii. No. 8, l. ii. tit. xxv. in Element. et Antiquitat.)与格拉维纳(p. 41—45)。不过,奥古斯都的这项垄断措施本属严苛,若见于当时的记载,想必会有所缓饰;它多半是借一道元老院法令的名义掩饰过去的。
6111
↩
The author here follows the then generally received opinion of Heineccius. The proofs which appear to confirm it are l. 2 47, D. I. 2, and 8. Instit. I. 2. The first of these passages speaks expressly of a privilege granted to certain lawyers, until the time of Adrian, publice respondendi jus ante Augusti tempora non dabatur. Primus Divus ut major juris auctoritas haberetur, constituit, ut ex auctoritate ejus responderent. The passage of the Institutes speaks of the different opinions of those, quibus est permissum jura condere. It is true that the first of these passages does not say that the opinion of these privileged lawyers had the force of a law for the judges. For this reason M. Hugo altogether rejects the opinion adopted by Heineccius, by Bach, and in general by all the writers who preceded him. He conceives that the 8 of the Institutes referred to the constitution of Valentinian III., which regulated the respective authority to be ascribed to the different writings of the great civilians. But we have now the following passage in the Institutes of Gaius: Responsa prudentum sunt sententiae et opiniones eorum, quibus permissum est jura condere; quorum omnium si in unum sententiae concorrupt, id quod ita sentiunt, legis vicem obtinet, si vero dissentiunt, judici licet, quam velit sententiam sequi, idque rescripto Divi Hadrian signiticatur. I do not know, how in opposition to this passage, the opinion of M. Hugo can be maintained. We must add to this the passage quoted from Pomponius and from such strong proofs, it seems incontestable that the emperors had granted some kind of privilege to certain civilians, quibus permissum erat jura condere. Their opinion had sometimes the force of law, legis vicem. M. Hugo, endeavoring to reconcile this phrase with his system, gives it a forced interpretation, which quite alters the sense; he supposes that the passage contains no more than what is evident of itself, that the authority of the civilians was to be respected, thus making a privilege of that which was free to all the world. It appears to me almost indisputable, that the emperors had sanctioned certain provisions relative to the authority of these civilians, consulted by the judges. But how far was their advice to be respected? This is a question which it is impossible to answer precisely, from the want of historic evidence. Is it not possible that the emperors established an authority to be consulted by the judges? and in this case this authority must have emanated from certain civilians named for this purpose by the emperors. See Hugo, l. c. Moreover, may not the passage of Suetonius, in the Life of Caligula, where he says that the emperor would no longer permit the civilians to give their advice, mean that Caligula entertained the design of suppressing this institution? See on this passage the Themis, vol. xi. p. 17, 36. Our author not being acquainted with the opinions opposed to Heineccius has not gone to the bottom of the subject.—W.
作者此处沿用的,是海涅克丘斯当时通行的看法。似乎能佐证此说的依据是 l. 2 47, D. I. 2, 以及 8. Instit. I. 2。这几处中,第一处明确谈到某些法学家在哈德良之前所享有的一项特权:publice respondendi jus ante Augusti tempora non dabatur. Primus Divus ut major juris auctoritas haberetur, constituit, ut ex auctoritate ejus responderent。《法学阶梯》那一处,则谈到那些“获准创制法律之人”(quibus est permissum jura condere)彼此不同的见解。诚然,上引第一处并未说这些特权法学家的意见对法官具有法律的效力。正因如此,胡果索性推翻了海涅克丘斯、巴赫、乃至此前一切作者所采纳的看法。他认为《法学阶梯》中的第8节,指的是瓦伦提尼安三世的一道敕令——该敕令规定了几位伟大法学家各自的著作应被赋予何等权威。然而,如今我们在盖尤斯的《法学阶梯》里读到了这样一段:Responsa prudentum sunt sententiae et opiniones eorum, quibus permissum est jura condere; quorum omnium si in unum sententiae concorrupt, id quod ita sentiunt, legis vicem obtinet, si vero dissentiunt, judici licet, quam velit sententiam sequi, idque rescripto Divi Hadrian signiticatur。我实在不明白,面对这一段,胡果的看法还怎能站得住脚。再加上前面引自庞波尼乌斯的那段文字,凭这些有力的证据,几乎无可辩驳地可以断定:诸位皇帝确曾授予某些法学家某种特权,即“获准创制法律”(quibus permissum erat jura condere);他们的意见有时具有法律的效力(legis vicem)。胡果为了把这句话纳入自己的体系,硬给它一个牵强的解释,全然改变了原意:他假定这段话所说的,不过是显而易见的一点——法学家的权威应受尊重——如此便把本属人人皆有的自由,说成了一种特权。在我看来,几乎无可争辩的是:诸位皇帝确曾就这些供法官咨询的法学家的权威颁布过某些规定。但他们的意见究竟该被尊重到何种地步?由于缺乏史料,这个问题无从精确回答。难道皇帝就不可能设立一个供法官咨询的权威吗?果真如此,这一权威必定出自若干由皇帝为此指定的法学家。参见胡果,前引处。此外,苏埃托尼乌斯在《卡利古拉传》中说,这位皇帝不再允许法学家提供意见——这话难道不可能意味着卡利古拉曾打算废除这一制度吗?关于此段,可参看《忒弥斯》(Themis, vol. xi. p. 17, 36.)。我们的作者由于不了解那些与海涅克丘斯相左的观点,未能把这个问题探究到底。—W
62
↩
I have perused the Diatribe of Gotfridus Mascovius, the learned Mascou, de Sectis Jurisconsultorum, (Lipsiae, 1728, in 12mo., p. 276,) a learned treatise on a narrow and barren ground.
