Studies in Roman Private Law 9781472556691, 9781852850470

Citation preview

Acknowledgements

The essays reprinted here first appeared in the following places and are reprin ted by kind permission of the original publishers. 1. Daube Noster, edited by Alan Watson (Scottish Academic Press, Edin-

burgh and London, 1974), pp. 331-341. 2. Maior Viginti Quinque Annis, Essays in Commemoration of the Sixth Lustrum of the Institute for Legal History of the University of Utrecht, edited by J.E.

Spruit (Van Gorcum, Assen, 1979), pp. 195-201. 3. Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis (1965), pp. 38-50. 4. Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis (1961), pp. 243-258. 5. The lrishJurist (1966), pp. 313-315. 6. The Classical Review (1973), pp. 127-128. 7. Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis ( 1961 ), pp. 1-21. 8. Law Quarterly Review (1962), pp. 205-227. 9. StudiaetDocumentaHistoriaeetluris (1967), pp. 189-209. 10. IURA (1961), pp. 210-221.

11. Festschrift KlaJJenbach, Klio (1970), pp. 473-475. 12. Revue Internationale des Droits de l'Antiquiti (1967), pp. 455-465. 13. The lrishJurist (1969), pp. 378-391. 14. Revue Internationale des Droits de l'Antiquiti (1963), pp. 69-91. 15. Revue I nternationale des Droits de l'Antiquiti ( 1961 ) , pp. 391-416. 16. Studia et Documenta Historiae et Iuris (1963), pp. 285-287. 17. Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis( 1966), pp. 175-193. 18. Sein und Werden im Recht, Festgabe Ulrich von Liibtow edited by W.G. Becker & L.S. von Caro1sfeld (Duncker & Humb1ot, Berlin, 1970),

pp.381-387.

Preface

The articles in this volume all concern issues in understanding Roman private law. They include my earliest piece on Roman law, 'Arra in the Law of] ustinian', which was published in 1959, and which had its roots in a paper written for the class of Professor ].A.C. Thomas at the University of Glasgow. Over the years the study of Roman law has given me enormous pleasure, and this seems an appropriate place to thank my teachers for all their encouragement and help: Sir John Spencer Muirhead, who first introduced me to the subject; Professor ].A.C. Thomas, under whom I took an advanced course on the Roman law of sale; David Daube, who supervised my D. Phil. thesis. I also want to express my gratitude to my friends and colleagues of many lands for the stimulation of their writings and conversation. Alan Watson

1

Enuptio gentis WHILE she was still a slave Hispala Faecenia plied the prostitute's trade and continued to support herself so even after she had been manumitted. I When her patron died and she was under no one's tutelage she sought from the tribune of the plebs and the praetor, and was granted, a tutor dativus. 2 She made a will instituting as sole heir her lover, Publius Aebutius,3 who was the son of a deceased eques equo publico.4 Aebutius was already supported by her since he was not well provided for by his relatives. s Aebutius's tutores had died and he had come under the tutelage of his stepfather,6 who so maladministered the estate that he could not render an accounting. Livy also says Aebutius was under the tutela of his mother but this cannot be technically accurate since women could not be tutores. Probably Livy should be taken to mean that he was brought up by her (and her husband). Step-father and mother therefore decided to corrupt Aebutius by means of the Bacchanalia. 7 Hispala Faecenia warned Aebutius of the dangers, he refused to be initiated into the Bacchic rites, and was driven from home. The next day he reported the matter to Spurius Postumius, one of the consuls of that year, 186 B.C., who eventually dragged the story of the Bacchanalian orgies from the very reluctant Hispala Faecenia. 8 The cult and its adherents were investigated and put down with great severity,9 and Publius Aebutius and Hispala Faecenia rewarded. Livy, 39.19.3. Sp. Postumius aliquanto post Romam venit: eo referente de P. Aebutii et Hispalae Faeceniae praemio, quod eorum opera indicata Bacchanalia essent, senatus consultum factum est, (4) uti singulis his centena milia 1. Livy, 39.9.5. 2. Livy, 39.9.7. This kind of tutor was instituted by the lex Atilia, probably in 210 B.C.: cf. Rotondi, Leges pl4blicae populi romani (reprinted Hildesheim, 1966), pp. 275f; Kaser, Das romische Privatrecht, i, 2nd edit. (Munich, 1972), p. 357 and n. 42. 3· Livy, 39.9.7. 4· Livy, 39.9.2. 5· Livy, 39.9.6. 6. Livy, 39.9.2. 7· Livy, 39.9.3,4. 8. Livy, 39.10.1-39.14.3. 9· Livy, 39.14.4-39.18.9.

