Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:25:16.603Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Finium Demonstratio

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

David Daube
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

No apology is needed for presenting a strictly legal discourse to one who, while ranking among the most illustrious Ancient Historians alive, has by his teaching and writing made a unique contribution to the study of Roman Law. Our subject will be the role of finium demonstratio in Roman private law. There is no comprehensive modern treatment, with the result that scholars, confronted by one of the rare references to this institution, are apt to feel somewhat unsure. The difficulty is increased by the fact that in its main application, in the field of warranty against eviction, finium demonstratio partake in the tortuous evolution, classical and post-classical, of the rules concerning this warranty. The same fact, however, also adds to the interest, especially as the actual working of the system of warranty at its various stages becomes much clearer by tracing its bearing on a usage like finium demonstratio.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 47 , Issue 1-2 , November 1957 , pp. 39 - 52
Copyright
Copyright ©David Daube 1957. 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 Genesis XIII, 14 f.; Deuteronomy III, 27; Matthew IV, 8f.; Luke IV, 5 ff. See the writer's Biblical Law (1947), 25 ff.

2 D. 41, 2, 18, 2.

3 e.g. Jörs-Kunkel, Römisches Recht 2nd ed. (1949), 116.

4 Deuteronomy XXXIV, I ff.

5 D. 18, I, 63, 1.

6 See Corpus Juris Civilis 1, 15th stereot. ed. by Mommsen-Krueger (1928), 267, ad loc.

7 19, 1, 61.

8 D. 10, 1, 12.

9 See Rudorff, in Gromatici veteres, ed. by Lachmann (1852), 2, 235.

10 Met. 9, 35.

11 Ed. Naber (1867), 227.

12 CIL VI, 1016.

13 Val. Max. 7, 3, 4, cf. Cicero, De Off. I, 10, 33Google Scholar.

14 On these see Buckland, A Text-Book of Roman Law 2nd ed. (1932), 90, 500.

15 D. 10, 1, 12.

16 cf. D. 18, 6, 19, 1 = Vat. Fr. 12, also D. 21, 2, 73.

17 Rudorff o.c., 236.

18 Rudorff o.c., 438.

19 D. 31, 77, 33; 32, 30, 4; 42, 8, 21; C. 3, 39, 1; Ed. Theoder. 105.

20 It is perhaps public rather than private law that is in Plautus's mind in Poen. Prol. 49.

21 Buckland o.c., 487 ff.

22 D. 18, 1, 35, 8; see the writer's article in Law Quarterly Review, 1957, 379 ff.

23 D. 19, 1, 39 pr.

24 7, 17.

25 C. 3, 39, 1.

26 D. 10, 1, 12.

27 See Bechmann, , Der Kauf I (1876), 24Google Scholar.

28 The jurists were aware of distinctions of this sort; cf. D. 12, 1, 6.

29 CIL IX, 5570.

30 D. 18, 1, 63, 1.

31 Bruns, Fontes Iuris Romani Antiqui, 7th ed. by Gradenwitz (1909), 334.

32 7, 17.

33 C. 8, 44, 10.

34 D. 19, 1, 48.

35 7, 17.

36 D. 18, 1, 18, 1.

37 D. 21, 2, 45.

38 Lenel, , Palingenesia Iuris Civilis (1889), I, 50Google Scholar; Heumann's Handlexicon, 9th ed. by Seckel (1907), 329 s.v. ‘mancipare’.

39 Pro Tullio 7, 17; C. 8, 44, 10.

40 Corpus Iuris Civilis 2, 9th stereot. ed. by Krueger (1915), 356, ad loc.

41 19, 19, 9.

42 o.c. 3, pt. I (1905), 25.

43 D. 50, I, 36, 1.

44 D. 19, I, 48.

45 Beiträge zur Kritik der römischen Rechtsquellen II (1911), 64Google Scholar.

46 II (1933), 892 s.v. ‘finis’.

47 Index Interpolationum I (1929), 354Google Scholar, ad loc.

48 Interpolationen in den Pandekten (1887), 200.

49 o.c. II, 293, n. 3.

50 l.c.

51 D. 41, 2, 26, quoted by Bechmann, 24.

52 e.g. D. 41, 2, 34 pr.

53 19, 8, 48.

54 D. 18, 4, 13.

65 D. 18, 4, 2 pr.

56 D. 19, 1, 11, 16.

57 On this see Buckland, o.c. 415.

58 D. 18, 1,33.

59 D. 21, 2, 45.

60 Lenel, o.c. 1, 50.

61 Rudorff, o.c. 318 ff.

62 Buckland, o.c. 683; Siber, , Römisches Recht II (1928), 215, n. 10Google Scholar.

63 D. 18, 1, 18, 1.

64 19, 11, 42.

65 D. 18, 1, 63, 1.

66 P. Oxy. 1636, l. 15; plausibly conjectured.

67 See Digesta, ed. by Mommsen, (1870), I, 523, ad locGoogle Scholar.

68 Formula Baetica, Bruns, l.c.

69 o.c. 26, n. 3: what remains has the agreed size, the zugesagte Flächeninhalt, but not the quality, bomtas.

70 cf. D. 21, 2, 1, 53 pr., 64, 3.

71 19, 11, 42

72 D. 18, 1, 18, 1.

73 e.g. D. 17, 1, 5, 4 (cf. 17, 1, 5, 3; P.S. 2, 15, 3), D. 18, 1, 12.

74 Corpus Iuris Civilis I, 264, ad loc.

75 19, 1, 17.

76 o.c. II, 110.

77 Bechmann, 26 f.

78 See Buckland, o.c. 203, for the principles; a case where the vendor himself delivers too much in D. 41, 4, 2, 6.

79 Corpus Iuris Civilis, l.c.

80 See the writer's remarks on D. 36, 1, 75, 1, in Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung 74, 1957, Rom. Abt., pp. 312 f. But the view there taken of D. 18, 1, 18, 1 is simplifying.

81 D.8, 1, 13; 8, 3, 13, 2; cf. from public law 43, 8, 2, 21. The expression is used in a not dissimilar sense in CIL IX, 5570, quoted above.

82 De Agr. 149, 1.

83 The writer is most grateful to Professor P. W. Stein, of Aberdeen, for his criticism and advice.