Search results

Abstract

A "lucky strike"? Gaius meets Demosthenes. In D. 50,16,233,2 Gaius explains the expression telum (missile). As the fragment derives from his commentary on the twelve tables, the majority of modern scholars tends to refer this to 12 Tab. 8,12–13, which deals with the justified killing of the armed thief. But regarding the context, it seems to be more reasonable to connect the fragment with 12 Tab. 8,24a (which deals with unintended killing with a spear). This interpretation can be supported by the fact that one passage of the commentary shows great similarities with an old Athenian law that at least can be ascribed to Solon and that Gaius could have cited as he did on other occasions in his commentary.

Abstract
ὅσα τις εἶχεν - ταῦτα ἔχειν: A comparative legal study of the proclamation of the Athenian archon (eponymos): According to Athenaion Politeia 56, 2, one of the first official acts of the archon (eponymos) was his proclamation that "whatever any one possessed before he entered into office, that he shall possess and hold (ἔχειν καὶ κρατεῖν) until the end of his term". By comparing the wording of this kerygma with that of the uti possidetis-clause used in international treaties of the 5th/4th century BC, but also the wording of the Roman interdictum uti possidetis, it is this study's intention to shown that the kerygma can be interpreted as the archon's proclamation of protection of possession.

Abstract

A legal historian's perspective on fragmentary inscriptions from Lauriacum. The fragments 4 and 18 from the small corpus of Roman legal inscriptions found at Lauriacum (Lorch/Upper Austria) contain a fragmentary text of eight lines. The terminology used in the inscription is that of a municipal law, and so the first commentators tried to identify the whole inscription as an extract from the Lex Flavia municipalis, although both fragments do not show a literal accordance to a rubric of this lex. As it will be seen, the fragments on the one hand concern the iurisdictio of municipal magistrates. On the other hand, the words usus captio, which can be read in line 7 of the tablet, have provoked a broad discussion among legal historians, who tried to explain, why the usucapio, an institution of the ius civile, could have been mentioned in this provincial context. In the last 40 years the Lex Lauriacensis has not been in the focus of Roman lawyers, and it has never been subject of a detailed commentary. Because of that, the text of the inscription and its possible additions shall be reconsidered and commentated in the following interdisciplinary study.