Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §11.7.43.pr

Interdict on Bringing in a Dead Body and Religious Reasons

Passage 1847 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

Papinian explains cases where persons who cannot make a place religious, such as an owner of land subject to another's usufruct, can still effectively use the interdict on burying a dead person, highlighting public utility and the supremacy of religious considerations.

[PAPINIANUS libro octauo quaestionum. ] §11.7.43.prSunt personae, quae, quamquam religiosum locum facere non possunt, interdicto tamen de mortuo inferendo utiliter agunt, ut puta dominus proprietatis, si in fundum, cuius fructus alienus est, mortuum inferat aut inferreuelit: nam si intulerit, non faciet iustum sepulchrum, sed si prohibeatur, utiliter interdicto, qui de iure dominii quaeritur, aget.
[PAPINIANUS, Questions, book 8] There are persons who, although they cannot make a place religious, nevertheless act effectively with the interdict on burying a dead person; as for example the owner of the property, if he buries or wishes to bury a dead person on land of which the usufruct belongs to another. For if he has brought it in, he will not make a lawful tomb, but if he is prevented, he who is questioned concerning the right of ownership will effectively act with the interdict.
eademque sunt in socio, qui in fundum communem inuito socio mortuum inferre uult.
And the same things apply in the case of a partner who wishes to bring a dead person into common land against the will of his partner.
nam propter publicam utilitatem, ne insepulta cadauera iacerent, strictam rationem insuper habemus, quae nonnumquam in ambiguis religionum quaestionibus omitti solet: nam summam esse rationem, quae pro religione facit.
For on account of public utility, lest unburied corpses should lie, we disregard strict reason, which is sometimes accustomed to be omitted in ambiguous questions of religion: for that reason is supreme which supports religion.

Notes

  1. §11.7.43.prdominus proprietatis — Refers to the owner of the property, specifically the "naked owner" (nudus dominus) when the usufruct (fructus) belongs to someone else.
  2. §11.7.43.prqui de iure dominii quaeritur — The antecedent of the relative pronoun `qui` is `dominus proprietatis`. The passive verb `quaeritur` means "is questioned" or "is disputed", referring here to the owner whose right of ownership is being called into question.
  3. §11.7.43.prinsuper habemus — The compound verb `insuper habeo` means "to disregard" or "to neglect". Here it means that for the sake of public utility, strict legal reasoning is not applied.
  4. §11.7.43.prsummam esse rationem, quae pro religione facit — An accusative-with-infinitive clause functioning as an independent statement introduced by `nam`. It expresses the famous Roman legal maxim: "that reason is supreme which supports religion (sacred obligation)."

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §11.7.43.pr. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:11.7.43.pr

Please note the AI-draft status of the translation and the date accessed.

Translation, notes and summary are AI-generated drafts, revised through reader feedback.