Search

Copyright of Revista Universitaria de Historia Militar (RUHM) is the property of Centro de Estudios de la Guerra and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai, Iurisprudentia is the property of Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The public obligations of the population towards the Roman community were dictated by fides, by honesty based on religious belief common to all nations, that the obligations must be fulfilled. From the ancient times there was also a rule that the public rights and duties of a Roman citizen are dependant on his economic power. This rule was later introduced in provinces, along with a demand that the peregrin who intended to be a member of the city council must have a building in the city and he needed also the persons who would guarantee for the fulfillment of his obligations towards the Empire. The peregrins already heavily burdened by taxation during the period of the Republic and Principate, were obliged to confess under the oath the property and the members of their families. As a guarantee for the payment of public debts the whole present and future property of the tax-payer was charged by pledge, with the priority right in favour of the Roman treasury. In the Late Roman Empire, after when the Roman citizenship was given to the whole population of the Empire (212 AD) and after the introduction of uniform taxation, this practice was applied to its entire territory. From the beginning of the 3rd century because of economic crises, wars, and devastations of barbarian nations, however, the demands of the citizens for exemptions of public charges became a frequent problem. Having in mind that these demands were often unfounded, sometimes even extorted, the emperors have regulated the benefice of remission of fiscal debts by particular laws. Fighting against unjust claims for privileges of landowners (potentiores), corruption and various other frauds concerning fiscal interests of the Empire, on the other hand, the emperors gave remission of delinquent taxes to the population, if the reason for it they find justified. Their decisions relied on the ancient rule, that the public charges depend on the economic power of the citizen, with the argumentation: `In whatever degree any person is of more honored rank or richer, so much the more does he owe a more eager spirit toward his compulsory public services whose performance he knows will be the more profitable to him.` (Nov. Val. 10, 3) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the first part of the paper we analyzed the sources on fiducia and pignus of the West from the late Roman Empire and early middle ages in order to find out whether dogmatical differences have been kept in a sense that in case of fiducia the ownership on the pledged thing is transferred onto the creditor and in case of pignus only the possession. We came to the conclusion that based on the analyzed sources it cannot be considered proven that in case of fiducia the ownership is transferred onto the creditor. Also, it cannot be claimed that the difference between fiducia and pignus is in the fact that one of these two forms of pledges transfers the possession while the other establishes a pledge without possession in favor of the creditor. In both cases it was up to the will of the parties to decide whether the thing will be handed over to the creditor or rather it will stay in the possession of the debtor charged by pledge in favor of the creditor. In this part in search for an answer on the question whether fiducia and pignus are synonyms or these terms rather relate to different kinds of pledges we are considering the following questions: 1. Was mancipatio still needed in case of fiducia and what was the meaning of mancipatio in those times? 2. In what relation are fides and fiducia? The paper will be concluded with giving answer on the question why fiducia was preserved in the sources of post-classical and early medieval West and in which sense. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]