istimo, sufficere tibi, ad. ponam quod nemo supersit eorum qui deliquerunt. 2 Probanda igitur Arriani sententia damnantis vindictam anus, Lib. 1r. cap. 14. ubi inducit Alex- andrum veteres illas injurias Persarum memorantem. Ex memoriz vitio con- fudit Auctor Arriani judicium de Per- sepoli incensa, quod paullo post subje- cit, et a prima Editione aberat. J. B. Alexandri in Persas] Propterea aliam ei bello causam attribuit Julianus in Constantii laudatione: καὶ ὅτι μὲν οὐδείς πω πόλεμος συνέστη πρότερον, 91 Alexandri in Persas, cum pridem interiissent qui in Grzecos | peecaverant. De excidio Branchidarum facto per eundem | Li».vi.5 Alexandrum hoc est Curtii judicium: Que si in ipsos prodi-: tionis auctores ewcogitata essent, justa, ultio esse, non cru-, delitas, videretur. Nune culpam majorum posteri luere,: qui ne viderant quidem Miletum, adeo Xerai non potuerant Libii15. prodere. Simile est alio loco Arriani judicium de Persepoli incensa, in ultionem eorum qu: Athenis Persz fecerant: ἀλλ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ σὺν νῷ δράσαι τοῦτό γε ᾿Αλέξαν- (pov, οὐδὲ εἶναί τις αὕτη lleocov τῶν πάλαι τιμωρία" at mihi non videtur hoc. prudenter fecisse Alevander, neque vero lec vera est vindicta 4n eos Persas qui pridem esse desierant. Em 3 Nam Agathoclis illud nemo non ridet, qui ad Ithacen- de sera num. τες ἘΣ 9 Non damnat hane vindictam Arri- οὐδ᾽ ἐπὶ Τροίαν τοῖς Ἕλλησιν, οὐδ᾽ ἐπὶ τοὺς llépcas Μακεδόσιν, οἵπερ δὴ δο- κοῦσιν ἐν δίκῃ γενέσθαι, τοσαύτην ἔχων ὑπόθεσιν καὶ παιδί που δῆλον. οὐ τῆς μένγε λίαν ἀρχαίων ἀδικημάτων τιμω- ρίας σφόδρα νεωτέρας; οὔτ᾽ εἰς παῖδας οὔτ᾽ eis ἐκγόνους γενομένης, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς τὸν ἀφελόμενον καὶ ἀποστερήσαντα τὴν ἀρ- χὴν τοὺς τῶν εὐδοκησάντων (male legi- tur ἀδικησάντων) ἀπογόνους" mullum unquam bellum, quod quidem justum cen- 2 We must therefore approve the opinion of Arrian, when he condemns* the revenge of Alexander upon the Persians, since those who had wronged the Greeks were long ago dead. Concerning the de- strucetion of the Branchidz by the same Alexander, the judgment of Curtius is similar, that it was mot justice, but cruelty, to punish those who could mot betray Xeraes, and had mever seen Miletus. And of the same kind is the judgment of Arrian respecting the burning of Perse- polis, that there was no true punishment in it, since the offending Persians had long ceased to be.
3 Every one sees the absurdity of Agathocles' answer to the com- plaints of the Ithacans, of damage done by the Sicilians; that the Si- cilians had received more damage from Ulysses. And Plutarch, in his book against Herodotus, says, that it is very unlikely thatthe Corinthians * Arrian, Lib. rr. c. 14, does not condemn this plea of Alexander: the author was thinking of Arrian's judgment on the burning of Persepolis, which occurs immediately after in the text, but was not mentioned in the first edition. J.B.
Car. XXI] DE PGINARUM COMMUNICATIONE. 363 sium querelas de damnis illatis respondit, plus mali Siculos ab Ulyxe olim pertulisse. Et Plutarchus libro contra Herodo- tum, minime ait vero esse simile, Corinthios ulcisci voluisse acceptam a Samiis injuriam μετὰ τρεῖς “γενεὰς, post tres hominum «tates. Nec procedit hujus et similium factorum defensio, quam apud Plutarchum legere est De sera numinis vindicta. Aliud enim est jus Dei, aliud hominum, ut mox apertius fiet. Neque si zquum est posteros honores et premia accipere ob merita majorum, ideo et puniri eos ob eorum peccata squum est. DBeneficii enim talis est materia, ut in quemvis conferri sine injuria possit; pcens non item.
IX. Diximus de modis per quos communitas pon: acci- dit ex culpze» communitate. Restat spectemus an et, culpa non communicata, communicetur pena: quz res ut recte in- telligatur, et ne, quz re ipsa diversa sunt, ob vocum similitu- dinem confundantur, monenda sunt quzdam.
