Talk:nemo debet esse judex in propria

RFV discussion: May 2021–January 2023
Latin. Tagged by 2003:DE:371E:8062:C5AF:5ECF:481A:A509 on 30 April, not listed:


 * “1. google books only has it as "nemo debet esse judex in propria (sua) causa"
 * 2. google books mostly had non-Latin, mostly English, results, exceptions:, ”

J3133 (talk) 12:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * This should definitely be ... propria (sua) causa, as you say. I can see some Latin usage, , , and used in these in a way that conveys self-evidence, meaning this was an established maxim in legal Latin by the 17th century, so I'm inclined to keep. Will dig around more and try and sort out the entry later. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Cited, moved to nemo debet esse judex in propria causa (I can only find one instance of the sua appearing in actual Latin). This case is a bit more interesting than I expected, because it's clear that it's been reanalysed in more recent (non-Latin) law. Originally it referred to vigilantes, but its recent (English-speaking) legal usage seems to mainly apply literally to interested judges—but that's not how it was used when it emerged in legal Latin. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 14:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added no one should be judge in his own cause, which is abundantly citable at Google Books here. I see no trace of anti-vigilantism use. Sometimes case is substituted for cause. The application is sometimes outside a legal context, extending to the division of powers in some governments and to epistemology/psychology. One definition, from a proverbs dictionary, is "it is impossible to be impartial where your own interest is involved". DCDuring (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have seen mention in English of the Latin proverb as nemo judex in re sua. DCDuring (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the English entry looks good. I added a note to the Latin entry's etymology about its origin in the Code of Justinian, there are a lot of variations. From reading the commentators I can roughly see what the different interpretations are about—basically, the 16th/17th-century ones explain the maxim as being fundamentally to do with political authority (no one is a judge over themselves because that would be denying the rightful authority of their sovereign), hence the focus on taking the law into one's own hands, whereas the later, modern commentary uses it in the context of issues of partiality and fairness. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have found it attributed to (85-43 BC), some 600 years before the . It is supposed to be Maxim 545 of his . DCDuring (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

RFV-passed. As far as Publilius Syrus, the closest thing in modern editions is 729, "Ubi iudicat qui accusat, vis non lex valet" ("Where he who accuses also judges, force, not law, prevails"). This could be added to the entry as evidence of the aphorism having a longer history, though it's clear that the Code of Justinian is the source for the early modern authors who use this specific form. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)