CHAPTER II.

GREECE AND ROME.

The absence of torture from the codes of the elder Aryan races is not to be attributed to any inherent objection to its use, but rather to the employment of the ordeal, which in all ages formed part of their jurisprudence, and served as an unfailing resort in all doubtful cases. When we turn to the Aryans who established themselves in Europe and abandoned the ancestral custom of the ordeal, we find it at once replaced by the use of torture. Thus in Greece torture was thoroughly understood and permanently established. The oligarchical and aristocratic tendencies, however, which were so strongly developed in the Hellenic commonwealths, imposed upon it a limitation characteristic of the pride and self-respect of the governing order. As a general rule, no freeman could be tortured. Even freedmen enjoyed an exemption, and it was reserved for the unfortunate class of slaves, and for strangers who formed no part of the body politic. Yet there were exceptions, as among the Rhodians, whose laws authorized the torture of free citizens; and in other states it was occasionally resorted to, in the case of flagrant political offences; while the people, acting in their supreme and irresponsible authority, could at any time decree its application to any one irrespective of privilege. Thus, when Hipparchus was assassinated by Harmodius, Aristogiton was tortured to obtain a revelation of the plot, and several similar proceedings are related by Valerius Maximus as occurring among the Hellenic nations.[1383] The inhuman torments inflicted on Philotas, son of Parmenio, when accused of conspiracy against Alexander, show how little real protection existed when the safety of a despot was in question; and illustrations of torture decreed by the people are to be seen in the proceedings relative to the mutilation of the statues of Hermes, and in the proposition, on the trial of Phocion, to put him, the most eminent citizen of Athens, on the rack.

In a population consisting largely of slaves, who were generally of the same race as their masters, often men of education and intelligence and employed in positions of confidence, legal proceedings must frequently have turned upon their evidence, in both civil and criminal cases. Their evidence, however, was inadmissible, except when given under torture, and then, by a singular confusion of logic, it was estimated as the most convincing kind of testimony. Consequently, the torturing of slaves formed an important portion of the administration of Athenian justice. Either party to a suit might offer his slaves to the torturer or demand those of his opponent, and a refusal to produce them was regarded as seriously compromising. When both parties tendered their slaves, the judge decided as to which of them should be received. Even without bringing a suit into court, disputants could have their slaves tortured for evidence with which to effect an amicable settlement.

In formal litigation, the defeated suitor paid whatever damages his adversary’s slaves might have undergone at the hands of the professional torturer, who, as an expert in such matters, was empowered to assess the amount of depreciation that they had sustained. It affords a curious commentary on the high estimation in which such testimony was held to observe that, when a man’s slaves had testified against him on the rack, they were not protected from his subsequent vengeance, which might be exercised upon them without restriction.

As the laws of Greece passed away, leaving few traces on the institutions of other races, save on those of Rome, it will suffice to add that the principal modes in which torture was sanctioned by them were the wheel, the ladder or rack, the comb with sharp teeth, the low vault, in which the unfortunate patient was thrust and bent double, the burning tiles, the heavy hogskin whip, and the injection of vinegar into the nostrils.[1384]

In the earlier days of Rome, the general principles governing the administration of torture were the same as in Greece. Under the Republic, the free citizen was not liable to it, and the evidence of slaves was not received without it. With the progress of despotism, however, the safeguards which surrounded the freeman were broken down, and autocratic emperors had little scruple in sending their subjects to the rack.

Even as early as the second Triumvirate, a prætor named Q. Gallius, in saluting Octavius, chanced to have a double tablet under his toga. To the timid imagination of the future emperor, the angles of the tablet, outlined under the garment, presented the semblance of a sword, and he fancied Gallius to be the instrument of a conspiracy against his life. Dissembling his fears for the moment, he soon caused the unlucky prætor to be seized while presiding at his own tribunal, and, after torturing him like a slave without extracting a confession, put him to death.[1385]

The incident was ominous of the future, when all the powers of the state were concentrated in the august person of the emperor. He was the representative and embodiment of the limitless sovereignty of the people, whose irresponsible authority was transferred to him. The rules and formularies which had regulated the exercise of power, so long as it belonged to the people, were feeble barriers to the passions and fears of Cæsarism. Accordingly, a principle soon became engrafted in Roman jurisprudence that, in all cases of _crimen majestatis_, or high treason, the free citizen could be tortured. In striking at the ruler he had forfeited all rights, and the safety of the state, as embodied in the emperor, was to be preserved at every sacrifice.

