CONCLUSION

It is probable that the texts under discussion were included in the Digest for dogmatic reasons, for example the relationship between the utility principle and the allocation of risk, and drawing the boundaries for traditio ficta.^[749] It is, however, remarkable that the classical Roman jurists did not address the doctrinal question whether the handing over of the object established a contract and if so, which contract or contracts.

There appears to be a wide variety of choice, such as a conditional or unconditional mutuum,^[750] or precarium^[751] or mandatum^[752] or aestimatum^[753] or do ut facias,^[754] which was changed into mutuum, if and when the dish was sold. The Codex texts indicate that in post- classical law, the described relationship between the usurer and his client was classified under mutuum, but the responsa show the wide variety of Roman casuistry. It is submitted that a change of perspective gives insight into the original function of the opinions, in other words law in action as opposed to law in the books. These texts dealt with an age-old practice of avoidance of interest limits. When the client approached the moneylender, the latter pretended not to have cash available. Instead of money, one or more objects were offered with the arrangement that the debtor should sell the goods and use the price realised as a loan. Before delivery of the object, an estimated value was agreed upon. Thus, from the beginning, valuation of the object was an integral part of the transaction and the ‘borrower’ was liable to repay the amount agreed upon and not the price he received as the result of the sale. In this manner usurious interest could be realised. If an object was valued at one 100, the principal was 100. Twelve per cent interest was calculated. The object was sold for seventy-five.

After one year, the debtor owed 112, of which in reality thirty-seven was interest, which is nearly 50 per cent of the seventy-five he had received.

In this essay, Barzun’s theory was applied to widely diverging topics. The essence of his idea that the topic of research appears like a mountain in front of the researcher is an a posteriori. His assertion that the researcher takes a few of the faces for the whole is hard to contest, but the explanation of such partiality as spontaneous choice exaggerates freedom of the individual. This theory promotes diversity of opinion and stimulates a new look at many texts, and an excellent example is found in the project of Nikolaus Benke at the University of Vienna, which approaches texts from the perspective of gender. However, in spite of the promise ‘In my Father’s house are many rooms’,^[755] the study of law herds most students into the same room,^[756] while anonymous peer review discourages coming out of this room. Furthermore, every person remains a product of his upbringing, education and time. However, the argument that it will be difficult if not impossible to ascertain from which perspective a Roman law text or texts should be approached can be rebutted with the replicatio that although these texts have been exclusively studied from a dogmatic point of view, it is common ground that they were never written for that purpose. Thus, a third life of Roman law as a methodological and philosophical instrument in legal education could promote independent and nuanced thought. This may be considered irrelevant in today’s age, but to paraphrase the doyen of Romanists, Hans Ankum: you never know what will be considered useful in a 100 years.^[757] The final words of this essay come from the same maestro, whose answer to the question concerning the relevance of Roman law is: to learn to think.^[758]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agnati, U., ‘Sequenze decemvirali. Analisi di Cicerone De Inventions 2.

148 e Rhetorica ad Herrenium 1. 23’, in M. Humbert (ed.), Le Dodici Tavole: Dai Decemviri agli Umanisti (2005), p. 239.

Barzun, J., From Dawn to Decadence. 500 Years of Western Cultural Life 1500 to the Present (2000).

Becker, C., Die Lehre von der laesio enormis in der Sicht der heutigen Wucherproblematik (1993).

Bona, F., ‘Intervento’, Index, 18 (1990), p. 392.

Bona, F., ‘Il “de verborum significatu” di Festo e le XII Tavole. I. Gli “auctores” di Verrio Flacco’, Index, 20 (1992), p. 211.

Buckland, W. W., and Stein, P., A Textbook of Roman law from Augustus to Justinian, 3rd edn (1963).

de Francesco, A., ‘Autodifesa privata e iniuria nelle Dodici Tavole’, in M. Humbert (ed.), Le Dodici Tavole: Dai Decemviri agli Umanisti (2005), p. 415.

Diliberto, O., ‘Contributo alla palingenesi delle XII Tavole. Le “sequenze” nei testi gelliani’, Index, 20 (1992), p. 229.

Diliberto, O., Materiali per la palingenesi delle XII Tavole, vol. I (1992).

Diliberto, O., ‘Una palingenesi “aperta”’, in M. Humbert (ed.), Le Dodici Tavole: Dai Decemviri agli Umanisti (2005), p. 217.

Doll, R., An Interpretation of E. M. Forster’s A Room with a View, at www.emforster. info/pages/roomview.html (last accessed 3 January 2012).

Du Plessis, P., ‘Legal history and method(s)', in R. Van den Bergh and G. van Niekerk (eds), Libellus ad Thomasium: Essays in Roman Law, Roman-Dutch Law and Legal History in honour of Philip J. Thomas (2010), p. 64.

Ferrary, J.-L., ‘Saggio di storia della palingenesi della Dodici Tavole', in M. Humbert (ed.), Le Dodici Tavole: Dai Decemviri agli Umanisti (2005), p. 503.

Forster E. M., A Room with a View, 1st edn (1908).

Gabba, E., ‘Proposta per un quadro storico di Roma nel V sec. a. C.', in M. Humbert (ed.), Le Dodici Tavole: Dai Decemviri agli Umanisti (2005), p. 117.

Garrasco Garcia, C., ‘Res publica come costituzione mista e decemvirati; Polibio e Cicerone', in M. Humbert (ed.), Le Dodici Tavole: Dai Decemviri agli Umanisti (2005), p.

125.

Heirbaut, D., ‘Comparative law and Zimmermann's new ius commune: a life line or death sentence for legal history? Some reflections on the use of legal history for comparative law and vice versa', in R. van den Bergh et al. (eds), Ex lusta Causa Traditum: Essays in Honour of Eric H. Pool (2005), p. 136.

