- 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-lat1:8.2.5.pr
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-14
Ulpian, quoting Pomponius, explains that "unwilling" in the context of servitudes means the absence of consent (including infants and madmen due to their lack of legal capacity) rather than an express objection.
[ULPIANUS libro septimo decimo ad edictum.]
[ULPIANUS in the seventeenth book on the Edict.]
Inuitum1 autem in seruitutibus accipere debemus non eum qui contra dicit, sed eum qui non consentit. ideo Pomponius libro quadragensimo et infantem et furiosum inuitos recte dici ait: non enim ad factum, sed ad ius seruitutis haec uerba referuntur.2
But in servitudes, we must understand “unwilling” to mean not the one who speaks against, but the one who does not consent. Therefore, Pomponius in his fortieth book says that both an infant and a madman are correctly said to be “unwilling”; for these words refer not to the fact, but to the right of servitude.
- 8.2.5.prInuitum
Although it is an adjective in the accusative masculine singular, it is used substantively here as a legal term to be defined, serving as the object of accipere debemus ("we must understand/interpret"). It defines the legal meaning of the term used in the previous fragment (8.2.4.pr: inuitis nobis).
- 8.2.5.prnon enim ad factum, sed ad ius seruitutis haec uerba referuntur
This explains the distinction that the term "unwilling" (inuitus) refers not to the factual act (factum) of active objection, but to the legal status (ius) of lacking valid consent. Consequently, an infant (infans) or a madman (furiosus), who lacks legal capacity to object in fact, is still legally considered "unwilling" because they cannot consent.