Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T06:12:44.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The New Fragments of Gaius

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

F. de Zulueta
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a previous article (JRS XXIV, 168–86) we reproduced the new text and discussed its critical significance. It contains two new passages, the contents of the first of which are studied here. The passage (PSI 1182, 11–43, Gaius 3, 154a) runs:

‘Sed ea quidem societas de qua loquimur, id est quae nudo consensu contrahitur, iuris gentium est; itaque inter omnes homines naturali ratione consistit.’ (Here the new text begins) ‘est autem aliud genus societatis proprium civium Romanorum. olim enim mortuo patre familias inter suos heredes quaedam erat legitima simul et naturalis societas, quae appellabatur ercto non cito, id est dominio non diviso : erctum enim dominium est unde erus dominus dicitur : ciere autem dividere est : unde caedere et secare dicimus. alii quoque qui volebant eandem habere societatem poterant id consequi apud praetorem certa legis actione. In hac autem societate fratrum ceterorumve qui ad exemplum fratrum suorum societatem coierint illud proprium erat, quod vel unus ex sociis communem servum manumittendo liberum faciebat et omnibus libertum adquirebat: item unus remcommunem mancipando …’

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , 1935 , pp. 19 - 32
Copyright
Copyright ©F. de Zulueta 1935. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Of the literature cited in JRS xxiv, 168, the following studies are cited below by author' name only: PSI 1182 (extr. from Vol. xi), ed. V. Arangio-Ruiz; Collinet, P., Rev. hist. dr., xiii, 1934, 96ff.Google Scholar; Monier, R., Les nouveaux fragments, etc., Paris, 1933Google Scholar; Albertario, E., I nuovi frammenti, etc., Pavia, 1934Google Scholar; and especially Levy, E., Sav. Z., liv, 1934, 258 ffGoogle Scholar. Additionalliterature on ‘consortium’: Gaudemet, J., Étude sur … l'indivision en dr. rom., 1–31, Paris, 1934Google Scholar; Solazzi, S., Societas e communio, Naples, 1935Google Scholar; Frezza, P., Stud. et Doc., i, 1935, 188–96Google Scholar; Rabel, E., ‘Erbengemeinschaft u. Gewährleistung,’ Mnemos. Pappoulia, 187–212, Athens, 1934Google Scholar; Maschi, C. A., Disertiones, etc., Pubb. Univ. Can., xlv, Milan, 1935Google Scholar; Arangio-Ruiz, V., ‘Il nuovo Gaio,’ etc., Bull. 1st. Dir. Rom., xlii, 1935, 571–624Google Scholar. Unfortunately Rabel's and Arangio-Ruiz's studies only reached me during the course of printing. I have not seen Zancan, L., ‘Per l'interpretazione di P.S.I, xi, n. 1182,’ Atti Acc-Torino, lxix, 1934Google Scholar.

2 D. 3, 5, 26 pr. 10, 2, 39, 3. 17, 2, 52, 6. 8. 26, 7, 47, 6. 27, 1, 31, 4. 29, 2, 78. 31, 89, 1. Cicero, ii in Verr. 3, 57Google Scholar. 3, 155. p. Flacco 35. de orat. 1,237. Livy, 41, 27. Velleius, 1, 10, 6. Val. Max., 4, 4, 8. Plutarch, Aem. 5, 4Google Scholar. M. Crassus, I. Seneca, Epp. 5, 7, 2Google Scholar. Varro, de l.l. 6, 64Google Scholar. Paul-Festus, vv. ‘Erctum citumque,’ ‘Disertiones,’ ‘Inercta.’ Aul. Gell., 1, 9, 12. Servius, ad Aen. 8, 642Google Scholar. Nonius, v. ‘Citum.’ Stefanus, , Bas. Sch. ad D. 17, 2, 52Google Scholar, 6 (Heimbach, i, 753 i. f.) with Pringsheim, , Sav. Z., xlv (1925), 491–2Google Scholar; cf. Lawson, , Sav. Z., xlix, 1929, 208–9Google Scholar. Older literature on consortium: Pernice, , Sav. Z., iii, 1882, 65 ff.Google Scholar; Ferrini (1887), Opere, iii, 17 ff.; Fadda, , Studi Brugi (1910), 139 ff. (not seen)Google Scholar; del Chiaro, E., Le contrat de société en droit privé romain, etc., Paris 1928 (thèse de Nancy), 6–14, 18 ffGoogle Scholar.

3 Aul. Gell., 1, 9, 12: ‘omnes, simul atque a Pythagora in cohortem illam disciplinarum recepti erant, quod quisque familiae pecuniaeque habebat, in medium dabat et coibatur societas inseparabilis, tamquam illut fuit anticum consortium, quod iure atque verbo Romano appellabatur “ercto non cito.” Cf. Pernice, , Sav. Z., iii, 1882, 72Google Scholar; Perozzi, , Bull. Ist. Dir. Rom., xxxi, 1921, 119Google Scholar ff. Maschi (above, n. 1) concludes against inseparability (disertiones).

