罗马帝国公共奴隶的法律行为能力

IF 0.2 4区 历史学 0 CLASSICS
Aubert J.
{"title":"罗马帝国公共奴隶的法律行为能力","authors":"Aubert J.","doi":"10.1093/bics/qbab018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<span>Slaves are things, and therefore objects rather than subjects of law. In other words, freeborn and freed people may have rights over slaves, but slaves are not supposed to have any rights over anything or anyone. However, such an absolute principle is simply not practical, and may never have been enforced. <span style=\"font-style:italic;\">De facto</span>, slaves often enjoyed some level of consideration as a result of their humanness, and sometimes even more than consideration on the basis of their economic significance. <span style=\"font-style:italic;\">De iure</span>, slaves have been regarded as the property of their master(s) (<span style=\"font-style:italic;\">dominus/-a</span> or <span style=\"font-style:italic;\">domini/-ae</span>, singular or plural, male or female), engaging the latter’s ‘noxal’ liability—a Roman archaic concept akin to tort—in case of wrongdoing, and as part or extension of his/her/their legal personality, in case of accretion.1<sup>1</sup> Roman slave-owners and jurists, who we assume belonged to roughly the same social stratum, worked towards combining to their own benefit the practicalities and requirements of social and economic life within the existing and developing legal framework. Even though the earlier stages of the history of Roman slavery law remain rather blurred for lack of primary sources, it appears that legal innovation was promoted in a private context by public institutions. Magistrates, such as aediles and especially praetors, used their right of issuing edicts (<span style=\"font-style:italic;\">ius edicendi</span>) to outline the principles according to which they intended to exercise their judiciary activities, providing legal remedies (<span style=\"font-style:italic;\">actiones</span>) to deal with issues arising in situations involving slaves as economic agents. Some of these remedies contributed to the acknowledgement of a sort of legal capacity for slaves in privileged positions, with their master’s/masters’ explicit or even tacit agreement. What seems to have developed within, and for the sake of, family businesses during the late Republican period was transferred and adapted to different contexts, such as private associations, the Roman state, and Roman towns by the early Principate at the latest.</span>","PeriodicalId":43661,"journal":{"name":"BULLETIN OF THE INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The legal capacity of public slaves in the Roman empire\",\"authors\":\"Aubert J.\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/bics/qbab018\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<span>Slaves are things, and therefore objects rather than subjects of law. In other words, freeborn and freed people may have rights over slaves, but slaves are not supposed to have any rights over anything or anyone. However, such an absolute principle is simply not practical, and may never have been enforced. <span style=\\\"font-style:italic;\\\">De facto</span>, slaves often enjoyed some level of consideration as a result of their humanness, and sometimes even more than consideration on the basis of their economic significance. <span style=\\\"font-style:italic;\\\">De iure</span>, slaves have been regarded as the property of their master(s) (<span style=\\\"font-style:italic;\\\">dominus/-a</span> or <span style=\\\"font-style:italic;\\\">domini/-ae</span>, singular or plural, male or female), engaging the latter’s ‘noxal’ liability—a Roman archaic concept akin to tort—in case of wrongdoing, and as part or extension of his/her/their legal personality, in case of accretion.1<sup>1</sup> Roman slave-owners and jurists, who we assume belonged to roughly the same social stratum, worked towards combining to their own benefit the practicalities and requirements of social and economic life within the existing and developing legal framework. Even though the earlier stages of the history of Roman slavery law remain rather blurred for lack of primary sources, it appears that legal innovation was promoted in a private context by public institutions. Magistrates, such as aediles and especially praetors, used their right of issuing edicts (<span style=\\\"font-style:italic;\\\">ius edicendi</span>) to outline the principles according to which they intended to exercise their judiciary activities, providing legal remedies (<span style=\\\"font-style:italic;\\\">actiones</span>) to deal with issues arising in situations involving slaves as economic agents. Some of these remedies contributed to the acknowledgement of a sort of legal capacity for slaves in privileged positions, with their master’s/masters’ explicit or even tacit agreement. What seems to have developed within, and for the sake of, family businesses during the late Republican period was transferred and adapted to different contexts, such as private associations, the Roman state, and Roman towns by the early Principate at the latest.</span>\",\"PeriodicalId\":43661,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BULLETIN OF THE INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BULLETIN OF THE INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/bics/qbab018\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"CLASSICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BULLETIN OF THE INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bics/qbab018","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"CLASSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

奴隶是物,因此是法律的客体而不是主体。换句话说,生来自由的人和被解放的人可能对奴隶有权利,但奴隶不应该对任何事物或任何人有任何权利。然而,这样一个绝对的原则是不实际的,可能永远不会被强制执行。事实上,奴隶往往因为他们的人性而得到一定程度的考虑,有时甚至比基于他们的经济意义而得到的考虑更多。在法律上,奴隶被视为其主人(dominus/-a或domini/-ae,单数或复数,男性或女性)的财产,在做错的情况下承担后者的“附加”责任——一个类似于侵权的罗马古老概念,在增加的情况下,作为他/她/他们的法律人格的一部分或延伸我们假定罗马奴隶主和法学家大致属于同一社会阶层,他们致力于在现有的和正在发展的法律框架内将社会和经济生活的实际情况和要求结合起来,为自己的利益服务。尽管罗马奴隶制法历史的早期阶段由于缺乏原始来源而相当模糊,但似乎法律创新是在公共机构的私人背景下促进的。地方行政官,例如地方行政官,特别是裁判官,利用他们发布法令的权利(ius edicendi)来概述他们打算根据这些原则行使其司法活动,提供法律补救措施(行动)来处理涉及奴隶作为经济代理人的情况下产生的问题。其中一些补救措施有助于承认处于特权地位的奴隶的某种法律行为能力,在他们的主人/主人的明确甚至是默许下。在共和晚期,家族企业内部和为了家族企业而发展起来的东西被转移并适应了不同的环境,如私人协会,罗马国家,最迟在早期元首制时期的罗马城镇。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The legal capacity of public slaves in the Roman empire
Slaves are things, and therefore objects rather than subjects of law. In other words, freeborn and freed people may have rights over slaves, but slaves are not supposed to have any rights over anything or anyone. However, such an absolute principle is simply not practical, and may never have been enforced. De facto, slaves often enjoyed some level of consideration as a result of their humanness, and sometimes even more than consideration on the basis of their economic significance. De iure, slaves have been regarded as the property of their master(s) (dominus/-a or domini/-ae, singular or plural, male or female), engaging the latter’s ‘noxal’ liability—a Roman archaic concept akin to tort—in case of wrongdoing, and as part or extension of his/her/their legal personality, in case of accretion.11 Roman slave-owners and jurists, who we assume belonged to roughly the same social stratum, worked towards combining to their own benefit the practicalities and requirements of social and economic life within the existing and developing legal framework. Even though the earlier stages of the history of Roman slavery law remain rather blurred for lack of primary sources, it appears that legal innovation was promoted in a private context by public institutions. Magistrates, such as aediles and especially praetors, used their right of issuing edicts (ius edicendi) to outline the principles according to which they intended to exercise their judiciary activities, providing legal remedies (actiones) to deal with issues arising in situations involving slaves as economic agents. Some of these remedies contributed to the acknowledgement of a sort of legal capacity for slaves in privileged positions, with their master’s/masters’ explicit or even tacit agreement. What seems to have developed within, and for the sake of, family businesses during the late Republican period was transferred and adapted to different contexts, such as private associations, the Roman state, and Roman towns by the early Principate at the latest.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信