徐国栋对姜海峰先生就罗马法教研室所挂《学说汇纂》的拉丁文本为何与通行的英译本在编号上的差别提出的质疑的回答

 

 

　一、姜海峰的来信

徐国栋教授：
　　你好，我在罗马法教研室网站下载的学说汇纂的拉丁文本，在阅读D.3,5时发现该版本与流行的英译本不一致，主要是将D.3，5，5和D.3,5,6合为D.3,5,5，以下的条文编号也就不准确了，不知道您提供的拉丁文本是否有误？英美法关于无因管理的比较法的1927年的一篇经典论文似乎直接参考的就是拉丁文（Ernest G. Lorenzen，The Negotiorum Gestio in roman and modern civil law, 13 Cornell L. Q. 190），大量援用的拉丁文献也是D.3,5,5和D.3,5,6分开的。
　　　　　　　　　　　　谢谢！
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　姜海峰谨呈

 

 

二、徐国栋的回信

姜海峰先生：
　　你好
　　近来特别忙，抱歉没有及时回信。
　　关于你信中提出的质疑，答复如下：我们的罗马法教研室挂的《学说汇纂》的英译本是S.P.Scott的（是其如下大书的一部分：The Civil Law including The Twelve Tables,The Institutes of Gaius, The Rules of Ulpian, The Opinions of Paulus, The Enactments of Justinian,and The Constitution of Leo, Cincinnati:The General Trust Company,1932），Scott的译文依据的拉丁文本是注释法学者的通俗版（Vulgate edition of the glossators，它们包括如下版本：Corpus iuris civilis iustinianei cum commentariis, 6 vols. (Lyon, 1612), edition of Baptista de Tortis: Digestum Vetus (Venice, 1488) = Corpus Glossatorum Iuris Civilis (CGIC) 7 (Turin, 1969); Digestum Infortiatum (Venice, 1488) = CGIC 8 (Turin, 1968); Digestum Novum (Venice, 1488) = CGIC 9 (Turin, 1968)。而你所说的流行的英译本是Alan Watson主持翻译的，该译本依据的拉丁文本是经蒙森校勘的版本（又称Berlin stereotype edition，1911年出版于柏林）。两个拉丁原本对有些片段的编号做了不同的处理，造成你的疑惑。我们无法取得沃森的英译本上挂，故仅上挂了能得到的斯各特英译本，望大家在使用时比较两个版本，最好用蒙森的校勘本。
　　以上解答，若有不当之处，还望海内贤达，不吝指正。
　　祝好

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　徐国栋
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　2008年12月2日于厦门

 

三、姜海峰提供的附件
附：拉丁文本和英译的对照以及姜海峰的批注
Dig.3.5.5pr.
Ulpianus 10 ad ed.
Item si, cum putavi a te mihi mandatum, negotia gessi, et hic nascitur
negotiorum gestorum actio cessante mandati actione. idem est etiam, si pro te
fideiussero, dum puto mihi a te mandatum esse.

Dig.3.5.5.1
Ulpianus 10 ad ed.
Sed et si, cum putavi titii negotia esse, cum essent sempronii, ea gessi, solus
sempronius mihi actione negotiorum gestorum tenetur.

Dig.3.5.5.2
Ulpianus 10 ad ed.
Iulianus libro tertio digestorum scribit, si pupilli tui negotia gessero non
mandato tuo, sed ne tutelae iudicio tenearis, negotiorum gestorum te habebo
obligatum: sed et pupillum, modo si locupletior fuerit factus.

Dig.3.5.5.3
Ulpianus 10 ad ed.
Item si procuratori tuo mutuam pecuniam dedero tui contemplatione, ut creditorem
tuum vel pignus tuum liberet, adversus te negotiorum gestorum habebo actionem,
adversus eum cum quo contraxi nullam. quid tamen si a procuratore tuo stipulatus
sum? potest dici superesse mihi adversus te negotiorum gestorum actionem, quia
ex abundanti hanc stipulationem interposui.

