Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §47.2.8.pr

Definition and Meaning of Non-Manifest Theft

Passage 7868 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

Gaius clarifies the definition of "non-manifest theft," stating that whatever is not a manifest theft is of course non-manifest.

[GAIUS libro tertio decimo ad edictum prouinciale. ] §47.2.8.prNec manifestum furtum quid sit, apparet: nam quod manifestum non est, hoc scilicet nec manifestum est.
[GAIUS libro tertio decimo ad edictum prouinciale.] What a non-manifest theft is, is apparent; for what is not manifest, this of course is non-manifest.

Notes

  1. §47.2.8.prNec manifestum — In Roman law, theft (furtum) is broadly divided into "manifest" (manifestum) and "non-manifest" (nec manifestum). The particle 'nec' here acts as a negative prefix combined with the following adjective to form a single negative concept.
  2. §47.2.8.prquid sit — The verb 'sit' is in the present subjunctive, as it introduces an indirect question ('what it is'). The entire clause acts as the subject of the impersonal verb 'apparet' (it is apparent).
  3. §47.2.8.prquod — A relative pronoun in the neuter nominative singular containing its own antecedent ('that which' or 'what'). It is resumed by the demonstrative pronoun 'hoc' (this) in the main clause.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §47.2.8.pr. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:47.2.8.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.