to have been diftinguifhed from direct, were it to occur, it would probabiy be deemed alfo to correfpond to dolus. The divifion into culpa, lata, levis, and is fuch as nothing certain can correfpond to. What is it that it expre~es ? A dIArncHon~ not in the cafe itfelf, but only in the fentiments which any perfon (a judge, for inftance) may find himfelf difpafed to entertain with relation to ic fuppofing it already diftinguifhed into three fubordinate cafes by other means. The word dolus feems ill enough contrived the word culpa as indiiïerently. Dolus, upon any other occafion, would be under~ood to imply deceit, concealment, clande~inity but here it Is extended to open force. C~ upon any other occafion, would be underflood ta.extend to blame of every kind. It would therefore include dolus XVIII.
The above-mentioned definitions and dilunctions are far from being mere matters of fpeculation. They are capable of the moft extenfive See B. F. tit. [TheftJ ~c [amenable.1
Dolus, atlvtrtusqutsmhoAereqmnt!' p VIRGIL.
pretend not here to give any determinate explanation of a fet of words, of which the great misfortune is, that the import of them is confufed and indeterminate. r ~peak only by approximation. To attempt to determine thé preci<e import that has been given them by a hundredth part of thé authors that have ufed them, would be an endlefs tafk. Would any one talk intelligibly on this fubjeQ. in Latin r let him throw out do/us altogether let him keep culpa, for the purpofe of expreffing not the cafe itfelf, but the fentiment that is entertained concerning a cafe defcribed by other means. For intentionality, let him coin a word boidly, and~~ay !'<!<~f<eM/j for unintentiôn~. lity, non-intentionalitas. For unadvifcdneis, he bas already the word infcitia; tho' the words imprudentia, ~c~~T~~M, were it not for the other fendes they are ufed in,. would do better for nnadvi&dnefs coupled with heedleffnefs, let him fay infcitia f~~7~ for unadvifednefs wIthoutheedleiTnels,f~/a<<!f:c:7/j.' for mif-adviiednefscoitofed with raihnefs, error calpabilis, <rfaf ~M~ar/a~, or error f~M temeritate for mif-advifednefs without raihnefs, error Mfa~~7<j, error non y~Mj, or error fine ~M~< It is not unfrequent likewife to meet with thé phrsfe, ~t:& aa/Mc a phrafe Hitl more indeterminate, if poiEbIe, than any of thé former. It feems to have reference eithor to intentionality, or to confcioufnefs, or to the motive, or to the difpoûtion, or to any two or more of thefe taken together nobody can tell which thefe being objets which f~em to have never hitherto been properly diftinguifhed and defined.