HANDWÖRTERBUCH DER ANTIKEN SKLAVEREI

Transkript

1 FORSCHUNGEN ZUR ANTIKEN SKLAVEREI BEGRÜNDET VON JOSEPH VOGT, FORTGEFÜHRT VON HEINZ BELLEN IM AUFTRAG DER AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN UND DER LITERATUR HERAUSGEGEBEN VON HEINZ HEINEN BEIHEFT 5 HANDWÖRTERBUCH DER ANTIKEN SKLAVEREI IM AUFTRAG DER AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN UND DER LITERATUR, MAINZ herausgegeben von HEINZ HEINEN in Verbindung mit ULRICH EIGLER, PETER GRÖSCHLER, ELISABETH HERRMANN-OTTO, HENNER VON HESBERG, HARTMUT LEPPIN, HANS-ALBERT RUPPRECHT, WINFRIED SCHMITZ, INGOMAR WEILER und BERNHARD ZIMMERMANN Redaktion JOHANNES DEISSLER in Zusammenarbeit mit Andrea Binsfeld und mit dem Kompetenzzentrum für elektronische Erschließungs- und Publikationsverfahren in den Geisteswissenschaften an der Universität Trier Gefördert mit Mitteln der Fritz Thyssen Stiftung für Wissenschaftsförderung, Köln LIEFERUNG I-IV FRANZ STEINER VERLAG STUTTGART 2011

2 Stipulatio servorum The verbal contract, stipulatio, is a formal act, devised to create a unilaterally binding obligation. It is made through the future creditor s question, specifying the debtor s duties, paired with the adequate answer of the future debtor [Gai. inst. 3,92: verbis obligatio fit ex interrogatione et responsione]. As the formality of stipulation consists only in the duty to use the very same verb in the question and answer [Gai. inst. 3,92: velut: dari spondes? spondeo ; dabis? dabo ; promittis? promitto ; fide promittis? fide promitto ], this formal cladding may be used to incorporate extremely heterogeneous sets of obligations. Therefore stipulatio with its flexible nature could well be used as a vehicle of legal protection to these transactions, which falling outside the range of the closed Roman contract law system would be deprived of it; in other words, a stipulation is used to make a transaction into a contract which otherwise would not be one. At the same time, the abstract character of this legal transaction i.e. the fact that the external emanation of the will of the parties (formally put question and its answer) prevails over the actual intent provides for a fairly unproblematic court protection of the creditor. It is of no surprise, therefore, that both the dogmatic and legal practice sources provide evidence for a frequent use of this legal figure. Formal and abstract, stipulatio belongs to the most archaic stratum of Roman private law, ius civile, and as such, its use was originally limited to the Roman citizens only. Still under classical law stipulation made with the use of the verb spondeo was only available to the Quirites, whereas the admission of other verbs made it open to non-romans [cf. Gai inst. 3,93: sed haec quidem verborum obligatio: dari spondes? spondeo, propria civium Romanorum est, cetera vero iuris gentium sunt]. The most typical stipulations bear names made of the verb employed by the parties: sponsio (question and answer with spondeo), fidepromissio (fide promitto). The mere use of stipulation by slaves and the legally binding consequences of such act do not seem to have created any general problems for the Roman jurisprudence. In fact, no fragment in the title of the Digest solely devoted to this matter [Dig. 45,3] discusses validity of this legal transaction as such. The jurists present far more complex cases, special attention being paid to the situation of a jointlyowed slave who receives a formal promise and the legal consequences of such for each of the masters [see, for instance, Dig. 45,3,4-9; 14 or a plethora of examples in Papinian s Questiones, Dig. 45,3,18; cf. further, 1, ,389f.], or a case of a slave granted to a fructuary [e.g. Dig. 45,3,1,5 and 45,3,22; see further 1, 363f.,367f.]