CHAPTER V

1 There is a useful discussion in Buckland and McNair, 62ff, with the excursus of F. H. Lawson

2 For our period we do not need to take into account the different view of early Roman law expressed by Μ.

3 Gai. Inst. II, 2-11; D. 1. 8

4 D. 50. 15, frags, i and 6-8

5 On the recent discovery of a ius Italicum of individuals see Chapter II, p. 40, with note 12

6 On peregrine land see Jones, Studies, Essay IX

7 Gai. Inst. II, 14a-! 7

8 Gaius describes it, Inst. I, 119-22, in connection with the mancipatio of persons

9 Gai. Inst. II, 24. What �vindication’ was is explained below, p. 144

10 Hence Virgil’s advice to encourage bees to swarm nearby, Georgies IV, 21-4. See also D. Daube in Droits de I'antiquite et sociologie juridique: Melanges Henri Levy-Bruhl (1959), 63fr

11 See Sir George Hill in Proceedings of the British Academy, 1933, 2i9ff; Buckland, Textbook, 2i8ff; Schulz, CRL, 362

12 Nicholas, Introduction, 132

13 D. 6.1. 23. 4

14 D. 10. 4, frags. 6 and 7. 1. See Buckland, Textbook, 210

15 D. 8. 4. 6. 1

16 Buckland and McNair, 101

17 Taubenschlag, Law of Greco-Roman Egypt, 239-40

18 Codex lustinianus, 3. 32. 2 pr.,

19 ILS, 7908. Note the mancipation; urns were not res mancipii But if they were thinking of them starting with the ground, what then? But even so, what price res nullius?

20 Pace C. A. Maschi in Studi in onore di Vincenzo Arangio-Ruiz (1952-3), IV, I35ff, who argues that superficies was a right over a floor protected by the ius honorarium. It is usually thought to have been a kind of �building- lease’, and Maschi has not convincingly demonstrated the contrary

21 Gai.

22 D. 6. 1. 9

23 Schulz, CRL, 372

24 The pledgee did possess; into this anomaly we cannot go

25 Nicholas, Introduction, in

26 See the very characteristic note of Buckland in Textbook, 258, note 12

27 D. 6.1. 24

28 Gai. Inst. II, 40-1

29 Nicholas, Introduction, 127

30 Gai. Inst. TV, 144

31 See H. J. Roby, Roman Private Law in the Times of Cicero and of the Antonines (1902), II, jioff

32 Gai. Inst. IV, 160

33 Gai. Inst. TV, x6iff

34 See Buckland, Textbook, 736ff

35 Petronius, Satyricon, 76, 8fF (Trimalchio) and 57, 5-6 (his friend)

36 D. 27. 4. 3. 6, etc. See Jonkers, Economische en sociale toestanden, 21S

37 D. 50. 15· 4

38 The entry quoted is Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum XI, 1147, item no. 8. For other entries from this long document see Fontes III, no. 116

39 Of the cataster the most important treatment is still in F. Blume, K. Lachmann and A. Rudorff, eds., Die Schriften der römischen Feldmesser, I(i 848), II (1852), by Mommsen in vol. II, 152fr and Rudorff in vol. II, 405!?. It was peculates to tamper with the cataster: D. 48.13.10. On the Augustan forma see ILS, 251. For centuriation and its physical traces see J. Bradford, Ancient Landscapes (1957) and the references quoted by A. Piganiol, Les documents cadastraux de la colonie romaine d'Orange {1962), 38fr

39a See Piganiol, op. cit., and Ch. Saumagne in Journal des Savants* 1965* 73fF

40 Taubenschlag, Law of Greco-Roman Egypt* 222ft

41 Pace Piganiol, op. cit., 404-5 (but he is talking of ager vectigalis)

42 D. 19.1. 21.1. Cf D. 2.14. 42; 19. 1. 13. 6; 39. 4. 7 pr.

43 D. 25. 1. 13

44 Cicero, II in Verrem HI, 55; D. 26. 7. 32. 6

45 Taubenschlag, op. cit., 360, with note 23

46 D. 10.1. 11. For legislation about illegal moving of boundaries, see Fontes I, no. 12 and D. 47. 21. 2-3

47 D. 11. 6. 1 (much suspected of interpolation). Cf Rondel v.

48 ILS, 6005

49 One curious and much-argued document records the purchase, on behalf of a municipality, of a right to obstruct certain lights: Fontes III, no. 106s

