10. Teaching and Research in!important; text-transform:uppercase'>Roman Law
The codifications of continental Europe very largely brought to an end the ‘second life’ of Roman law, the story of its reception and transformation into a ius commune.
In nineteenth-century Germany that ius commune experienced a last and dazzling flowering. German pandectist scholarship, as it had emerged in the wake of the Historical School, was influential throughout Europe and was accorded pride of place in the world of legal learning. 165 It was also in Germany that codification had particularly dramatic consequences for the scholarship of Roman law radiating, once again, across Europe,166 for it could now devote its whole attention to antiquity itself and begin to understand the sources of Roman law in their historical context. 167 Otto Lenel reconstructed the praetorian edict on the basis of the fragments from the works of classical jurists contained in the Digest (Das Edictum Perpetuum, 1893). Lenel’s other great work, the Palingenesia Iuris Civilis (1889), was a sustained attempt to recreate the classical law library as far as that was possible on the basis of the fragments that have come down to us. Ludwig Mitteis demonstrated the extent to which indigenous ‘vulgar’ legal conceptions, particularly of Hellenistic origin, remained alive in the eastern part of the Empire and he thus shattered the traditional understanding of a uniform - and uniformly Roman - legal order in imperial Rome (Reichsrecht und Volksrecht in den östlichen Provinzen des römischen Kaiserreichs, 1891).1 Otto Gradenwitz and Fridolin Eisele were pioneers in the systematic search for interpolations. Fritz Schulz and Franz Wieacker set out to detect pre-Justinianic alterations of the classical texts. With West-Roman vulgar law, Ernst Levy unlocked the interface between ancient Roman law and medieval ‘Germanic law’. Alongside private law and civil procedure, the history of criminal and constitutional law attracted increasing attention (Wolfgang Kunkel). Legal practice in the Roman provinces, as documented in a vast quantity of papyri, began to be scrutinized (Ludwig Mitteis, Ernst Rabel) and the horizon was broadened to include other ancient legal cultures (Josef Partsch, Fritz Pringsheim, Paul Koschaker).169This very pronounced historicization of Roman law, with all its brilliant discoveries, and the simultaneous process of an ‘emancipation ... by thinking apart Roman and modern law’,170 also had a downside: legal scholarship was turned into a largely unhistorical intellectual enterprise; it lost its character as a ‘historical science’ (Savigny). The BGB was taken to constitute a comprehensive and closed system of legal rules. It constituted an autonomous interpretational space that was to be attributed sole, supreme, and unquestioned authority. All the energies of legal academics in the field of private law were channelled into the task of expounding the code and discussing court decisions based on its provisions. That in turn was to have dramatic consequences for the teaching of law. For it was the BGB that immediately acquired the central position in the law faculties’ curricula throughout Germany.171 Knowledge of Roman law was no longer of practical utility and thus its position within the law faculties was gradually weakened. Hardly any Romanist in Germany continued to teach Roman law in the pandectist tradition. Instead, the pronounced historicization of Roman law was also bound to shape its teaching, further contributing to the alienation between Roman law and modern law.172 Sooner or later, the establishment of chairs for Roman law in law faculties was bound to be questioned. Roman law had, essentially, become a branch of the study of classical antiquity, employing methods of research entirely different from those of doctrinal scholarship in law.
Similar developments and methodological debates have taken place in other countries in Europe. In only a few (Italy, Spain, partly also Austria) does Roman law remain reasonably well entrenched in the law curricula and the law faculties. In Germany and in the Netherlands the story is one of gradual decline, and the experience one of a deep-rooted sense of crisis. 173These developments, of course, are particularly paradoxical at a time which aspires to recreate a European private law or, at least, a European scholarship of private law.174 We will have to overcome the nationalistic isolation of legal scholarship that is a consequence of tailoring law curricula around national codifications. Students will have to be made to see the fundamental connections and the European character of our legal culture. What could be better suited for this purpose - and for shaping the intellectual horizon of lawyers in Europe as European lawyers — than the study of the Roman foundations of the civilian tradition?
Notes
* Parts ofthis essay are based on my New Zealand Legal Research Foundation Lecture, published in New Zealand LR 2007: 341 and my entry ‘Roman Law’ in Max Planck Encyclopedia of European Private Law, ed. J. Basedow, K.J. Hopt, and R. Zimmermann (Oxford, 2012), 1487. This version dates from 2009.
1. R. Zimmermann, Das römisch-holländische Recht in Südafrika (Darmstadt, 1983). On ‘classical’ Roman-Dutch law, see R. Feenstra and R. Zimmermann, eds., Das römischholländische Recht: Fortschritte des Zivilrechts im 17. und i8.Jahrhundert (Berlin, 1992). On the initial disintegration of the ius commune into Roman-Dutch, Roman-Scots, Roman-Hispanic law, etc., at the time of the usus modernus, see K. Luig, ‘The Institutes of National Law in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries’, Juridical Review 1972: 193.
2. R.
Zimmermann, ‘Roman Law in a Mixed Legal System: The South African Experience’, in The Civil Law Tradition in Scotland, ed. R. Evans-Jones (Edinburgh,1995)"Times New Roman"'> , 41. Owing to English influence during the nineteenth century, South African law became a mixed system: R. Zimmermann and D. Visser, eds., Southern Cross: Civil Law and Common Law in South Africa (Oxford, 1996); R. Zimmermann, ‘Gemeines Recht heute: Das Kreuz des Südens’, in Der praktische Nutzen der Rechtsgeschichte: Festschrift für Hans Hattenhauer, ed. J. Eckert (Heidelberg, 2003), 601.
