DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.51387#0010
8 PROCEEDINGS OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY
the very poor, even though he were Socrates, Diogenes, or
Pythagoras.1
II
All study of the Roman Law of Treasure begins with the
definition given by the jurisconsult Julius Paulus, writing
about a.d. 200:2 ‘Thensaurus est vetus quaedam depositio
pecuniae, cuius non extat memoria, ut iam dominum non
habeat: sic enim fit eius qui invenerit, quod non alterius sit,
alioquin siquis aliquid vel lucri causa vel metus vel custodiae
condiderit sub terra, non est thensaurus: cuius etiam furtum
fit.’—Treasure (trove) is an old deposit of money, of which
the memory is no longer extant, so that it now no longer has
a master; for thus it becomes the property of him who
has found it, because it is no one else’s. But, otherwise, if
any one has hidden something under the earth for the sake
of gain3 or because of fear or for security, it is not treasure
(trove): it may also be the object of theft.
The passage is far from clear, and parts of it are suspected
of being later interpolations.4 We will take the points one
by one.
The word which is here rendered ‘money’ is pecunia. The
general view is that^wnza means not merely coined money,
but riches, valuable possessions in general, corporeal things
1 No sounder, says B. d’Argentre {Commentarii in patr. Britonum leges,
Paris, 1614, col. 219 b) was the judgement of Apollo, who adjudged to
Socrates, as the wisest of men (instead of to the public treasury or to the
finders) the golden tripod which was found by some Milesian fishermen.
2 Dig. 41. 1. 30.
3 vel lucri causa, as de Zulueta observes {Digest, 41. 1 and 2), seems
senseless, and may be a gloss. Though W. A. Lauterbach {Collegium
Pandectarum, 41, I, 30) explains: ‘nummorum scil. pretium augeri
expectando’. Beseler {Beitrage zur Kritik der rom. Rechtsquellen), iv, 1920,
p. 162, says that what is meant is perhaps ut quod furto abstulit, lucri
faceret', but, as Appleton shows (in the article cited in the next note),
this will not do.
4 The question of interpolations is discussed most thoroughly by
C. Appleton, ‘Le Tresor et la lusta Causa Usucapionis’ in Studi in onore di
P. Bonfante, vol. iii, Pavia, 1929, pp. 1-14.
the very poor, even though he were Socrates, Diogenes, or
Pythagoras.1
II
All study of the Roman Law of Treasure begins with the
definition given by the jurisconsult Julius Paulus, writing
about a.d. 200:2 ‘Thensaurus est vetus quaedam depositio
pecuniae, cuius non extat memoria, ut iam dominum non
habeat: sic enim fit eius qui invenerit, quod non alterius sit,
alioquin siquis aliquid vel lucri causa vel metus vel custodiae
condiderit sub terra, non est thensaurus: cuius etiam furtum
fit.’—Treasure (trove) is an old deposit of money, of which
the memory is no longer extant, so that it now no longer has
a master; for thus it becomes the property of him who
has found it, because it is no one else’s. But, otherwise, if
any one has hidden something under the earth for the sake
of gain3 or because of fear or for security, it is not treasure
(trove): it may also be the object of theft.
The passage is far from clear, and parts of it are suspected
of being later interpolations.4 We will take the points one
by one.
The word which is here rendered ‘money’ is pecunia. The
general view is that^wnza means not merely coined money,
but riches, valuable possessions in general, corporeal things
1 No sounder, says B. d’Argentre {Commentarii in patr. Britonum leges,
Paris, 1614, col. 219 b) was the judgement of Apollo, who adjudged to
Socrates, as the wisest of men (instead of to the public treasury or to the
finders) the golden tripod which was found by some Milesian fishermen.
2 Dig. 41. 1. 30.
3 vel lucri causa, as de Zulueta observes {Digest, 41. 1 and 2), seems
senseless, and may be a gloss. Though W. A. Lauterbach {Collegium
Pandectarum, 41, I, 30) explains: ‘nummorum scil. pretium augeri
expectando’. Beseler {Beitrage zur Kritik der rom. Rechtsquellen), iv, 1920,
p. 162, says that what is meant is perhaps ut quod furto abstulit, lucri
faceret', but, as Appleton shows (in the article cited in the next note),
this will not do.
4 The question of interpolations is discussed most thoroughly by
C. Appleton, ‘Le Tresor et la lusta Causa Usucapionis’ in Studi in onore di
P. Bonfante, vol. iii, Pavia, 1929, pp. 1-14.