Injuria
Article by George Long, M.A., Fellow of Trinity College
on pp637‑638 of
William Smith, D.C.L., LL.D.:
A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, John Murray, London, 1875.
INJUʹRIA. Injuria, in the general sense, is opposed to Jus. In a special sense injuria was done by striking or beating a man either with the hand or with any thing; by abusive words (convicium); by the proscriptio bonorum, when the claimant knew that the alleged debtor was not really indebted to him, for the bonorum proscriptio was accompanied with infamia to the debtor (Cic. pro Quint. 6, 15, 16); by libellous writings or verses; by soliciting a mater familias or a praetextatus [Impubes]; and by various other acts. A man might sustain injuria either in his own person, or in the person of those who were in his power or in manu. No injuria could be done to a slave, but certain acts done to a slave were an injuria to his master, when the acts were such as appeared from their nature to be insulting to the master; as, for instance, if a man should flog another man's slave, the master had a remedy against the wrong-doer, which was given him by the praetor's formula. But in many other cases of a slave being maltreated, there was no regular formula by which the master could have a remedy, and it was not easy to obtain one from the praetor.
The Twelve Tables had various provisions on the subject of Injuria. Libellous songs or verses were followed by capital punishment, that is, death, as it appears (Cic. Rep. iv.10, and the notes in Mai's edition). In the case of a limb being mutilated the punishment was Talio (Festus, s.v. Talio). In the case of a broken bone, the penalty was 300 asses if the injury was done to a freedman, and 150 if it was done to a slave. In other cases the Tables fixed the penalty at 25 asses (Gellius, XVI.10, xx.1; Dirksen, Uebersicht, &c.).
These penalties which were considered sufficient at the time when they were fixed, were afterwards considered to be insufficient; and the injured person was allowed by the praetor to claim such damages as he thought he was entitled to, and the judex might give the full amount or less. But in the case of a very serious injury (atrox injuria), when the praetor required security for the defendant's appearance to be given in a particular sum, it was usual to claim such sum as the damages in the plaintiff's declaration, and though the judex p638was not bound to give damages to the amount, he seldom gave less. An injuria had the character of atrox, either from the act itself, or the place where it was done, as for instance, a theatre or forum, or from the condition of the person injured, as if he were a magistratus, or if he were a senator and the wrong-doer were a person of low condition.
A Lex Cornelia specially provided for cases of pulsatio, verberatio, and forcible entry into a man's house (domus). The jurists who commented on this lex defined the legal meaning of pulsatio, verberatio, and domus (Dig. 47 tit. 10 s5).
The actions for Injuria were gradually much extended, and the praetor would, according to the circumstances of the case (causa cognita), give a person an action in respect of any act or conduct of another, which tended, in the judgment of the praetor, to do him injury in reputation or to wound his feelings (Dig. 47 tit. 10 s5, 22, 23, 24, &c.). Many cases of Injuria were subject to a special punishment (Dig. 47 11) as deportatio; and this proceeding extra ordinem• was often adopted instead of the civil action. Various imperial constitutions affixed the punishment of death to libellous writings (famosi libelli). [Libelli.]
Infamia was a consequence of condemnation in an actio Injuriarum [Infamia.] He who brought such an action per calumniam was liable to be punished extra ordinem. (Gaius, III.220‑225; Hor. Sat. I.1.80; Dig. 47 10; Cod. Theod. ix. tit. 34; Cod. IX. tit. 36; Paulus, Sent. Recep. v. tit. 4; Rein, Das Criminalrecht der Römer, p35, &c.).
find this at: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Injuria.html
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Monday, February 28, 2011
LECTURE REVIEW I
ARCHAIC PERIOD: From foundation of Rome to the expedition of the
________________________________
in -367.
WHAT DID THE LEGES LICINIAE SEXTAE REGULATE?
1.____________________________________________________________
2.___________________________________________________________
3. ____________________________________________________________
OTHER PRO-PLEBEIAN LAWS WERE:
1.
Lex
Hortensia: _____________________________________________
2.
Lex
_____________: Allowed marriages between patricians and plebeians
3.
Lex Valeria
Horatia________________________________________
REPUBLICAN PERIOD: From the Leges Liciniae Sextae to _________________________
The ordinary
magistratures were:
1.
Consul:
________________________________________________________
2.
_________:
In charge of justice administration
3.
Quaestor:
Helpers of the Consul and administration of the taxes
4.
_________:
____________________________________________________
5.
Aedil: Religious functions and later urban police
Characteristics of the magistrature:
1.
Gratuitous
2.
_____________
3.
Collegiate
4.
____________
5.
Accountability
Magistrates were elected by____________________________
PRINCIPATE/ CLASSIC PERIOD: From Augustus
(0) to 211 AC
(Murder of Septimius Severus)
Roman Empire expands. The law reaches technical perfection.
It is a very creative period in terms of the law.