2 Two Notes on Manus

1. Usus, trinoctio abesse and the Lemuria

The most important text for usus is G. 1.111. Usu in manum conueniebat quae anno continuo nupta perseuerabat; quia enim veluti annua possessione usucapiebatur, in familiam viri transibat filiaque locum optinebat. itaque lege duodecim tabularum cautum est ut, si qua nollet eo modo in manum mariti convenire, ea quotannis trinoctio abesset atque eo modo cuiusque anni interrumperet. sed hoc totum ius partim legibus subia tum est, partim ipsa desuetudine oblitteratum est.

Thus, according to Gaius manus was acquired by usus if a woman remained married (nupta) for a year unless she stayed away from her husband for three nights. 1. G. A. Wilms 1 advanced the view that the nights in question were not any three nights, but the three nights of the Lemuria, 9-10, 11-12 and 13-14 May, when it was believed that the ghosts of ancestors came to homes and had to be warded off by the head of the family. This opinion can, I submit, be confidently rejected. To begin with there is nothing in the texts on the Lemuria which indicates or implies in any way that absence on these nights would prevent the acquisition of manus. Ovod. Fasti, 5.429. nox uni iam media est somnoque silentia praebet. et canis et variae conticuistis aves, ille memor veteris ritus timid usque deorum surgit - habent gemini vincula nulla pedes signaque dat digitis medio cum pollice iunctis,

I.

De vrouw sui iuris, Cicero, pro Fiacco 34, 84 en de manusvestiging door usu, Gent, 1938, pp. 28ff: aproved as a probability by P. Koschaker. ZSS 63 (1943. p. 477; and by Th. Mayer-Maly. 'Studien zur Fruhgeschichte der Usucapio II', ZSS (1961), pp. 221ff at p. 260. The question is left open by Kaser, Das romische Privatrecht I, 1955, p. 69 n. 9; A. Watson, The Law of Persons in the Later Roman Republic Oxford, 1967, p. 20 n. I.; D. Daube. Dividing a Child in Antiquity, California Law Review 54 (1966), pp. 1630 ffat p.1634.

3 The Divorce of Carvilius Ruga I.

An attempt to trace the main outline of the history of divorce in Rome in the very early period is largely an attempt to explain two conflicts or, at least, two apparent conflicts in the texts, both of which are connected with the divorce of Carvilius Ruga. II. First. On the one hand it would appear and is generally accepted 1) that the XII Tables contained a provision about divorce. The main text adduced for this view is Cicero Phil. 2.28.69: ... illam suam suas res sibi habere iussit ex duodecim tabulis, clavis ademit, exegit 2).

The other text cited in this connexion, D. 48.5.44, from Gaius' third book on the XII Tables, with its si ex lege repudium missum non sit confirms the existence in the XII Tables of some provision on the subject of divorce 3). On the other hand, there is the very strong Roman tradition that the first divorce was that of Spurius Carvilius Ruga. It is so described by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Plutarch, Valerius Maximus and Aulus Gellius 4). 1) Cf most recently, Yaron Minutiae on Roman Divorce, Tijd. 28 (1960) p. Iff; C. Herrmann Le role judiciaire et po/itique des femmes sous la repub/ique romaine (Bruxelles-Berchem, 1964) p. 30f. Nothing significantly new on early law is to be found in Meira A Legisla~fio romana do divorcio Romanitas 3-4 (1961) p. 199ff. To these is to be added Yaron De divortio varia, 3. Iterum D. 48.5.44, Tijd. 32 (1964) 554 ff.; I am very grateful to Professor Yaron for allowing me to read in typescript this part of his article. 2) This is the punctuation adopted by most modem jurists: but see infra p. [5]. 3) Cf Yaron Tijd. 28 cit. p. 1. Volterra in Intorno a D. 48.5.44(43) to appear in Studi in onore di Biondo Biondi holds that ex lege here does not refer to the XII Tables; but see the criticisms of Yaron in Tijd. 32 cit. 4) Cf Tertullian Apol. 6; De monog. 9.

