Roman Law for Scots Law Students 9781474450201

Citation preview

Roman Law for Scots Law Students

6735_Anderson.indd i

17/02/21 5:18 PM

6735_Anderson.indd ii

17/02/21 5:18 PM

Roman Law for Scots Law Students

Craig Anderson, LL.B. Ph.D.

EDINBURGH University Press

6735_Anderson.indd iii

17/02/21 5:18 PM

Edinburgh University Press is one of the leading university presses in the UK. We publish academic books and journals in our selected subject areas across the humanities and social sciences, combining cutting-edge scholarship with high editorial and production values to produce academic works of lasting importance. For more information visit our website: edinburghuniversitypress.com © Craig Anderson, 2021 Edinburgh University Press Ltd The Tun – Holyrood Road 12(2f) Jackson’s Entry Edinburgh EH8 8PJ Typeset in 11/13 Baskerville by IDSUK (DataConnection) Ltd, and printed and bound in Great Britain. A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978 1 4744 5018 8 (hardback) ISBN 978 1 4744 5019 5 (paperback) ISBN 978 1 4744 5020 1 (webready PDF) ISBN 978 1 4744 5021 8 (epub) The right of Craig Anderson to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, and the Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 (SI No. 2498).

6735_Anderson.indd iv

17/02/21 5:18 PM

Contents

Preface Note on Online Resources Table of Cases Table of Statutes List of Illustrations List of Abbreviations

viii x xi xvi xix xx

PART ONE THE HISTORICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT OF ROMAN LAW

1 2 3 4

Historical Introduction to Roman Governance and Society The Legal Process Development of Roman Law Reception of Roman Law

3 29 46 72

PART TWO THE LAW OF PERSONS

5 6 7 8 9

Categories of Person Slavery Parents and Guardians Husband and Wife Liability for Another

95 103 116 134 149

PART THREE THE LAW OF THINGS: PROPERTY

10 11 12 13 14 15

Ownership and Possession Acquisition of Ownership: Derivative Acquisition Acquisition of Ownership: Original Acquisition Praedial Servitudes Usufruct and Related Rights Rights in Security

161 194 216 244 259 269

PART FOUR THE LAW OF THINGS: SUCCESSION

16 Succession

6735_Anderson.indd v

283

17/02/21 5:18 PM

vi

Roman Law for Scots Law Students

PART FIVE THE LAW OF THINGS: OBLIGATIONS

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Introduction to the Law of Obligations and the Law of Contracts Verbal Contracts Real Contracts Consensual Contracts Other Contractual Arrangements The Law of Delicts and the Lex Aquilia Liability for Insulting Behaviour: The Actio Iniuriarum Other Delicts Quasi-Contractual Liability Quasi-Delictual Liability

Appendix 1: Finding and Citing Roman Sources Appendix 2: Timeline of Major Events from the Foundation of Rome to Justinian I Index

6735_Anderson.indd vi

321 339 344 352 379 385 405 417 428 437 445 460 463

17/02/21 5:18 PM

UXORI OPTIMAE

6735_Anderson.indd vii

17/02/21 5:18 PM

Preface

This book is aimed primarily at students of law in Scottish universities, who are either studying Roman law for its own sake, or who are exploring the connections between Roman and modern law. The experienced reader may ask why such a book is necessary. After all, there exist already student textbooks on Roman law that are of undoubted excellence. It must be said, though, that the existing textbooks that are available in English tend not to have much to say about Scotland. Where they talk about modern law, this is much more likely to be English law than Scots law. However, the much greater importance of Roman law in the development of the Scottish legal tradition, compared with that south of the border, means that students of Scots law have special needs in this regard. While we are fortunate to live in a time when there is a growing body of first-class scholarly literature on Scots law and its history – a greater body than at any previous time – most of this is at an advanced level. There is very little for the beginner or for the non-expert. It has seemed to me since I was an undergraduate law student that there has been an urgent need for a textbook on Roman law written with the Scots law student in mind. When Edinburgh University Press expressed a willingness to consider publishing such a book, I was therefore delighted to take up this task. I have been very grateful for their patient support through the whole process of writing the book. This book attempts to do two things. First, it gives an account of Roman private law as it developed through the Roman period. Second, I have attempted to show how that law influenced later law, and in particular Scots law. In pursuance of this, there are references to Scots law (and, to a lesser extent, other legal systems) throughout. In doing this, I have tried to avoid interrupting the flow of the discussion of Roman law too much, in the hope that those interested only in the Roman law will be able to skip over discussion of later law without excessive difficulty. In writing this book, I have benefited from the expertise of many others. I remain grateful to my own teachers. In addition, a number of my fellow teachers of Roman law gave generously of their time to read and comment on draft versions of parts of the book. I am grateful for their comments, which have greatly improved the final result. In this regard, I am particularly grateful to

6735_Anderson.indd viii

17/02/21 5:18 PM

Preface

ix

Dr Jonathan Brown of the University of Strathclyde and to Gordon Cameron of the University of Dundee. None of these people, of course, bears any responsibility for remaining errors or obscurities. My greatest debt of gratitude, however, is to my wife, Dr Katherine Anderson. In addition to being my great support through twenty years of marriage, she has also read and commented on the whole book in draft. References to Scots law are intended to be correct as at 29 February 2020. Craig Anderson Aberdeen Ides of March, ab urbe condita 2773 (15 March 2020)

6735_Anderson.indd ix

17/02/21 5:18 PM

Note on Online Resources

This book is supported by online resources, to be found at . These include: • sample essay and problem questions, together with guidance on answering those questions • short biographies of selected jurists • a glossary of commonly used Latin terms and • a timeline of major events from the foundation of Rome to the reign of Justinian I.

