Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T08:51:27.580Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The New Fragments of Gaius: Part III.—The legis actiones

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

F. de Zulueta
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Previous articles have discussed the critical significance of the new text, PSI 1182, and the new information on consortium. The text has now begun to affect general treatises, such as those of E. Betti, R. Monier, and W. Kunkel. The following special literature may be added to what has been previously cited :—

V. Arangio-Ruiz, Cours de dr. rom. (Les actions), Naples 1935, and ‘Il nuovo Gaio,’ Bull. Ist. Dir. Rom. (BIDR), xlii, 571–624. F. Lanfranchi, ‘Appunti sul “consortium” familiare nei retori romani,’ Stud, et Doc. hist, et iuris, fasc. 2, 1935, 373–8. A. E. Giffard, ‘Iudicis postulatio et actio ex sponsione,’. Rev. hist. dr., xiii. 514–6, and ‘Varron, De L.L., vi, 64–5,’ Rev. de philol., ix, 82–3. F. de Zulueta, Supplements to the Institutes of Gaius, Oxford 1935 (separate; also incorporated in Poste's Gaius). C. W. Westrup, Family property and patria potestas, Oxford 1936. G. I. Luzzatto, Sulle origini e la natura delle obbligazioni romane, Milan 1934. P. Meylan, Acceptilation et paiement, Lausanne 1934. Cf. H. F. Jolowicz, JEA xxii, 1936, 81, 86.

It remains to consider the new evidence on iudicis postulatio and condictio (PSI 1182, 178–220). We begin by recalling the augmented text (Gaius 4, 17a–20).

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , 1936 , pp. 174 - 186
Copyright
Copyright ©F. de Zulueta 1936. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 JRS xxiv, 168–86.

2 JRS xxv, 19–32.

3 Diritto Romano, i, 1935, 462 ff.Google Scholar

4 Manuel élém. de dr. rom. i, 1935, 171 ff.Google Scholar, 542; ii, 1936, 215.

5 Röm. Privatrecht, 1935, 240 ff., 369.

6 This gives a revised text. We learn that, when the fragments first came to the editor, certain letters were legible on a piece belonging to the edge of fol. EF, which crumbled in handling, but not before there had been read in l. 107 (Gaius 3, 171, JRS xxiv, 173) ioimagi, and in l. 108 ittammu, letter which do not accord with Levy's or my conjectures. Also, in l. 129 (Gaius 4, 17a) iudicio c (on) was clear, which disposes of the reading ‘iudicatus uel damnatus’ suggested by Levy and accepted in JRS xxiv, 174.

7 Sav. Z., liv, 308.

8 On the term Düll, Sav. Z., lv, 27–8, seems fanciful.

9 In spite of negabat the statement must be true of both parties. Perhaps negabat is merely a copyist's error for agebat.

10 Arangio-Ruiz, , BIDR xlii, 620Google Scholar. Monier, Man. élém., i, 173. Infra, pp. 184–5.

11 Cf. the immediately following 4, 21: ‘Per manus iniectionem aeque de his rebus agebatur de quibus ut ita ageretur lege aliqua cautum est.’

12 Levy, Sav. Z., liv, 310.

13 E.g. Betti, Dir. rom., i, 462 ff.

14 sicuti, line 181, applies to the first case only. Of course sicuti can introduce examples, as in 2, 14 and, perhaps, 4, 22; but the usual Gaian word is ueluti, and even that is followed in 2, 218 by complete enumeration, as is, it seems, sicut in 4, 44.

15 Sav. Z., liv, 298, 2.

16 Mnemos. Pappulia, 206.

17 In an article to be published shortly in Rev. hist. dr.

18 Sav. Z., liv, 236.

19 See, however, Koschaker, Sav. Z., xxxvii, 357. Ehrhardt, Sav. Z., xxxvii, 357. Ehrhardt, sav. z., 36 ff.

20 Cf. Levy, Sav. Z., liv, 305–6.

21 JRS xxv, 28.

22 So also, if I understand him rightly, Rabel, Mnemos. Pappulia, 206.

23 Mnemos. Pappulia 205–7, citing Pappulias, Sav. Z., xxvi, 553.

24 Cf. Rabel, Mnemos. Pappulia, 207.

25 PSI 1182, p. 42, 3.

26 Sav. Z., liv, 294–5.

27 JRS xxv, 24 ff.

28 Cf. Rabel, Mnemos. Pappulia, 196.

29 See Levy's, admirable commentary, Sav. Z., liv, 298 ff.

30 I understand Giffard, Rev. hist. dr., xiii, 514–6, to maintain that our formula represents a claim for an incertum, the ten thousand sesterces being the plaintiff's taxatio, an altogether paradoxical view, however ingenious the arguments by which it is supported.

