Letter 5049: The heirs of Ampelius, a man of illustrious memory, are being harassed by a private lawsuit.

The connections of Ampelius, a man of illustrious memory, are being harassed by a private lawsuit. Do not suppose that our concern on their behalf is moved by the recollection of a parent alone; the indignity of the matter will rouse even strangers and men who know nothing of the case. Let me touch upon its high points and chief heads as briefly as I can. Ampelius, once one of the leading men of the senate, whom you have come to know by the fame of his renown, purchased a little house at Rome from Postuminus, a most distinguished man [vir clarissimus], the heir of Porphyria. The origin of that contract is just, its age is nearly a century, the possession unchallenged. Now, just recently, a certain old schemer has lifted up his head under the name of an agent, shaking up on behalf of Eusebius, a most distinguished man [vir clarissimus], one of the notaries, an ancient claim concerning the property of a certain Theodosius once obtained, to which property he falsely alleges that this estate was attached. Between Theodosius and Porphyria there was no partnership of accounts, no joining of resources. The matter was both begun by a claimant in the city court and concluded when that very man fled the proceedings. Once again, by a creeping petition, he rekindles into flame the ashes of the affair, and through distrust of justice he draws to himself, on behalf of the divine house [the imperial treasury], the lawsuits, namely for an inquiry into movable property, which has nothing in common with the estate. Let the controller of the private treasury [the comes rerum privatarum] track down those matters by the order of the laws; let him leave the owners of the buildings to their own judge. The case is in any event twofold, divided by the names of the things, differing in the action, not cohering in origin, separated as to persons. Neither did Ampelius buy anything movable, nor did the fisc attack the house. Why does an agent of another's interest aid an invalid claim with public force? With our brother Sperchius, a most illustrious man [vir illustris], I ask that you share these matters. He is most observant of fairness, and one who would more willingly yield to the common law than favor his own power; for he knows that the laws are more powerful than offices. I am confident that, when he has learned what has been suppressed, the correction of what has been wrung out will not be wanting. If he should ask why I have written nothing to him on this subject, please reply that, the custom of correspondence not yet being established between us, I was afraid lest I should seem from the very beginning to be making an accusation. The correction of this case will give me happier material for conversing with him; a rendering of thanks will furnish the auspicious opening for my letters. I shall not wait any longer for his goodwill to grant the assurance of his address to one who is in difficulty; his justice will urge me to every dutiful service. To Olybrius and Probinus.

Ampeli inlustris memoriae viri necessitndines incessnntnr lite privata. non pntes sola parentis reeordatione curam pro illis nostram moveri; extemos qnoqne et memo- 5 rati yiri nescios causae nrit indignitas. cnins breviter, nt possnm, fastigia et capita contingam. Ampelins de snmmatibns qnondam senatns. qnem famae celebritate didi- 2 cisti, domnncnlam Romae de Postumino c. v. Porphyriae herede mercatus est. con- tractus istins origo insta, aetas prope saecularis, intemptata possessio est. nnnc nuper veterator qnidam proenratorio nomine extnlit capnt, Eusebii ex notariis c. v. 10 qnassans vetustam petitionem de impetratis olim Theodosii cninsdam bonis, qnibns hoc praedinm mentitnr haesisse. Theodosio et Porphyriae nulla rationum societas 3 fuit, nuUa coniunctio facnltatum. res in iudicio urbano et a petitore coepta et ipso fngiente finita est. denno cmeres negotii obreptiva supplicatione refovet in flammam et per diffidentiam insti divinae domus pro se adtrahit actiones, ob in- 15 qnisitionem videlicet mobilium, quibus nihil est commune cnm praedio. pervestiget 4 ista legum ordine privati rector aerarii; aedium dominos relinquat iudici sno. dnplex utiqne causa est, divisa rerum vocabnlis, actione discrepans, origine non cohaerens, s^parata personis. neqne mobile aliquid emit Ampelius, neque domnm fiscns incessit. cnr procnrator alienns invalidam petitionem pnblicis viribns invat? cnm fratre nostro 5 30 Sperchio inlnstri viro quaeso ista communices. est aeqni servantissimns, et qui liben- tins communi iuri cedat qnam potestati snae faveat. scit enim leges honoribns esse potiores. confido cnm snppressa cognoverit, elicitis non defnturam correctionem. si quaeret, cnr ad enm super hoc nihil scripserim, respondeas, qnaeso, nondnm inter nos 6 facta stili consnetndine veritnm esse me, ne qnid a principio viderer arguere. dabit 25 mihi cansae hnins emendatio sermocinandi cnm eo materiam laetiorem; gratiarum actio anspicinm litteris meis faciet. non expectabo nltra, nt adloquii sni fidnciam praestet haerenti; ad omne me officinm institia eins hortabitur. AD OLYBRIVM ET PROBINVM. PVF LXVn (LXV) a. 397?