按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
By another law of Valentinian； Theodosius； and Arcadius；＇23＇ false coiners are declared guilty of high treason。 But is not this confounding the ideas of things？ Is not the very horror of high treason diminished by giving that name to another crime？
9。 The same Subject continued。 Paulinus having written to the Emperor Alexander that 〃he was preparing to prosecute for high treason a judge who had decided contrary to his edict；〃 the emperor answered； 〃that under his reign there was no such thing as indirect high treason。〃＇24＇
Faustinian wrote to the same emperor that as he had sworn by the prince's life never to pardon his slave； he found himself thereby obliged to perpetuate his wrath； lest he should incur the guilt of l？sa majestas。 Upon which the emperor made answer； 〃Your fears are groundless；＇25＇ and you are a stranger to my principles。〃
It was determined by a senatus…consultum＇26＇ that whosoever melted down any of the emperor's statues which happened to be rejected should not be deemed guilty of high treason。 The Emperors Severus and Antoninus wrote to Pontius＇27＇ that those who sold unconsecrated statues of the emperor should not be charged with high treason。 The same princes wrote to Julius Cassianus that if a person in flinging a stone should by chance strike one of the emperor's statues he should not be liable to a prosecution for high treason。＇28＇ The Julian law requires this sort of limitations； for in virtue of this law the crime of high treason was charged not only upon those who melted down the emperor's statues； but likewise on those who committed any such like action；＇29＇ which made it an arbitrary crime。 When a number of crimes of l？sa majestas had been established； they were obliged to distinguish the several sorts。 Hence Ulpian； the civilian； after saying that the accusation of l？sa majestas did not die with the criminal； adds that this does not relate to all the treasonable acts established by the Julian law；＇30＇ but only to that which implies an attempt against the empire； or against the emperor's life。
10。 The same Subject continued。 There was a law passed in England under Henry VIII； by which whoever predicted the king's death was declared guilty of high treason。 This law was extremely vague； the terror of despotic power is so great that it recoils upon those who exercise it。 In this king's last illness； the physicians would not venture to say he was in danger； and surely they acted very right。＇31＇
11。 Of Thoughts。 Marsyas dreamed that he had cut Dionysius's throat。＇32＇ Dionysius put him to death； pretending that he would never have dreamed of such a thing by night if he had not thought of it by day。 This was a most tyrannical action： for though it had been the subject of his thoughts； yet he had made no attempt＇33＇ towards it。 The laws do not take upon them to punish any other than overt acts。
12。 Of indiscreet Speeches。 Nothing renders the crime of high treason more arbitrary than declaring people guilty of it for indiscreet speeches。 Speech is so subject to interpretation； there is so great a difference between indiscretion and malice； and frequently so little is there of the latter in the freedom of expression； that the law can hardly subject people to a capital punishment for words unless it expressly declares what words they are。＇34＇
Words do not constitute an overt act； they remain only in idea。 When considered by themselves； they have generally no determinate signification； for this depends on the tone in which they are uttered。 It often happens that in repeating the same words they have not the same meaning； this depends on their connection with other things； and sometimes more is signified by silence than by any expression whatever。 Since there can be nothing so equivocal and ambiguous as all this； how is it possible to convert it into a crime of high treason？ Wherever this law is established； there is an end not only of liberty； but even of its very shadow。
In the manifesto of the late Czarina against the family of the D'Olgoruckys；＇35＇ one of these princes is condemned to death for having uttered some indecent words concerning her person： another； for having maliciously interpreted her imperial laws； and for having offended her sacred person by disrespectful expressions。
Not that I pretend to diminish the just indignation of the public against those who presume to stain the glory of their sovereign； what I mean is that； if despotic princes are willing to moderate their power； a milder chastisement would be more proper on those occasions than the charge of high treason a thing always terrible even to innocence itself。＇36＇
Overt acts do not happen every day； they are exposed to the eye of the public； and a false charge with regard to matters of fact may be easily detected。 Words carried into action assume the nature of that action。 Thus a man who goes into a public market…place to incite the subject to revolt incurs the guilt of high treason； because the words are joined to the action； and partake of its nature。 It is not the words that are punished； but an action in which words are employed。 They do not become criminal； but when they are annexed to a criminal action： everything is confounded if words are construed into a capital crime； instead of considering them only as a mark of that crime。
The Emperors Theodosius； Arcadius； and Honorius wrote thus to Rufinus； who was pr？fectus pr？torio： 〃Though a man should happen to speak amiss of our person or government； we do not intend to punish him：＇37＇ if he has spoken through levity； we must despise him； if through folly； we must pity him； and if he wrongs us； we must forgive him。 Therefore； leaving things as they are； you are to inform us accordingly； that we may be able to judge of words by persons； and that we may duly consider whether we ought to punish or overlook them。〃
13。 Of Writings。 In writings there is something more permanent than in words； but when they are in no way preparative to high treason they cannot amount to that charge。
And yet Augustus and Tiberius subjected satirical writers to the same punishment as for having violated the law of maiestas。 Augustus；＇38＇ because of some libels that had been written against persons of the first quality； Tiberius； because of those which he suspected to have been written against himself。 Nothing was more fatal to Roman liberty。 Cremutius Cordus was accused of having called Cassius in his annals the last of the Romans。＇39＇
Satirical writings are hardly known in despotic governments； where dejection of mind on the one hand； and ignorance on the other； afford neither abilities nor will to write。 In democracies they are not hindered； for the very same reason which causes them to be prohibited in monarchies； being generally levelled against men of power and authority； they flatter the malignancy of the people； who are the governing party。 In monarchies they are forbidden； but rather as a subject of civil animadversion than as a capital crime。 They may amuse the general malevolence； please the malcontents； diminish the envy against public employments； give the people patience to suffer； and make them laugh at their sufferings。
But no government is so averse t