50 Gai. Inst. II, 31

51 De itinere: D. 43. 19; de aqua (with elaborate complications): D. 43. 20; de cloacis: D. 43. 23

52 D. 8. 5.10 pr.

53 On which see Buckland and McNair, 135

54 D. 8. 2. 8

55 D. 8. 2. 13 pr.

56 D. 8. 2. 19 pr.

57 Or perhaps cheese-shop, tabema casiaria, i.e. a snack-bar. The whole passage, D. 8. 5. 8.5ff, is of great interest. The piece put, in the translation, in square brackets is obscure, ungrammatical, and probably interpolated, but the whole is a very characteristic specimen of legal argument from case to case—a paradigm, perhaps, of all legal argument

58 D. 7. 1. 56

59 D. 7. 1. 13. 7. But on usufructuary’s right to work mines see G. Pugliese in Tulane Law Review* 1966* 542ft* with interesting references to the modem law. See also p. 161, below

60 D. 7. 1. 15. 1

61 D. 7. 5

62 D. 19. 2. 25.1

63 See Nicholas, Introduction, 184, and the celebrated passage of Schulz, CRL* 544ff

64 Fontes III, no. 143 a'* cf Petronius, Satyricon, 38, 10 and Martial, XII, 32, 1, which make it probable that we should read �1 July’ in the Pompeian inscription

65 Juvenal, Satires III, 269 (and the whole context)

66 Cicero, pro Caelio, 17; D. 9. 3. 1. 7

67 D. 19. 2. 60 pr. and 19. 2. 25. 2, respectively

68 Cicero, ad Ait. XIV, 9, 1 and Gellius, Noctes Attic ae XV, 1, 3, respectively

69 D. 19. 2. 30 pr.; cf. 19. 2. 7 and 13. 7. 11. 5. Conductor may imply such a chief tenant in the Pompeian advertisement

70 D. 2.14. 4 pr.; cf. 13. 7.11. 5 and 20. 2. 2

71 Martial, XII, 32,1-3

72 W. E. Heitland, Agricola, a Study of Agriculture and Rustic Life in the Greco- Roman World from the point of view of Labour (1921), remains an indispen­sable and masterly collection of evidence for agricultural management, though its over-all thesis would not now be acceptable.

73 Told again most recently by Arnold Toynbee, Hannibal's Legacy (1965), II, 190-312 (with various relevant �annexes’)

73 a See K. D. White in J RS, 1966, 249

74 H. Gummerus, Der römische Gutsbetrieb als wirtschaftlicher Organismus (Klio, Beiheft 5), 1906, 64S and 82S; Heitland, op. cit., 252fr. One must not forget the five coloni on Horace’s small farm, Horace, Ep. I, xiv, 2ff, nor Domitius, who could man seven ships with the servi, liherti and coloni from his huge estates, Caesar, Bellum Civile I, 34, 2. See Brunt in JRS, 1962, 71

75 Pliny, Ep. IX, 37

76 For a clear contrast with slave-farming see D. 20.1.32

77 See Pliny, Ep. Ill, 19,7; D. 9. 2. 27. 11. Instrumentum fundi could include slaves. Cf. Sherwin-White, Pliny, 256

78 D. 19. 2. 9. 3 and 19. 2.11.1, respectively

79 Pliny, Ep. IX, 37,2

80 D. 19. 2. 13. 11

81 D. 19. 2. 55. 2

82 Buckland, Textbook, 221

83 D. 19. 2. 55.1. The text says �necessary or useful’, but the last two words are probably an interpolation

84 D. 20. 2. 7 pr.; but it was usually written into the contract, D. 47. 2.62.8. Cf. Pliny, Ep. Ill, 19, 6

85 Taubenschlag, op. cit., 358. Cf. V. A. Tcherikover, A. Fuks, and Μ. Stem, eds., Corpus Papyrorum ludaicartim II (i960), no. 420 a and III (1964), no. 453

86 D. 19.2. 25. 6; Pliny, Ep. IX, 37, with Sherwin-White, Pliny, 520-1

87 Buckland and McNair, 298

88 D. 19.2.15. There were complications of set-off

89 Buckland and McNair, 294-5

90 Pliny, Ep. VID, 2 and IX, 37

91 Columella, Res Rustica I, 7, 3-4. Cf. Martial, IV, 64, 33-4

92 Pliny, Ep. VI, 3 and VII, 18,3 (pace Sherwin-White, Pliny,423),respectively

93 Pace Schulz, CRL, 545, and Sherwin-White, Pliny, 358 and 390

94 Pliny, Ep.

95 D. 19. 2. 19. 2; D. 33. 7; Pauli Sententiae III, 6, 34fF

96 There is an enormous bibliography on agri vedigales; most recently, L. Bove, Ricerche sugli �agri vedigales' (i960), giving the reference (on p. 5, note 8) to the big studies of F. Lanfranchi, Studi sull'ager vedigalis, I—III, (1938-40). Schulz, CRL, 397-8 states the main area of dispute, rather dis­missively—but characteristically