6735_Anderson.indd x

17/02/21 5:18 PM

Table of Cases

Aberdeenshire County Council v Lord Glentanar 1999 SLT 1456 ........................................... 248 Alba Homes Ltd v Duell 1993 SLT (Sh Ct) 49 ........................................................................... 254 Armour v Thyssen Edelstahlwerke AG 1986 SLT 452 (Outer House), 1989 SLT 182 (Inner House), 1990 SLT 891 (House of Lords) ............................................................ 205, 234 Assessor for Argyll v Broadland Properties Ltd 1973 SC 152 .................................................... 221 Bain v Carrick 1983 SLT 675 ..................................................................................................... 174 Barbour v Halliday (1840) 2 D 1279................................................................................... 224, 225 Barclays Bank v O’Brien [1994] 1 AC 180 ................................................................................. 121 Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 QB 428......... 394 Baronetcy of Pringle of Stichill [2016] UKPC 16, 2016 SC (PC) 1 .......................................... 122 Bartonshill Coal Co v Reid (1858) 3 Macq 266 .................................................................... 88, 400 Beattie v Lord Napier (1831) 9 S 639 ......................................................................................... 224 Berry v Berry (No 2) 1989 SLT 292............................................................................................ 172 Binning v Brotherstones (1676) Mor 13401 ........................................................................ 185, 224 Black v Incorporation of Bakers, Glasgow (1867) 6 M 136........................................................ 234 Boskabelle v Laird 2006 SLT 1079 ............................................................................................. 223 Brand’s Trs v Brand’s Trs (1876) 3 R (HL) 16 ............................................................................ 224 Brock v Hamilton (1852) 19 D 701 ............................................................................................. 172 Brogan v O’Rourke Ltd 2005 SCLR 337 ..................................................................................... 51 Brown v Marr (1880) 7 R 427 ............................................................................................. 337, 381 B’s Executor v Keeper of the Registers and Records of Scotland 1935 SC 745 ........................ 294 Burnett’s Trustee v Grainger 2004 SC (HL) 19 .................................................................. 163, 202 C v Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland [2019] CSOH 48, 2019 SLT 875 (Outer House); [2019] CSIH 61 (Inner House)..................................................................... 415 Campbell v Campbell (1866) 4 M 867 ....................................................................................... 141 Cantiere San Rocco, SA v Clyde Shipbuilding & Engineering Co Ltd 1923 SC (HL) 105 ....... 432 Charleston v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1995] 2 AC 65 ..................................................... 414 Chief Constable, Strathclyde Police v Sharp 2002 SLT (Sh Ct) 95 ........................................... 191 Chowan v Associated Motor Holdings (Pty) Ltd 2018 (4) SA 145.............................................. 385 Christie v Smith’s Executrix 1949 SC 572.................................................................................. 222 Clark v Lindale Homes Ltd 1994 SC 210 .................................................................................. 360 Clydesdale Bank plc v Black 2002 SC 555 ................................................................................... 99 Cochrane v Stevenson (1891) 18 R 1208 .................................................................................... 222 Compugraphics International Ltd v Nikolic 2011 SLT 955 ...................................................... 249

6735_Anderson.indd xi

17/02/21 5:18 PM

xii

Roman Law for Scots Law Students

Costello v Chief Constable of Derbyshire Constabulary [2001] EWCA Civ 381, [2001] WLR 1437 ................................................................................................................. 173 Cowan v Bennett 2012 GWD 37–738 ........................................................................................ 412 Crown Estate Commissioners v Fairlie Yacht Slip Ltd 1979 SC 156 ......................................... 197 Dean v Lord Advocate [2019] HCJAC 31 ................................................................................... 87 Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 SC (HL) 31 ................................................... 399–400, 401, 402, 403 Dorion v Les Ecclésiastiques du Séminaire de St Sulpice de Montréal (1880) 5 App Cas 362 ........246 Douglas v Douglas (1876) 4 R 105 ............................................................................................. 291 Douglas v Duke of Hamilton (1769) 2 Pat 143........................................................................... 122 Dowall v Milne (1874) 1 R 1180 ................................................................................................. 223 Drake v Dow 2006 SCLR 456 .................................................................................................... 444 Duke of Hamilton v Johnston (1877) 14 SLR 298 ..................................................................... 224 Duke of Roxburghe v Duchess Dowager of Roxburghe 19 Jan 1816, FC................................. 263 Dumbreck v Robert Addie & Sons (Collieries) Ltd 1929 SC (HL) 51 ........................................ 401 Duncan v MFV Marigold PD145 2006 SLT 975....................................................................... 377 Eadie v Young (1815) Hume 705 ................................................................................................ 212 English v Thomas Sanderson Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 1421, [2009] 2 CMLR 18 ..................... 413 Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32 ............................................. 397, 403 Faulds v Townsend (1861) 23 D 437 ........................................................................................... 183 Fernie v Robertson (1871) 9 M 437 ............................................................................................ 435 Ferrier v Walker (1832) 10 S 317 ................................................................................................ 256 Fife Assessor v Hodgson 1966 SC 30 .......................................................................................... 223 Franklin v Lawson 2013 SLT (Lands Tr) 81 ............................................................................... 249 Gibbs v Ruxton 2000 JC 258 ........................................................................................................ 29 Grant v Henry (1894) 21 R 358 .................................................................................................. 196 Gray v Dunlop 1954 SLT (Sh Ct) 75 .......................................................................................... 440 Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 .............................................. 328 Henderson v Chief Constable, Fife Police 1988 SLT 361 .......................................................... 415 Hetherington v Galt (1905) 7 F 706 ............................................................................................ 223 Hogg v Gow 27 May 1812, FC .................................................................................................. 137 Howie’s Trs v McLay (1902) 5 F 214 .......................................................................................... 223 Hughes v Lord Advocate 1963 SC (HL) 31 ................................................................................ 394 Innes v Magistrates of Edinburgh (1798) Mor 13189 ........................................................ 195, 400 International Banking Corporation v Ferguson, Shaw & Sons 1910 SC 182 .................... 234, 235 Irvine Knitters Ltd v North Ayrshire Co-operative Society Ltd 1978 SC 109 ........................... 247 J L Cohen Motors SWA (Pty) Ltd v Alberts 1985 (2) SA 427 ..................................................... 238 Johnson, Thomas and Thomas (A Firm) v Smith 2016 GWD 25–456 ...................................... 250 Joint Liquidators of Scottish Coal v Scottish Environmental Protection Agency 2014 SC 372 ........ 221 Keith v Texaco Ltd 1977 SLT (Lands Tr) 16.............................................................................. 254 Kerr v Brown 1939 SC 140 ........................................................................................................ 248 Kerr v Martin (1840) 2 D 752 ..................................................................................................... 126 Khaliq v HM Advocate 1984 JC 23 ........................................................................................... 395 Khan v Minister of Law and Order 1991 (3) SA 439 ................................................................ 229

