Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §35.1.52.pr

Effects of Express Conditions on the Validity of Legacies

Passage 5383 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

The author explains the principle "things expressed harm, things not expressed do not harm" by showing how an explicit condition can make a legacy invalid, whereas it would have been valid if left implicit.

[IDEM libro septimo differentiarum. ] §35.1.52.prNonnumquam contingit, ut quaedam nominatim expressa officiant, quamuis omissa tacite intellegi potuissent nec essent offutura.
[BY THE SAME AUTHOR in the seventh book of Differences.] It sometimes happens that certain things expressed by name stand in the way, although, if they had been omitted, they could have been tacitly understood and would not have been harmful.
quod euenit, si alicui ita legatur: 'Titio decem do lego, si Maeuius Capitolium ascenderit'. nam quamuis in arbitrio Maeuii sit, an Capitolium ascendat et uelit efficere, ut Titio legatum debeatur, non tamen poterit aliis uerbis utiliter legari: 'si Maeuius uoluerit, Titio decem do': nam in alienam uoluntatem conferri legatum non potest.
This occurs if a legacy is left to someone in this manner: "I give and bequeath ten to Titius, if Maevius ascends the Capitol." For although it is within the discretion of Maevius whether he should ascend the Capitol and wish to bring it about that the legacy is owed to Titius, nevertheless it cannot be validly bequeathed in other words: "If Maevius wishes, I give ten to Titius"; for a legacy cannot be made dependent on the will of another.
inde dictum est: expressa nocent, non expressa non nocent.
Hence it has been said: "Things expressed harm, things not expressed do not harm."

Notes

  1. §35.1.52.prquamuis omissa tacite intellegi potuissent nec essent offutura — The participle `omissa` functions as a conditional clause (equivalent to `si omissa essent`), which, together with the apodoses `potuissent` (subjunctive pluperfect) and `essent offutura` (active future participle with subjunctive imperfect `essent`), forms a past and present contrary-to-fact condition ("although, if they had been omitted, they could have been... and would not be...").
  2. §35.1.52.pran Capitolium ascendat et uelit efficere — The indirect question introduced by `an` contains the present subjunctives `ascendat` and `uelit`, dependent on `sit` in the main clause. The subject of `uelit` is Maevius, which governs the infinitive `efficere` with its result clause `ut... debeatur`.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §35.1.52.pr. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:35.1.52.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.