DOMINATE/ POST CLASSIC PERIOD: From 211 AC to 1456
476 Romulus Augustus is defeated by a ____________ king.
Rome moves to _________________
During the administration of Justinian the:
______________ ___________________ _______________ was compiled.
It had four main parts
Institutas: _________________________
Codex: ___________________________
Digestae: __________________________
Novellae: ____________________________
The Roman Empire is conquered by the _____________ in
____________________
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Useful reading for your assignment
Browsing online, I found this very short reading that has useful information for your assignment, which you should be working on already!! it can be found in http://www.roman-empire.net/articles/article-021.html
I am copying the first part of the text to get you started. Check it out, comment, ask, take a look at the cited bibliography and start writing, it is easier to write short pieces steadily than the whole piece on one attempt. Last, but not least, enjoy!
Underlying yet Unwritten
The Standards of Care and the Lex Aquilia
by Andrew Mason
originally prepared for Professor Weinrib, University of Toronto
In Ancient Rome the only acts recognised as criminal were "exceptional
invasions of public security or of the general order of society." As
such, Roman ‘criminal law’ would have failed to meet the needs of any
highly organised society. The Romans decided upon a "practical remedy,"
the laws of Delict, by which they "extended the doctrine of civil
obligations," to cover the realm of personal property. Violations of
these standards of care carried with them "penal consequences." Private
law was originally dominated by the Twelve Tables, which soon became
"harsh and inflexible antique rules" in cosmopolitan Rome. The "punitive
vengeance" of the Twelve Tables evolved into legal sanctions to compel
compensation when damage was done to private property. However, these
sanctions retained a distinct "punitive character."
Sanctions were thus developed to protect three principal rights of the Roman citizen not originally protected by criminal law: the security of his property, his security from theft and his right to be "protected from deliberate anti-social attacks" on his dignity. The Lex Aquilia governed loss wrongfully inflicted to property (damnum iniuria datum), whereas the Delicts of Furtum, Rapina and Iniuria were designed to deal with theft, robbery and attacks on personal dignity respectively. In order to be liable under the Lex Aquilia the defendant had to be found guilty of intent and culpable conduct (iniuria datum), and thus to have "wrongfully inflicted" loss (datum) on the plaintiff.
The early Romans maintained strict standards that governed personal behaviour and this is reflected in the legal reasoning implicit in the lex. Frier argued that while the ancient Romans "were under no general obligation" to ensure that others did not experience material loss, they were required "to act with care" in circumstances where their actions risked causing such loss to another. An examination of the twin pillars of the lex, the Praetor’s Edict and the juristical interpretations of the Lex Aquilia (illustrated by the actions ad factum and actio utiles) and selected cases from Frier’s Casebook on the Roman Law of Delict will demonstrate that unwritten ‘standards of care’ clearly existed in Roman law though they are never mentioned explicitly. The foremost legal reasoning behind the lex was the understanding that one had a civic responsibility as a Roman to not wrongfully cause another loss.
Standards of care as expressed by Culpa and Dolus
"Loss wrongfully inflicted" (damnum iniuria datum) forms the basis of Aquilian liability. Definitions of the term "iniuria"
changed during the evolution of Roman law. The term was originally held
to mean "without legal right." Juristical interpretation lent iniuria
an additional meaning, that of "wrongfulness." Defendants were
considered only guilty of inflicting loss without legal right if they
had "acted in a way positively improper and worthy of legal reproach."
The concept of "wrongfulness" strongly suggests that "legal rules"
governing what conduct was expected from citizens "in various
situations." Frier points out that the Lex Aquilia "only
sketchily described the content of such rules" and that those which do
exist are the creation of the jurists. This is not unsurprising however.
The early ancient Romans, a people with both a traditional loathing for
autocracy and a deep respect for the rights of the citizen would have
resisted codifying laws explicitly stating what conduct was expected of
them. Nicholas argues that the Romans would have interpreted such an
attempt to impose defined duties as "an unwarranted restriction on
personal freedom." Thus ‘standards of care’ as expressed in the Lex Aquilia were not codified, but can be defined as such: citizens were expected to act in the manner befitting a Roman.
As citizens, Romans were obliged to understand the "prerequisites of social life" and were expected to tailor their actions so as to avoid causing loss to others. In Case 19 Paul maintains that a tree-trimmer on private land is liable for killing a passing slave by "throwing down a branch" because in failing to call out or "foresee what a careful person should have foreseen" he had violated these social prerequisites. Culpa (fault), as Paul stipulated, arises when a defendant ignores the mutually understood, but unwritten, obligations of the Roman and wrongfully causes loss to another.
It is for this reason that Ulpianus "construes iniuria as loss inflicted by culpa" even when "the wish to harm" was absent, for one has a duty to be careful and aware. Dolus, (intentional fault) arises when one ignores these obligations "with a deliberate intent" to cause loss. The civic obligations implicit in the notions of culpa and dolus imply the existence of an unwritten standard of care, and Frier even describes the adherence to the aforementioned obligations as a "duty of care". Daube points out that the existence of a third standard of Aquilian liability, that of casus (accident) can only be seen as concerned with compensation, because unlike culpa (characterised by negligence) or dolus (characterised by evil intent) sheer accident does not involve a breach of any standard of care. It is important to note that the juristical interpretation of the lex there was no liability for casus....