3. On the reception of Roman Law in Scotland, see P. Stein, ‘The Influence of Roman Law on the Law of Scotland’, Juridical Review 1963: 205 as well as the essays in Evans- Jones (n. 2), and D. Carey Miller and R. Zimmermann, eds., The Civilian Tradition and Scots Law: Aberdeen Quincentenary Essays (Berlin, 1997).
4. The historical development is traced in the essays in K. Reid and R. Zimmermann, eds., A History of Private Law in Scotland, 2 vols. (Oxford, 2000).
5. R. Zimmermann, D. Visser, and K. Reid, eds., Mixed Legal Systems in Comparative Perspective: Property and Obligations in Scotland and South Africa (Oxford, 2004); J. du Plessis, ‘Comparative Law and the Study of Mixed Legal Systems’, in The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law, ed. M. Reimann and R. Zimmermann (Oxford, 2008), 477.
6. M. Reinkenhof, Die Anwendung des ius commune in San Marino (Berlin, 1997).
7. BGHZ 92: 326; cf.
B. Kupisch, ‘Eine Moselinsel, Kaiser Napoleon und das römische Recht’, Juristenzeitung 1987: 1017. Cf. BGHZ 110: 148 (on riparian ownership).8. B. Windscheid, ‘Die geschichtliche Schule in der Rechtswissenschaft’, in Windscheid, Gesammelte Reden und Abhandlungen, ed. P. Oertmann (Leipzig, 1904), 75.
9. See for Germany, H. H. Jakobs, Wissenschaft und Gesetzgebung im bürgerlichen Recht nach der Rechtsquellenlehre des 19. Jahrhunderts (Paderborn, 1983); U. Falk and H. Mohnhaupt, eds., Das Bürgerliche Gesetzbuch und seine Richter (Frankfurt, 2000). Cf. also Windscheid (n. 8), 75.
10. These terms are found even in short commentaries on the BGB such as by C. Berger in Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, 14th edn. by O. Jauernig (Munich, 2011), § 985, n. 1; and Vor §§ 987-993, n. 3.
11. Following the model of Roman law, a distinction is drawn today between necessary, useful, and luxurious improvements (impensae necessariae, utiles, and voluptuariae); see, e.g., C. Berger (n. 10), Vor §§ 994—1003, n. 8 (the German Civil Code itself contains only provisions for the first two types of improvements).
12. Here also the Latin terms are to be found even in brief commentaries such as A. Stadler, in Jauernig (n. 10), § 812, nn. 13 and 14.
13. For a brief discussion in English of the German unjustified enrichment claims just mentioned, see R. Zimmermann, ‘Unjustified Enrichment: The Modern Civilian Approach’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 15 (1995): 403ff.
14. For the historical background, see R. Zimmermann, The Law of Obligations: Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition (Oxford, 1996), 857.
15. C.
Wolff, Grundsätze des Natur- und Völckerrechts (Halle, 1754), § 438. For comment, see K.-P. Nanz, Die Entstehung des allgemeinen Vertragsbegriffs im 16. bis 18. Jahrhundert (Munich, 1985), 164.16. Ulp. D. 2.14.7.7; see Zimmermann (n. 14), 508.
17. Bona fides was one of the driving forces for the development of Roman contract law: see S. Whittaker and R. Zimmermann, ‘Good faith in European contract law: surveying the legal landscape’, in R. Zimmermann and S. Whittaker, eds., Good Faith in European ContractLaw (Cambridge, 2000), i6;M. Schermaier, ‘Bona fides in Roman contract law’, in Zimmermann and Whittaker, 63; R. Zimmermann, Roman Law, Contemporary Law, European Law (Oxford, 2001), 83. The most influential attempt to systematize the case law on § 242 BGB — F. Wieacker, Zur rechtstheoretischen Präzisierung des § 242 BGB (Tübingen, 1956) — was clearly inspired by Roman law.
18. Cf. H. P. Mansel, in Jauernig (n. 10), § 242, nn. 39, 47, and 48. For a brief discussion in English, see Zimmermann and Whittaker (n. 17), 22.
19. See Zimmermann (n. 14), 639; S. Vogenauer in Historisch-kritischer Kommentar zum BGB, ed. M. Schmoeckel, J. Rückert, and R. Zimmermann (Tübingen, 2007), vol. 2, §§ 305-310 (III), nn. 13ff.
20. See §§ 276fBGB; andM. Schermaier, in Schmoeckel et al. (n. 19), §§ 276-278.
21. See K. Luig, ‘Zur Vorgeschichte der verschuldensunabhängigen Haftung des Vermieters für anfängliche Mängel nach § 538 BGB’, in Festschrift für Heinz Hübner, ed. G. Baumgärtel et al. (Berlin - New York, 1984), 121; Zimmermann (n. 14), 367.
22. See R. Zimmermann, ‘Die Geschichte der Gastwirtshaftung in Deutschland’, in Usus modernus pandectarum: Römisches Recht, Deutsches Recht und Naturrecht in der frühen Neuzeit: Festschrift für Klaus Luig, ed. H.-P. Haferkamp and T. Repgen (Cologne - Weimar - Vienna, 2007), 271.
23. § 138 I BGB; see Zimmermann (n. 14), 713.
24. §§ 286ff. and 293ff. BGB; see Zimmermann (n. 14), 790, 817.
25. §§ 459^· BGB of 1900; see Zimmermann (n. 14), 305. The rules were reformed in 2002: see R. Zimmermann, The New German Law of Obligations: Historical and Comparative Perspectives (Oxford, 2005), 79.
