1 Satura Feenstra (1985) 95–115.

2 Id., at 96 “un résultat négatif n'en est pas moins un résultat”.

3 Recent scholarship agrees that Labeo was - if not in organizational then at least in intellectual terms - the founder of the later so-called Proculian law school, cf. Bauman, R.A., Lawyers and Politics in the Early Roman Empire (1989) 26Google Scholar; Falchi, G.L., Le controversie tra Sabiniani e Proculiani (1981) 256Google Scholar. A profound methodological influence on the part of Labeo is asserted by Stein, P., “Two Schools of Jurists in the Early Roman Principate”, (1972) 31 Camb. L.J. 8–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar, whose results are endorsed by Liebs, D., “Rechtsschulen und Rechtsunterricht im Prinzipat”, (1976) 15 ANRW vol. II, 279–282.Google Scholar For a highly skeptical view, however, see Giaro, T., “Von der Genealogie der Begriffe zur Genealogie der Juristen. De Sabinianis et Proculianis fabulae”, (1992) 11 Rechtshistorisches Journal 508–552.Google Scholar

4 On this relationship see Hausmaninger, H., “Celsus gegen Proculus”, in Festschrift f. U.v.Lübtow (1991) 53–62.Google Scholar

5 Vol. II (1889, repr. 1960) cols. 159 – 184.

6 All of these will be discussed infra. Among his affirmative citations we find Proc. D 32,86 (Pal. 16)…Labeonis distinctionem valde probo…; Iavol. D 26,2,33 (Pal. 38)…Proculus quod Labeo…; Iavol. D 35,1,40,5 (Pal. 43)…labeo Trebatii sententiam probat…idem et ego et Proculus probamus…; Gai. Inst. 2,231 (Pal. 113)…Labeo et Proculus…; Paul D 2, 14, 27 pr. (Pal. 51)…Neratius Atilicinus Proculus…idem Labeo…; Paul D 41,1,26 pr. (Pal. 147)…Proculus indicat hoc iure nos uti, quod Servio et Labeoni placuisset… Ulp. D 7,8,12,1 (Pal. 64)…Sabinus et Cassius et Labeo et Proculus…; Ulp. D 9,2,29,3 (Pal. 74)…Labeo et Proculus….

Digest fragment 33,6,16 (Pal. 34; pr. …Labeo et Trebatius responderunt…; § 2 …legatum putat Labeo… quod non improbo) has been erroneously ascribed to Proculus instead of Iavolenus, see Krampe, Ch., Proculi Epistulae (1970) 6–7Google Scholar; Ch. Kohlhaas (infra n. 20) 239–241.

7 H. Hausmaninger, supra n. 4, at 54.

8 In Gaius D 35,1,69 (Pal. 46) and in Ulp. D 7,8,2,1 and 4 pr. (Pal. 35) one cannot be sure that Proculus contradicts Labeo. In Vat 71 (Pal. 47) there is obviously a controversy, but the surviving text permits no reconstruction of its contents.

9 D 29,2,60 (infra Nr. 1); D 29,2,62 pr. (Nr. 2); D 32,100,3 (Nr. 3); D 50,16,116 (Nr. 5); D 24,1,64 (Nr. 9).

10 D 41,1,28 (Nr. 6); D 8,3,24 (Nr. 7); D 12,4,15 (Nr. 13).

11 D 33,9,3,2 (Nr. 4); D 1,9,7,1 (Nr. 10); D 3,5,9(10);1 (Nr. 12).

12 Vat.1 (Nr. 8); D 17,2,65,5 (Nr. 11).

13 Gaius Inst. 3,140 (Nr. 14).

14 See infra Nr. 12.

15 D 29,2,62 pr. (infra Nr. 2); D 33,9,3,2 (Nr. 4); D 17,2,65,5 (Nr. 11); D 3,5,9(10),1 (Nr. 12).

16 D 29,2,60 (infra Nr. 1); D 8,3,24 (Nr. 7); D 41,1,28 (Nr. 6); D 17,2,65,5 (Nr. 11); D 3,5,9(10),1 (Nr. 12).

17 D 29,2,60 (infra Nr. 1); D 50,16,116 (Nr. 5); Vat.1 (Nr. 8); D 3,5,9(10),1 (Nr. 12).

18 F. Wubbe, supra n. 1, at 99 somewhat surprisingly assumes that the son obtained bonorum possessio contra tabulas.

19 The note was probably lifted from the writings of Paul and inserted in this place by Justinian's compilers, see Ch. Kohlhaas, infra n. 20, at 138.

20 Die Überlieferung der libri posteriores des Antistius Labeo (1986) 136, following Beduschi, C., Hereditatis aditio I (1976) 181–183.Google Scholar

21 Presumption of dolus on the part of the son seems to be the prevailing view among scholars, cf. Dulckeit, G., Erblasserwille und Erwerbswille bei Antretung der Erbschaft (1934) 144–145Google Scholar; Tondo, S., “Osservazioni intorno alla pro herede gestio”, (1957) 153 AG 34Google Scholar; C. Beduschi, supra n. 20, at 181; Ch. Kohlhaas, supra n. 20, at 135.