X. 1 Primum, aliud esse damnum directe datum, aliud seretur, tali ex causa gestum, mon a Graecis in Trojanos, non a Macedonibus in Persas, vel puero liqueat: non. enim illi obsita. vetustate crimina seris panis, ne in nepotes quidem aut liberos, perse- quebantur, sed illos impetebant, qui vi- rorum bene meritorum posteris vim instantius) obsita vetustate crimina seris panis, etiam in filios aut nepotes, perse- quebatur; verum eum impetebat (i. e. Magnentium) qui posteris virorum bene meritorum Imperium vi eripuerat. Unde patet, Julianum laudi tribuere Constan- tio, quod non imitatus sit veteres Grze- Jerebant, regna. extorquebant. | [Locus est, pag. 95 s. Edit. Illustris Span- hemii: sed vertendum erat in posterior- ibus verbis: Ion enim ille (scilicet Concos, aut Alexandrum: adeoque non aliam bello Alexandri in Persas caussam adtribuere, sed potius aliam non fuisse innuere. J. B.]
should have wished to avenge an injury received from the Samians after three generations. Nor is the defense of such cases satisfactory, which we find in Plutarch On the delayed punishments of the gods. For the justice administered by God is one thing, that by men, another, as we shall shew hereafter. Nor again can we argue that, because de- scendants receive honours and rewards for the merit of their ancestors, therefore it is just that they should be punished for their crimes. For benefits are of such nature, by their matter, that they may be be- stowed upon any without injury, but punishments are not.
IX. We have spoken of the ways in which a participation in the punishment takes place in consequence of a participation in the crime. Tt remains that we consider whether, when there is not a participation in the offense, there may be in the punishment; and here, that we may not be misled by the similarity of words when the things are different, we must make a few remarks.
X. 1 First, that a damage directly caused is one thing, and dam. inf.
L. Falc. princ.
inte) dict. et rcleg.
Epist. ad Brut. L. ii.
364 DE POQZINARUM COMMUNICATIONE. [118. II.
quod in consequentiam venit. Directe datum voco, quo cui- quam aufertur ad quod jus proprium habet. Per consequen- tiam, que fit, ut quis non habeat quod habiturus alioqui fuis- set, cessante scilicet, conditione, sine qua jus non habebat. Exemplum est apud Ulpianum: si in meo puteum aperui quo factum est ut venz ad te perventurz» przciderentur: negat operis mei vitio damnum datum in ea re, in qua jure meo usus sum. Et alibi, multum ait interesse, utrum. damnum quis faciat, an lucro quod adhuc faciebat uti prohibeatur. Et Paulus jurisconsultus, preposterum esse ait, ante nos locu- pletes dici quam aequisierimus.
2 Sie parentum bonis confiscatis sentiunt. quidem incom- modum liberi sed proprie ea poena non est, quia bona illa ilorum futura non erant, nisi a parentibus ad ultimum spiri- tum essent conservata. Quod recte ab Alpheno notatum est, cum ait patris poena amittere liberos id quod ab ipso perven- turum esset ad eos: qu: vero non a patre, sed a rerum natura aut aliunde tribuerentur, ea manere incolumia, Sic Themistoclis liberos eguisse scribit Cicero, nec iniquum putat, ut eandem calamitatem ferant liberi Lepidi. Idque ait antia damage caused by consequence, another. I call that a damage directly caused, by which any one is deprived of a proper right which he has; a damage by consequence, that by which any one has not that whieh he would have had: namely, by the cessation of the con- dition, without which his right cannot subsist. We have an example in Ulpian: If in my ground I have opened a well, by which the springs which would have come to you are cut off: he denies that, by the effect of my operations, a wrongful damage is done to you, since I was using my own right in my own property. And in another place, he says it makes a great difference, whether any one suffer a loss, or be prevented in a gain which he was going on to enjoy. And so Paulus says, that it is preposterous that we should be supposed to have possessions before we have acquired them.
2 So when the goods of the parents are confiscated, the children feel the loss; but that is not properly a punishment, because those goods were not to become theirs, except their parents kept possession of them till their last breath. — Which is rightly noted by Alphenus, when he says that by the punishment of the parent, the children lose that which from him would have come to them; but that which was given them by the nature of things, or from any other source, they do not lose. So Cicero says, that the children of Themistocles were in absolute want, and he does not think it unjust that the children of Car. XXL] DE POGENARUM COMMUNICATIONE. $565 quum esse et omnium civitatum; cui tamen mori leges pos- teriores Romanae multum temperamenti adjecerunt. Sie cum 1.7. p. 4e ex delieto majoris partis, quz, ut alibi diximus, personam wivia. 1st. universitatis sustinet, universitas in culpa est, eoque nomine amittit ea quae diximus, libertatem civilem, muros, et alia commoda, sentiunt damnum et singuli innocentes; sed ea in re, quze ad ipsos non pertinebat nisi per universitatem.
XI. 1 Prszterea notandum, interdum imponi alicui ali- quid mali, aut boni aliquid auferri, occasione quidem alicujus peccati alieni, sed. non ita ut id peccatum causa sit proxima ejus actionis, quod jus ipsum agendi attinet. Sie qui occa- sione alieni debiti aliquid promisit, malum patitur, ex veteri verbo, ἐγγύα, παρὰ δ᾽ ἄτα" sponde, noma presto est: at proxima causa obligationis est ipsa promissio. Nam ut qui pro emtore fidejussit, non proprie ex emto tenetur, sed ex promisso: ita et qui pro delinquente, non ex delicto, sed ex sua sponsione. (Atque hine fit quod malum illi ferendum mensuram accipit non ex delicto alterius, sed ex potestate quam ipse in promittendo habuit.
