Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §12.1.20.pr

Validity of a Gift Conditioned on Being Lent Back

Passage 1875 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

Julian discusses whether a gift made on the condition of being lent back constitutes a loan, arguing that while strict verbal analysis denies both characters, a more benign interpretation should validate both transactions.

[IDEM libro octauo decimo digestorum. ] §12.1.20.prSi tibi pecuniam donassem, ut tu mihi eandem crederes, an credita fieret? dixi in huiusmodi propositionibus non propriis uerbis nos uti, nam talem contractum neque donationem esse neque pecuniam creditam: donationem non esse, quia non ea mente pecunia daretur, ut omnimodo penes accipientem maneret: creditam non esse, quia exsoluendi causa magis daretur, quam alterius obligandi.
[THE SAME, Digest, Book 18] If I had given you money as a gift on the condition that you should lend the same money to me, would it become a loan? I have said that in cases of this kind we do not use proper words, for such a contract is neither a gift nor a loan: it is not a gift, because the money is not given with the intention that it should remain in any event in the hands of the recipient; it is not a loan, because it is given rather for the purpose of releasing than of binding another.
igitur si is, qui pecuniam hac condicione accepit, ut mihi in creditum daret, acceptam dederit, non fore creditam: magis enim meum accepisse intellegi debeo.
Therefore, if he who received the money on this condition, that he should give it to me as a loan, has given what he received, it will not be a loan; for I ought rather to be understood to have received my own property.
sed haec intellegenda sunt propter suptilitatem uerborum: benignius tamen est utrumque ualere.
But these things are to be understood on account of the subtlety of words; it is, however, more benign that both should be valid.

Notes

  1. §12.1.20.prexsoluendi causa magis daretur, quam alterius obligandi — The gerund 'exsoluendi' and the gerundive construction 'alterius obligandi' are juxtaposed in genitive cases governed by 'causa' (for the sake of). 'Exsoluere' (to release/discharge) and 'obligare' (to bind/obligate) stand in conceptual contrast; the initial delivery of money is analyzed as aiming at the release of the transferor rather than imposing a new obligation on the transferee.
  2. §12.1.20.prmagis enim meum accepisse intellegi debeo — The personal passive construction 'intellegi debeo' (I ought to be understood) takes the perfect infinitive 'accepisse' (to have received). 'Meum' is used substantively in the neuter singular, meaning 'my own property'. This phrase forms the core of the strict argument that no new loan is established because the original owner merely recovers their own money.
  3. §12.1.20.prbenignius tamen est utrumque ualere — The neuter comparative adjective 'benignius' serves as the predicate of the infinitive clause 'utrumque ualere' (that both should be valid). This represents the classic Roman juristic contrast between strict textual subtlety ('suptilitas') and a more equitable or benign interpretation ('benignitas') which favors upholding the validity of transactions.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §12.1.20.pr. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:12.1.20.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.