我通读过戈特弗里德斯·马斯科夫维乌斯(即博学的马斯科夫)所著的《论法学家诸派》(de Sectis Jurisconsultorum, Lipsiae, 1728, in 12mo., p. 276)——这是一部在狭窄而贫瘠的题材上写就的博学之作。
63
↩
See the character of Antistius Labeo in Tacitus, (Annal. iii. 75,) and in an epistle of Ateius Capito, (Aul. Gellius, xiii. 12,) who accuses his rival of libertas nimia et vecors. Yet Horace would not have lashed a virtuous and respectable senator; and I must adopt the emendation of Bentley, who reads Labieno insanior, (Serm. I. iii. 82.) See Mascou, de Sectis, (c. i. p. 1—24.)
安提斯提乌斯·拉贝奥的为人,可见于塔西佗(Annal. iii. 75)以及阿泰乌斯·卡皮托的一封书信(Aul. Gellius, xiii. 12)——卡皮托在信中指责他这位对手“过于放纵、近乎狂悖”(libertas nimia et vecors)。不过,贺拉斯断不会去鞭挞一位品行端正、令人敬重的元老;因此我不得不采纳本特利的校订,读作 Labieno insanior(Serm. I. iii. 82.)。参见马斯科夫《论法学家诸派》(de Sectis, c. i. p. 1—24.)。
64
↩
Justinian (Institut. l. iii. tit. 23, and Theophil. Vers. Graec. p. 677, 680) has commemorated this weighty dispute, and the verses of Homer that were alleged on either side as legal authorities. It was decided by Paul, (leg. 33, ad Edict. in Pandect. l. xviii. tit. i. leg. 1,) since, in a simple exchange, the buyer could not be discriminated from the seller.
查士丁尼(Institut. l. iii. tit. 23,及 Theophil. Vers. Graec. p. 677, 680)曾记述过这场重大的争论,以及双方各自援引来充当法律依据的荷马诗句。此案最终由保卢斯裁定(leg. 33, ad Edict. in Pandect. l. xviii. tit. i. leg. 1):因为在单纯的实物交换中,实在无从分辨谁是买方、谁是卖方。
65
↩
This controversy was likewise given for the Proculians, to supersede the indecency of a search, and to comply with the aphorism of Hippocrates, who was attached to the septenary number of two weeks of years, or 700 of days, (Institut. l. i. tit. xxii.) Plutarch and the Stoics (de Placit. Philosoph. l. v. c. 24) assign a more natural reason. Fourteen years is the age. See the vestigia of the sects in Mascou, c. ix. p. 145—276.
这场争议同样判归了普罗库卢斯派,以免去实地查验的不雅,也是为了迎合希波克拉底的格言——他偏爱以七为基数,即两个“七年”(也就是十四岁),或说 700 天(Institut. l. i. tit. xxii.)。普鲁塔克与斯多葛派(de Placit. Philosoph. l. v. c. 24)则给出了一个更为自然的理由。成年之龄定为十四岁。两派留下的遗迹,可见于马斯科夫(c. ix. p. 145—276)。
66
↩
The series and conclusion of the sects are described by Mascou, (c. ii.—vii. p. 24—120;) and it would be almost ridiculous to praise his equal justice to these obsolete sects. * Note: The work of Gaius, subsequent to the time of Adrian, furnishes us with some information on this subject. The disputes which rose between these two sects appear to have been very numerous. Gaius avows himself a disciple of Sabinus and of Caius. Compare Hugo, vol. ii. p. 106.—W.