2 Qui consequens est, ut ex sententia, quam veriorem Lepidus should bear the same lot. And this, he says, was the ancient custom, and common to all cities; though this custom was much limited and tempered by the later laws of Rome. | So when by the delicet of the general body, which, as we have said, stands for the whole body, the whole body is in fault, and on that ground loses, as we have said, civil liberty, city walls, and other advantages, innocent indi- viduals also feel the inconveniences; but they feel it in those things which only belonged to them through the general body.
XI. 1 It is further to be remarked, that sometimes a person has harm imposed upon him, or loses good, by the occasion indeed of another's fault, yet not so that the fault is the proximate cause of the detion, so far as pertains to the right of acting. ^ Thus he who has promised something on occasion of another's debt, suffers damage, as the old proverb says, Suwretyship is next door to mischief; but the proximate cause of the obligation is his promise. For as he who is surety for a buyer, is not properly bound by the sale, but by his pro- mise; so he who is bound for a delinquent, is not bound by the delict, but by his own engagement. And hence the loss which he has to bear is measured, not by the other's delict, but by the power which he had in promising.
2 From which it follows, that according to the opinion which we hold for the sounder, no body can be put to death in virtue of surety- ship; because we hold that no one has such right over his own life, 366 DE POGENARUM COMMUNICATIONE. [118. II.
credimus, occidi nemo possit ex fidejussione, quia statuimus neminem jus tale habere in vitam, ut eam sibi ipse adimere, aut adimendam obligare possit: cum veteres Romani Grzci- que aliter ea de re senserint: ideoque et *vades capitali judicio crediderint obligari, ut in Ausonii est versu, et ex notissima Damonis et Pythiz historia apparet: et obsides ssepe capite plexerint,!'ut alibi memorabimus. Quod de vita dixi- mus, idem et de membris intelligi debet: nam et in illa jus homini datum non est, nisi corporis servandi causa.
3 Quod si exilium, si pecuniarum damnum in promis- sione fuerit, et alterius delicto impleta sit conditio, damnum feret fidejussor, quze tamen in ipso, si exacte loquimur, poena non erit. Simile quid occurrit in eo Jure quod quis habet sie ut ab alterius voluntate pendeat, quale est jus precarii, k Vades capitali judicio crediderint obligari] Apertum id in verbis Rubenis ad patrem Jacobum Gen. xlii. 57. et apud Josephum rr. Antique Historic, cap. vi. ὃ 5. Edit. Hudson. Hos vades ἀντιψύχους anime vicarios vocat Eutro- pius Caligula; mortis sponsores, Diodorus Siculus, in excerptis Peirescianis, [ubi de Damone: ἔγγυος εὐθὺς ἐγενήθη θανάτου. Chry- sostomus ad Galatas rr. καθάπερ τινὸς ἐγγυητὰς θανάτου, ἐγγυητὰς θανάτου, ἀνεύθυνος ἑλόμενος θανεῖν ὑπὲρ ἐκείνου ἐξαρπάζει τῆς τιμωρίας αὐτόν" sicut homine aliquo ad mortem damnato, in- nocens alter pro illo se morti devovens illum supplicio liberat. [Yn cap.iii. 13. Tom. rrr. pag. 740..Ed. Savil.] Au- gustinus Epistola rrv. ad Macedonium: et aliquando qui causa, fuit mortis po- lius in culpa est, quam ille qui occidit: velut si quispiam decipiat fidejussorem suum, atque ille pro isto legitimum supκαταδικασθέντος ἀποθανεῖν, ἕτερος plicium luat. [Mirum heic ab Auctore that he can himself take it from himself, or bind himself to have it taken: though the ancient Romans and Greeks thought otherwise on this point: and therefore held sureties to be bound to undergo capital punishment for their principal, as it is in the verse of Ausonius: [ Wo takes death, as a substitute for another? The Surety. | Quis subit in ponam capitali judicio? Vas. Gronow.), and as appears in the well known story of Damon and Pythias*: and hostages have often been put to death, as we have elsewhere stated. What we have said of life, may also be said of limb: for man has no right to sacrifice that, ex- cept for the sake of preserving the whole body.
3 But ijf the promise included the expatriation of the promiser, or the payment of a sum of money, and the condition be not fulfilled by the fault of another, the person who gives such security must bear the loss; which, however, properly speaking, is not a punishment, Something similar occurs in any right which a person has in such a way that it depends on the will of another; such as a right granted to be held during the pleasure of the grantor, and even the right of pri- * The right name is Phintias, Cic. Off. 111. 10, Gronov.
