Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §33.7.25.pr-33.7.25.2

Estate Equipment: Criteria for Livestock and Potters

Passage 5085 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

This chunk outlines the disputes among jurists concerning the bequest of estate equipment, specifically the criteria for determining which livestock are included, the status of potters, and whether shepherds and sheepfolds are included when livestock is excepted.

[IAUOLENUS libro secundo ex posterioribus Labeonis. ] §33.7.25.prFundi instrumento legato id pecus cedere putabat Tubero, quod is fundus sustinere potuisset: Labeo contra.
[IAUOLENUS from the posthumous works of Labeo, book 2] When the equipment of an estate was bequeathed, Tubero thought that such livestock passed with the legacy as the estate could have supported; Labeo was of the opposite opinion.
quid enim fiet, inquit, si, cum mille oues fundus sustinere potuisset, duo milia ouium in eo fundo fuerint? quas oues potissimum legato cessuras existimabimus? nec quaerendum esse, quid debuisset parari pecoris instrumenti fundi causa, sed quid paratum esset: non enim ex numero aut multitudine legata aestimandum esse.
For he says, what will happen if, when the estate could have supported one thousand sheep, there were two thousand sheep on that estate? Which sheep in particular shall we think will pass with the legacy? And he maintained that we must not ask what livestock ought to have been provided for the sake of the equipment of the estate, but what had been provided; for legacies are not to be estimated by number or quantity.
Labeonis sententiam probo.
I approve of Labeo's opinion.
§33.7.25.1Quidam cum in fundo figlinas haberet, figulorum opera maiore parte anni ad opus rusticum utebatur, deinde eius fundi instrumentum legauerat.
A certain man, since he had potteries on his estate, used the labor of the potters for agricultural work for the greater part of the year, and then he had bequeathed the equipment of that estate.
Labeo Trebatius non uideri figulos in instrumento fundi esse.
Labeo and Trebatius thought that the potters did not appear to be part of the equipment of the estate.
§33.7.25.2Item cum instrumentum omne legatum esset excepto pecore, pastores ouiliones, ouilia quoque legato contineri Ofilius non recte putat.
Likewise, when all the equipment was bequeathed except for the livestock, Ofilius incorrectly thinks that the shepherds and sheepfolds are also contained in the legacy.

Notes

  1. §33.7.25.prdebuisset parari — The pluperfect subjunctive expresses an unfulfilled obligation or propriety in the past ('what ought to have been provided'). Although it is subjunctive here because of the subordinate clause in indirect speech (nec quaerendum esse), it carries this counterfactual sense.
  2. §33.7.25.prlegata — A neuter plural subject ('bequeathed things') in the accusative of an infinitive clause. Although it depends on the impersonal gerundive 'aestimandum esse', grammatically 'legata' is treated almost as an object, or there is an incongruity where one would expect agreement ('legata aestimanda esse').
  3. §33.7.25.2Ofilius non recte putat — While the surrounding text is framed in indirect speech, this phrase unexpectedly uses the indicative present ('putat'). This indicates that the author (or compiler) is directly inserting a statement ('Ofilius incorrectly thinks') to criticize Ofilius's view.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §33.7.25.pr-33.7.25.2. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:33.7.25.pr-33.7.25.2

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.