# res ipsa loquitur/res loquitur ipsa



## Michael Zwingli

In the common legal phrase _res ipsa loquitur/res loquitur ipsa_, is _ipsa_ taking the nominative case or the ablative case? I understand that as an intensive, ipsa serves to emphasize _res, _but the issue of case remains less clear to me. I am unsure because the action of the verb _loquitur_ seems to suggest a removal away from _ipsa_ "itself", and toward _res_ "the thing". I may be tending to think this way because that is more the sense in the common English translation of the phrase: _"The thing speaks for itself."_, and in that situation _itself_ seems to take the ablative. In the more literal translation:_"The thing itself speaks.", _however, _itself_ (in our sentence _ipsa_) seems to take the nominative. If that is the case, would ipse take the ablative (plural) in the following sentence: _Res obviae per ipsis loquuntur_, or rather would one say: _Res obviae per ipsae loquuntur_, with ipse taking the nominative plural?

Benigne.


----------



## Kevin Beach

I think that _ipsa_ is nominative, matching _res_. A literal translation would be "The thing itself speaks". The English construction "The thing speaks for itself" is merely and accident of syntax.


----------



## bearded

Hi Michael / Benigne
I fully agree with Kevin Beach. 'Ipsa' is nominative in that sentence.
I would like to add that both word orders 'res ipsa loquitur / res loquitur ipsa' are correct, since in Latin there is no fixed position of words...
As for your final question, by adding 'per' you are probably trying to literally translate _*for* themselves, _but, as Kevin worte, ''to speak for oneself'' is just an English construction with that meaning (however, the Latin preposition 'per' governs the accusative case, therefore correct would be _- _if only ever possible - _per ipsas/per se ipsas_: female plural).


----------



## Michael Zwingli

Yes. In retrospect, I was somewhat fixated on the ablative in this case by the "accident of syntax" to which Kevin alluded.



bearded said:


> Hi Michael / Benigne
> As for your final question, by adding 'per' you are probably trying to literally translate _*for* themselves, _but, as Kevin worte, ''to speak for oneself'' is just an English construction with that meaning (however, the Latin preposition 'per' governs the accusative case, therefore correct would be _- _if only ever possible - _per ipsas/per se ipsas_: female plural).



I am left wondering, then, by your "...if only ever possible...", would the sentences _Res per ipsam loquitur_, _Res obvia per ipsam loquitur_, and _Res obviae per ipsas loquuntur_ be logical statements, or would they appear nonsensical?
(Perhaps we need Scholiast, or another expert, again, for this.)

La ringrazio tanto...


----------



## Michael Zwingli

Perhaps the sense of "The thing speaks for itself" might be given more by the following: _Res ipsa profatur/proloquitur_, or even more by _Res ipsa proclamat._ What do you think, fellows?


----------



## Michael Zwingli

I think I should have said _Res ipsam profatur/proloquitur/proclamat_. (I sigh)


----------



## bearded

Michael Zwingli said:


> Perhaps we need Scholiast, or another expert, again, for this.


----------



## Scholiast

postulor. The following is from one of several online lists of standard Latin legal maxims (e.g.
https://www.kent.ac.uk/library/subjects/lawlinks/skills-hub/.../GlossaryofLegalLatin.pdf...)

'Res ipsa loquitur.

‘The thing speaks for itself’ – A principle often applied in the tort of negligence. If an accident has occurred of a kind that usually only happens if someone has been negligent, and the state of affairs that produced the accident was under the control of the defendant, it may be presumed in the absence of evidence that the accident was caused by the defendant's negligence (Scott v London and St Katherine Docks Co (1865) 3 Hurl. & C. 596).'

I do not immediately recognise a classical source for this, however, but I would be surprised if it does not crop up in same shape or form in Cicero or the _Digest_.

Σ


----------



## bearded

You are right, Scholiast: the first (known) author who used it was Cicero in his_ Oratio pro Milone.   Res ipsa loquitur _ (History).


----------



## Scholiast

Many thanks, bearded (# 9). It's always good to have one's instincts and suspicions authoritatively confirmed. It is some time since I studied or even read the _Miloniana_, and it remains a moot question how far the principle as Cicero used it in the passage you have cited is applies in the other jurisdictions cited in the Wiki-article. But at least this proves that the wording is recognisably consistent throughout.

Σ


----------



## Kevin Beach

Scholiast said:


> postulor. The following is from one of several online lists of standard Latin legal maxims (e.g.
> https://www.kent.ac.uk/library/subjects/lawlinks/skills-hub/.../GlossaryofLegalLatin.pdf...)
> 
> 'Res ipsa loquitur.
> 
> ‘The thing speaks for itself’ – A principle often applied in the tort of negligence. If an accident has occurred of a kind that usually only happens if someone has been negligent, and the state of affairs that produced the accident was under the control of the defendant, it may be presumed in the absence of evidence that the accident was caused by the defendant's negligence (Scott v London and St Katherine Docks Co (1865) 3 Hurl. & C. 596).'
> 
> I do not immediately recognise a classical source for this, however, but I would be surprised if it does not crop up in same shape or form in Cicero or the _Digest_.
> 
> Σ



I'm not sure that it needs to have had a classical source, strictly. It sounds more like one of the phrases that English Common Law imported from Roman Law, while developing what became the Common Law tort of Negligence. If so, it may well have originated in the Eastern Empire under Justinian or another Eastern Emperor, more than half a millennium after Cicero's time.


----------



## Michael Zwingli

Kevin Beach said:


> I'm not sure that it needs to have had a classical source, strictly. It sounds more like one of the phrases that English Common Law imported from Roman Law, while developing what became the Common Law tort of Negligence. If so, it may well have originated in the Eastern Empire under Justinian or another Eastern Emperor, more than half a millennium after Cicero's time.


Good insight, Kevin.


----------