Car. XXL] DE PGINARUM COMMUNICATIONE. 367 respectu habito ad rei dominium; et jus privatorum, respectu habito ad eminens dominium, quod utilitatis publiez eausa civitas habet. Nam si quid tale alicui auferatur occasione delicti alieni, pcena in illis proprie non est, sed exsecutio juris antecedentis, quod erat penes auferentem. Sic quia in bestias proprie delietum non cadit, ubi bestia occiditur, "ut lege Mosis ob concubitum eum homine, non ea vere poena est, sed usus dominii humani in bestiam.
XII. — His distinctionibus positis, dicemus, neminem delicti immunem, ob delictum alienum, puniri posse. — Cujus rei ratio vera non est ea, quam adfert Paulus jurisconsultus, quod pens constituantur in emendationem hominum: nam exem- plum videtur statui posse etiam extra personam delinquentis, in ea tamen persona quz ipsum tangat, ut mox dicemus; sed quia obligatio ad poenam ex merito oritur: meritum autem Eutropium, Sceriptorem Latinum, tes- tem adferri vocis Grzecce ᾿Ἀντίψυχοι de Vadibus usurpate. Neque vocem illam reperiri putes in Versione Greca Pz- anii. Sed Auctor noster, dum festina- ret, nec satis adtenderet, scripsit Eutro- pium, pro DroNE Cassro: hie enim, ubi loquitur de Publio Afranio Potito, et Atanio Secundo, qui Caligula zgroἠλπιζον παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ, ὡς καὶ ANTIYY- XOI οἱ ἀποθανεῖν ἠθελήσαντες, &c. Lib. nrx. pag. 741 m..Zd. H. Steph. Ceterum de re ipsa, ut et de voce, vide SaALMASIUM in Spartian. Hadrian. c. 14. et Clariss. CLERICUM, in Matth. xx. 23. post Hammondi Adnotat. «7. B.]
Ut alibi memorabimus] Libro rir. cap. iv. S 14.
tante juraverant sese mortem sponte quiesituros, si ille fato fungeretur, ita ait, " [/t lege Mosis] De qua vide Mai- monidem JZuctore Dubitantium 111. 40.
vate property, which is liable to be interfered with by the dominium eminens, which the state has for public purposes. If any thing of this kind is taken away from any one on account of the fault of another, it is not properly a punishment, but the execution of a pre-existing right, which was in the hands of him who takes the precarious right away. And inasmuch as brutes are not capable of punishment, when a beast is put to death, as in the case provided for in the law of Moses, this is not really punishment, but the exercise of human dominion over the beast.
XII. Having premised these distinctions, we say that no one inno- cent of delicet can be punished for the delict of another. But the true reason of this, is not that which is given by Paulus, that punish- ment is instituted for the amendment of men: for it would seem that an example may be made even extraneously to a man's own person, in a person whose welfare affects him, as we shall soon have to shew: but because liability to punishment arises from desert: and desert is a personal quality, since it must have its origin in the will, than which nothing is more peculiarly ours: it is, as we may say, sel/-causing.
Levit. xviii.
Pan.
Epist. 3. de morte Nepot.
368 DE PO:NARUM COMMUNICATIONE. [Lax. II.
est personale, quippe ex voluntate ortum habens, qua nihil est magis nobis proprium, unde αὐτεξούσιον vocatur.
XIIL. 1 Neque virtutes, neque vitia parentum, inquit Hieronymus, liberis imputantur. Augustinus vero, Jeus, p 98d. fom. ait,?pse foret injustus, δὲ quenquam dammaret innoxium.
Epist. 105. (aut potius 106, ubi ta- men verba non eadem.) Immo Jovis.
panis.
Lib. ii. de leg. spec. p.
L. Sancimus, Tum, ubi et noxa, est.
Dion Chrysostomus oratione ultima, cum sanetione Athenien- sium adjecta Solonis legibus devoveri posteros dixisset, de Dei lege haec subjicit: πλὴν παῖδας καὶ γένος οὐκ ἐπέξει- σιν, ὡς ἐκεῖ, τῶν ἁμαρτανόντων᾽ ἀλλ᾽ ἕκαστος αὑτῷ γί- νεται τῆς ἀτυχίας αἴτιος" verum, hec non, ut. illa, liberos et posteros peccantium punit: sed sibi quisque fit infortuni causa. Et hue ilud vulgatum pertinet: noxa caput sequi- tur. Sancimus, aiunt Imperatores Christiani, ibi esse pe- Deinde: peccata igitur suos teneant auctores: nec ulterius progrediatur metus, quam reperiatur delictum.
