Add to bookbag
Title: Delator
Original Title: Délateur
Volume and Page: Vol. 4 (1754), pp. 777–779
Author: Antoine-Gaspard Boucher d'Argis (biography)
Translator: Benn Williams [University of Illinois at Chicago]
Original Version (ARTFL): Link
Rights/Permissions:

This text is protected by copyright and may be linked to without seeking permission. Please see http://quod.lib.umich.edu/d/did/terms.html for information on reproduction.

URL: http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.did2222.0000.409
Citation (MLA): Boucher d'Argis, Antoine-Gaspard. "Delator." The Encyclopedia of Diderot & d'Alembert Collaborative Translation Project. Translated by Benn Williams. Ann Arbor: Michigan Publishing, University of Michigan Library, 2004. Web. [fill in today's date in the form 18 Apr. 2009 and remove square brackets]. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.did2222.0000.409>. Trans. of "Délateur," Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers, vol. 4. Paris, 1754.
Citation (Chicago): Boucher d'Argis, Antoine-Gaspard. "Delator." The Encyclopedia of Diderot & d'Alembert Collaborative Translation Project. Translated by Benn Williams. Ann Arbor: Michigan Publishing, University of Michigan Library, 2004. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.did2222.0000.409 (accessed [fill in today's date in the form April 18, 2009 and remove square brackets]). Originally published as "Délateur," Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers, 4:777–779 (Paris, 1754).
highlight hits: on | off

Delator is he who denounces to the law a crime or offense and its perpetrator, either in naming him, or in indicating him in another manner, without bringing civil suit.

The status of delator and that of denouncer are fundamentally the same thing; it seems nevertheless that the status of delator applies singularly to the most odious denunciations: in France, one employs only the term denouncer ; but since that which is settled in law for the delators is akin for denouncers, we will explain here what is found in the laws against these sorts of persons as much under the status of delators as under that of denouncers: in the parliament of Provence, on calls them instigators .

Roman laws say that the delators function as accusers, and indeed, they accuse the guilty: one distinguishes nevertheless in our usage between delators and denouncers with accusers in the strictest sense.

The delator , or denouncer, is he who, without being personally interested in vengeance for the crime, denounces it to the law which alone initiates proceedings; rather, the accuser is he who, being interested in revenging the crime, lodges a complaint with the law and pursues the reparation for that which concerns him as a civil party.

There have always been delators and their conduct has been envisioned differently according to the times.

The most famous delators known to history, are those who became denouncers of lese majesty; they obtained a quarter of the condemned's assets. Gnaeus Lentulus, a man with qualifications, was accused by his son.

Caius permitted slaves to accuse their masters.

Claudius, on the contrary, forbade listening to even the emancipated slaves.

Galba punished delators , free or slave.

They were similarly punished under emperor Macrinus: the slaves who had accused their master were crucified.

By two laws enacted in 312 and in 319, Constantine forbade absolutely to listen to the delators and ordered that they be tortured to death.

Things would be settled very differently under the Theodosian code; for in addition to specific, authorized denouncers, there were people called curiosi and stationarii ; one sees also that there were people who denounced themselves to share the portion of the denouncer.

Following the laws of the digest and of the code, the delators were odious; and the name being so disgraceful that it was a serious injury to have wrongfully treated someone as a delator .

The slaves could not accuse their masters, nor could the emancipated slaves accuse their patrons; those who contravened this law were to be punished.

The patron who accused his emancipated slave was stripped of his assets.

Thus, not only were the delators authorized, but there were several cases in which it was not at all reputed odious; this is what law 2 of the digest de jure fisci explains. It was those who were not reckoned denouncers by any desire for compensation; those who had denounced their enemy to obtain compensation, or who had had the public interest in mind; finally, those who had been obliged to denounce because of their ministry, or who had done it by judicial ruling.

The emperor Hadrian had even decided that whoever had the necessary titles to the cause of the treasury and who did not represent them, although he could do it, was guilty of removing coins.