The emperors were not long in discovering and exercising their power. When the plot of Sejanus was discovered, the historian relates that Tiberius abandoned himself so entirely to the task of examining by torture the suspected accomplices of the conspiracy, that when an old Rhodian friend, who had come to visit him on a special invitation, was announced to him, the preoccupied tyrant absently ordered him to be placed on the rack, and on discovering the blunder had him quietly put to death, to silence all complaints. The shuddering inhabitants pointed out a spot in Capri where he indulged in these terrible pursuits, and where the miserable victims of his wrath were cast into the sea before his eyes, after having exhausted his ingenuity in exquisite torments.[1386] When the master of the world took this fearful delight in human agony, it may readily be imagined that law and custom offered little protection to the defenceless subject, and Tiberius was not the only one who relished these inhuman pleasures. The half-insane Caligula found that the torture of criminals by the side of his dinner-table lent a keener zest to his revels, and even the timid and the beastly Claudius made it a point to be present on such occasions.[1387]

Under the stimulus of such hideous appetites, capricious and irresponsible cruelty was able to give a wide extension to the law of treason. If victims were wanted to gratify the whims of the monarch or the hate of his creatures, it was easy to find an offender or to make a crime. Under Tiberius, a citizen removed the head from a statue of Augustus, intending to replace it with another. Interrogated before the Senate, he prevaricated, and was promptly put to the torture. Encouraged by this, the most fanciful interpretation was given to violations of the respect assumed to be due to the late emperor. To undress one’s self or to beat a slave near his image; to carry into a latrine or a house of ill fame a coin or a ring impressed with his sacred features; to criticize any act or word of his became a treasonable offence; and finally an unlucky wight was actually put to death for allowing the slaves on his farm to pay him honors on the anniversary which had been sacred to Augustus.[1388]

So, when it suited the waning strength of paganism to wreak its vengeance for anticipated defeat upon the rising energy of Christianity, it was easy to include the new religion in the convenient charge of treason, and to expose its votaries to all the horrors of ingenious cruelty. If Nero desired to divert from himself the odium of the conflagration of Rome, he could turn upon the Christians, and by well-directed tortures obtain confessions involving the whole sect, thus giving to the populace the diversion of a persecution on a scale until then unknown, besides providing for himself the new sensation of the human torches whose frightful agonies illuminated his unearthly orgies.[1389] Diocletian even formally promulgated in an edict the rule that all professors of the hated religion should be deprived of the privileges of birth and station, and be subject to the application of torture.[1390] The indiscriminate cruelty to which the Christians were thus exposed without defence, at the hands of those inflamed against them by all evil passions, may, perhaps, have been exaggerated by the ecclesiastical historians, but that frightful excesses were perpetrated under sanction of law cannot be doubted by any one who has traced, even in comparatively recent times and among Christian nations, the progress of political and religious persecution.[1391]

The torture of freemen accused of crimes against the state or the sacred person of the emperor thus became an admitted principle of Roman law. In his account of the conspiracy of Piso, under Nero, Tacitus alludes to it as a matter of course, and in describing the unexampled endurance of Epicharis, a freedwoman, who underwent the most fearful torments without compromising those who possessed little claim upon her forbearance, the annalist indignantly compares her fortitude with the cowardice of noble Romans, who betrayed their nearest relatives and dearest friends at the mere sight of the torture chamber.[1392]

