CHAPTER VII

1 See A. H. Μ. Jones in Recueils de la sociäd Jean Bodin VII, 1955, i6iff, and Μ. I. Finley in Economic History Review, 1965, 4off

2 See Μ. Rheinstein, ed., Max Weber on Law in Economy and Society (1954), 130fr

3 Though as to publicani see below

4 Nicholas, Introduction, 201

5 A.

6 See G. E. Μ. de Ste. Croix, Greek and Roman Accounting (reprinted from A. C. Littleton and B. S. Yamey, eds., Studies in the History of Accounting, 1956), I4ff, especially 37-8

7 This is a �Greek’ subject. A view of it can be obtained from de Ste. Croix, op. cit., 48-9, with the works he quotes on p. 48 at note 18 (to which might be added}. Hasebroek in Hennes, 1920, iijfF)

8 S. Brassloff, Sozialpolitische Motive in der römischen Rechtsentwicklung (i933), 5

9 Nicholas, Introduction, 150

10 Gai. Inst. IH, 92ff

11 D. 13. 6.17.3

12 Juvenal, Satires XHI, 15-17 and 200-2; cf. Seneca, de beneficiis IV, 26, 3

13 See Μ. Kaser in Tijdschrift, 1961, 169fr

14 D. 26. 7. 5 pr. Bankers’ interest on money is referred to in D. 2. 14. 47. 1, in a context that seems intended to be typical, and in D. 16. 3, frags. 24, 26.1 and 28. It could always be arranged, like interest on a loan of money, by independent stipulations, but in view of the guardian situation I do not think it can have been normal. E Bonifacio, in BIDR, 1947,8off, argues that �irregular depositum’ was not in itself either irregular or post-classical, but admits (89-90) that interest on it, as part of the contract of deposit, was post-classical. The texts are unfortunately all very suspect

15 The problem of liability for custodia is one of the most perplexed in Roman law. I am being dogmatic here. See Buckland, Textbook, 560-1; Schulz, CRL, 515; and, for bibliography, Berger, Dictionary, under the word custodia.

16 1 am not convinced by A. Watson in Tijdschrift, 1963,

17 See above, Chapter DI, p. 77

18 Plautus, Curculio, 506-11; Horace, Epodes II

19 Cicero, ad Att. IX, 12, 3

20 Pliny, Ep. Ill, 19, 8; cf. Dio of Prusa, Orations XLVI, 5 and 8

20a See Sherwin-White, Pliny, 423-4 and 63 5-6

21 Cicero, adfam. V, 6, 2

22 Cicero, ad Att. I, 12, 1

23 Cicero, adAtt. IV, 15,7

24 Tacitus, Annals VI, 16

25 The demonstration was made by Ch. Appleton in Nouvelle revue historique de droit fran^ais et etranger, 1919, 467fr. Cf, however, for Babylon and Assyria, Driver and Miles, The Babylonian Laws 1,176. It is certainly not the case in our period, as Kelly maintains in Roman Litigation, 77, that �even this enormous rate was frequently exceeded’. Scaptius’s forty-eight per cent was a wild extortion. P61ay (see note 34 below) gets 365 per cent out of one document, but by misinterpretation

26 D. 22. 1, frags. 1 pr. and 29. There was no maximum on �nautical loans’

27 Cicero, ad Att. V, 21,11. Cf. ad Att. VI, 2, 7 for compound interest over 12 per cent on arrears

28 Gnomon, § 105. (This clause is not in Fontes, which gives only a selection.

For the whole text see E. Seckel and W. Schubart, Der Gnomon des Idios

Logos, 1919, and for translation see Econ, Survey II, 71 iff

29 D. 12. 6. 26. 1

30 See note 27 above

31 D. 22. 1. 1 pr.

32 Sec E. Cuq in Ch. Daremberg and Edm. Saglio, Dictionnaire des antiquites grecques et romaines V, under the word usura

33 D. 22.1.17. 6

34 See E. P61ay in Acta Antiqua, i960, 4i7ff, but discount his determination to see a sinister one per cent per day; the moneylender’s charge was one per cent per month

