- 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-lat1:5.1.80.pr
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-10
Presents the opinion of Servius that if there is an error in the judge's name, the person whom the litigants actually intended is the judge, provided the designation was based on their agreement.
[POMPONIUS libro secundo ad Sabinum.]
[POMPONIUS, in the Second Book on Sabinus.]
Si in iudicis nomine praenomine1 erratum est, Seruius respondit, si ex conuentione litigatorum is iudex addictus esset, eum esse iudicem,2 de quo litigatores sensissent.3
If an error was made in the name or first name of the judge, Servius gave the opinion that, if that judge had been assigned based on the agreement of the litigants, the person whom the litigants had in mind was the judge.
- 5.1.80.prnomine praenomine
An asyndetic collocation referring to the 'nomen' (family name) and 'praenomen' (first name) in Roman naming conventions, collectively meaning 'the name' of the judge.
- 5.1.80.preum esse iudicem
The apodosis of the indirect discourse (accusative with infinitive construction) governed by the main verb respondit. eum is modified by the relative clause de quo..., meaning 'that person whom the litigants intended is the judge.'
- 5.1.80.prsensissent
Subjunctive pluperfect in the relative clause. Because the governing verb respondit is in the past (historical perfect), the verb in the dependent clause within indirect speech is put in the pluperfect subjunctive under the rule of sequence of tenses (consecutio temporum) to denote action prior to the main past event.