University of Virginia Library

Search this document 
  
expand section 
  
expand section 
  

expand section1. 
expand section2. 
expand section3. 
expand section4. 
expand section5. 
expand section6. 
expand section7. 
expand section8. 
expand section9. 
expand section10. 
expand section11. 
expand section12. 
expand section13. 
expand section14. 
expand section15. 
expand section16. 
expand section17. 
expand section18. 
expand section19. 
expand section20. 
expand section21. 
expand section22. 
expand section23. 
expand section24. 
expand section25. 
expand section26. 
expand section27. 
expand section28. 
expand section29. 
collapse section30. 
expand section30.1. 
expand section30.2. 
expand section30.3. 
expand section30.4. 
 30.5. 
 30.6. 
expand section30.7. 
expand section30.8. 
expand section30.9. 
expand section30.10. 
expand section30.11. 
collapse section30.12. 
  
  
expand section30.13. 
expand section30.14. 
expand section30.15. 
expand section30.16. 
expand section30.17. 
expand section30.18. 
expand section30.19. 
expand section30.20. 
expand section30.21. 
expand section30.22. 
 30.23. 
expand section30.24. 
expand section30.25. 
expand section31. 

7.11. 11. In what Manner the Institutions changed at Rome,
together with the Government.

As manners were supported by the domestic tribunal, they were also supported by the public accusation; and hence it is that these two things fell together with the public manners, and ended with the republic. [23]

The establishing of perpetual questions, that is, the division of jurisdiction among the prætors, and the custom gradually introduced of the prætors determining all causes themselves, [24] weakened the use of the domestic tribunal. This appears by the surprise of historians, who look upon the decisions which Tiberius caused to be given by this tribunal as singular facts, and as a renewal of the ancient course of pleading.

The establishment of monarchy and the change of manners put likewise an end to public accusations. It might be apprehended lest a dishonest man, affronted at the slight shown him by a woman, vexed at her refusal, and irritated even by her virtue, should form a design to destroy her. The Julian law ordained that a woman should not be accused of adultery till after her husband had been charged with favouring her irregularities; which limited greatly, and annihilated, as it were, this sort of accusation. [25] Sextus Quintus seemed to have been desirous of reviving the public accusations. [26] But there needs very little reflection to see that this law would be more improper in such a monarchy as his than in any other.

Footnotes

[23]

Judicio de moribus (quod antea quidem in antiquis legibus positum erat, non autem frequentabatur) penitus abolito. Leg. 11. "Cod. de repud."

[24]

Judicia extraordinaria.

[25]

It was entirely abolished by Constantine: "It is a shame," said he, "that settled marriages should be disturbed by the presumption of strangers."

[26]

Sextus Quintus ordained, that if a husband did not come and make his complaint to him of his wife's infidelity, he should be put to death. See Leti, Life of Sextus V.