Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §47.2.66.pr

Subsequent Return and Irrelevance of Repentance to Theft

Passage 7928 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

It is argued that anyone who touches another's property with the intent to profit is a thief, even if they later return it, as repentance does not erase the guilt of the crime.

[ULPIANUS libro primo ad edictum aedilium curulium. ] §47.2.66.prQui ea mente alienum quid contrectauit, ut lucrifaceret, tametsi mutato consilio id domino postea reddidit, fur est: nemo enim tali peccato paenitentia sua nocens esse desinit.
[ULPIANUS in the first book on the Edict of the Curule Aediles.] He who has touched someone else's property with the intention of making a profit is a thief, even if, having changed his mind, he later returned it to the owner; for no one, by his own repentance, ceases to be guilty of such a sin.

Notes

  1. 47.2.66.prea mente ... ut lucrifaceret — The `ut` clause with the imperfect subjunctive `lucrifaceret` explains appositionally (or as a purpose/result) the content of the ablative phrase of intention `ea mente`.
  2. 47.2.66.prmutato consilio — An ablative absolute with a perfect participle ('the plan having been changed'), indicating a temporal sequence (returning the property after changing one's mind) within the clause governed by the concessive conjunction `tametsi`.
  3. 47.2.66.prtali peccato — An ablative of respect or limitation modifying the adjective (participle) `nocens` ('guilty in respect of such a sin'). Alternatively, it can be construed as an ablative of separation with `desinit` ('ceases from such a sin'), but it is more naturally taken in close connection with `nocens`.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §47.2.66.pr. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:47.2.66.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.