Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §47.10.18.pr-47.10.18.5

Defamation of the Guilty and Actions for Injury to Family

Passage 8020 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

Paul discusses why publishing the wrongdoing of a guilty person is not punishable, outlines the rules for actions and damages in injuries to slaves, married daughters, and sons in power, and explains how the wrongdoer's mistaken identification of the victim's status affects the action.

[PAULUS libro quinquagensimo quinto ad edictum. ] §47.10.18.prEum, qui nocentem infamauit, non esse bonum aequum ob eam rem condemnari: peccata enim nocentium nota esse et oportere et expedire.
That he who has defamed a guilty person should be condemned on that account is not good and equitable; for that the sins of the guilty should be known is both proper and expedient.
§47.10.18.1Si seruus seruo fecerit iniuriam, perinde agendum, quasi si domino fecisset.
If a slave commits an injury against a slave, action must be taken just as if he had committed it against the master.
§47.10.18.2Si nupta filia familiae iniuriam acceperit et uir et pater iniuriarum agant, Pomponius recte putat tanti patri condemnandum esse reum, quanti condemnetur, si ea uidua esset, uiro tanti, quanti condemnaretur, si ea in nullius potestate esset, quod sua cuiusque iniuria propriam aestimationem haberet.
If a married daughter in power suffers an injury, and both the husband and the father bring actions for injury, Pomponius rightly thinks that the defendant should be condemned to the father for as much as he would be condemned if she were a widow, and to the husband for as much as he would be condemned if she were in no one's power, because each one's own injury has its own estimation.
et ideo si nupta in nullius potestate sit, non ideo minus eam iniuriarum agere posse, quod et uir suo nomine agat.
And therefore, if a married woman is in no one's power, she is not for that reason any less able to bring an action for injury because her husband also sues in his own name.
§47.10.18.3Si iniuria mihi fiat ab eo, cui sim ignotus, aut si quis putet me Lucium Titium esse, cum sim Gaius Seius: praeualet, quod principale est, iniuriam eum mihi facere uelle: nam certus ego sum, licet ille putet me alium esse quam sum, et ideo iniuriarum habeo.
If an injury is done to me by someone to whom I am unknown, or if someone thinks that I am Lucius Titius when I am Gaius Seius: that which is principal prevails, namely, that he wished to commit an injury against me; for I am certain, although he thinks I am someone other than I am, and therefore I have the action for injury.
§47.10.18.4At cum aliquis filium familias patrem familias putat, non potest uideri iniuriam patri facere, non magis quam uiro, si mulierem uiduam esse credat, quia neque in personam eorum confertur iniuria nec transferri personae putationem ex persona filiorum ad eos potest, cum affectus iniuriam facientis in hunc tamquam in patrem familias consistat.
But when someone thinks a son in power is a father of a family, he cannot be deemed to commit an injury against the father, no more than against the husband if he believes the woman to be a widow; because the injury is neither directed against their person, nor can the estimation of the person be transferred from the person of the sons to them, since the intention of the one committing the injury is fixed upon this person as if upon a father of a family.
§47.10.18.5Quod si scisset filium familias esse, tamen, si nescisset, cuius filius esset, dicerem, inquit, patrem suo nomine iniuriarum agere posse: nec minus uirum, si ille nuptam esse sciret: nam qui haec non ignorat, cuicumque patri, cuicumque marito per filium, per uxorem uult facere iniuriam.
But if he had known that he was a son in power, yet did not know whose son he was, "I would say," he says, "that the father can bring an action for injury in his own name"; and no less the husband, if the other knew she was married; for he who is not ignorant of these things wishes to commit an injury against whatever father, or whatever husband, through the son or through the wife.

Notes

  1. §47.10.18.prEum, qui nocentem infamauit, non esse bonum aequum ob eam rem condemnari — This passage is in indirect speech (accusative with infinitive) expressing Paul's view, with the governing verb (such as *placuit*) omitted. *eum* is the subject accusative of the infinitive *condemnari* and is modified by the relative clause *qui...*. *bonum aequum* (good and equitable) functions as the predicate of the subject clause *eum... condemnari* (that such a person should be condemned).
  2. §47.10.18.2tanti patri condemnandum esse reum, quanti condemnetur, si ea uidua esset — *tanti... quanti...* expresses a correlation of the genitive of value. *condemnandum esse* is a passive periphrastic conjugation (gerundive) expressing necessity, with *reum* (the defendant) as its subject. *condemnetur* is in the present subjunctive, and *si ea uidua esset* is in the imperfect subjunctive expressing a contrary-to-fact condition, representing the hypothetical case of the daughter being a widow, whereas she is actually married.
  3. §47.10.18.4nec transferri personae putationem ex persona filiorum ad eos potest — *personae putationem* means 'the estimation (or misidentification) of the person.' The subject is *putatio*, and *transferri* (to be transferred) is an infinitive depending on *potest* (is able). It explains the legal principle that if the wrongdoer mistakenly believed the son in power to be a father of a family, that mistaken assumption (*putatio*) cannot be transferred from the person of the son to the actual father (*eos*), and thus no intent to injure the actual father can be recognized.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §47.10.18.pr-47.10.18.5. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:47.10.18.pr-47.10.18.5

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.