这两派的来龙去脉及其归宿,马斯科夫已有描述(c. ii.—vii. p. 24—120);至于称赞他对这些早已过时的宗派一视同仁、持平公允,那几乎近于可笑了。*按:盖尤斯的著作成于哈德良之后,为这一问题提供了若干线索。看来,这两派之间的争论为数极多。盖尤斯自承是萨比努斯与卡西乌斯二人的门徒。可比较胡果(vol. ii. p. 106)。—W
67
↩
At the first summons he flies to the turbot-council; yet Juvenal (Satir. iv. 75—81) styles the præfect or bailiff of Rome sanctissimus legum interpres. From his science, says the old scholiast, he was called, not a man, but a book. He derived the singular name of Pegasus from the galley which his father commanded.
一经召唤,他便飞奔去参加那场“大菱鲆会议”;然而尤维纳利斯(Satir. iv. 75—81)却把这位罗马的长官(或曰总管)称作“最神圣的法律释义者”(sanctissimus legum interpres)。据古代注疏家说,因其学识渊博,人们索性把他叫作一部书,而非一个人。至于佩加索斯这个奇特的名字,则源自他父亲当年所指挥的那艘桨帆战船。
68
↩
Tacit. Annal. xvii. 7. Sueton. in Nerone, c. xxxvii.
塔西佗《编年史》(Annal. xvii. 7);苏埃托尼乌斯《尼禄传》(in Nerone, c. xxxvii)。
69
↩
Mascou, de Sectis, c. viii. p. 120—144 de Herciscundis, a legal term which was applied to these eclectic lawyers: herciscere is synonymous to dividere. * Note: This word has never existed. Cujacius is the author of it, who read me words terris condi in Servius ad Virg. herciscundi, to which he gave an erroneous interpretation.—W.
马斯科夫《论法学家诸派》(c. viii. p. 120—144),论“de Herciscundis”——这是套用在这些兼收并蓄的法学家身上的一个法律术语:herciscere 与 dividere(分割)同义。*按:这个词其实从未存在过。它是屈雅斯杜撰的:他把塞尔维乌斯对维吉尔注疏中的“terris condi”读成了“herciscundi”,又给了它一个错误的解释。—W
70
↩
See the Theodosian Code, l. i. tit. iv. with Godefroy’s Commentary, tom. i. p. 30—35. [! This decree might give occasion to Jesuitical disputes like those in the Lettres Provinciales, whether a Judge was obliged to follow the opinion of Papinian, or of a majority, against his judgment, against his conscience, &c. Yet a legislator might give that opinion, however false, the validity, not of truth, but of law. Note: We possess (since 1824) some interesting information as to the framing of the Theodosian Code, and its ratification at Rome, in the year 438. M. Closius, now professor at Dorpat in Russia, and M. Peyron, member of the Academy of Turin, have discovered, the one at Milan, the other at Turin, a great part of the five first books of the Code which were wanting, and besides this, the reports (gesta) of the sitting of the senate at Rome, in which the Code was published, in the year after the marriage of Valentinian III. Among these pieces are the constitutions which nominate commissioners for the formation of the Code; and though there are many points of considerable obscurity in these documents, they communicate many facts relative to this legislation. 1. That Theodosius designed a great reform in the legislation; to add to the Gregorian and Hermogenian codes all the new constitutions from Constantine to his own day; and to frame a second code for common use with extracts from the three codes, and from the works of the civil lawyers. All laws either abrogated or fallen into disuse were to be noted under their proper heads. 2. An Ordinance was issued in 429 to form a commission for this purpose of nine persons, of which Antiochus, as quaestor and præfectus, was president. A second commission of sixteen members was issued in 435 under the same president. 