Papers by Daniela Di Ottavio
Revista General de Derecho Romano 41, 2023
Il presente lavoro osserva il fenomeno delle res oggetto di occupatio da una nuova prospettiva ch... more Il presente lavoro osserva il fenomeno delle res oggetto di occupatio da una nuova prospettiva che, partendo dall’analisi esegetica delle fonti nelle quali si fa menzione delle res nullius e res nullius in bonis, propone una rilettura della nota formula ‘quod enim nullius est, ratione naturali occupanti conceditur’ contenuta in D. 41.1.3pr. (Gai 2 rer. cott.), individuando in modo più specifico nei soli animalia e nelle res hostium (comprensive delle liberae personae) gli originari oggetti di occupazione.
This work observes the phenomenon of the res object of occupation from a new perspective which, starting from the exegetical analysis of the sources in which mention of the res nullius and res nullius in bonis is made, proposes a rereading of the well-known formula ‘quod enim
nullius est, natural ratione occupants conceditur’ contained in D. 41.1.3pr. (Gai 2 rer. cott.), identifying more specifically the original objects of occupation only in the animalia and in the res hostium (including the liberae personae).
Codex, 2022
The contribution focuses on the analysis of a postcard written by Paul Krüger addressed to his co... more The contribution focuses on the analysis of a postcard written by Paul Krüger addressed to his colleague Emilio Costa and contained in a copy of the Corpus Iuris Civilis that be- longed to the Italian lawyer. Krüger’s letter, dated 9 December 1919 and pasted on the title page of the Justinian Code by Emilio Costa, testifies the existence of a solid scientif- ic collaboration between the two lawyers, interrupted exclusively by the inefficiencies of postal communications which occurred following the outbreak of the First War world- wide, as the contents of the postcard itself testify.
Un vidulum, ripescato in mare in seguito ad un naufragio, fa sorgere tra il pescatore Gripus (che... more Un vidulum, ripescato in mare in seguito ad un naufragio, fa sorgere tra il pescatore Gripus (che lo ha rinvenuto) e Trachalio (suo antagonista che intende recuperare una cistellula ivi contenuta a vantaggio del suo dominus ) una lite in merito a chi e in quale misura spetti la proprietà della cosa.
Questa è la sintesi di un noto brano della Rudens di Plauto (vv. 973 ss.), già al centro di un dibattito sul significato da attribuire all'espressione 'manum adserere ' e cioè se essa debba intendersi come riferita esclusivamente ad una causa liberalis o anche più in generale ad un'azione di rivendica.
Attraverso una lettura giuridica della commedia in esame e di altri testi plautini nei quali compare l'espressione 'manum adserere', sembrerebbe emergere un quadro variegato, in cui i significati originariamente prospettati (causa liberalis , actio in rem ) non si collocano in via alternativa fra loro, ma sembrano essere - al contrario - entrambi presenti e accomunati verosimilmente dal significato dell'espressione in argomento, ovvero il toccare con la mano la res litigiosa o la persona sul cui status si discuteva. Dall'analisi emerge, peraltro, un aspetto che preme sottolineare: i protagonisti delle commedie plautine portano in scena sovente delle vere e proprie questioni giuridiche, impiegando
frequentemente la relativa terminologia tecnica (per fare solo l'esempio della Rudens: occupatio , res communes omnium, l’arbiter , lo scambio delle vindicationes): il che fa pensare che il pubblico del commediografo fosse in grado di comprendere, almeno in larga misura, il significato di quanto veniva rappresentato.
A vidulum , fished out to sea following a shipwreck, raises a quarrel between the fisherman Gripus (who found it) and Trachalio (his antagonist who intends to recover a cistellula contained there for his dominus) about who owns and to what extent the property of the thing.
This is the synthesis of a well known piece by the Rudens of Plauto (vv. 973 ss.), already at the center of a debate on the meaning to be attributed to the expression ' manum adserere ' and that is whether it should be understood as referring exclusively to a causa liberalis or even more in general to a claim action.
Through a legal reading of the play under consideration and other plautine texts in which the expression ' manum adserere ' appears, a varied picture would appear to emerge, in which the
originally hypothesized meanings ( causa liberalis , actio in rem ) do not emerge alternately, but they seem to be both present and they're united by the meaning of the expression, that is to touch with the hand the res litigiosa or the person on whose s tatus there was a discussion.
The analysis also shows an aspect that is important to emphasize: the protagonists of the plautine comedies often bring to the stage real legal questions, frequently employing the relevant technical terminology (to make only the example of the Rudens: occupatio, res communes omnium, the arbiter, the exchange of vindicationes): which suggests that the playwright's audience was able to understand, at least to a large extent, the significance of what was represented.
