因果论:对朱利安因果观的误解

IF 0.6 3区历史学 Q1 HISTORY

Journal of Legal History Pub Date : 1999-08-01 DOI:10.1080/01440362008539592

J. Kortmann

{"title":"因果论:对朱利安因果观的误解","authors":"J. Kortmann","doi":"10.1080/01440362008539592","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The Roman jurists’ treatment of the problem of the ‘supervening cause’ has been the subject of many publications in the second half of this century.1 In particular, an alleged controversy between Celsus and Julian has been singled out. It is suggested in this essay that the discussions have constantly erred in the translation of D. 9.2.51 pr. (Julian). This has often led to a misconception of Julian's opinion on the matter. When closely read, Julian's words, as reproduced in D. 9.2.51, leave room for the view that Celsus and Julian either did not disagree at all or in any case did not disagree on the matter of the ‘supervening cause’.","PeriodicalId":43796,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal History","volume":"20 1","pages":"95-103"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"1999-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/01440362008539592","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ab alio ictu(s): Misconceptions about Julian's View on Causation\",\"authors\":\"J. Kortmann\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/01440362008539592\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The Roman jurists’ treatment of the problem of the ‘supervening cause’ has been the subject of many publications in the second half of this century.1 In particular, an alleged controversy between Celsus and Julian has been singled out. It is suggested in this essay that the discussions have constantly erred in the translation of D. 9.2.51 pr. (Julian). This has often led to a misconception of Julian's opinion on the matter. When closely read, Julian's words, as reproduced in D. 9.2.51, leave room for the view that Celsus and Julian either did not disagree at all or in any case did not disagree on the matter of the ‘supervening cause’.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43796,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Legal History\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"95-103\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"1999-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/01440362008539592\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Legal History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/01440362008539592\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Legal History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01440362008539592","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

罗马法学家对“监督原因”问题的处理一直是本世纪下半叶许多出版物的主题特别值得一提的是，塞尔苏斯和朱利安之间的争议被挑出来了。本文认为，在D. 9.2.51 pr.(朱利安)的翻译中，讨论经常出现错误。这常常导致人们对朱利安在这个问题上的观点产生误解。仔细阅读，朱利安的话，如D. 9.2.51所述，留下了空间，即塞尔苏斯和朱利安要么根本没有分歧，要么在任何情况下都没有分歧，在“监督原因”的问题上。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Ab alio ictu(s): Misconceptions about Julian's View on Causation

Abstract The Roman jurists’ treatment of the problem of the ‘supervening cause’ has been the subject of many publications in the second half of this century.1 In particular, an alleged controversy between Celsus and Julian has been singled out. It is suggested in this essay that the discussions have constantly erred in the translation of D. 9.2.51 pr. (Julian). This has often led to a misconception of Julian's opinion on the matter. When closely read, Julian's words, as reproduced in D. 9.2.51, leave room for the view that Celsus and Julian either did not disagree at all or in any case did not disagree on the matter of the ‘supervening cause’.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Journal of Legal History HISTORY-

CiteScore

0.70

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Journal of Legal History, founded in 1980, is the only British journal concerned solely with legal history. It publishes articles in English on the sources and development of the common law, both in the British Isles and overseas, on the history of the laws of Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, and on Roman Law and the European legal tradition. There is a section for shorter research notes, review-articles, and a wide-ranging section of reviews of recent literature.