Ennodius to Julianus.
By following the instructions of Your Greatness, I am discharging a duty I owe, since a man comes close to justice by heeding the counsel of a just man. The nature of the case entrusted to me — submitted by a friend of truth for examination — has prepared the mind of an honest judge to proceed with caution. The high regard in which I hold Your Greatness would have inspired my affection on its own, even if personal acquaintance had not.
In the matter, then, that is disputed between Bauto, a steward of the royal household, and Epiphanius, a notary [keeper of records]: while the outcome hung in the balance during my adjudication, with both parties pressing their claims, Bauto asserted the following. He had acknowledged in a written bond that he owed sixty-four solidi from the arrears of a certain tax indiction [fifteen-year fiscal cycle]. He said he could not repay this amount because, through the hands of the distinguished Proiectus, he had paid forty solidi to Epiphanius as a "support fee" — for which, he claimed, no benefit had ever been delivered. Epiphanius countered that if he had received anything, he had earned it by his labor, and that nothing had been given to him by Bauto without cause. He continually praised the credibility of the witness who had been produced.
I ruled that the aforementioned nobleman Proiectus should declare under oath both the nature of the expected benefit and, if it was true, that the benefit had never materialized. Once this was done, Epiphanius was required to refund the amount of money he had received.
It now rests with Your Eminence to confirm our decision with your authority, if you see fit.
I. ENNODIVS IVLIANO.
Praeceptis magnitudinis uestrae ministerium debitionis exsoluimus,
quia fit aequitati proximus qui iusti uiri monitis
obsecundat. negotiorum qualitas, quae ab amico ueritatis agnoscenda
committitur, cautione instruit animum cognitoris integri.
adfectionem infudisset nobis magnitudinis uestrae consideratio,
si studia non dedissent. in negotio igitur, quod inter
Bautonem regiae domus conductorem et Epiphanium cartarium
uertitur, dum anceps in disceptatione nostra euentus nutaret
et alterna se partes intentione conliderent, adserente Bautone
se sexaginta et quatuor solidos publicos, quos de reliqua indictionis
illius emisso chirographo fuerat debere confessus.
idcirco non posse restituere, quia per manus sublimis uiri
Proiecti quadraginta solidos Epiphanio suffragii nomine contulisset,
pro quibus nullum beneficium secutum fuisse doceretur,
et replicaret ipse Epiphanius, se si quid accepisset,
labore meruisse nec frustra sibi a Bautone quicquam fuisse
conlatum uel prolati testis fidem laudibus incessanter adtolleret:
statuimus ut sub iureiurando mihi nominatus superius
uir nobilis Proiectus et sperati genus declararet beneficii et
effectum, si ita esset, adsereret non secutum: quod cum fuisset
I. 3 debitionis] deuotionis b 6 caationem b, cautiorem coni.
Schottus 7 infandisset Bb, insudisset L 9 epifanium B
cartbarium BLVb 12 publicus Bb 13 chyrographo 6, cyrographo
LV, cyrografo B, cirographo T deberi fort . 15 epifanio
B, epiphanici T nominis B b 16 docetur V1 17 epifanins
BL V 18 ab auctone B 19 collooatum b probati T
20 statuim** (us eras.) L mihi om. Bb 21 beneficio Ll
inpletum, Epiphanius acceptem pecuniae refunderet quanti.
tatem. nunc in potestate est culminis uestri decisionem nostram,
si placet, auctoritate fulcire.
◆
Ennodius to Julianus.
By following the instructions of Your Greatness, I am discharging a duty I owe, since a man comes close to justice by heeding the counsel of a just man. The nature of the case entrusted to me — submitted by a friend of truth for examination — has prepared the mind of an honest judge to proceed with caution. The high regard in which I hold Your Greatness would have inspired my affection on its own, even if personal acquaintance had not.
In the matter, then, that is disputed between Bauto, a steward of the royal household, and Epiphanius, a notary [keeper of records]: while the outcome hung in the balance during my adjudication, with both parties pressing their claims, Bauto asserted the following. He had acknowledged in a written bond that he owed sixty-four solidi from the arrears of a certain tax indiction [fifteen-year fiscal cycle]. He said he could not repay this amount because, through the hands of the distinguished Proiectus, he had paid forty solidi to Epiphanius as a "support fee" — for which, he claimed, no benefit had ever been delivered. Epiphanius countered that if he had received anything, he had earned it by his labor, and that nothing had been given to him by Bauto without cause. He continually praised the credibility of the witness who had been produced.
I ruled that the aforementioned nobleman Proiectus should declare under oath both the nature of the expected benefit and, if it was true, that the benefit had never materialized. Once this was done, Epiphanius was required to refund the amount of money he had received.
It now rests with Your Eminence to confirm our decision with your authority, if you see fit.
Modern English rendering for readability. See the 19th-century translation or original Latin/Greek for scholarly use.