- 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-lat1:9.4.24.pr
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-15
Paulus discusses whether a noxal action lies only against a master who fraudulently parted with a slave to avoid liability, or if the plaintiff has a choice to sue him even when another person (like a transferee or the manumitted slave himself) can be sued, concluding that the plaintiff indeed has this choice, while noting Julian's and Labeo's views on the manumitter's exception if the manumitted slave defends himself.
[PAULUS libro octauo decimo ad edictum.]
[PAULUS, Book 18 of the Commentary on the Edict]
De illo uidendum,1 utrum aduersus eum tantum, qui dolo fecit, quo minus in potestate haberet,2 actio locum habeat noxalis, si ex dolo eius acciderit, ut cesset noxalis actio (forte si servo suo fugam mandauit) an et si possit nihilo minus cum alio agi (quod accidit, cum alienatus manumissusue est). quod est uerius: in quo casu electio est actoris, cum quo uelit agere. Iulianus autem ait de eo qui manumissit, si paratus sit defendere se manumissus,3 exceptionem dandam ei qui manumisit. hoc et Labeo.
It must be considered whether a noxal action lies only against him who acted with deceit (dolo) so as not to have the slave in his power, if by his deceit it happens that the noxal action ceases (for instance, if he ordered his slave to flee), or whether [it lies] also if it is nonetheless possible to bring an action against another (which happens when the slave has been alienated or manumitted). The latter is more correct; in which case the choice is the plaintiff’s, as to whom he wishes to sue. However, Julian says concerning the person who manumitted, if the manumitted slave is prepared to defend himself, an exception must be given to the one who manumitted. Labeo also holds this.
- 9.4.24.prDe illo uidendum
This is an impersonal gerundive construction with the verb esse (here est) omitted. The object of consideration is the entire indirect question introduced by utrum.
- 9.4.24.prfecit, quo minus in potestate haberet
The combination of the verb facere and the conjunction quo minus (or quominus) introducing the subjunctive expresses the prevention or hindrance of an action, meaning 'acted to prevent [himself] from having [the slave] in his power'.
- 9.4.24.prsi paratus sit defendere se manumissus
In legal terminology, defendere means 'to defend one's case' or 'to undertake defense in court'. The subject manumissus is a participle functioning substantively to mean 'the manumitted slave'.
Translated by Gemini 3.5 Flash (published 2026-07-12) · Revisions to the English translation and the original (1, latest 2026-11-15)
- 2026-11-15 AI review — translation 1