- Source
- Digesta Iustiniani Augusti. Mommsen, Theodor & Krueger, Paul, editors. Berlin: Weidmann, 1870.
- Translation
- AI-generated (gemini-3.5-flash) — machine translation; may contain errors
- Languages
- 日本語 · English · 简体中文 · 한국어
- CTS URN
- urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:7.1.17.pr-7.1.17.3
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-12
This section discusses the exceptions allowing an owner to make a place religious without the usufructuary's consent, the scope of the owner's right to discipline or surrender a slave, and the granting of a beneficial action to the usufructuary if the slave is killed.
[ULPIANUS libro octauo decimo ad Sabinum.]
[ULPIAN in the eighteenth book on Sabinus.]
Locum autem religiosum facere potest consentiente usufructuario: et hoc uerum est fauore religionis. sed interdum et solus proprietatis dominus locum religiosum facere potest: finge enim eum testatorem inferre,1 cum non esset tam oportune, ubi sepeliretur.
Moreover, a person can make a place religious with the consent of the usufructuary; and this is true out of favor for religion. But sometimes even the sole owner of the property can make a place religious: for imagine that he is burying the testator when there was no other place so convenient where the testator might be buried.
Ex eo, ne deteriorem2 condicionem fructuarii faciat proprietarius, solet quaeri, an seruum dominus coercere possit. et Aristo apud Cassium notat plenissimam eum coercitionem habere, si modo sine dolo malo faciat: quamuis usufructuarius nec contrariis quidem ministeriis aut inusitatis artificium eius corrumpere possit nec seruum cicatricibus deformare.
From the rule that the owner must not make the condition of the usufructuary worse, it is commonly asked whether the owner can discipline a slave. And Aristo, in Cassius, notes that he has the fullest power of discipline, provided that he does so without malicious intent: although the usufructuary cannot corrupt the slave’s skill even by contrary or unusual duties, nor disfigure the slave with scars.
Proprietarius autem et seruum noxae dedere poterit, si hoc sine dolo malo faciat, quoniam noxae deditio iure non peremit usum fructum, non magis quam usucapio proprietatis, quae post constitutum usum fructum contingit. debebit plane denegari usus fructus persecutio, si ei qui noxae accepit3 litis aestimatio non offeratur a fructuario.
Furthermore, the owner will also be able to surrender the slave for damage, if he does this without malicious intent, since noxal surrender does not legally extinguish the usufruct, any more than does the usucapion of the property which occurs after the usufruct has been established. Clearly, the pursuit of the usufruct must be denied if the valuation of the suit is not offered by the usufructuary to the person who accepted the slave in noxal surrender.
Si quis seruum occiderit, utilem actionem exemplo Aquiliae fructuario dandam numquam dubitaui.
If anyone kills a slave, I have never doubted that a beneficial action on the model of the Lex Aquilia should be granted to the usufructuary.
- 7.1.17.prfinge enim eum testatorem inferre
An accusative-and-infinitival construction after finge ("imagine"). eum (referring to the owner) is the subject accusative of inferre ("to bury"), and testatorem ("the testator") is its direct object.
- 7.1.17.1Ex eo, ne deteriorem
The prepositional phrase Ex eo points forward to the appositive clause introduced by ne (the rule "that [the owner] must not make... worse").
- 7.1.17.2qui noxae accepit
noxae is a dative referring to noxal surrender. The phrase noxae accipere is a technical legal expression meaning "to receive [a slave] in noxal surrender" as compensation for damage.
Translated by Gemini 3.5 Flash (published 2026-07-12) · Revision history (1, latest 2026-09-21)
- 2026-09-21 AI review — source 1