35 Fontes III, no. 157; we shall meet this text again presently

36 Fontes III, nos. 122 and 123. The one quoted is no. 122, dated ad 162

37 Gai. Inst. HI, 128-34

38 There is a good deal of literature, and still much uncertainty. For a good account see A.

39 And perhaps Tab. Here., no. Ill

40 See de Ste. Croix, Greek and Roman Accounting, 73, note 14, and Watson,

Law of Obligations, 24ff, with his Appendix to Chapter 3

41 Gai. Inst. Ill, 134

42 See, for example, E. Costa, Cicerone Giureconsulto I, (1927, reprinted 1964) I781F; Jolowicz, Hist. Introduce, 297; Zulueta, The Institutes of Gaius n, 146-7; Watson, Law of Obligations, 40-1

43 Fontes in, no. 90

44 Fontes HI, no. 136

45 Cicero, de oratore I, 178; de ojficiis III, 67

46 de ojficiis IH, 58-9

47 Buckland and McNair, 287-8

48 Justinian’s Institutes II, 1, 41

49 D. 18.1.19

50 D. 18.1. 53

51 Gai. Inst, n, 20

52 And the reader will have a good example of a typical exegetical problem

in the subject if he will look at the following (all in English except one): Buckland, Textbook, 230, note 8 and 240, note 2; Zulueta, Roman Law q, Sale, 37-8; Schulz, CRL, 350; Zulueta, The Institutes of Gaius II, 61-2; Kaser, Das romische Privatrecht I, 352-3; Watson, Law of Obligations, 6iff

53 See Nicholas, Introduction, 176ft

54 Pliny, Ep. VIH, 2,1 (and plenty of other cases; it is a necessary agricultural bargain)

55 D. 18. 2. 8

56 D. 19. 5. 20 pr.

57 Cato, de agri cultura, 148; see R. Yaron in D. Daube, ed., Studies in the Roman Law of Sale, dedicated to the memory of Francis de Zulueta (1959), Essay no. 5

58 D. 45.1. 75. 2.; cf. 45. 1. 54

59 Buckland and McNair, 282-3

60 See Nicholas, Introduction, 174-5

61 E.g. Tacitus, Histories I, 90

62 Cicero, pro Caecina, 13-17; D. 40. 7. 40. 8

63 M. Talamanca in Atti dell⁹ Accademia nazionale dei Lincei, Memorie della classe per scienze morali, etc., 1955, 35ft*

64 Fontes IH, no. 128 c; c£ all the texts under nos. 129 and 130

65 Lex Metalli Vipascensis, Fontes I, no. 105,11. 1-10

66 Still �arrhes’ in French

67 See F. Pringsheim, The Greek Law of Sale (1950), Part 3, Chapter 4 (with comment by M.

68 But see Watson, Law of Obligations, 46ft*

69 Gai. Inst. Ill, 139

70 Taubenschlag, Law of Greco-Roman Egypt, 410

71 D. 18. 3. 8

72 D. 18. 1. 6. 1

73 The lex commissoria, D. 18. 3

74 Gai. Inst. HI, 145-7

75 Labour: D. 19. 2. 51.1; premises: D. 19. 5. 1. 1

76 See above, note 15. The most important full-scale modem work on the problem is V. Arangio-Ruiz, Responsabilità contrattuale in diritto romano² (1933)