26. §§ 677ff. BGB; see Zimmermann (n. 14), 433.
27. § 833 BGB; see Zimmermann (n. 14), 1116.
28. On Roman law and the BGB, see M. Kaser, ‘Der römische Anteil am deutschen bürgerlichen Recht’, Juristische Schulung 1967: 337; R. Knütel, ‘Römisches Recht und deutsches Bürgerliches Recht’, in Die Antike in der europäischen Gegenwart, ed. W. Ludwig (Göttingen, 1993), 43; E. Picker, ‘Zum Gegenwartswert des römischen Rechts’, in Das antike Rom in Europa, ed. H. Bungert (Regensburg, 1985), 289. See also the table of Roman legal sources cited in the travaux preparatories of the BGB, compiled by R. Knütel and M. Goetzmann in Rechtsgeschichte und Privatrechtsdogmatik, ed. R. Zimmermann, R. Knütel, andJ.P. Meincke (Heidelberg, 1999), 679.
29. Up to and including the new Dutch Civil Code: H. Ankum, ‘Römisches Recht im neuen niederländischen Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch’, in Zimmermann et al. (n. 28), 101. Generally, see A. Beck, ‘Römisches Recht in unserer Rechtsordnung’, in Horizonte der Humanitas: Freundesgabe Walter Wili, ed. G. Luck (Bern — Stuttgart, 1960), 120; R. Zimmermann, ‘The Civil Law in European Codes’, in Carey Miller and Zimmermann (n. 3), 259; A. Bürge, ‘Das römische Recht als Grundlage für das Zivilrecht im künftigen Europa’, in Die Europäisierung der Rechtswissenschaft, ed. F. Ranieri (Baden-Baden, 2002), 19.
30. See also J. Gordley, ‘Myths of the French Civil Code’, American Journal of Comparative Law 42 (1992): 459.
31. Zimmermann (n. 14), 45.
32. Zimmermann (n. 14), 253.
33. See text to n. 39, this chapter.
34. See book III title IV, chs. I and II of the Code civil. On the corresponding fourfold division of obligations in Justinian Inst. 3.13.2, see Zimmermann (n. 14), 14.
35. On illegality and unconscionability, see R. Zimmermann, ‘The Civil Law in European Codes’, in Carey Miller and Zimmermann (n. 3), 267.
36. See Zimmermann (n. 14), 16.
37. See, e.g., R. J. Pothier, Traite des obligations, in Pothier, Traites de droit civil (Paris, 1781), vol. 1, § 116.
38. See Zimmermann (n. 14), 1126.
39. P. Pichonnaz, La compensation: Analyse historique et comparative des modes de compenser non conventionels (Fribourg, 2001), 127; R. Zimmermann, in Schmoeckel et al. (n. 19), §§ 387-396, n. 6.
40. For details, see Pichonnaz (n. 39), 9; for an overview, M. Kaser, Das römische Privatrecht, 2nd edn. (Munich, 1971), vol. 1, 644; Zimmermann (n. 19), §§ 387-396, nn. 5fr
41. C. 4.31.14.
42. For details, see Zimmermann (n. 19), §§ 387—396, nn. 11fr.
43. See Zimmermann (n. 14), 817.
44.Roman"'> See F. Ranieri, Europäisches Obligationenrecht, 3rd edn. (Vienna, 2009), 1045.
45. The majority view among modern Romanists: R. Knütel, ‘Die Haftung für Hilfspersonen im römischen Recht’, ZSS 100 (1983): 419fr.; Zimmermann (n. 14), 397; H. Wicke, Respondeat Superior (Berlin, 2000), 69.
46. See A. Watson, Failures of the Legal Imagination (Pennsylvania, 1988), 6, 15; K. Zweigert and H. Kötz, Einführung in die Rechtsvergleichung, 3rd edn. (Tübingen,
1996) , 639.
47. See, e.g., B. Windscheid and T. Kipp, Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 9th edn. (Frankfurt, 1906), § 401, 5.
48. See, e.g., H.-P. Benöhr, ‘Die Entscheidung des BGB für das Verschuldensprinzip’, TR 46 (1978): 1.
49. For the historical development, see H. H. Seiler, ‘Die deliktische Gehilfenhaftung in historischer Sicht’, Juristenzeitung 1967: 525; Zimmermann (n. 14), 1124.
50. Ulp. D. 2.14.7.4; Zimmermann (n. 14), 508.
51. More precisely, pacta quantumcunque nuda servanda sunt. For details, see Zimmermann (n. 14), 542; P. Landau, ‘Pacta sunt servanda: Zu den kanonistischen Grundlagen der Privatautonomie’, in ‘Ins Wasser geworfen und Ozeane durchquert': Festschrift für Knut Wolfgang Nörr, ed. M. Ascheri et al. (Cologne — Weimar — Vienna, 2003), 457.
52. Inst. 3.13 pr: obligatio est iuris vinculum, quo necessitate adstringimur alicuius solvendae rei secundum nostrae civitatis iura.
53. For the historical development, see Zimmermann (n. 14), 34, 45, and 58.
54. C. 4.26.7.3.
55. lang=EN-US>B. Kupisch, Die Versionsklage (Heidelberg, 1965); Zimmermann (n. 14), 878.