2 Justum est, "ait Philo, eorum esse pcenas quorum sunt peccata; reprehendens morem n Ait Philo] Idem libro de Pietate, [Immo de NNobilitate, pag. 910. in fin. Confudit Auctor, lapsu memoriz, εὐσέ- βειαν cum εὐγενείᾳ. ] ἧς οὐκ dv οἵδ᾽ εἴτις βλαβερωτέρα γένοιτ᾽ ἂν εἰσήγησις, εἰ μήτε τοῖς ἐξ ἀγαθῶν πονηρευομένοις ἐπακολουθήσει τιμωρὸς δίκη, οὔτε τοῖς ἐκ πονηρῶν ἀγαθοῖς ἔρχεται uu), τοῦ νόμου δικαάζοντος ἕκαστον αὐτὸν ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ μι συγγενῶν ἀρεταῖς ἐπαινοῦν- Tos ἢ (addendum hic κακίαις) κολαζον - quarundam gentium qus {γτος" haud scio an possit ullum pejus in- duci institutum, quam si nec malos e bonis genitos sequetur pena, nec honos habebitur bonis qui ex malis parentibus nati sunt. Aliter lez que de suis actio- nibus quemque judicat, non ex cognato- rum virtutibus laudat, aut ex eorundem vitiis punit. Josephus (Ant. Jud. xin. cap. xiv. $ 2. secundum divis. Hudson.) contrarium factum in rege Judzorum Alexandro vocat ὑπὲρ ἄνθρωπον δίκην, XIII.
1 JNVeither the virtues nor the vices of. parents, says Jerome, are imputed to the children: and Augustine, God would be unjust if he condemned. an innocent person. Dio Chrysostom says of the law of God, speaking on the occasion of Solon's law, by which the chil- dren were stigmatised; zhis law does not, like that, punish the children of criminals; in this, every one is his own cause of suffering. And hence the rule, Noca caput sequitur, Punishment is personal. | So the Christian Emperors direct.
2 It is just, says Philo, that those should have the penalty who had the sin: reprehending the manner of some nations which punished with death the children of traitors or tyrants. The same custom is blamed* also by Dionysius, who shews that the reason sometimes * No, says Barbeyrac: Dionysius leaves the matter undecided. Lib. vii. c. 80.
See the place, Car. XXI] DE PO:£NARUM. COMMUNICATIONE. 369 rannorum aut proditorum insontes liberos morte puniebant. Quem reprehendit!et Dionysius Halicarnassensis, ostenditque iniquam esse rationem quz» obtenditur, quod parentibus similes futuri putantur, cum id incertum sit, nec incertus metus ad mortem eujusquam sufficere debeat. Nescio quis Christiano Imperatori Arcadio ausus est hoc dictare, debuisse paterno r5 i.c. perire supplicio, in quibus paterni criminis exempla metuun- "4j. tur: et Ammianus narrat interemtam sobolem, parvam etiam Liv. i tum, ne ad parentum evxempla succresceret. Nec magis justa causa metus ultionis, unde natum est Grzcum prover- Viet. de Jure bium: Desipit occidens patrem qui pignora servat.
9 At Seneca: nihil est iniquius quam aliquem heredem Sev Liv. i. paterni odii fieri. Attagini, qui Thebanis ad Medos defici- endi auctor fuerat, liberos nullo malo affecit Pausanias Grz- corum Imperator, φὰς TOU Μηδισμοῦ παῖδας οὐδὲν εἶναι Herod. ix.97. μεταιτίους" dicens illos extra, culpam esse partium Medi- earum. Marcus Antoninus in epistola ad Senatum: ^quare exactionem pene que humanum excedit — Vulcatium vita Avidii, (cap. 12.) Lau- modum, Ovidius: dat parem Constantii humanitatem Ju- Illic immeritam maternz pendere linguz lianus: (Orat. 11. p.100, 101. Ed. Spanh.) Andromedam pcenas injustus jusserat Am- — ostenditque sepe ex malis parentibus mon. bonos venisse liberos, sicut e saxis apes (Metam. Lib. rv. vers. 668.) evolant, e ligno amaro nascuntur ficus, Mi-ime reprehendit, sed in medio 6 spinis prodit pomum Punicum. Ejus- relinquit, utrum mos ille sit justus, an dem hac sunt: ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν παῖδα injustus. Inspice locum, Lib. virt. c. τεῦ τετελευτηκότος [τετολμηκότος 80. J. B. habent Edd.] νήπιον κομιδῆ τῆς πα- ο Quare filiis Avidii Cassii] Vide στρώας οὐδὲν εἴασας μετασχεῖν ζημίας.
given is fallacious, that the children will probably be like their parents; since that is uncertain, and an uncertain fear ought not to cause any oné's death. Some Christian did venture to advise the emperor Ar- cadius, that these ought to suffer the same punishment as their parents, in whom the repetition of their parents crime was feared: and Am- mianus relates that a family was put to death, even at an early age, that they might not grow wp to be like their parents. Nor is fear of revenge à more just cause of such proceeding, notwithstanding the Greek proverb, Wo kills the sire and spares the son is mad.
3 Seneca on the other hand says, Nothing is more unjust than to make a man the heir of his father's odium. When Attagines was the means of the Thebans deserting to the Medes, Pausanias did not harm his children: they had had nothing to do with Medizing, he said. M. Antoninus, in an epistle to the senate, wrote, You will pardon the wife 21 [GRor. ir.]
370 DE POENARUM. COMMUNICATIONE. [118. II.
filiis Avidii Cassii (is in eum conjuraverat) et genero et ucori veniam dabitis..Et quid dico veniam, cwm illi nihil fecerint?
