- Source
- Digesta Iustiniani Augusti. Mommsen, Theodor & Krueger, Paul, editors. Berlin: Weidmann, 1870.
- Translation
- AI-generated (gemini-3.5-flash) — machine translation; may contain errors
- Languages
- 日本語 · English · 简体中文 · 한국어
- CTS URN
- urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:4.8.19.pr-4.8.19.2
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-09
The text discusses that the content of an arbitrator's award does not concern the praetor, but a pre-determined award agreement is invalid, and once an arbitrator has condemned or acquitted, the award cannot be changed as his role has ceased.
[PAULUS libro tertio decimo ad edictum.]
[PAULUS in his thirteenth book on the Edict.]
Qualem autem sententiam dicat arbiter, ad praetorem non pertinere Labeo ait, dummodo dicat quod ipsi uidetur. et ideo si sic fuit in arbitrum compromissum,1 ut certam sententiam dicat, nullum esse arbitrium, nec cogendum sententiam dicere Iulianus scribit libro quarto digestorum.
Labeo says that it does not concern the praetor what kind of award the arbitrator pronounces, provided that he pronounces what seems good to himself. And therefore, if an arbitration agreement was made to an arbitrator in such terms that he should pronounce a predetermined award, Julian writes in the fourth book of his Digests that the arbitration is null, and that he is not to be compelled to pronounce an award.
Dicere autem sententiam existimamus eum, qui ea mente quid pronuntiat, ut secundum id discedere eos a tota controuersia uelit. sed si de pluribus rebus sit arbitrium receptum, nisi omnes controuersias finierit, non uidetur dicta sententia, sed adhuc erit a praetore cogendus.
We think, moreover, that he pronounces an award who declares something with the intention that he wishes them to depart from the whole controversy in accordance with it. But if the arbitration has been accepted concerning several matters, unless he has ended all the controversies, an award does not seem to have been pronounced, but he will still have to be compelled by the praetor.
Unde uidendum erit, an mutare sententiam possit. et alias quidem est agitatum, si arbiter iussit dari, mox uetuit, utrum eo quod iussit an eo quod uetuit stari debeat.2 et Sabinus quidem putauit posse. Cassius sententiam magistri sui bene excusat et ait Sabinum non de ea sensisse sententia, quae arbitrium finiat, sed de praeparatione causae: ut puta si iussit litigatores calendis adesse, mox idibus iubeat: nam mutare eum diem posse. ceterum si condemnauit uel absoluit, dum arbiter esse desierit,3 mutare sententiam non posse,
Hence it will have to be seen whether he can change his award. And indeed, on another occasion it was debated, if an arbitrator ordered something to be given, and soon after forbade it, whether one must abide by what he ordered or what he forbade. And Sabinus indeed thought that he could change it. Cassius well defends the opinion of his teacher, and says that Sabinus did not mean that award which ends the arbitration, but rather the preparation of the case: as, for example, if he ordered the litigants to be present on the Calends, and soon after should order them to be present on the Ides; for he can change that day. But if he has condemned or acquitted, since he has ceased to be arbitrator, he cannot change his award.
- 4.8.19.prin arbitrum compromissum
The phrase employs the impersonal passive 'fuit compromissum' with the prepositional phrase 'in arbitrum', meaning 'an arbitration agreement (compromissum) was entered into with an arbitrator'.
- 4.8.19.2stari debeat
The infinitive 'stari' is the impersonal passive of the intransitive verb 'sto' (to abide by, stand by). Combined with the ablative phrases 'eo quod iussit' and 'eo quod uetuit' (based on the construction 'stare aliqua re'), it means 'whether one must abide by that which he ordered or that which he forbade'.
- 4.8.19.2dum arbiter esse desierit
The conjunction 'dum' here carries a temporal and causal force ('inasmuch as', 'once'), used with the future perfect (or perfect subjunctive) 'desierit' from 'desino'. It denotes that 'since/once he has ceased to be the arbitrator' (by the very fact of having rendered the final decision), he can no longer alter it.
Translated by Gemini 3.5 Flash (published 2026-07-12) · Revision history (3, latest 2026-09-21)
- 2026-09-21 AI review — source 3