Pietas has had an undisputed importance within the Roman value system since the most ancient epoc... more Pietas has had an undisputed importance within the Roman value system since the most ancient epoch and it appears as a reference parameter in legal sources. Starting from the recent work of Aurora López Gueto, the contribution intends to offer new insights with regard to the role played by Pietas, not only in relation to the querela inofficiosi testamenti, but also in connection, for various reasons, with other juridical areas, as evidenced by the exegesis of D. 11.7.14.7-9 (Ulp 25 ad ed.) on actio funeraria.
1. È noto che le origini della querela inofficiosi testamenti (q.i.t.) 1 sono collegate, da parte... more 1. È noto che le origini della querela inofficiosi testamenti (q.i.t.) 1 sono collegate, da parte della dottrina, ad esercizi di natura retorica connessi al color insaniae 2 . Marrone, in particolare, ha sostenuto che già in epoca repubblicana si iniziò «a dar corso ad un espediente retorico volto a rilevare, sotto il profilo dell'infermità di mente del testatore, la nullità dei 1 Per una rassegna critica delle principali tesi formulate in proposito si veda da ultimo J.M. Ribas-Alba, La desheredación injustificada en derecho romano (Granada 1998) 25 ss. 2 Il collegamento tra l'origine della querela inofficiosi testamenti e le scuole retoriche, oggetto di studio di questo contributo, è stato evidenziato da numerosi studiosi indipendentemente dalle differenti ricostruzioni dell'istituto. Vanno ricordati i fondamentali contributi del F. Von Woess, Das römische Erbrecht und die Erbanwärter (Berlin 1911) 191 ss.; G. La Pira, La successione intestata e contro il testamento in diritto romano (Firenze 1930) 416 ss.; E. Renier, Études sur l'histoire de la querela inofficiosi en droit romain (Liège 1942) 107 ss. (che esordisce con forza sostenendo che «l'influence de la rhétorique dans le domaine de l'inofficiosité, n'est pas négligeable» per il quale però «le color insaniae n'est rien qu'un artifice de rhèteur» che non può «justifier les effets que la jurisprudence classique reconnaissait à la querela inofficiosi testamenti»); M. Marrone, Sulla natura della querela inofficiosi testamenti, in SDHI. 21 (1955) 121 ss.; Id., Querela inofficiosi testamenti, in AUPA. 27 (1959) 154 ss.; Id., Querela inofficiosi testamenti. Lezioni di diritto romano (Palermo 1962), di seguito indicato come Lezioni per via dell'omonimia con altro scritto dell'autore, 41 ss. e 51 ss.; P. Voci, Diritto ereditario romano II (Milano 1956) 363 ss. e in particolare 373, ove si ritiene il color insaniae, finzione di follia, una creazione retorica necessaria a coprire il fatto grave dell'inofficiosità; G. Wesener, s.v. «Querela» in PWRE. XXIV (Stuttgart 1963) 860; O. Diliberto, Il testamento del matricida, in Studi economico-giuridici dell'Università di Cagliari 52 (1988) 193 ss. (che scorge in due brani retorici su cui ampiamente si tornerà -Cic. de inv. 2.50
August., civit. Dei 21.11 lists octo genera poenarum contained in legibus (damnum, vincla, verber... more August., civit. Dei 21.11 lists octo genera poenarum contained in legibus (damnum, vincla, verbera, talionem, ignominiam, exilium, mortem, servitutem): the source of Augustine is Cicero (presumably, but not with certainty, de orat. 1.194, even if the text mentions only six punishments). The passage of Augustine is often inserted (Schoell, Riccobono et alii) in the fragmenta incertae sedis of the Twelve Tables, which however, does not expressly mention the decemviral legislation; nor all the punishments listed by Augustine are attested in the Twelve Tables, at least on the basis of the documents known by
us. Isidore (etym. 5.27.4), though reporting verbatim the list of punishments - introduced as legibus - which we read in Augustine, when the latter describes them individually, attributes the introduction of lautumiae, tormenta, fustes, metalla and of the exile (etym. 5.27.23) to Tarquin the Proud: the source of Isidore, for this assignment, is supposedly the Chronograph of the year 354. The kingdom of the
Proud is, as it is known, characterized by brutality and despotism, and marked by a peculiar “creativity”
in devising tortures and punishments. In particular, the news of the use of the plebeians in “forced labor” for the construction of public works is widely attested in the sources, since Cassio Emina. But Isidore places the introduction of the mentioned punishments, by Tarquin, among those provided
in legibus. Now, in the compilation of leges regiae directed by Franciosi more than a few regulations are attributed (as opposed to the past) to the last king, but - among them – there is no appearance of what is contained in the story of Isidore: the introduction of those punishments is due, therefore,
to a legislative activity of the king himself or is it a mere (and cruel) exercise of the criminal coercitio?
