D.47.9.1pr. (Ulpian. 56 ad Ed.) Praetor ait: ‘In eum, qui ex incendio ruina naufragio rate nave expugnata quid rapuisse recepisse dolo malo damnive quid in his rebus dedisse dicetur: in quadruplum in anno, quo primum de ea re experiundi potestas fuerit, post annum in simplum iudicium dabo. Item in servum et in familiam iudicium dabo’. (The praetor says: ‘If a man be said to have looted or wrongfully received anything from a fire, a building that has collapsed, a wreck, a stormed raft or ship, or to have inflicted any loss on such things, I will give an action for fourfold against them in the year when proceedings could first be taken on the matter and, after the year, for the simple value of the things. I will likewise give an action against a slave or household of slaves’).
D.47.9.1.1 (Ulpian. 56 ad Ed.) Huius edicti utilitas evidens et iustissima severitas est, si quidem publice interest nihil rapi ex huiusmodi casibus. Et quamquam sint de his facinoribus etiam criminum executiones, attamen recte praetor fecit, qui forenses quoque actiones criminibus istis praeposuit (The utility of this edict is evident and its severity fair, since it is of public interest that nothing should be looted from these cases. And although there be criminal prosecutions arising from these crimes, the praetor is nonetheless right in propounding civil actions for such offences).
D.47.9.1.2 (Ulpian. 56 ad Ed.) ‘Ex incendio’ quemadmodum accipimus, utrum ex ipso igne an vero ex eo loco, ubi incendium fit? Et melius sic accipietur propter incendium, hoc est propter tumultum incendii vel trepidationem incendii, rapit: quemadmodum solemus dicere in bello amissum, quod propter causam belli amittitur. Proinde si ex adiacentibus praediis, ubi incendium fiebat, raptum quid sit, dicendum sit edicto locum esse, quia verum est ex incendio rapi. (How are we to understand ‘from a fire’? Is it from the actual fire or from the place where the fire breaks out? The better interpretation is ‘owing to a fire’, that is, the looting takes place by reason of the confusion and alarm caused by a fire; in the same way, we speak of something lost in war, meaning lost by reason of the war. So also, if anything be pillaged from land adjacent to the scene of the fire, it must be said that the edict is operative; for it is true that the seizure arises out of the fire).
D.47.9.1.3 (Ulpian. 56 ad Ed.) Item ruinae appellatio refertus ad id tempus, quo ruina fit, non tantum si ex his quae ruerunt tulerit quis, sed etiam si ex adiacentibus. (Likewise, the term ‘collapse of a building’ refers to the moment when the breakdown occurs and includes when someone seizes something not only from the crashed building but also from adjacent premises).
D.47.9.1.4 (Ulpian. 56 ad Ed.) Si suspicio fuit incendii vel ruinae, incendium vel ruina non fuit, videamus, an hoc edictum locum habeat. Et magis est, ne habeat, quia neque ex incendio neque ex ruina quid raptum est (If there was a suspicion that there was going to be a fire or a collapse which does not actually happen, let us see whether this comes within the scope of the edict. And the better view is that it does not come, for nothing is seized from either a fire or a collapse).
D.47.9.1.5 (Ulpian. 56 ad Ed.) Item ait praetor: ‘Si quid ex naufragio’. Hic illud quaeritur, utrum, si quis eo tempore tulerit, quo naufragium fit, an vero et si alio tempore, hoc est post naufragiumque: nam res ex naufragio etiam hae dicuntur, quae in litore post naufragium iacent. Et magis est, ut de eo tempore. (The praetor also says: ‘if anything from a shipwreck’. Here one may ask whether this concerns someone who takes something when the wreck happened or also at another time, that is, after the wreck; for things are said to come from a wreck which lie on the shore after the wreck. And the better view is that the edict applies to that time).
D.47.9.2 (Gaius 21 ad Ed. Prov.) Et loco (And the place (…))
D.47.9.3pr. (Ulpian. 56 ad Ed.) Quo naufragium fit vel factum est, si quis rapuerit, incidisse in hoc edictum videatur. Qui autem rem in litore iacentem, postea quam naufragium factum est, abstulit, in ea condicione est, ut magis fur sit quam hoc edicto teneatur, quemadmodum is, qui quod de vehiculo excidit tulit. Nec rapere videtur, qui in litore iacentem tollit. (Where the wreck occurs or has occurred, if someone seizes something from it, this edict applies. A person who takes away something lying on the shore after the wreck, however, it might be the case that he is a thief rather than subject to this edict, as would be someone taking what falls from a vehicle. Nor is someone regarded as looting who picks up something lying on the shore).
