Capbis deminutio minima.

An unresolved
problem*
Alba ROMANO
RESUMEN
Los tratados de derecho romano en su mayora se ocupan del fenmeno
de capitis deminutio o sea la prdida o cambio de los derechos civiles y,
mientras hay acuerdo sobre el valor de las llamadas maxirna y media, las
discrepancias sobre el alcance y sentido de la minima son notables. Estas
discrepancias se deben mayormente al hecho de que los autores en sus inter-
pretaciones se basan en una insegura reconstruccin histrica o en deduc-
ciones lgicas no siempre sustentadas por los textos jurdicos. Este trabajo se
propone un regreso a las fuentes y un examen lo ms exhaustivo posible de
las mismas. Aunque del cotejo de los textos legales no emerge una conclusin
inequvoca, la autora confa que, habiendo desbrozado el campo de ele-
mentos espreos, el estudio de esta importante cuestin quede abierto a
nuevas interpretaciones.
SUMM AR Y
Most of the treatises of Roman law deal with capit is deminutio, that is the
loss or change of civil rights. While there is agreement about the values of the
so-called maxima and media, there are marked discrepancies about capitis
deminulio minima. These disagreemnts are due mostly to the fact that the
scholars have based their interpretations on different entena, either a shaky
historical reconstruction or logical deductions not necessarily supported by
legal texts. This paper aims at returning to the sources and examining them
as exhaustively as possible. Although the collation of the texts does not
afford an unequivocal conclusion, the author trusts that the elimination of
spunious facts and interpretations will openth study of this important matter
to further scholarlywork.
* Este trabajo fue terminado durante cl perodo de sabtico que goc en la Universidad
Complutense de Madrid desde febrero hasta julio de 1992. Me es grato reconocer el generoso
apoyo de la Direccin General de investigacin Cientfica y Tcnica.
Cuaderna. <le Filologa Clsica. Lsaclias laiitLtus 3 1992. Editorial Complutense. Madrid.
50 Al,cx Ranuana
Capits deminutio is the loss of or change in civil rights. It features in al-
most al the treatises of Roman Law. the authors of which recognize the
importance of its effects and repercussons in the public and private lives of
the Romans. Nevertheless these authors are far from unanimous in their ex-
planations of the origin and nature of the three versions of capis deminulio,
xc. maxma, media and minina.
Early classical sources are searce but the late jurists have devoted
considerable attention to the matter and we might expect to be reasonably
enlightened were not for the fact that the treatment of capitis denuinutio
minina is frequently ambiguous, fragmented or downright contradietory
Por more than a century distinguished seholars have endeavoured tu eluci-
date the meaning of the legal texts and have suggested various solutions to
supplement absent information or to smooth over contradictions or tneon-
gruities. It is very difficult tu escape the impression that these cogent, and
sometimes highly seductive, theories or explanations do considerable violence
to the ancient texts.
My aim is to point out where the sources have been subjected to a
procustean treatment either by ignoring what does not fit or by inferringwhat
is absent. 1 have few illusions that 1 can reaeh a satisfactory conclusion that
will set readers minds at peace about capitis deminutio. However, if 1 can
present an inventory of the information we have and point to what has been
dismissed or added by the Roman Law experts. this will make it possible for
future scholars tu reconsider the question da capo and tu suggest al ah
embracing explanation.
Types of copilis deminutiones
Paulus libro II. od Sabinui in Digest IV. V, II: Capitis deminuttones trta
genera sunt: maxma. media, minima; tra enm sunt, quae habemus:
hibertatem, cuitatem, familiam. Igitur quum omnia haec amittimus, hoc est,
libertatem, et eiuitatem, et familiam, maximam esse capitis deminutionem;
quum ucro amittimus ciuitatem, libertatem retinemus, mediam esse capitis
deminutionem; quum et libertas et ciuitas retinetur, familia tantum mutatur,
mnmam esse capitis deminutionem constat. 2
Paulus is categorical, unequivocal and well organized: copilis deminutio
maxma involves the loss of freedom, capitis deininutio inedia, the loss of
W X V. B och la od, 7le Maitu Itus ti z a lotus of P r., tu tan tci cii e Los. Ca ni bridge 1 93 1 . p.69:
Ihe account of Gaits is somewhat ineoberents. 1 . Ra nfante. Cc,r,so cli L)irio Ratuana. Diriucu
cli FonLigla, Milano 1963 , p. 172. declates bat as lar as ca
1uiiis clenui/Luti<u nuiLi,na is concerned
he tbinks t bat J ustn ian would have done a favour o tbe i nterpreters of Raman law bad he
considered t bis institutitn ext inct aod not talked of t be restil otion of be actiun against the
capiz is derruitLuius. Ibe interpreter d ictates o tbe jurist wbat be shoold hace said.