. It is worth noticing that in all the examples discussed in Dig. 45,3 a slave takes the active part in a stipulation he is the one who asks the formal question. A slave is therefore seen as receiver of the debtor s declaration on behalf of his master and thus acquires for him a legally binding obligation following the general principle that the master takes advantage of all beneficial actions of his slave. The practicality of such a solution goes without saying. It fits well the well-known general pattern of the slavemanagement of their masters business. Evidence of this construction is further confirmed by a fragment of Ulpian s Commentary on Sabinus [Dig. 45,1,38,16] in which the jurist, excluding the possibility of stipulating in favour of a third party (alteri stipulari), expressly makes an exception for a slave and son-in-power. In some instances, moreover, it is the slave s participation which allows the master to conclude a binding stipulatio. Ulpian in his Commentary to Sabinus, Dig. 45,1,1 pr., recalls the cases of an absent master, deaf person or minor. The provenance of the fragment commentary on ius civile clearly shows that already this ancient layer of law recognized this solution as valid. Another example of a stipulation which in many instances must have involved participation of a slave was cautio rem pupilli salvam fore, a warranty imposed on a tutor dativus by the praetor, by which the guardian stipulated that under his management the ward s estate would not suffer any damage. Ulpian s Commentary on the Edict [Dig. 46,6,2] foresees that a ward s slave will take the promise, should the pupillus be absent or unable to speak. If a ward has no slave, one should be bought for him for this purpose. It was also advisable for a corporation to acquire a promise through its slave [cf. Dig. 3,4,10; and generally on the problem 1, 329]. The formula of a slave s stipulatio could either mention the name of his master ( Do you promise so-and-so will be given to my master? ), refer directly to the slave ( Do you promise so-and-so will be given to me?) or his co-slave, or include combination of either of the above. In any case the primary legal effect was the same: the obligation

3 was made in favour of the master and it was he who acquired an action to pursue it [cf. Dig. 45,3,1 pr.: cum servus stipuletur nihil interest, sibi an domino an vero sine alterutra eorum adiectione dari stipuletur; Inst. Iust. 3,17,1: sive autem domino sive sibi sive conservo suo sive impersonaliter servus stipuletur, domino adquirit]. In relation to the stipulation formula the authors put forward problems arising from more complex situations, videlicet when the slave entering a stipulation is subject to coownership or has been previously manumitted. In such cases the validity and the efficacy of the contract depended on the formulation of the promise see, for instance, Dig. 12,1,41, Africanus, quaest., where a former slave continues to act as his master s representative granting loans unaware of the fact that the master manumitted him and instituted him as the co-heir in the will, and a number of texts from the title Dig. 45,3 mentioned above in 3 [further reading and explanation of the cases in 1, ]. It may seem at first glance that in such a case a slave may have been perceived as a mere vocal tool, a vehicle transmitting the obligation to his master. Certain individual personality, however, of the receiver seems to be admitted. In the monograph on verbal obligations, Gaius observes that if a stipulatio given to a slave or son-in-power foresees an alternative for its fulfilment, the choice of performance will be up to the one who actually receives it and not to his master [Dig. 45,1,141 pr.: Si servus aut filius familias ita stipulatus sit: illam rem aut illam, utram ego velim?, non pater dominusve, sed filius servusve destinare de alterutra debet]. In general, there seems to be no restriction as to the allowed content of stipulation performed by and for a slave, as long as it did not involve a third party or, more generally, infringe the principal rules of law of obligations. One should keep in mind, however, a distinction