4 Captivitas and Matrimonium Despite Corbett's dissenting voice 1), modern jurists are agreed that generally captivitas ended a Roman marriage and that postliminium did not apply 2). D. 24.2.1 (Paul 35 ad ed.): Dirimitur matrimonium divortio morte captivitate vel alia contingente servitute utrius eorum 3). D. 49.15.12.4 (Tryphoninus 4 disp.): Sed captivi uxor tametsi maxime velit et in domo eius sit, non tamen in matrimonio est 4).

This second text is especially significant since it comes from the middle of Tryphoninus' discussion of postliminium and there is no sign of the doctrine of pendens. Moreover, it is unlikely that any account of such has been cut out since Justinian favoured the survival of the marriage. D. 49.15.14.1. (Pomponius 3 ad Sab.): Non ut pater filium, ita uxorem maritus iure postliminii recipit: sed consensu redintegratur matrimonium.

This text is usually rightly taken as showing that postliminium does not apply, but that the former husband and wife, if they so desire, begin a new union. Corbett dissents from this view and says that the text means 'that the effective operation of postli1) The Roman Law of Marriage, Oxford 1930, pp. 212-215. CfRasi, Consensus facit Nuptias, Milan 1946, pp. 115-118. 2) E.g. Buckland, The Roman Law of Slavery, Cambridge 1908, p. 296; Bonfante, Corso di diritto romano, 1: Diritto di Famiglia, Rome 1925, pp. 240-242; Imbert, Postliminium, Paris 1945, pp. 99-106; Solazzi, Scritti Ferrini, 2, pp. 349-355; Di Marzo, Studi Solazzi, pp. 1-5; Amirante, Captivitas e Postliminium, Naples 1950, pp. 149-152. 3) Vel- servitute is generally held interpolated: Cf Amirante, op. ell., p. 149. n. 3: but see infra, p. 42, n. 20. 4) Whether, as is generally agreed (Amirante, loco cit. and n. 4) tametsi maxime velit is an interpolation need not concern us.

2 Two Notes on Manus

1. Usus, trinoctio abesse and the Lemuria

The most important text for usus is G. 1.111. Usu in manum conueniebat quae anno continuo nupta perseuerabat; quia enim veluti annua possessione usucapiebatur, in familiam viri transibat filiaque locum optinebat. itaque lege duodecim tabularum cautum est ut, si qua nollet eo modo in manum mariti convenire, ea quotannis trinoctio abesset atque eo modo cuiusque anni interrumperet. sed hoc totum ius partim legibus subia tum est, partim ipsa desuetudine oblitteratum est.

Thus, according to Gaius manus was acquired by usus if a woman remained married (nupta) for a year unless she stayed away from her husband for three nights. 1. G. A. Wilms 1 advanced the view that the nights in question were not any three nights, but the three nights of the Lemuria, 9-10, 11-12 and 13-14 May, when it was believed that the ghosts of ancestors came to homes and had to be warded off by the head of the family. This opinion can, I submit, be confidently rejected. To begin with there is nothing in the texts on the Lemuria which indicates or implies in any way that absence on these nights would prevent the acquisition of manus. Ovod. Fasti, 5.429. nox uni iam media est somnoque silentia praebet. et canis et variae conticuistis aves, ille memor veteris ritus timid usque deorum surgit - habent gemini vincula nulla pedes signaque dat digitis medio cum pollice iunctis,

I.