97 Lex Coloniae luliae Genetiv ae, Fontes I, no. 21, § 82

98 Bove, op. cit., 68, note 69; Taubenschlag, op. cit., 26jff

99 There is a good deal on tenancy of ager publicus in Cicero’s Verrines; cf. also ad Att. Π, 16. 4. For Cicero on agri vedigales see ad fam, ΧΙΠ, 7, 1 and 11,1—very remarkable

100 A. Piganiol, Les documents cadastraux, sjS

101 See F. G. de Pachtete, La table hypothe'caire de Veleia (1920), 93-5

102 Gai. Inst. ΠΙ, 145; D. 6. 3. 1. For the controversy, compare Schulz, CRL,

398 with Lend, Das Edictum Perpetuum, i86ff

103 D. 21. 2. 66 pr.; D. 6. 2. 12. 2

104 Pliny, Ep. VII, 18,4

105 The latest discussion is by H. Vogt, Das Erbbaurecht des klassischen römischen Rechts (1950). Definition o£ solarium: D. 43. 8. 2.17

106 D. 43. 18. i pr.; cf. 39. 2.15. 26; and see Lend, op. cic., 576fr

107 Fontes ΠΙ, no. no

108 Fontes I, nos. 100-103, translated by R. Μ. Haywood in Econ. Survey IV, 89fr. Add L'annte epigraphique, 1938, no. 72, and Tablettes Albertini, 97fr

109 Heitland, op. cit., 209

no See Tenney Frank in JScon. Survey I, 374

in D. 7. i. 13. 5. See note 59

112 Pliny, Natural History III, 138; XXXIII, 78; XXXVII, 202. See Tenney Frank in Econ. Survey 1,180 and 263-4

113 See, for example, Suetonius, Tiberius, 49, 2

114 Fontes I, nos. 104-5, translated by J. J. van Nostrand in Econ. Survey III, löyff

115 By E.

116 Damage: D. 9. 2; theft: D. 47. 2. Digest 9.2, ad legem Aquiliam, is printed with a translation (like Zulueta’s Gaius) in F. H. Lawson, Negligence in the Civil Law (1950)

117 See Lawson, op. cit., passim; Zulueta, The Institutes of Gaius Π, 209ff; Buckland and McNair, 362ft

118 See Lawson, op. cit., 8ff. Note particularly that many scholars hold that it was the value of the damage, not of the object, that was in question

119 Gai. Inst. IV, 37

120 For argument, see Lawson, op. cit., 65fr, and Schulz, CRL, 591

121 D. 9. 2. 5. 3 to 7 pr. and D. 9. 2. 13 pr. See Lawson, op. cit., 21-2

122 D. 9. 3. I pt.

122a At least, the fragment is Ulpian’s; but these frequent laudationes edicti are post-classical. See Wieacker, Textstufen, 269, note 253

123 Juvenal, Satires ID, 269!?

124. D. 9. 1. We shall meet wild animals in Chapter VIII

125 Cicero, Topica, 22

126 D. 39.1.1.12

127 D. 39. 1. 20. 9

128 There were complex details; see Roby, Roman Private Law, I, 509fr

129 D. 39. 2. 1

130 Fontes I, no. 19, §§ 19-20

131 P. Fouad 30, edited by J. Bataille, in J. Bataille et al., eds., Papyrus Fouad I (Cairo, 1939). The Egyptian rule was evidently slightly different

132 D. 39. 3; Cicero, Topica, 38-9

133 D. 43. 24. 1 pr. (with note)

134 Pro Tullio 2nd pro Caecina. Cf. ad fam. XV, 16, 3

135 D. 47. 8. 2. 1

136 D. 47. 2; published with a facing translation and commentary by H. F. Jolowicz, Digest XLVII. 2, 'De furtis’ (1940)

137 Nicholas, Introduction, 211

138 The Times, 19 Jan. 1965

139 D. 47- 2. $7. 1

140 Schulz, CRL, 573-4

141 Gai. Inst. HI, 183-94

142 D. 47. 2. 93

143 Schulz, CRL, 26-7

144 This point was made by P. W. Duff in Cambridge Law Journal, 1954, 86ff. A thievish slave might not be worth much, but he could be sold for chain­gang work

