We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 October 2011
The jurists of the classical period of Roman private law (50 B.C.—250 A.D.) encountered a variety of legal problems arising from the activity of those employed in the city's building industry. This segment of the Roman economy was prosperous and busy. Yet, despite the Romans' zeal for construction, a detailed description of how building projects were organized has proved illusive. This is the result of two factors. First, the Romans, unlike the Greeks, tended not to preserve on stone details about the actual construction of their edifices. A second, more general cause is found in the nature of construction as an enterprise. Although building furnishes a basic need, the demand for it is episodic and unstable. Forces of labor and supplies of materials are procured in response to specific commissions. In addition, there are many possible ways in which these productive forces can be organized, and building is typically characterized by a high degree of diversity in regard to methods of organization. For these reasons, builders and building have not been particularly accessible topics for researchers. It is only in the juristic sources that we get a relatively full picture of the activities of builders at Rome.
1. The most complete study so far is Pearse, J.L.D., ‘The Organisation of Roman Building during the late Republic and Early Empire’, (Dissertation, Cambridge, 1974Google Scholar). Most scholars rely upon Loane, H., Industry and Commerce of the City of Rome (Baltimore, 1938) 79–86Google Scholar; more recently, see Brunt, P.A., ‘Free Labour and Public Works at Rome’, Journal of Roman Studies lxx (1980) 81–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The literary and epigraphical sources offer little detailed information about the workings of the industry.
2. On the Greek practice of inscribing building contracts, see Burford, A., The Greek Temple Builders at Epidauros (Liverpool, 1969) 88–118Google Scholar.
3. I am relying here on Goldthwaite, R., The Building of Renaissance Florence (Baltimore, 1980) 115-19 and 154–56Google Scholar, who has useful remarks on the general character of the building industry and bibliography on the organization of building in other cultures. See also, Bertram, G.W. and Maisel, S.J., Industrial Relations in the Construction Industry (Berkeley, 1955) 3–12Google Scholar.
4. The majority of these texts is found in Titles 19 and 45 of the Digest, a compilation from the works of the classical Roman jurists that was promulgated by the emperor Justinian in A.D. 533. This article is only concerned with the texts from Title 19, devoted to the contract of lease and hire (locatio conductio) and, more specifically, a subset, lease and hire of a job of work (locatio conductio operis). For a basic discussion of this contract, see Kaser, M., Das römische Privatrecht (Munich, 2nd ed., 1971) (hereafter RPR2) 562–72Google Scholar, and Crook, J., Law and Life of Rome (Ithaca, 1967) 221–23Google Scholar.
5. On analyzing Roman law in reference to a particular social or economic context, see above all Frier, B.W., Landlords and Tenants in Imperial Rome (Princeton, 1980CrossRefGoogle Scholar), especially chapters 5 and 6. On typical problems in construction, see Digest (hereafter D.) 19.2.58.1 (delay); D.19.2.60.4 (cost overrun); D.19.2.36 (approval of quality).
6. The most important articles are cited below at notes 8, 12, and 13. The scholarship begins with the assumption that the jurists were especially concerned with the creation and development of such concepts as ‘risk’ (periculum) and ‘superior force’. The main flaw in this approach has been a reluctance to abandon the deductive model of Roman jurisprudence and to explore how categories evolve from and are changed by diverse factual situations.
7. Labeo, (1 Pith.) D.19.2.62.
8. Of this epitome some thirty-four cases were incorporated into the Digest. The peculiar transmission of this work (Justinian's compilers may have only had access to Paul's epitome) makes it likely that Labeo's opinions have been abbreviated. Nevertheless, the substance of the decisions in the fragments is not thought to have suffered interpolation. On the genuineness of the portion attributed to Labeo, see Kaser, M., ‘Periculum locatoris’, [hereinafter: Kaser] Zeitscrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte [hereinafter: SZ] lxxiv (1957) 155–200Google Scholar, and Thomas, J.A.C., ‘Pithanon Labeonis a Paulo Epitomatorum Libri VIII’, in Watson, A., ed., Daube Noster: Essays in Legal History for David Daube (Edinburgh, 1974) 317–25Google Scholar. On the peculiarities of transmission, see Schulz, F., History of Roman Legal Science (Oxford, 1953) 206 and 266Google Scholar.