6735_Anderson.indd xii

17/02/21 5:18 PM

Table of Cases

xiii

Kidson v Jimspeed Enterprises CC 2009 (5) SA 246 .................................................................. 267 Kinloch Damph Ltd v Nordvik Salmon Farms Ltd 30 June 1999 Outer House ....................... 236 Kirkpatrick v Murray (1856) 19 D 91 ......................................................................................... 256 Knight v Wedderburn (1778) Mor 14545 ................................................................................... 103 Kolbin & Sons v Kinnear & Co 1930 SC 724 ............................................................................ 435 Le Roux v Dey [2011] ZACC 4, 2011 (3) SA 274 ...................................................................... 414 Leitch v Fairy (1711) Mor 13946 ................................................................................................ 439 Lewars v Hay (1712) 4 Bro Sup 894 ........................................................................................... 439 Lockhart v Cunninghame (1870) 8 SLR 151.............................................................................. 391 Lord Advocate v Aberdeen University 1963 SC 533.................................................................. 238 McCaig v University of Glasgow 1907 SC 231.......................................................................... 294 McCaig’s Trustees v Kirk Session of United Free Church of Lismore 1915 SC 426 ................ 294 Macdonald v Aberdeenshire Council [2013] CSIH 83, 2014 SC 114 ............................... 195, 403 McDonald v Provan (of Scotland Street) Limited 1960 SLT 231 .............................................. 234 Macdonald v Watson (1830) 8 S 584 .......................................................................................... 256 McDyer v The Celtic Football and Athletic Co Ltd 2000 SC 379 ..................................... 440, 441 Mackenzie v Mackenzie’s Trs 1916 1 SLT 349 .......................................................................... 141 Mackenzie v Maclean 1981 SLT (Sh Ct) 40 ....................................................................... 220, 418 Mackie v Mackie 1917 SC 276 ................................................................................................... 140 McLaren, Sons & Co Ltd v Mann, Byars & Co Ltd (1935) 51 Sh Ct Rep 57 ............................ 234 Macleod v Kerr 1965 SC 253 ............................................................................................. 207, 330 McTaggart v Macdouall (1867) 5 M 534 .................................................................................... 247 Maloy v McCosh (1885) 12 R 431 .............................................................................................. 140 Marjandi Ltd v Bon Accord Glass Ltd 15 October 2007, Aberdeen Sheriff Court .................. 366 Martin v McGuinness 2003 SLT 1424 ....................................................................................... 415 Matheson v Stewart (1872) 10 M 704 ......................................................................................... 181 May v Wingate (1694) Mor 9236 ................................................................................................ 443 Miller v HM Advocate [2019] HCJAC 7 ................................................................................... 103 Milligan v Ross 1994 SCLR 430 ................................................................................................ 214 Moncrieff v Jamieson 2008 SC (HL) 1 ....................................................................... 248, 250, 252 More v Boyle 1967 SLT (Sh Ct) 38............................................................................................. 167 Morgan Guaranty Trust Co of New York v Lothian Regional Council 1995 SC 151 .......... 432–3 Morrisson v Robertson 1908 SC 332.......................................................................... 205, 207, 330 Muirhead & Turnbull v Dickson (1905) 7 F 686 ........................................................................ 331 Mullen v Barr & Co; McGowan v Barr & Co 1929 SC 461 ...................................................... 401 Mustard v Paterson 1923 SC 142 ............................................................................................... 443 Nacap Ltd v Moffat Plant Ltd 1987 SLT 221 ............................................................................ 398 Nisbet’s Creditors v Robertson (1791) Mor 9554 ....................................................................... 270 O’Keeffe v Argus Printing and Publishing Co Ltd 1954 (3) SA 244 .......................................... 413 Oliver & Boyd v The Marr Typefounding Co Ltd (1901) 9 SLT 170 ................................ 232, 235 Ord v Mashford 2006 SLT (Lands Tr) 15 .................................................................................. 249 Orr’s Trustee v Tullis (1870) 8 M 936 ......................................................................................... 214 Pert v McCaffrey [2020] CSIH 5, 2020 SLT 225 ...................................................................... 434 Petrie v Petrie 1911 SC 360 ........................................................................................................ 140 PMP Plus Ltd v Keeper of the Registers of Scotland 2009 SLT (Lands Tr) 2........................... 207 R v Mafohla 1958 (2) SA 373 ..................................................................................................... 221