De vrouw sui iuris, Cicero, pro Fiacco 34, 84 en de manusvestiging door usu, Gent, 1938, pp. 28ff: aproved as a probability by P. Koschaker. ZSS 63 (1943. p. 477; and by Th. Mayer-Maly. 'Studien zur Fruhgeschichte der Usucapio II', ZSS (1961), pp. 221ff at p. 260. The question is left open by Kaser, Das romische Privatrecht I, 1955, p. 69 n. 9; A. Watson, The Law of Persons in the Later Roman Republic Oxford, 1967, p. 20 n. I.; D. Daube. Dividing a Child in Antiquity, California Law Review 54 (1966), pp. 1630 ffat p.1634.

6 Vespasian: Adsertor Libertatis Publicae

In A.D. 71 Vespasian issued at Rome l a sestertius inscribed on the reverse SPQR ADSERTORI LIBERTATIS PUBLICAE 2 in four lines within an oakwreath, the corona civica. The purpose of this note is to clarify the exact claim being made by Vespasian. M. Grant has already called attention to a possible relationship with the inscription on a tetradrachm issued at Ephesus by Augustus in 28 B.C.: IMP CAESAR DIVI F COS VI LIBERTATIS p(opuli) R(omani) VINDEX.3 He rightly and reasonably explains the change of terminology from Augustus' vindex to Vespasian's adsertor by a desire to avoid a pun. 'The period of anarchy and civil war which Vespasian terminated had been started by a man of precisely that name who rebelled against Nero. The Romans being so addicted to plays on words, the name of Vindex must have given rise to many punning observations reminiscent of the phrase on Augustus' tetradrachms.'4 But that is not the whole story. 5 Adsertor libertatis is a technical term. The adsertor libertatis is the person who brings an action against someone who is, he claims, wrongfully holding a free man as a slave. 6 A peculiarity of the action involved, the vindicatio in libertatem, is that anyone could be the plaintiff, the adsertor libertatis. He need not have a financial interest in seeing the free man's liberty restored, or be a relative of his or even a citizen of the same state. This adsertor libertatis acted on his own initiative and was not appointed by the supposed slave. Indeed, at least in certain cases the adsertor could bring the action even against the wishes of the supposed slave. The supposed slave, of course, could not himself bring the

I

Also at Tarraco, at an unknown mint in Gaul, and at Lugdunum: Mattingley, Coins

ojthe Roman Empire in the British Museum, ii (London 1930), nos. 572, 781, 793,805. 2

Or PUBLIC.

Mattingley, Coins ojthe Roman Empire in the British Museum, i (London, 1923), nos. 691, 692,693. 4 Roman Imperial Money (London, Edinburgh, etc., 1954), 187. 5 We are not directly concerned here with the accuracy of Grant's claim that Vespasian is deliberately recalling Actium and Aegyptus capta. 6 Cf. already, C. Kraay, 'The Coinage of Vindex and Galba, A.D. 68', Numismatic Chronicle, ix (1949),129 If., 140. 3

7 Acquisition of Possession per Extraneam Personam The thesis to be maintained is that shortly after the beginning of the Empire it was generally recognised by the jurists that one could acquire possession through one's procurator omnium bonorum; that this was then extended to tutors and curators; and that before the end of the classical period one could acquire possession trough any extranea persona. This development can be traced in the texts. I hope that I have shown elsewhere 1) that the rapprochement of mandatum and procuratio took place in classical law and that the texts show the development. Since there are more texts on that subject (and the thesis can therefore be more easily proved) and it has some bearing on the present question, it may be worth while summarising the arguments and conclusions. As regards the procurator omnium bonorum, the texts tell us that Celsus and Pomponius would give the actio negotiorum gestorum to or against him, and that they kept mandatum and procuratio clearly distinct. Africanus gives a choice of the actio mandati or actio negotiorum gestorum. Gaius allows a procurator to be appointed by mandate, and both Julian and Gaius permit a mandate to be negotia gerere. Paul will allow the former, but gives no sign of accepting the latter position. None of these three ever says that the actio mandati will lie against a general procurator (except Paul in the suspect D. 2.13.9. pr.), but Gaius and Paul might allow it against the procurator ad litem. Scaevola seems to adopt the same position as Julian, while Papinian and Ulpian have no hesitation in giving the actio mandati to or against the procurator. Such a progression on the face of the texts shows a historical development and the differing positions of the various jurists cannot be explained by supposing interpolations in the later texts. As for the procurator unius rei, we have one text of Scaevola, four of Paul and eight 1)

The Contract of Mandate in Roman Law, Oxford 1961, pp. 36-6(J.