9. The final approval of the project is the moment at which risk passes from builder to employer. The problems of defining periculum are much discussed in the scholarship, see most recently MacCormack, G., ‘Periculum’, SZ xcvi (1979) 129–72Google Scholar, on risk in contract law, and ‘Further on periculum’, Bullettino dell'istituto di diritto romano xxi (1979) 11–37Google Scholar; both studies make clear the hazards involved in attempting to define terms in isolation from their contexts.
10. Kaser, 186-94.
11. Cannata, C.A., Per lo studio della responsabilità per colpa nel diritto romano classico (Milan, 1968-1969) 219–22Google Scholar.
12. Wubbe, F., ‘Labeo zur Gefahrtragung im Bauvertrag’ [hereinafter: ‘Labeo’] in L'Homme dans son Environnement/Mensch und Umwelt (Fribourg, 1980) 131–47Google Scholar, refutes the equation of labes with vis maior on grounds somewhat different from those advanced in this article. See also Wubbe, F., ‘Opus selon la définition de Labéon’, Tijdschrift voor rechtsgeschiedenis-Revue historique du droit 1 (1982) 241–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
13. For recent discussions relying upon Kaser's interpretation, see Miquel, J., ‘Periculum locatoris', SZ lxxxi (1964) 184–87Google Scholar; Röhle, R., ‘Das Problem der Gefahrtragung in Bereich des römischen Dienst und Werkvertrages’, Studia et documenta historiae et iuris xxxiv (1965) 206 and 214–16Google Scholar; Betti, E., ‘Zum Problem der Gefahrtragung bei zweiseitig verpflichtenden Vertragen’, SZ lxxxii (1965) 13–18Google Scholar; Molnár, I., ‘Verantwortung und Gefahrtragung bei der locatio-conductio zur Zeit des Prinzipats’, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 11, 14 (Berlin, 1982) 651–60Google Scholar.
14. Kaser, 189; see too I. Molnár, supra note 13 at 651-52, and F. Wubbe, ‘Labeo’ 134-35.
15. Labes could occur either as the result of an earthquake or spontaneously, and it was often interpreted as a portent. See the many references collected by Pease, A.S., ed., M. Tulli Ciceronis de natura deorum Lib. II and III (Cambridge, 1958Google Scholar) and M. Tulli Ciceronis de divinatione Liber Primus (Illinois, 1920Google Scholar), in his notes on Cicero, N.D. 2.14 and Div. 1.97.
16. Servius, (in Ulpian, 32 ad ed.) D.19.2.15.2, and Africanus, (8 quaest.) D.19.2.33, both cite labes specifically in the context of vis maior in regard to farm tenancy (locatio conductio rei); there is a great deal of bibliography on this area of law, see M. Kaser, RPR2 I 566 n.37; more recently, see Wacke, A., ‘Dig. 19.2.33: Afrikans Verhältnis zu Julian und die Haftung für höhere Gewalt’, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II, 15 (Berlin, 1976) 455–96Google Scholar; Ankum, H., ‘Afrikan Dig. 19.2.33: Haftung und Gefahr bei der publicatio eines verpachteten oder verkauften Grundstücks’, SZ xcvii (1980) 157–80Google Scholar; de Neeve, P.W., ‘Remissio Mercedis’, SZ c (1983) 308–18Google Scholar.
17. On the tendency among the jurists to use this word in the context of construction contracts, see M. Kaser, RPR2 I 570 n. 78; this usage may indicate that the situation is hypothetical.
18. Jörs, P., Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (Stuttgart) s.v. Antistius 34 (1894) 2551–552Google Scholar. So too, F. Schulz, supra note 8 at 226-27, who calls the work ‘casuistic’. Pernice, A., Labeo: römisches Privalrecht im ersten Jahrhundert der Kaiserzeit 3 vols. (Halle, 1873; repr. Aalen, 1963) i: 35–36Google Scholar, considered the work theoretical in nature.
19. Cicero, Q.Fr. III i 1 and 2, describes two such projects, one already completed by a certain Mescidius, the other in the planning stage.
