No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Development of the Praetor's Edict*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 September 2012
Extract
So much has been written on even the most minute problems of Roman Law that it is surprising to find topics of fundamental importance which have been generally neglected. But such a one is the course of development of the praetorian Edict—perhaps the most important source of Roman law—despite the broad studies of Dernburg and Kelly.
Two primary difficulties face any attempt to reconstruct the course of development of the Edict. The first is the extreme rarity of positive or virtually positive dates for the introduction of individual edicts. In fact there are only four. The edictum de hominibus armatis coactisve et vi bonorum raptorum was introduced by M. Lucullus who was praetor peregrinus—not praetor urbanus—in 76 B.C. The edictum de dolo was the work of Aquilius Gallus who was a praetor in 66 B.C. An edict on metus was issued almost certainly by the Octavius who was consul in 75 B.C. and hence praetor not later than 78. It is noteworthy that all positive dating for these three edicts comes from Cicero.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright ©Alan Watson 1970. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies
References
1 ‘Untersuchungen über das Alter der Satzungen des prätorischen Edikts’, Festgaben Heffter (Berlin, 1873), 91 ff.
2 ‘The Growth Pattern of the Praetor's Edict’, Irish Jurist 1 (1966), 341 ff.
3 Cicero, , pro Tullio 4, 8.Google Scholar
4 Asconius, 75. It is not intended to enter here into the vexed problem of the relationship of the peregrine Edict or the peregrine praetor to the urban Edict. For a detailed account of the problem, see Serrao, , La ‘iurisdictio’ del pretore peregrino (Milan, 1954).Google Scholar Even if Lucullus' edict was not in the urban Edict from the start, it certainly was by 69 B.C.: Cic., pro Tullio 3, 7.
5 Cic., de nat. deor. 3, 30, 74; de off. 3, 14, 60.
6 The wording of two passages of Cicero, who was praetor de repetundis also in 66 B.C., indicates strongly that it was as praetor that Aquilius Gallus was responsible for the edict: de off. 3, 14, 60 ‘… nondum enim C. Aquilius, collega et familiaris meus, protulerat de dolo malo formulas …’; de nat. deor. 3, 30, 74 ‘… inde everriculum malitiarum omnium iudicium de dolo malo, quod C. Aquilius familiaris noster protulit …’ But Aquilius Gallus' sphere of praetorian jurisdiction seems to have been the quaestio de ambitu (Cic., pro Cluentio 53, 147), and the edictum de dolo could not have been issued for that court. The problem will not be dealt with here, but see, e.g., Lübtow, von, ‘Die Ursprungsgeschichte der exceptio doli und der actio de dolo malo’, Eranion für Maridakis I (Athens, 1963), at pp. 185 ff.Google Scholar and the literature he cites. In whatsoever way Aquilius Gallus is responsible for the edictum, it must be dated in the urban Edict relatively close to 66.
7 Cic., ad Quintum fratrem 1, 1, 21; cf. in Verrem 11, 3, 65, 152.
8 Cf. infra, 117.
9 Cf. Dernburg, Festgaben Heffter 100 f.
10 So Kelly, but Verres was urban praetor in 74.
11 art. cit. (above, n. 2) 346 f. It must be emphasized at this stage that in general Kelly's view of the development of the Edict and my own are similar, though I disagree with much that he says.
12 Cf. infra, us ff. It might be worth observing that the jurisdiction of Ser. Sulpicius Rufus as praetor was the quaestio de peculatu: Cic., pro Murena 17, 35; 20, 42.