6735_Anderson.indd xiii

17/02/21 5:18 PM

xiv

Roman Law for Scots Law Students

Raffles v Wichelhaus (1864) 159 ER 375 .................................................................................... 328 Reid v Scott of Harden (1687) Mor 9505 ........................................................................... 103, 105 Roscorla v Thomas (1842) 3 QB 234 .......................................................................................... 327 Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge (No 2) [2002] 2 AC 773.................................................... 99 S v Mnomiya 1970 (1) SA 66 ...................................................................................................... 228 S v S 2006 SLT 471 .................................................................................................................... 141 Safeway Stores plc v Tesco Stores Ltd 2004 SC 29 .................................................................... 174 Satchwell v McIntosh 2006 SLT (Sh Ct) 117 ............................................................................. 434 Scammell v Scottish Sports Council 1983 SLT 462 ................................................................... 196 Scot v Forbes (1755) Mor 8278 ........................................................................................... 264, 267 Scott v Everitt (1853) 15 D 288 ................................................................................................... 221 Scott v Yates (1800) Hume 207 ................................................................................................... 443 Scottish Transit Trust Ltd v Scottish Land Cultivators Ltd 1955 SC 254 .................................. 214 Scrimgeour v Scrimgeour 1988 SLT 590 ................................................................................... 172 Shields v Donnelly 2000 JC 46 ..................................................................................................... 29 Shilliday v Smith 1998 SC 725 ................................................................................................... 433 Simmons v British Steel plc 2004 SC (HL) 94 ............................................................................ 394 Simpson v Duncanson’s Creditors (1786) Mor 14204 ................................................................ 228 Sloans Dairies Ltd v Glasgow Corporation 1977 SC 223 .......................................................... 357 Smith v Bank of Scotland 1997 SC (HL) 111 .............................................................................. 99 Sneddon v Durant 1982 SLT (Sh Ct) 39 .................................................................................... 355 Stevens v Yorkhill NHS Trust [2006] CSOH 143, 2006 SLT 889 ............................................. 415 Stewart v Kennedy (1890) 17 R (HL) 25 .................................................................................... 331 Stewart v Sinclair (1694) 4 Bro Sup 195 ..................................................................................... 439 Stichting Crediteurenbelangen Hollander’s v Coöperatieve Raiffeissenbank ‘Domburg’ 24 March 1995, Hoge Raad (Netherlands) ...................................................................................236 Stilk v Meyrick (1809) 170 ER 851 ............................................................................................. 327 Stirling v Bartlett 1993 SLT 763 ................................................................................................. 226 Stove v Colvin (1831) 9 S 633 ..................................................................................................... 221 Stronach’s Executors v Robertson 2002 SC 540 ........................................................................ 265 Sutter v Aberdeen Arctic Co (1861) 23 D 465 (Court of Session), (1862) 4 Macq 355 (House of Lords) .....................................................................................................................221 Thomson v Clarkson’s Trustees (1892) 20 R 59 ......................................................................... 298 Tolley v J S Fry & Sons Ltd [1931] AC 333 ................................................................................ 413 Trotter v Trotter 2001 SLT (Sh Ct) 42 ....................................................................................... 270 Valentine v Kennedy 1985 SCCR 89 ......................................................................................... 221 Vincent v Lake Erie Transportation Company (1910) 109 Minn. 456, 124 N.W. 221............... 392 W S Karoulias SA v Drambuie Liqueur Co Ltd (No 2) 2005 SLT 813 ................................. 332–3 Walker v Milne (1823) 2 S 379 .................................................................................................... 332 Wardlaw v Wardlaw’s Trs (1875) 2 R 368................................................................................... 263 Watling v McDowall (1825) 4 S 83 ............................................................................................. 443 Watt v Jamieson 1954 SC 56 ...................................................................................................... 167 Welsh v Russell (1894) 21 R 769 ................................................................................................. 359 Williamson v White 21 June 1810, FC........................................................................................ 443 Williamson v Williamson 1997 SC 94 ........................................................................................ 295 Wills’ Trustees v Cairngorm Canoeing and Sailing School Ltd 1976 SC (HL) 30 .................... 196 Wilson v Dykes (1872) 10 M 444 ................................................................................................ 221

6735_Anderson.indd xiv

17/02/21 5:18 PM

Table of Cases

xv

Wilson & McLellan v Sinclair (1830) 4 W & S 398 .................................................................... 433 Wylie & Lochhead v Mitchell (1870) 8 M 552 .................................................................... 231, 236 X v Y 1921 1 SLT 79 .................................................................................................................. 140 Zahnrad Fabrik Passau GmbH v Terex 1985 SC 364 ................................................................ 231

6735_Anderson.indd xv

17/02/21 5:18 PM

Table of Statutes

Primary Legislation Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc (Scotland) Act 2000 .................................................................. 192 s. 67 ........................................................................................................................................ 192 Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991 s. 1(1)(a) .................................................................................................................................. 131 s. 1(1)(b) .................................................................................................................................. 131 s. 2 .......................................................................................................................................... 131 s. 3(1) ...................................................................................................................................... 131 s. 3(3)(h) .................................................................................................................................. 131 s. 4(1) ...................................................................................................................................... 131 Animals (Scotland) Act 1987 ....................................................................................................... 425 Bankruptcy and Diligence etc (Scotland) Act 2007 s. 208(3) .................................................................................................................................. 276 s. 208(5) .................................................................................................................................. 276 Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1913 ................................................................................................... 42 Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (Germany) .................................................................................................... 81 s. 930 ...................................................................................................................................... 212 Carriers Act 1830 s. 1 .......................................................................................................................................... 443 Children (Scotland) Act 1995 s. 7 .......................................................................................................................................... 129 s. 11(2)(h) .................................................................................................................................129 Code civil (France) ......................................................................................................... 60, 80, 81, 88 art. 2276 ................................................................................................................................. 166 art. 2521 ................................................................................................................................. 191 Consumer Credit Act 1974 s. 8 .......................................................................................................................................... 274 s. 121 ...................................................................................................................................... 274 s. 189 ...................................................................................................................................... 274 Consumer Rights Act 2015 s. 29 ........................................................................................................................................ 357 Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 ............................................................................. 328 Contract (Scotland) Act 1997 s. 3 .......................................................................................................................................... 364

6735_Anderson.indd xvi

17/02/21 5:18 PM

Table of Statutes

xvii

Contract (Third Party Rights) (Scotland) Act 2017 .................................................................... 328 Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1973 s. 9(3) ...................................................................................................................................... 271 Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 s. 3 .......................................................................................................................................... 141 s. 28 ........................................................................................................................................ 434 Hotel Proprietors Act 1956 s. 1(1) ...................................................................................................................................... 444 s. 1(3) ...................................................................................................................................... 444 s. 2 .......................................................................................................................................... 444 Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015 s. 4(1)(a) .................................................................................................................................. 103 Island of Rockall Act 1972 ......................................................................................................... 226 Land Registration etc (Scotland) Act 2012 ................................................................................. 199 s. 66 ........................................................................................................................................ 225 s. 86 ................................................................................................................................ 166, 203 Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 s. 1(1) ...................................................................................................................................... 398 Law Reform (Husband and Wife) (Scotland) Act 1984 s. 1(1) ...................................................................................................................................... 137 Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948 s. 1(1) ...................................................................................................................................... 401 Leases Act 1449............................................................................................................. 84, 167, 367 Liferent Caution Act 1491 .......................................................................................................... 265 Liferent Caution Act 1535 .......................................................................................................... 265 Marriage (Scotland) Act 1939 ..................................................................................................... 140 Mercantile Law Amendment Act (Scotland) 1856 s. 8 .......................................................................................................................................... 278 Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 ..................................................................................................... 401 Occupiers’ Liability (Scotland) Act 1960 ss. 1–2..................................................................................................................................... 401 Partnership Act 1890 .................................................................................................................. 376 s. 1(1) ...................................................................................................................................... 376 s. 4(2) ...................................................................................................................................... 376 s. 5 .......................................................................................................................................... 376 s. 29(1) .................................................................................................................................... 374 s. 38 ........................................................................................................................................ 377 Prescription Act 1617.................................................................................................................. 242 Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973........................................................................ 242 s. 1 .......................................................................................................................................... 360 s. 3 .......................................................................................................................................... 252 Part II ..................................................................................................................................... 322 Protection from Harassment Act 1997 s. 8 .......................................................................................................................................... 412

