Talk:Mortal wound

Mortal wound received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

English Language Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Language, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the English language on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.English LanguageWikipedia:WikiProject English LanguageTemplate:WikiProject English LanguageEnglish Language articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Latin parallel

Hi, I was wondering if it might be useful to discuss the use of the equivalent latin/legal term vulnus mortale (or plaga mortalis) in connection with mortal wound. Here's a dictionary entry for vulnus mortale in 1629: [1]. Here's an instance of plaga mortalis in 1640:[2]. And here's someone in 1793 questioning whether 'mortal wound' is properly rendered 'vulnus mortale' or 'plaga mortalis' in formal indictments:[3]. Book 9 of the Justinian digest (530-533) also contains the term 'mortiferum vulnus': Celsus scribit, si alius mortifero vulnere percusserit...:[4].

Edit: here's a 'mortale vulnus' from 1605, in Farinacci's Praxis et Theorica.[5] Cheers, Genericusername57 (talk) 16:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Genericusername57: I agree this would be very interesting to discuss in the article. I'm just considering how best to incorporate the new information. Whether a new heading would be required or whether it could be incorporated as a subheading? Any suggestions? Thanks, --MeerkatShadow (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd suggest, since most of these are legal sources, that this information be combined with the 'usage in law' subsection (and perhaps that that be promoted to a section, as it would be a bit odd under 'modern uses'). I don't think very much detail is needed—I suggest including the ideas that:
- The Romans also had the idea of a 'mortal wound' (appearing, for instance, in Cicero's Pro Sulla (volnus vehemens et mortiferum: a terrible and mortal wound)[6][7] and Livy's Ab Urbe Condita Libri(ne mortiferum esset uolnus)[8]), referred to, according to these four dictionaries [9] in a number of different ways, including as a mortiferum/mortale vulnus.
- Roman legal experts had different ideas of what precisely it was, and what the penalty should be if one person gives someone a mortal wound but then another person finishes him off (using the information in the 1982 Tortius Liability book as a secondary source, as well as the Justinian digest that it cites);
- The legal tradition continued with medieval and renaissance scholars. Here's a secondary source: "As early as the thirteenth century, experts (periti) were used to establish whether a wound was mortal, ..."[10]. And here's another about the 13th century use of post-mortem dissections in contested legal cases to determine which of a number of wounds was fatal [11]. Menochius(1583) and Farinacci both address the same question: how to figure out who's to blame when someone dies after multiple people have wounded him. I'd be happy to translate snippets from those authors, if you think they're worth including.
- The term is still used in modern-day courtrooms and legal works, as in your examples.

I'll leave it to your better judgement how much (if any) of this to include and which sources to use. Cheers, Genericusername57 (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]