145 Gai. Inst. IV, 4

146 D. 47.18.1.2

147 Valerius Maximus, VID, 2, 4; cf. Gai. Inst. DI, 196 and Gellius, Noctes Atticae VI, 15 and XI, 18

148 D. 47. 2. 43. 8

149 For a list, see Schulz, CRL, 581

150 For three not being a crowd in Roman law see D. 47. 8. 4. 3

151 Gai. Inst. IB, 203; D. 47. 2.10. See Jolowicz, op. cit., xxviiiff

152 D. 13.1.1

153 Gai. Inst. HI, 199

154 See Μ. W. Frederiksen in J RS, 1966,128fr

155 Kelly, Roman Litigation, 74S refers to this nexus, but uses it to reach con­clusions which I do not find acceptable

156 Cicero, adAtt. VII, 3,11

157 adAtt. VH, 18, 4

158 ad Ait. XVI, 2, 2

159 ad fain. XIV, 2, 3 and 1, 5, respectively

160 Pliny, Ep. Ill, 19, 8

161 Tacitus, Annals VI, 16-17. See Tenney Frank’s analysis in Econ. Survey V, 32ff

162 Livy, VIII, 28. But nexum was probably quite distinct from addictio for judgment debts: see La Rosa, L” actio iudicati’, 72S

163 See Roby, Roman Private Law II, 431; La Rosa, op. cit., 93-5; and add Sallust, Catilina, 33; Cicero, pro Flacco, 48; Lex Coloniae luliae Genetivae, Fontes I, no. 21, § 61; Quintilian, Inst. Or. VII, 3, 26-7

164 Though Buckland, Textbook, 643, thinks that �perhaps it was mainly used for solvent debtors’, to make them pay up. Down to the invention of bonorutn venditio this may well have been so, for addictio did not pass the debtor’s property to you

165 See note 163

166 Gai. Inst. IV, 35

167 Juvenal, Satires, VI, 255

168 In the lex Rubria, Fontes I, no. 19, § 22, eosque dud bona eorum possiderei sounds as if both could be done; and see Codex lustinianus, 7. 71.1

169 Cicero, pro Quinctio, 84

170 D. 42. 7. 2. 2

171 Cicero, pro Quinctio, 25-6 and 48-51, respectively

172 D. 42. 4. 7. 1-2; cf. Gai. Inst. Ill, 78

173 Buckland and McNair, 302

174 By Kelly, Roman Litigation, 75. Cf. Cicero, ad Ait. I, 1, 3: �but talk of a liquidator is absurd’—i.e. tilings won’t get that far

175 Cicero, adAtt. XVI, 15, 2

176 See Acta divi Augusti, p. 152, and L. Gu£noun, La cessio bonorum (1920), I9ff, who, in my view rightly, plumps for Augustus, though not all his reasons are good ones. The opposite view is argued by Frederiksen in JRS, 1966,128ff

177 That it depended on misfortune is not accepted by all scholars. The best evidence is the implications of Seneca, de ben. VII, 16, 3 :�in the old days’ they recognized a moral distinction between insolvency by misfortune and insolvency through fault, but made no legal distinction. See Gu^noun, op. cit., 48ff

178 Gai. Inst. Ill, 78

179 Codex lustinianus, 2. 11. n and 7. 71. 1

180 D. 42. 3. 4 pr.

181 Apuleius, Apologia, 75

182 Cicero, adfam. XIV, 4, 4; cf D. 40. 9, frags. 10 and 11 and 16. 2-3

183 D. 42. 8. See Buckland, Textbook, 596, and cf. Cicero, adAtt. 1,1, 3

184 D. 2. 14, frags. 7. 17#. and 10 pr. and 44; D. 42. 8. 23

185 On this and what follows see art. �Decoction,’ in Latomus, 1967

186 Gai. Inst. IV, 102

187 See, for example, Cicero, in Catilinam II, 5 (with the scholium on the passage in Th. Stangl, ed., Ciceronis Orationum Scholiastae (1912), 281) and Philippic II, 44; Catullus, XLI, 4; Valerius Maximus, VI, 9, 12; Pliny, Natural History XXXIII, 133; Seneca, de benefidis III, 17, 4; IV, 26, 3; V, 21, 3

188 Cicero, pro Sulla, 58

189 Cicero, Philippic II, 44

190 Seneca, de ben. V, 21, 3 and Apuleius, Apologia, 75, respectively

191 On pacts see D. 2. 14. Not every pact, of course, was of this kind or relevant to this topic

192 See Chapter VH, pp. 247—8, with note 210

193 Fontes I, no. 13,1.114

194 See Roby, Roman Private Law II, 115

195 D. 27.10. 5

196 D. 42. 1, frags. 15 pr. and 31