6735_Anderson.indd xvii

17/02/21 5:18 PM

xviii

Roman Law for Scots Law Students

Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995 s. 1(2) ...................................................................................................................................... 379 s. 3(4)(e) .................................................................................................................................. 299 Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994 s. 1(1) ...................................................................................................................................... 363 Sale of Goods Act 1893 ...................................................................................................... 214, 363 Sale of Goods Act 1979 .............................................................................................................. 214 s. 12 ........................................................................................................................................ 363 s. 14 ........................................................................................................................................ 363 s. 14(2) .................................................................................................................................... 363 s. 18 rule 4 .............................................................................................................................. 337 s. 20 ........................................................................................................................................ 357 s. 24 ................................................................................................................................ 166, 203 s. 25 ................................................................................................................................ 166, 203 s. 53A(2) ................................................................................................................................. 364 Subscription of Deeds Act 1681 ................................................................................................. 299 Succession (Scotland) Act 1964 ................................................................................................... 171 s. 2 .......................................................................................................................................... 291 s. 8 .......................................................................................................................................... 291 s. 9 .......................................................................................................................................... 291 Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004 .................................................................................................. 166 Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003.......................................................................................... 246 ss. 76–7................................................................................................................................... 250 s. 79 ........................................................................................................................................ 246 Union with England Act 1707 s. XVIII .................................................................................................................................... 87 s. XIX ...................................................................................................................................... 87

Secondary Legislation Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993 (SI 1993/3053) ............................... 366

Others European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocols Nos 11 and 14, 4 November 1950 art. 8 ....................................................................................................................................... 415

6735_Anderson.indd xviii

17/02/21 5:18 PM

Illustrations

Figures 4.1 Trends in references to Roman law......................................................................................... 90 4.2 References to Ulpian, Papinian and Modestinus .................................................................... 91

Table 6.1 The rules on manumissions by will under the lex Fufia Caninia ............................................. 111

6735_Anderson.indd xix

17/02/21 5:18 PM

Abbreviations

Birks, New Perspectives Birks, Obligations

Borkowski, Textbook Buckland, Textbook

Burrows and Rodger, Mapping the Law

Cairns and du Plessis, Beyond Dogmatics

Daube, Studies in Sale

DCFR

Du Plessis, New Frontiers

Evans-Jones, Civil Law Tradition Grotius History of Private Law in Scotland, vol I

6735_Anderson.indd xx

P Birks ed, New Perspectives in the Roman Law of Property (Oxford University Press 1989) P Birks, The Roman Law of Obligations (E Descheemaeker ed, Oxford University Press 2014) P du Plessis, Borkowski’s Textbook on Roman Law 5th edn (Oxford University Press 2015) W W Buckland, A Text-Book of Roman Law from Augustus to Justinian 3rd edn by P Stein (Cambridge University Press 1963) A Burrows and Lord Rodger of Earlsferry eds, Mapping the Law: Essays in Memory of Peter Birks (Oxford University Press 2006) J W Cairns and P J du Plessis eds, Beyond Dogmatics: Law and Society in the Roman World (Edinburgh University Press 2007) D Daube ed, Studies in the Roman Law of Sale: Dedicated to the Memory of Francis de Zulueta (Oxford University Press 1959) Study Group on a European Civil Code, Principles, Definitions and Model Rules of European Private Law: Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR) (6 vols, Sellier 2009) P du Plessis ed, New Frontiers: Law and Society in the Roman World (Edinburgh University Press 2013) R Evans-Jones ed, The Civil Law Tradition in Scotland (Stair Society 1995) H Grotius, The Jurisprudence of Holland (R W Lee trans, Oxford University Press 1926–36) R Zimmermann and K Reid eds, A History of Private Law in Scotland, Volume I: Introduction and Property (Oxford University Press 2000)

17/02/21 5:18 PM

Abbreviations

xxi

R Zimmermann and K Reid eds, A History of Private Law in Scotland, Volume II: Obligations (Oxford University Press 2000) Johnston, Roman Law in Context D Johnston, Roman Law in Context (Cambridge University Press 1999) H J Jolowicz and B Nicholas, Historical Jolowicz and Nicholas, Historical Introduction to the Study of Roman Law 3rd edn Introduction (Cambridge University Press 1972) Judge and Jurist A S Burrows, D Johnston and R Zimmermann eds, Judge and Jurist: Essays in Memory of Lord Rodger of Earlsferry (Oxford University Press 2013) Lewis and Ibbetson, Roman Law A D E Lewis and D J Ibbetson, The Roman Tradition Law Tradition (Cambridge University Press 1994) Metzger, Companion E Metzger ed, A Companion to Justinian’s Institutes (Duckworth 1998) Nicholas, Introduction B Nicholas, An Introduction to Roman Law (Oxford University Press 1962) Robinson, Sources O F Robinson, The Sources of Roman Law: Problems and Methods for Ancient Historians (Routledge 1997) Robinson, Fergus and Gordon, European O F Robinson, T D Fergus and W M Legal History Gordon, European Legal History: Sources and Institutions 3rd edn (Oxford University Press 2000) Simpson and Wilson, Scottish Legal A R C Simpson and A L M Wilson, History, vol 1 Scottish Legal History, Volume One: 1000–1707 (Edinburgh University Press 2017) Stein, Regulae Iuris P Stein, Regulae Iuris: From Juristic Rules to Legal Maxims (Edinburgh University Press 1966) Stein and Lewis, Studies in Justinian’s P G Stein and A D E Lewis eds, Studies in Institutes Justinian’s Institutes in Memory of J A C Thomas (Sweet and Maxwell 1983) Thomas, Textbook J A C Thomas, Textbook of Roman Law (NorthHolland 1976) Watson, Law Making A Watson, Law Making in the Later Roman Republic (Oxford University Press 1974) Watson, Obligations A Watson, The Law of Obligations in the Later Roman Republic (Oxford University Press 1965) Watson, Property A Watson, The Law of Property in the Later Roman Republic (Oxford University Press 1968) Watson, Roman Law & Comparative Law A Watson, Roman Law & Comparative Law (University of Georgia Press 1991) History of Private Law in Scotland, vol II

