Dictionary of Greek and Roman antiquities. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by numerous engravings on wood.

DAMINU-M INFECTUM. DAMINUM INJURIA DATUM. 3833
talents' weight; upon receiving which, she struck r another in consequence of its dilapidated state, the
the coin, which was called, after her, 6a1tqcpsrTeov, owner of the dilapidated property might be required
and which contained ten Attic drachmae, and was to repair it or to give security against any damage
called by the Sicilians 7rEvTlKo.VTaA'Tpyo', from that might be caused by the state of his building.
its weight. (Comp. Schol. ad Pind. 01. ii. 1.) The security (cautio) was demanded by an actio in
The story is told somewhat differently by other factum, in all cases where the security could be
writers, namely, that Damarete and the ladies of required. Every person who was in possession of the
the court gave up their ornaments to be coined into property that was threatened, whether as owner or
mnoney, in order to supply Gelon's necessities during in any other right (but not a bonae fidei possessor),
the war. (Pollux, ix. 85; Hesych. s. v. An-/ape- could claim this cautio. (Dig. 39. tit. 2. s. 5. ~ 2;
n-Lop.) In an epigram ascribed to Simonides, who 13. ~ 5, 18; 13. ~ 4, 9.) The owner of the ruinous
was probably living at the court of Gelon at this property or any person who had a right therein, and
very time (Schol ad Pird. Pylth. i. 155;.4nth. Pal. a bonae fidei possessor, might he required to give this
vi. 214; No. 196, Schneidewin), it is said that cautio, which might be given by a simple promise
Gelon and his brothers dedicated to the Pythian or by giving sureties. The complainant had to
Apollo, after their victory over the barbarians, a swear that he did nIot require the cailtio calumniae
tripod Aaperiov XpvoO, where there can be no causa (Dig. 39. tit. 2. s. 7; IDQVE. NON. If. Rc.
doubt that Bentley is right in reading AayLapE74rov, SE. FACERE. IViRAVERIT. Tab. Vel. c. xx.)
but it is not equally certain whether the last two If the defendant wrongfully refused to give the
lines of the epigram are not altogether spurious. security, the complainant was empowered to enter
(Comp. Schneidewin, ad loc., and Bickh, Afetrol. upon the property which threatened the damage,
Untersuch. p. 304.) At all events, the passage is and apparently for the purpose of protecting himan indication of the uniform tradition respecting self against it; if this produced no result, the dethis " Damaretian gold;" the exact history of fendant was ejected, and the complainant was
which is of very little consequence compared with allowed to take possession of the property, and the
the identification of the coinage to which the state- defendant lost all his rights to it.
menlts refer. From all the discussion of this point If a ruinous house (aedes ruinosae) fell and
by Eckhel, Miiller, Hussey, B3ckh, and others, damaged a neighbour before any cautio had been
the most probable conclusion seems to be that the given, all the right that the damaged person had
coin was of gold and not of silver (although coins was to retain the materials that had fallen on his
of equal value were at some time or other struck land (Dig. 39. tit. 2. ss. 6, 7. ~~ 2, 8); but it seems
in silver also), and that the statements which give that the owner of the ruinous house could, it he
its weight as fifty Sicilian litras, or ten Attic liked, pack up the materials and carry them off.
drachmae, are to be understood, not literally of its (Cic. Top. 4, In Verr. i. 56; Inst. 4. tit. 5; ThiueigAt, but of its value, as estimated by those baut, System, &c. ~ 274, &c. 9th ed.) [G. L.]
iweights of silter: in short, it was a gold coin, equal DAMNUM INJURIA DATUM. The most
in value to fifty litrae or ten Attic drachmae of usual form of proceeding in cases of Damnum insilver; that is, a half stater. (Eckhel, Doct. ANom. juria datum was by the Lex Aquilia (Dig. 9. tit. 2),
Vet. vol. i. p. 250; Hussey, On Azcient Weighls, which repealed all previous legislation on the subp. 57. &c.; Biickh, Mlletrologische UntersuclZungen, ject. This Lex Aquilia was a plebiscitum, which
p. 304, &c.) [P.S.] was proposed by Aquilius, a tribunus plebis. If the
DAMIURGI. [DEMIURGI.] owner of the damaged thing sued, there might be
DAMNUM. Damnum signifies generally any two cases. The damage might be done by corloss or damage which a person has sustained in his poreal contact of the wrongdoer (corpore), or by
property (damnum datum, ftictum), or damage something which he directed, and done to another
which he has reason to fear (damnum infectum). thing (corpus), so as to impair its value or destroy
(Dig. 39. tit. 2. s. 2.) Damnumr actually done is it; and in this case there was the directa actio
generally called damnum simply. The liability to Legis Aquiliae. The first chapter provided that
make good a loss is praestare damnum. if a niman killed (injuria, that is, dolo anut culpa,
The causes of damage are either chance, acci- Gaius, iii. 211) a slave or quadruped (quae pecudum
dent (casus), or the free acts or omissions of rea- numero sit) which belonged to another, he was
sonable human beings. (Dig. 9. tit. 2. s. 5. ~ 2.) bound to pay the highest value that the slave or
If the damnum is caused by the just exercise of a animal had within the year preceding the unlawright, it is indirect. In any other case it is direct ful act. If the wrongdoer wilfully denied the fact
or iinjuria datum; and when it is injuria datum, of the damage, he was liable to make compensation
there may be neither dolus nor culpa, or there may to double the value. The third chapter provided
be either one or the other. for the case of a slave or quadruped (quae pecudum,
The obligation tomake compensation for damage &c.) being daniaged, or any thing else being
arises either from dolus malus, culpa, and mora, damaged or destroyed. In this case he had to
which in fact is included in culpa, and out of con- pay the highest value that the thing had within
tracts. A man is not bound to make compensa- the thirty days preceding the unlawful act. If
tion for indirect loss or damage (Dig. 39. tit. 2. the damage was done to a thing (corpus), but not
s. 26; 47. tit. 9. s. 3. ~ 7); nor for direct damage, by a corpus, there was an actio utilis Legis Aquiif neither doles nor culpa can be imputed to him, liae, which is also an actio in factum or on the
as if he be mad..(Dig. 9. tit. 2. s. 5. ~ 2, 30. ~ 3; case. Such a case would occur when, for instance,
Thibaut, Systenm, &c., 9th ed. ~ 163.) As to a man should purposely drive his neighbour's beast
damage done by an animal, see PAUPERIES. [G.L.] into a river and it should perish there. (Dig. 9.
DAMNUM INFECTUM, is damage (dam- tit. 2. s. 7. ~ 3, 9.)
num) not done, but apprehended. (Dig. 39. tit. 2. If the thing was not damaged, but the owner
s. 2.) The praetor's edict provided for such cases. was damaged, there might be an actio in factum;
If the building of one man threatened damage to as, for instance, if a man out of compassion loosed