56. Unlike §§ 812fr. BGB, the Roman condictio did not focus on the entire patrimony of the enrichment debtor. The recipient was obliged to return the object received, and the content and fate of that obligation were governed by the general rules. On this and the further development, see W. Ernst, ‘Werner Flumes Lehre von der ungerechtfertigten Bereicherung’, in W. Flume, Studien zur Lehre von der ungerechtfertigten Bereicherung (Tübingen, 2003), 2.
57. Pap. D. 22.6.7.
58. C. 1.18.10.
59. Zimmermann (n. 14), 868.
60. For details, see Zimmermann (n. 14), 857.
61. Zimmermann (n. 14), 863.
62. B. Kupisch, Ungerechtfertigte Bereicherung: geschichtliche Entwicklungen (Heidelberg, 1987), 4; Zimmermann (n. 14), 841.
63. See R. Feenstra, ‘Grotius’ Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment as a Source of Obligation: Its Origin and Its Influence in Roman-Dutch Law’, in Unjust Enrichment: The Comparative Legal History of the Law of Restitution, ed. E.J.H. Schrage, 2nd edn. (Berlin, 1999), 197; D. Visser, ‘Das Recht der ungerechtfertigten Bereicherung’, in Feenstra and Zimmermann (n. 1), 369.
64. See A. Bürge, ‘Der Arret Boudier von 1892 vor dem Hintergrund der Entwicklung des französischen Bereicherungsrechts im 19. Jahrhundert’, in Festschrift für Hans Jürgen Sonnenberger, ed. M. Coester, D. Martiny, and K.A.Prinz von Sachsen-Gessaphe (Munich, 2004), 3.
65. See N. Jansen, ‘Die Korrektur grundloser Vermögensverschiebungen als Restitution? Zur Lehre von der ungerechtfertigten Bereicherung bei Savigny’, ZSS 120 (2003): 106.
66. For details, see D. A. Verse, Verwendungen im Eigentümer-Besitzer-Verhältnis: Eine kritische Betrachtung aus historisch-vergleichender Sicht (Tübingen, 1999). Cf. Zimmermann (n. 17), 45.
67. lang=EN-US>The problems are analysed by Verse (n. 66), 1.
68. H. Kaufmann, Rezeption und usus modernus der actio legis Aquiliae (Cologne — Graz, 1958); H. Coing, Europäisches Privatrecht (Munich, 1985), vol. 1, 509; Zimmermann (n. 14), 1017; J. Schröder, ‘Die zivilrechtliche Haftung für schuldhafte Schadenszufügungen im deutschen usus modernus’, in La responsabilità civile da atto illecito nella prospettiva storico-comparatistica, ed. L. Vacca (Turin, 1995), 144.
69. For details, see Zimmermann (n. 14), 953.
70. [A]ctio nostra, qua utimur, ab actione legis Aquiliae magis differat, quam avis a quadrupede: C. Thomasius, Larva Legis Aquiliae, ed. and trans. M. Hewett (Oxford, 2000), § 1.
71. Thomasius (n. 70).
72. See N. Jansen, Die Struktur des Haftungsrechts: Geschichte, Theorie und Dogmatik außervertraglicher Ansprüche auf Schadensersatz (Tübingen, 2003).
73. This term was coined, at least for legal history, by H. R. Hoetink (who in turn took it from theological literature); see his ‘Over het verstaan van vreemd recht’ and ‘Historische rechtsbeschouwing’, in H. R. Hoetink, Rechtsgeleerde opstellen (Alphen, 1982), 34, 266.
74. M. Bauer, Periculum Emptoris: Eine dogmengeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Gefahrtragung beim Kauf (Berlin, 1998), 98; W. Ernst, ‘Kurze Rechtsgeschichte des Gattungskaufs’, Zeitschrift für europäisches Privatrecht 7 (1999): 612; Zimmermann (n. 25), 84.
75. Zimmermann (n. 14), 281.
76. Zimmermann (n. 14), 305.
77. Zimmermann (n. 14), 291.
78. Zimmermann (n. 25), 87.
79. F. Schulz, Principles of Roman Law (Oxford, 1936), 20.
80. See, e.g., the discussion by Bürge (n. 29), 21; A. Bürge, Römisches Privatrecht (Darmstadt, 1999), 17.
81. Pomp. D. 1.2.2.39.
82. Inspired by J. P. Meincke, Juristenzeitung 2006: 299.
83. On whom see W. Kunkel, Herkunft und soziale Stellung der römischen Juristen, 2nd edn. (Graz — Vienna — Cologne, 1967), 138.
84. W. Waldstein and J. M. Rainer, Römische Rechtsgeschichte, 10th edn. (Munich, 2005), 201; Kunkel (n. 83), 32.
85. On whom see Waldstein and Rainer (n. 84), 135; Kunkel (n. 83), 25.
86. On Publius Mucius Scaevola, see Waldstein and Rainer (n. 84), 133; Kunkel (n. 83), 12.
87. Justinian’s compilers, in the sixth century, could still draw on 2,000 books (C. 1.17.2.1); the classical literature must have consisted of that number many times over: Waldstein and Rainer (n. 84), 199.
88. Pap. D. 1.1.7.1. See, generally, M. Kaser and R. Knütel, Römisches Privatrecht, 18th edn. (Munich, 2005), 19, 22.
89. Cf. also Waldstein and Rainer (n. 84), 196, and Kaser and Knütel (n. 88), 27 summarizing the prevailing view.
90. See, inparticular, Schulz (n. 79), 140 (liberty), 189 (humanity), 223 (fidelity), and239 (security in the sense of stability of acquired rights). On equity in Roman law, see P. Stein, ‘Equitable Principles in Roman Law’, in P. Stein, The Character and Influence of the Roman Civil Law: Historical Essays (London, 1988), 19.