Under these limits, the freeman’s privilege of exemption was carefully guarded, at least in theory. A slave while claiming freedom, or a man claimed as a slave, could not be exposed to torture;[1393] and even if a slave, when about to be tortured, endeavored to escape by asserting his freedom, it was necessary to prove his servile condition before proceeding with the legal torments.[1394] In practice, however, these privileges were continually infringed, and numerous edicts of the emperors were directed to repressing the abuses which constantly occurred. Thus we find Diocletian forbidding the application of torture to soldiers or their children under accusation, unless they had been dismissed the service ignominiously.[1395] The same emperor published anew a rescript of Marcus Aurelius declaring the exemption of patricians and of the higher imperial officers, with their legitimate descendants to the fourth generation;[1396] and also a dictum of Ulpian asserting the same privilege in favor of decurions, or local town councillors, and their children.[1397] In 376, Valentinian was obliged to renew the declaration that decurions were only liable in cases of _majestas_, and in 399 Arcadius and Honorius found it necessary to declare explicitly that the privilege was personal and not official, and that it remained to them after laying down the decurionate.[1398] Theodosius the Great, in 385, especially directed that priests should not be subjected to torture in giving testimony,[1399] the significance of which is shown by the fact that no slave could be admitted to holy orders.

The necessity of this constant repetition of the law is indicated by a rescript of Valentinian, in 369, which shows that freemen were not infrequently tortured in contravention of law; but that torture could legally be indiscriminately inflicted by any tribunal in cases of treason, and that in other accusations it could be authorized by the order of the emperor.[1400] This power was early assumed and frequently exercised. Though Claudius at the commencement of his reign had sworn that he would never subject a freeman to the question, yet he allowed Messalina and Narcissus to administer torture indiscriminately, not only to free citizens, but even to knights and patricians.[1401] So Domitian tortured a man of prætorian rank on a doubtful charge of intrigue with a vestal virgin,[1402] and various laws were promulgated by several emperors directing the employment of torture irrespective of rank, in some classes of accusations. Thus, in 217, Caracalla authorized it in cases of suspected poisoning by women.[1403] Constantine decreed that unnatural lusts should be punished by the severest torments, without regard to the station of the offender.[1404] Constantius persecuted in like manner soothsayers, sorcerers, magicians, diviners, and augurs, who were to be tortured for confession, and then to be put to death with every refinement of suffering.[1405] So, Justinian, under certain circumstances, ordered torture to be used on parties accused of adultery[1406]—a practice, however, which was already common in the fourth century, if we are to believe the story related by St. Jerome of a miracle occurring in a case of this nature.[1407] The power thus assumed by the monarch could evidently be limited only by his discretion in its exercise.

One important safeguard, however, existed, which, if properly maintained, must have greatly lessened the frequency of torture as applied to freemen. In bringing an accusation the accuser was obliged to inscribe himself formally, and was exposed to the _lex talionis_ in case he failed to prove the justice of the charge.[1408] A rescript of Constantine, in 314, decrees that in cases of _majestas_, as the accused was liable to the severity of torture without limitation of rank, so the accuser and his informers were to be tortured when they were unable to make good their accusation.[1409] This enlightened legislation was preserved by Justinian, and must have greatly cooled the ardor of the pack of calumniators and informers, who, from the days of Sylla, had been encouraged and petted until they held in their hands the life of almost every citizen.

In all this it must be borne in mind that the freeman of the Roman law was a Roman citizen, and that, prior to the extension of citizenship generally to the subjects of the Empire, there was an enormous class deprived of the protection, such as it was, of the traditional exemption. Thus when, in Jerusalem, the Jews raised a tumult and accused St. Paul, without specifying his offence, the tribune forthwith ordered “that he should be examined by scourging, that he might know wherefore they cried so against him;” and when St. Paul proclaimed himself a Roman, the preparations for his torture were stopped forthwith, and he was examined by regular judicial process.[1410] The value of this privilege is fairly exemplified by the envying remark of the tribune, “With a great sum obtained I this freedom.”