3. A code, which we possess under the name of Codex Theodosianus, was finished in 438, published in the East, in an ordinance addressed to the Praetorian præfect, Florentinus, and intended to be published in the West. 4. Before it was published in the West, Valentinian submitted it to the senate. There is a report of the proceedings of the senate, which closed with loud acclamations and gratulations.—From Warnkonig, Histoire du Droit Romain, p. 169-Wenck has published this work, Codicis Theodosiani libri priores. Leipzig, 1825.—M.] * Note *: Closius of Tubingen communicated to M.Warnkonig the two following constitutions of the emperor Constantine, which he discovered in the Ambrosian library at Milan:— 1. Imper. Constantinus Aug. ad Maximium Praef. Praetorio. Perpetuas prudentum contentiones eruere cupientes, Ulpiani ac Pauli, in Papinianum notas, qui dum ingenii laudem sectantur, non tam corrigere eum quam depravere maluerunt, aboleri praecepimus. Dat. III. Kalend. Octob. Const. Cons. et Crispi, (321.) Idem. Aug. ad Maximium Praef Praet. Universa, quae scriptura Pauli continentur, recepta auctoritate firmanda runt, et omni veneratione celebranda. Ideoque sententiarum libros plepissima luce et perfectissima elocutione et justissima juris ratione succinctos in judiciis prolatos valere minimie dubitatur. Dat. V. Kalend. Oct. Trovia Coust. et Max. Coss. (327.)—W
参见《狄奥多西法典》l. i. tit. iv.,并戈德弗鲁瓦的注释(tom. i. p. 30—35)。〔!这道敕令或许会引出一场耶稣会式的争辩,一如《外省书简》(Lettres Provinciales)中所载的那些:法官究竟是否有义务违背自己的判断、违背自己的良心,去服从帕皮尼安的意见、或服从多数人的意见,如此等等。然而,立法者尽可赋予那种意见——无论它何等谬误——一种效力:不是真理的效力,而是法律的效力。按:自1824年以来,关于《狄奥多西法典》的编纂及其438年在罗马获得批准一事,我们已掌握了一些有趣的资料。如今在俄国多尔帕特任教授的克洛西乌斯先生,与都灵科学院院士佩龙先生,分别在米兰和都灵发现了该法典原本残缺的前五卷的大部分;此外,还发现了瓦伦提尼安三世大婚次年、罗马元老院公布该法典那次会议的记录(gesta)。这些文献中,就有任命法典编纂委员的那几道敕令;尽管其中有许多地方相当晦涩难解,却也透露了不少与这次立法有关的史实。一、狄奥多西曾谋划一场大规模的立法改革:把自君士坦丁以来直到他本人当朝的一切新敕令,统统补入《格雷戈里乌斯法典》与《赫尔莫格尼安努斯法典》;并从这三部法典及诸位民法学家的著作中辑录条文,另编一部供通用的法典。凡已废止或已弃置不用的法律,都要分门别类地一一注明。二、429年颁下一道法令,为此设立一个九人委员会,由身兼财务官与长官的安条克出任主席。435年又颁令组建第二个委员会,成员十六人,仍由同一人主持。三、我们如今所拥有、名为《狄奥多西法典》(Codex Theodosianus)的这部法典,于438年编竣,并以一道致禁卫军长官弗洛伦提努斯的法令在东部颁行,同时拟在西部也予以公布。四、在西部颁行之前,瓦伦提尼安把它提交给元老院。现存一份元老院议事记录,会议在响亮的欢呼与庆贺声中收场。——录自瓦恩克尼希《罗马法史》(Histoire du Droit Romain, p. 169)。温克已刊行此书,题为 Codicis Theodosiani libri priores(莱比锡,1825年)。—M〕*按*:图宾根的克洛西乌斯把他在米兰安布罗西阿纳图书馆发现的以下两道君士坦丁皇帝敕令,转告给了瓦恩克尼希:——一、Imper. Constantinus Aug. ad Maximium Praef. Praetorio. Perpetuas prudentum contentiones eruere cupientes, Ulpiani ac Pauli, in Papinianum notas, qui dum ingenii laudem sectantur, non tam corrigere eum quam depravere maluerunt, aboleri praecepimus. Dat. III. Kalend. Octob. Const. Cons. et Crispi, (321.) Idem. Aug. ad Maximium Praef Praet. Universa, quae scriptura Pauli continentur, recepta auctoritate firmanda runt, et omni veneratione celebranda. Ideoque sententiarum libros plepissima luce et perfectissima elocutione et justissima juris ratione succinctos in judiciis prolatos valere minimie dubitatur. Dat. V. Kalend. Oct. Trovia Coust. et Max. Coss. (327.)—W