postulated by Gaetano Scherillo in his interpretation of Dig. 45,1,38,6-9 [4, and 1, 155]. This scholar saw a difference between stipulations creating obligations to give (dare) and to perform (facere). For the latter type initially a slave may only have had to include his master s name in the promise. As for the verb employed by a slave requesting a formal promise, one would expect anything but spondes, given the authority of Gai. inst. 3,93, quoted above, and 3,176 fin. Yet an important piece of evidence of Italian legal practice proves to the contrary at least for the times of the early Principate. In five documents from the so-called Archive of the Sulpicii of Puteoli we have unequivocal evidence for the use of spondere in the formal question put forward by a slave. There are four acts from the dossier documenting financial agreements between C. Novius Eunus as debtor and a slave named Hesychus [TPSulp. 51 (18/ ), TPSulp. 52 ( ), TPSulp. 67 ( ), TPSulp. 68 ( )] and another deed, TPSulp. 69 ( ), documenting a loan between C. Sulpicius Faustus as debtor and a slave Phosphorus. These five instances of sponsiones servorum could be explained in a number of ways. Firstly, the legal practice may have simply detached itself from the legal doctrine, the parties may have employed the standard formulary without giving much thought to its content. Yet, some other tablets documenting legal activities concluded with a slave [TPSulp. 56 chirographum of Niceros, slave of the colons of Colonia Puteoli], or a peregrinus [TPSulp. 4, Zenon s vadimonium], does not permit this conclusion to be drawn. Stipulatio therein was made in the proper form of fidepromissio. Another explanation may be offered by the high standing of both Hesychus and Phosphorus: they both belong to the familia of the Emperor (to be exact, Hesychus in the first two documents is property of an imperial freedman, later passes to the estate of Caligula). Yet the best possible solution is probably provided by the consideration of the role of the slaves in these documents: they all receive the formal promise. The use of sponsio by a slave to create an obligation of the other party is further confirmed by numerous passages in the Digest which report in direct speech spondes? Spondeo a dialogue initiated by a slave [Dig. 7,1,24; 45,3,9; 45,3,10; 45,3,18,1; 45,3,18,3; 45,3,21; 45,3,37]. In the passages in which the validity of such a sponsio was questioned [Dig. 45,1,38,7; 45,3,29; 45,1,122,4; 45,2,12,1] the legal problem discussed was never the employment of the verb spondere [see further, 5, ]. One is prone to conclude therefore that a slave in such cases is seen as the proverbial speaking instrument of his master. In a contract where a slave obliges his master through a stipulation, the form employed was that of a fidepromissio as it happened in TPSulp. 56. Just as this one example shows, a slave s participation in a stipulation on the debtor s side seems to have been far less frequent. Such transaction was void in the eyes of ius civile: a slave may only benefit his master, but he cannot burden

4 him. This issue may only arise therefore within the environment of ius honorarium and the context of the so-called ->actiones adiecticiae qualitatis. And so when the dogmatic sources mention a slave s promise in relation to a collateral constituted by a subordinated person, they show that liability arising from such a transaction is only admitted on the grounds of the ->actio de peculio and only if the surety provided is in favour of the ->peculium [Dig. 15,1,3,5], or with regards to the master s business [Dig. 15,1,47,1: Paulus on Plautius, 4 quoting Sabinus]. This is further confirmed by a distinction drawn by Ulpian between a surety provided by a filiusfamilias and a slave but not in connection to a peculium or father s affairs: whereas in the former case the stipulation stands, in the latter it is declared void [Dig. 15,1,3,9]. A stipulation aiming at novating of an obligation connected to slave s peculium without the master s consent obviously does not extinguish the original bond: it creates a new obligation, as long as it is beneficiary for the master [cf. Dig. 46,2,16; see further: 1, 203f.]