22 Cf. the edict ‘St quis omissa causa testamenti ab intestato vel alio modo possideat hereditatem’, D 29,4.

23 See D 47,10,44 quod falsum puto, si tarnen iniuriae faciendae causa immittitur; D 18,1,79 ego contra puto, si modo….Cf. also Paul's obvious manipulation of the standard situation envisaged by Labeo in D 41,1,65 pr. simply in order to be able to correct him (immo contra).

24 Cf. a similar decision by Julian in D 28,7,13 Ei qui ita hereditatem vel legatum accepit “si decem dederit” neque hereditas neque legatum aliter adquiri potest, quam si post impletam condicionem id egerit scriptus heres vel legatarius, per quod hereditas aut legatum adquiri solet.

25 Astolfi, R., “La ‘condicio iurisiurandi’ negli atti ‘mortis causa’”, (1957) 23 SDHI 292.Google Scholar The praetorian abolition of the oath (cf. Ulp. D 28,7,8 pr. and 8 in perpetuum a praetore remissum est) occurred, as Astolfi demonstrates, at a later time. Unconvincing is Pernice's view in Labeo III/1 (1892) 51 “Die entgegengesetzte Anschauung des Proculus rechtfertigt sich, wenn die Ableistung des Eides an sich überflüssig war”. F. Wubbe seems to share this view, supra n. 1, at 107, whereas C. Beduschi, supra n. 20, at 51 follows R. Astolfi. See also P. Apathy, (1978) 95 ZSS 508.

26 Ch. Kohlhaas, supra n. 20, at 141–142.

27 A Greek word ένβάσεις does not exist. Th. Mommsen therefore reads 'aeneas βάσεις', but Ch. Kohlhaas, supra n. 20, at 147–148 more convincingly suggests to read 'ei βάσεις'. Her judgment is based on an analysis of style and is shared by Rainer, J. M., (1988) 105 ZSS 855.Google Scholar

28 Th. Mommsen reads ‘nisi aeneas’, U. John, infra n. 29, ‘nisi eas’, Kohlhaas, supra n. 20, at 148 note 61 ‘nisi si eas’.

29 Wieling, H.J., Testamentsauslegung im röm. Recht (1972) 84Google Scholar; John, U., Die Auslegung des Legats von Sachgesamtheiten im röm. Recht bis Labeo (1970) 105.Google Scholar

30 H. J. Wieling, supra n. 29, at 50, 84–85; U. John, supra n. 29, at 105–106; F. Wubbe, supra n. 1, at 113; Ch. Kohlhaas, supra n. 20, at 149.

31 H.J. Wieling, supra n. 29, at 87; U. John, supra n. 29, at 46–47.

32 H.J. Wieling, supra n. 29, at 88, 97; Voci, P., Diritto ereditario romano, vol. 2, parte speciale (2nd ed., 1963) 832–835.Google Scholar

33 On this point see also the discussion of Labeo's position as expressed in Ulpian D 43,17,3,7 and Neratius D 39,2,47 by Rainer, J.M., “Superficies und Stockwerkseigentum im klass, röm. Recht”, (1989) 106 ZSS 351–355.Google Scholar

34 Meincke, J.P., “Superficies solo cedit”, (1971) 88 ZSS 169–170.Google Scholar

35 Cf. Ulp. D 19,2,44 locare servitutem nemo potest.

36 Studi sulle servitù prediali (1967) 89.

37 I problemi dei diritti reali nell impostazione romana (1944) 11; see also Grosso, G., Le servitù prediali nel diritto romano (1969) 104–105.Google Scholar

38 Le servitù d'aqua in diritto romano (1966) 158–168.

39 According to Bauer, K., “Die Rutiliana constitutio des Julian”, (1986) 54 TR 99Google Scholar the inscrutable reference ‘propter Rutilianam constitutionem’ could be a scribal error for ‘propter utilitatem constituit’.

40 Hausmaninger, H., Die bona fides des Ersitzungsbesitzers im klass, röm. Recht (1964) 13–19Google Scholar; Bauer, K., Ersitzung und Bereicherung im klass, röm. Recht (1988) 141–144.Google Scholar

41 See Gaius Inst. 2,47 and H. Hausmaninger, supra n. 40, at 20.

42 On this text see F. Wubbe, supra n. 1, at 115 and 98 note 21; Yaron, R., “De divortio varia”, (1964) 32 TR 533–542Google Scholar; Levy, E., Der Hergang der römischen Ehescheidung (1925) 87–93Google Scholar; Mantovani, D., “Sull'origine dei ‘libri posteriores di Labeone’”, (1988) 34 Labeo 297–302Google Scholar; Dumont-Kisliakoff, N., La simulation en droit romain (1970) 149–150Google Scholar; Aru, L., Le donazioni fra coniugi in diritto romano (1938) 62–65.Google Scholar

43 D. Mantovani, supra n. 42, at 297, however, based on a painstaking structural analysis of affirmative and negative references of Labeo to Trebatius, postulates a negative response on the part of Labeo in our case. According to his reasoning, Labeo like Proculus and Caecilius would have established objective criteria of divortium verum (id., at 301). Concerning such objective criteria see also Marcellus D 23,2,33, whereas Paul D 24,2,3 seems to show some reserve.