91. Essential for the legitimacy of the jurists was their auctoritas, based on the knowledge acquired through their practical experience. On authority as a formative feature of Roman law, see Schulz (n. 79), 164 and, on the jurists, 183.
92. It is based on Cels. D. 50.17.185 but tended to be misunderstood, including by the draftsmen of the BGB: see § 306 BGB (old version). For details, see Zimmermann (n. 14), 686.
93. See Zimmermann (n. 14), 75.
94. Ulp. D. 45.1.1.5 in fine:... neque vitiatur utilis per hanc inutilem.
95.New Roman"'> H.H. Seiler, ‘Utile per inutile non vitiatur: Zur Teilunwirksamkeit von Rechtsgeschäften im römischen Recht’, in Festschrift für Max Kaser, ed. D. Medicus and H.H. Seiler (Munich, 1976), 130. On the requirement of a pretium certum, see Zimmermann (n. 14), 253.
96. For an overview, see Waldstein and Rainer (n. 84), 134. For further detail, F. Schulz, History of Roman Legal Science (Oxford, 1946), 38; F. Wieacker, Römische Rechtsgeschichte (Munich, 1988), vol. 1, 351, 618; M. Schermaier, Materia (Vienna — Cologne — Weimar, 1992), 35.
97. See, e.g., G. Thür, ‘Recht im antiken Griechenland’, in Die Rechtskulturen der Antike, ed. U. Manthe (Munich, 2003), 211.
98. C. 1.17.1.12; cf. C. 1.17.2.21.
99. W. Rüegg, ‘Vorwort’, in Geschichte der Universität in Europa, ed. W. Rüegg (Munich, 1993), vol. 1, 13.
100. See, e.g., M. Borgolte, Europa entdeckt seine Vielfalt 1050—1250 (Stuttgart, 2002), 296; and the index and instructive maps in J. Verger, ‘Grundlagen’, in Rüegg (n. 99), vol. 1, 70.
101. The same was true already for the private law schools in Bologna in the second half of the eleventh and in the twelfth centuries, in particular for the school of Irnerius. On the significance of Irnerius, see F. Dorn in Deutsche und Europäische Juristen aus neun Jahrhunderten, ed. G. Kleinheyer and J. Schröder, 5th edn. (Heidelberg, 2008), 220.
102. For the detail, F. Wieacker, A History of Private Law in Europe, trans. T.Weir (Oxford, 1995); P. Koschaker, Europa und das römische Recht, 4th edn. (Munich — Berlin, 1966), 55fr.; P. Stein, Roman Law in European History (Cambridge, 1999); J. Gordley, ‘Comparative Law and Legal History’, in Reimann and Zimmermann (n. 5), 753fr.
103. Hence such books as Philibert Bugnyon, Tractatus legum abrogatarum et inusitatarum in omnibus curiis, terris, jurisdictionibus, et dominiis regni Franciae (1563) and Simon van Groenewegen van der Made, Tractatus de legibus abrogatis et inusitatis in Hollandia vicinisque regionibus (1649).
104. On the influence ofthe Historical School, see, e.g.,J.-O. Sundell, ‘German Influence on Swedish Private Law Doctrine 1870—1914face=Arial>’, Scandinavian Studies in Law (1991): 237; J.H.A. Lokin, ‘Het NBW en de pandektistiek’, in Historisch vooruitzicht. Opstellen over rechtsgeschiedenis en burgerlijk recht, ed. M.E. Franke et al. (Arnhem, 1994), 125; R. Schulze, ed., Deutsche Rechtswissenschaft und Staatslehre im Spiegel der italienischen Rechtskultur während der zweiten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts (Berlin, 1990); A. Bürge, Das französische Privatrecht im 19. Jahrhundert: Zwischen Tradition und Pandektenwissenschaft, Liberalismus und Etatismus, 2nd edn. (Frankfurt, 1995); A. Bürge, ‘Ausstrahlungen der historischen Rechtsschule in Frankreich’, Zeitschrift für europäisches Privatrecht 5 (1997): 643; W. Ogris, Der Entwicklungsgang der österreichischen Privatrechtswissenschaft im 19. Jahrhundert (Berlin, 1968); P. Caroni, ‘Die Schweizer Romanistik im 19. Jahrhundert’, Zeitschrift für neuere Rechtsgeschichte 16 (1994): 243; P. Stein, ‘Legal Theory and the Reform of Legal Education in MidNineteenth Century England’, in Stein (n. 90), 238; A. Rodger, ‘Scottish Advocates in the Nineteenth Century: The German Connection’, Law Quarterly Review 110 (1994): 563fr.; J. Cairns, ‘The Influence ofthe German Historical School in Early Nineteenth Century Edinburgh’, Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce 20 (1994): 191.
105. See Section 10, this chapter.
106. See Coing (n. 68), 7; R. C. van Caenegem, European Law in the Past and the Future (Cambridge, 2002), 22 and 73.
107. In particular, matrimonial causes, probate, and promises affirmed by oath. For an overview, see W. Trusen, ‘Die gelehrte Gerichtsbarkeit der Kirche’, in Handbuch der Quellen und Literatur der neueren europäischen Privatrechtsgeschichte, ed. H. Coing vol. 1 (Munich, 1973), 483. ForEngland, see R. Zimmermann, ‘Dereuropäische Charakter des englischen Rechts: Historische Verbindungen zwischen civil law und common law’, Zeitschrift für europäisches Privatrecht 1 (1993): 21.
