POLOWANIE NA PTACTWO NA CUDZYM GRUNCIE W ŚWIETLE RESKRYPTÓW CESARSKICH ‒ ‘NON HABET RATIONEM VOS IN ALIENIS LOCIS INVITIS DOMINIS AUCUPARI…

Zuzanna Benincasa

doi:10.21697/zp.2022.22.2.04

Published: 2022-08-20

Vol. 22 No. 2 (2022)

Fowling on another's land in the light of imperial rescripts: ‘Non habet rationem vos in alienis locis invitis dominis aucupari…

Zuzanna Benincasa

Zeszyty Prawnicze

Section: Artykuły

https://doi.org/10.21697/zp.2022.22.2.04

Abstract

The article is devoted to the relationship between the freedom of hunting wild animals, birds and fish and an absolute nature of the property right in the context of the rescript of Antoninus Pius. As referred by Callistratus in D. 8,3,16 the emperor stated that it was not compliant with the ratio to catch birds on someone else's land against the will of the owner of that land. From the comparison of Callistratus's text with the other text from Ulpian's commentary to the edict (D. 47,10,13,7), in which the possibility of bringing an actio iniuriarum against a person preventing fishing in the sea is mentioned and the ius prohibendi (the right of the owner of the land to prohibit third parties from entering his property) discussed, it can be concluded that the rescript of Antoninus Pius might consider unjustified aucupes' request to allow them to enter someone's property in order to catch wild birds. Thus, despite the impossibility to prevent the practice of aucupium (ﬂying birds constituted res nullius and could be captured and appropriated by anyone), the owner of the land executing his ius prohibendi, could prevent bird hunters from entering his property. Nevertheless, in regard to the fishermen's right to catch fish near the seashore the situation was diﬀerent due to the special legal status of litora maris considered res omnium communes.

Keywords:

fowling; aucupio; freedom to hunt; ius prohibendi; aucupes (fowler); appropriation of another’s property.

Download files

Citation rules

Benincasa, Z. (2022). Fowling on another’s land in the light of imperial rescripts: ‘Non habet rationem vos in alienis locis invitis dominis aucupari…. Zeszyty Prawnicze, 22(2), 43–65. https://doi.org/10.21697/zp.2022.22.2.04

Cited by / Share

References

Ankum H., ‘Litora maris et longi temporis praescriptio’, «Index» 26/1998, s. 357-376.
Google Scholar

Benincasa Z., ‘Accessio ab alluvione’ i ‘reditus venationis et aucupii’ jako ‘ fructus fundi’. Kilka uwag na marginesie PS. 3,6,22, «Zeszyty Prawnicze» 15.2/2015, s. 135–159. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21697/zp.2015.15.2.08
Google Scholar

Benincasa Z., „Co się tyczy stworzeń, które z nawyku zwykły oddalać się i powracać...” ‒ koncepcja ‘animus revertendi’ a wolność polowania na dzikie zwierzęta w prawie rzymskim, «Studia i Materiały Ośrodka Kultury Leśnej» 18/2019, s. 33-50.
Google Scholar

Benincasa Z., ‘Illud quaesitum est, an fera bestia, quae ita vulnerata sit, ut capi possit, statim nostra esse intellegatur’. Zagadnienie ustalenia momentu zawłaszczenia dzikiego zwierzęcia w rozważaniach rzymskich jurystów u schyłku republiki, [w:] ‘Semper fdelis’. Prace dedykowane pamięci Profesora Janusza Sondla legendzie krakowskiego fakultetu prawniczego, red. D. Malec, Ł. Marzec, T. Palmirski, Kraków 2017, s. 43-58.
Google Scholar

Benincasa Z., Między ‘ fructus’ a ‘delectatio’. Kilka uwag o rzymskich ‘vivaria’ u schyłku republiki, [w:] ‘Cui bono?’ Księga jubileuszowa dedykowana Profesor Annie Pikulskiej-Radomskiej, red. Ł. Korporowicz, D. Skrzywanek-Jaworska, Łódź 2021, s. 55-72.
Google Scholar