31 CAH ix, 860. Cf. Girard, Manuel (ed. 8), 516.

32 De Visscher, Rev. hist, dr., vii, 335 ff. = Etudes de dr. rom. 1931, 255 ff.; v. Woess, Sav. Z., liii, 402. On the whole question, with full literature, cf. Luzzatto, G. I., Sulle ortgini e la natura delle obbligazioni romane, Milan, 1934Google Scholar; Albertario, E., Studi di dir. rom., iii, 1936, 77, 1Google Scholar.

33 Sav. Z., xxii, 96 ff., Festschr. f. Bekker, 1907, 107 ff.; Röm. Privatrecht, i, 1908, 266 ff.Google Scholar Summarized in Sohm-Mitteis-Wenger, Instit.,17. 62–3. Cf. Jolowicz, Hist. Introd. to Roman Law, 290–1.

34 Sav. Z., liv, 299–301.

35 Festschr., 142.

36 Meylan, Acceptilation et paiement, Lausanne 1934, 27 ff., an excellent study the arguments of which cannot be reproduced here. Luzzatto, likewise, o.c. supra p. 180, n. 32, p. 257, though he does not accept Mitteis' views in full, regards the development of remedies by action as the decisive factor in the evolution of contractual obligation.

37 Levy, Sav. Z., liv, 303–5; 299 i.f. Arangio-Ruiz, PSI 1182, p. 29 (online 183), and BIDR xlii, 612 ff. (more reserved). Monier, Les nouveaux fragments, 31. Further references are given by G. Segrè, BIDR xlii, 497, 1. Giffard, Rev. hist. dr., xiii, 514–6, if I understand him, regards sponsio incerti as the special field of iud. post.

38 Wlassak, , Röm. Processgesetze, ii, 285–9Google Scholar. Düll, Der Gütegedanke im röm. Zivilprozessrecht, Munich 1931Google Scholar. Schönbauer, , Studi Riccobono, ii, 392 ff.Google Scholar, 399.

39 Levy, , Sav. Z., liv, 305Google Scholar, 4. Cf. Koschaker, , Sav. Z., xxxvii, 357Google Scholar.

40 BIDR xlii, 614–6.

41 l.c. Cf. his Cours de dr. rom. (Les actions), 21, 1.

42 Rev. hist. dr., xiii, 108.

43 Granted that in such an action the heirship of a party or the extent of his share could not be called in question, as probably it could not in classical law: D.10, 2, 37, as emended by Mommsen from the Basilica.

44 Cf. the same alternative in Twelve Tables, 2, 2; 9, 3.

45 Cf. the historical misapprehension betrayed by him in 3, 216, in relation to a similar question.

46 Levy, , Sav. Z., liv, 310–11Google Scholar.

47 Rev. hist. dr., xiii, 109.

48 Cf. Arangio-Ruiz, , PSI 1182, pp. 43–4Google Scholar, and BIDR xlii, 621.

49 On this text Giffard, Rev. hist. dr., xiii, 515, argues that the actio sacr. did not lie for a less sum, but only iud. post. Cf. Arangio-Ruiz, BIDR xlii, 613.

50 Contra Arangio-Ruiz, , PSI 1182, p. 44Google Scholar, relying on Gaius 4, 13 and 4, 17a: ‘per iud. post. agebatur si qua de re ut ita ageretur lex iussisset.’ But see now BIDR xlii, 608–9.

51 Supra, p. 176. On the question see v. Woess, Sav. Z., liii, 374, 380.

52 So Huvelin, Cours élém. du dr. rom., 612, cited by V. Woess, l.c.

53 Supra, p. 176, n. 10.

54 ‘Konfessio in iure und Defensionsverweigerung nach der l. Rubria,’ Sb. Bay. Ak., phil.-bist. Abt. 1934, 8, p. 68, arguing from Gaius 4, 171: ‘sponsionem facere permittitur.’

55 BIDR xlii, 623, citing Perozzi, Dalle obbligazioni da delitto alle obbligazioni da contratto 1916, 24 ff., and Istituz. ii, 212 ff.