Hermesdorf, B. H. D., Schets der uitwendige geschiedenis van het Romeins recht, 7th edn (1972).

Hoetink, H. R., Rechtsgeleerde Opstellen (1982).

Hoffmeier, M. H., Eduard Qans and the Hegelian Philosophy of Law (1995).

Humbert, M. (ed.), Le Dodici Tavole: Dai Decemviri agli Umanisti (2005).

Humbert, M., ‘Il valore semantico e giuridico di usus nelle Dodici Tavole', in M. Humbert (ed.), Le Dodici Tavole: Dai Decemviri agli Umanisti (2005), p. 377.

Humbert, M., ‘La codificazione decemvirale tentativo d'interpretazione', in M. Humbert (ed.), Le Dodici Tavole: Dai Decemviri agli Umanisti (2005), p. 4.

Jolowicz, H. F., Historical Introduction to the Study of Roman Law, 2nd edn (1952).

Kaser, M., ‘Die Verteilung der Gefahr beim sogenannten “Contractus mohatrae”', in A. Guarino and L. Labruna (eds), Synteleia Vincenzo Arangio-Ruiz (1964), p. 77.

Kaser, M., Das romische Privatrecht (1971).

Kennedy, D., ‘Legal education as training for hierarchy', in D. Kairys (ed.), The Politics of Law. A Progressive Critique (1982), p. 54.

Koschaker, P., ‘Die Verteilung der Gefahr beim sogenannten “contractus mohatrae”', Qerichts-Zeitung, Sondernummer J. Schey (1923).

Kremer, D., ‘Trattato internazionale e legge delle Dodici Tavole', in M. Humbert (ed.), Le Dodici Tavole: Dai Decemviri agli Umanisti (2005), p. 191.

Kuhn, T. S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962).

Lenel, O., Palingenesia Iuris Civilis, vol. I (1889), p. 242.

Lindsay, W. M., Nonius Marcellus’ Dictionary of Republican Latin (1901).

Lokin, J. A. H., and Zwalve, W. J., Hoofdstukken uit de Europese Codificatie-geschiedenis, 3rd edn (2006), p. 58-60.

Martyn, G., and Coppens, E.

C., ‘Het geschiedt zoals het geschiedt: Rechtshistorici uit de Lage Landen (10): Interview met Paul Neve', Pro Memorie: Bijdragen tot de rechtsgeschiedenis der Nederlanden, 10 (2008), Aflevering 1, p. 19.

al-Mujahid, M., ‘In the shadows of Deuteronomy: approaches to interest and usury in Judaism and Christianity' (2008), at http:/www.ikhwanweb.com/article. php?id=15717 (accessed 7 February 2012).

Noodt, G., ‘De foenore et usuris libri tres', in Opera Omnia, vol. I (1735).

Norr, D., ‘Osservazioni in tema di terminologia predecemvirale e di ius mercatorum mediterraneo: il primo trattato cartaginese-romano', in M. Humbert (ed.), Le Dodici Tavole: Dai Decemviri agli Umanisti (2005), p. 147.

Piron, S., ‘Le devoir de gratitude: Emergence et vogue de la notion d'antidora au xiii siècle', in D. Quaglione et al. (eds), Credito e usura fra teologia, diritto e amministrazione. Linguaggi a confronto (sec. Xll-XVl). Convegno internazionale di Trento, 3-5 settembre 2001 (2005), p. 73.

Sohm, R., Mitteis, L., and Wenger, L., Institutionen: Geschichte und System des romischen Privatrechts, 17th edn (1926).

Sollner, A., Romische Rechtsgeschichte, Eine Einführung (1971).

Spruit, J. E., Cunabula iuris: Elementen van het Romeinse privaatrecht (2003).

Talamanca, M., ‘Le Dodici Tavole ed i negozi obbligatori', in M. Humbert (ed.), Le Dodici Tavole: Dai Decemviri agli Umanisti (2005), p. 331.

Thomas, P. J., ‘Fin de siècle of funksionele Romeinse reg?', THRHR, 60.2 (1997), p. 202.

Thomas, P. J., ‘Alternative paradigm for Roman law', RIDA, 45 (1998), p. 647.

Thomas, P. J., ‘A stratagem to avoid the limit on interest', THRHR, 75.1 (2012), p. 101.

Wubbe, F. B. J., ‘Bei Max Kaser in Münster', in lus vigilantibus scriptum, Ausgewählte Schriften (2003), p. 512.

Wubbe, F. B. J., ‘Wozu romisches Recht?', in P. Pichonnaz (ed.), lus vigilantibus scriptum (2003), p. 556.

van Oven, J. C., Leerboek van Romeinsch Privaatrecht, 3rd edn (1948).

van Rhee, C. H., and Winkel, L. C., ‘Een Romeinsrechtelijke Coryfee, Rechtshistorici uit de Lage Landen (11): Interview met Hans Ankum', Pro Memorie: Bijdragen tot de rechtsgeschiedenis der Nederlanden, Jaargang 12 (2010), Aflevering 2, p. 163.

Voet, J., Commentarius ad Pandectas, vol. I (1731).

Ziegler, K.-H., ‘Regeln für Handelsverkehr in Staatsverträgern des Altertums', TvR, 70 (2002), p. 55.

Zimmermann, R., The Law of Obligations: Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition (1990).

<< | >>

↑

Source: Plessis P.J. du. (ed.). New Frontiers: Law and Society in the Roman World. Edinburgh University Press,2013. — 256 p.. 2013

CONCLUSION

More on the topic CONCLUSION: