DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.51387#0040
38 PROCEEDINGS OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY
appeal to the Emperors on this point, or if, going beyond
the tenour of this law, he searches and finds treasure on
another’s ground, let him be forced to give up the whole
treasure to the owner of the ground, and be wholesomely
punished as violator of the law. If by chance when plough-
ing or otherwise tilling the soil, or by any other accident,
not deliberately searching, a man finds a treasure on
another’s ground, he shall share it half and half with the
owner of the ground. Thus it will come to pass that each
shall enjoy his own and not covet the belongings of others.
Dated 6 Id. (io) October in the Consulship of Leo the
Younger (474).
The text of the law suggests that the Emperors were
being continually pestered1 by petitions for leave to dig for
treasure, or about the disposition of treasure when found.
We have seen that the first order of Theodosius, in the
usual acceptance of it, did not allow any one to dig in
another’s ground at all, although there is reason to suppose
that his words cannot be taken so literally; the present law
allows him to do so, if the owner specifically permits. It
may have been that petitions to be allowed to dig in
another’s ground, in spite of the refusal of the owner, were
constantly being brought forward. But from the text it
appears that petitions to dig in one’s own ground were also
common. Is it possible that between a.d. 390 and a.d. 474
some repressive legislation, now lost, forbidding any sort of
treasure-hunting except by special licence, and regulating the
disposition of treasure found, had come into force? It would
certainly explain the tenour of the first words of this law.
We notice in this law the express condemnation of illicit
practices in the way of ‘sacrifices’ or black art.
The prohibition of searching for treasure in another man’s
land is in contrast with the permission to search for stone or
quotes the gloss v. volentibus which reads: ‘nota domini voluntatem nil
facere vt alius suo nomine querat.’
1 ‘nemo . . . effusis precibus pietatis nostrae benignas aures audeat
molestare.’
appeal to the Emperors on this point, or if, going beyond
the tenour of this law, he searches and finds treasure on
another’s ground, let him be forced to give up the whole
treasure to the owner of the ground, and be wholesomely
punished as violator of the law. If by chance when plough-
ing or otherwise tilling the soil, or by any other accident,
not deliberately searching, a man finds a treasure on
another’s ground, he shall share it half and half with the
owner of the ground. Thus it will come to pass that each
shall enjoy his own and not covet the belongings of others.
Dated 6 Id. (io) October in the Consulship of Leo the
Younger (474).
The text of the law suggests that the Emperors were
being continually pestered1 by petitions for leave to dig for
treasure, or about the disposition of treasure when found.
We have seen that the first order of Theodosius, in the
usual acceptance of it, did not allow any one to dig in
another’s ground at all, although there is reason to suppose
that his words cannot be taken so literally; the present law
allows him to do so, if the owner specifically permits. It
may have been that petitions to be allowed to dig in
another’s ground, in spite of the refusal of the owner, were
constantly being brought forward. But from the text it
appears that petitions to dig in one’s own ground were also
common. Is it possible that between a.d. 390 and a.d. 474
some repressive legislation, now lost, forbidding any sort of
treasure-hunting except by special licence, and regulating the
disposition of treasure found, had come into force? It would
certainly explain the tenour of the first words of this law.
We notice in this law the express condemnation of illicit
practices in the way of ‘sacrifices’ or black art.
The prohibition of searching for treasure in another man’s
land is in contrast with the permission to search for stone or
quotes the gloss v. volentibus which reads: ‘nota domini voluntatem nil
facere vt alius suo nomine querat.’
1 ‘nemo . . . effusis precibus pietatis nostrae benignas aures audeat
molestare.’