Dig.3.5.5.4
Ulpianus 10 ad ed.
Si quis pecuniam vel aliam quandam rem ad me perferendam acceperit: quia meum
negotium gessit, negotiorum gestorum mihi actio adversus eum competit.

Dig.3.5.5.5
Ulpianus 10 ad ed.
Sed et si quis negotia mea gessit non mei contemplatione, sed sui lucri causa,
labeo scripsit suum eum potius quam meum negotium gessisse ( qui enim
depraedandi causa accedit, suo lucro, non meo commodo studet): sed nihilo minus,
immo magis et is tenebitur negotiorum gestorum actione. ipse tamen si circa res
meas aliquid impenderit, non in id quod ei abest, quia improbe ad negotia mea
accessit, sed in quod ego locupletior factus sum habet contra me actionem.

Dig.3.5.5.6
Ulpianus 10 ad ed.
Si quis ita simpliciter versatus est, ut suum negotium in suis bonis quasi meum
gesserit, nulla ex utroque latere nascitur actio, quia nec fides bona hoc
patitur. quod si et suum et meum quasi meum gesserit, in meum tenebitur: nam et
si cui mandavero, ut meum negotium gerat, quod mihi tecum erat commune, dicendum
esse labeo ait, si et tuum gessit sciens, negotiorum gestorum eum tibi teneri.

Dig.3.5.5.7
Ulpianus 10 ad ed.
Si quis quasi servus meus negotium meum gesserit, cum esset vel libertus vel
ingenuus, dabitur negotiorum gestorum actio.

Dig.3.5.5.8
Ulpianus 10 ad ed.
Sed si ego tui filii negotia gessero vel servi, videamus, an tecum negotiorum
gestorum habeam actionem. et mihi videtur verum, quod labeo distinguit et
pomponius libro vicensimo sexto probat, ut si quidem contemplatione tui negotia
gessi peculiaria, tu mihi tenearis: quod si amicitia filii tui vel servi, vel
eorum contemplatione, adversus patrem vel dominum de peculio dumtaxat dandam
actionem. idemque est et si sui iuris esse eos putavi. nam et si servum non
necessarium emero filio tuo et tu ratum habueris, nihil agitur ratihabitione
eodem loco pomponius scribit hoc adiecto, quod putat, etsi nihil sit in peculio,
quoniam plus patri dominove debetur, et in patrem dandam actionem, in quantum
locupletior ex mea administratione factus sit.

Dig.3.5.5.9
Ulpianus 10 ad ed.
Sed si hominis liberi qui tibi bona fide serviebat negotia gessero: si quidem
putans tuum esse servum gessi, pomponius scribit earum rerum peculiarium causa,
quae te sequi debent, tecum mihi fore negotiorum gestorum actionem, earum vero
rerum, quae ipsum sequuntur, non tecum, sed cum ipso. sed si liberum scivi,
earum quidem rerum, quae eum sequuntur, habebo adversus eum actionem, earum
vero, quae te sequuntur, adversus te.

Dig.3.5.5.10
Ulpianus 10 ad ed.
Si titii servum putans qui erat sempronii, dedero pecuniam ne occideretur, ut
pomponius ait, habebo negotiorum gestorum adversus sempronium actionem.

Dig.3.5.5.11
Ulpianus 10 ad ed.
Item quaeritur apud pedium libro septimo, si titium quasi debitorem tuum extra
iudicium admonuero et is mihi solverit, cum debitor non esset, tuque postea
cognoveris et ratum habueris: an negotiorum gestorum actione me possis
convenire. et ait dubitari posse, quia nullum negotium tuum gestum est, cum
debitor tuus non fuerit. sed ratihabitio, inquit, fecit tuum negotium: et sicut
ei a quo exactum est adversus eum datur repetitio qui ratum habuit, ita et ipsi
debebit post ratihabitionem adversus me competere actio. sic ratihabitio
constituet tuum negotium, quod ab initio tuum non erat, sed tua contemplatione
gestum.

