Academic literature on the topic 'Lex Julia et Papia'

Con el presente trabajo de investigación hemos analizado la importancia de las leyes matrimoniales promulgadas por el emperador Augusto, su idea de romanidad, así como la posterior evolución postclásica ya con Constantino I. En este sentido, se ha demostrado cómo tanto la Lex Iulia de maritandis ordinibus como la Lex Papia Poppaea nuptialis formaron un solo texto denominado Lex Iulia et Papia Poppaea cuya finalidad fue la restauración de la familia sobre la base de las tradiciones para desarrollar una política que favoreciese las uniones lícitamente contraídas y la procreación. Lo anterior nos llevará a reparar en los matrimonios romanos ilegales, esto es, aquellas uniones conyugales carentes del conubium que no producían efectos jurídicos y se consideraban como un matrimonium iniustum. Finalmente, hemos preferido diferenciar entre los matrimonios iniustum inexistentes y los nulos o ineficaces porque presentan supuestos distintos y en las fuentes no existe una diferenciación clara.With this research we have analyzed the importance of matrimonial laws promulgated by emperor Augustus, his idea of romanity, as well as the subsequent post-classical evolution already with Constantine I. In this sense, it has been demonstrated how both the Lex Iulia de maritandis ordinibus and the Lex Papia Poppaea nuptialis formed a single text called Lex Iulia et Papia Poppaea whose purpose was the Restoration of the family on the basis of traditions to develop a policy that favored lawfully contracted unions and procreation. This will lead us to repair illegal roman marriages, that is, those marital unions lacking conubium and, therefore, did not produce legal effects and were considered as a matrimonium iniustum. Finally, we have preferred to differentiate between non-existent iniustum marriages and null or ineffective marriages because they present different assumptions and in the sources there is no clear differentiation.

The ratio behind the prohibition for spouses to donate to each other. Monopolising matrimonial property law in the dotal system. The present inquiry is based on the premise that the riddle of the highly contested rationale of the prohibition of donations between spouses can only be solved by taking into account the legal basis of this prohibition. The classical jurists treated the prohibition within the ius dotium, shorthand for ‘matrimonial property regime’, a legal matter heavily transformed by the lex Iulia et Papia which followed the goal of inciting the upper class to get married which would guarantee the desired offspring and control over the Emperor’s subjects. Considering the palingenetic context of the treatises on the prohibition, the lex Iulia et Papia is to be considered the legal basis of the prohibition which, therefore, has the purpose of channelling all economical transactions between the spouses into the ius dotium which in turn serves the goals of the lex Iulia et Papia. To sum it up: The prohibition was another legal ordinance in Augustus’ arsenal serving his fight for moral renewal, that is to say limitation of civil liberties, and the consolidation of his power.

Under the reign of Augustus’ successors both lex Iulia et Papia as well as lex Iulia de adulteriis coercendis were subject to changes. Lex Iulia et Papia imposed an obligation to remain in the state of matrimony for men and women until a certain age limit; if the men were past this age limit negative consequences of avoiding the binding orders came no longer into consideration. SC Pernicianum extended the said consequences over people well advanced in years who earlier had not met the requirements of the law. SC Claudianum attempted at softening the sternness of the changes but only in relation to men since according to SC Calvisianum women were excluded from it. However, the reasons for enacting these SC seem to have departed from the intensions propagated by Augustus. New regulations aimed at only fiscal reasons and partially (SC Claudianum) personal situation of the Princeps. Application of lex Iulia de adulteriis was also gradually changed. Tiberius increased the punishability of facts recognized as crimes by the act and extended its application over new facts. Whereas Caligula abrogated punishability of facts falling under the notion of lenocinium and imposed taxes on them instead.

Kryzys obyczajowo-społeczny w państwie rzymskim rozpoczął się już za czasów Republiki Rzymskiej i przyczynił się do jej upadku. Lex Iulia et Papia to zbiór ustaw wprowadzonych po upadku rzeczypospolitej, za panowania Oktawiana Augusta. Ustawy te miały na celu zwalczenie kryzysu społeczno-obyczajowego poprzez przywrócenie dawnych obyczajów, formy rodziny rzymskiej, dzietności oraz zwalczenie cudzołóstwa. Co prawda reforma Augusta nie odniosła skutków na oczekiwaną skalę, jednak jak wskazują historycy miała swoją wartość we wzmocnieniu moralnym społeczeństwa i dała podwaliny późniejszemu rozkwitowi kulturalnemu i gospodarczemu.

THE SITUATION OF ACTORS AND ACTRESSES IN ROMAN MARRIAGE LAW Summary The people of the stage held a very peculiar position in Rome. This was true especially for the women of the theatre. For a long time in ancien Rome actresses fell in the category of feminae probrosae and were treated like other women subject to it. This did not change until the postclassical law when the emperors made it possible for actresses who abandoned their dishonourable profession to clear their name. This option was unavailable to other feminae probrosae. In the late 19th and 20th century the theory of the marital ineligibility of actresses and other feminae probrosae, based on the work of Savigny, was widespread in Romanistic doctrine. Some scholars even spoke of an enforced celibacy. However, it seems that this hypothesis is untenable. The status of actors and actresses in marriage law undoubtedly changed in the course of time. The regulations of the lex Iulia et Papia prohibited actresses from marrying men from the senatorial order, and perhaps all freeborn men. Under the lex Iulia et Papia this kind of union was not regarded as marriage and the couple were treated as unmarried (coelibes); consequently, they did not enjoy the privileges of the married and were subject to penalties. It seems, however, that notwithstanding such prohibitions, once concluded a marriage was treated as legal and valid iure civili. Subsequent emperors made significant changes in this regulation. From the sources preserved it is very hard to conclude how actors were treated by the law. We may safely assume that at least from the time of Augustus’ legislation onwards they could not marry women from the senatorial order. Whether this ban was abolished and if so when, remains a mystery. The Emperor Justinian is known to have permitted ex-actresses and their daughters to marry legally without the need to obtain permission from the emperor. Their position was exceptional – unlike other feminae probrosae they could have their reputation restored and marry persons of the senatorial order, first after gaining the consent of the emperor, later without it. It was a significant difference in relation to the classical law and might have resulted from the personal situation of the Emperor Justinian.