Benincasa Z., ‘Occupatio’ jako sposób nabycia własności dziko żyjących zwierząt w prawie rzymskim, «Studia Iuridica» 59/2014, s. 9-39.
Google Scholar

Benincasa Z., Od ‘res nullius’ do ‘ fructus fundi’. Upolowana zwierzyna oraz zyski z polowania i połowu jako pożytek z gruntu w rozważaniach rzymskich jurystów, «Zeszyty Prawnicze» 20.4/2020, s. 23-51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21697/zp.2020.20.4.03
Google Scholar

Bonini R., I ‘Libri de cognitionibus’ di Callistrato. Ricerche sull’elaborazione giuris prudenziale della “cognitio extra ordinem”, Milano 1964.
Google Scholar

Castán Pérez-Gómez P., Nuevas observaciones sobre la condiciόn jurídica del mar y sus litorales en el derecho romano, [w:] Estudios de derecho Romano en memoria de Benito Ma Raimundo Yanes, I, Burgos 2000, s. 101-12.
Google Scholar

Charbonnel N., Morabito M., Les rivages de la mer: droit Romain et glossateurs, «RHD» 65/1987, s. 23-32.
Google Scholar

Digesta Iustiniani. Digesta justyniańskie. Tekst i przekład, red. T. Palmirski, II: Księgi 5-11, Kraków 2013; VI.2: Księgi 41-44, Kraków 2017; VII.1: Księgi 45-47, Kraków 2017.
Google Scholar

Donahue Jr. Ch., Animalia ferae naturae: Rome, Bologna, Leyden, Oxford and Queens County N.Y., [w:] Studies in Roman Law in Memory of A. Arthur Schiller, Leiden 1986, s. 39-63.
Google Scholar

Dursi D., ‘Res communes omnium’. Dalle necessità economiche alla disciplina giuridica, Napoli 2017.
Google Scholar

Epstein H.J., The Origin and Earliest History of Falconry, «Autumn» 34.6/1943, s. 497-509. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/347874
Google Scholar

Espí Forcén C., The Hound of the Falconer. Roman and Byzantine Hawking in the Venetian Cynegetica, «Estudios Bizantinos» 8/2020, s. 149-153.
Google Scholar

Fiorentini M., Fiumi e mari nell’esperienza giuridica romana, Milano 2003.
Google Scholar

Fiorentini M., Sulla rilevanza economica e giuridica delle ville marittime durante la Repubblica e l’Impero, «Index» 24/1996, s. 143-198.
Google Scholar

García Garrido M.J., Derecho a la caza y ‘ius prohibendi’ en Roma, «AHDE» 26/1956, s. 269-336.
Google Scholar

Gutierrez-Masson L., ‘Mare nostrum: imperium’ ou ‘dominium’, «RIDA» 40/1993, s. 293-315.
Google Scholar

Kamińska R., Swoboda korzystania z miejsc publicznych na przykładzie morza i wybrzeża morskiego, «Zeszyty Prawnicze» 14.2/2014, s. 63-83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21697/zp.2014.14.2.04
Google Scholar

Kłodziński K., Udział sekretarzy ‘ab epistulis’ i ‘a libellis’ w procesie tworzenia reskryptów cesarskich, «Studia Iuridica Toruniensia» 8/2011, s. 48-67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12775/SIT.2011.003
Google Scholar

Lambrini P., Alle origini dei beni comuni, «Iura» 65/2017, s. 394-418.
Google Scholar

Lombardi G., Libertà di caccia e proprietà privata in diritto romano, «BIDR» 12-13/1948, s. 272-343.
Google Scholar

Manfredini A.D., „Chi caccia e chi è cacciato”. Cacciatore e preda nella storia del diritto, Torino 2006.
Google Scholar

