Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Figures
- Acknowledgments
- Prologue
- Miscellaneous Frontmatter
- 1 A Constitutional Tyranny and Presidential Dictatorship
- Part I What Is the History?
- Part II What Is a Declaration of War?
- Part III What Are the Solutions?
- Part IV What Is the Theory?
- 10 Bellum Justum et Pium
- 11 The Rule of Law
- Epilogue Senator Malcolm Wallop
- Appendix I Five Congressional Declarations of War and One Appropriations Act
- Appendix II The Fœderative Powers in Parliamentary Governments
- References
- Index
10 - Bellum Justum et Pium
The Rule of Law and Roman “Piety”
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 November 2012
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Figures
- Acknowledgments
- Prologue
- Miscellaneous Frontmatter
- 1 A Constitutional Tyranny and Presidential Dictatorship
- Part I What Is the History?
- Part II What Is a Declaration of War?
- Part III What Are the Solutions?
- Part IV What Is the Theory?
- 10 Bellum Justum et Pium
- 11 The Rule of Law
- Epilogue Senator Malcolm Wallop
- Appendix I Five Congressional Declarations of War and One Appropriations Act
- Appendix II The Fœderative Powers in Parliamentary Governments
- References
- Index
Summary
A [Roman] slave had bargained money for his freedom, and he gave the money to his owner. The owner died before he manumitted the slave, and in his will he ordered that he be free, and he left him a legacy of his peculium [a sum given to a slave by his master to manage on his own]. He [the now freed slave] asked [the jurist] whether or not his patron’s heirs were obliged to return the money that he had given to his owner in return for freedom. [The jurist] replied, if after he had received the money, the owner had entered it in his accounts as his money, it immediately ceased to be part of the [slave’s] peculium; but if, in the meantime, until he manumitted him, he had recorded it as due to the slave, it appeared to be part of the peculium and the heirs were bound to restore it to him now that he was free.
(cited in Watson 1993, 67)The cultural perspective undergirding the jurist’s decision is the peculiarly Roman concept that substantive justice depends on “piety.” “Piety” for the Romans, of course, did not mean a personal, spiritual relationship to God, as Christians later came to reinterpret the word. For the Romans, it implied a strict adherence to recognized rituals and ceremonies in all situations, both public and private. Consequently, the Roman “religion” was not about personal salvation; nor did it encompass an abstract theological investigation of man’s relationship to God. Rather, it was a very practical system of state-sponsored public and private rites that disciplined, ordered, and governed Roman life in the most transparent and predictable way possible. In the case of the freed slave’s peculium, “impious,” unpredictable, subjective sentiments of fairness or equity as between poor slaves versus rich slave owners played no role in the decision. Instead, the “pious” act of transferring an account receivable to income earned ensured both procedural and substantive justice decided on solid, objective, and, hence, uncontroversial grounds. Law ruled, not men.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Declaring WarCongress, the President, and What the Constitution Does Not Say, pp. 207 - 215Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2012