La melancolía como angustia en la raza indígena

Book 3.2 of the Digesta explicitly lists the following as infames: a person dismissed from the army with ignominy;6

one who has appeared on stage for the reason of a stage play or recitation;7

4 _{See J. Harries, Law & Empire in Late Antiquity (Cambridge, Cambridge Uni. Press,} 1999) 42-7 for a more detailed extrapolation of the formation of constitutions and their style. Although discussing the Codex Theodosianus for the most part, the same points apply to the Codex Iustinianus, which essentially utilises the same source material. 5 _{On the Praetor‟s Edict see Jolowicz and Nicholas, Historical Introduction, above n. 3,}

97-101 and O. Lenel, Das Edictum Perpetuum (3rd ed., Leipzig, B. Tauchnitz, 1927), which attempts to reconstruct the text of the Edict.

6 _{Digesta 3.2.1 (Julian): „Qui ab exercitu ignominiae causa ab imperatore eoue, cui de ea} re statuendi potestas fuerit, dimissus erit‟. The text of the Digesta used is that of T. Mommsen, P. Krueger as printed in the English translation edited by A. Watson, The Digest of Justinian (Philadelpha, Uni. of Pennsylvania Press, 1985) 4 Vols. All translations are my own unless otherwise indicated.

Chapter 2: The Digesta and Institutiones 51 one who has practiced the trade of a procurer;8

one who has been judged guilty of calumnia („malicious prosecution‟) or praeuaricatio („collusion‟) in a iudicium publicum („public court‟);9

one who has been condemned in his own name or who has compromised in a case for furtum („theft‟), ui bonorum raptorum („robbery with violence‟), iniuria („insult‟), de dolo maloet fraude („malice and fraud‟);10

one who has been condemned in own name and not in a cross-action in an action for pro socio („partnership‟), tutela („tutelage‟), mandatum („mandate‟) or depositum („deposit‟);11

a pater familias who gives a widowed daughter in potestate to be married before the expiration of the customary period of mourning; a man who knowingly marries such a woman; and a pater familias who knowingly allows a son in potestate to marry such a woman.12

one who enters into two agreements for betrothal or marriage at the same time either on his own or on behalf of one whom he has in potestate.13

Digesta 3.2 goes on to provide further elaboration on what constitutes these categories.14

7 _{Digesta 3.2.1 (Julian): „qui artis ludicrae pronuntiandiue causa in scaenam prodierit‟.} 8 _{Digesta 3.2.1 (Julian): „qui lenocinium fecerit‟.}

9

Digesta 3.2.1 (Julian): „qui in iudicio publico calumniae praeuaricationisue causa quid fecisse iudicatus erit‟. On calumnia see A. Berger, „Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law‟ (1953) 43 Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 332-808, 378; on praeuaricatio, 648; and on iudicia publica, 521.

10 _{Digesta 3.2.1 (Julian): „qui furti, ui bonorum raptorum, iniuriarum, de dolo malo et} fraude suo nomine damnatus pactusue erit‟. On furtum‟ see Digesta 47.2; on ui bonorum raptorum 47.8; on iniuria 47.10; and on de dolo malo et fraude see 4.3, for the expression „de dolo malo et fraude as a compound, see the Lex Irnitana ch 84, l 13 (discussed further in a later Chapter) in J. González, „The Lex Irnitana: A New Copy of the Flavian Municipal Law‟ (1986) 76 Journal of Roman Studies 147-243, 175: „ … aut d(e) d(olo) m(alo) et [fraud]e, aut furto … ‟.

11 _{Digesta 3.2.1 (Julian): „qui pro socio, tutelae, mandati, depositi suo nomine non} contrario iudicio damnatus erit‟. On pro socio see Digesta 17.2; on tutela 26.10; on mandatum 17.1; on depositum 16.3.

12 _{Digesta 3.2.1 (Julian): „qui eam, quae in potestate eius esset, genero mortuo, cum eum} mortuum esse sciret, intra id tempus, quo elugere uirum moris est, antequam uirum elugeret, in matrimonium collocauerit: eamue sciens quis uxorem duxerit non iussu eius, in cuius potestate est: et qui eum, quem in potestate haberet, eam, de qua supra comprehensum est, uxorem ducere passus fuerit‟.

Chapter 2: The Digesta and Institutiones 52

Other Cases by Implication

It is clear from Digesta 3.2 that the initial catalogue de his qui notantur infamia

(„of those who are noted with infamia‟) in 3.2.1 is not exhaustive of the cases of infamia.15 This is clear where it is stated that: „the crime of fraud („stellionatus‟)

imposes infamia on the person condemned, even though it is not a public crime‟.16 This both makes it clear that stellionatus involves infamia (though not listed in

Digesta 3.2.1) and implies that conviction in a iudicium publicum also usually entails such a consequence.

One difficulty that arises in Digesta 3.2 is whether a failure to mourn entails

infamia. Two seemingly contradictory passages on mourning are placed at the end of the Chapter, separated from the main discussion of the prohibition on marriages during the mourning period, although this is the only basis for infamia

to which they could be pertinent. The first is a passage of Ulpian, stating that a person does not incur infamia for failing to mourn parents, children and other agnates or cognates, and that the degree of mourning for them is to be determined by individual pietas,17 reason and suffering of mind.18 This is followed, after one

13 _{Digesta 3.2.1 (Julian): „quiue suo nomine non iussu eius in cuius potestate esset, eiusue} nomine quem quamue in potestate haberet bina sponsalia binasue nuptias in eodem tempore constitutas habuerit‟.

14 _{On ignominious discharges: Digesta 3.2.2pr-4 (Ulpian); on actors: 3.2.2.5 (Ulpian), 3.2.3} (Gaius) and 3.2.4pr-1 (Ulpian); procurers 3.2.4.2-3 (Ulpian); calumniators 3.2.4.4 (Ulpian) 3.2.15 (Ulpian), 3.2.16 (Paul), 3.2.17 (Ulpian), 3.2.18 (Gaius) and 3.2.19 (Ulpian); those condemned in own name or compromised furtum, ui bonorum raptorum, iniuria, de dolo malo: 3.2.4.5 (Ulpian), 3.2.5 (Paul) and 3.2.6pr-4 (Ulpian); mandatum and depositum 3.2.6.5-7; marriage: 3.2.8 (Ulpian), 3.2.9-10 (Paul), 3.2.11 (Ulpian), 3.2.12 (Paul), 3.2.13pr-4 (Ulpian).

15 _{Digesta 3.2.1 (Julian).}

16 _{Digesta 3.2.13.8 (Ulpian): „Crimen stellionatus infamiam irrogat damnato, quamuis} publicum non est iudicium‟.

17 _{On pietas see R. Saller, Patriarchy, Property and Death in the Roman Family} (Cambridge Cambridge Uni. Press, 1994) 105-14.

Chapter 2: The Digesta and Institutiones 53 unrelated passage,19 by another passage that refers to a disinherited son mourning for his father and mother and to mourning a person who falls in war, even if he is not found.20 The reference to those who have fallen in war could be construed as relevant to the restriction on marriages within the period of mourning. However, the reference to a legal requirement to mourn (idemque et in matre iuris est), implying that a failure to do so may have a legal consequence, seems out of place following a passage stating that a failure to mourn does not entail infamia.21