Browse results

You are looking at 101 - 110 of 3,843 items for :

  • Legal History x
  • Brill | Nijhoff x
Clear All

Strafrechtlicher Schutz von Sklaven gegen Willkür ihrer Herren

im vorchristlichen, im christlichen Altertum und im Frühmittelalter

Detlef Liebs

In the 2nd century CE, Roman emperors took decisions on several cases involving slaves who had been brutally treated by their masters. Such masters had to accept that their slaves would be sold, and in some cases they themselves were even punished, e.g. by being temporarily exiled. In the early 3rd century Ulpian construed a new crime from this context, namely saevitia dominorum, to be punished extraordinarily. Diocletian undermined this in a rescript to a soldier, and Constantine openly allowed masters to punish their slaves just as they liked. Even if a punishment lead to the slave’s dead, he forbade investigation against the masters. Both the Visigothic Lex Romana and Justinian tried to come to compromises, which continued even into Frankish times, although the results were inconsistent. Only the Judeo-Christian Collatio preserved Ulpian’s concept of a new crime, but the secular lawyers took no notice of this text, whereas medieval clerical jurists did.

Twee Antwerpse volksvertegenwoordigers op de beklaagdenbank

De strafrechtelijke vervolging voor activisme van Leo Augusteyns en Adelfons Henderickx (1918-1920)

J. Monballyu

The prosecution of Leo Augusteyns (liberal member of Pariament) and Adelfons Henderickx (Christian Democrat member of Parliament) upon the accusation of collaboration with the Germans after World War I. Both were active in the promotion of Flemish emancipation during the war. Finally Augusteyns was acquitted, Henderickx condemned. The traditional inviolability of members of Parliament was ignored in both cases. An attempt is made to explain this apparent inequality.

Consuelo Carrasco García

A poetic sale. Horace, Epistula 2.2.

Starting from the analysis of a poem by Horace, I have tried to highlight the image of the Law that was held by Roman society in the first century BC, that is, both by the poet and by the public that he wanted to entertain with his works. He chose a legal topic as the theme of his narrative – the responsibility for hidden defects in the contract of sale –; he applied the Roman legal lexicon with total precision and, more specifically, he showed that he was aware of the debate about the case-law related to the Edict by which the magistrates regulated the sale of slaves in the public markets. This is apparent from a comparison of the poem with book 21, title 1 of Justinian’s Digest concerning the Edict of the curule aediles and with documents from legal practice (testatio) that record the agreement of the will of the parties. A study of this kind, moreover, also contributes to a better understanding of poetic composition.

Anna Plisecka

The article presents an attempt to comprehend the ἀποκρίματα within the system of Roman imperial constitutions. Whereas it is generally assumed, that the ἀποκρίματα were identical with the subscripts, it is argued that they constituted a kind of imperial enactment sui generis, which cannot be identified with any of the known types of constitutions. We find the term ἀπόκριμα, which had no technical meaning until the end of the second century, being used with a consistent connotation only after the visit of Septimius Severus and Caracalla to Egypt. Furthermore, it refers specifically to the group of decisions, which the both emperors have issued in Alexandria during that visit.