The paper deals with the problem of the 'tempus' in the different kinds of condemnations 'ad metalla' (to forced labour in the mines). A rescript by Hadrian that we can read in D. 48.19.28.6 (Call. 6 de cogn.) established a rule according to which the condemnations 'ad metalla' and 'in opus metalli' had to be 'in perpetuum' – they should last for the entire life of the convicted. Two later sources seem to oppose the provision set up by Hadrian though: I refer to D. 48.19.23 (Mod. 8 reg.) and to a constituion by Constantin the Great of 331 AD (CTh. 1.5.3). According to the two texts, condemnations to forced labour in the mines for a fixed period of time seemed to be actually allowed. This study intends to propose an interpretation of the ostensible antinomy between the rule established by Hadrian and the provisions emerging from the text by the jurist Modestinus and the constitution by Constantin the Great by offering an analysis of the problem from a diachronic perspective, based on the sources at our disposal. This kind of approach will allow to underline the evolution of the 'damnatio ad metalla' over the centuries in Ancient Rome, from the Principate to Late Antiquity and to suggest a solution to the above-mentioned antinomy, not based on the idea that the rescript by Hadrian established a rule, whereas the other sources simply represented exceptions to that rule.

Note in tema di condanna 'ad tempus' nelle 'damnationes ad metalla' / Beggio, Tommaso. - In: ANNALI DEL SEMINARIO GIURIDICO. - ISSN 1972-8441. - STAMPA. - 2017, 60:(2017), pp. 17-41.

Note in tema di condanna 'ad tempus' nelle 'damnationes ad metalla'

Beggio, Tommaso
2017

Abstract

The paper deals with the problem of the 'tempus' in the different kinds of condemnations 'ad metalla' (to forced labour in the mines). A rescript by Hadrian that we can read in D. 48.19.28.6 (Call. 6 de cogn.) established a rule according to which the condemnations 'ad metalla' and 'in opus metalli' had to be 'in perpetuum' – they should last for the entire life of the convicted. Two later sources seem to oppose the provision set up by Hadrian though: I refer to D. 48.19.23 (Mod. 8 reg.) and to a constituion by Constantin the Great of 331 AD (CTh. 1.5.3). According to the two texts, condemnations to forced labour in the mines for a fixed period of time seemed to be actually allowed. This study intends to propose an interpretation of the ostensible antinomy between the rule established by Hadrian and the provisions emerging from the text by the jurist Modestinus and the constitution by Constantin the Great by offering an analysis of the problem from a diachronic perspective, based on the sources at our disposal. This kind of approach will allow to underline the evolution of the 'damnatio ad metalla' over the centuries in Ancient Rome, from the Principate to Late Antiquity and to suggest a solution to the above-mentioned antinomy, not based on the idea that the rescript by Hadrian established a rule, whereas the other sources simply represented exceptions to that rule.
Beggio, Tommaso
Note in tema di condanna 'ad tempus' nelle 'damnationes ad metalla' / Beggio, Tommaso. - In: ANNALI DEL SEMINARIO GIURIDICO. - ISSN 1972-8441. - STAMPA. - 2017, 60:(2017), pp. 17-41.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
AUPA 2017 Beggio [15-42].pdf

Solo gestori archivio

Tipologia: Versione editoriale (Publisher’s layout)
Licenza: Tutti i diritti riservati (All rights reserved)
Dimensione 885.53 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
885.53 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11572/216948
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact