# torquentur rei



## Emiliano M

Buenas no logro encontrar que puede significar : ''torquentur rei''

Va la frase:

«Le travail, tout le monde sait d'où ça vient, dans la langue, dans la  langue où je vous jaspine. Vous avez peut-être entendu parler de ça : ça  vient de tripalium, qui est un instrument de torture, et qui était fait  de trois pieux. Au Concile d'Auxerre on a dit qu'il ne convenait pas  aux prêtres ni aux diacres, d'être à côté de cet instrument au moyen de  quoi _torquentur rei_, sont tourmentés les coupables. Ça ne convient pas que le prêtre ni que le diacre soient là, ça les ferait peut-être bander.»


Bueno gracias de antemano

Emiliano


----------



## CapnPrep

Emiliano M said:


> Buenas no logro encontrar que puede significar : ''torquentur rei''


La traducción sigue inmediatamente en el texto: _torquentur rei_ = sont tourmentés les coupables.


----------



## Emiliano M

Gracias!!!


----------



## fdb

“Rei” ne sont pas les “coupables”; ce sont les “accusés”.


----------



## CapnPrep

fdb said:


> “Rei” ne sont pas les “coupables”; ce sont les “accusés”.


El adjetivo _reus_ tiene los dos significados ("acusado" y "culpado"), al igual que _reo _en español. El canon 33 no ofrece mucho contexto, ni para resolver esta ambigüedad, ni para confirmar la hipótesis graciosa del autor del texto de Emiliano M ("ça les ferait peut-être bander"):


> Non licet Presbytero, nec Diacono ad trepalium, ubi rei torquentur, stare.


----------



## wandle

If they are being tortured to extract a confession, then they have not yet been found guilty.


----------



## bearded

I agree with fdb and wandle that the most common meaning of 'reus' in Latin is 'the accused'. 
_In dubio pro reo _= in case of doubt, (the judgement has to be) in favour of the accused. No one could understand ''in favour of the guilty'' here.


----------



## CapnPrep

bearded man said:


> I agree with fdb and wandle that the most common meaning of 'reus' in Latin is 'the accused'.


I am not so sure that is true for Christian Latin, and even if it were, it would not allow us to be certain of the intended meaning in this specific example.


----------



## wandle

bearded man said:


> I agree with fdb and wandle that the most common meaning of 'reus' in Latin is 'the accused'.


I have not commented on the meaning of _*reus*_. I simply observed that if someone is being tortured for the purpose of extracting a confession, it follows from that the person has not been found guilty. 

That is a logical point, a necessary consequence of the words used in the 'if'-clause, but until we know whether the 'if'-clause is true in fact, we cannot say whether the consequence corresponds to the facts.


----------



## CapnPrep

wandle said:


> I have not commented on the meaning of _*reus*_. I simply observed that if someone is being tortured for the purpose of extracting a confession, it follows from that the person has not been found guilty.


First, the text does not indicate that the torture is being applied in order to extract a confession. Second, as a confession is not the only way to establish guilt, it does not follow as a necessary logical consequence that a person who has not confessed cannot have been found guilty.

We can continue to discuss the meaning of the original Latin sentence, although it seems unlikely to me that the force of the prohibition could depend on whether the person being tortured is guilty or merely accused: a priest or deacon is not allowed to be present in either case.


----------



## wandle

CapnPrep said:


> First, the text does not indicate that the torture is being applied in order to extract a confession.


Neither does the word 'if': it offers an hypothesis.


CapnPrep said:


> Second, as a confession is not the only way to establish guilt, it does not follow as a necessary logical consequence that a person who has not confessed cannot have been found guilty


My comment assumed that if someone was being tortured for the purpose of extracting a confession, it was because a confession was necessary to prove guilt. That is such a common scenario in the history of crime and punishment, including its religious dimension, down to the present day.

Of course, someone might have been found guilty without a confession and then be tortured to extract information implicating others.


----------