Dig.3.5.5.12
Ulpianus 10 ad ed.
Idem ait, si titii debitorem, cui te heredem putabam, cum esset seius heres,
convenero similiter et exegero, mox tu ratum habueris: esse mihi adversus te et
tibi mutuam negotiorum gestorum actionem. adquin alienum negotium gestum est:
sed ratihabitio hoc conciliat: quae res efficit, ut tuum negotium gestum
videatur et a te hereditas peti possit.

Dig.3.5.5.13
Ulpianus 10 ad ed.
Quid ergo, inquit pedius, si, cum te heredem putarem, insulam fulsero
hereditariam tuque ratum habueris, an sit mihi adversus te actio? sed non fore
ait, cum hoc facto meo alter sit locupletatus et alterius re ipsa gestum
negotium sit, nec possit, quod alii adquisitum est ipso gestu, hoc tuum negotium
videri.

Dig.3.5.5.14
Ulpianus 10 ad ed.
Videamus in persona eius, qui negotia administrat, si quaedam gessit quaedam
non, contemplatione tamen eius alius ad haec non accessit, et si vir diligens (
quod ab eo exigimus) etiam ea gesturus fuit: an dici debeat negotiorum gestorum
eum teneri et propter ea quae non gessit? quod puto verius. certe si quid a se
exigere debuit, procul dubio hoc ei imputabitur. quamquam enim hoc ei imputari
non possit, cur alios debitores non convenerit, quoniam conveniendi eos iudicio
facultatem non habuit, qui nullam actionem intendere potuit: tamen a semet ipso
cur non exegerit, ei imputabitur: et si forte non fuerit usurarium debitum,
incipit esse usurarium, ut divus pius flavio longino rescripsit: nisi forte,
inquit, usuras ei remiserat:

5. The Same, On the Edict, Book X.
Moreover, if I transacted your business while under the impression that you had directed me to that effect; here also a right of action, based upon the transaction of business, arises; but the action on mandate will not lie. The same rule will apply if I become surety for you, thinking that I had been directed by you to do so.

(1) And also if, while under the impression that the business of Titius was concerned, while in fact it was that of Sempronius, I attend to it; Sempronius alone will be liable to me in an action based on business transacted.

6. Julianus, Digest, Book III.[?按monnsen和krueger的版本，此段和上一段是一段，此标题有误。][j1]??

If[?插入(2)][j2]?? I attend to the business of your ward, without your mandate, but to prevent you from being liable in an action of guardianship; I will render you liable to an action on the ground of business transacted and I will also be entitled to one against your ward, but only if he has become more wealthy on this account.

(1)[（3）][j3]?? Moreover, if I lend money to your agent on your account, to enable him to pay your creditor, or release property of yours which is pledged, I will have a right of action against you based on the transaction of business; but none against your agent, with whom I made a contract. But what would be the case if I stipulated with your agent? It can be stated that I have still an action against you, based on business transacted, because I interposed this stipulation by way of superabundance of caution.

(2) [(4)][j4]??If anyone has received money or other property, in order to bring it to me, I will be entitled to an action against him based on business transacted.

(3) [(5)][j5]??Where anyone transacts my business, not through consideration for me but for the sake of profit, Labeo held that he was rather attending to his own affairs than mine; for he aims at his own advantage and not at mine, if he acts for the purpose of personal gain. Nevertheless, there is all the more reason that he should be liable to a suit based on business transacted. If, however, he has expended anything while attending to my business, he will be entitled to an action against me; not for what he has lost, since he was guilty of bad faith in meddling in my affairs, but merely to ascertain the amount by which I am enriched.

(4) [(6)][j6]??Where anyone is foolish enough to think that while he was transacting his own business, he was attending to mine; no right of action will arise on either side, because good faith will not permit it. And if he transacted both his and my business believing that he was only transacting mine, he will only be liable to me for mine. For if I direct anyone to transact my business, in which you also were interested, Labeo says that it must be held that if he attended to your affairs and was aware of the fact, he is liable to you in an action for business transacted.