8

Acquisition of Possession and Usucapion per Servos et Filios I.

ACQUISITION OF POSSESSION

SOME texts tell us that a master acquires possession per servum even unknowingly if the acquisition is ex peculiari causa, but that otherwise his knowledge is essential for the acquisition of possession. Others simply say, without any reference to peculium, that the master acquires possession per servum. The dominant modern view is that those texts which demand the knowledge of the master for acquisition of possession except where the taking is ex peculiari causa represent the classical law and that the other texts have suffered at the hands of the compilers,l but other jurists hold exactly the opposite. 2 The minority view seems to me to be certainly correct but it has not been altogether convincingly presented. The most unambiguous textual authority, D.41.2.28.2 and D.41.2.24, seems to have been strangely neglected and the text which provides the strongest support for the majority view, D.41.2.1.5, has not been adequately dealt with. Moreover, what seems to be the main general argument of Nicosia, who has dealt at greatest length with the subject, appears of doubtful value. He maintains 3 that traditio has its basis in possession and that it is impossible to acquire ownership by traditio without also acquiring possession, yet we know that, generally, traditio to a slave, even without the master's knowledge, gave the master ownership. But there is no evidence that it was ever regarded by the Romans as a principle that traditio had its basis in possession and it does not follow that because in tlie nature of things the transferee in the normal case acquires possession he must in all cases do so. Indeed, there is positive proof to the contrary. No one would deny that traditio directly to a pupil of whatever age and without any intervention by his tutor would give the pupil ownership. 4 But it is clear that at least some classical jurists, notably Paul, held that 1

2

3

e.g., De Francisci, .. Sull'acquisto del possesso per mezzo dello schiavo" (1907) Rend.lst.Lomb., xl, p. 1002 et 8eq.; Buckland, The Roman Law of Sla'Dery (Cambridge, 1905), p. 131, A Textbook of Roman Law, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, 1932), p. 200 et seq.; Albertario, Corso di diritto romano: posses80 e quasi possesso (Milan, 1946), p. 113 et seq.; Amirante, Capti'Ditas e postliminium (Naples, 1950), p. 143 et seq. Beseler, Beitrage zur Kritik der romischen Rechtsquellen, IV (Tiibingen, 1920), p. 61 et seq.; Schulz, Classical Roman Law (Oxford, 1951), p. 43S; Nicosia, L 'acquisto del posseS80 mediante i .. potestati subiecti" (Milan, 1960), passim. Op. cit., chap. 4, pp. 115-136, especially from p. 117. 4 Cf. G.2.S3.

9 Acquisition of Ownership by Traditio to an Extraneus

Fontes de traditionilms extraneae personae fucti;; illNllidulltur. Plerumque, tali traditione facta, dominium adquiritur, si haec persona extranea aut iussu aut scientia eim; cui agitur accipit; sed si iniuRSU aut sinl' scientia illius accipit, dominium plerumque non adquiritur. Nihilominu8 pIures diversitates sententiae non parvi momenti invcniuntur, quamquam lenem explicationem sequi non possumus.

