DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.51387#0011
TREASURE-TROVE 9
having a money value.1 An attempt has been made2 to
explain the use pecunia here and monilia in later legislation,
by saying that earlier hoards consisted normally of current
coin, while in the age of decadence hoards containing
precious ornaments began to turn up, such as are now found
in archaeological excavations. The fact is otherwise, to
wit, that all primitive peoples are familiar with the use of
precious ornaments as currency, and to the earlier law
anything in the way of torques and bracelets would be
recognizable under the term pecunia. But later writers had
become familiar with a restricted use of pecunia, as coined
money, and therefore a word representing ornaments, moni-
lia, had to be inserted in order to cover the whole content
of thesaurus. Precious ornaments must have been no less
common in the older hoards than in those more recently
discovered.
Limitations of the definition of treasure-trove in respect
of the preciousness of the material will be considered as
they arise. Here it is sufficient to say that the general notion
that gold belongs to the king has prevailed at all times.3 In
antiquity it is expressed in the Aesopic Fable of the Dog,
the Treasure and the Vulture.4 Tamerlane is sometimes
said to have claimed for his treasury any money bearing
the effigy of the King. He did not state his claim so
positively; he merely refused to claim, from a peasant who
had found it, a hoard of gold coins bearing the effigy of a
Roman Emperor, saying that the effigy was not that of one
1 Pagenstecher, Rom. Lehre v. Eigenthum. ii, p. 81; cp. Lauterbach,
loc. cit.: ‘sumitur late pro omni re in patrimonio existente, corporali,
sive incorporali, mobili, sive immobili; stricte pro re fungibili; strictis-
sime, pro nummis, vel auro & argento signato. Hoc loco significat res
mobiles, & quidem pretiosas; & sic excluduntur res incorporales,
immobiles & viles.’
2 Bonfante in Melanges P. F. Girard, i, 1912, p. 139; cf. the same, Corso
di Diritto Romano, ii (2), 1926, p. 97.
3 R. Choppin, De domanio Franciae (Frankf. a. M., 1701), ii, tit. 5,
cap. 9, p. 145a. P. Viollet, lhahlissements de Saint Louis, iv, p. 54f.
4 Regales opes. Phaedr. i. 27.
XIX B
having a money value.1 An attempt has been made2 to
explain the use pecunia here and monilia in later legislation,
by saying that earlier hoards consisted normally of current
coin, while in the age of decadence hoards containing
precious ornaments began to turn up, such as are now found
in archaeological excavations. The fact is otherwise, to
wit, that all primitive peoples are familiar with the use of
precious ornaments as currency, and to the earlier law
anything in the way of torques and bracelets would be
recognizable under the term pecunia. But later writers had
become familiar with a restricted use of pecunia, as coined
money, and therefore a word representing ornaments, moni-
lia, had to be inserted in order to cover the whole content
of thesaurus. Precious ornaments must have been no less
common in the older hoards than in those more recently
discovered.
Limitations of the definition of treasure-trove in respect
of the preciousness of the material will be considered as
they arise. Here it is sufficient to say that the general notion
that gold belongs to the king has prevailed at all times.3 In
antiquity it is expressed in the Aesopic Fable of the Dog,
the Treasure and the Vulture.4 Tamerlane is sometimes
said to have claimed for his treasury any money bearing
the effigy of the King. He did not state his claim so
positively; he merely refused to claim, from a peasant who
had found it, a hoard of gold coins bearing the effigy of a
Roman Emperor, saying that the effigy was not that of one
1 Pagenstecher, Rom. Lehre v. Eigenthum. ii, p. 81; cp. Lauterbach,
loc. cit.: ‘sumitur late pro omni re in patrimonio existente, corporali,
sive incorporali, mobili, sive immobili; stricte pro re fungibili; strictis-
sime, pro nummis, vel auro & argento signato. Hoc loco significat res
mobiles, & quidem pretiosas; & sic excluduntur res incorporales,
immobiles & viles.’
2 Bonfante in Melanges P. F. Girard, i, 1912, p. 139; cf. the same, Corso
di Diritto Romano, ii (2), 1926, p. 97.
3 R. Choppin, De domanio Franciae (Frankf. a. M., 1701), ii, tit. 5,
cap. 9, p. 145a. P. Viollet, lhahlissements de Saint Louis, iv, p. 54f.
4 Regales opes. Phaedr. i. 27.
XIX B