13 Cf. infra, 117.
14 A danger perhaps not entirely avoided by Kelly, o.c.
15 The edictum giving bonorum possessio secundum tabulas, cf. Lenel, Das Edictum perpetuum (3rd ed.) (Leipzig, 1927), 349; that giving bonorum possessio to legitimi, cf. Kaser, , ‘Zum Ediktsstil’, Festschrift Schulz 11 (Weimar, 1951), 21 ff.Google Scholar at 25 f.; the edictum on metus, cf. Kaser, o.c. 32: the interdictum de vi, cf. Lenel, o.c. 462; the interdictum de vi armata, cf. Lenel, o.c. 467; the interdictum qui fraudationis causa latitabit, cf. Lenel, o.c. 415; the interdictum uti possidetis, no direct evidence of wording for Republic but there is for earlier and later versions in the Empire, cf. Kaser, o.c. 30; probably the interdictum ne quid in loco publico, no direct evidence of wording but see Watson, , The Law of Property in the Later Roman Republic (Oxford, 1968), 10 f.Google Scholar; perhaps the edictum on commodatum, cf. now Watson, , The Law of Obligations in the Later Roman Republic (Oxford, 1963), 168 f.Google Scholar; weighty doubts are expressed by Kaser on a formula for fiducia, o.c. 29; Rutilius' edictum on bonorum possessio liberti was replaced by another, D. 38, 2, 1, 1 (Ulpian 42 ad ed.); from Cic., pro Quinctio 27, 84 we know the wording of an edict ‘qui ex edicto meo in possessionem venerint’, but we have no precise indication of its wording in classical law, cf. Lenel, o.c. 423; Kaser, o.c. 28.
16 Cic., pro Tullio 12, 29; cf. Watson, Property 88.
17 Cic., pro Caecina 14, 41–17, 48; 19, 55; 21, 60 f., 30, 88; ad fam. 15, 16, 3: cf. Lenel, Edictum 467; Watson, loc. cit.
18 Cf. Lenel, loc. cit.
19 Cf. Kaser, o.c. (above, n. 15) 24 f., who reaches the same conclusions primarily for other reasons.
20 art. cit. (n. 1) 103, 109 ff.; cf. Kaser, o.c. 33; Burillo, , ‘Las formulas de la actio depositi’, SDHI XXVII (1962), 233 ff.Google Scholar at 246. Dernburg thinks three historical levels of development of the Edict can be traced from different forms of edicts. He assigns no dates to these.
21 This remains true despite the power of survival of ancient forms. On which see Daube, , Forms of Roman Legislation (Oxford, 1956).Google Scholar
22 Forms 30 ff.
23 art. cit. 101.
24 The extent of the difficulty is fully seen in the account in Kaser, , Das römische Zivilprozessrecht (Munich, 1966), 109 f.Google Scholar See also, e.g., Wieacker, , ‘Zum Ursprung der bonae fidei indicia’, ZSS LXXX (1963), 1 ff.Google Scholar
25 There was both a bonae fidei formula and a formula in factum (and an edict) for the actio negotiorum gestorum, but the early history of these is most obscure. The bonae fidei formula, however, was known to Cicero, top. 10, 42; 17, 66. Cf. now Watson, Obligations 193 ff. esp. 201 ff.
26 Cf. infra, 115.
27 Cf. Lenel, Edictum 205 f.
28 Cf. Lenel, 219.
29 D. 13, 6, 5, 3 (Ulpian 28 ad ed.); against suggestions of interpolation see Watson, Obligations 169 f.
30 Cf. Kunkel, , Herkunft und soziale Stellung der römischen Juristen, 2nd ed. (1967), 18.Google Scholar
31 D. 46, 3, 81, 1 (Pomponius 6 ad Quintum Mucium) as far as teneri is in indirect speech and so goes back to Mucius. But it is possible he was concerned with the XII Tables' provision on depositum.
32 Rhet. ad Herenn. 4, 25, 35. But the matter is not so simple as would appear from Watson, Obligations 250 f. In Rhet. ad Herenn. 2, 13, 19, ‘C. Caelius iudex absolvit iniuriarum’ a defendant who insulted Lucilius on the stage, yet in a similar case Publius Mucius (consul in 133 B.C.) as iudex found against the defendant. For the story to have much point the actio in question must have been the same in both cases and it cannot have been under the edictum ne quid infamandi causa fiat or the edictum de convicio (despite Pugliese, , Il processo civile romano, II Il processo formulare I (Milan, 1963), 198, n. 109)Google Scholar, or Caelius, one would think, would also have awarded the decision to the plaintiff. But an action under at least the edictum de convicio would have been more sensible if that edict was in existence. Hence, first, that edict was not known when Publius Mucius acted as iudex, and secondly, the edictum generale had been extended by the jurists to cases where there was no physical assault. Rhet. ad Herenn. 4, 25, 35 then lists as one form of iniuriae those caused convicio. This need not mean, as was there argued, that convicium was subsumed under the edictum generale. The wording of the text is perfectly consistent with convicium being regarded as a form of iniuria under its own edict. It would not be strange if the work of the jurists was legitimised by issuing an edict giving an action for convicium (and if at a later stage of development convicium was again engulfed by the edictum generale). Actually the wording of the text would be appropriate even if the edictum de convicio had not yet been issued.