6735_Anderson.indd xxi

17/02/21 5:18 PM

xxii

Roman Law for Scots Law Students

Watson, Succession

Zimmermann, Obligations

Zimmermann, Visser and Reid, Mixed Legal Systems

6735_Anderson.indd xxii

A Watson, The Law of Succession in the Later Roman Republic (Oxford University Press 1971) R Zimmermann, The Law of Obligations: Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition (Oxford University Press 1996) R Zimmermann, D Visser and K Reid, Mixed Legal Systems in Comparative Perspective: Property and Obligations in Scotland and South Africa (Oxford University Press 2004)

17/02/21 5:18 PM

PART ONE

The Historical and Constitutional Context of Roman Law

In the study of any system of law, there is a certain amount of background material which is often assumed in legal writing, but which is essential in order to understand that writing fully. Included here are matters such as: who makes the law? Who is responsible for interpreting and enforcing it? How is the law to be found? These are the kinds of thing that, in an undergraduate law degree, are typically covered in an introductory course called Legal Systems, or something similar. They are part of the common stock of knowledge that any lawyer can reasonably be assumed to be familiar with. A lawyer writing about a court decision, for example, needs to be able to assume that his or her readers understand that the court’s function is to interpret the law rather than to make the law, without having to explain that to readers. The need for this kind of background material is particularly great when studying a historical legal system, such as Roman law. When modern law is under consideration, a reasonably educated non-lawyer can be assumed to have at least some outline understanding of how Parliament works or how the courts work, and of the different roles of such groups as lawyers and the police. When studying the law of a past society, this outline understanding cannot be assumed. Roman society was, in many ways, profoundly different from our own. The purpose of this first part of the book is to provide this context to the study of Roman law. First, Chapter 1 provides an overview of Roman history, from the beginnings of the city of Rome up to the end of the Roman Empire. A particular focus here is the governance of Rome, and how this changed over time. Next, in Chapter 2 we look at the legal process. We will see here how litigation worked in Roman law. Of particular interest here is the role of the public official with the title of urban praetor, who was responsible for civil justice. In Chapter 3, we will see how Roman law developed, from earliest times through to the sixth-century emperor Justinian’s compilation of legal materials known as the Corpus Iuris Civilis, or ‘Body of the Civil Law’, from which we derive most of our knowledge of Roman law. In this chapter we will also meet the class of legal writers known as jurists, who had a major influence on the development of Roman law, both directly and indirectly.

6735_Anderson.indd 1

17/02/21 5:18 PM

2

Roman Law for Scots Law Students

Although this book has been written with students of Scots law particularly in mind, we will not see much of Scotland in these first three chapters. We will see more of Scotland in Chapter 4, which considers the influence of Roman law on later law, up to the modern day. There is one final point to note. Throughout this book, there is extensive reference to Roman legal literature. It is likely that most readers of this book will not, at the outset, be familiar with standard referencing styles for these texts. However, if much headway is to be made with the study of Roman law, it is essential to be familiar with these. Accordingly, readers are referred to Appendix 1 at the end of this book, where there is a list of all Roman texts referred to in this book, together with guidance on how they are to be found and cited.

6735_Anderson.indd 2

17/02/21 5:18 PM

CHAPTER ONE

Historical Introduction to Roman Governance and Society

A. Introduction Any course of study of Roman law is pulled in two directions. On the one hand, the study of Roman law is an important part of the study of the historical civilisation of Rome more generally. The law of the Romans is among their greatest cultural and intellectual achievements, and it is perhaps even the greatest of these, and this fact alone would make it worth studying. To understand Roman law in this context requires deep study of how the Romans themselves thought about law and how they developed and applied it. On the other hand, Roman law is also worth studying, not just for its own sake, but because of its continuing importance in modern law. For that purpose, it is more important to understand the process by which Roman law came to influence modern law and its continuing importance to modern law. These two elements – Roman law as historical legal system and Roman law as a source of modern law – are not always entirely compatible. However the conflict is to be resolved, though, a proper study of Roman law must involve both of these elements. Throughout this book, we will be spending a lot of time looking at Roman law from the standpoint of its importance to modern law. At the same time, though, it is necessary to understand Roman law in its own terms as well. We begin in this chapter, then, by considering the historical, political and constitutional context within which Roman law developed, because to study Roman law without this is not really to study Roman law at all. Roman law, like any system of law, was a product of the society that gave birth to it. The subject matter of this chapter is, then, a historical account of the Roman world and how it was governed.

B. The Pre-Roman Background (to 753 BC) In the study of any period of history, the limitations of the evidence available are an inescapable fact. For the history of a particular place, whole periods may be shrouded in mystery, and the earliest history of the Romans is one such period. Archaeology can teach us much about how people lived and died in a particular time and place, but it can only go so far. In the case of the city of Rome itself,

6735_Anderson.indd 3

17/02/21 5:18 PM

4

Roman Law for Scots Law Students

there is the added difficulty that what remains of the earliest settlement is covered by the remains of all the later centuries, with the modern city on top. Beyond archaeology, we must look to written accounts. Here, Rome presents us with a further problem. The more prominent a city is, the more likely people are to write about it, and the more likely it is that such writings will survive to be read by us. For centuries after its founding, however, Rome was a place of only local significance. All written accounts of the Romans’ early history were composed centuries after the events described. As a result, while these accounts undoubtedly contain fragments of some genuine historical events, there is no agreement about the extent to which that is the case, and in any event the genuine history is mixed together with myth and legend. It may be better to think of these stories, not as historical events which can be tied to any specific point in time, but rather as part of the mythological background to the Romans’ understanding of themselves, with events happening simply ‘once upon a time’. With those warnings in place, we can turn to the Romans’ own accounts of their earliest history. Even if we cannot rely on these as historically accurate accounts, nonetheless there is value in understanding what the Romans believed of their origins if we wish to understand the Romans themselves. The Romans told various stories about their origins. The story of their earliest origins, however, reached what we might call its canonical form in the late first century BC, in an epic poem called the Aeneid, written by a poet called Publius Vergilius Maro (‘Virgil’ or ‘Vergil’ in English). When reading this account, it is important to bear in mind that this is an artistic work rather than a historical account, and it also had political motives.1 In the story as told by Vergil, the founder of the Roman people was a Trojan prince by the name of Aeneas. The Trojans were the people of Troy, a city in the west of what is now Turkey. In approximately the twelfth century BC, Troy was destroyed by an invading Greek force after a ten-year siege.2 Aeneas escaped with a band of followers and, on the instructions of the gods, sailed west to Italy.3 There he founded a city. This was not Rome, which was not established until some centuries later. Instead, the city he founded was called Lavinium.4

