confusio
confusio, a mingling, mixing, blending
- A mingling.
- A Prop.: si duorum materiae ex voluntate dominorum confusae sint, totum id corpus quod ex confusione fit, etc., Just. Inst. 2, 1, 27; Dig. 6, 1, 23, § 5: colorum, Ap. Mund. 20, 6.—
- 2 Concr., a mixture, union: arcum esse multarum imaginum solis confusiones, Sen. Q. N. 1, 3, 5.—
- B Trop.
- 1 A mingling, mixing, uniting, combining (rare): haec conjunctio confusioque virtutum, Cic. Fin. 5, 23, 67.—Far more freq., and in good prose,
- 2 A confounding, confusion, disorder: religionum, Cic. Leg. 2, 10, 25: virtutum, id. Fin. 5, 23, 67: temporum, id. Off. 2, 19, 65: suffragiorum (i. e. not according to centuries, but viritim), id. Mur. 23, 47 (cf.: confusum suffragium, Liv. 26, 18, 9): perturbatio et confusio vitae, Cic. N. D. 1, 2, 3; cf. Quint. 3, 6, 29: populi, Vell. 2, 124; Quint. 12, 5, 3; Tac. H. 3, 38; Plin. Ep. 1, 22, 12: multi circuli et indecora confusio, id. ib. 3, 20, 4; id. Pan. 86, 3: vultus, Petr. 101, 8.—
- II (Acc. to confundo, II. B.) Oris, a reddening, blushing, Tac. H. 4, 40.
chaos obstrusum et torpens confusio rerum
perfectae essentiae ‥ uniformiter ‥ ordinatae per singulas species, omni ~one subtracta, imperfectio informis adhuc materiae opponitur
tunc lx car[ucae ] hominum, modo xxiiij; et hanc ~onem fecit R. de W. ante quam foris faceret; et omnes possent restaurari
distinctionem rerum et actualitatem precedit ~o vel chaos
absque longo processu et multiloquio, que nonnuncquam ~onem et tedium detulerunt
hi l liberi homines tunc et post valebant xvj li; modo xxxj; set non possunt sufferre sine ~one
spes ista non confundit, eo quod caritas nescit finem ~onis
[Hubertus ] nihil se fecisse recolit tanta dignum ~one
falso et maliciose ad ‥ Henrici ~onem quasdam billas ‥ procuravit presentari
de ~one Anglicorum apud Mitone
viros sceleratissimos, omni ~one dignos
comminari eis horribiles ~ones et penas
obtexit ‥ / ‥ quosdam rubrae confusio frontis
a multis personis multoties corripiebatur et militiam Christi tam terrore quam ~one repetere cogebatur
regina sola tantum habet undique ~onis ut obtusa relangueat
tantam suo comperto crimine ~onem dissimulare non prevalens
luxuriosi ‥ ita perdiderunt famam quod de ~one non curant [ME: ]habbeð so vorloren scheome þet ham nis nowiht of scheome
tanta est ‥ superbia criminosi quod, cum semel confusus fuerit et infamis, omnes alios vellet in revelacionem sue ~onis et infamie similiter †~one [? l. ~oni ] et infamie subjacere
- 1. verwarring, ongeregeldheid [religionum; rerum; vitae];
- 2. vereniging, versmelting [virtutum];
- 3. (postklass.) vermenging [colorum];
- 4. (postklass.) onzekerheid, verwarring, verwardheid; ➤ tanta in vultu ~; animos militum a confusione retrahere;
- 5. (Tac.) het rood aanlopen van woede of schaamte; ➤ crebra oris ~;
- 6. (Laatl.) vernedering, schande; wandaad;
- 7. (jur.) vermenging en daardoor teloorgang v. rechten, plichten e.d.
See an image
Quid opus fuit eis(episcopis) tantam injuriam vel Confusionem ingerere ?
- confusus, a mingling, mixing, blending: virtutum. — A confounding, confusion, disorder: temporum: suffragiorum: vitae: oris, i. e. a blush, Ta.
CONFU´SIOUnder this head it will be convenient to group a number of the naturales rerum singularum adquisitiones, or titles to property based on the jus gentium or naturale, which the Roman lawyers (e.g. Inst. 2.1, 21 sq.; Dig. 41, 1, 7) usually treat in connexion with one another.
Confusio is the mixing together of things of the same kind, so that they become inseparable: e. g. by pouring together liquids (for instance, wines, Inst. 2.1, 27); mixing grain (Dig. 6, 1, 5, pr.); fusing metals together (Dig. ib. 4), or combining them in the forge (ferruminatio, Dig. ib. 23, 5). If the things had belonged to different owners, and the mixing had been accidental or made by mutual consent, they became joint owners by the new title of confusio. Commixtio is a non-classical term derived from commiscere, which occurs less frequently than confundere in the juristic texts: by the jurists themselves the two are not clearly distinguished (Dig. 41, 1, 7, 8; 6, 1, 3, 2and 5), but commixtio is used by the moderns chiefly to denote the mixture of solid things, such as grain. Where the mixture was accidental and the two portions were separable, each of the owners retained his former property, and might separate it from the mass; but where it was made by consent, and in all cases where separation was impossible, they became joint owners by a new title; and the same held good if the mixing was done in good faith by one only without the other's consent. It is a case of commixtio, when a man's money is paid without his knowledge or consent, and then becomes so mixed with other money of the payee that it cannot be recognised and distinguished: otherwise it remained the property of the person to whom it originally belonged (Dig. 46, 3, 78).