33 Cic., pro Quinctio 19, 60.
34 Cic., ad Quintum fratrem I, 1, 7, 21; cf. in Verrem II, 3, 65, 152.
35 Cic., pro Tullio 4, 8.
36 Cic., de nat. deor. 3, 30, 74; de off. 3, 14, 60.
37 Cic., in Verrem II, 1, 45, 117.
38 Cicero, , in Verrem II, 1, 44, 114.Google Scholar
39 D. 38, 2, 1, 1–2 (Ulpian 42 ad ed.); Cicero, , in Verrem, II, 1, 48, 125–6.Google Scholar
40 Cic., ad Att. 2, 9, 1.
41 Lex Iulia Municipalis, lines 108 ff.
42 Cf. Kunkel, Herkunft 25.
43 D. 47, 10, 15, 32 (Ulpian 57 ad ed.); cf. Watson, Obligations 252.
44 D. 37, 9, 1, 24–25 (Ulpian 41 ad ed.).
45 D. 9, 3, 5, 12 (Ulpian 23 ad ed.).
46 Cf., e.g., Daube, Forms 26 and n. 3; Watson, Obligations 267.
47 D. 14, 3, 5, 1 (Ulpian 28 ad ed.).
48 D. 11, 3, 16 (Alfenus Varus 2 dig.).
49 D. 15, 3, 16 (Alfenus 2 dig.).
50 D. 11, 7, 14, 11 (Ulpian 25 ad ed.).
51 D. 10, 3, 6, 6; cf. Watson, Property 6.
52 D. 38, 10, 10, 15 and 18 (Paul sing. de gradibus); cf. Watson, , The Law of Succession in the Later Roman Republic (Oxford, 1970).Google Scholar
53 D. 2, 7, 1, 2 (Ulpian 5 ad ed.).
54 D. 2, 10, 2 (Paul 6 ad ed.).
55 D. 4, 4, 16, 1 (Ulpian 11 ad ed.).
56 Lex Rubria de Gallia Cisalpina XX. On the complicated history of the early law on damnum infectum see Watson, Property 125 ff. Elsewhere I have suggested that the grants of datio deminutio to Faecenia Hispala in 186 B.C. (Livy 39, 19, 5) shows either that the edicta Fabianum and Calvisianum existed or that similar provisions did: The Law of Persons in the Later Roman Republic (Oxford, 1967) 234. But the point of the grant is probably simply to allow Faecenia Hispala, though in tutela mulierum, to alienate her property despite the tutor's opposition, and nothing more need be read into it.
57 Cicero, , de inventione 2, 22, 67Google Scholar cannot be used as evidence that substantive changes had been effected by the Edict for more than a few decades.
58 Against the idea of the interdictum utrubi in Plautus' Stichus 696 and 750, see now Watson, Property 86 f.
59 In Hadrian's Edict the formula of the actio Serviana appears, surprisingly, in the section on interdicts where it is appended to the interdictum Salvianum. This must mean: (i) that the action is later than the interdictum which has attracted it to that position; (ii) that both the interdictum and the actio go back to a time when the Edict was in its infancy and arrangement of it was lax. On the general view the interdictum dates from the 1st half of the first century B.C.: cf. e.g. Kaser, , Das römische Privatrecht I (Munich, 1955), 395Google Scholar; Kelly, Irish Jurist cit. 347.
60 It is parodied in de re pub. I, 13, 20.
61 Cf. infra, 117.
62 D. 43, 27, 1, 2 (Ulpian 71 ad ed.).
63 D. 50, 17, 73, 2 (Quintus Mucius sing. 
); 43, 24, 1, 5 (Ulpian 71 ad ed.).