1

2

3

4

6735_Anderson.indd 4

Part of its purpose was to legitimise the rule of the first emperor, Augustus. We will meet Augustus below. For an interesting discussion of some of the themes in the Aeneid, see W Fitzgerald, How to Read a Latin Poem if You Can’t Read Latin Yet (Oxford 2013) 156–80. The invasion was provoked by the abduction, by a Trojan prince named Paris, of Helen, wife of King Menelaus of the Greek city-state of Sparta. The siege was brought to an end by a famous trick. The Greeks pretended to depart, leaving behind a giant wooden horse, supposedly as a gift to honour the Trojans. The Trojans took the horse into the city, unaware that it was in fact filled with Greek soldiers who, in the night, sneaked out and opened the gates of the city for their comrades. Aeneas and his followers had numerous adventures on the way. The best known of these was his brief romance with Dido, Queen of Carthage in North Africa. After he abandoned her, she committed suicide, swearing eternal enmity between their peoples. We shall meet the Carthaginians again, below. This, at least, was a real place. Its ruins lie near the sea, to the south of Rome. It is said to have been named for Aeneas’ wife, Lavinia, daughter of King Latinus of the Latins. Aeneas married Lavinia after his arrival in Italy. See Ursula K Le Guin’s novel, Lavinia (Harcourt 2008), for the story told from her point of view.

17/02/21 5:18 PM

Historical Introduction

5

This is as far as Vergil takes the story. The rest is to be found in other writers, whose accounts are broadly consistent, though differing on points of detail. Following the death of Aeneas, he was succeeded by his son, Ascanius. Ascanius founded the city of Alba Longa, south-east of the later site of Rome, to settle part of the growing population of Lavinium. The founders of Rome, Romulus and Remus, were born of the royal line of Alba Longa approximately 400 years after its foundation.5 Romulus and Remus were the twin sons of Rhea Silvia, a Vestal Virgin,6 and (reputedly) the god Mars. Rhea Silvia was the daughter of Numitor, king of Alba Longa, who had been deposed by his brother, Amulius. Fearing them as potential rivals, Amulius ordered that the twins be killed. They were abandoned to die on the banks of the River Tiber, but were kept alive by a she-wolf, who allowed them to suckle. They were then found by a shepherd called Faustulus, who adopted them. When they grew up and learned their true identity, they returned to Alba Longa and helped to restore their grandfather to the throne. They themselves, however, decided to found a new city by the Tiber, near where they had been abandoned. The twins, though, were unable to agree on which hill to establish their city. Romulus favoured the Palatine Hill, Remus the nearby Aventine Hill. It was decided that the disagreement would be settled through augury, which is the art of determining the will of the gods by observing the flight of birds. Each went to his preferred hill and awaited a sign. This attempt to resolve the disagreement was unsuccessful, however: while Remus was the first to see the necessary birds, he only saw six while Romulus saw twelve. The two were unable to agree which had had the stronger omen. In the ensuing dispute, Remus was killed. The city was therefore established by Romulus alone, along with his followers. This was the city of Rome. To grow the population of the new city, Romulus established another nearby hill, the Capitoline Hill, as a place of refuge (called an asylum) where individuals from other cities could settle and to whom Roman citizenship could be given. The major problem, though, was a shortage of women. The Romans’ approaches to nearby communities to provide them with wives having been rejected, the Romans’ next idea was to hold games and, during the festivities, to kidnap the marriageable women among their guests. This act led to war with the neighbouring Sabines, one of the communities from which women had been taken. This war was brought to an end when the women interposed themselves between the two armies and prevailed on their fathers and brothers, on one side, and their husbands, on the other, not to make war on each other. In the ensuing peace, the Romans and the Sabines merged into a single community, under the joint rule of Romulus and Titus Tatius, the king of the Sabines. After the subsequent death of Titus Tatius, Romulus ruled alone.

5 6

It is very likely that this part of the history was invented to fill in the gap between Aeneas and Romulus. Vestal Virgins were priestesses of the goddess Vesta, and had to take an oath of celibacy. In Rhea Silvia’s case, she was compelled to become a Vestal Virgin to prevent her producing rival claimants to the kingship.

6735_Anderson.indd 5

17/02/21 5:18 PM

6

Roman Law for Scots Law Students

In reality, it is likely that the establishment of Rome was much less dramatic. Modern historians tend to give little credence to much of the story. It is likely that, at most, only fragments of the story are founded in any kind of genuine historical event. Indeed, few settlements have any kind of specific, identifiable foundation at all. Instead, they develop gradually as people settle in a particular place, to exploit that place’s resources, natural defences or trading potential. The most that can be said is that the traditional date of Rome’s foundation, 753 BC, probably lies within the period during which Rome was forming from a group of individual villages. Roman history is traditionally divided into a number of distinct periods, as the form of Roman government changed. The first stage is the Monarchy (753–509 BC), when Rome was ruled by a series of kings. Next comes the Republic (509–27 BC). Finally, there is the Empire (from 27 BC), when a republican form of government was replaced by what was, in effect, a new monarchy, with power ultimately in the hands of an emperor. The Empire can be subdivided into an earlier phase, the Principate, during which republican institutions were formally preserved; and a later phase, the Dominate, during which the monarchical power of the emperor was more openly asserted. The change from Principate to Dominate can be dated to AD 284. We will follow this system of dividing up Roman history, but will add a further subdivision. Below, the period of the Republic will be divided into two. In the earlier Republic (up to 264 BC), Rome was merely a regional power within Italy, though one with growing authority and influence. From 264 BC, Roman power is increasingly felt beyond the Italian peninsula.

C. The Monarchy (753–509 BC) (1) The Situation of Rome under the Monarchy Rome developed on a promising site by the River Tiber, in central Italy. The river gave it easy access to the sea, and the city’s position at a convenient crossing-point made it strategically important. Rome was also built on higher ground, which aided defence.7 The river was also a cultural boundary. Italy at this time was highly fragmented, both politically and culturally. Rome was part of Latium, which was occupied by the Latins, who were loosely allied and who spoke related languages. The Romans’ language, Latin, is part of this language group. To the north, on the other side of the Tiber, lay Etruria, centred on modern Tuscany. Etruria was the home of the Etruscans, a confederation of independent city states. During this period, the Etruscans were the dominant culture in much of 7

6735_Anderson.indd 6

There were seven hills on which Rome was built: Quirinal, Viminal, Esquiline, Caelian, Aventine, Capitoline and Palatine. This point should not be over-exaggerated, however. None of them is especially high (although no doubt they would have been more impressive before they were covered by the city). For example, the height of the Palatine (the most central of the hills) above its surroundings is only around forty metres, around half that of Castle Rock in Edinburgh.

