The Roman Law course will be carried out through the analysis and discussion of specific cases. In particular, problems arising from each case will be treated in a diachronic comparative perspective, making comparisons between the approach adopted by Roman jurists and the contemporary legal regime, with specific regard to the Italian and other European legal systems.
The first part of the course will be focused to an in-depth study of the casuistic method, in relation with the analysis of the role of the “regula iuris” held in the Roman jurisprudence, which followed the development of the Roman legal system up to the post-classical period. With specific regard to the evolution of the sources of Roman law, the study will take a close look at the main stages of history of jurisprudence.
The second part will be focused to the study of specific problems of the contractual area: specially well be treated the creation of legal protection of the buyer and the leaser for the defects f the thing, through the analysis of jurisprudential solutions about concret casuistic.
The first part of the course will be focused to an in-depth study of the casuistic method, in relation with the analysis of the role of the “regula iuris” held in the Roman jurisprudence, which followed the development of the Roman legal system up to the post-classical period. With specific regard to the evolution of the sources of Roman law, the study will take a close look at the main stages of history of jurisprudence.
The second part will be focused to the study of specific problems of the contractual area: specially well be treated the creation of legal protection of the buyer and the leaser for the defects f the thing, through the analysis of jurisprudential solutions about concret casuistic.
teacher profile teaching materials
2) G. DIÓSDI, Ownership in Preclassical and Classical Roman Law, Budapest 1971, pp. 121-127; 131-148; 166-179;
3) M. KASER, The Concept of Roman Ownership, in «Tydskrif vir Hedendaagse Romeins-Hollandse Reg. Journal of Contemporary Roman-Dutch Law», 27 (1964), 5-19;
4) D. LIEBS, Biographical Matters about Gaius, in U. BABUSIAUX – D. MANTOVANI (a cura di), Le Istituzioni di Gaio: avventure di un bestseller. Trasmissione, uso e trasformazione del testo, Pavia 2020, pp. 3-28.
5) D. PUGSLEY, Gaius or Sextus Pomponius, in «RIDA», 61 (1994), pp. 353-367;
6) T. HONORÉ, Gaius. A Biography, Oxford 1962, 97-116;
7) P. STEIN, The Development of the Notion of ‘naturalis ratio’, in A. WATSON (ed.) Daube Noster. Essays in Legal History for David Daube, Edimburgh 1974, pp. 305-316;
8) E. LEVY, Natural law in the Roman period, in Natural Law Institute Proceedings, II, Notre Dame 1949, pp. 43-72;
9) P. VANDER WAERDT, Philosophical Influence on Roman Jurisprudence? The Case of Stoicism and Natural Law, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, II.36.7, Berlin – New York 1994, pp. 4851-4900;
Programme
The course examines the genesis and mutual interference of the concepts of ‘nature’, ‘reason’ and ‘property’ in Gaius, with particular attention to the modes of acquisition of property, which the Roman jurist – perhaps taking up in his ‘Institutes’ (2,65) a suggestion of Aristotelian philosophy – distinguishes into ‘civil’ and ‘natural’: the former based on ‘civil law’ (ius civile), as the ‘proper law of Roman citizens’ (ius proprium civitatis), the latter founded on ‘natural reason’ (naturalis ratio), synonimous with ‘natural law’ (ius naturale). In Justinian’s Digest (D. 41.1 de adquirendo rerum dominio), Gaius’ classification appears re-proposed with notable variations: taken from the Libri rerum cottidianarum sive aureorum, it omits any reference to ius naturale and proposes solutions that are sometimes divergent from the parallel passages in the Institutiones. The fruit of a possible Gaian rethinking about property or a post-classical reworking, the Res cottidianae testify, however, that Roman jurists, when dealing with the acquisition of property, did not technically distinguish between original and derivative acquisitions.Core Documentation
1) E. POSTE, ‘Gai Institutiones’ or Institutes of Roman Law by Gaius, Oxford 1904, pp. 133-168;2) G. DIÓSDI, Ownership in Preclassical and Classical Roman Law, Budapest 1971, pp. 121-127; 131-148; 166-179;
3) M. KASER, The Concept of Roman Ownership, in «Tydskrif vir Hedendaagse Romeins-Hollandse Reg. Journal of Contemporary Roman-Dutch Law», 27 (1964), 5-19;
4) D. LIEBS, Biographical Matters about Gaius, in U. BABUSIAUX – D. MANTOVANI (a cura di), Le Istituzioni di Gaio: avventure di un bestseller. Trasmissione, uso e trasformazione del testo, Pavia 2020, pp. 3-28.
5) D. PUGSLEY, Gaius or Sextus Pomponius, in «RIDA», 61 (1994), pp. 353-367;
6) T. HONORÉ, Gaius. A Biography, Oxford 1962, 97-116;
7) P. STEIN, The Development of the Notion of ‘naturalis ratio’, in A. WATSON (ed.) Daube Noster. Essays in Legal History for David Daube, Edimburgh 1974, pp. 305-316;
8) E. LEVY, Natural law in the Roman period, in Natural Law Institute Proceedings, II, Notre Dame 1949, pp. 43-72;
9) P. VANDER WAERDT, Philosophical Influence on Roman Jurisprudence? The Case of Stoicism and Natural Law, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, II.36.7, Berlin – New York 1994, pp. 4851-4900;
Attendance
Course attendance is optional; however, it is recommendedType of evaluation
Written exam