D.47.9.3.1 (Ulpian. 56 ad Ed.) Deinde ait praetor ‘rate navi expugnata’. Expugnare videtur, qui in ipso quasi proelio et pugna adversus navem et ratem aliquid rapit, sive expugnet sive praedonibus expugnantibus rapiat. (Then the praetor says: ‘On a raft or ship taken by storm’. It would be regarded as storming if someone seized something in the actual battle or fight with the raft or ship, whether they themselves are an attacker or seized the thing from the pirates.)
D.47.9.3.2 (Ulpian. 56 ad Ed.) Labeo scribit aequum fuisse, ut, sive de domo sive in villa expugnatis aliquid rapiatur, huic edicto locus sit: nec enim minus in mari quam in villa per latrunculos inquietamur vel infestari possumus (Labeo writes that it would be right that this edict should apply if something is seized from a town or country house which has been stormed; for both at sea and in a house, we can be disturbed or bothered by brigands).
D.47.9.3.3 (Ulpian. 56 ad Ed.) Non tantum autem qui rapuit, verum is quoque, qui recepit ex causis supra scriptis, tenetur, quia receptores non minus delinquunt quam adgressores. Sed enim additum est ‘dolo malo’, quia non omnis qui recipit statim etiam delinquit, sed qui dolo malo recipit. Quid enim, si ignarus recipit? Aut quid, si ad hoc recepit, ut custodiret salvaque faceret ei qui amiserat? Utique non debet teneri. (But not only one stealing something, but also one who receives goods seized in such circumstances is liable; for receivers are no less offenders than the aggressors. Although it is added, ‘with wrongful intent’; since not every receiver is forthwith an offender but one who receives with wrongful intent. Because, what would be said if they receive ignoring the thing’s provenance or if they received the thing to look after it and make it safe for the person who has lost it? In neither case should this person be liable).
D.47.9.3.4 (Ulpian. 56 ad Ed.) Non solum autem qui rapuit, sed et qui abstulit vel amovit vel damnum dedit vel recepit, hac actione tenetur. (Now this action lies not only against one who commits robbery but also against one who removes a thing or takes it away or receives it or inflicts damage on it).
D.47.9.3.5 (Ulpian. 56 ad Ed.) Aliud esse autem rapi, aliud amoveri palam est, si quidem amoveri aliquid etiam sine vi possit: rapi autem sine vi non potest. (Although there is an obvious distinction between seizure and taking away; for a thing can be taken away even without force, but it cannot be seized except by force).
D.47.9.3.6 (Ulpian. 56 ad Ed.) Qui eiecta nave quid rapuit, hoc edicto tenetur. ‘Eiecta’ hoc est quod Graeci aiunt ἐξεβρασθη (If someone seizes anything from a wrecked ship is liable under this edict. The Greek term for ‘wrecked’ is ἐξεβρασθη).
D.47.9.3.7 (Ulpian. 56 ad Ed.) Quod ait praetor de damno dato, ita demum locum habet, si dolo damnum datum sit: nam si dolus malus absit, cessat edictum. Quemadmodum ergo procedit, quod Labeo scribit, si defendendi mei causa vicini aedificium orto incendio dissipaverim, et meo nomine et familiae iudicium in me dandum? Cum enim defendendarum mearum aedium causa fecerim, utique dolo careo. Puto igitur non esse verum, quod Labeo scribit. An tamen lege Aquilia agi cum hoc possit? Et non puto agendum: nec enim iniuria hoc fecit, qui se tueri voluit, cum alias non posset. Et ita Celsus scribit. (What the praetor says about the infliction of damage is applicable only if the damage is deliberate. For if wrongful intent is absent, the edict does not apply. How then does what Labeo writes apply, that if when a fire arose therein, I demolished my neighbour’s house in self-defence, an action should be granted both against me my slaves? Since I have done this to preserve my own premises, I am lacking evil intent. I think, therefore, that what Labeo writes is not true. But would it be possible to proceed under the Lex Aquilia in such circumstances? Again, I think not; for a person does not act wrongfully if they act to protect themselves when they had no other option; and so writes Celsus).
D.47.9.3.8 (Ulpian. 56 ad Ed.) Senatus consultum Claudianis temporibus factum est, ut, si quis ex naufragio clavos vel unum ex his abstulerit, omnium rerum nomine teneatur. Item alio senatus consulto cavetur eos, quorum fraude aut consilio naufragi suppressi per vim fuissent, ne navi vel ibi periclitantibus opitulentur, legis Corneliae, quae de sicariis lata est, poenis adficiendos: eos autem, qui quid ex miserrima naufragorum fortuna rapuissent lucrative fuissent dolo malo, in quantum edicto praetoris actio daretur, tantum et fisco dare debere. (A senatus consultum was passed at the time of Claudius whereby, if someone should remove the nails from a wreck or, even only one of them, he would be liable with respect to all. Likewise, another senatus consultum provides that those by whose malice or advice a wreck is caused, so that no help may reach the ship or those in peril thereon, shall be subject to the penalties ordained in the Lex Cornelia de sicariis; but those who seize anything through the miserable plight of the shipwrecked and are designedly enriched will also have to give to the Imperial treasury as much as the amount for which an action under the praetor’s edict will be taken against them).
