Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §18.7.7.pr

Breach of Residence Ban and Penalty Claims

Passage 2760 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

The author discusses whether a seller can demand a penalty for a breach of the condition that a slave must not remain in Italy, distinguishing between the seller's legitimate interest (humane affection) and mere vengeance.

[IDEM libro decimo quaestionum. ] §18.7.7.prSeruus ea lege ueniit, ne in Italia esset: quod si aliter factum esset, conuenit citra stipulationem, ut poenam praestaret emptor.
[THE SAME in the tenth book of Questions.] A slave was sold under the condition that he should not be in Italy; and it was agreed, without a stipulation, that if it should be otherwise, the buyer should pay a penalty.
uix est, ut eo nomine uindictae ratione uenditor agere possit, acturus utiliter, si non seruata lege in poenam quam alii promisit inciderit.
It is hardly possible that the seller can bring an action on that account by reason of vengeance, but he will bring an action effectively if, because the condition was not observed, he has incurred a penalty which he promised to another.
huic consequens erit, ut hactenus agere possit, quatenus alii praestare cogitur: quidquid enim excedit, poena, non rei persecutio est.
It will follow from this that he can only bring an action to the extent that he is compelled to pay to the other; for whatever exceeds this is a penalty, not the pursuit of his interest.
quod si, ne poenae causa exportaretur, conuenit, etiam affectionis ratione recte agetur.
But if it was agreed that he should not be exported for the purpose of punishment, the action will also be rightly brought by reason of affection.
nec uidentur haec inter se contraria esse, cum beneficio adfici hominem intersit hominis: enimuero poenae non inrogatae indignatio solam duritiam continet.
Nor do these rules seem to be contrary to each other, since it is of interest to a human being that a human being should be treated with kindness; indeed, indignation that a punishment was not imposed contains only cruelty.

Notes

  1. §18.7.7.pruix est, ut — An impersonal expression `uix est` followed by an `ut` clause with the subjunctive, meaning 'it is hardly possible that...' or 'it is with great difficulty that...'.
  2. §18.7.7.practurus utiliter — The future active participle `acturus` with the ellipse of the copula (such as `est` or `esset`) forms the apodosis to the conditional clause `si... inciderit`. `utiliter agere` means 'to bring an action effectively'.
  3. §18.7.7.prhominem intersit hominis — A construction of the impersonal verb `interest` (here subjunctive `intersit`), taking the genitive of the person concerned `hominis` ('of a human being') and an accusative with infinitive clause as its subject, `beneficio adfici hominem` ('that a human being be treated with kindness'). The juxtaposition of the accusative `hominem` and genitive `hominis` forms a rhetorical device emphasizing the humanitarian sentiment that one human being naturally cares about another's welfare.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §18.7.7.pr. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:18.7.7.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.