All these laws relate to the extortion of confessions from the accused. In turning to the treatment of witnesses, we find that even with them torture was not confined to the servile condition. With slaves it was not simply a consequence of slavery, but a mode of confirming and rendering admissible the testimony of those whose character was not sufficiently known to give their evidence credibility without it. Thus a legist under Constantine states that gladiators and others of similar occupation cannot be allowed to bear witness without torture;[1411] and, in the same spirit, a novel of Justinian, in 539, directs that the rod shall be used to extract the truth from unknown persons who are suspected of bearing false witness or of being suborned.[1412]

It may, therefore, readily be imagined that when the evidence of slaves was required, it was necessarily accompanied by the application of torture. Indeed, Augustus declared that while it is not to be expressly desired in trifling matters, yet in weighty and capital cases the torture of slaves is the most efficacious mode of ascertaining the truth.[1413] When we consider the position occupied by slavery in the Roman world, the immense proportion of bondmen who carried on all manner of mechanical and industrial occupations for the benefit of their owners, and who, as scribes, teachers, stewards, and in other confidential positions, were privy to almost every transaction of their masters, we can readily see that scarce any suit could be decided without involving the testimony of slaves, and thus requiring the application of torture. It was not even, as among most modern nations, restricted to criminal cases. Some doubt, indeed, seems at one time to have existed as to its propriety in civil actions, but Antoninus Pius decided the question authoritatively in the affirmative, and this became a settled principle of Roman jurisprudence, even when the slaves belonged to masters who were not party to the case at issue.[1414]

There was but one limitation to the universal liability of slaves. They could not be tortured to extract testimony against their masters, whether in civil or criminal cases;[1415] though, if a slave had been purchased by a litigant to get his testimony out of court, the sale was pronounced void, the price was refunded, and the slave could then be tortured.[1416] This limitation arose from a careful regard for the safety of the master, and not from any feeling of humanity towards the slave. So great a respect, indeed, was paid to the relationship between the master and his slave that the principle was pushed to its fullest extent. Thus even an employer, who was not the owner of a slave, was protected against the testimony of the latter.[1417] When a slave was held in common by several owners, he could not be tortured in opposition to any of them, unless one were accused of murdering his partner.[1418] A slave could not be tortured in a prosecution against the father or mother of the owner, or even against the guardian, except in cases concerning the guardianship;[1419] though the slave of a husband could be tortured against the wife.[1420] Even the tie which bound the freedman to his patron was sufficient to preserve the former from being tortured against the latter;[1421] whence we may assume that, in other cases, manumission afforded no protection from the rack and scourge. This question, however, appears doubtful. The exemption of freedmen would seem to be proved by the rescript which provides that inconvenient testimony should not be got rid of by manumitting slaves so as to prevent their being subjected to torture;[1422] while, on the other hand, a decision of Diocletian directs that, in cases of alleged fraudulent wills, the slaves and even the freedmen of the heir could be tortured to ascertain the truth.[1423]

This policy of the law in protecting masters from the evidence of their tortured slaves varied at different periods. From an expression of Tacitus, it would seem not to have been part of the original jurisprudence of the Republic, but to have arisen from a special decree of the Senate. In the early days of the Empire, while the monarch still endeavored to veil his irresponsible power under the forms of law, and showed his reverence for ancient rights by evading them rather than by boldly subverting them, Tiberius, in prosecuting Libo and Silanus, caused their slaves to be transferred to the public prosecutor, and was thus able to gratify his vengeance legally by extorting the required evidence.[1424] Subsequent emperors were not reduced to these subterfuges, for the principle became established that in cases of _majestas_, even as the freeman was liable to torture, so his slaves could be tortured to convict him;[1425] and as if to show how utterly superfluous was the cunning of Tiberius, the respect towards the master in ordinary affairs was carried to that point that no slave could be tortured against a former owner with regard to matters which had occurred during his ownership.[1426] On the other hand, according to Ulpian, Trajan decided that when the confession of a guilty slave under torture implicated his master, the evidence could be used against the master, and this, again, was revoked by subsequent constitutions.[1427] Indeed, it became a settled principle of law to reject all incriminations of accomplices.