(For the whole paper visit the link above, it is interesting and will help you understand the topic so you can write a good essay. Post any questions about the terms or concepts, we can work them out together. I am copying the bibliography as well, go to the library and take a look at the available books)
Amos, Sheldon. The History and Principles of the Civil Law of Rome. London, Kegan Paul, Trench and Co., 1883.
Daube, David. Roman Law. Edinburg University Press, 1969.
Frier, Bruce W. A Casebook on the Roman Law of Delict. Scholars Press, Atlanta, 1989.
Frier, Bruce W. The Rise of the Roman Jurists. Princeton University Press, 1985.
Jolowicz, H.F. "The Original Scope of the Lex Aquilia and the Question of Damages" Law Quarterly Review 38 (1922)
Kelly, J.M. "The Meaning of the Lex Aquilia", Law Quarterly Review 80 (1964)
Leage, R.W. Roman Private Law. London, Macmillan and Co., 1961.
Nicholas, Barry. An Introduction to Roman Law. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1972.
I am copying the first part of the text to get you started. Check it out, comment, ask, take a look at the cited bibliography and start writing, it is easier to write short pieces steadily than the whole piece on one attempt. Last, but not least, enjoy!
The Standards of Care and the Lex Aquilia
by Andrew Mason
originally prepared for Professor Weinrib, University of Toronto
Sanctions were thus developed to protect three principal rights of the Roman citizen not originally protected by criminal law: the security of his property, his security from theft and his right to be "protected from deliberate anti-social attacks" on his dignity. The Lex Aquilia governed loss wrongfully inflicted to property (damnum iniuria datum), whereas the Delicts of Furtum, Rapina and Iniuria were designed to deal with theft, robbery and attacks on personal dignity respectively. In order to be liable under the Lex Aquilia the defendant had to be found guilty of intent and culpable conduct (iniuria datum), and thus to have "wrongfully inflicted" loss (datum) on the plaintiff.
The early Romans maintained strict standards that governed personal behaviour and this is reflected in the legal reasoning implicit in the lex. Frier argued that while the ancient Romans "were under no general obligation" to ensure that others did not experience material loss, they were required "to act with care" in circumstances where their actions risked causing such loss to another. An examination of the twin pillars of the lex, the Praetor’s Edict and the juristical interpretations of the Lex Aquilia (illustrated by the actions ad factum and actio utiles) and selected cases from Frier’s Casebook on the Roman Law of Delict will demonstrate that unwritten ‘standards of care’ clearly existed in Roman law though they are never mentioned explicitly. The foremost legal reasoning behind the lex was the understanding that one had a civic responsibility as a Roman to not wrongfully cause another loss.
As citizens, Romans were obliged to understand the "prerequisites of social life" and were expected to tailor their actions so as to avoid causing loss to others. In Case 19 Paul maintains that a tree-trimmer on private land is liable for killing a passing slave by "throwing down a branch" because in failing to call out or "foresee what a careful person should have foreseen" he had violated these social prerequisites. Culpa (fault), as Paul stipulated, arises when a defendant ignores the mutually understood, but unwritten, obligations of the Roman and wrongfully causes loss to another.
It is for this reason that Ulpianus "construes iniuria as loss inflicted by culpa" even when "the wish to harm" was absent, for one has a duty to be careful and aware. Dolus, (intentional fault) arises when one ignores these obligations "with a deliberate intent" to cause loss. The civic obligations implicit in the notions of culpa and dolus imply the existence of an unwritten standard of care, and Frier even describes the adherence to the aforementioned obligations as a "duty of care". Daube points out that the existence of a third standard of Aquilian liability, that of casus (accident) can only be seen as concerned with compensation, because unlike culpa (characterised by negligence) or dolus (characterised by evil intent) sheer accident does not involve a breach of any standard of care. It is important to note that the juristical interpretation of the lex there was no liability for casus....
(For the whole paper visit the link above, it is interesting and will help you understand the topic so you can write a good essay. Post any questions about the terms or concepts, we can work them out together. I am copying the bibliography as well, go to the library and take a look at the available books)
Bibliography
Daube, David. Roman Law. Edinburg University Press, 1969.
Frier, Bruce W. A Casebook on the Roman Law of Delict. Scholars Press, Atlanta, 1989.
Frier, Bruce W. The Rise of the Roman Jurists. Princeton University Press, 1985.
Jolowicz, H.F. "The Original Scope of the Lex Aquilia and the Question of Damages" Law Quarterly Review 38 (1922)
Kelly, J.M. "The Meaning of the Lex Aquilia", Law Quarterly Review 80 (1964)
Leage, R.W. Roman Private Law. London, Macmillan and Co., 1961.
Nicholas, Barry. An Introduction to Roman Law. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1972.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)