Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §47.2.6.pr

Timing of the Act as Criterion for Manifest Theft

Passage 7866 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

Paulus argues that although theft is committed by handling property, whether a person is a manifest thief or not must be determined at the beginning, that is, at the time the theft is committed.

[PAULUS libro nono ad Sabinum. ] §47.2.6.prQuamuis enim saepe furtum contrectando fiat, tamen initio, id est faciendi furti tempore, constituere uisum est, manifestus nec ne fur esset.
[PAULUS libro nono ad Sabinum.] For although a theft is often committed by handling, yet it has been decided to determine at the beginning, that is, at the time of committing the theft, whether one is a manifest thief or not.

Notes

  1. §47.2.6.prcontrectando — A gerund in the ablative from contrectare (to handle, touch, interfere with possession). It refers to 'contrectatio' (unlawful handling/interference), which is a key element of theft (furtum) in Roman law. It is here interpreted as an ablative of means, 'by handling' or 'by touching'.
  2. §47.2.6.prconstituere uisum est — The impersonal construction uisum est (it was seen fit, it was decided) takes the infinitive constituere (to determine, to establish) as its subject. This expression indicates a legal consensus or determination among jurists in the past.
  3. §47.2.6.prmanifestus nec ne fur esset — An indirect question clause introduced by nec ne (or not), serving as the object of constituere. The subjunctive imperfect esset is used in accordance with the sequence of tenses after the historical main verb uisum est. The subject (the thief) is omitted from the context.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §47.2.6.pr. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:47.2.6.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.