Exod. xx. 5. XIV. 1 Deus quidem in lege Hebrzis data paternam impietatem in posteros se vindieaturum minatur: sed ipse jus dominii plenissimum habet, ut in res nostras, ita in vitam nostram, ut munus suum, quod sine ulla causa et quovis tem- pore auferre cuivis quando vult potest. Igitur si morte im- Jo.vi.9A matura ae violenta rapit liberos Acanis, Saulis, Jeroboami, iix — Achabi, Pin ipsos jure dominii, non ponz, utitur, sed eodem DEG facto gravius punit parentes. Nam sive superstites sunt, quod maxime spectavit lex divina, atque ideo lex minas istas 7ultra abnepotes non extendit, Exod. xx. 5, quia ad eorum conspectum pertingere potest humana etas: certum est pa- rentes puniri tali spectaculo: gravius enim id illis quam quod Homil.9).i» jpsi ferunt: ut a Chrysostomo recte dicitur, quicum consen- 9. Gen. Tom.
DAL 86 Plutaechus, οὐ λυποῦσα μᾶλλον ἑτέρα κόλασις ἢ τοὺς "int 93^ ἐξ ἑαυτῶν κακὰ πάσχοντας δὶ αὐτοὺς ὁρᾷν" nullum du- rius supplicium, quam eos qui ex se sunt ob se miseros οὕτω σοι πρὸς ἐπιείκειαν ἡ πρᾶξις pé- — utitur] Haec est sententia Rabbini Si- πουσα τελείας ἀρετῆς ὑπάρχει γνώ- X meonis Barsema, longe verissima. ρισμα" etiam mortui filiuminfantem ad- 4 Ultra abnepotes non extendit] Ex- modum non sivisti pena, paterna impli- ^ empla habes in Zimri et Jehu, cari; ita, tua agendi ratio ad lenitatem r {7 vel posteritatibus suis prospici- semper vergens perfecte virtutis est tes- — entes legi divine obedirent] Alexander timonium. (Orat.1i. infin. pag. 49 4.) apud Curtium libro vir. Non oporte- P [n ipsos jure dominii non pane bat vos scire quid de his statuissem, quo and the son-in-law of Avidius Cassius (who had conspired against him). But why do I say pardon, when they have committed no offense?
XIV. 1 God indeed, in the law which he gave the Hebrews, threatens that he will visit the impiety of the fathers upon their pos- terityY. But God has the most plenary right of dominion, as over our goods, so over our lives, as his gift; which he may take away from any one, whenever he will, and without any cause. If, there- fore, he takes away, by an untimely and violent death, the children of Achan, Saul, Jeroboam, Ahab, he uses towards them his right of dominion, not of punishment; but by the act, he more grievously punishes the parents, For if tbey outlive their children, which is the case that the divine law principally regards; (and therefore the law does not extend its threatenings beyond great grandchildren, Exod. xx. 5: because the common age of man allows him to see them;) it is certain that then they are punished by such a spectacle; for that is Ι -I Car. XXI.] DE POGENARUM COMMUNICATIONE. 9 spectare: sive non eousque provivunt, tamen cum eo metu occidere magnum est supplicium. —.Duritig populi, inquit Tertullianus, ad talia remedia, compulerat, "ut vel posterita- Aav. Marc. tibus suis prospicientes legi divine obedirent. 2 Sed simul notandum est, hac graviore vindicta non uti Deum, nisi adversus scelera proprie in suam contumeliam per- petrata, ut falsos cultus, perjurium, sacrilegia. Nec aliter Grzci existimarunt: nam quze crimina credita sunt posterita- tem obstringere, *quze ἄγη ipsi vocant, omnia istius sunt gene- ris: quo de argumento facunde disserit Plutarchus, libro de sera Numinis vindicta. Exstat 'apud /Elianum oraculum tale Delphicum: At scelerum fontes divinum persequitur jus, Nec pote vitari; non si genus ab Jove ducant: Sed capiti ipsorum quique enascuntur ab ipsis . Imminet; inque domo cladem subit altera clades. " Agebatur autem ibi de sacrilegio: quod et historia comprobat auri Tholosani apud Strabonem et Gellium. De perjurio similes Li».is. nos.
sententias supra adduximus.
tristiores perirctis. (Cap. 8.)
s Que ἄγη ipsi vocant] Vide Plu- tarchum Pericle: ('Tom. 1. pag. 170 a.) et quz supra dicta hoc libro c. xiii. S 1.
t Apud ZElianum] Libro rrr. 43.
" Agebatur autem ibi de sacrilegio] Ut et Libanius: ὧν oi μὲν ἔδοσαν ἤδη δίκην, οἱ δὲ οὔπω μέν. οὐκ ἔστι δὲ ὅτε Deinde vero, etsi id comminatus αὐτοὺς ἐξαιρήσεται. λέγω δὲ αὐτοὺς καὶ παῖδας, λέγω καὶ τοὺς ἐξ ἐκείνων" quorum alii jam penas dedere, alii non- dum quidem, sed nemo eos pena eximet: nec ipsos tantum dico, sed et liberos et ex iis nascituros. Similia habet idem Li- banius oratione quam edidit Gotho- fredus.
more grievous to them than what they themselves suffer, as Chrysos- tom says; or if they do not live so long, still, to die with such a fear hanging over them, is a great punishment. 7e peoples hard- ness of heart, as "Tertullian says, led to such remedies, that they eight obey the divine law, even out of regard for their posterity.