En voulant encourager les Romains à posséder plusieurs descendants Auguste prevoya les nom breux privilèges pour ceux qui avaient des enfants; Les hommes possédant des descendants avaient une position privilégiée dans le droit public (Gell. 2.15.4—6; Tac. Ann.2 .51; D. 4.2.2);. les époux qui avaient au moins un enfant regagnaient la capacitas totale dans le droit des successions. Mais c’est seulement lorsqu’on avait trois enfants qu’on recevait des privilèges spéciaux dans le domaine du froit civil. Ius trium liberorum concernait aussi bien les femmes que les hommes (Ep. Ulp. 16.1 a). L’homme ne pouvait se référer qu’aux enfants nés en iustum matrimonium (Paul. Sent. 4.8.4), tandis que la femme, depuis les temps de Claudius, pouvait se référer aussi aux enfants vulgo quaesiti (D. 38.17.2.1 conf. avec I. 3.3.1). La femme qui possédait trois enfants était exempte de protection (G. 1.145); elle était exempte du devoir de se remarie; en dépit de lex Voconia elle était égalisée le droit des successions avec les hommes (G. 2.274; Paul. Sent. 4.8.20) et a obtenu, probablement depuis Claudius, selon I. 3.3.1 la possibilité d’hériter de ses enfants. La latine recevait en plus la nationalité romaine (Paul. Sent. 4.9.8; Ep. Ulp. 3.1). Les deux époux qui possédaient trois enfants, même décédés, récupéraient envers eux mêm es la pleine capacitas dans le droit des successions; en outre la situation d’affranchi s’améliora (G. 3.42). L’homme pouvait s’abstenir de muneribus civilibus (D. 50.5.2.1; I. 1.25 pr.). La législation d’Auguste accorda ce privilège aux personnes qui pouvait se féféreir à ses descendants naturals, mais on prenait également en considération les enfants adoptés (Gell. 2.15.4; Tac. Ann. 15.19). Dans le cours du temps on commença à accorder ce privilège aux personnes particulières, mais Claudius l’accorda pour la première fois aux groupes entiers — aux soldat, en 44 de n. è. (Dio Cass. 60.24.3), en 51 aux femmes construisant des vaisseaux (Svet. Claud. 18.2— 19 conf. avec G. 1.32 c et Tac. Ann. 12.43.1); Prévu par lex Iulia et Papia vacatio (Ep. Ulp. 14) Claudius étendit sur les hommes qui s’occupaient de la construction des vaisseaux (Svet. Claud. 19). Ius trium liberorum fut formellement supprim é seulement en 410 (C. Th. 8.17.2 = C. I. 8.57.2).

LEGAL CHARACTER OF THE PROHIBITION AGAINST ALIENATION OF DOWRY IMMOVABLES IN THE CLASSICAL ROMAN LAWSummary The well known lex Iulia de fundo dotali prohibited alienation of a Italian land being part of a dowry without women’s consent. The very meaning of this prohibition attracted very much attention of the Roman law scholars in the 20th century. The problem was as follows: was the disposition in breach of the lex Julia null and void (absolute nullity), or was it only voidable by the woman (respective nullity) after the dissolution of her marriage. The later opinion seems to be dominating in 20th century writings on Roman law, since Pierre Noailles had advocated it in his book L’inaliénabilité dotale et la Novelle 61 (Grenoble, 1919). It was subsequently affirmated by such emminent authors like Fritz Pringsheim or Paul Koschaker and became ‘canonic’ oppinion among Roman law scholars. The problem in itself was alien to Romans knowing no difference between absoluteand respective nullity of a disposition, but it looks like, virtual position of Romanlaw in this respect, was not the most attractive to modern scholars. The present paper re-considers the issue taking slightly different departurepoint to that of Noailles and his followers. In the first instance, the category of leges – as regards sanctio of their prohibitory provisions – to which the lex Iulia de fundo dotali belongs is settled. Than the issue, who is entitled to vindicate the land alienated in breach of the lex Iulia, is analysed as well as possibility of convalidation of the invalid disposition. Finally it is considered, whether the statutory provision affected only real transfer of property or it frustrated already husband’s very ability to make a valid contract of sale. In effect, the argument of the present paper is as follows: alienation fundi dotalis without wife’s consent, was beyond any reasonable doubt null and void. Being still the owner of illegally alienated immovables, the husband was bound to vindicate them. For that very reason, he was not able to transfer free and unimpeded possession of the land to the unfortunate purchaser. Consequently, it was not only alienation of the land in dowry, which was null and void by virtue of the lex Iulia de fundo dotali, but also the very contract of it’s sale. Above findings require, the theory of “relative nullity” (i.e. voidability or rescindibility), as advocated by Noailles, Prinzheim and Koschaker, is to be rejected.