Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §22.6.2.pr

Distinction Between Error of Law and Ignorance of Fact

Passage 3280 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

Neratius argues that error in law and ignorance of fact should not be treated equally, since the law can and should be clearly defined, whereas facts are difficult to interpret and can deceive even the wisest.

[NERATIUS libro quinto membranarum. ] §22.6.2.prIn omni parte error in iure non eodem loco quo facti ignorantia haberi debebit, cum ius finitum et possit esse et debeat, facti interpretatio plerumque etiam prudentissimos fallat.
[NERATIUS, in his fifth book of Parchments.] In every respect, error in law ought not to be held in the same position as ignorance of fact, since law both can and ought to be definite, whereas the interpretation of fact often deceives even the most prudent.

Notes

  1. §22.6.2.preodem loco quo — An instance of the correlative expression eodem... quo. loco is an ablative of place associated with haberi, and quo is either a relative pronoun in the ablative (referring back to loco) or a relative adverb, with the ellipsis of a verb like habetur (or habeatur). It means 'in the same position as that in which ignorance of fact [is held]'.
  2. §22.6.2.prcum... fallat — The conjunction cum expresses cause ('since') as well as contrast ('whereas'), governing the subjunctive verbs possit, debeat, and fallat. It highlights the contrast between the law, which can be objectively defined (ius finitum), and the facts, which are uncertain and leave room for interpretation (interpretatio).

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §22.6.2.pr. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:22.6.2.pr

Please note the AI-draft status of the translation and the date accessed.

Translation, notes and summary are AI-generated drafts, revised through reader feedback.