SUMMARIUM. -

The acquisition of ownership by tra·ditio to an cxtranca pCl"8(ma ha;; received remarkably little independent study'. Acquisition of possession per emtraneam personam seems to have attracted most of the attention to itself and acquisition of owner;;hip appears generally to be treated, without much interest, in its wake. But, of course, there are great differences between the two primarily because a iusta causa is needed for the acquisition of ownership by tra(litio. Where an emtranea persona takes on IwhaIf of another, he may he acting as an agent or as an instrument. In the former case he will have initiative of his own, in the latter he will be following completely the precise instructions of his principal and there will be no real scope for initiative. In the present study it is hoped to show the extent to which one could acquire ownership by traditio 2 through an emtranea persona where he is an instrument and also where he is an agent. It should he stated at the beginning that the texts do not show a doctrine den'loping steadily and consistently hut display considerable divergence of view. We have evidence first for the time of Servius. D. 34, 2, 4 (Paul. 54 ad cd.): Cum quidam libertum suum in Asiam misisset ad purpuras emendas et testamento uxori suae lanam iJurpurearn , Though see, e.g., VOCI, Modi di acquisto della proprieta, Milano 1952, 68ff. Of course the principal will not acquire ownership of re8 rnancipi which were mancipated to his free agent. Mancipatio will not be discussed here. 2

10 The Acquisition of Young in the Usufructus Gregis The mam texts are:

D. 7. 1. 68 pro (Ulpian 17 ad Sab.) Vetus fuit quaestio. an part us ad fructuarium pertineret: sed Bruti sententia opt inuit fructuarium in eo locum non habere: neque enim in fructu hominis homo esse potest. hac ratione nee usum fructum in eo fructuarius habebit. quid etiam si fuerit etiam partus usus fructus relictus, an habeat in eo usum fructum? et cum possit .partus legari, poterit et usus fructus eius. 1. Fetus tamen pecorum Sabinus et Cassius opinati sunt ad fructuarium pertienere. 2. Plane si greg is vel armenti sit usus fructus legatus, debebit ex adgnatis gregem supplere, id est lit locum capitum defunctorum. D. 7. 1. 69 (Pomponius 5 ad Sab.) vel inutilium alia summittere, ut post substituta fiant propria fructuarii, ne lucro ea res eedat domino. et sicut substituta statim domi.ni fiunt, ita priora quoque ex natura fructus desinunt eius esse: nam alioquin quod naseitur fructuarii est et cum substituit, desinit eius esse. D. 7.1. 70 pro (Ulpian 17 ad Sab.) Quid ergo si non faciat nee suppleat? teneri eum proprietario Gaius Cassius seribit libro decimo iuris civilis. 1. Interim tamen, quamdiu summittantur et suppleantur capita quae de mortua sunt, euius sit fetus quaeritur. et Iulianus libro treeensimo quinto digestarum scribit pendere eorum domi.nium, ut, si summittantur, sint proprietarii, si non summittantur, fructuarii: quae

11

Cicero, ad Fam. 7.5.3 About. April, 54 B. C., Cicero wrot.e t.o Caesar in Gaul recommending t.o him his friend, the jurist C. Trebatius Testa. The letter ends:

Hunc, mi Caesar, sic velim omni tua comitate complectare ut omnia quae per me possis adduci ut in me os cunferre velis in unum hunc conferas. De qtW tibi homine haec spondeo non illo vetere verbo meo, quod cum ad te de .~lilone scripsissem, iure lusisti, sed more Romano quo modo homines non inepti loquunt'ur, probiorem hominem, meliorem virum, pudentiorem esse neminem. Accedit etiam, quod familiam ducit in iure civili, singulari memoria, 8umma scientia. Huic ego neque tribunatum neque pruefecturum neque tLlliu8 benefici certum nomen peto, benevolentiam tuam et liberalitatem peto, neque impedio quo minu8, si tibi ita placuerit, etiam hisce eum ornes gloriolae insignibus: totum denique hominen tibi ita trudo, de manu, ut aiunt, in manum tuam istam et victoria et fide praestantem. 8imus enim putidiusculi quamquam ( per te vix licet, verum, ut video, licebit. Cura ut valeas et me, ut amas, ama. 1 should like to suggest that totum denique hominem tibi ita trado, de manu, ut a,iunt, in manum tuam istam et victoria et fide praestantem may be a complex legal joke.

De manu, ut aiunt, in manum tuam presents a number of curious features. First, ut aiunt gives a sort of mock solemnity to the clause. Secon