oa Fundamina : A Journal of Legal History - Unmöglichkeit der auflösend befristeten traditio? Fragmenta Vaticana 283 und Scholion 1 ad Basilica 16.1.4 revisited
|Article Title||Unmöglichkeit der auflösend befristeten traditio? Fragmenta Vaticana 283 und Scholion 1 ad Basilica 16.1.4 revisited|
|© Publisher:||UNISA Press|
|Journal||Fundamina : A Journal of Legal History|
|Affiliations||1 University of Leiden, The Netherlands|
|Publication Date||Jan 2014|
|Pages||163 - 174|
|Issue||Special issue 1|
Until recently it was generally taught that in classical Roman law ownership could not be transferred only for a definite time or under a resolutive condition, though exceptions were allowed. That a dogma (1) of the impossibility of transfer of ownership only for a given time, and (2) of the impossibility of temporary ownership formed part of Roman law, was thought to be evidenced by two texts: Fragmenta Vaticana 283, an imperial rescript dating from 286 AD, and a Scholion to Basilica 16.1.4, taken from the commentary on the Digest by the Antecessor Stephanos (536-542 AD). As a third source one could add the interpolated version of that rescript, Codex 8.54.2. The interpretation of Fragment 283 has been the topic of considerable controversy. Recently a new explanation was proposed, which, however, is shown to have no sound foundation. The argument occasions revisiting the two texts. It is submitted that dogma 1 cannot be deduced from either of them, but that dogma 2 was known by Stephanos.
Article metrics loading...