Having thus broken down the protection of the citizen against the evidence of his slaves in accusations of treason, it was not difficult to extend the liability to other special crimes. Accordingly we find that, in 197, Septimius Severus specified adultery, fraudulent assessment, and crimes against the state as cases in which the evidence of slaves against their masters was admissible.[1428] The provision respecting adultery was repeated by Caracalla in 214, and afterwards by Maximus,[1429] and the same rule was also held to be good in cases of incest.[1430] It is probable that this increasing tendency alarmed the citizens of Rome, and that they clamored for a restitution of their immunities, for, when Tacitus was elected emperor, in 275, he endeavored to propitiate public favor by proposing a law to forbid the testimony of slaves against their masters except in cases of _majestas_.[1431] No trace of such a law, however, is found in the imperial jurisprudence, and the collections of Justinian show that the previous regulations were in full force in the sixth century.

Yet it is probable that the progress of Christianity produced some effect in mitigating the severity of legal procedure and in shielding the unfortunate slave from the cruelties to which he was exposed. Under the Republic, while the authority of the _paterfamilias_ was still unabridged, any one could offer his slaves to the torture when he desired to produce their evidence. In the earlier times, this was done by the owner himself in the presence of the family, and the testimony thus extorted was carefully taken down to be duly produced in court; but subsequently the proceeding was conducted by public officers—the quæstors and triumviri capitales.[1432] How great was the change effected is seen by the declaration of Diocletian, in 286, that masters were not permitted to bring forward their own slaves to be tortured for evidence in cases wherein they were personally interested.[1433] This would necessarily reduce the production of slave testimony, save in accusations of _majestas_ and other excepted crimes, to cases in which the slaves of third parties were desired as witnesses; and even in these, the frequency of its employment must have been greatly reduced by the rule which bound the party calling for it to deposit in advance the price of the slave, as estimated by the owner, to remunerate the latter for his death, or for his diminished value if he were maimed or crippled for life.[1434] When the slave himself was arraigned upon a false accusation and tortured, an old law provided that the master should receive double the loss or damage sustained;[1435] and in 383, Valentinian the Younger went so far as to decree that those who accused slaves of capital crimes should inscribe themselves, as in the case of freemen, and should be subjected to the _lex talionis_ if they failed to sustain the charge.[1436] This was an immense step towards equalizing the legal condition of the bondman and his master. It was apparently in advance of public opinion, for the law is not reproduced in the compilations of Justinian, and probably soon was disregarded.

* * * * *

There were some general limitations imposed on the application of torture, but they were hardly such as to prevent its abuse at the hands of cruel or unscrupulous judges. Antoninus Pius set an example, which modern jurists might well have imitated, when he directed that no one should be tortured after confession to implicate others;[1437] and a rescript of the same enlightened emperor fixes at fourteen the minimum limit of age liable to torture, except in cases of _majestas_, when, as we have seen, the law spared no one, for in the imperial jurisprudence the safety of the monarch overrode all other considerations.[1438] Women were spared during pregnancy.[1439] Moderation was enjoined upon the judges, who were to inflict only such torture as the occasion rendered necessary, and were not to proceed further at the will of the accuser.[1440] No one was to be tortured without the inscription of a formal accuser, who rendered himself liable to the _lex talionis_, unless there were violent suspicions to justify it;[1441] and Adrian reminded his magistrates that it should be used for the investigation of truth, and not for the infliction of punishment.[1442] Adrian further directed, in the same spirit, that the torture of slave witnesses should only be resorted to when the accused was so nearly convicted that it alone was required to confirm his guilt.[1443] Diocletian ordered that proceedings should never be commenced with torture, but that it might be employed when requisite to complete the proof, if other evidence afforded rational belief in the guilt of the accused.[1444]