20. On methods of construction, see Vitruvius, Arch. 8.6, and Callebat, L., Vitruve de l'Architecture, Livre 8 (Paris, 1973Google Scholar); Frontinus, Aq. 123, remarks on the need for especially strong construction. See also, Ashby, T., The Aqueducts of Ancient Rome (Oxford, 1935) 42–44Google Scholar; Deman, E. Van, The Building of the Roman Aqueducts (Washington, 1934) 3–21Google Scholar.
21. For a different view, see F. Wubbe, ‘Labeo’ 138, who attributes the collapse of the watercourse to a technical inadequacy of ambiguous origin.
22. Kaser, 198, notices this technique and cites modern examples; see too, E. Betti, supra note 13 at 13-15.
23. The tendency to move from a less differentiated and broader area of responsibility for the builder to a liability judged by standards in the trade can also be seen in the texts on approval of the work, probatio, see text infra at page 17 and note 34.
24. Javolenus (5 Labeonis post.) D.19.2.59.
25. On the classicity of this text, Kaser, 191, cites criticisms of earlier scholars who tended to consider the text severely interpolated. Kaser accepts the authenticity of the substance of the fragment, but argues that Labeo's opinion has been excised. Most subsequent scholarship has accepted this view; see Alzon, C., ‘Les risques dans la locatio conductio’, Labeo xii (1966) 330Google Scholar; R. Röhle, supra note 13 at 214, agrees with Kaser but wishes in addition to read (si opens vitio, Marci) at the end of the fragment in anticipation of Paul's note on D.19.2.62. For another view, see Cannata, supra note 11 at 225-26.
26. Kaser, 191.
27. C.A. Cannata, supra note 11 at 225-26, also criticizes the view that Sabinus is refuting Labeo's opinion on vis maior.
28. F. Wubbe, ‘Labeo’ 139-41, offers a different interpretation. He thinks that Labeo explicitly attributed to the employer the risk for loss caused by the landslide. Sabinus agreed, but narrowed the category of landslide to include only those caused by vis naturalis. However, there is no evidence that Labeo ever considered the problem of vis maior arising from the building site in relationship to contracts for construction. The interpretation given earlier (pp. 423-25) of the facts underlying D.19.2.62 explains a little more clearly Labeo's attitude to the builder's liability.
29. Kaser, 189.
30. I paraphrase Kaser, RPR2 I 571. See also R. Röhle, supra note 13 at 215-16, and E. Betti, supra note 13 at 14-15. F. Wubbe, ‘Labeo’ 135, takes a narrower view and excludes vis maior from consideration in Paul's division of responsibility.
31. Ulpian, (32 ad ed.) D.19.2.13.5:
Si gemma includenda aut insculpenda data sit eaque fracta sit, si quidem vitio materiae factum sit, non erit ex locato actio, si imperitia facientis, erit. [huic sententiae addendum est, nisi periculum quoque in se artifex receperat: tune enim etsi vitio materiae id evenit, erit ex locato actio.] (See Appendix for translations of this text and those in the following notes.)
The brackets indicate a passage which is thought to be a later interpolation. On this text, see E. Betti, supra note 13 at 14; C.A. Cannata, supra note 11 at 241-45.
32. Ulpian, (18 ad ed.) D.9.2.27.29:
Si calicem diatretum faciendum dedisti, si quidem imperitia fregit, damni iniuria tenebitur: si vero non imperitia fregit, sed rimas habebat vitiosas, potest esse excusatus: et ideo plerumque artifices convenire solent, cum eiusmodi materiae dantur, non periculo suo se facere, quae res ex locato tollit actionem et Aquiliae.
This case deals not only with responsibility under the contract, but also with liability for negligence under a statute, the lex Aquilia. Cf. C.A. Cannata, supra note 11 at 214-45.
33. Celsus in Ulpian, (32 ad ed.) D.19.2.9.5:
Celsus etiam imperitiam culpae adnumerandam libro octavo digestorum scripsit: si quis vitulos pascendos vel sarciendum quid poliendumve conduxit, culpam eum praestare debere et quod imperitia peccavit, culpam esse: quippe ut artifex, inquit, conduxit.