64 An early form of it.
65 Cic., pro Tullio 12, 29.
66 Cic., pro Tullio 19, 44 f.
67 Cic., in Verrem 11, 1, 45, 116.
68 Cic., ad fam. 7, 21.
69 D. 43, 23, 3 pr., 1 (Ulpian 70 ad ed.).
70 D. 8, 5, 17, 2 (Alfenus 2 dig.); cf. Watson, Property 10 f.
71 D. 43, 20, 1, 8 (Ulpian 70 ad ed.); cf. Watson, Property 197.
72 D. 43, 23, 2 (Venuleius I interd.). So did Ofilius.
73 D. 43, 29, 4, 1 (Venuleius 4 interd.).
74 D. 43, 20, 1, 17 (Ulpian 70 ad ed.).
75 D. 43, 8, 2, 39 (Ulpian 68 ad ed.).
76 D. 43, 19, 4 pr. (Venuleius I interd.).
77 Cf. Watson, Property 140.
78 D. 36, 3, 1, 15 (Ulpian 79 ad ed.).
79 D, 9, 3, 5, 12 (Ulpian 23 ad ed.) (Servius); 3, 5, 20 (21) pr. (Paul 9 ad ed.) (Servius); 19, 5, 23 (Alfenus 3 dig. a Paulo epit.) (Alfenus); 6, 1, 5, 3 (Ulpian 16 ad ed.) (? Alfenus—see now Watson, Property 75); 39, 2, 9, 2 (Ulpian 53 ad ed.) (Alfenus—see now Watson, Property 148); 44, 1, 14 (Alfenus Varus 2 dig.) (Alfenus, exceptio in factum); 9, 2, 9, 3 (Ulpian 18 ad ed.) (Ofilius).
80 Valerius Maximus, 7, 7, 5.
81 Valerius Maximus, 7, 7, 7; Cicero, , in Verrem, II, 1, 47, 123–4Google Scholar; cf. also Valerius Maximus, 7, 7, 6: on all see Watson, Succession ch. 6.
82 Cf., e.g., Wieacker, art. cit. (above, n. 24), 2 ff.
83 See the account in Wieacker, 9.
84 Whether praetor urbanus or praetor peregrinus can be here ignored.
85 So is the unique actio rei uxoriae, which dates from around 200 B.C. If, as is generally believed (cf. Kaser, , ‘Die Rechtsgrundlage der actio rei uxoriae’, RIDA II (1949), 511 ff.Google Scholar at 542 ff., and the references he gives), the actio is praetorian, it fits into the pattern described here since there was no edict. If its civil law character (in Hadrian's Edict) derives from the censors' control over family morals (cf., e.g., Monier, , Manuel élémentaire de droit romain I, 6th ed. (Paris, 1949) 291 ff.)Google Scholar, it is irrelevant to us.
86 Cf. Broughton, , The Magistrates of the Roman Republic I (New York 1951), 513.Google Scholar
87 Cf., e.g., Watson, Obligations 167 and 160.
88 Cf. Lenel, Edictum 252.
89 On the text see now Watson, Obligations 169 ff.
90 It is possible that the edictum on depositum was as early, but the early history of depositum is too complicated for any help to be obtained from the possibility.
91 See, e.g., the SC de Bacchanalibus (Bruns FIR 7 no. 36: 186 B.C.). In Livy the right is ascribed to kings (e.g. 1, 29, 6; 1, 52, 6), consuls (2, 11, 5; 2, 24, 6, etc.), dictators (2, 30, 6; 3, 27, 5, etc.), the decemviri (3, 38, 13, etc.), the tribuni militum (6, 10, 5). See further the Thes. Ling, Lat., s.v. edicere I, B; Mommsen, , Staatsrecht I 3202 f.Google Scholar
92 Cf. Weissenborn-Mueller, , Titi Livi ab urbe condita libri II, 2nd ed., 237Google Scholar; Broughton, , Magistrates I, 263.Google Scholar But Dernburg gives the date as 215 B.C., and names the praetor as M. Atilius: Festgaben Heffter 95 and n. 2.
93 Livy, 25, 1, 11: Ubi potentius iam esse id malum apparuit quam ut minores per magistratus sedaretur, M. Aemilio praetori [urbano] negotium ab senatu datum est ut eis religionibus populum liberaret.
94 Edictum 398, n. 7, followed by, e.g., Watson, Obligations 248; Simon, , ‘Begriff und Tatbestand der iniuria im altrömischen Recht’ , ZSS LXXXII (1965), 132 ff. at 181.Google Scholar
95 Cf. Girard, , ZSS XIV (1893), 24Google Scholar ‘… et il y a en effet une concordance de termes très frappante. Elle cesse d'être bien étonnante si l'on réfléchit que longtemps avant l'édit il y eu des poings qui sont tombés sur des visages et qui y sont même tombés contrairement à la loi des XII tables, et que la formule concrète d'action soumise comme modèle aux plaideurs a dû précisément ètre choisie parmi les variétés d'injures les plus usuelles.’
