scholarly journals Isidorus Hispalensis. Etymologies sive origins. Liber V. De legibus et temporibus

2021 ◽  
pp. 433-443
Keyword(s):  
Roman Law ◽  
De Legibus ◽  
Isidore Of Seville

Публикуется перевод первой части пятой книги «Этимологий» –энциклопедического сочинения Исидора Севильского (560–636), последнего из латинских отцов церкви, епископа Севильи. Труд Исидора покоится в зна-чительной мере на римской антикварно-грамматической и энциклопедической традиции и сам стал фундаментом средневекового энциклопедизма, однако эта часть пятой книги опирается, прежде всего, на римские правовые источни-ки. В полном объеме переводится на русский язык впервые. В предисловии даются краткие сведения о ее структуре и источниках. The publication is a translation of the fifth book (first part) of a well-known encyclopaedic work (“The Etymologies”) devoted to the laws and times written by Isidore of Seville (560–636), a bishop of Seville. Isidore’s work is based mostly upon the Roman antiquarian, grammatic and encyclopaedic tradition and the work itself became the basis of a medieval encyclopaedic tradition, but its first part based on the sources of the Roman law. The book has never been translated into Russian in full. The preface gives brief data on its structure and sources.

A Romano-Canonical Maxim, ‘quod omnes tangit,’ in Bracton

Traditio ◽  
1946 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 197-251 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gaines Post
Keyword(s):  
Thirteenth Century ◽  
Roman Law ◽  
Legal Procedure ◽  
De Legibus ◽  
Legal Meaning

Interest in the problem of Roman law in Henry de Bracton's De legibus et consuetudinibus Angliae has recently started up with renewed vigor and with increasing emphasis upon the European rather than insular character of his treatise and upon the necessity of studying it ‘within the framework of the European legal (especially legistic and canonistic) literature of his time.’ But among the important elements of Roman law in Bracton the familiar maxim, ‘quod omnes similiter tangit, ab omnibus comprobetur’ (the words of Justinian, C. 5, 59, 5 §2), has been overlooked. In this study I wish to show how Bracton was influenced by the maxim (henceforth referred to simply as q. o. t. — quod omnes tangit), and how his acceptance of it may have some significance for its appearance in royal writs by which communities were summoned to send representatives to Parliament. For towards the end of the thirteenth century and later, the kings of England and France, when they needed extraordinary taxes or national support in quarrels with Pope Boniface VIII and consequently had to obtain the consent of great nobles, prelates and communities of lesser free men, sometimes stated in the preamble to summonses to an assembly that the cause of the convocation was a serious or difficult business (ardua negotia) touching (contingentia or tangentia) both king and kingdom. The presence of tangere or contingere in a context of the kind resulted, although students of representation have not observed it, from the influence of q.o.t. as an equitable principle in legal procedure—this will become apparent after the legal meaning and the terminology current in the thirteenth century are examined.

Ius dictum est a iure possidendo: Law and Rights in Decretales, 5.40.12

1987 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 457-466 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Tierney
Keyword(s):  
Civil Law ◽  
Major Work ◽  
De Legibus ◽  
Isidore Of Seville ◽  
Francisco Suarez ◽  
Strict Definition ◽  
Divine Law

Francisco Suarez devoted the opening chapter of his major work, De legibus ac Deo legislatore, to definitions of the words lex (law) and ius (right). In one sense, he wrote, ius could mean the same as lex, as in phrases like ius civile (civil law) or ius divinum (divine law). But there were other meanings too. In discussing them, Suarez quoted Isidore of Seville, ‘Ius is so called because it is just’, and Augustine, ‘What is done by right (iure) is done justly’—two texts that earlier had been incorporated into the medieval Corpus iuris canonici. According to this etymology, Suarez wrote, ius could mean ‘the just and fair’ or ‘what is prescribed by law’. Then Suarez presented a third, ‘strict’ definition.

scholarly journals Nowożytne próby rekonstrukcji ustawy XII Tablic

1994 ◽  
Vol 37 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 59-67
Author(s):  
Maria Zabłocka
Keyword(s):  
Roman Law ◽  
Special Interests ◽  
De Legibus

Legal humanism brought special interests in the Roman law sources that are earlier than the Justinian’s codification. It was focused on the Twelve Tables statute - the oldest legal source. Aymarus Rivallius and Alexander ab Alexandro combined its elements, but did not make an effort to reconstruct the composition. Johann Oldendorp only formally related to the statute. In the matter of fact, the order of his reconstruction was based on the Cicero’s classification of branches of law into ius sacrum, ius publicum and ius privatum, that was presented in his De legibus. Earlier, the very same scheme was used in the reconstruction of Hotomanus and in that of Corpus Iuris Civilis, Lugduni 1600. The latter reconstruction made the Twelve Tables better known to the broad public and enhanced reaserches on the oldest legal source of Roman law.

Without the Power to Drink or Contract

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-48
Author(s):  
Warren Swain
Keyword(s):  
Alcohol Consumption ◽  
Social Activity ◽  
Individual Responsibility ◽  
Roman Law ◽  
Current Position ◽  
Modern Times ◽  
The Will ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Law ◽  
Over Time

Intoxication as a ground to set aside a contract is not something that has proved to be easy for the law to regulate. This is perhaps not very surprising. Intoxication is a temporary condition of varying degrees of magnitude. Its presence does however raise questions of contractual autonomy and individual responsibility. Alcohol consumption is a common social activity and perceptions of intoxication and especially alcoholism have changed over time. Roman law is surprisingly quiet on the subject. In modern times the rules about intoxicated contracting in Scottish and English law is very similar. Rather more interestingly the law in these two jurisdictions has reached the current position in slightly different ways. This history can be traced through English Equity, the works of the Scottish Institutional writers, the rise of the Will Theory, and all leavened with a dose of judicial pragmatism.

A Comparative Overview of the Fair Wear and Tear Exception: the Duty of Holders of Temporary Interests to Preserve Property

2002 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-100
Author(s):  
Raffaele Caterina
Keyword(s):  
Common Core ◽  
Complete Solution ◽  
Roman Law ◽  
Private Ownership ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Personal Rights ◽  
Wear And Tear ◽  
Long Life ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Relationship

“A system of private ownership must provide for something more sophisticated than absolute ownership of the property by one person. A property owner needs to be able to do more than own it during his lifetime and pass it on to someone else on his death.”1 Those who own things with a long life quite naturally feel the urge to deal in segments of time. Most of the owner's ambitions in respect of time can be met by the law of contract. But contract does not offer a complete solution, since contracts create only personal rights. Certain of the owner's legitimate wishes can be achieved only if the law allows them to be given effect in rem—that is, as proprietary rights. Legal systems have responded differently to the need for proprietary rights limited in time. Roman law created usufruct and other iura in re aliena; English law created different legal estates. Every system has faced similar problems. One issue has been the extent to which the holder of a limited interest should be restricted in his or her use and enjoyment in order to protect the holders of other interests in the same thing. A common core of principles regulates the relationship between those who hold temporary interests and the reversioners. For instance, every system forbids holder of the possessory interest to damage the thing arbitrarily. But other rules are more controversial. This study focuses upon the rules which do not forbid, but compel, certain courses of action.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document