From the sources we were able to study, we cannot find a unique solution: it can be concluded that
the passage of Augustine on the octo genera poenarum is not attributable tout court to the Twelve Tables
and that the text of Isidore who assigned their introduction to Tarquin could be tentatively included
among the sources concerning the leges regiae, at least in the same way as the others, collected in the
anthology directed by Franciosi.
biblohaus BH a cura di ugo petronio e oliviero diliberto prefazione di massimo gatta SCRITTI DI S... more biblohaus BH a cura di ugo petronio e oliviero diliberto prefazione di massimo gatta SCRITTI DI STORIA DEL DIRITTO E BIBLIOGRAFIA GIURIDICA OFFERTI A GIULIANO BONFANTI rispondere a questo interrogativo, Jobbé Duval dedica entrambi i suoi lavori allo studio, come si diceva, della dottrina della q.i.t. dall'epoca anteriore ai glossatori sino al XIX secolo. In particolare, proprio i glossatori avvertirono la contraddizione esistente nelle fonti concernenti la q.i.t., oscillando tra quanti tentarono di conciliarle 9 e quanti invece avrebbero "négligèrent les textes qui les embarrassaient" 10 . Una solida dottrina sarebbe emersa tuttavia già con Bulgaro e i c.d. quattro dottori, poi ripresa da Roffredo da Benevento, Rogerio e Giovanni Bassiano, persuasi che la q.i.t. fosse un'azione autonoma finalizzata alla rescissione del testamento e alla successiva petizione di eredità. Questa teoria sarebbe stata seguita, secondo Jobbé Duval, da Azzone, Ugolino dei Presbiteri, Accursio e Odofredo, raccogliendo così le maggiori adesioni tra la seconda metà del dodicesimo secolo e il tredicesimo 11 . I giureconsulti del quattordicesimo e quindicesimo secolo avrebbero seguito la dottrina degli ultimi glossatori 12 , ma -proprio a cavallo tra quattordicesimo e quindicesimo secolo -accade un evento importante ai fini dello studio sulla q.i.t.:
Books by Daniela Di Ottavio
The tormented origin of querela inofficiosi testamenti is
dealt with an innovative point of view... more The tormented origin of querela inofficiosi testamenti is
dealt with an innovative point of view. The work starts up from
the exegesis of a jurisprudential fragment (D. 29.2.60 of Javolenus,
which includes Labeo’s opinion) and of two well known
rhetorical texts (Cic. 2.50.148 and Rhet. ad Her. 1.13.23) which
allow to fix the birth of the action in the I century b.C. and to reveal
the tight connection between the rhetorical world and the
practice of accusing of insanity the testator who would draw up
dispositions contra officium. Through the analysis of numerous
hereditary cases, the work concludes that the recognition of de
cuius insanity seems to be entrusted to objective considerations
related to the same testament tone: if correctly drawn up, with
the heir institution of sons, it is considered perfectly valid and effective, also in presence of a real de cuius mental pathology; if, vice versa, the testament presents disinheritances or preteritions contra officium pietatis, it can be attached as if the testator was (artificially) mad (tamquam demens fuisset).
Uploads
Papers by Daniela Di Ottavio
This work observes the phenomenon of the res object of occupation from a new perspective which, starting from the exegetical analysis of the sources in which mention of the res nullius and res nullius in bonis is made, proposes a rereading of the well-known formula ‘quod enim
nullius est, natural ratione occupants conceditur’ contained in D. 41.1.3pr. (Gai 2 rer. cott.), identifying more specifically the original objects of occupation only in the animalia and in the res hostium (including the liberae personae).
Questa è la sintesi di un noto brano della Rudens di Plauto (vv. 973 ss.), già al centro di un dibattito sul significato da attribuire all'espressione 'manum adserere ' e cioè se essa debba intendersi come riferita esclusivamente ad una causa liberalis o anche più in generale ad un'azione di rivendica.