(5) [(7)][j7]??Where anyone, acting as my slave, transacts my business while he was either a freedman, or a freeborn person, a suit founded on business transacted will be granted him.

(6) [(8)][j8]??If I attended to the affairs of your son or your slave, let us consider whether I shall be entitled to a suit against you on the ground of business transacted? It seems to me to be the better opinion to adopt the doctrine of Labeo which Pomponius approves in the Twenty-sixth Book, namely: if through Consideration for you I have transacted business relating to the peculium of either, you will be liable to me; but if through friendship for your son or your slave, or through consideration for them, I did this; then an action only to the amount dof [?of?][j9]??the peculium involved should be granted against the father or the owner. The same rule applies if I thought that they were their own masters, for if I purchase from your son a slave that he does not need, and you ratify the purchase, your ratification is not valid. Pomponius states in the same place that he thinks that even if there is nothing in the peculium because the amount due to the father or owner is greater than its value; still, an action should be brought against the father for the amount by which he is enriched as the result of my administration.

(7) [(9)][j10]??If I transacted the business of a man who was free, but who was serving you as a slave in good faith, and I did so thinking that he was your slave; Pomponius states that I would be entitled to a suit against you based on business transacted with reference to as much of the peculium of the slave as you can retain; but as to what he can remove, I have no right of action against you, but I have one against him. If, however, I knew that he was free, I should be entitled to an action against him for whatever peculium he could take, and also one against you for whatever you could retain.

(8) [（10）][j11]??If I pay money to prevent a slave of Sempronius, whom I think belongs to Titius, from being killed; I will be entitled to a suit against Sempronius on the ground of business transacted, so Pomponius says.

(9)[（11）][j12]?? The question is asked by Pedius in the Seventh Book; if I notify Titius, as your debtor, out of court, to pay me when he is, in fact, not indebted to you, and you afterwards learn of it, and ratify what I have done; can you bring an action against me based on business transacted? He says that this may be doubted, because no business of yours was attended to, as the party was not your debtor, but he holds that the ratification makes the affair yours; and just as anyone from whom payment was exacted has a right of recovery granted against him who ratifies the act; in the same manner, he who has paid will be entitled to an action against me after ratification. Thus the ratification makes the affair yours, which was not yours in the beginning, but only transacted on your account.

(10) [（12）][j13]??He also says that if I, in like manner, bring suit and exact payment from a debtor of Titius, whom I think to be your heir, when in fact, Seius is your heir; and you afterwards ratify what I have done, I will have a right of action against you, and you will have one against me, both based on business transacted. However, this is not your business which has been transacted, but your ratification makes it such; and the result is that the transaction is held to be yours, and suit can be brought against you on the part of the estate.

(11) [（13）][j14]??What would be the case then, Pedius asked, if I, believing that you were the heir, should repair a house belonging to the estate, and you should ratify my act? Would I be entitled to an action against you? He says that there would be no ground for one, because the heir has become more wealthy through my act, and the transaction has been conducted with reference to the property of another; so it is not possible where a benefit accrues to another by the transaction itself that this should be held to be your business.

(12) [（14）][j15]??Let us examine the case where a man, while transacting business for another, attended to some matters and neglected others, and another party noticing this, did not take charge of what was neglected, while a diligent man — for this is what we require — would have attended to all these things; should it be held that he ought to be considered liable in a suit based on business transacted, including those things which he neglected? I think this to be the better opinion, for truly if there was anything for which he was undoubtedly responsible, he should by all means be required to give an account of it; for even though he cannot be blamed for not having brought suit against the other debtors, since he had not the power to do so, as he was not authorized to institute any legal proceedings, still, he is to be held responsible for not having paid his own indebtedness; and if the debt did not bear interest it at once begins to be due; as the Divine Pius stated in a Rescript to Flavius Longinus, unless, as he says, he had released him from the payment of interest.

 

 

 

网页设计者信箱：jojobear_905@hotmail.com

网站管理员信箱：romanlaw@126.com