SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.20 número1Grave est fidem fallere": Vertrauensschutz im römischen RechtRiflessioni sul problema della continuità del pensiero giuridico romano, tra risalenza di discipline e modernita della loro configurazione teorica. Il caso del processo arcaico per legis actiones índice de autoresíndice de materiabúsqueda de artículos
Home Pagelista alfabética de revistas  

Servicios Personalizados

Articulo

Indicadores

Links relacionados

  • En proceso de indezaciónCitado por Google
  • En proceso de indezaciónSimilares en Google

Compartir


Fundamina

versión On-line ISSN 2411-7870

Resumen

CHORUS, Jeroen M.J.. Fundamina (Pretoria) [online]. 2014, vol.20, n.1, pp. 163-174. ISSN 2411-7870.

Until recently it was generally taught that in classical Roman law ownership could not be transferred only for a definite time or under a resolutive condition, though exceptions were allowed. That a dogma (1) of the impossibility of transfer of ownership only for a given time, and (2) of the impossibility of temporary ownership formed part of Roman law, was thought to be evidenced by two texts: Fragmenta Vaticana 283, an imperial rescript dating from 286 AD, and a Scholion to Basilica 16.1.4, taken from the commentary on the Digest by the Antecessor Stephanos (536-542 AD). As a third source one could add the interpolated version of that rescript, Codex 8.54.2. The interpretation of Fragment 283 has been the topic of considerable controversy. Recently a new explanation was proposed, which, however, is shown to have no sound foundation. The argument occasions revisiting the two texts. It is submitted that dogma 1 cannot be deduced from either of them, but that dogma 2 was known by Stephanos.

        · texto en Alemán     · Alemán ( pdf )

 

Creative Commons License All the contents of this journal, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License