D.47.9.4pr. (Paul. 54 ad Ed.) Pedius posse etiam dici ex naufragio rapere, qui, dum naufragium fiat, in illa trepidatione rapiat. (Pedius writes that it can also be said that someone loots from a wreck if, while the wreck is happening, they seize anything during the confusion).
D.47.9.4.1 (Paul. 54 ad Ed.) Divus Antoninus de his, qui praedam ex naufragio diripuissent, ita rescripsit: ‘Quod de naufragiis navis et ratis scripsisti mihi, eo pertinet, ut explores, qua poena adficiendos eos putem, qui diripuisse aliqua ex illo probantur. Et facile, ut opinor, constitui potest: nam plurimum interest, peritura collegerint an quae servari possint flagitiose invaserint. Ideoque si gravior praeda vi adpetita videbitur, liberos quidem fustibus caesos in triennium relegabis aut, si sordidiores erunt, in opus publicum eiusdem temporis dabis: servos flagellis caesos in metallum damnabis. Si non magnae pecuniae res fuerint, liberos fustibus, servos flagellis caesos dimittere poteris’. Et omnino ut in ceteris, ita huiusmodi causis ex personarum condicione et rerum qualitate diligenter sunt aestimandae, ne quid aut durius aut remissius constituatur, quam causa postulabit. (The deified Antoninus provided in a rescript on the subject of those who seize booty from a wreck, that: ‘What you have written to me concerning the wreck of a ship or raft aims to know what penalty I think should be imposed upon those who are proved to have looted in such cases. This, in my opinion, could be easily settled. Now it is of the highest significance whether they take what would be lost either way or whether they flagrantly appropriate what could be saved. For that reason, if the booty appears to have been taken with force, you would relegate the free offenders for three years after beating them, or if they were of lower condition, condemn them to public works for the same period; you will flog slaves with a lash and condemn them to the mines. If the goods were of small value, you may release freedmen after a cudgeling and slaves after a flogging’. Generally, in such cases as in others, careful assessment is to be made in the light of the status of the offender and of the gravity of the offence, so that no sentence may be passed which is more severe or more lenient than the case requires).
D.47.9.4.2 (Paul. 54 ad Ed.) Hae actiones heredibus dantur. In heredes eatenus dandae sunt, quatenus ad eos pervenit. (These actions is granted to heirs; they are granted against heirs only to the extent that any benefit has come to them from the wrong).
D.47.9.5 (Gaius 21 ad Ed. Prov.) Si quis ex naufragio vel ex incendio ruinave servatam rem et alio loco positam subtraxerit aut rapuerit, furti scilicet aut alias vi bonorum raptorum iudicio tenetur, maxime si non intellegebat ex naufragio vel incendio ruinave eam esse. Iacentem quoque rem ex naufragio, quae fluctibus expulsa sit, si quis abstulerit, plerique idem putant. Quod ita verum est, si aliquod tempus post naufragium intercesserit: alioquin si in ipso naufragii tempore id acciderit, nihil interest, utrum ex ipso mari quisque rapiat an ex naufragiis an ex litore. de eo quoque, quod ex rate nave expugnata raptum sit, eandem interpretationem adhibere debemus (If someone removes or seizes something salvaged from a wreck, fire, or collapse of a building and put it in another place, they will be liable on the action for theft or that for things taken by force, even though they were unaware that it comes from a wreck, fire, or collapse of building. Many are of the opinion that where someone appropriates from a wreck something which is lying washed up by the waves, the same applies. This is true if some time has elapsed since the wreck; but if what happens occurs at the very time of the wreck, it is irrelevant whether the seizure be made from the sea itself, the wreck or the shore. We must adopt the same interpretation in respect of what is seized from a raft or ship which has been stormed).
D.47.9.6. (Callistrat. 1 Ed. Mon.) Expugnatur navis, cum spoliatur aut mergitur aut dissolvitur aut pertunditur aut funes eius praeciduntur aut vela conscinduntur aut ancorae involantur de mare (A ship is stormed when it is despoiled, sunk, broken up, perforated or its ropes are cut through or its sails are slashed or its anchors seized up from the sea).
