Callistrato, De testibus, fr. 70, 2n Puliatti = 28 Lenel, Dig. 22, 5, 3, 2

The article puts forward a new argument to back up an interpretation that can be worked out from some of the translations of Hadrian's rescript reported by Callistratus, De testibus, fr. 70, 2 Puliatti, in which the emperor exhorts the judge to ascertain the facts, even in the absence of public documents, by conducting witness interviews. The expression fama consentiens is sometimes interpreted as concordant voices relating to the facts. However, it seems more appropriate to refer this expression to the indisputable reputation enjoyed by the witness. This is understood as an element useful for establishing the witness’s credibility (and consequently the facts). Therefore, the emperor’s ultimate invitation to refrain from utilising a singular form of evidence does not imply an obligation for the judge to consider voices in addition to witness testimony. Rather, it signifies a necessity to rely on direct testimony, eschewing an exclusive reliance on public documents.