2 But it is to be noted, at the same time, that God does not make use of this heavier kind of punishment, except towards offenses especi- ally tending to his dishonour, as false worship, perjury, sacrilege. Nor did the Greeks judge otherwise; for the crimes which were supposed to entail a curse on posterity, are all of this kind; as Plutarch learnedly shews in his book On the procrastinated anger of the gods. In Elian, we have an oracle which says that the guilty cannot escape, but that ven- geance follows them and their posterity. But there, sacrilege was in question, as is proved by the history of the Thelosan gold. We have above adduced similar opinions concerning perjury. Moreover, though God has threatened this, he does not always use his power, especially if Deut. xxiv.
372 DE POENARUM COMMUNICATIONE. [118. II.
est Deus, non tamen semper eo jure utitur, maxime si "insignis quzedam virtus in liberis eluceat, ut videre est Ezech. cap. xviii. et exemplis quibusdam a Plutarcho dicto loco probatur.
9 Et cum in novo federe apertius quam olim declarata sint supplicia, qu: impios post hane vitam manent, *ideo in eo federe nulla exstat comminatio personas peccantium egrediens; quo precipue, quanquam minus aperte, ut mos est vatibus, spectat dicta jam Ezechielis oratio. Factum autem illud Dei hominibus imitari non licet: neque par ratio est, quia, ut jam diximus, Deus sine culpz intuitu jus habet in vitam; homines non nisi ex gravi culpa, et quidem quz personz sit propria.
4 Quare eadem illa divina lex, ut parentes pro liberis, ita ob parentum facta liberos mortis poena affici vetat: quam legem "pii reges etiam in perduellibus secuti leguntur: eamque legem X Insignis quedam virtus] Et pub- lica paterni criminis detestatio, qualem fecit Andronicus Palzologus Imperator, apud Gregoram libro vr. pag. 81. (Ed. Colon, seu Genev. 1616.)
Y Ideo in eo federe nulla exstat com- minatio personas peccantium egrediens] 'TTertulllanus de JMonogamia: desivit uva, acerba a patribus manducata, den- tes filiorum obstupefacere: unusquisque enim in suo delicto morietur. (Cap. 7.)
τ Pii reges] Ut Amasias (1r. Reg.
? Nil de tali lege apud IsocRATEM, in laudatione Busiridis, ad quam Auctor nos remittit, nec alibi quod sciam: immo de illa silere video eos, qui ex pro- fesso mores et leges 7Egyptiorum col- legerunt, e. g. BoECLERUM, Tom. rr. Dissert. xxiii; MARsHAMUM, in Canone Chronico, &c. Occasionem errori de- derunt verba ista, οὐδὲ eis τοὺς παῖδας ἀναβληθήσεσθαι τὰς τιμωρίας, etc. quae leguntur pag. 226 c. Ed. H. Steph. Sed ubi agitur de vindicta divina, quam putabant ZEgyptii non differri, ut posthe children turn out eminently virtuous; as see Ezek. xviii, and as Plutarch proves by examples.
3 And since, in the New Testament, the punishments are declared more clearly than before, which await the wicked after this life; therefore in that law there is no threatening of punishment which goes beyond the persons of the offenders: to which especially, though less openly, as the manner of the prophets is, that prophecy of Eze- kiellooks. But this fact on the part of God is not to be imitated by men; nor is the reason alike: because, as we have said, God has a right over men's lives without regarding their faults: but men have such a right only on the ground of a graver fault, and one which belongs especially to the person.
4 Wherefore the same divine law, as it forbids parents to be capi- tally punished for their children, so does it forbid children to be so punished for their parents. And this law pious kings have observed, even with regard to their open enemies; and the rule is greatly praised by Josephus and Philo, as also a similar law of Egypt by Iso- CAr. XXI] DE PQ2NARUM COMMUNICATIONE. 9.19 valde laudant Josephus et Philo, ut et similem. 7Egyptiam Liv. Gsn. ?]socrates, οὐ Romanam * Dionysius Halicarnassensis. Platonis ii» 501, Ἢ est πατρὸς ὀνείδη καὶ τιμωρίας παίδων οὐδενὶ ξυνέπεσθαι. ΠΝ Quod Latine ita exprimit Callistratus Jurisconsultus: crimen p 9 »- vel pena paterna nullam maculam filio infligere potest. Ad- Eus P" dita causa: namque unusquisque ev suo admisso sorti subjicitur, nec alieni criminis successor constituitur. |.Ferretne, inquit Cicero, u//a civitas latorem istiusmodi legis, ut. con- demnetur filius aut nepos, si pater aut avus deliquissent? Hine faetum ut Pprsegnantem mulierem mortis supplicio affi- cere nefas habitum sit? /Egyptiorum, * Grzecorum, et ^ Roma- Lib. iii. de nat. Deor. c.
ea $e norum legibus.
