Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §5.1.76.pr

Change of Judges and Identity of Lawsuits and Things

Passage 957 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

Alfenus replies that the identity of a lawsuit is not lost even if individual judges are changed, and uses analogies of a legion, a people, a ship, and the human body to argue philosophically that as long as the form is preserved, the identity of a thing remains the same.

[ALFENUS libro sexto digestorum. ] §5.1.76.prProponebatur ex his iudicibus, qui in eandem rem dati essent, nonnullos causa audita excusatos esse inque eorum locum alios esse sumptos, et quaerebatur, singulorum iudicum mutatio eandem rem an aliud iudicium fecisset.
[ALFENUS, in the Sixth Book of the Digests.] A case was proposed in which, out of those judges who had been appointed for the same matter, several had been excused after their grounds had been heard, and others had been taken in their place; and it was asked whether the change of individual judges made it the same matter or a different trial.
respondi, non modo si unus aut alter, sed et si omnes iudices mutati essent, tamen et rem eandem et iudicium idem quod antea fuisset permanere: neque in hoc solum euenire, ut partibus commutatis eadem res esse existimaretur, sed et in multis ceteris rebus: nam et legionem eandem haberi, ex qua multi decessissent, quorum in locum alii subiecti essent: et populum eundem hoc tempore putari qui abhinc centum annis fuissent, cum ex illis nemo nunc uiueret: itemque nauem, si adeo saepe refecta esset, ut nulla tabula eadem permaneret quae non noua fuisset, nihilo minus eandem nauem esse existimari.
I replied that, not only if one or two, but even if all the judges were changed, nevertheless both the same matter and the same trial that had existed before would remain; and that this—namely, that a thing is considered to be the same even when its parts are changed—happens not only in this case, but also in many other things: for a legion is also held to be the same, from which many have departed and in whose place others have been substituted; and a people is thought to be the same at this time as those who existed a hundred years ago, although none of them is now alive; and likewise a ship, if it has been repaired so often that no plank remains the same that was not new, is nonetheless considered to be the same ship.
quod si quis putaret partibus commutatis aliam rem fieri, fore ut ex eius ratione nos ipsi non idem essemus qui abhinc anno fuissemus, propterea quod, ut philosophi dicerent, ex quibus particulis minimis constiteremus, hae cottidie ex nostro corpore decederent aliaeque extrinsecus in earum locum accederent.
But if anyone should think that a thing becomes different when its parts are changed, it would follow from his reasoning that we ourselves would not be the same as we were a year ago; because, as philosophers say, the smallest particles of which we consist daily depart from our body and others from the outside enter into their place.
quapropter cuius rei species eadem consisteret, rem quoque eandem esse existimari.
Therefore, in the case of any thing whose appearance remains the same, the thing itself is also considered to be the same.

Notes

  1. §5.1.76.prcausa audita — Here causa refers to the "grounds" or "reasons" presented by the individual judges to be excused (excusatio), rather than the "case" itself. Thus, causa audita means "after their grounds had been heard (and approved)", showing the legitimacy of their substitution under Roman procedural law.
  2. §5.1.76.prfore ut — The fore ut construction functions as the apodosis of the conditional clause quod si quis putaret (if anyone should think) in indirect speech (Oratio Obliqua). Since the governing verb (respondi) is in the past tense, the sequence of tenses requires the imperfect subjunctive essemus in the fore ut clause.
  3. §5.1.76.prcuius rei — cuius is a relative pronoun whose antecedent ea res is implied. The structure cuius rei... rem quoque ("of whichever thing... that thing also...") forms a correlative construction where the relative clause limits the subject of the accusative-with-infinitive construction (rem quoque eandem esse existimari) in the main clause.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §5.1.76.pr. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:5.1.76.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.