But if we must discount the evidence both of the preacher and of the comedy-writer, we may find a more impartial guide than either in the Law. The Theodosian Code shows that the aspect of a crime changed with the social status of the criminal. There was no consistent ethical standard. If the wife of a tavern-keeper was taken in adultery, she could be publicly accused; but if her servant girl was so taken, she might be dismissed as too cheap to worry about (_pro vilitate_).[1138] If a guardian corrupted his ward, he was punished by deportation and total confiscation of his goods.[1139] But a woman who had committed adultery with her slave was put to death, and the slave burned. So terrible did this interference with class-distinction seem that even slaves were allowed to give information.[1140] Again, in bringing a charge of treason which he cannot prove, an ordinary man is subject to torture, but a slave or a freedman is denied an audience and crucified.[1141] If a slave or freedman brought an accusation against his master (except in the case of treason), he was to be beheaded _before his charge was examined_. ‘Vocem enim funestam intercidi oportet potius quam audiri.’[1142] Again, in the law of extortion, judges who have been convicted lose the marks of imperial favour, are stripped of their office, and ranked with the worst and lowest class in the State.[1143] In the opinion of the law, and therefore of the mass of the people, being ‘pessimus’ means belonging to the plebs, and the punishment of crime comes to consist in loss of ‘caste’.[1144] That is to say, morality becomes a matter of social position, and the corollary is that anything may be done by those whose status is high, as long as they manage to maintain that status, while those at the bottom, having no status to lose, hardly care what they do. However much we may disregard particular descriptions of moral degeneracy, the _Codex Theodosianus_ supplies a very damning commentary on the ethical standards of the time. Nor did the Christians effect any improvement in this legal respect of persons. We have, of course, men like Paulinus of Pella who speak of the ‘sollers castorum cura parentum’[1145] which shielded him from every evil influence, and the _Parentalia_ of Ausonius indicates happy home-conditions. Lavisse notes this,[1146] and makes much of the domestic felicity and the tender love reflected by these writers and by the inscriptions.[1147] But, apart from the fact that Ausonius and Paulinus were at the top of society, it is dangerous to presume too much from epitaphs. Then, as now, convention played a great part, and the stock phrase ‘Coniugi Karissimae’ may be as formal as the constantly recurring ‘memoriae aeternae’. It was the fashion to write epitaphs in which the superlative was prominent.[1148] Besides, in most of these inscriptions there is no clue as to the dates.