4 De l.l. 6, 64–5. Given in a rationalized form in Bruns, Fontes,7 ii, 56.

5 Cf. Festus (Lindsay 380, 381): ‘Sors et patrimonium significat. Unde consortes dicimus.’ Consors is clearly derived from sors, and sors is quit possibly connected with sero-series; Ernout-Meillet, v. sors. But that does not establish the required connection between consors and conserere.

6 Ad Aen. 8, 642: ‘Citae-quadrigae. Donatus hoc loco contra metrum sentit dicens: “citae”: divisae, ut est in iure “ercto non cito,” id est patrimonio vel hereditate non divisa; nam “citus” cum “divisus” significat, “ci” longa est. Ergo “citae” veloces intellegamus.’ (Bruns7, ii, 77.) Cf. Nonius: ‘citum, divisum vel separatum.’

7 2, 219, explaining the phrase ‘iudicium familiae erciscundae’; cf. actio de bereditate dividenda in l. 195 of the present fragments.

8 Paul (Lindsay 72): ‘Erctum citumque fit inter consortes, ut in libris legum Rornanorum legitur. Erctum a coercendo dictum. Unde et erciscundae et ercisci. Citum est vocatum a ciendo.’

9 Paul (Lindsay 97): ‘Inercta indivisa.’ Cf. (Lindsay 63): ‘Disertiones divisiones patrimoniorum.’ Maschi, o.c. (n. 1), 32 ff.

10 De orat. 1, 56, 237: ‘Nam neque illud est mirandum, qui quibus verbis coemptio fiat nesciat, eundem eius mulieris quae coemptionem fecerit causam posse defendere; nec, si parvi navigii et magni eadem est in gubernando scientia, idcirco qui quibus verbis herctum cieri oporteat nesciat, idem herciscundae familiae causam agere non possit.’

11 Walde-Hofmann3, and Ernout-Meillet, v. ‘Cicre.’

12 Collinet, 113. Monier 22. Ernout-Meillet, v. ‘Ciere.’

13 Partsch-Sethe, , ‘Demotische Urkunden zum ägyptischen Bürgschaftsrecht,’ Abb. säcbs. Ak., xxxii (1920), 687 ffGoogle Scholar. Arangio-Ruiz, , Persone e famiglia nel diritto dei papiri, 50 ff. (Milan 1930)Google Scholar.

14 Since reading Bull., xlii, 596–601 I am conscious that I may not have done full justice to it, but it is too late to rewrite. In particular, Arangio-Ruiz must not be taken to mean that erciscere was a formality necessary in order to constitute a consortium between sui heredes. Yet how, in this case, did ercto non cito become the name of the institution?

15 So Monier, 22 and Levy, 279, 287–8.

16 Cf. Festus-Paul, v. ‘Disertiones,’ above p. 21, n. 9.

17 Cf. Q. Mucius quoted by Paul, , D. 50, 16, 15, IGoogle Scholar: ‘quod pro diviso nostrum sit, id non pattem sed totum esse.’

17a On the reading vel unus and the interpretation see now Arangio-Ruiz, , Bull., xlii, 601–3Google Scholar.

18 Bonfante, , Corso, ii, 2, 13 ffGoogle Scholar.

19 Ulpian, Epit. 1, 18Google Scholar. Paul, Sent. 4, 12, 1Google Scholar. Fr. Dos. 10. Inst. 2, 7, 4. Cf. Bonfante, Corso, ii, 2, 17Google Scholar ff. The ius accrescendi does not seem to be a relic of the primitive conception of co-ownership. If one co-owner's share is vacated, it is natural, on any theory, that the others should get it.

20 Istituzioni 6 (1919), 291, also quoted by Albertano, 5, 13. Cf. Bonfante, ibid., 292 and Corso, ii, 2 (1928), 13ff., 39–41, and (earlier) Scritti giurid., iii, 376 ff. Scialoja, , Teoria della proprietà, i (1928), 425 ffGoogle Scholar. Levy, 281, 6. Monier, 24–5. But see now Rabel, o.c. (n. 1), 193–4.

21 Papinian D. 10, 3, 28Google Scholar. Paul D. 8, 2, 26Google Scholar.

22 See Pernice's, admirable study, Sav. Z., iii, 1882, 65 ffGoogle Scholar.

23 This without prejudice to the question whether future, like present, property was automatically made common by force of the agreement (transitus legalis): probably not, Buckland, Textbook,2 514, 4. Buckland denies that communication of future acquisitions was of the essence of societas o.b., but it was at any rate a possible term of the contract.

24 Ulpian-Papinian, D. 17, 2, 52Google Scholar, 6. Scaevola D. 10, 2, 39, 3Google Scholar.

25 D. 17, 2, 52, 6, but see also s.8.

26 On the other hand, as Pernice points out, classical societas o.b. was influenced in certain respects by the rules of societas quaestuaria, from which the consensual contract came.