77 D. 19. 2. li pr.

78 Gai. Inst. Ill, 205-6

79 D. 19. 2. frag. 13 pr. to 6

80 Imperitia is culpa: D. 19. 2. 9. 5

81 D. 19. 2. 30. 4

82 D. 19. 2. 22. 2; cf Cicero, ad Att. IV, 16, 8

83 D. 19.2. 60.4

84 D. 19. 2. 58. 1

85 D. 19. 2. 36

86 D. 19. 2. 36 and 59

87 D. 19. 2. 51. 1

88 D. 19. 2. 24 pr.: viri boni arbitrata, not far from the �reasonable man’

89 D. 19. 2. 60. 3.Cf. Cicero, ad Quintumfratrem III, 1,1, and H. B. Creswell, The Honey wood File (edition of 1964) 157ft*

90 Tertullian, adversus Marcionem III, 6

91 W. Ashbumer, The Rhodian Sea Law (1909)

92 For the arguments see (besides Ashbumer) : A. Berger in Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopàdie IX, 545ft*; P. Huvelin, Etudes d⁹histoire du droit commercial romain (1929), i84ff; V. Arangio-Ruiz in Studi in onore di Salvatore Ricco- bono IV (1936), 384#; W. Osuchowski in lura, 1950, 292 ff; F. Wieacker in Studi in memoria di E. Albertario 1 (1953)» 5*5 ff; F· M. de Robertis in Studi in onore di Vincenzo Arancio-Ruiz (1952-3) in, I55ff; J. RougĂ©, Recherches sur I⁹ organisation du commerce maritime en MediterranĂ©e sous l⁹empire romain (1966), 3e Partie

93 D. 22. 2. 6 and 7. See the papyrus P. Vindobon. 197926, quoted by Rouge, op. cit., 348, note 4

94 Pauli Sententiae II, 14, 3 ; D. 22. 2. 4 pr.

95 D. 45. 1. 122.1. It is imaginary; note that the slave is �slave of Seius’ and then �slave of L. Titius’.

96 D. 14. 2. 2. 2

96a Rougé, op. cit., 336ff, has an interesting discussion of the law about wrecks; but the texts are very uncertain

97 D. 14. 1. 1. 12

98 See L. Casson in JRS, 1965, 3iff

99 D. 19. 2. 31

100 D. 19. 2. 61.1

101 Varrò, Res Rusticae II, 8, 5 and 6, 5, respectively

102 D. 19.2.30.2

103 D. 19. 2. 60. 8

104 D. 19. 2. 25. 7. For pictures, see Rostovtzeff, SEHRE, pls. XXVIII, 3; XXXIII, 3 ; XXXIX, 4; XLVI, 3

105 D. 19. 2. 13 pr.

106 Nautae, caupones, stabularli. Stabulum often itself means a lodging-house, but in this context it actually means someone who stables horses, etc.

107 D. 47. 5

108 D. 4. 9.1 pr.

109 D. 4. 9.1.1

no D. 4. 9, frags. 1.1 and 3.1

in Pace Schulz, CRL, 565. See Horace, Epodes XVII, 20 and Satires I, v, 4;

Juvenal, Satires VHI, I72f

112 D. 47. 5. 1. 6

113 For the points of view, see Huvelin, Etudes, I35ff; Arangio-Ruiz, Res­ponsabilità contrattuale, iO3fF; M. Sargenti in Studi Albertario I, 553ff; C. H. Brecht, Zwr Haftungder Schiffer im antiken Rechi (1962), especially Chapter 2

114 I am sure Brecht was right about this

115 Here I part company with Brecht

116 D. 19. 2. 60. 6

117 D. 4. 9. 7 pr.

118 Except perhaps the hospitia for V.I.P.’s at places like Olympia

119 On die whole, though remember Horace, Satires I, v

120 Fontes HI, no. 145 b. The owner was a consul. I do not know exactly

327 what the different things mentioned were

121 See Meiggs, Roman Ostia, pl. XVa, for the �Horrea Epagathiana’, and cf. pp. 280-1

122 See J. A. C. Thomas in Revue internationale des droits de I⁹antiquity 1959, 37iff

123 D. 19. 2, frags. 55 pr. and 60. 9

124 D. 19. 2. 56

125 Fontes HI» no. 145 a; excerpts only, and my choice of readings

126 Cf. D. 20. 4. 21.1

127 The fundamental study is that of H. Dressel, the excavator, in Annali dell⁹ Instituto di Corrispondenza archeologica, 1878,1 i8ff.

