De Specialibus Legibus (lib. i‑iv)

On which account those cities which enjoy the best codes of laws elect double superintendents, and rulers, and providers of a common regularity and safety; one class to manage within the walls, whom they call curators of the city; the others without the walls, to whom also they give an appropriate name, for they call them agrarian magistrates. But what need could there be of agrarian magistrates if there were not some persons in the fields living only for the injury of their neighbours?

If, therefore, any shepherd or goatherd, or oxherd, or in short any manager of any kind of cattle, drives his herds to feed and pasture upon another man’s land, sparing neither crops nor trees, he shall pay a fine equal to the value of those crops and trees.

And he may be very well content to escape with this punishment, having met with a very merciful and exceedingly indulgent law, which, though he has adopted the conduct of implacable foreign enemies, who are accustomed to lay waste the lands and to destroy the cultivated trees of the inhabitants, has, nevertheless, not chastised him as a common enemy, inflicting upon him death, or exile, or of, lastly, a confiscation of all his property; but has merely sentenced him to make good the damage done to the owner.

For as the lawgiver was always seeking pretexts by which to lighten whatever misfortunes have been suffered by reason of the excessive gentleness and humanity which he derived from nature and from habit, he found an excuse for the shepherd on the ground that the nature of cattle was inconsiderate and disobedient, and especially so when in pursuit of food.

Let the shepherd, then, be guilty, as having originally driven his herd into an unsuitable place, but still let him not bear the blame of every thing that has ensued from his doing so. For it is natural to suppose that, as soon as he

And not only do those men do damage who devour the property of others with their flocks and herds, but so also do those who inconsiderately and carelessly kindle a fire; for if the power of fire catches hold of any appropriate fuel, it spreads in every direction, and extends and devours all around. And when it has once got ahead it defies all the means of extinguishing it which any one seeks to apply, taking the very things employed for that purpose as food for its increase, until having consumed every thing it is at last exhausted by itself.

It is right, therefore, never to leave any fire either in a house or in any stables in the fields unguarded, since we well know that a single spark has often smouldered long, and at last has been fanned into a flame, and so has consumed great cities, especially when the flame has been borne onwards by a favourable wind.

Accordingly, in savage wars the first, the middle, and the last power which is excited is that of fire, to which the enemies trust more than they do to their squadrons of infantry, or cavalry, or to their fleets, or to their unlimited supplies of arms and naval stores. For if any one with good aim shoots a fiery arrow among a numerous squadron of ships he may burn it with all the crews, or he may thus destroy vast camps with all their baggage, and furniture, and equipments, on which the army rested its hopes of victory.

If, then, any one scatters fire among a heap of brambles or thorns, and the fire kindles and burns a threshing floor full of wheat, or barley, or vetches, or sheaves of corn which have been gathered together, or any fertile plain full of pasture, then the man who scattered the fire shall pay the amount of the damage done, in order that by his suffering he may learn to take good care and to guard against the

A deposit is the most sacred of all those things which relate to the associations of men with regard to property, inasmuch as it depends upon the good faith alone of the man who has received it. For loans are proved by contracts and writings, and things which, independent of loans, are openly used, have all the persons who see them for witnesses.

But this is not the case with deposits, but the owner by _ himself gives them privily to the man who receives them by himself, looking carefully round the place, and not even taking a slave with him for the purpose of carrying the thing to be deposited, even though he be ever so affectionate to his master; for each of the two parties appears to be anxious to avoid discovery; the one depositing the thing in order to receive it again, and the other being desirous not to be known to have received it. But we ought by all means to look upon the invisible God as an unseen third party to every concealed action, whom it is natural to make as a witness for both parties; the receiver calling him to witness that he will restore the deposit when it is demanded back from him, and the other making him to see that he receives it back at the proper time.

Let, then, the man who commits this great wickedness and denies his deposit not be ignorant that he has deceived him who committed it to him of his hope, and that he is concealing a wicked disposition under specious language, and that he is hypocritically pretending a bastard sort of faith while in reality faithless, showing that all his pledges are worthless and all his oaths disregarded, so that he [*]( This resembles Ovid— Principiis obsta, sero medicina paratur, Cum mala per longas invaluere moras, Which may be translated— Check the first rise: all remedy’s too late When long delay has made the mischief great.)

But if the man who has received a deposit as a sacred thing thinks that he ought to keep it without fraud, duly honouring truth and good faith, but yet others who are always plotting against their neighbours’ property, such as cutpurses or housebreakers, break in treacherously and steal the deposit so entrusted, then he shall pay as a penalty double the value of what has been stolen by the thieves.

And if they are not taken, then the man who received the deposit shall go of his own accord before the divine tribunal, and stretching out his hands to heaven shall swear by his own life that he himself had no hand in the theft from any desire to appropriate what had been deposited with him, and that he did not voluntarily give it up to any one else; and that, moreover, he is not making a false statement of a robbery which has never taken place. [*]( Exodus xxii, 7.) For it would be absurd to punish a man who has done no wrong, or for a man who had taken refuge in the assistance of a friend when he was being injured by others, now to become the cause of injury to that friend. ~

And deposits consist not only of inanimate things but also of animals: the danger of which last is twofold; first, that while they share in common with inanimate things in being liable to be stolen, and also one which is distinct and peculiar to themselves, that they are liable to die. We have hitherto been speaking only of the first kind of deposit, but we must now also explain the law about the second.

If now any cattle which have been entrusted as a deposit die, then he who has received the deposit shall send for him who committed it to him, and show him the matter, protecting himself from any evil suspicion; but if the depositor be absent, then it is not proper to send for any one else, whose notice perhaps the depositor might have been desirous to escape; but when the depositor returns home, his friend shall swear to him that he has not been concealing any [*]( Exodus xxii, 7.)

And if any one receives anything not as a deposit, but because he has borrowed it to use, whether it is a vessel or an animal; then if he be robbed of it, whichever it may be, or if the animal die, while the man who lent it is living with the borrower, the borrower shall not be liable, as the owner himself can be brought as a witness that there is no false pretence in the business; but if the lender be not with him at the time, he shall pay the value.

Why so? because it is possible that the man who used the animal when the owner was not present may have either worn him out by continual labour so as to kill him, or may have worn out the vessel, from not taking any care of the property of another of which he ought to have been careful, and to have put it away, and not to have given thieves an easy opportunity of stealing it.

But as our lawgiver was acute beyond all other men at discerning the consequences of actions, he proceeds to enact a series of prohibitions, one after another, preserving a due connection between them, and taking care that his later commandments shall be consistent with his earlier ones. And with this harmonious connection of what was to be said by him, he tells us that he was divinely inspired by the person of God speaking to him in this manner:— "Ye shall not steal. "Ye shall not speak falsely, and bring false accusations against your neighbour. "And ye shall not swear by my name to compass an unjust end, and ye shall not profane my name." [*]( Leviticus xix. 11.)

These injunctions are given with great beauty and very instructively; for the thief being convicted by his own conscience denies and speaks falsely, fearing the punishment which would ensue upon his confession. And he who denies an action seeks to attach the imputation to some one else, bringing a false accusation against him, and imagines devices: to make his false aceusation appear probable; and every false accuser is at once a perjured man, thinking but little of piety, since he has no just proofs; on which account he has recourse to what is called the inartificial mode of proof, that [*]( Leviticus xix. 11.)