Among the Aztecs of ancient Mexico he who wilfully calumniated another, thereby seriously injuring his reputation, was condemned to have his lips cut off, and sometimes his ears also; whilst in Tezcuco the slanderer suffered death.[22] In the Chinese penal code a special book is provided for the prevention and punishment of opprobrious and insulting language, as “having naturally a tendency to produce quarrels and affrays.”[23] Among Arabs all insulting expressions have their respective fines ascertained in the ḳady’s court.[24] It is said in the Talmud:—“Let the honour of thy neighbour be to thee like thine own. Rather be thrown into a fiery furnace than bring any one to public shame.”[25]
[22] Bancroft, Native Races of the Pacific States, ii. 463.
[23] Ta Tsing Leu Lee, p. 354 n.*
[24] Burckhardt, Notes on the Bedouins and Wahábys, p. 70 sq.
[25] Deutsch, Literary Remains, p. 57.
The Roman Law of the Twelve Tables contained provisions against libellers,[26] and throughout the whole history of Roman law an attack upon honour or reputation was deemed a serious crime.[27] As for wrongful prosecution, which may be regarded as an aggravated form of defamation, the law of the later Empire required that any one bringing a criminal charge should bind himself to suffer in case of failure the penalty that he had endeavoured to call down upon his adversary.[28] Among Teutonic peoples defamatory words and libelling were already at an early date punished with a fine.[29] The Salic Law decrees that a person who calls a freeborn man a “fox” or a “hare” or a “dirty fellow,” or says that he has thrown away his shield, must pay him three solidi;[30] whilst, according to one text of the same law, it cost 188 solidi (or nearly as much as was paid for the murder of a Frankish freeman)[31] to call a freeborn woman a witch or a harlot, in case the truth of the charge could not be proved.[32] The oldest English laws exacted bót and wíte from persons who attacked others with abusive words.[33] In the thirteenth century, in almost every action before an English local court, the plaintiff claimed compensation not only for the “damage,” but also for the “shame” which had been done him.[34] We further find that regular actions for defamation were common in the local courts; whereas in later days the ecclesiastical procedure against defamatory speech seems to have been regarded as the usual, if not the only, engine which could be brought to bear upon cases of libel and slander.[35] In England, as in Rome, there was a strong feeling that men should not make charges which they could not prove: before the Conquest a person might lose his tongue, or have to redeem it with his full wer, if he brought a false and scandalous accusation; and under Edward I. a statute decreed that if the appellee was acquitted his accuser should lie in prison for a year and pay damages by way of recompense for the imprisonment and infamy which he had brought upon the innocent.[36]
[26] Lex Duodecim Tabularum, viii. 1.
[27] Digesta, xlvii. 10. 15. 25. Codex Justinianus, ix. 36. Hunter, Exposition of Roman Law, p. 1069 sq. Mommsen, Römisches Strafrecht, p. 794 sq.
[28] Günther, Die Idee der Wiedervergeltung, i. 141 sqq. Mommsen, op. cit. p. 496 sq.
[29] Wilda, Strafrecht der Germanen, p. 776 sqq. Nordström, Bidrag till den svenska samhälls-författningens historia, ii. 293 sqq. Stemann, Den danske Retshistorie indtil Christian V.’s Lov, p. 686 sq. Brunner, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte, ii. 672 sqq.