128 Note the lady, and cf. ILS, 7488, and Toynbee and Ward Perkins, The Shrine of St. Peter, 120

129 See, for example, Pliny, Ep. VID, 18, and the references in Cl. Qu., 1967, art. �Patria Potestas’, forthcoming

130 D. 17. 2. 31

131 Gai. Inst. IH, 148

132 D. 17. 2, frags. 71 pr. and 52. 7, respectively

133 D. 10. 3.7.4; and see Chapter I, p. 34

134 Gai. Inst, m, 150

135 D. 17. 2. 59 pr. Watson, Law of Obligations, 131, holds that in Cicero’s day an heir did succeed. In Cicero, pro Quinctio, 14-15 there is no mention of a new agreement when the heir came in; but he may not have thought it worth mentioning

136 D. 17. 2. 74; though for some slight evidence to the contrary see p. 241

137 Petronius, Satyricon, 38,13

138 Fontes HI, no. 157. See Polay in Acta Antiqua, i960,417H*

139 D. 12.1. 41; 32. 34.1; 32. 64; 33. 2. 37; cf. Cicero, ad fam. XIII, 72,1

140 Bankruptcy of nummularius: D. 16. 3.7. 2; of mensularius: D. 42. 5.24. 2

141 Cicero, ad fam. ID, 5, 4

142 Cicero, ad Ait. XU, 24,1; XV, 15,4

143 Fontes DI, no. 131, b and c

144 Fontes HI, no. 131, e

145 D. 2.13.12. As to slaves, see Chapter VI, p. 188

146 Auctor ad Herennium II, 19, where the rule is given as an example of �consuetudo’, i.e. no legislation, but accepted by the courts

147 The passage in the above note is not necessarily a reference to the contract litteris

148 See Lend, Das Edictum Perpetuum, I32ff

149 Public policy: D. 2.13.10.1. The edict: Lend, op. cit., 62S

150 D. 2. 13, frags. 6. 2 and 8

151 D. 2. 13. 9. 2

152 Gai. Inst. IV, 64-8

153 D. 2. 14. 47. 1; but as to its typicality see above, note 14

154 The exhaustive treatise on this is F. Kniep, Societas Publicanorum I (all published) (1896)

155 D. 49. 14. 3. 6

155a Though in Cicero, adfam. II, 13,4 we find them in the province collecting arrears owed to them from a previous lustrum

156 D. 17. 2. frags. 59 pr. and 65. 15

157 Polybius VI, 17

158 Cicero, II in Verrem I, 143

159 Stangl, Ciceronis Orationum Scholiastae, 253, reading (with Kniep) divisui

160 D. 14. 6. 3.1

161 It is the theme of P. W. Duff, Personality in Roman Private Law (1938)

162 Cf. Fontes III, no. 93, 11. 9-10, where �immunes et curator et plcps universa collcgi eius’ is reminiscent of �the Master, fellows and scholars of St. John’s College’

163 See Duff, op. cit., I4iff and 159-161

164 D. 39.4.12 pr.

165 D. 39. 4. 1. 6

166 Tacitus, Annals XIII, 50-1

167 Apokrimata, no. XI

168 D. 3. 5. 1 (another laudatio edict!)

169 So limited according to Schulz, CRL, 621

170 Watson, Contract of Mandate, Chapter 3

171 Gai. Inst. Ill 155

172 D. 17.1.1. 4

173 Pace Watson, op. cit., Chapter 10

174 Whom I do not think it is right to emend away

175 Cicero, ad fam. XIU, 72,1 (cf. I, 3)

176 adfam. XIII, 43,1

177 Cicero, pro Quinctio, 62

178 ad Ait. XVI, 2, 2; ad fam. XVI, 24, 1, respectively

179 ad Ait. X, 5, 3

180 ad fam. VH, 23,1-3

181 ad fam. VU, 2, 1

182 Pliny, Ep. IX, 39

183 One remark of Papinian about the right of a governor’s suite to their emoluments got into the Digest under locatio conductio: D. 19. 2.19.10

184 D. 2. 14. 47. 1 and 16. 3. 24 (the last clause of which need not be an interpolation), 26.1 and 28. See above, note 14

185 Gai. Inst. II, 95 and III, 103, respectively; cf. in, 163

186 D. 14. 3. 14

187 D. 14. 1, frags. 1. 25 and 2 and 3

188 See Fontes IU, p. 417, and the discharges given to Caecilius lucundus, which follow

189 And actor publicus was a slave of the municipality

190 Gaius’s Institutes (the Verona text) are in any case the bottom writing of a triple palimpsest (i.e. they have had two other texts written over the top of them), and it was marvellous work that enabled them to be first recog­nized and then read as much as they have been

191 D. 13. 7. 11. 6

192 See Schulz, CRL, 626-8; Buckland and McNair, 309-10. Cicero, ad Att.

XII, 12,1 may be a case in point

193 See Schulz, CRL, 40iff

194 Polybius VI, 17; Cicero, II in Verrem 1,142

195 Fontes III, no. 153 (excerpt only)

196 Fontes I, no. 18, § 2

197 Fontes I, no. 24, §§ 60 and 63-5, respectively

198 See A. Watson in ZSS, 1962, 329!?

199 Forties III, no. 92

200 Fontes III, no. 91

201 Tab. Here., nos. LXV and LXVI, respectively

202 See Nicholas, Introduction, I5off

203 See, for example, P. Oxy. 2134

204 D. 20. 2. 2-3

205 D. 20. 1, frags. 1 pr. and 6 and 15. 1

206 See, for example, P. Oxy. 1105

207 See Excavations at Dura-Europos, Final Report V, Part I, nos. 20 and 21, and Taubenschlag, Law of Greco-Roman Egypt, 286ft’; but not every kind of paramont was antichretic

208 Gai. Inst. IV, 147; D. 13. 7. 9. 2

209 See Lenel, Das Edictum Perpetuum, 49off; Buckland, Textbook, 475; Kaser, Das römische Privatrecht I, 395

210 See, for example, Buckland, Textbook, 450; Kaser, Das römische Privatrecht I, 556. The contrary view is expressed dogmatically by Schulz, CRL, 497. The evidence when probed more or less comes down to Cicero, ad Att. XVI, 15, 2; that passage can perhaps be interpreted in a way that would destroy its status as the principal support for the rule, but Cicero does seem to be making a point about litis contestatio, and it is hard to see what other point he could be making. It is true, however, that the other passages, such as Pauli Sententiae II, 17,16; D. 44. 2. 21. 4; Codex lustinianus, 8. 40. 28 are strictly only aboutfideiussor

211 D. 45. 2. 3. 1 (again technically about fideiussor)

212 See W. W. Buckland in Juridical Review, 1941, 28iff

213 Buckland, op. cit., 283, cautiously says 'non constat as to litis contestatio', but Schulz, CRL, is dogmatic that there was no release

214 Gai. Inst. IV, 88fF; D. 46, titles 5 to 8

215 D. 46. 5· 7

216 Gai. Inst, ID, 224

217 See Gellius* discussion of sistere vadimonium: Nodes Atticae II, 14

218 Cicero, pro Quindio, 29

219 Cicero, Brutus, 17-18; pro Roscio comoedo, 35; II in Verrem II, 60; ad fam. XIII, 28, 2

220 Cicero, ad Att. I, 8, 1