Manfredini A.D., Un’iniuria che non c’è, [w:] Diritto romano, tradizione romanistica e formazione del diritto europeo, ed. L. Vacca, Milano 2008, s. 181-202.
Google Scholar

Masi Doria C., ‘Litus maris’: defnition et controverses, [w:] ‘Riparia’, un patrimoine culturel. La gestino intégrée des bords de l’eau. Proceedings of the Sudbury Workshop, April 12–14 2012, Oxford 2014, s. 233-242.
Google Scholar

Miele A., Res publica, res communis omnium, res nullius: Grozio e le fonti romane sul diritto del mare, «Index» 26/1998, s. 383-387.
Google Scholar

Polara G., Le venationes. Fenomeno economico e costruzione giuridica, Milano 1983.
Google Scholar

Polojac M., Gaius, Hadzic and ‘occupatio’ of wild animals – classical roman law in the Serbian civil code, [w:] R. van den Bergh et al., ‘Meditationes de iura et historia’. Essays in honour of Laurens Winkel, «Fundamina» 20.2/2014, s. 739-747.
Google Scholar

Puliatti S., Callistratus. Opera, Roma 2019.
Google Scholar

Purpura G., ‘Liberum mare’, acque territoriali e riserve di pesca nel mondo antico, «AUPA» 49/2004, s. 165-206.
Google Scholar

Purpura G., Varia de iure maris, [w:] Scritti per il novantesimo compleanno di Matteo Marrone, red. G. D’Angelo, M. Varvaro, M. de Simone, Torino 2019, s. 219-239.
Google Scholar

Schermaier M.J., Private Rechte an ‘res communes’?, [w:] ‘Carmina iuris’. Mélanges en l’honneur de M. Humbert, red. E. Chevreau, D. Kremer, A. LaquerrièreLacroix, Paris 2012, s. 694 i n.
Google Scholar

Schermaier M.J., ‘Res Communes Omnium’: Te History of an Idea from Greek Philosophy to Grotian Jurisprudence, «Grotiana» 30.1/2009, s. 20-48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/016738309X12537002674204
Google Scholar

Sini F., Persone e cose: ‘res communes omnium’. Prospettive sistematiche tra diritto romano e tradizione romanistica, «Diritto @ Storia» 7/2008.
Google Scholar

Sirks A.J.B., Making a request to the emperor: rescripts in the Roman empire, [w:] Administration, Prosopography and Appointment Policies in the Roman Empire. Proceedings of the First Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire (Roman Empire, 27 B.C. ‒ A.D. 406), Leiden, June 28-July 1, 2000, s. 121-135. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004401617_011
Google Scholar

Smyshlaev A., ‘De cognitionibus’ by Callistratus: the addressee and genre (revisiting genre peculiarities of the public law treatises by lawyers of the Severus period), «Diritto@ Storia» 5/2006.
Google Scholar

Spanu C., ‘Mare et per hoc litora maris’. I. 2.1.1: Gestione e tutela del litorale marittimo in diritto romano, https://www.academia.edu/2780343/_Mare_et_per_hoc_litora_maris_I._2.1.1_gestione_e_tutela_del_litorale_marittimo_nel_diritto_romano.
Google Scholar

Terrazas Ponce J.D., El concepto de ‘res’ en los juristos romanos, ii: Las ‘res communes omnium’, «Revista de Estudios Histόrico-Jurídicos» 34/2012, s. 127-163. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4067/S0716-54552012000100005
Google Scholar

Vendries Ch., L‘auceps, les gluaux et l‘appeau. A propos de la ruse et de l’habileté du chasseur d’oiseaux, [w:] dans le monde gréco-romain (IIIe siècle av. – IVe siècle apr. J.-C.), red. J. Trinquier, Ch. Vendries, Chasses antiques. Pratiques et représentations, Rennes 2009, s. 119-140.
Google Scholar