- 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-lat1:9.4.31.pr
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-15
The text discusses the praetor's edict regarding theft committed by a household of slaves, examining juristic opinions on whether the value of surrendered slaves should be imputed and the requirement that they belong to the same household at the time of the theft.
[PAULUS libro septimo ad Plautium.]
[PAULUS, on Plautius, Book VII.]
Quod ait praetor,1 cum familia furtum faciat, ad eum modum se actionem daturum, ut tantum actor consequatur, quantum si liber fecisset consequeretur,2 quaeritur, utrum ad pecuniae praestationem respiciat an etiam ad noxae deditionem, ut puta si ex pretiis noxae deditorum duplum colligatur, sequentes actiones inhibeantur. Sabinus et Cassius putant pretium quoque noxae deditorum imputari debere, quod Pomponius probat et est uerum: nam et si seruus indefensus ductus sit,3 aestimatio eius imputanda est. certe non tantum duplationis, sed et condictionis rationem habendam Iulianus putat. furti faciendi tempus spectandum esse, an4 eiusdem familiae sint serui: nam si hi, qui plurium dominorum erunt, unius esse postea coeperint, locus edicto non erit.
Where the praetor says that, when a household of slaves commits a theft, he will grant an action in such a manner that the plaintiff shall recover only as much as he would have recovered if a free person had committed it, the question is raised whether this refers to the payment of money or also to the surrender of the wrongdoers; for instance, if the double value is recovered from the prices of the surrendered slaves, whether subsequent actions are barred. Sabinus and Cassius think that the price of the surrendered slaves also ought to be imputed, which Pomponius approves, and it is correct; for even if an undefended slave is taken away, his value must be imputed. Certainly Julian thinks that account must be taken not only of the doubling but also of the condictio. Regarding whether the slaves belong to the same household, the time of the commission of the theft must be considered; for if those who belonged to several masters subsequently begin to belong to one, there will be no room for the edict.
- 9.4.31.prQuod ait praetor
The introductory Quod is a neuter singular accusative relative pronoun, used in a transitional or topical sense ('As to the fact that the praetor says...'), setting up the context for the main question introduced by quaeritur.
- 9.4.31.prsi liber fecisset consequeretur
A contrary-to-fact conditional sentence with the pluperfect subjunctive fecisset in the protasis and the imperfect subjunctive consequeretur in the apodosis. It means 'if a free person had committed [the theft], [the plaintiff] would have recovered'.
- 9.4.31.prseruus indefensus ductus sit
indefensus refers to a slave whom the owner did not defend in the action. ductus sit refers to the act of the slave being led away (ducere) by the plaintiff under the praetor's order.
- 9.4.31.prspectandum esse, an
An accusative with infinitive construction (gerundive + esse) with an omitted main verb of thinking or saying. The clause starting with an is an indirect question ('whether...') depending on spectandum esse.