34. See Javolenus, (11 epit.) D.19.2.51.1; Paul, (34 ad ed.) D.19.2.24 pr. On the approval process (probatio), see Samter, R., ‘Probatio operis’, SZ 26 (1905) 125–44Google Scholar, and Martin, S., ‘A Reconsideration of Probatio operis’, forthcoming in SZ 103 (1986Google Scholar).
35. I have profited a great deal from the comments of Atiyah, P., An Introduction to the Law of Contract (Oxford, 3rd. ed., 1981) 184–215Google Scholar, in reference to modern English contract law and Hart, H.L.A. and Honoré, T., Causation in the Law (Oxford, 2nd. ed., 1985) 84-108 and 308–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
36. This is not explicitly stated by Sabinus. We might wonder what happens in the case of the builder whose work is destroyed by fire or flood. Would Sabinus's category be extended to cover these situations? In the law on the contract of stipulatio, the builder is held liable for the completion of his job, but is accorded the full contract period again in order to reconstruct the edifice, see Pomponius, (27 ad. Sab.) D.45.1.15. He must, however, bear the costs of the new construction. On foreseeability and risk, see H.L.A. Hart and T. Honoré, supra note 5 at 254-90.
37. It is interesting to note that in modern American law the contractor would be required to bear the risk for problems with the building site, see Werbin, I.V., Legal Phases of Construction Contracts (New York, 1961) 38–45Google Scholar.
38. Paul, (34 ad ed.) D.19.2.24 pr., instructs that the builder's work be evaluated to ascertain whether the quality was equal to that which a ‘good man’ (bonus vir) would have thought sufficient. In another text, Ulpian, (1 ad ed.j aed.) D.21.1.19.4, establishes that the craftsman who lets himself on contract must not be exceptionally skilled, but skilled to the degree which is commonly held acceptable. See on this standard, Voci, P., Le obbligazioni romane vol. 1.1 (1969) 190–229Google Scholar; Gallo, F., St. Grossi III (1970) 477–542Google Scholar.
39. The most recent discussion is P.A. Brunt, supra note 1 at 84-88; see also H. Loane, supra note 1 at 79-85. Only J.L.D. Pearse, supra note 1 at 37-72, gives a full examination of all the available literary and epigraphical evidence. He concludes that contractors were commonly employed on public works in the Empire.
40. The most recent discussion of the participation of this family on public projects in the late first century A.D. is Coarelli, F., ‘La riscoperta del sepolcro degli Haterii’, in Kopcke, G. and Moore, M.B., eds., Studies in Classical Art and Archaeology. A tribute to Peter Heinrich von Blanckenhagen (New York, 1979) 255–69Google Scholar, with bibliography. The family is known primarily for its elaborate tomb decorated with relief sculptures depicting various monuments built in the last half of the first century A.D. Another relief from the same monument features the construction of the tomb itself by builders perched on a crane.
41. On this collegium, see Waltzing, J.P., Étude historique sur les corporations professionelles chez les Romains 4 vols. (Louvain, 1896-1900) ii: 117–22Google Scholar; on the guild at Rome, see further, More, J.H., ‘The Fabri Tignarii of Rome’, (Dissertation, Harvard, 1969Google Scholar); Pearse, J.L.D., ‘A Forgotten Altar of the Collegium Fabrum Tignariorum of Rome’, Epigraphica xxxvii (1975) 100–23Google Scholar, and, ‘Three Alba of the Collegium Fabrum Tignariorum of Rome’, Bullettino della Commissione archeologica communale in Roma lxxxv (1980) 163–76Google Scholar; S. Panciera, ‘Fasti fabrum tignariorum urbis Romae’, Zeitscrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik (1981) 271-80. The Latin term collegium is regularly translated with the English word ‘guild’, but this usage should not invite comparisons between Roman collegia and guilds in medieval societies. On Ti. Claudius Onesimus (CIL VI 9034), see H. Loane, supra note 1 at 83.
42. Especially important in establishing the connection between Roman law and its commercial surroundings is Frier, B.W., ‘Roman Law and the Wine Trade’, SZ c (1983) 257-95 and particularly 289–95Google Scholar. I would like to thank Professor Frier for his helpful criticisms of an earlier version of this paper.
