Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §33.9.5.pr-33.9.5.1

Nourishing Drinks and Seasonings as Provisions

Passage 5120 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

This section clarifies whether beverages drunk for nourishment (as opposed to medicines) and various seasonings (such as pepper and lovage) are included in the definition of provisions.

[PAULUS libro quarto ad Sabinum. ] §33.9.5.prNon omne quod bibetur in penu habetur: alioqui necesse est, ut omnia medicamenta quae biberentur contineantur.
[PAULUS in the fourth book on Sabinus.] Not everything that will be drunk is held to be provisions; otherwise it must follow that all medicines which are drunk would be included.
itaque ea demum penoris esse, quae alendi causa biberentur, quo in numero antidotum non est.
Therefore, only those things which are drunk for the purpose of nourishment belong to provisions, in which number an antidote is not included.
et sane uere Cassius sensit.
And indeed Cassius was quite correct in his opinion.
§33.9.5.1Sed quod quidam negauerunt piper et ligusticum et careum et laser et cetera huiusmodi in penu non esse, improbatum est.
But the view of certain persons who denied that pepper, lovage, caraway, laser, and other things of this kind are in provisions, was rejected.

Notes

  1. 33.9.5.prea demum penoris esse — An accusative with infinitive (AcI) construction representing an indirect statement, referring to the opinion of jurists like Cassius or general legal interpretation. The noun 'penus' here takes the third-declension genitive form 'penoris' (the fourth-declension genitive 'penus' also exists). 'demum' is an adverb used to restrictively emphasize 'only those'.
  2. 33.9.5.1negauerunt... in penu non esse — There is a syntactic redundancy or pleonasm between the negative verb 'negare' (to deny/say not) and 'non esse' (not to be) in the infinitive clause. Literally, 'they denied that [these things] were not in provisions' would mean they asserted they were, which, if rejected (improbatum est), would exclude seasonings from provisions—contrary to Roman legal practice. Therefore, 'negauerunt' is either understood as 'asserted' (with 'non esse'), or the 'non' is treated as pleonastic/an error, meaning 'they denied that they were in provisions (which denial was rejected).'

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §33.9.5.pr-33.9.5.1. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:33.9.5.pr-33.9.5.1

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.