SUMMUM IUS SUMMA INIURIA. O IDEOLOGICZNYCH ZAŁOŻENIACH W INTERPRETACJI STAROŻYTNYCH TEKSTÓW ŹRÓDŁOWYCH

Abstract

Summum ius summa iniuria. Some Remarks on the Ideological Premises in the Interpretation of Ancient Written SourcesSummaryThe saying summum ius summa iniuria has often been repeated after Cicero (Cic., Off. 1,33) until the present times. More than one hundred years before him , in one of his comedies, Terence mentioned that ius summum saepe summast malitia (Ter., Heaut. 796). It must, therefore, have become a proverb quite early on. Similar wording could also be found in the writings of Columella (Colum., Rust. 1,7,2) and Saint Jerome (Hier., Epist. 1,14). This expression, which was reiterated by ancient writers, was popular because it embodied, in a concise form, a com m on Roman experience that the law becomes an injustice when it is executed scrupulously w ithout paying any regard to its social context. It would seem, however, that the proverb summarizes this experience only on the spoken level since it would be difficult to specify its normative content.The Roman proverb is an interesting example of how an old maxim can be understood and used depending on its ideological presuppositions. The article shows how problematic certain interpolation premises are with regard to aequitas. The author criticizes applying the doctrine of class struggle to elucidate the meaning of summum ius summa iniuria. He also points out that Immanuel Kant’s suggestions on how to understand the saying could be misleading.It is not the author’s intention to repudiate ideological premises as such. Indeed, they could be helpful, particularly when ancient sources are ambiguous. Yet any research into these sources should be undertaken first to ascertain, if at all possible, how the Romans perceived a problem, and what they really had in m ind when writing the texts which have been preserved up to date. The texts could be used for any purpose whatsoever providing their interpretative position were clearly stated. Therefore, it would seem essential to distinguish between Roman law and its contemporary reception, as well as the truth about Roman thought and the interpretative possibilities which the sources provide for the present-day commentator.