27 Gaius 2, 157. Paul 2 ad Sab. D. 28, 2, 11. The common source of both seems to be Sabinus: Levy, 279, 6.

27a See, however, Rabel, o.c. (n. 1), 194 ff., drawing attention to mediaeval parallels which suggest that the power of total disposition may have been representative or fiduciary, not autonomous, and may not have extended to land.

28 ‘Fratriarchat, Hausgemeinschaft und Mutterrecht in Keilschriftrechten,’ Z.f. Assyriologie, N.F. vii, 1–92.

29 Koschaker, o.c., 79.

30 It is possible that sons who had been classed in the census according to their father's property kept their class if they did not divide. Arangio-Ruiz, 36, 3. Monier, 25, 3 and 4.

31 Cf. Paul (?) D. 8, 2, 26Google Scholar. But see above, n. 27a.

32 Albertario, 514–5.

33 Bonfante, , Scritti giurid., i (1916)Google Scholar, and Corso, vi (1930)Google Scholar. Biondi in a review of the last work, Bull. 1st. Dir. Rom., xxxviii, 1930, 225 ff.Google Scholar, gives a good short account of Bonfante's doctrine.

34 Rabel, , Sav. Z., l, 1930, 295 ffGoogle Scholar.

35 The objections to his view of the prehistoric law of inheritance are very strong: see Rabel, o.c., 320 ff., 329 ff.

36 PSI 1182, 195–7 (Gaius 4, 17a). Previously inferred: cf. Girard, Manuel,8 667, 5. Buckland, Textbook,2 616–7.

37 Gaius D. 10, 2, 1Google Scholar pr. is not really decisive. See Maschi, o.c. (n. 1), 14 ff.

38 Levy, 286, points out that Cicero, De orat. 1, 237Google Scholar (above p. 22, n. 10), seems to distinguish between knowing the verba required for herctum cieri and being capable of conducting an actio fam. erc.

39 Gaius 2, 37. 3,87.

40 Twelve Tables 5, 9. Authenticity questioned by Korošec, Erbenhaftung, 52 ff., defended by Berger, P-W s.v. ‘Tabulae duodecim,’ col. 1931; Studi Riccobono, i, 608; Atti Congresso, Dir. Rom., Roma, i, 55.

41 In his view an in iure cessio, which operated defectively when of an hereditas adita, wiping out obligations due to deceased, but leaving cedens still liable to deceased's creditors: Gaius 2, 35. 3, 85. But we are dealing with sui heredes: Gaius 2, 37. 3, 87. Cf. Garaud, , Rev. bist. dr., i, 1922, 141Google Scholar.

42 Contra Karlowa, , Röm. RG., ii, 653Google Scholar.

43 On their rights of succession Kübler, , Sav. Z., xli, 1920, 15 ffGoogle Scholar.

44 A very vexed question in primitive law. See Wlassak's recent Studien z. altröm. Erb- und Vermächtnisrecht, i, Sb. Wien, ccxv, 2 (1933)Google Scholar.

45 A contrast with societas o.b.: Pernice, , Sav. Z., iii, 1882, 69Google Scholar.

46 PSI 1182, 28–37. The difference between cepta (originally read by Arangio-Ruiz and not altogether abandoned by him, Rev. Al Q., 73, 4 and 74, 4) and certa legis actione seems of little moment. To understand cepta as coepta would have suited Arangio-Ruiz's conception of the act, but he takes it as a reference to obtaining a formula from the college of pontiffs. Levy (290–1) interprets his reading, certa, which from the photograph seems the better palaeographically, as referring to the fixity of the formula: cf. Gaius, 4, 83–4.

46a Arangio-Ruiz, , Bull., xlii, 600Google Scholar.

47 So Pernice, , Sav. Z., iii, 1882, 85Google Scholar, though admitting that classical societas o.b. had been influenced by societas quaestuaria. Contra, Karlowa, , Röm. RG., ii, 652 ffGoogle Scholar.

48 So Levy, 292–3, where the modern critical iterature is cited. Contra, Arangio-Ruiz, , Bull., xlii., 600–1Google Scholar.

49 Illustrated by Eastern texts of various periods. Mém. de la mission archéol. de Perse, xxii, 1930, 3Google Scholar; xxiii, 1932, 286, two texts of about B.C. 2000. Also C. 6, 24, 7 of A.D. 285 and Syro-Roman Lawbook, L. 86. Cf. Cuq, , Rev. d'Assyr., xxviii (1931), 51Google Scholar; xxix (1932), 155. Volterra, , Bull. 1st. Dir. Rom., xli, 1932, 289Google Scholar. Koschaker, , Studi Riccobono, iii, 1933, 361Google Scholar and ‘Fratriafchat,’ etc., Z. f.Assyr., N.F. vii (1933), 46 ffGoogle Scholar.

50 Koschaker, Neue Keilschriftliche Rechtsurkunden aus der El-Amarna-Zeit, 1928, 52 ff., 88 ff., and Fratriarchat, etc., 37 ff.; documents from Nuzi of the third quarter of the second millennium.

51 Albertario, 511–2.