CASE 232: Ignorance of the Law
D. 22.6.9 pr. (Paulus libro singulari de Iuris et Fach Ignorantia)
Regula est iuris quidem ignorantiam cuique nocere, facti vero ignorantiam non nocere.
videamus igitur, in quibus speciebus locum habere possit, ante praemisso quod minoribus viginti quinque annis ius ignorare permissum est. quod et in feminis in quibusdam causis propter sexus infirmitatem dicitur: et ideo sicubi non est delictum, sed iuris ignorantia, non laeduntur. hac ratione si minor viginti quinque annis filio familias crediderit, subvenitur ei, ut non videatur filio familias credidisse.(Paul in his monograph On Ignorance of Fact and Law)
It is a legal rule, to be sure, that ignorance of the law harms everyone, but ignorance of fact does not. Let us examine, then, to what situations this rule applies, granting first of all that persons under age twenty-five are allowed to be ignorant of the law.
In certain cases this is also true for women, because of the weakness of their sex (sexus infirmitas); and so, whenever it is a matter not of their wrongdoing but of their ignorance of the law, they are not harmed. On this principle, if someone less than twenty-five loans (money) to a son-in-power, he is aided to the effect that he is not held to have loaned to a son-in-power.
1. Four Types of “Ignoramus”. Four types of persons were on occasion permitted to plead that they had been disadvantaged because they were unaware of legal rules: those under twenty-five, soldiers, women, and “rustics,” this last group evidently being uneducated peasants. Why would these particular groups be thought to require protection? Do such exceptions erode the principle that “ignorance of the law is no excuse”?
2. Loans to Minors.
The SC Macedonianum held that a person who lent money to a son-in-power could not subsequently sue to recover the loan; see the Discussion on Case 119. Is this a technical rule that we would expect highly skilled professional moneylenders to know? If one teenager loans money to another and the lender is unaware of the decree, Paul says that the money can be recovered. Would the same be true if an adult woman, also unaware of the decree, loaned the money?3. No Profit. What does Paul mean by “whenever it is a matter not of their wrongdoing...”? Is there a hint here that not all women might be disadvantaged by ignorance of the law and so entitled to the benefit of the exemption?
4. The Imperial Revenue Service. If you are unaware of your rights and so inadvertently incriminate yourself to the imperial treasury, can you hope that your blunder will be excused? Only in the case of women and “rustics,” according to Callistratus, who relies on an imperial rescript (D. 49.14.2.7). Regarding women, is that holding consistent with this Case?