44 The same may be said against Marcellus D 23,2,33 Plerique opinantur, cum eadem mulier ad eundem virum revertatur, id matrimonium idem esse: quibus adsentior si non multo tempore interposito reconciliati fuerint nec inter moras aut illa alii nupserit aut hic aliam duxerit. This objective test seems to fit most cases, but should probably not be read as excluding admissibility of proof by the parties that their early reconciliation was preceded by divortium verum.

45 See Kupiszewski, H., “Studien zum Verlöbnis im klass, röm. Recht I”, (1967) 84 ZSS 94.Google Scholar

46 Cf. Paul. D 1,5,7 Qui in utero est, perinde ac si in rebus humanis esset custoditur, quotiens de commodis ipsius partus quaeritur… On the development and implications of this maxim see Meinhart, M., “D 50,16,231. Ein Beitrag zur Lehre vom Intestaterbrecht des ungeborenen Kindes”, (1965) 82 ZSS 188–210.Google Scholar

47 Bona, F., Studi sulla società consensuale in diritto romano (1973) 83–95Google Scholar; Guarino, A., Societas consensu contracta (1972) 93–97Google Scholar; Kaser, M., “Neue Literatur zur ‘societas’“, (1975) 41 SDHI 335–336Google Scholar; Litewski, W., “Les effets juridiques du ‘pactum ne societate abeatur’”, (1978) 25 RIDA 285–287.Google Scholar

48 For a fuller discussion of this text see H. Hausmaninger, supra n. 4, at 55–56.

49 See Wolff, H. J., “Condictio ob Causam Datorum, Furtum, Aquilische Haftung”, Festgabe f. U.v.Lübtow (1970) 537–544.Google Scholar

50 Schindler, K.-H., Justinians Haltung zur Klassik (1966) 147–149Google Scholar; Solinas, G.P., “A proposito dell' arbitrium boni viri”, in Studi Scherillo II (1972), 539–541.Google Scholar

51 They may have considered the clause referring the determination of the price to a third party to be apactum adiectum, which, however, could not become effective for lack of a valid sale (which presupposed pretium cerium). See K.-H. Schindler, supra n. 50, at 147–148.

52 If the third party could not or did not want to fix the price, no sale was effected. None of our sources speaks in terms of an abstract boni viri arbitrium being able to take the place of an inactive third party, cf. K.-H. Schindler, supra n. 50, at 148–149. Celsus expressly denies this possibility with reference to societas in D 17,2,75. This situation is to be distinguished from the possibility of reviewing the decision of a specific third party on the basis of the vir bonus standard. Such a test is best documented in the sources on societas (with reference to the action on societas as bonae fidei iudicium, cf. Proc. D 17,2,78 and Paul D 17,2,79). It is also apparent in other legal relationships (most notably wills, see G.P. Solinas, supra n. 50, at 554), but we possess no text referring to sale.

53 This observation primarily concerns one text on succession (supra Nr. 2 concerning the nature of pro herede gestio) and all three texts on property (Nr. 6 to Nr. 8).

54 On the polemical style of Celsus see H. Hausmaninger, supra n. 4, at 61–62.

55 See supra Nr. 1 Proculus Labeonis sententiam improbat; Nr. 5 Proculus contra.

56 See Nr. 11 hoc ita verum; Nr. 12 non semper deberi; Nr. 13 sed Proculus dari oportere ita ait, si….

57 See the 14 theories listed by G.L. Falchi, supra n. 3, at 9–25 and the hypothesis developed by Falchi himself at 35–37 and 231–233 as well as the analysis provided by P. Stein, supra n. 3.

58 The Sabinian-Proculian school conflict is primarily documented in the Institutes of Gaius (23 of 33 clearly recognizable school controversies). In referring to this conflict, Gaius usually juxtaposes anonymous groups of nostri praeceptores (Sabinians) and diversae scholae ductores (Proculians). Only twice in his Institutes (and once in res cottidianae) does he expressly name Nerva and Proculus on one side, Sabinus and Cassius on the other side of a school controversy. (Nerva and Proculus are also named once by Pomponius and once by Paul.) Once Gaius documents the Proculian view by referring to Labeo and Proculus, and once by naming Nerva. (Pomponius, Ulpian and Paul each make one reference to Proculus and Pegasus in signalling Proculian views, Paul once cites Labeo and Nerva for this purpose.) On the Sabinian side of school controversies Gaius names Sabinus and Cassius no fewer than eight times.

59 Nervae successit Proculus. fuit eodem tempore et Nerva filius: fuit et alius Longinus ex equestri quidem ordine, qui postea ad praeturam usque pervenit. sed Proculi auctoritas maior fuit… See R.A. Bauman, supra n. 3, at 43–44.

60 Pomp. D 1,2,2,53.

61 H. Hausmaninger, supra n. 4, at 60–61.