Although We have prescribed a different punishment from that imposed in ancient times upon one who maliciously and purposely tears out the eyes of another with his hands, We nevertheless, never intended to confirm this as law. For, indeed, it is through motives of piety that We have arrived at this conclusion, which is perfectly clear; for as the vision of a person who has lost it cannot be restored, I have not thought that it was proper to subject the guilty party to blindness, although he may appear to have merited the same affliction. I have, however, sometimes imposed this serious penalty, in order that he who deprived another of sight might bear the evidence of his crime; and that he who had had his eyes put out might find a solace for his calamity in the sufferings of him who reduced him to that condition. My purpose, as I have just remarked, has never been to enact these regulations into laws. However, as the Master of Our Imperial Offices has asked Us to invest them with this character, on account of their mildness, and in order that, in the future, if anything of this kind should occur, it may be decided as in this instance, We accede to his request, and We promulgate as laws the decisions which We have rendered. Therefore, if anyone should injure the sight of another, for example, if he should tear out one of his eyes, We order that he shall undergo the penalty of retaliation, but if he should destroy both of his eyes, as, under these circumstances, the infliction of the same penalty would be of no benefit to the person who has lost his sight (for what advantage can a blind man obtain from the fact that another is also blind), and as the penalty of retaliation, while deserved, would be too cruel, since nothing is so pitiable as blindness, We decree that the offender shall not be subjected to it; but that he shall be punished in some other way, so that he who has been injured by him, may, to some extent, be indemnified for his misfortune. Hence We promulgate the following law. Where anyone has deprived another of both of his eyes, he shall lose one of his own, and although he deserves to have the hand with which he committed the crime cut off, he shall, instead of this, be fined a sum equal to half his property, which shall be transferred to him who was deprived of his eyes, as a consolation for the bitterness of his life. And if the blind man in this way receives what he can use for the purpose of meeting his living expenses, he will experience a certain slight mitigation of his calamity, and he who committed the deed will be punished by being deprived of one of his eyes, as well as of his property, as already mentioned, instead of having his hand amputated. Punishment should be inflicted in this way when the accused person is wealthy. Where, however, he is extremely poor and in very reduced circumstances, and can offer no compensation to him who has been reduced to utter wretchedness by his violent act, he shall be condemned to undergo a similar misfortune, and, deprived of both his eyes, shall pass the rest of his existence in absolute blindness. Where any persons have assisted him in the perpetration of this horrible crime, and have taken an active part in depriving the victim of his sight, they shall be punished in the same way; and if they did not participate in the offence, but prompted it, or in some other manner contributed their aid, they shall be scourged, shaved, and sentenced to pay a fine equal to one-third of their property, and those who actually caused the blindness shall be subjected to the penalties aforesaid.