Sponsio and fidepromissio

If, then, the first part of the above-mentioned proposition (fideiussio was accessory) can be maintained only cum grano salis, the other half is open to far more serious criticism.

The opinion that sponsio and fidepromissio were not "accessory" to a principal obligation, but independent, is based on far-reaching interpolation hypotheses, supported, in some instances, by large-scale rewriting rather than careful reconstruction of the available sources.⁷¹ The main problem is that very little direct evidence is available, for sponsio and fide­promissio had already disappeared as living institutions soon alter the end of the classical period.⁷~ By the 6th century they had become totally obscure. Justinian, therefore, systematically removed sponsores and fidepromissores from the classical sources and substituted the fideiussor in their place. Thus, while we certainly have to expect a certain degree of corruption in our texts dealing with suretyship, it is hardly justified to relate whatever does not seem to tie in with the idea of accessoriness in our sources to the older sponsio/fideprornissio layer of the law. Both sponsio and fidepromissio were certainly not accessory in any strict or dogmatic sense of the word,⁷³ but they were also, in all likelihood, no more independent of the main obligation than fideiussio was.⁷⁴

IV.

More on the topic Sponsio and fidepromissio:

1. II SPONSIO, FIDEPROMISSIO AND FIDEIUSSIO
2. Fidepromissio and the transition to fideiussio
3. Sponsio
4. The limitations of sponsio
5. Verbal contracts (contractus verbis)were contracts that were created by the use of certain formal words (verbis solemnibus).
6. Subject Index
7. 3 THE FORMAL CONTRACTS
8. The Betrothal
9. Relaxation of the word formalism
10. SURETYSHIP
11. Beneficium cedendarum actionum
12. Basic types of error in Roman law
13. 1. The classical principle of "Konsumptionskonkurrenz”
14. Introduction