Confusio is also used in an altogether different sense to express the union in one and the same person of a right and its corresponding duty, and the consequent extinction of both (merger): e. g. when a creditor becomes his debtor's heir or vice versâ: confusione perinde extinguitur obligatio ac solutione (Dig. 34, 3, 21, 1): but if the creditor becomes heir to his debtor's surety, or vice versâ, the accessory obligation of suretyship is extinguished, but not the principal debt (Dig. 46, 3, 43). So too in the case of servitudes and other jura in re aliena; if the person who has the right becomes dominus of the property over which it exists, the right is extinguished: si fructuarius proprietatem assecutus fuerit, desinit usus fructus ad eum pertinere propter confusionem (Dig. 7, 9, 4; cf. Inst. 2.4, 3). For praedial servitudes extinguished in this manner, see Dig. 8, 6, 1; 8, 2, 30, pr.
Specificatio is a non-classical term employed to denote the making of a new species or substance out of another man's material: e. g. wine out of his grapes, oil out of his olives, a ship or bench out of his timber (Gaius, 2.29; Inst. 2.1, 25). by the law as settled by Justinian the nova species belonged to him who made it, provided it could not be restored to its pristine character, and that he was acting on his own behalf (suo nomine) and (it would seem from Dig. 10, 4, 12, 3) in good faith; though of course he was bound to pay for the materials. If it could be restored to its original character, the ownership was not changed, though the specificator, if he had acted in good faith, had a right to retain the thing till he was paid the value of his labour. If the materials out of which the nova species was made belonged partly to the maker, partly to another person, the new product belonged (subject to the same conditions) to the former; but if it was made by consent of the owners of the diverse materials, or accidentally (as mead by the chance mixing of wine and honey), it belonged to them jointly (Inst. 2.1, 27. Cf. Seneca, Ep. 65; Pliny, Plin. Nat.34.5ff.; Ovid, Ov. Met. 2.5; Martial (Mart. 8.51, 7).
Where two things belonging to different persons became united or combined in the way of principal and accessory so as not to be separable without injury to one or both, the owner of the principal thing became owner of the accessory (accessio). Instances of this are the building by one man with his own bricks or timber on another man's land, for superficies solo cedit (Gaius, 2.73; Inst. 2.1, 29); the planting of shrubs and sowing of seed, when they have once taken root, in another's soil (Gaius, 2.74, 75; Inst. 2.1, 31, 32); the weaving by a man into his coat of another's purple (Inst. 2.1, 26); writing on another man's paper or parchment (Gaius, 2.77; Inst. 2.1, 33): though by an anomalous rule if one man painted a picture on another's canvas the canvas and picture both belonged to the painter (Gaius, 2.78; Inst. 2.1, 34), and similarly, if a piece of land were torn away by a stream from one man's land and became attached to that of another, it became the property of the latter so soon as the union was complete (Inst. 2.1, 21): but this is a different case from alluvio, which is described in the preceding paragraph of the Institutes. In all these cases, however, the losing party was entitled to compensation unless there had been mala fides on his part. (Vangerow, Pandekten, § § 310, 328-331; Puchta, Institutionen, § 242.)
[J.B.M]Properly the mixing of liquids, or the fusing of metals into one mass. If things of the same or of different kind were confused, either by the consent of both owners or by accident, the compound was the property of both. If the confusio was caused by one without the consent of the other, the compound was only joint property in case the things were of the same kind and perhaps of the same quality—as, for instance, wines of the same quality. If the things were different, so that the compound was a new thing, this was a case of what, by modern writers, is called specificatio, which the Roman writers expressed by the term novam speciem facere, as if a man made mulsum out of his own wine and his neighbour's honey. In such a case the person who caused the confusio became the owner of the compound, but he was bound to make good to the other the value of his property.
Commixtio applies to cases such as mixing together two heaps of corn; but this is not an instance in which either party acquires property by the commixtio. For if the mixture takes place, either accidentally or with mutual consent, or by the act of one alone, in all these cases the property of each person continues as before, for in all these cases it is capable of separation. A case of commixtio arises when a man's money is paid without his knowledge and consent, and the money, when paid, is so mixed with other money that it cannot be recognized; otherwise it remains the property of the person to whom it belonged.
Two things, the property of two persons, might become so united as not to be separable without injury to one or both; in this case, the owner of the principal thing became the owner of the accessory. Thus, in the case of a man building on another man's ground, the building belonged to the owner of the ground (superficies solo cedit); or in the case of a tree planted, or seed sown on another man's ground, the rule was the same. If a man wrote, even in letters of gold, on another man's parchment or paper, the whole belonged to the owner of the parchment or paper; in the case of a picture painted on another man's canvas, the canvas became the property of the owner of the picture.
But in all these cases the losing party was entitled to compensation, with some exceptions as to cases of mala fides.