Scanned text contains errors.
liy Senatusconsulta and Imperial Constitutions ; and \ve must not conclude from the title in the Digest, *'• Ad Legem Juliam Majestatis," that all the provisions enumerated under that title were comprehended in the original Lex Julia. It is stated by Marcianus, as there cited, that it was not Majestas to repair the statues of the Caesar which were going to decay ; and a Rescript of Severus and his son Antoninus Caracalla declared that if a stone was thrown and accidentally struck a statue of the Emperor, that also was not Majestas ; and they also graciously declared that it was not Majestas to sell the statues of the Caesar before they were consecrated. Here then is an instance under the title ad Legem Juliam Majestatis of the Imperial rescripts declaring what was not Majestas. There is also an extract from Saturninus De Judiciis, who says that if a person melted down the statues or imagines of the Impcrator which were already consecrated, or did any similar act, he was liable to the penalties of the Lex Julia Majestatis. But even this also does not prove that this provision was a part of the Julia Lex, as originally passed, for a Lex after being amended by Senatusconsulta or Imperial Constitutions still retained its name. In the time of Tiberius it was a matter of charge against a man that in selling a garden he had included a statue of Augustus ; which Tiberius declared to be no oifenee. (Tacit. Ann. i. 73.)
The old punishment of Majestas was perpetual Interdiction from fire and water ; but now, says-Paulus (S. R. v. 39), that is, in the later Imperial? period, persons of low condition are thrown to wild beasts, or burnt alive ; persons of better condition are simply put to death. The property of the offender was confiscated and his memory was infamous.
In the early times of the Republic every act of a citizen which was injurious to the State or its peace was called Perduellio, and the offender (per-duellis) was tried before the populus (populi judi-«'o), and, if convicted, put to death. (Liv. ii. 41, vi. 20.) The earliest trial and form of procedure is that which is given by Livy (i. 26) ; after the overthrow of the kingly power the notion of Perduellio and the process were in some degree changed. Numerous offences against the state were comprehended under Perduellio. For instance Cn. Fulvius (Liv. xxvi. c. 3.) was charged with the offence of perduellio for losing a Roman army ; but in course of time, and probably after the passing of the Lex Porcia, though it does not appear that this Lex applied to Perduellio, the punishment was aquae et ignis interdictio. According to Gains " perduellis " originally signified " hostig" (Dig. 50. tit. 16. s. '234) ; and thus the old offence of perduellio was equivalent to making war on the Roman State. The trial for perduellio ( perduellionis judiemni) existed to the later times of the Republic ; but the name seems to have almost fallen into disuse, and various leges were passed for the purpose of determining more accurately what should be Majestas.
These Leges were a Lex Apuleia, probably passed in the fifth consulship of Marias, the exact contents of which are unknown (Cic. de Or. ii. 25, 49), a Lex Varia b.c. 91 (Appian, Bell. Civ. i. 37 ; Cic. Brut. 89 ; Valer. Maxim, viii. 6. § 4), a Lex Cornelia passed by L. Cornelius Sulla (Cic. in Pis. 21, pro Clueni. 35), and the Lex Julia already mentioned, and which continued under
the Empire to be the fundamental enactment on this subject. This Lex Julia is by some attributed to C. Julius Caesar, and assigned to the year b. c. 48, and this may ba the Ley. referred to in the Digest; some assume a second Lex Julia, under Augustus. That a Lex de Majestate was passed in Caesar's time appears from Cicero. (Pldlipp. i. 9.)
Under the Empire the term Majestas was applied to the person of the reigning Caesar, and we find the phrases Majestas Augusta, Imperatoria, and Regia. It was however nothing new to apply the term to the Emperor, considered in some of his capacities, for it was applied to the magistratus under the Republic, as to the consul and praetor. (Cic. Pldlipp. xiii. 9, in Pisonem, 11.) Horace even addresses Augustus (Ep. ii. 1. 288) in the terms " majestas tua," but this can hardly be viewed otherwise than as a personal compliment, and not as said with reference to any of the offices which he held. The extension of the penalties to various new offences against the person of the Emperor belongs of course to the Imperial period. Augustus availed himself of the Lex for prosecuting the authors of famosi libelli (cognitionem de famosis libellis^ specie legis ejus, tmetavit. Tacit. Ann. i. 72 ; Dion Cass. Ivi. 27 ; Sueton. Octav. 55): the proper inference from the passage of Tacitus is that the Leges Majestatis (for they all seem to be comprised under the term " Legem Majestatis,") did not apply to words or writings, for these were punishable otherwise. The passage of Cicera (ad Fam. iii. 11) is manifestly corrupt, and as it stands, inconsistent with the context ; it cannot be taken as evidence that the Lex Majestatis of Sulla contained any provisions as to libellous words, as to which there were other sufficient provisions. [!njuri.a.] Sigonius has attempted to collect the capita of the Lex Majestatis of Sulla. Under Tiberius the offence of Majeslas was extended to all acts and words which ra%ht appear to be disrespectful to the Princess, as appears from various passages in Tacitus (Ann. i. 73, 74, ii. 50, iii. 38, G<>, 67, &c.). The term Perduellio was still in use under the Empire, and seems to have been equivalent to Majestas at that period.
An inquiry might be made into an act of Majestas against the Imperator even after the death of the offender ; a rule which was established (as we are informed by Paulus) by M. Aurelius in the case of Drunciaims or Druncanius, a senator who had taken part in the outbreak of Cassius, and whose property was claimed by the fiscus after his death. (Perhaps the account of Capitolimis, M. Ant. Pliil. c. 26, and of Vulcatius Gallicanup, Avi-dius Cassius^ c. 9, is not inconsistent with the statement of Paulus: on the case of Druncianus, see Tillemont, Histoire des JEmpereurs, vol. ii. p. 38*?.) A constitution of S. Severus and Antoninus Caracalla declared that from the time that an act of Majestas was committed, a man could not alienate his property or manumit a slave, to which the great (magnus) Antoninus (probably Caracalla is still meant), added that a debtor could not after that time lawfully make a payment to him. In the matter of Majestas slaves could also be ox-amined by torture in order to give evidence against their master: this provision, though comprehended in the Code under the title Ad Legem Juliam Majestatis, was perhaps not contained in the ori«
3 a 3