D.47.9.7 (Callistrat. 2 Quaest.) Ne quid ex naufragiis diripiatur vel quis extraneus interveniat colligendis eis, multifariam prospectum est. Nam et divus Hadrianus edicto praecepit, ut hi, qui iuxta litora maris possident, scirent, si quando navis vel inficta vel fracta intra fines agri cuiusque fuerit, ne naufragia diripiant, in ipsos iudicia praesides his, qui res suas direptas queruntur, reddituros, ut quidquid probaverint ademptum sibi naufragio, id a possessoribus recipiant. De his autem, quos diripuisse probatum sit, praesidem ut de latronibus gravem sententiam dicere. Ut facilior sit probatio huiusmodi admissi, permisit his et quidquid passos se huiusmodi queruntur, adire praefectos et ad eum testari reosque petere, ut pro modo culpae vel vincti vel sub fideiussoribus ad praesidem remittantur. A domino quoque possessionis, in qua id admissum dicatur, satis accipi, ne cognitioni desit, praecipitur. Sed nec intervenire naufragiis colligendis aut militem aut privatum aut libertum servumve principis placere sibi ait senatus (A wide variety of provisions are brought so that nothing should be looted from wrecks or so that no third party should interfere with collecting them. For the deified Hadrian established in an edict that those holding property near the shore should know that if a ship is dashed against or broken up within the boundaries of their lands, they are not to despoil the wreck, or the governors will grant actions against them to those complaining that their property has been seized, so that if anything is proved to have been taken from the wreck, it may be recovered from the landholder. However, in the case of those proven to have looted, the governor is to inflict a grave penalty as on bandits. To facilitate proof in such cases, the emperor allows those who complain that they have suffered in such ways to approach the prefect and then to state their case and ask that the defendants, in proportion to their fault, either be bound or provide verbal guarantors and so be remitted to the governor. It is further provided that if the owner of the land where this is said to have happened shall give security that he will be present for the hearing. The Senate resolves that in the collection of what has been wrecked, there shall participate no soldier, private individual, or freedman or slave of the emperor).
D.47.9.8 (Neratius 2 Resp.) Ratis vi fluminis in agrum meum delatae non aliter potestatem tibi faciendam, quam si de praeterito quoque damno mihi cavisses. (If your raft be brought onto my land by the force of the river, you will not be able to exert control over it unless you first give me a cautio in respect of any prior damage to me).
D.47.9.9 (Gaius 4 ad Leg. Duod. Tab.) Qui aedes acervumve frumenti iuxta domum positum conbusserit, vinctus verberatus igni necari iubetur, si modo sciens prudensque id commiserit. Si vero casu, id est neglegentia, aut noxiam sarcire iubetur aut, si minus idoneus sit, levius castigatur. Appellatione autem aedium omnes species aedificii continentur (A person who sets a building on fire or a sheaf of wheat set beside a dwelling should be bound, flogged, and put to death by fire, if their act was deliberate and conscious. If, however, they did it by chance, that is, by negligence, they are to make good the wrong, or if their means be inadequate, be more lightly punished. The expression ‘building’ includes every kind of edifice).
D.47.9.10 (Ulpian. 1 Opin.) Ne piscatores nocte lumine ostenso fallant navigantes, quasi in portum aliquem delaturi, eoque modo in periculum naves et qui in eis sunt deducant sibique execrandam praedam parent, praesidis provinciae religiosa constantia efficiat. (The dutiful perseverance of the provincial governor shall ensure that fishermen do not deceive sailors at night, by displaying a light, as if they were being guided towards some port, thereby leading the ship and its passengers into danger, and obtaining for themselves a damnable prize).
D.47.9.11 (Marcian. 14 Inst.) si fortuito incendium factum sit, venia indiget, nisi tam lata culpa fuit, ut luxuria aut dolo sit próxima. (If a fire be caused by chance, it merits indulgence, unless the carelessness was so conspicuous as to be ranked as being close to deliberate intent).
D.47.9.12pr. (Ulpian. 8 de Off. Proc.) Licere unicuique naufragium suum impune colligere constat: idque imperator Antoninus cum divo patre suo rescripsit. (It is established that it is lawful for anyone to collect with impunity his wrecked property; so ruled Emperor Antoninus and his deified father in a rescript).
D.47.9.12.1 (Ulpian. 8 de Off. Proc.) Qui data opera in civitate incendium fecerint, si humiliore loco sint, bestiis obici solent: si in aliquo gradu id fecerint, capite puniuntur aut certe in insulam deportantur. (Those who deliberately start a fire in a city, if they be of lower rank, are usually thrown to the beasts; but if they be of some status, they would be subject to capital punishment or certainly deported to an island).