17/02/21 5:18 PM

Historical Introduction

7

northern Italy, and Rome was strongly influenced by them. Elsewhere in Italy, other groups were to be found. Perhaps the most notable of these were the Greek colonies of southern Italy.8 During the Monarchy, Rome became the dominant force in Latium, but was never more than a regional power during this period, and even beyond, into the early Republic. At this time: The wars between Rome and her neighbours were little more than scuffles between armed raiding bands of a few hundred men at most. It is salutary to recall that Fidenae (Fidene), against which the Romans were fighting in 499, lies now within the motorway circuit round modern Rome, and is all but swallowed up in its northern suburbs. Veii, the Etruscan city that was Rome’s chief rival for supremacy in the Tiber plain, is a mere 10 miles to the north-west.9

(2) The Nature of the Monarchy and the Role of the King During this period, Rome was ruled by a series of kings. The first thing to be aware of here is that this was not a hereditary monarchy. There was no succession from father to son, or anything like it. Indeed, there was a tendency if anything to choose kings from outside. Of the seven kings in the list accepted by later Roman writers, the majority of them are said to have been of non-Roman origin. This includes the final three, who were all said to be of Etruscan origin.10 Details of how the king was appointed are uncertain. According to Roman historians, writing centuries later, Romulus had established a council of advisors, called the Senate.11 When the king died, his power devolved to the Senate, which appointed an interrex12 to identify a successor. Once a suitable successor had been found, and had been approved by the Senate, the new king’s appointment would be ratified by an assembly of adult, male citizens, called the comitia curiata. The precise scope of the king’s powers is impossible now to determine. It is likely, though, that they were fairly broad, including administrative, military and religious matters. One aspect of early Roman society13 that is difficult for us to grasp from our modern standpoint is the nature of Roman religion and its role in public life. In the modern world, we take for granted the idea of members of the clergy as a distinct profession, and we are used to the concept of a separation of Church and state. We are also accustomed to religion having a great concern for questions of proper moral and ethical conduct. None of these things is true of early Roman religion. As far as we can tell, Roman religion was much less concerned 8 9 10

11 12

13

The best known of these is Neapolis, modern Naples. L Keppie, The Making of the Roman Army: From Republic to Empire (B T Batsford 1984) 14. This most likely reflects Rome having had some form of subordinate relationship to the Etruscans at this time. That, unsurprisingly, is not the story that the Romans themselves told. This is related to the Latin senex, meaning ‘old man’. In effect, a senate is a council of elders. Hence the modern word ‘interregnum’, for a period between two kings. Rex is Latin for ‘king’. Regnum means ‘kingdom’. And, indeed, this continued through much of Roman history.

6735_Anderson.indd 7

17/02/21 5:18 PM

8

Roman Law for Scots Law Students

with moral precepts and much more concerned with appeasement of the gods through ritual. Equally, there was no separation between religion and the state, and religious observance was a fundamental part of governance. This does not mean that early Rome was a theocracy; rather, the distinction between secular and sacred simply did not exist.14 If it was the job of rulers to protect the well-being of the community, then appeasing the gods and determining their will through augury, haruspicy,15 and the interpretation of omens and prodigies16 were no less a part of this than military defence and the food supply. Rather than religion being a distinct sphere of activity, which was the concern of a class of professional priests, priesthoods were special responsibilities undertaken by prominent men as part of their public role. Those outside the aristocracy were not entirely excluded from public life under this system, though any such role was limited. As explained above, each new king was confirmed in office by an assembly of adult, male citizens, called the comitia curiata. For these purposes, the Roman people were divided into three tribes,17 and each of these was further divided into ten curiae. These thirty curiae were the voting units in the assembly.18 While, however, the confirmation of the comitia curiata was a necessary part of the process of selecting a new king, it is unclear whether they had any real, practical role in choosing the king. It is also unclear whether the comitia played an important role in the political process at other times. Probably this depended on political factors as much as anything else: at times it would suit the king to put proposals before the assembly for approval; at other times, the king would feel himself to be in a secure enough position to do without this. Certainly, though, the scope for independent action by the assemblies was limited by two factors: the assembly could only meet when summoned, and could only vote to accept or reject the proposal put before it. The assembly could not amend the proposal or put forward proposals of its own. Even if the assembly nominally had a significant role, therefore, practical power of political initiative was retained by elite citizens and, particularly, the king. By the late Monarchy, the comitia curiata had been superseded for practical purposes by a different assembly, called the comitia centuriata. As a citizen assembly, it had the same membership as the comitia curiata, and retained the characteristics of only being able to meet when summoned and only being able to accept or reject the proposal put before it. It was, however, organised differently. In the comitia centuriata, the people were divided into five classes, based on wealth. Each class was further divided into voting units called centuriae, with the number of these disproportionately high in the wealthier classes and disproportionately low 14 15

16

17 18

6735_Anderson.indd 8

C Smith, ‘The Religion of Archaic Rome’ in J Rüpke ed, A Companion to Roman Religion (Blackwell 2011) 35. Haruspicy is the process of inspecting the entrails of sacrificial animals in order to determine the will of the gods. Prodigies in this context are events that depart from the natural order of things, thought to be signs of the gods’ anger. These tribes were called the Ramnes, the Tities and the Luceres. Throughout Rome’s history, voting in the citizen assemblies was by group rather than by individual.

17/02/21 5:18 PM

Historical Introduction

9

in the poorer classes. As in the comitia curiata, voting was by group rather than by individual. Votes were taken in order of class, so it would often be unnecessary to take the votes of the lower wealth classes.19 As a result of these factors, the voting system was heavily weighted in favour of the wealthy.

(3) The Seven Kings Between the founding of Rome in 753 BC, and the fall of the Monarchy in 509 BC, there were said to have been seven kings. This is almost certainly incorrect, as can be inferred even just by looking at the average length of reign (a little under thirty-five years).20 Historical scepticism about the first four kings (Romulus,