In France the delators or denouncers are not regarded very favorably; they are nonetheless authorized, more in criminal matters than in police matters, and in breach of the edicts and declarations concerning the perception of the public funds or for breach of the statutes and regulations of the Arts and Trades.

In the cases of minor offenses, the rules allot the denouncer a portion of the fines and confiscations.

During the chamber of justice of 1716, the denouncers were put under the protection and safeguarding of the king by a ruling of the council of October 20 of the same year, which also pronounced the death penalty against those who could intimidate, menace, sequester, seduce and misappropriate them.

There are among us two sorts of denouncers: one voluntary, the other forced. The first are those who voluntarily provide a denunciation without being obliged by disposition nor by any law to do so; the forced denouncers are those who are obliged by disposition to denounce the offenses of which they have knowledge; such are the forest constables [ sergens-forestiers ], crop guardians [ messiers ], and other similar officials, who took the oath to this effect. There are also certain cases where the law obliges all those who have knowledge of a crime to denounce it, such as the crime of human lese majesty; which includes all conspiracies against the king or against the state. Whoever had knowledge of these sorts of crimes and does not denounce them, would be punishable according to the law.

There are nonetheless certain persons who are not obliged to denounce others, like the woman with regard to her husband and vice versa , the father with regard to his son, and the son for his father.

One must not accept any denunciation on the part of ignoble persons, that is to say that the magistrate must not build his case on such a denunciation; he can only regard it as a statement and inquire elsewhere for the facts contained within it.

The criminal ordinance wants the king's prosecutors and those of the lords' to have a register to receive and to write down denunciations, which will be circumstantiated and signed by the denouncers; if not, that they would be written in their presence by the sitting court clerk who will receive them: it is not permitted to make denunciations under borrowed names such as de Titus and de Moebius. The denouncer must make himself known.

The denouncers whose declaration is deemed ill-founded must be condemned to pay the accuseds' costs, damages, and interest, and the maximum penalty if it fails. If it appears that the denunciation had been made in bad faith, in vengeance, and with the intention of undoing the accused, the denouncer must be punished as a slanderer.

Whoever would not be admissible to bring civil suit, because he would compromised by the accused, can still become a denouncer.

If the denouncer withdraws his denunciation, he can be sued by the accused for damages and interest; that which conforms to the disposition of the Turpillian senatus consultum, which is spoken of in the digest, book XLVIII . tit. xvi . and in the code, book IX. tit. xlv .

The general prosecutors, the king's prosecutors, and the fiscal prosecutors are bound, in the end, to reveal their denouncers to the accused when he is fully cleared of the accusation, but not when he obtains only an ordinary trial; one assigns the responsibility of self-representation in all circumstances.

If the royal or fiscal prosecutor refuses to name his denouncer if there had been someone, he would be personally responsible for damages and interests and costs of the accused; but the magistrate can return a complaint appointed by the court without a denouncer.

Although the register of the magistrate does not mention what becomes of the denouncer, the accused can be allowed to show proof thereof, as much as by deeds as by witnesses.

See in the code the title of de delatoribus , and in the digest, book XLIX . tit . xiv . Bouchel, at the word delator and denouncer; the ruling of 1670 , tit. iii . and Bornier, ibid . Bouvot, quoest. [question] not[ably] . part. 3. let[ter] . D. verbo désister, quoest. [question] 1 . Guy Pape, quoest. [question] 169 . Imbert, instit. for. book III. p. 334 . and in his enchiridion [ handbook ] at the word accuser ; Papon, book XXIV . tit. i. n. 2 . Journal of aud[iences]. & volume I. book I. chap. c . Le Prêtre, arrêts célebres; Boniface, vol. V . book III. tit. ix. ch. ii . Coquille, quoest . [question] xii . See also Accuser, Accused, Civil Party, Public Party, Public Minister, General Prosecutor, of the King, and Fiscal

[NB: Italics added as according to the Nouvelle impression en fascimilé de la première édition de 1751-1780, (vol. 4. a paru en 1754) publié sous la direction de Günther Holzboog (Stuttgart – Bad Cannstatt: Friedrich Fromann Verlag, 1966), 777-780.]

highlight hits: on | off