F. Kirbihler, « La citoyenneté romaine à Éphèse au IIe siècle et la pratique du droit romain. Une adrogatio chez les Vedii », dans G. Frija (éd.), Être citoyen romain dans le monde grec au IIe siècle de notre ère, Bordeaux, 2020, p. 117-164. (original) (raw)
Related papers
Could Jewish judges have had a strong hold on their litigants in the con- text of Roman hegemony? Since the beginning of the Principate, the Roman Legislation had ruled that the ius gladii exclusively belonged to the provincial tri- bunals. But there was a gap between these official statements and their local appli- cation. As recent scholars have pointed out, municipal magistrates and sub-politi- cal communities settled disputes not only in minores but also in majores causae, with the use of coercive forces. In Palestine, during the 3rd and the 4th centuries, rab- binic judges seem to have forced defendants to appear in court and to have enforced judgments, even if, as Hayim Lapin suggests, this power was « episodic and rather fragile ». Another question should also be raised, what would have been the power of Jewish judges, other than the rabbis, the patriarchs, who were the leaders of synagogal communities in the provinces? We hold an imperial con- stitution given in 392 in Constantinople that ruled they were allowed to settle dis- putes in religious matters. Such a delimitation could not function as an efficient guarantee for the Jewish courts as religious Jewish rules dealt not only with ritual and purity but also with civil and penal matters. Indeed conflicts of laws and juris- dictions persisted after 392, as attested by imperial constitutions from 393 and 398. The actual power of the judges strongly depended on circumstance and in particular on the political relays and social networks they could activate in both the provincial and central administrations.
L’auteur souligne l’importance de la lex Iulia de civitate de 90 av. J.-C. pour le droit privé des municipes italique les plus anciens, en soutenant que cette loi octroya la citoyenneté aux Latins et aux Italiques à la condition qu’ils acceptent ce que l’auteur qualifie de fundus fieri « général »: c’est-à-dire l’adoption non pas de quelques lois romaines en particulier, mais de l’ensemble du droit privé romain. Avant 90 av. J.-C., au contraire, comme il est démontré, entre autres, à partir des cas de Capoue et de Cumes, il était normal d’appliquer pour les municipes un droit privé largement basé sur les coutumes locales. Le droit privé romain était introduit dans les communautés locales par des leges envoyées par Rome, lesquelles autorisaient, quand cela n’était pas spécifiquement interdit, l’utilisation du droit local, élaborant ainsi un système mixte. L’autore sottolinea l’importanza della lex Iulia de civitate del 90 a.C. per il diritto privato dei municipi italici più antichi, sostenendo che tale legge concesse la cittadinanza ai Latini e agli Italici a condizione che essi accettassero quello che l’autore denomina un fundus fieri «generale»: vale a dire l’applicazione non di singole leggi romane, ma dell’intero diritto privato romano. Prima del 90 a.C., al contrario, come mostrano, tra gli altri, i casi di Capua e di Cuma, era normale per i municipes l’applicazione di un diritto privato ampiamente basato sulle consuetudini locali. Il diritto privato romano veniva introdotto nelle comunità locali con leges inviate da Roma, le quali autorizzavano – per quanto da esse non disciplinato – l’impiego del diritto locale, realizzando così un sistema misto. Parole chiave: municipes, lex Iulia de civitate, civitas, fundus fieri, droit privé romain, droit privé local