Tabula Baetica as a source of security fiducia

Abstract

The article presents the text of one of the few surviving monuments of Roman law — the Tabula Baetica, containing an agreement of fiducia with a creditor. The author has translated this document and conducted a detailed analysis of its content. Special attention is given to the analysis of the institution of mancipatio and to the controversial issues in civil law, such as the status of the Tabula Baetica: whether this document was a real contract or a model of security, as well as the question of the completeness or fragmentary nature of this legal monument. The study includes toponymic and archaeological analysis, discusses the features of individual provisions of the Tabula Baetica, including possible engraving errors in the document, and assesses its significance for modern legal science. The work considers various viewpoints of researchers, identifies and explains key legal aspects, emphasizing the importance of the Tabula Baetica for understanding the development of Roman law and its influence on modern legal systems. The author analyzes individual fragments of the text, relying on classical jurists and contemporary research, which allows for a deeper understanding of the context and application of this legal instrument.

References

1. Bartoshek, M. (1989). Roman law (Concepts, terms, definitions). Moscow (in Russ.).
2. Grimm, D. (2007). The problem of real and personal rights in ancient Romanlaw. Civil Law Bulletin, 3, pp. 22–64 (in Russ.).
3. Zikun, I.I. (2018). The genesis of the category “fiduciary ownership” in European civil law. Civil Law Bulletin, 6, pp. 192–219 (in Russ.).
4. Zikun, I.I. (2016). The construction of title security in civil law: main problems. Civil Law Bulletin, 2, pp. 37–78. (in Russ.).
5. Dozdev, D.V. (Ed.). (2020). Gai Institutionum commentarii quattuor: text, translation from Latin, commentary. Moscow (in Russ.).
6. Kofanov, L.L. (2010). Roman law in Spain before the introduction of Lex Wisigothorum. Scholae. Philosophical Antiquity and Classical Tradition, 4(1), pp. 64–77. (in Russ.).
7. Pokrovsky, I.A. (2024). History of Roman law. Moscow (in Russ.).
8. Bartosek, M. (1948). La responsabilità del creditore e la liberazione del debitore nella vendita pignoratizia secondo il Diritto Romano. Bullettino dell’istituto di diritto romano, 5(51–52), 238–280.
9. Bueno Delgado, J.A. (2004). El Bronce de Bonanza. Anuario de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Alcalá, pp. 154–165 (in Esp.).
10. Burdese, A. (1949). Lex commissoria e ius vendendi. Nella fiducia e nel pignus. Torino (in It.).
11. Cerezo, L.C. (1991). El pagus en la administración territorial romana. Los pagi de la Bética. Florentia Iliberritana, 2, pp. 99–116 (in Esp.).
12. de Berlanga, M.R. (1884). Los bronces de Lascuta, Bonanza y Aljustrel. A. Rubio.
13. Degeneffe, M.F. (2017). La Causa Fiduciae no existe en España. RIDROM, 19, pp. 133–152 (in It.).
14. Degenkolb, H. (1870). Ein pactum fiduciae. Zeitschrift fur Rechtsgeschichte, 9, pp. 117–179 (in Germ.).
15. Fuenteseca, M. (2016). El negocio fiduciario en Roma. Madrid (in Esp).
16. González, R.S. (2019). El Bronze de Bonanza. Contextualización arqueológica y toponímica de un documento jurídico romano. Boletín del Museo Arqueológico Nacional, 38, pp. 91–104 (in Esp.).
17. Peralta Escuer, T. (1999). Evicción de servidumbres prediales en el derecho romano clásico. Salamanca (in Esp.).
18. Rudorff, E.F.K. (1873). Ueber die baetische Fiduciartafel: Eine Revision. Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Germanistische Abteilung, 11(1), pp. 52–107 (in Germ.).