Series:

Hylkje de Jong

In Ἐντολή (mandatum) in den Basiliken Hylkje de Jong deals with the way the Byzantine jurists of the early period (6th and early 7th century) and later period (11th and 12th century) dealt with the law of mandate as they found this in respectively Justinian’s compilation and in the 9th century Basilica. Commonly characterised as consistent Byzantine dogmatics, the remarks of these Byzantine jurists appear to be in reality individual approaches, coloured by each jurist’s own methodology of interpreting.

Based upon the Basilica texts, the law of mandate is set out thematically: the mandate’s object, the liability of parties, actions, remunerations. De Jong proves convincingly that the Byzantine remarks provide a better understanding of Justinian Roman law.



In der Studie Ἐντολή (mandatum) in den Basiliken beschäftigt sich Hylkje de Jong mit der Art und Weise, wie sich die byzantinischen Juristen des 6. und frühen 7. aber auch des 11. und 12. Jahrhunderts mit dem Auftragsrechts befassten, das sie in Justinians Kompilation bzw. in den Basiliken des 9. Jahrhunderts fanden. Die Äußerungen dieser byzantinischen Juristen werden in der Regel als einheitliche byzantinische Rechtslehre aufgefasst, erweisen sich aber in Wirklichkeit als individuelle Ansätze, die von der Methodik des jeweiligen Juristen geprägt und gefärbt sind.

Basierend auf den Basilikentexten wird das Auftragsrecht thematisch dargestellt: Gegenstand des Mandats, Haftung der Parteien, Klagen, Vergütungen etc. Überzeugend weist De Jong nach, dass die byzantinischen Darlegungen ein besseres Verständnis des römischen Rechts von Justinian vermitteln.

Byzantine and the Medieval West Roman tradition

A dual exegesis of consumpta pecunia in D. 12,1

Hylkje de Jong

The term consumpta pecunia, money used, in D. 12,1 is interpreted differently in the legal tradition of East and West, when it came to explain why a condictio was granted to recover money, lent by an unauthorised person. In Byzantine law, the sixth-century antecessor Stephanus interprets this condictio as an enrichment action, namely ὁ ἀπὸ καλοῦ δαπανήματος κονδικτίκιος (condictio de bene depensis). For Stephanus money, once used, causes ownership to pass by commixture. He considers the condictio in the Digestas a unitary doctrine and views the titles D. 12,2 and D. 12,3, which deal with other matters, as a parenthesis. In the Glossa Ordinaria, this condictio has been interpreted as a contractual condictio, namely as a condictio ex numeratione or condictio ex consumptione. In the Glossa ordinaria consumpta pecunia causes ownership to pass by the validation of the contract. D. 12,1 is considered to be an independent title. The condictio in D. 12,1 is a contractual condictio; the condictiones discussed in the other titles are different, they arise ex bono et aequo.

The benefit to Romanists of using the Basilica


The example of B. 14,1,26,8 (D. 17,1,26,8)


Hylkje de Jong

In Roman and Byzantine legal literature there has been much debate about the payment (merces/μισθός) claimed by the mandatory in D. 17,1,26,8 (B. 14,1,26,8). The reason was the requirement of gratuitousness of mandatum, which made that this case should in principle be classified as a locatio conductio/μίσθωσις. To explain the presence of merces in Roman law literature several suggestions were made: interpolation, remuneration, the existence of two contracts or a pactum adiectum. In Byzantine law literature μισθός was interpreted as the payment for the slave. These interpretations are one way or another unsatisfactory. In (early) Byzantine law a plausible new interpretation can be found. Here the payment is interpreted as expenses incurred to make the property, i.e. slave, worth more, and such expenses (for training slaves) are ‘useful’ expenses. This interpretation is plausible and applies also for classical Roman law. It shows that the use of the Basilica is of indispensable benefit to Romanists.


Hylkje de Jong

In case someone else’s cattle damaged a field, in the law of the province of Friesland as in the Republic of the United Netherlands, art. 2,3,3 of the general provincial statute (the ‘Landsordonnantie’, L.O.) overrides the Roman rule of D. 9,2,39,1. Art. 2,3,3 L.O. (both of 1602 and 1723) allows those who suffer damage to retain (opbinden) this cattle until their owner has compensated the caused damage, contrary to Roman law which forbids inclusion. In the handwritten comments to art. 2,3,3 L.O., the juridical meaning of the term opbinden is explained. According to the manuscript ‘Saeckma’ opbinden should not be interpreted as a lien, but has the function to allow to feed the cattle. The other manuscripts, on the other hand, indeed interpret opbinden as a lien. The legal works on agrarian law also follow this interpretation and elaborate it moreover in a comparative way. Where Gerhard Feltman and Paulus Cornelis Hoynck van Papendrecht point to a mere Frisian custom as explanation for the opbinden, Christiaan Hendrik Trotz tries to give reasons for opbinden as something specific Frisian.


Hylkje de Jong

Abstract

In the middle of the 6th century A.D. the antecessor Stephanus taught the codification of Emperor Justinian, explaining the Latin text of the Digest in Greek. In particular, he discussed the condictiones from D. 12,1 in detail. From fragment 11,2 it would appear that Stephanus introduced a specific name for the condictio, namely ο απο καλου δαπανηματος κονδικτικιος. This name refers to the facts of the casus. Only when ο δανειακος κονδικτικιος cannot be granted to the bona fide borrower, ο απο καλου δαπανηματος κονδικτικιος can be granted by virtue of justice and equity. For this to apply it is necessary, however, that the money lent has been spent.

Hylkje de Jong

Abstract

In the middle of the 6th century A.D. the antecessor Stephanus taught the codification of Emperor Justinian, explaining the Latin text of the Digest in Greek. In particular, he discussed the condictiones from D. 12,1. Stephanus introduced a specific name for the condictio from D. 12,1,32, namely ó κονδικτικιος απο καλον και δικαιον (condictio ex bono et aequo). This name refers to the facts of the casus. Only the plaintiff as former owner can apply ó κονδικτικιος απο καλον και δικαιον against a possessor in good faith who has acquired ownership. It always concerns an enrichment of a third person with whom the plaintiff has not any juridical relation. It appears that in other Digest fragments this specific condictio is also recognized on the basis of substantive grounds. Stephanus used the condictio ex bono et aequo from D. 12,6,66 as technical juridical term and gave it a forensic meaning.