108. Generally, on the influence of Canon law, see P. Landau, ‘Der Einfluss des kanonischen Rechts auf die europäische Rechtskultur’, in Europäische Rechts- und Verfassungsgeschichte: Ergebnisse und Perspektiven der Forschung, ed. R. Schulze (Berlin, 1991), 39; H. Scholler, ed., Die Bedeutung des kanonischen Rechts für die Entwicklung einheitlicher Rechtsprinzipien (Baden-Baden, 1996); H.-J. Becker, ‘Spuren des kanonischen Rechts im Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch’, in Zimmermann et al. (n. 28), 159fr.
109. See text accompanying note 51, this chapter.
110. See U. Wolter, Das Prinzip der Naturalrestitution nach § 249 BGB (Berlin, 1985); N. Jansen, in Schmoeckel et al. (n. 19), §§ 249-253, 255, nn. 17fr.
111. See Coing (n. 68), 27, 352; cf. M. Mitterauer, Warum Europa? Mittelalterliche Grundlagen eines Sonderwegs (Munich, 2003), 109.
112. See, esp., J. Gordley, The Philosophical Origins of Modern Contract Doctrine (Oxford, 1991); J. Gordley, Foundations of Private Law (Oxford, 2006).
113. On the so-called lex mercatoria (law merchant), see Coing (n. 68), 519; H.J. Berman, Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition (Cambridge, Mass., 1983), 348; A. Cordes, ‘Auf der Suche nach der Rechtswirklichkeit der mittelalterlichen Lex mercatoria’, ZSS (Germanistische Abteilung) 118 (2001): 168; K. O. Scherner, ‘Lex mercatoria — Realität, Geschichtsbild oder Vision?’, ZSS (Germanistische Abteilung) 118 (2001): 148; K.O. Scherner, ‘Goldschmidts Universum’, in ‘Ins Wasser geworfen und Ozeane durchquert': Festschrift für Knut Wolfgang Nörr, ed. M. Ascheri et al. (Cologne — Weimar — Vienna, 2003), 859; and essays in V. Piergiovanni, ed., From Lex Mercatoria to Commercial Law (Berlin, 2005). Cf. for England, Zimmermann (n. 107), 29.
114. W. Wiegand, ‘Zur Herkunft und Ausbreitung der Formel “habere fundatam intentionem” ’, in Festschrift für Hermann Krause, ed. S. Gagner, H. Schlosser, and W. Wiegand (Cologne - Vienna, 1975), 126; Coing (n. 68), 132; K. Luig, ‘Usus modernus’, in Handwörterbuch zur deutschen Rechtsgeschichte (Berlin, 1998), vol. 5, cols. 628fr. Apart from that, sources of law that deviated from the ius commune had to be narrowly interpreted. See W. Trusen, ‘Römisches und partikuläres Recht in der Rezeptionszeit’, in Festschrift für Heinrich Lange, ed. K. Kuchinke (Munich, 1970), 108;
H. Lange, ‘Ius Commune und Statutarrecht in Christoph Besolds Consilia Tubigensia’ in Festschrift für Max Kaser, ed. D. Medicus and H.H. Seiler (Munich, 1976), 646; R. Zimmermann, ‘Statuta sunt stricte interpretanda, Statutes and the Common Law: A Continental Perspective’, Cambridge Law Journal 56 (1997): 315.
name=bookmark2385>115. The conclusion of P. Oestmann, Rechtsvielfalt vor Gericht: Rechtsanwendung und Partikularrecht im Alten Reich (Frankfurt, 2002), 681.
116. See, e.g., ‘Anlage zur Denkschrift zum BGB’, in B. Mugdan, ed., Die gesammten Materialien zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch für das Deutsche Reich (Berlin, 1899), vol. 1, 844; and Deutsche Rechts- und Gerichtskarte (Kassel, 1896; new edn. by D. Klippel,
1996) .
117. Thus, apart from still being directly applicable in parts of Germany, it also provided the underlying theory of private law wherever a codification had been enacted: see Koschaker (n. 102), 292.
118. For further references, see Zimmermann (n. 17), 2.
119. E. Friedberg, Die künftige Gestaltung des deutschen Rechtsstudiums nach den Beschlüssen der Eisenacher Konferenz (Leipzig, 1896), 7.
120. See, e.g., Borgolte (n. 100), 242fr.
121. See also, e.g., Berman (n. 113), 10.
122. See the division by P. Glenn, Legal Traditions of the World, 4th edn. (Oxford, 2010).
123. In contrast, the chthonic tradition is marked by its orality: see Glenn (n. 122), 64.
124. S. Gagner, Studien zur Ideengeschichte der Gesetzgebung (Stockholm, 1960), 288.
125. H. Coing, ‘Das Recht als Element der europäischen Kultur’, Historische Zeitschrift 238 (1984): 7; F. Wieacker, ‘Foundations of European Legal Culture’, American Journal of Comparative Law 38 (1990): 25; P. Häberle, Europäische Rechtskultur (Frankfurt,
1997) , 22.
126. Berman (n. 113), 9; Glenn (n. 122), 155.
127. R. von Jhering, Geist des römischen Rechts auf den verschiedenen Stufen seiner Entwicklung, 6th edn. (Leipzig, 1907), 14.
128. See Schulz (n. 96).
129. See Koschaker (n. 102), 164. For the Islamic tradition, see Glenn (n. 122), 187.
130. Coing (n. 125), 6; Wieacker (n. 125), 23.
131. Zweigert and Kötz (n. 46), 62.
132. Zweigert and Kötz (n. 46), 174. On the phenomenon of legal reception in Switzerland, see M. Immenhauser, ‘Zur Rezeption der deutschen Schuldrechtsreform in der Schweiz’, recht (2006): 1.