XV. Quod si injustz leges humanz, quz liberos occidunt ob parentum delicta, injustior sane lex Persarum et Macedoteri demum illam experirentur. J. 8.
à Dionysius Halicarnassensis| Qui sic ait Lib. vir. (c. 80) τὸ ἔθος τοῦτο Ῥωμαίοις ἐπιχώριον γέγονεν, ἀφεῖσθαι τῆς τιμωρίας ὡπάσης τοὺς παῖδας, ὧν ἂν οἱ πατέρες ἀδικήσωσι" mos ille Ro- manis proprius, a, pena omni liberos ex- imere quorum parentes deliquerunt. Ha- bet idem 7ez Wisigotthica libro vt. tit. 1. cap.8. [Non aperte laudat morem il- lum Dionysius Halicarnassensis, ut jam observavimus, et ex inspectione loci pa- tebit. J. B.]
b Pregnantem mulierem mortis sup- plicio afficere nefas habitum] Laudat Philo libro de Hwmanitate, (pag. 710.)
^ Proter Zistoricum Grecum, modo laudatum, vide PnLuTARCHUM, Je sera Numinis vindicta, pag. 552 pn. 'T'om. rr. Ed. Wech. et /ErraNuM, Var. Hist. Lib. v. cap. 18. J. B.
ς Romanorum] L. Imperator Adri- anus, 18. D. de statu hominum. 1. pr:eg- nantis, 3. D. de panis.
Dan. vi. 94. ust. x. 2.
crates, and one of Rome by Dionysius*. And it is one of Plato's Laws, that the ignominy and punishment of the father are not to fall upon the children. $So Callistratus the Jurist, adding the reason, that a man does not succeed to the crimes of another. Would amy city, asks Cicero, have a law condemning the son or grandson for the delinquencies of the father or grandfather? Mence to put to death a pregnant woman was held inadmissible by the laws of the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans.
XV. Butif those human laws are unjust which put to death chil- dren for the offenses of their fathers, still more unjust was the law of the Medes and Persians, which devoted to destruction the lives of the relatives of the criminal, in order that death might be more bitter to those who had offended against the king, as Curtius speaks; a law which surpasses all others in cruelty, as Ammianus Marcellinus says.
XVI. "This, however, is to be noted, that if the children of ene- mies have anything which is not their own, but of which the right * See Barbeyrac's corrections of these references.
Lib. viii. 8. Lib. xxiii. 6.
9 Ὁ. De Pan.
914 DE POENARUM COMMUNICATIONE. [Lar. II.
num *devovens et propinquorum capita, quo qui in regem peccarant tristiores perirent, ut Curtius loquitur: eujus legis diritate exsuperari lezes omnes scripsit * Ammianus Marcellinus.
XVI. Illud tamen est notandum, siquid habeant aut ex- spectare possint perduellium liberi, in quod jus proprium fit non ipsis, sed populo aut regi, id auferri ipsis posse jure quo- dam dominii, cujus tamen usus simulin pcenam redundet eorum qui peccaverint. Huc refer quod 5Antiphanis ut proditoris posteri ἄτιμοι ἐνεγράφησαν, narrante Plutarcho, id est f/ono- ribus prohibiti sunt, ut Roms liberi a Sulla proscriptorum. Sie in dieta Arcadii lege illud tolerabile in liberos: ad nullos honores, ad. nulla. sacramenta, perveniant. Servitus autem quomodo et quatenus in liberos sine injuria transeat, alibi a nobis est, explicatum.
XVII. 1 Quod de liberis malo afficiendis ob parentum delicta diximus, idem aptari potest et ad populum vere subdi- tum: (nam qui subditus non est, ex sua culpa, id est ex neg- 4 Devovens et propinquorum capita) Philo morem esse tyrannis dixit cum damnatis una tollere quinque familias eis proximas. "Vide Herodianum libro in. Et exemplum Mediolanense oc- ciso Galeatio apud Bizarum Lib. xiv. [Locus Philonis legitur Lib. r1. De Spe- cialib. Legg. pag. 802 n. sed inspicienti patebit, sensum ejus valde mutatum fu- isse ab Auctore nostro. llle etiam, aut exscriptor, sine dubio posuit heic Heroperitur, pro HrERoporo, qui Lib. rrr. cap. 119. narrat, Intaphernem, cum li- beris et universa familia, capite damna- tum fuisse a Dario, secundum Persarum morem. J. B.]
€ Ammianus Marcellinus] Abomi- nandas leges vocat. Vide et Concilium 'Toletanum rv. s 5 fta omnes Editiones: sed legen- dum Antiphontis. Vide locum Prv- TARCHI, Vit. x. Rhetor. pag. 833 A.
dianum, apud quem nil huc faciens re- — Tom. 11. J. B.