Attraverso una lettura giuridica della commedia in esame e di altri testi plautini nei quali compare l'espressione 'manum adserere', sembrerebbe emergere un quadro variegato, in cui i significati originariamente prospettati (causa liberalis , actio in rem ) non si collocano in via alternativa fra loro, ma sembrano essere - al contrario - entrambi presenti e accomunati verosimilmente dal significato dell'espressione in argomento, ovvero il toccare con la mano la res litigiosa o la persona sul cui status si discuteva. Dall'analisi emerge, peraltro, un aspetto che preme sottolineare: i protagonisti delle commedie plautine portano in scena sovente delle vere e proprie questioni giuridiche, impiegando
frequentemente la relativa terminologia tecnica (per fare solo l'esempio della Rudens: occupatio , res communes omnium, l’arbiter , lo scambio delle vindicationes): il che fa pensare che il pubblico del commediografo fosse in grado di comprendere, almeno in larga misura, il significato di quanto veniva rappresentato.
A vidulum , fished out to sea following a shipwreck, raises a quarrel between the fisherman Gripus (who found it) and Trachalio (his antagonist who intends to recover a cistellula contained there for his dominus) about who owns and to what extent the property of the thing.
This is the synthesis of a well known piece by the Rudens of Plauto (vv. 973 ss.), already at the center of a debate on the meaning to be attributed to the expression ' manum adserere ' and that is whether it should be understood as referring exclusively to a causa liberalis or even more in general to a claim action.
Through a legal reading of the play under consideration and other plautine texts in which the expression ' manum adserere ' appears, a varied picture would appear to emerge, in which the
originally hypothesized meanings ( causa liberalis , actio in rem ) do not emerge alternately, but they seem to be both present and they're united by the meaning of the expression, that is to touch with the hand the res litigiosa or the person on whose s tatus there was a discussion.
The analysis also shows an aspect that is important to emphasize: the protagonists of the plautine comedies often bring to the stage real legal questions, frequently employing the relevant technical terminology (to make only the example of the Rudens: occupatio, res communes omnium, the arbiter, the exchange of vindicationes): which suggests that the playwright's audience was able to understand, at least to a large extent, the significance of what was represented.
us. Isidore (etym. 5.27.4), though reporting verbatim the list of punishments - introduced as legibus - which we read in Augustine, when the latter describes them individually, attributes the introduction of lautumiae, tormenta, fustes, metalla and of the exile (etym. 5.27.23) to Tarquin the Proud: the source of Isidore, for this assignment, is supposedly the Chronograph of the year 354. The kingdom of the
Proud is, as it is known, characterized by brutality and despotism, and marked by a peculiar “creativity”
in devising tortures and punishments. In particular, the news of the use of the plebeians in “forced labor” for the construction of public works is widely attested in the sources, since Cassio Emina. But Isidore places the introduction of the mentioned punishments, by Tarquin, among those provided
in legibus. Now, in the compilation of leges regiae directed by Franciosi more than a few regulations are attributed (as opposed to the past) to the last king, but - among them – there is no appearance of what is contained in the story of Isidore: the introduction of those punishments is due, therefore,
to a legislative activity of the king himself or is it a mere (and cruel) exercise of the criminal coercitio?
From the sources we were able to study, we cannot find a unique solution: it can be concluded that
the passage of Augustine on the octo genera poenarum is not attributable tout court to the Twelve Tables
and that the text of Isidore who assigned their introduction to Tarquin could be tentatively included
among the sources concerning the leges regiae, at least in the same way as the others, collected in the
anthology directed by Franciosi.
Books by Daniela Di Ottavio
dealt with an innovative point of view. The work starts up from
the exegesis of a jurisprudential fragment (D. 29.2.60 of Javolenus,
which includes Labeo’s opinion) and of two well known
rhetorical texts (Cic. 2.50.148 and Rhet. ad Her. 1.13.23) which
allow to fix the birth of the action in the I century b.C. and to reveal
the tight connection between the rhetorical world and the
practice of accusing of insanity the testator who would draw up
dispositions contra officium. Through the analysis of numerous
hereditary cases, the work concludes that the recognition of de
cuius insanity seems to be entrusted to objective considerations
related to the same testament tone: if correctly drawn up, with
the heir institution of sons, it is considered perfectly valid and effective, also in presence of a real de cuius mental pathology; if, vice versa, the testament presents disinheritances or preteritions contra officium pietatis, it can be attached as if the testator was (artificially) mad (tamquam demens fuisset).
This work observes the phenomenon of the res object of occupation from a new perspective which, starting from the exegetical analysis of the sources in which mention of the res nullius and res nullius in bonis is made, proposes a rereading of the well-known formula ‘quod enim
nullius est, natural ratione occupants conceditur’ contained in D. 41.1.3pr. (Gai 2 rer. cott.), identifying more specifically the original objects of occupation only in the animalia and in the res hostium (including the liberae personae).
