No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
We know very little about the life of the jurist, A. Cascellius, but in his famous potted history of Roman legal science, parts of which are preserved in the Digest, Pomponius does tell us that Cascellius never rose beyond the rank of quaestor and that he rejected the consulship when Augustus offered it to him (D. 1. 2. 2. 45, Pomponius libro singulari enchiridii). Such are the ways of scholars, however, that several modern writers are intent on posthumously awarding him a praetorship under the Triumvirate. The purpose of this note is to raise an objection to this tendency, which shows signs of causing trouble in the field of Roman law also.
page 135 note 1 On the offer see W. Kunkel, Herkunft Prozessund soziale Stellung der romischen Jurislen2, 26. n. 55.
page 135 note 2 See for instance P. Jörs in RE iii. 1634 Cascellius obtained his praetorship (a little hesitantly) in the Supplement, though not in the body, of T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic. Cf. ii. 115 with Supplement, p. 14. Professor Kunkel is strongly opposed to a praetorship: Herkunft, 26.
page 135 note 3 Wlassak, M., ‘Die klassische Prozessund formel’, Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Phil.-hist. Klasse, ccii (1924) 3Google Scholar Abhandlung, 28 ff.; Kunkel, Herkunft, 26 n. 55; Wieacker, F., ‘Augustus und die Juristen seiner Zeit’, Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis, xxxvii (1969), 331 at 344 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar. It is not clear at what date the incident is supposed to have occurred.
page 135 note 4 1. 4. 14.
page 136 note 1 Cf. W. W. Buckland, A Textbook of Roman Law3, 741.
page 136 note 2 O. Lenel, Das Edictum Perpetuum3, 472; Palingenesia Iuris dvilis, ii. 822 and cf. ii. 331 with n. 1. Lenel follows K. A. Schmidt, Das Interdiktenverfahren der Rimer, 256 ff.
page 136 note 3 H. Siber, Die Passivlegitimation bei der Rei Vindicatio, 166 ff.
page 136 note 4 For literature, see E. Levy, Nachträge zur Konkurrenz der Aktionen und Personen, 58 n. 233.
page 136 note 5 Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, xliii (1922), 425.Google Scholar
page 136 note 6 See above all the discussion in Levy, Nachträge zur Konkurrenz, 57 ff. For Beseler the dispute was about the subjective or objective valuation of the object.
page 136 note 7 I do not altogether understand why Professor Watson regards Servius' view as ‘punitive’: The Law of Property in the Later Roman Republic, 88.
page 137 note 1 See, however, below, p. 138.
page 137 note 2 RE ivA. 1. 851 ff. (B. Kübler).
page 137 note 3 Cicero, Philippics 9. 15.
page 137 note 4 ‘The Growth Pattern of the Praetor's Edict’, Irish Jurist, i (1966), 341Google Scholar at 347. Watson is rightly reluctant to accept the date in ‘The Development of the Praetor's Edict’, JRS lx (1970), 105.Google Scholar
page 137 note 5 For the arguments for placing Cascellius' probable date of birth around 104 B.C., see Kunkel, Herkunft, 25 ff.