. Contrariwise, a slave s assumption of the third party s duty is void according to general rules of ius civile; the view on the continued existence of the original obligation, which the slave attempted to novate, seems to have varied: whereas the older law postulated its extinction, classical law opted for its remaining intact [cf. Gai. inst. 3,176 & 179; as well as 1, 687]. In Greek texts from late Antique Egypt perwt w the standard verb used in Greek to describe the verbal obligation is employed. The slave truly represents his master: the documents explain that he takes the formal promise and stipulates for him and on his behalf, granting the legal protection to the transaction in question [cf., e.g. PSI I 58,4 [Oxyrhynchos, AD ]: diª Mhn«oÏkŸtou toì perwt ntov kaø prospor zontov tœ Ïd despàtî through Menas, home-slave asking the formal question and answering it and representing his own master ]. onore di Pietro Bonfante IV. Milano 1930, (5) URBANIK, J.: Sponsio servi. In: JJP 28 (1998) (6) WOLF, J. G., CROOK, J. A.: Rechtsurkunden in Vulgärlatein aus den Jahren n. Chr. Heidelberg Jakub Urbanik (1) BUCKLAND, W. W.: The Roman Law of Slavery: The Conditions of the Slave in Private Law from Augustus to Justinian. Cambridge (2) CAMODECA, G.: Tabulae Pompeianae Sulpiciorum (TPSulp.): Edizione critica del archivio puteolano dei Sulpicii. Vol. I-II. Napoli (3) REDUZZI MEROLA, F.: Forme non convenzionali di dipendenza nel mondo antico. Napoli ²2010, (and lit.) --- (4) SCHERILLO, G.: Sulla stipulazione del servus e del filius familias. In: Studi in

5 Das Handwörterbuch der antiken Sklaverei (HAS) ist ein Projekt des Mainzer Akademievorhabens Forschungen zur antiken Sklaverei ( Es soll die Ergebnisse der internationalen Sklavereiforschung erfassen, auswerten, konzise darlegen und der Fachwissenschaft für spätere Untersuchungen ein bisher fehlendes Grundlagenwerk für den alltäglichen Gebrauch bereitstellen. Als alphabetisch geordnetes Nachschlagewerk wird es ca Stichwörter (Personen, Sachen und Begriffe) in unterschiedlicher Gewichtung beinhalten, der Gesamtumfang ist auf ca Wörter angelegt. Neben den klassischen Formen der Sklaverei werden auch andere Arten der Unfreiheit, die übrigen Kulturen des Mittelmeerraumes (Alter Orient, Ägypten, Karthago etc.) sowie Abhängigkeitszustände in außereuropäischen Zivilisationen (Indien, China etc.) Berücksichtigung finden allerdings nur zum Zwecke des Vergleichs und nicht als eigenständige Schwerpunkte. Beiträge zur Rezeptions- und Wissenschaftsgeschichte runden das HAS ab. Die Beiträge werden zunächst elektronisch in fünf CD-ROM- Lieferungen veröffentlicht, wodurch eine rasche, zitierfähige und urheberrechtlich geschützte Präsentation gewährleistet ist. Nach Vorliegen aller Artikel und der Aktualisierung älterer Beiträge ist eine herkömmliche Buchversion (2.400 Spalten) geplant. Publikationssprache ist in erster Linie Deutsch, Artikel in englischer, französischer und italienischer Sprache sind ebenfalls vertreten. Bezugsbedingungen/Bestellungen: Franz Steiner Verlag Postfach Stuttgart +49 (0) FAX +49 (0) ISBN-13: Systemvoraussetzungen PC ab 1 GHz; 256 MB RAM; MS Windows 2000, XP, Vista oder Windows 7 MAC ab G3; 256 MB RAM; Mac OS X 10.4 oder höher Zitiervorschlag: Handwörterbuch der antiken Sklaverei (HAS) hrsg. von Heinz Heinen in Verbindung mit Ulrich Eigler, Peter Gröschler, Elisabeth Herrmann-Otto, Henner von Hesberg, Hartmut Leppin, Hans- Albert Rupprecht, Winfried Schmitz, Ingomar Weiler und Bernhard Zimmermann. Redaktion: Johannes Deissler. CD-ROM-Lieferung I-IV. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner 2011, s.v. xxx (N.N.) Kurzform: Handwörterbuch der antiken Sklaverei (HAS) I-IV (2011), s.v. xxx (N.N.)