96 Cf. TLL IV, 124. With this meaning it occurs 15 times in the extant plays of Plautus: As. 590; 653; 657; 661; Epid. 360; 632; Per. 265; 317; 685; Ps. 170; Ru. 1318; Tru. 652; 654; 655; 956; (plus once as a corruption of the text: Per. 687). Apart from the two grammarians and the text of Gellius, it appears elsewhere before the fourth century A.D. with this meaning only in Apuleius, whose exoticisms, as is well-known, include archaisms: Met. 2, 13; Ap. 42. Horace uses it once (‘deficiente crumina’) with the transferred sense of money, Ep. 1, 4, 11; and in this he is followed once (‘deficiente crumina’) by Juvenal, 11, 38.
97 s.v. Crumina, sacculi genus. Plautus ‘Di bene vertant, tene cruminam, inerunt triginta minae’.
98 78 s.v. Bulga, et folliculus omnis, quam et cruminam veteres appellarunt et est sacculus ad bracchium pendens.
99 Contra, Dernburg, o.c. (above n. 1), 106 n. 4. An argument of Dernburg's (p. 101) for the existence of the actio iniuriarum aestimatoria in 170 B.C. is based on a now abandoned reconstruction of the SC de Thisbensibus: cf. Dittenberger, Syll. 3 205; Bruns, FIR 7, 169 f.; Riccobono, , FIRA I, 246.Google Scholar Most recently, Birks also rejects the historicity of the episode (‘The Early History of Iniuria’, T.v.R, XXXVII (1969), at 174 ff.), but he dates the edict to the third century B.C. (195). Lübtow, Von leaves the question open: ‘Zum römischen Injurienrecht’, Labeo XV (1969), 134.Google Scholar
100 Not a bitter middle-aged man of moderate means. He obviously did not fear being struck in return so he must have come from an upper-class background: cf. Kelly, , Roman Litigation (Oxford, 1966).Google Scholar
101 The Coinage of the Roman Republic, revised with indexes by Haines, , edited by Forrer, and Hersh, , (London, 1952), p. xxii.Google Scholar
102 In Sydenham, Coinage 220.
103 ‘The first Age of Roman Coinage’, JRS XXXV (1945). 73.
103a ‘War and Finance’ JRS LIV (1964), 29 ff.; Roman Republican Coin Hoards (London 1969), 4 f.
104 Cf., e.g., Duckworth, , The Nature of Roman Comedy (Princeton, 1952), 55.Google Scholar
105 For further texts in Plautus which may concern iniuria though they throw no light on our problem see Simon, ‘Begriff’ (above, n. 94), 181 ff.
106 Cf. Mommsen, , Römisches Staatsrecht 3 II, i, 210, n. 5.Google Scholar
107 Irish Jurist cit. (above, n. 2), 347.
108 161 is perhaps better: cf. Rotondi, Leges publicae populi romani 287 f.
109 The provisions of the lex are not absolutely clear. The main source is Gellius, Aulus, NA 2, 24, 2–7Google Scholar, but see also NA 20, 1, 23; Macrobius, , Sat. 3, 17, 3Google Scholar; Pliny the Elder, , NH 10, 50, 139Google Scholar; Athenaeus, Deipnos. 247c.
110 Breakfast was a frugal meal, cf. Marquardt, , Das Privatleben der Römer I 2265.Google Scholar And so usually was lunch, cf. Fowler, Warde, Social Life at Rome in the Age of Cicero (repr. London, 1965), 273 f.Google Scholar; also Marquardt, 267.
111 Cf. Croix, de Ste, ‘Greek and Roman Accounting’, Studies in the History of Accounting (London, 1950), at 33 ff.Google Scholar, esp. 37 ff.
112 Cf., e.g., Watson, Obligations 248 ff. In general the sole dispute is whether all kinds of physical assault were covered, or only the less serious. Birks, who takes a different view from other scholars of the early history of iniuria, agrees that the praetor was not creating a new form of action: ‘Early History’ (above, n. 99) 196.
