![]() In conclusions, a new take of the problem is presented. XLII 3015), and finally with a fragment of a juridical work attributed to Volusius Maecianus (D. II 237), and a text concerning the testamentary freedom of the Egyptians (P. Passages from Ps.-Menander’s Epideictic T reatises and Grego- ry the Miracle-Worker’s Eulogy of Origen are confronted with the selected papy- rological evidence of apparent ‘conflict of laws’ faced by the Roman jurisdic- tion: the. View full-textįollowing the footsteps of Józef Mélèze Modrzejewski and reassess- ing his law-custom theory, the essay explores the principles of law-application under Roman law. This hypothesis seems to provide for the better understanding of the text collocation in the general title de divortiis of the Digest. Finally, a duplex interpretatio is postulated for the seven-witness procedure found at D. A new interpretation is presented in regards to the vexed problem of legitima observatio in D. In the second part, the sources, prima facie, deposing in favour of the general application the divorce procedure in D. Huber) is evaluated, with a particularly critical approach to the most recent studies of R. 24,2,9, Paul’s commentary on Julian Law on Adulteries is confronted with the fragments in which the jurisprudence addressed the troublesome issue of establishing the moment of real divorce (D. 24.2.9 and Augustean DIVORTIIS MODUM IMPONERESummaryThe present article critically reexamines the classical sources on divorce. The Formality of Divorce under the Classical Roman Law: D. This supposition, in turn, may not only provide for better understanding of Dioskoros’s juristic expertise and his practical activity, but also illustrate the apparent contradictions between the pure imperial law, the legal practice and the teaching of law, based – one may speculate – still after the codification upon the pre-codified version of the law. Subsequently the confrontation of some pre-justinianic legal sources allows to formulate a hypothesis that the justinianic compilers tried to recover the original meaning of falkidion. After an examination of the dubious cases, the postulated identification is only ascertained in case of two works of scholarly use, Epitomae Novellarum of Julian and of Athanasius of Emesa. The research of the Byzantine juristic sources proves however, that the legal texts – especially these of the Justinian’s era – almost always keep a clear distinction between these two legal institutes. Peter van Minnen thought that the notary’s seeming imprecision was rather due to his up-to-date legal education, as the Justinianic jurisprudence would have implicitly equalled the two concepts. The scholarship usually deemed the Dioskorean misconception of falkidion to have resulted from the common error of the Byzantine jurisprudence which had apparently applied it wrongly to describe legitim. III 67312), the term falkidion was applied in its classically correct meaning. ![]() ![]() III 67353 & I 67097 v° D, the Aphrodite Lawyer seems to have confused two distinct legal terms: quarta Falcidia and the portio debita/legitima (νόμιμος μοῖρα). In two deeds of disinheritation, P.Cair.Masp. – The present paper, inspired by the article of Peter van Minnen, is devoted to the somewhat curious use of the term falkidion in three Dioskorean texts.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |