IUSIURANDUM

Two documents in the archive relate to an institution described at length in the Digest: the “iusiurandum”.^{[329] [330] [331] [332] [333] [334] [335] This was a device that helped to avoid unnecessary litigation.}

The first of the documents, TPSulp 28, declares the following: “After they had met the court appointment (vadimonium) that Caius Sulpicius Cinnamus had made with lulius Fortunatus, and Caius Sulpicius Cinnamus had said he was ready to swear that, if 3,000 sesterces were proffered to him [sc Cinnamus], then lulius Fortunatus would... iusiurandum.”⁹ The second of the documents, TPSulp 29, is probably part of the same affair,¹⁰ and sets out the oath itself:¹¹ “On the invitation of lulius Fortunatus, Caius Sulpicius Cinnamus swore.”, followed by a mutilated text suggesting the charge was iniuria by way of convicium.

Sulpicii (TPSulp)” (2000) 11 Cahier Glotz 173; J G Wolf, “Der neue pompejanische Urkunden­fund. Zu Camodecas �?Edizione critica dell'archivio puteolano dei Sulpicii'” (2001) 118 ZSS (rA) 102; P Groschler, “Der Eid in TPSulp 28 und 29” (2004) 121 ZSS (rA) 110.

6 D 12.2 (voluntary, compulsory and judicial oaths).

7 See D 12.2.17pr; D 12.2.28.10 (Paul, Edict 18).

8 It is apparently a suit on iniuria (Camodeca, Tabulae Pompeianae Sulpiciorum (n 1) 94), and though the point is disputed, this does not appear to be among the actions for which this type of oath was allowed. See Kaser and Hackl, Zivilprozessrecht (n 5) 268 note 19; cf D 47.10.5.8 (Ulpian, Edict 56); Roby, Roman Private Law (n 5) 296.

9 TPSulp 28: Camodeca, Tabulae Pompeianae Sulpiciorum (n 1) 93-94; E Metzger, Litigation in Roman Law (2005) 188 (no 29).

10 Camodeca, Tabulae Pompeianae Sulpiciorum (n 1) 94.

11 TPSulp 29: Camodeca, Tabulae Pompeianae Sulpiciorum (n 1) 94-96. The words are only partly preserved, but the oath itself is apparent in the words ex tui animi se[ntentia], at tab 1, p 2, l.5 (see Cicero, De Officiis 3.108) and si sciens at tab 1, p 2, l.8 (see Livy 22.53.11). See Camodeca, Tabulae Pompeianae Sulpiciorum (n 1) 95.

12 Groschler proposes a solution in which Cinnamus assumes the role of plaintiff in the vadimonium:

Camodeca first presented this transaction as a iusiurandum in iure, that is, as a voluntary oath that was nevertheless performed in iure.^{* [337] Humbert, in reply, argued that the suit had not progressed so far as this: the parties' engage­ment to appear, mentioned expressly at the opening of TPSulp 28, “Cum ad vadimonium ventum esset, quod haberet Caius Sulpicius Cinnamus cum lulio Fortunato”[338] was, Humbert says, a private engagement for a first appearance, and as the matter had therefore not reached the magistrate, the iusiurandum was extra-judicial.[339] Camodeca subsequently accepted Humbert's thesis and presented the transaction as extra-judicial.[340] Thus the iusiurandum would have taken place “on the way to litigation”, and the general course of events described in the documents, however the events are reconstructed,[341] would not reflect the hand of the magistrate or events in iure.}

C.