133. Glenn (n. 122), 133.
134. For the different meanings of the term ‘civil law’, see R. Zimmermann, in Carey Miller and Zimmermann (n. 3), 262.
135. For an overview, see Zweigert and Kötz (n. 46), 154; Z. Kühn, ‘Comparative Law in Central and Eastern Europe’, in Reimann and Zimmermann (n. 5), 215.
136. See, e.g., F. Madl (then President of the Republic of Hungary), in Aufbruch nach Europa, ed. J. Basedow et al. (Tübingen, 2001), vii.
137. L. Vekas, ‘Integration des östlichen Mitteleuropa im Wege rechtsvergleichender Zivilrechtserneuerung’, Zeitschrift für europäisches Privatrecht 12 (2004): 454.
138. See, esp., M. Avenarius, Rezeption des römischen Rechts in Rußland — Dmitrij Mejer, Nikolaj Djuvernua und Iosif Pokrovskij (Göttingen, 2004); M. Avenarius ‘Das russische Seminar fürrömisches Recht in Berlin (1887—1896)’, Zeitschriftfür europäisches Privatrecht 6 (1998): 893; M. Avenarius, ‘Das pandektistische Rechtsstudium in St. Petersburg in den letzten Jahrzehnten der Zarenherrschaft’, in Deutsches Sachenrecht in polnischer Gerichtspraxis, ed. W. Dajczak and H.-G. Knothe (Berlin, 2005), 51.
size=1 color=black face=Garamond>139. H. Schlosser, Grundzüge der Neueren Privatrechtsgeschichte, 10th edn. (Heidelberg, 2005), 214, who points out that this reception was neither extraordinary nor completely surprising. But cf. Zweigert and Kötz (n. 46), 175.
140. Zweigert and Kötz (n. 46), 271.
141. J. H. Baker, An Introduction to English Legal History, 3rd edn. (London, 1990), 35 ;in the 4th edn. (2002), the word ‘noble’ has been deleted.
142. See, e.g., K. Schurig, ‘Europäisches Zivilrecht: Vielfalt oderEinerlei?’, in Festschriftfür Bernhard Großfeld, ed. U. Hüber und W.F. Ebke (Heidelberg, 1999), 1102; E. Bucher, ‘Rechtsüberlieferung und heutiges Recht’, Zeitschrift für europäisches Privatrecht 8 (2000): 409. Particularly pointedly, see P. Legrand, ‘Legal Traditions in Western Europe: The Limits of Commonality’, in Transfrontier Mobility of Law, ed. R. Jagtenberg, E. Örücü, and A. de Roo (The Hague, 1995), 63; P. Legrand, ‘European Legal Systems are Not Converging’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly 45 (1996): 52. Legrand refers to an unbridgeable epistemological chasm.
143. For what follows, see the essays in Stein (n. 90), 151, and Zimmermann (n. 107), 4. Also of interest in this context is the ‘inner relationship’ of (classical) Roman and English law: see F. Pringsheim, ‘The Inner Relationship between English and Roman Law’, Cambridge Law Journal 5 (1935): 347; P. Stein, ‘Roman Law, Common Law, and Civil Law’, Tulane Law Review 66 (1992): 1591; P. Stein, ‘Logic and Experience in Roman and Common Law’, in Stein (n. 90), 37.
144. R. C. van Caenegem, The Birth of the English Common Law, 2nd edn. (Cambridge, 1988).
145. R. H. Helmholz, Canon Law and the Law of England (London, 1987); R. H. Helmholz, Roman Canon Law in Reformation England (Cambridge, 1990); J. Martinez-Torron, Anglo-American Law and Canon Law: Canonical Roots of the Common Law Tradition (Berlin, 1998).
146. On the civilian tradition in Scotland, see the references in nn. 3 and 4 above.
147. See, in particular, A. W. B. Simpson, ‘Innovation in Nineteenth Century Contract Law’, Law Quarterly Review 91 (1975): 247; Gordley (n. 112), 134; cf. D. Ibbetson, A Historical Introduction to the Law of Obligations (Oxford, 1999).
color=black face=Garamond>148. Krell v Henry [1903] 2 KB 740, 747 (CA).
149. See H. Dilcher, Die Theorie der Leistungsstörungen bei Glossatoren, Kommentatoren und Kanonisten (Frankfurt, 1960), 185.
150. Taylor v Caldwell (1863) 3 B & S 826; see, e.g., M. Rheinstein, Die Struktur des vertraglichen Schuldverhältnisses im anglo-amerikanischen Recht (Berlin — Leipzig, 1932), 173; G.H. Treitel, Unmöglichkeit, ‘Impracticability' and ‘Frustration' im angloamerikanischen Recht (Baden-Baden, 1991); M. Schmidt-Kessel, Standards vertraglicher Haftung nach englischem Recht: Limits of Frustration (Baden-Baden, 2003), 45.
151. See R. Zimmermann, Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard are sweeter... Conditio tacita, implied condition und die Fortbildung des europäischen Vertragsrechts’, Archiv für die civilistische Praxis 193 (1993): 121. On implied terms in modern English contract law, see M. Schmidt-Kessel, ‘Implied Term — auf der Suche nach dem Funktionsäquivalent’, Zeitschrift für vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft 96 (1997): 101; W. Grobecker, Implied Terms und Treu und Glauben: Vertragsergänzung im englischen Recht in rechtsvergleichender Perspektive (Berlin, 1999).
152. See Zimmermann (n. 151), 134.
153. Berman (n. 113), 18.
154. R. H. Helmholz, ‘Magna Carta and the ius commune’, University of Chicago Law Review 66 (1999): 297, 371.
155. See, in particular, Berman (n. 113); Glenn (n. 122), 176. See also the studies by R. H. Helmholz, The ius commune in England: Four Studies (Oxford, 2001).
156. B.S. Markesinis, ed., The Gradual Convergence: Foreign Ideas, Foreign Influences and English Law on the Eve of the 21st Century (Oxford, 1994). Cf. R. C. van Caenegem, ‘The Unification of European Law: a pipedream?’ European Review 14 (2006): 33.
157. J. Gordley, ‘Common law und civil law: eine überholte Unterscheidung’, Zeitschrift für europäisches Privatrecht 1 (1993): 498.
158. S. Vogenauer, Die Auslegung von Gesetzen in England und auf dem Kontinent, 2 vols. (Tübingen, 2001) concludes that historically English law can be described as a province of the ius commune so far as statutory interpretation is concerned. A fundamental uniformity of approach in statutory interpretation can still be observed today: see Vogenauer, 1293; and S. Vogenauer, ‘Zur Geschichte des Präjudizienrechts in England’, Zeitschrift für neuere Rechtsgeschichte 28 (2006): 48. On the role of legal doctrine, see R. Goff ‘The Search for Principle’, repr. in The Searchfor Principle: Essays in Honour of Lord Goff of Chieveley, ed. W. Swadling and G. Jones (New York, 1999), 313.
159. There was also some direct influence from civilian legal sources: P. Stein, ‘The Attraction of the Civil Law in Post-Revolutionary America’, in Stein (n. 90), 411; M. Reimann, Historische Schule und Common Law (Berlin, 1993); R. H. Helmholz, ‘Use of the Civil Law in Post-Revolutionary American Jurisprudence’, Tulane Law Review 66 (1992): 1649; M. H. Hoeflich, Roman and Civil Law and the Development of Anglo-American Jurisprudence in the Nineteenth Century (Athens, Georgia, 1997); M. H. Hoeflich, ‘Translation and the Reception of Foreign Law in the Antebellum United States’, American Journal of Comparative Law 50 (2002): 753.
160. E. Bucher, ‘Zu Europa gehört auch Lateinamerika!’ Zeitschrift für europäisches Privatrecht 12 (2004): 515; J. Kleinheisterkamp, ‘Development of Comparative Law in Latin America’, in Reimann and Zimmermann (n. 5), 261; J. Schmidt, Zivilrechtskodifikation in Brasilien (Tübingen, 2009), esp. chs. 1 and 7.
161. Z. Kitagawa, Rezeption und Fortbildung des europäischen Zivilrechts in Japan (Frankfurt — Berlin, 1970); Z. Kitagawa, ‘Development of Comparative Law in East Asia’, in Reimann and Zimmermann (n. 5), 237; M. Rehbinder, Ju-Chan Sonn, eds., Zur Rezeption des deutschen Rechts in Korea (Baden-Baden, 1990).
162. M. McAuley, ‘Quebec’, in Mixed Jurisdictions Worldwide, ed. V.V. Palmer, 2nd edn. (Cambridge, 2012), 329.
163. This chapter, n. 1.
164. Jhering (n. 127), 2.
165. This chapter, n. 104.
166. lang=EN-US>Partly, at least, as a result of the emigration of German Romanists during the Nazi regime: see P. Birks, ‘Roman Law in Twentieth-Century Britain’, and R. Zimmermann, ‘Was Heimat hieß, nun heißt es Hölle’, in Jurists Uprooted: German-speaking Emigre Lawyers in Twentieth-century Britain, ed. J. Beatson and R. Zimmermann (Oxford, 2004), 249 and 46 respectively.
167. For what follows, see Zimmermann (n. 17), 22; M. Rainer, ‘Dieter Nörr e la romanistica tedesca’, in Dieter Nörr e la romanistica europea tra xx e xxi secolo, ed. E. Stolfi (Turin, 2006), 7ff.
168. OnMitteis andthe Mitteis school, see R. Zimmermann, ‘ “In der Schule von Ludwig Mitteis”: Ernst Rabels rechtshistorische Ursprünge’, Rabels Zeitschrift 65 (2001): 1.
169. On the challenges for Roman law scholarship today, see L. Capogrossi Colognesi and R. Knütel in Stolfi (n. 167), 77, 133.
170. E. I. Bekker, Die Aktionen des römischen Privatrechts, vol. 1 (Berlin, 1871), 2.
171. Zimmermann (n. 25), 14.
172. See also, for England, Birks (n. 166), 249, 260; for the Netherlands, see W. Zwalve, ‘Teaching Roman Law in the Netherlands’, Zeitschrift für europäisches Privatrecht 5 (1997): 393.
173. Zimmermann (n. 17), 44; Zwalve (n. 172).
174. R. Zimmermann, ‘Comparative Law and the Europeanization of Private Law’, in Reimann and Zimmermann (n. 5), 539; R. Zimmermann, ‘Ius Commune and the Principles of European Contract Law: Contemporary Renewal of an Old Idea’, in European Contract Law, ed. H. L. MacQueen and R. Zimmermann (Edinburgh, 2006), 1; R. Zimmermann, ‘The Present State of European Private Law’, American Journal of Comparative Law 57 (2009): 479.