- 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-lat1:9.2.5.pr-9.2.5.3
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-15
Ulpian discusses the exemption from liability for killings committed in self-defense or out of fear of death, defines "wrong" (iniuria) under the Aquilian Law, examines the liability of madmen, infants, and minors, and addresses whether a teacher is liable under various actions for injuring a pupil during instruction.
[ULPIANUS libro octauo decimo ad edictum.]
[ULPIAN, from the eighteenth book on the Edict.]
Sed et si quemcumque alium ferro se petentem quis occiderit, non uidebitur iniuria occidisse: et si metu quis mortis furem occiderit, non dubitabitur, quin lege Aquilia non teneatur.1 sin autem cum posset adprehendere, maluit occidere, magis est ut iniuria fecisse uideatur:2 ergo et Cornelia tenebitur.
But also if anyone kills any other person who is attacking him with a weapon, he will not be deemed to have killed unlawfully; and if anyone kills a thief out of fear of death, there will be no doubt that he is not liable under the Aquilian Law. But if, when he could have apprehended him, he preferred to kill him, it is more correct to say that he is deemed to have acted unlawfully; therefore, he will also be liable under the Cornelian Law.
Iniuriam autem hic accipere nos oportet3 non quemadmodum circa iniuriarum actionem contumeliam quandam, sed quod non iure factum est, hoc est contra ius, id est si culpa quis occiderit: et ideo interdum utraque actio concurrit et legis Aquiliae et iniuriarum, sed duae erunt aestimationes, alia damni, alia contumeliae. igitur iniuriam hic damnum accipiemus culpa datum etiam ab eo, qui nocere noluit.
Now, we ought to understand “wrong” (iniuria) here not in the sense of a certain “insult” (contumelia) as in the action for insults, but as what is done “not by right” (non iure), that is, contrary to law, that is, if anyone kills through fault (culpa); and therefore sometimes both actions concur, both that under the Aquilian Law and that for insults, but there will be two assessments, one of the damage, the other of the insult. Therefore, we shall here understand “wrong” as damage caused by fault, even by one who did not wish to do harm.
Et ideo quaerimus, si furiosus damnum dederit, an legis Aquiliae actio sit? et Pegasus negauit: quae enim in eo culpa sit, cum suae mentis non sit?4 et hoc est uerissimum. cessabit igitur Aquiliae actio, quemadmodum, si quadrupes damnum dederit, Aquilia cessat, aut si tegula ceciderit. sed et si infans damnum dederit, idem erit dicendum. quodsi inpubes id fecerit, Labeo ait, quia furti tenetur, teneri et Aquilia eum: et hoc puto uerum, si sit iam iniuriae capax.5
And therefore we ask, if a madman causes damage, whether there is an action under the Aquilian Law? And Pegasus said no; for what fault could there be in him, when he is not of sound mind? And this is most true. Therefore, the Aquilian action will not lie, just as the Aquilian action does not lie if a four-footed animal causes damage, or if a tile falls. But also if an infant causes damage, the same must be said. But if an impubes (a youth under the age of puberty) does it, Labeo says that since he is held liable for theft, he is also held liable under the Aquilian Law; and I think this is true, if he is already capable of wrongdoing.
Si magister in disciplina uulnerauerit seruum uel occiderit, an Aquilia teneatur, quasi damnum iniuria dederit? et Iulianus scribit Aquilia teneri eum, qui eluscauerat discipulum in disciplina: multo magis igitur in occiso idem erit dicendum. proponitur autem apud eum species talis: sutor, inquit, puero discenti ingenuo filio familias, parum bene facienti quod demonstraverit, forma calcei cervicem percussit, ut oculus puero perfunderetur. dicit igitur Iulianus iniuriarum quidem actionem non competere, quia non faciendae iniuriae causa percusserit, sed monendi et docendi causa: an ex locato,6 dubitat, quia leuis dumtaxat castigatio concessa est docenti: sed lege Aquilia posse agi non dubito:
If a master, in the course of instruction, wounds or kills a slave, is he liable under the Aquilian Law, as having caused damage unlawfully? And Julian writes that he who had blinded a pupil in one eye during instruction is liable under the Aquilian Law; therefore, much more must the same be said in the case of one who is killed. Now, a case of this kind is set forth in his work: a shoemaker, he says, struck on the neck with a shoe-last a boy who was learning from him, a freeborn son under paternal power, because he did not do very well what he had demonstrated to him, so that the boy’s eye was knocked out. Julian therefore says that the action for insults indeed does not lie, because he did not strike for the purpose of committing an insult, but for the purpose of warning and teaching; he doubts whether an action on the contract of hiring (ex locato) lies, because only light chastisement is permitted to a teacher; but I do not doubt that action can be brought under the Aquilian Law.
- 9.2.5.prnon dubitabitur, quin lege Aquilia non teneatur
The negative 'non' is repeated within the dependent clause introduced by 'quin' following 'non dubitari' (there is no doubt). This double negation ('there is no doubt that he is not liable') strongly asserts that the actor is free from liability under the Aquilian Law.
- 9.2.5.prmagis est ut iniuria fecisse uideatur
The phrase 'magis est ut' is an impersonal expression meaning 'it is more correct to say that...' or 'it is more likely that...'. Here it indicates a legal judgment that if one preferred to kill when apprehension was possible, the act must be deemed to have been committed unlawfully.
- 9.2.5.1iniuriam autem hic accipere nos oportet
An explanation clarifying the definition of 'iniuria' under the first chapter of the Aquilian Law. Unlike 'contumelia' (insult) which forms the basis of the 'actio iniuriarum', 'iniuria' here means 'not by right' (non iure), referring generally to unlawful damage caused by fault (culpa).
- 9.2.5.2cum suae mentis non sit
The conjunction 'cum' here expresses cause ('since' or 'as'). 'suae mentis' is a genitive of description or possession, meaning 'of sound mind' (literally 'of one's own mind'), which with 'non' describes the state of being insane or lacking mental capacity.
- 9.2.5.2si sit iam iniuriae capax
The adjective 'capax' (capable of, receptive to) governs the genitive case ('iniuriae'). Here, it indicates that even for an 'impubes' (minor under puberty), the condition for liability under the Aquilian Law is whether they already possess the capacity to understand and be responsible for the wrongfulness of their act.
- 9.2.5.3an ex locato
The noun 'actione' is omitted after 'ex locato'. It refers to the question of whether a contractual action based on hiring ('actio ex locato') under the contract of training or services ('locatio conductio') entered into between the master and the boy's father would lie.