Questa è la sintesi di un noto brano della Rudens di Plauto (vv. 973 ss.), già al centro di un dibattito sul significato da attribuire all'espressione 'manum adserere ' e cioè se essa debba intendersi come riferita esclusivamente ad una causa liberalis o anche più in generale ad un'azione di rivendica.
Attraverso una lettura giuridica della commedia in esame e di altri testi plautini nei quali compare l'espressione 'manum adserere', sembrerebbe emergere un quadro variegato, in cui i significati originariamente prospettati (causa liberalis , actio in rem ) non si collocano in via alternativa fra loro, ma sembrano essere - al contrario - entrambi presenti e accomunati verosimilmente dal significato dell'espressione in argomento, ovvero il toccare con la mano la res litigiosa o la persona sul cui status si discuteva. Dall'analisi emerge, peraltro, un aspetto che preme sottolineare: i protagonisti delle commedie plautine portano in scena sovente delle vere e proprie questioni giuridiche, impiegando
frequentemente la relativa terminologia tecnica (per fare solo l'esempio della Rudens: occupatio , res communes omnium, l’arbiter , lo scambio delle vindicationes): il che fa pensare che il pubblico del commediografo fosse in grado di comprendere, almeno in larga misura, il significato di quanto veniva rappresentato.
A vidulum , fished out to sea following a shipwreck, raises a quarrel between the fisherman Gripus (who found it) and Trachalio (his antagonist who intends to recover a cistellula contained there for his dominus) about who owns and to what extent the property of the thing.
This is the synthesis of a well known piece by the Rudens of Plauto (vv. 973 ss.), already at the center of a debate on the meaning to be attributed to the expression ' manum adserere ' and that is whether it should be understood as referring exclusively to a causa liberalis or even more in general to a claim action.
Through a legal reading of the play under consideration and other plautine texts in which the expression ' manum adserere ' appears, a varied picture would appear to emerge, in which the
originally hypothesized meanings ( causa liberalis , actio in rem ) do not emerge alternately, but they seem to be both present and they're united by the meaning of the expression, that is to touch with the hand the res litigiosa or the person on whose s tatus there was a discussion.
The analysis also shows an aspect that is important to emphasize: the protagonists of the plautine comedies often bring to the stage real legal questions, frequently employing the relevant technical terminology (to make only the example of the Rudens: occupatio, res communes omnium, the arbiter, the exchange of vindicationes): which suggests that the playwright's audience was able to understand, at least to a large extent, the significance of what was represented.
us. Isidore (etym. 5.27.4), though reporting verbatim the list of punishments - introduced as legibus - which we read in Augustine, when the latter describes them individually, attributes the introduction of lautumiae, tormenta, fustes, metalla and of the exile (etym. 5.27.23) to Tarquin the Proud: the source of Isidore, for this assignment, is supposedly the Chronograph of the year 354. The kingdom of the
Proud is, as it is known, characterized by brutality and despotism, and marked by a peculiar “creativity”
in devising tortures and punishments. In particular, the news of the use of the plebeians in “forced labor” for the construction of public works is widely attested in the sources, since Cassio Emina. But Isidore places the introduction of the mentioned punishments, by Tarquin, among those provided
in legibus. Now, in the compilation of leges regiae directed by Franciosi more than a few regulations are attributed (as opposed to the past) to the last king, but - among them – there is no appearance of what is contained in the story of Isidore: the introduction of those punishments is due, therefore,
to a legislative activity of the king himself or is it a mere (and cruel) exercise of the criminal coercitio?
From the sources we were able to study, we cannot find a unique solution: it can be concluded that
the passage of Augustine on the octo genera poenarum is not attributable tout court to the Twelve Tables
and that the text of Isidore who assigned their introduction to Tarquin could be tentatively included
among the sources concerning the leges regiae, at least in the same way as the others, collected in the
anthology directed by Franciosi.
dealt with an innovative point of view. The work starts up from
the exegesis of a jurisprudential fragment (D. 29.2.60 of Javolenus,
which includes Labeo’s opinion) and of two well known
rhetorical texts (Cic. 2.50.148 and Rhet. ad Her. 1.13.23) which
allow to fix the birth of the action in the I century b.C. and to reveal
the tight connection between the rhetorical world and the
practice of accusing of insanity the testator who would draw up
dispositions contra officium. Through the analysis of numerous
hereditary cases, the work concludes that the recognition of de
cuius insanity seems to be entrusted to objective considerations
related to the same testament tone: if correctly drawn up, with
the heir institution of sons, it is considered perfectly valid and effective, also in presence of a real de cuius mental pathology; if, vice versa, the testament presents disinheritances or preteritions contra officium pietatis, it can be attached as if the testator was (artificially) mad (tamquam demens fuisset).