113 Cf. Collatio 2, 6, 1 (Paul sing, de iniuriis); D, 47, 10, 7 pr. (Ulpian 57 ad ed.); Lenel, Edictum 397 f.
114 By the later part of the second century B.C.: Mucius, P. in Rhet. ad Herenn. 2, 13, 19Google Scholar; cf. Watson, Obligations 250 f. Pugliese (o.c. (above, n. 32) 198, n. 109) suggests that the text was concerned with convicium, but the argument of Watson against ne quid infamandi causa fiat is also valid against the idea of convicium: cf. above, n. 32.
115 Cf. Lenel, Edictum 399.
116 It is possible that a further instance of praetorian intervention is to be found in Plautus, Poenulus 711–85. The pimp, Lycus, who is described as a ‘fur manifestos’ is under threat of addictio. It is most reasonable to treat this addictio as being due to the XII Tables' provision for manifest theft, but it is conceivable that, if the praetor had already introduced the fourfold penalty for manifest theft where the thief was a free man, the addictio would be due to Lycus' inability to pay the condemnation: cf. his reaction to the accusation of furtum nec manifestum in lines 1343–1354. In this event, the praetor would again have intervened to change a penalty (but not by an edict) though not the substantive law. It must be emphasized, however, that nothing positively indicates that here the threat of addictio is not the direct consequence of furtum manifestum.
117 Cf., e.g., Duckworth, Roman Comedy 80 f.
118 Cf., e.g., Duckworth 55.
119 There is considerable early evidence in Plautus and elsewhere for the development of the Edict of the curule aediles. A parody of aedilician edictal clauses appears in Plautus, Capt. 803 ff. Cato discussed the edict on the sale of slaves: D. 21, 1, 10, 1 (Ulpian I ad ed. aed. cur.). Gellius, Aulus, NA 4, 2Google Scholar, 1 gives the wording of an early form of that edict. But the argument from the aedilician Edict to the praetorian Edict is not straightforward.
120 So would the aediles for their games and festivals.
121 Aul. 465 ff.
122 Most. 37; cf., e.g., Trin. 116 ff.; Watson, Obligations 173.
123 Rud. 1376 ff.
124 Capt. 179 ff.; Watson, Obligations 98.
125 Epid. 697 ff.
126 Per. 524 ff., 665, 714 f.
127 Poen. 711 ff.
128 E.g. Most. 637, 643 ff., 915 ff.; Rud. 554 ff., 859 ff.; cf. Watson, Obligations 47 ff.
129 Am. 928; Trin. 266; Cas. 210.
130 Cas. 67 ff.
131 Mil. 961.
132 None of this is to be taken to imply that Plautus always accurately represents the legal institutions which he mentions.
Nothing can be deduced from Varro's words ‘quod turn et praetorium ius ad legem et censorium iudicium ad aequum existimabatur’ (de ling. lat. 6, 71), though tum refers to the time of an unrecognized fabula palliata, a line of which he has just quoted: cf. Ribbeck, , Scaenicae Romanorum Poesis Fragmenta II, 114.Google Scholar ‘Praetorium ius ad legem’ must mean praetorian enforcement of the clause of the XII Tables on sponsio.
133 Whether this is the Cato who was consul in 195 B.C. or his son who died when praetor designatus in 152 B.C. is uncertain but is not of vital importance at the moment.