What was the exact value set upon evidence procured by torture it would be difficult at this day to determine. We have seen above that Augustus pronounced it the best form of proof, but other legislators and jurists thought differently. Modestinus affirms that it is only to be believed when there is no other mode of ascertaining the truth.[1445] Adrian cautions his judges not to trust to the torture of a single slave, but to examine all cases by the light of reason and argument.[1446] According to Ulpian, the imperial constitutions provided that it was not always to be received nor always rejected; in his own opinion it was unsafe, dangerous, and deceptive, for some men were so resolute that they would bear the extremity of torment without yielding, while others were so timid that through fear they would at once inculpate the innocent.[1447] From the manner in which Cicero alternately praises and discredits it, we can safely assume that lawyers were in the habit of treating it, not on any general principle, but according as it might affect their client in any particular case; and Quintilian remarks that it was frequently objected to on the ground that under it one man’s constancy makes falsehood easy to him, while another’s weakness renders falsehood necessary.[1448] That these views were shared by the public would appear from the often quoted maxim of Publius Syrus—“Etiam innocentes cogit mentiri dolor”—and from Valerius Maximus, who devotes his chapter _De Quæstionibus_ to three cases in which it was erroneously either trusted or distrusted. A slave of M. Agrius was accused of the murder of Alexander, a slave of C. Fannius. Agrius tortured him, and, on his confessing the crime, handed him over to Fannius, who put him to death. Shortly afterwards, the missing slave returned home. This same Alexander was made of sterner stuff, for when he was subsequently suspected of being privy to the murder of C. Flavius, a Roman knight, he was tortured six times and persistently denied his guilt, though he subsequently confessed it and was duly crucified.[1449] A somewhat similar case gave Apollonius of Tyana an opportunity of displaying his supernatural power. Meeting in Alexandria twelve convicts on their way to execution as robbers, he pronounced one of them to be innocent, and asked the executioners to reserve him to the last, and, moreover, delayed them by his conversation. After eight had been beheaded, a messenger came in hot haste to announce that Phanion, the one selected by Apollonius, was innocent, though he had accused himself to avoid the torture.[1450] A curious instance, moreover, of the little real weight attached to such evidence is furnished by the case of Fulvius Flaccus, in which the whole question turned upon the evidence of his slave Philip. This man was actually tortured eight times, and refused through it all to criminate his master, who was nevertheless condemned.[1451] The same conclusion is to be drawn from the story told by St. Jerome of a woman of Vercelli repeatedly tortured on an accusation of adultery, and finally condemned to death in spite of her constancy in asserting her innocence, the only evidence against her being that of her presumed accomplice, extorted under torment.[1452] Quintus Curtius probably reflects the popular feeling on the subject, in his pathetic narrative of the torture of Philotas on a charge of conspiracy against Alexander. After enduring in silence the extremity of hideous torment, he promised to confess if it were stopped, and when the torturers were removed he addressed his brother-in-law Craterus, who was conducting the investigation: “Tell me what you wish me to say.” Curtius adds that no one knew whether or not to believe his final confession, for torture is as apt to bring forth lies as truth.[1453]

From the instances given by Valerius Maximus, it may be inferred that there was no limit set upon the application of torture. The extent to which it might be carried appears to have rested with the discretion of the tribunals, for, with the exception of the general injunctions of moderation alluded to above, no instructions for its administration are to be found in the Roman laws which have been preserved to us, unless it be the rule that when several persons were accused as accomplices, the judges were directed to commence with the youngest and weakest.[1454]

Since the time of Sigonius, much antiquarian research has been directed to investigating the various forms of torture employed by the Romans. They illustrate no principles, however, and it is sufficient to enumerate the rack, the scourge, fire in its various forms, and hooks for tearing the flesh, as the modes generally authorized by law. The Christian historians, in their narratives of the persecutions to which their religion was exposed, give us a more extended idea of the resources of the Roman torture chamber. Thus Prudentius, in his description of the martyrdom of St. Vincent, alludes to a number of varieties, among which we recognize some that became widely used in after times, showing that little was left for modern ingenuity to invent.[1455]

I have dealt thus at length on the details of the Roman law of torture because, as will be seen hereafter, it was the basis of all modern legislation on the subject, and has left its impress on the far less humane administration of criminal justice in Europe almost to our own day. Yet at first it seemed destined to disappear with the downfall of the Roman power.