134 D. 19, 1, 38, 1 (Celsus 8 dig.).
135 D. 33, 9, 3, 9 (Ulpian 22 ad Sab.).
136 Cic., de leg. 2, 23, 59.
137 Cic., ad fam. 7, 22.
138 J. I, 11, 12.
139 D. 45, 1, 4, 1 (Paul 12 ad Sab.).
140 D. 21, 1, 10, 1 (Ulpian 1 ad ed. aed. cur.).
141 Cic., de off. 3, 16, 66. This time we are certainly concerned with Cato the Censor.
142 D. 24, 3, 44 pr. (Paul 5 quaest.). But the Cato of the text is probably a scribal error for Capito.
143 D. 7, 1, 68 (Ulpian 17 ad Sab.); Cic., de fin. 1, 4, 12.
144 D. 9, 2, 27, 22–23 (Ulpian 18 ad ed.).
145 D. 41, 2, 3, 3 (Paul 54 ad ed.).
146 D. 49, 15, 4 (Modestinus 3 reg.).
147 D. 18, 2, 11, 1 (Ulpian 28 ad Sab.); h.t. 13 pr (Idem).
148 Gellius, Aulus, NA 6, 15, 1.Google Scholar
149 Gellius, Aulus, NA 17, 7, 3.Google Scholar
150 Varro, , de re rust. 2, 3, 5Google Scholar; 2, 4, 5; 2, 5, 11; 2, 7, 6.
151 Varro, , de ling. lat. 7, 5, 105.Google Scholar
152 D. 24, 3, 66 pr (Iavolenus 6 post. Labeonis).
153 Cic., top. 4, 24.
154 Cic. de leg. 2, 20, 50; 2, 21, 53.
155 D. 50, 7, 18 (17) (Pomponius 37 ad Quintum Mucium).
156 For Rutilius who is slightly older than Quintus Mucius, see infra, 117.
157 Cf. supra, n. 15.
158 D. 1, 2, 2, 38 (Pomponius sing, enchiridii).
159 D. 45, 1, 4, 1 (Paul 12 ad Sab.).
160 Cic., de orat. 2, 55, 224; D. 1, 2, 2, 39: cf. Lenel, , Palingenesia Iuris Civilis I, 77 n. 2Google Scholar; Schulz, History of Roman Legal Science 92.
161 D. 1, 2, 2, 39.
162 D. 1, 2, 2, 44.
163 On all this see now Watson, Obligations 180 ff.
164 Though Kaser, following out his theory of divided ownership, thinks that originally the pledge creditor would have the vindicatio: see, e.g., Eigentum und Besitz im älteren römischen Recht, and edit. (Cologne, Graz, 1956), 21 ff.; ‘The Concept of Roman Ownership’ Tydskrif vir Hedendaagse Romeins-Hollandse Reg (1964), 8. Whatever the general attractiveness of Kaser's concept of early ownership (and against it, see Watson, Property 91 ff.), the fact that the actio Serviana, which is not based on an edict, is formulated so totally in a praetorian fashion is very much against the idea of a civil law forerunner. The actio Serviana in this respect contrasts very markedly with the actions for servitudes and usufruct, which began si paret ius Ao Ao esse‥; and servitudes especially are thought by Kaser to be illustrative of the concept.
165 To accept the traditional dating: but Daube postulates a much earlier date Forms 96 f.
166 Edictum 493.
167 Loc. cit.
168 The actio si ager vectigalis petatur has no edict but this is probably because it was introduced at imperial instigation: cf. Lenel, Edictum 186 f. And similarly there is no evidence of an edict for the actions ad senatusconsultum Velleianum: Lenel, Edictum 287.
169 The actio in factum adversus nautas, caupones, stabularios is not significant here. It belongs to the group of actiones in factum clustered round the Lex Aquilia—hence its position in the Edict—though it alone of these has an edictal formula, presumably because it went beyond a straightforward extension of the lex: cf. Lenel, Edictum 205. It is thus essentially a decretal action which has come to be provided with an edictal formula. Of the early history of the actio si mensor falsum modum dixerit little is known though it is certainly Republican—.D 11, 6, 1 pr. (Ulpian 24 ad ed.)—and is presumably earlier than the edictum de dolo: cf. Rudorff, in Blume, , Lachmann, and Rudorff, , Die Schriften der romischen Feldmesser II (Berlin, 1852), 320, n. 235.Google Scholar
170 Privatrecht 1, 395 and n. 21.
171 Cf., e.g. Bremer, , Iurisprudentiae Antehadrianae I, 43 ff.Google Scholar; Münzer, , RE IA, 1269 ff.Google Scholar; Kaser, , Privatrecht I, 257.Google Scholar
172 Thus Kelly also suggests as possibilities the praetors of 93 and 49: Irish Jurist (cit. n. 2), 347. But 49 B.C. is impossibly late since D. 38, 2, 1, 2 tells us that it was later praetors who promised certae partis bonorum possessio, and this bonorum possessio was in existence when Verres was urban praetor in 74 B.C.: Cicero, , in Verrem II, 1, 48, 125–26.Google Scholar On the other hand, P. Rutilius Calvus, praetor in 166 B.C. is perhaps a possibility.
173 Cf. Cicero, , Brutus 30, 113–14Google Scholar; de off. 2, 13, 47. He is also likely to be the Rutilius whose opinions have survived on the extent of a legacy of penus (Gellius, Aulus, NA 4, 1, 2Google Scholar; D. 33, 9, 39 (Ulpian 22 ad Sab.)), on the duration of habitatio (D. 7, 8, 10, 3 (Ulpian 17 ad Sab.)) and on the interdict quae arbor ex aedibus (D. 43, 27, 1, 2 (Ulpian 71 ad ed.)): and to be the inventor of the formula Rutiliana (Gaius 4.35; Vat. Fr. I (Paul 8 ad Sab.)) cf. Bremer, l.c.
174 Cicero, , de off. 2, 13, 47Google Scholar; Livy, epit. LXX; Diod. Sic. 37, 5, 1.
175 Cf. D. 37, 9, 1, 13 (Ulpian 41 ad ed.); 37, 8, 3 (Marcellus 9 dig.).
176 Cf. Dernburg, art. cit. (above, n. 1), 99.
177 D. 4, 6, 26, 7 (Ulpian 12 ad ed.): cf. Lenel, Edictum 120 ff.; Daube, , ‘Extraordinary Holidays’, Festschrift Leibholz (Tübingen, 1966), 311 ff.Google Scholar at 315 ff.
178 Cf. Lenel, Edictum 360 f.
179 Gaius 3, 46, 49–50.
180 Epist. 5, 9, 3.
181 4, 29; 5, 4; 5, 9; 5, 13.
182 Cf. Sherwin-White, , The Letters of Pliny (Oxford, 1966), 305.Google Scholar
183 Cf. Sherwin-White, 336.
184 On all this see now Watson, Property 104 ff.
185 On all this see now Watson, Persons 131 ff.
186 D. 44, 4, 4, 33 (Ulpian 76 ad ed.).
187 Cf. now Watson, Obligations 257 f. The alternative is to say that the exceptio metus is post-Cassius.
188 On Cassius' activity see also D. 42, 8, 11 (Venuleius Saturninus 6 interdic.), Lenel suggests that here Cassius was the jurist who formulated the action, not the praetor who proposed it, Edictum 500, n. 2. Against suggestions of interpolation in the text see now Impallomeni, , Studi sui mezzi di revoca degli atti fraudolenti nel diritto romano classico (Padua, 1958), 112 ff.Google Scholar
D. 29, 2, 99 (Pomponius I senatus consult.) does not seem relevant to the present discussion.
189 NA 11, 17, 2: Qui flumina retanda publice redempta habent, si quis eorum ad me eductus fuerit, qui dicatur, quod eum ex lege locationis facere oportuerit, non fecisse. On this, most recently, Viganò ‘Sull' edictum de fluminibus retandis,’ Labeo XV (1969) 168 ff.
190 Cf. Lenel, Edictum 287 f.: and it seems that the action si ager vectigalis petatur which is in the Edict—but has no edict—is also from the Empire: Lenel, Edictum 186 ff.
191 Cf. Lenel, Edictum 183 f.
192 For the view that it is likely the SC dates from Claudius, see Daube, , ‘Did Macedo kill his father?’ ZSS LXV (1947), 308 ff.Google Scholar; Roman Law: Linguistic, Social and Philosophical Aspects (Edinburgh, 1969), 90, n. 4.
193 D. 14, 6, 11 (Ulpian 29 ad ed.).
194 Above, n. 15.
195 This is really outside the scope of the present enquiry, but see, e.g., Jolowicz, , Historical Introduction to the Study of Roman Law, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, 1954), 366 f.Google Scholar
196 art. cit. (above, n. 2), 348 f.
197 art. cit. 344 ff.
198 Cf. the authors cited by Kaser, , Privatrecht I, 303, n. 24.Google Scholar
199 For the difficulties in dating the Lex Minicia see Watson, Persons 27, n. 4.
200 Cf. Rotondi, Leges 362 f.
201 Cf., e.g., Watson, Persons 253.
202 Cf., e.g., Watson, Property 22 f.
203 Cf. Rotondi, Leges 438.
204 Especially the Lex Falcidia: cf. now Watson, Succession ch. 12.
205 Cf., art. cit. (n. 2) especially 344 f.
206 I am grateful to a number of friends, Professor Reuven Yaron, Mr. John Barton, Mr. Robin Seager and Mr. Alan Rodger whose criticism has much improved this paper.