2 ( 7 [ uit. inri. 1, XV. 1-5.
Capitis cletoinutio mminua. A a unres<>lvccl prablen>
51
citizenship and capitis deminutio minima, a change of family. Here the first
difficulty arises.
It is not possible to put freedom, citizenship and family 3 under the same
heading for the following reasons:
in Roman society the free man, horno liber, belonged to a recognized
group, endowed with well defined legal rights, in opposition to the save,
seraus, a non-cxistent entity from the point of view of the law.
in Roman society the citizen, ciuis, also enjoyed a neatly defined set of
rights to which Use non Roman citizen, peregrinas, had no access.
in Roman society membership of a family or the loss of such membership
did not entail legal rights or capabilities per se. There is no such a thing
as a person with a family as opposed to one without it.
Ciaitas is always Romana and libertas is also Romano according to
Cicero ~. Ihis Romanitos is not extended to the family.
This asymmetry between freedom and citizenship on the one hand and
family on the other is reinforced by:
Paulus himself who, at the end of the paragraph, talks of loss of freedom
and citizenship (amittimas) whereas with respect to the family he speaks
of change <mutotur3 of family.
Copitis deminatio maxima and media involves not only a loss, but at the
same time, a demotion. The deminati of these categories are deprived of
rights and downgraded not only in the legal but also in the social scale~
Those who have undergone capitis deminutio minina. by contrast, are
not necessarily deprived of rights indeed, they may acquire some and
suffer no damage to their dignitas or social standing.
It is no wonder that so many scholars attempts to deal with this plurality
of systems have led to so many ways of explaining it.
Historical reconstruction of capitis deminutio
The historical development approach is well represented by Desserteaux.
He argues that in Ciceros time there were only two types of capitis
deminutio. The first was connected with the loss of freedom and citizenship,
so closely related to the point that there was only rnaxima capitis deminutio,
the other, minima, was dependent on the condition of mancipium, which, in
3 Nor are tbes the only tbree tbings tbat we bave (tria sant quar habemos) See M.FC de
Savigny, Troitde Droil Rotnoin, traduit de lAllemand par MCII. Quenous, Paris l84I,p.
469
ff..
P ro Cace. 96: qui enim potest inre Quiritium liber esse is qui numero Quiritium non esQ
J ust. Ins. X VI, 5: quibus autem dignitas magis quam status permutatur capite non
minuuntur: et ideo senatu motos capite non minui constat. See also note 3 7 beiow.
52
A lbcx Baniano
his view, had become different from slavery at an early stage
6. The classical
references to capitis deminutio are so scant that we cannot accept
Desserteaux views without certain reservation. Moreover one of the veryrare
Ciceronian passages on capitis deminutio does not seem to substantiate this
view7 . W.W. Huchland contends that Cicero knew nothing of the three
degrees. He claims tbat for the orator capitis deminutio is an exiting of the
cvie community either by slavery or exile and he does not mention the status
permutatio or j6miliae mutatio. In spite of this absence of evidence, B uchland
concludes that the tripartite division is a creation of the Empire and he
accepts as possible a change in the meaning of the notion. ~
Another attempt at hypothetical reconstruction of the historical process is
made by J. Declaireuil9 who eonsiders that classical law had conceived
citizcns rights tobe derived fromfreedom, citizenship and family. The theory
remained, but the circumstances changed. The extension of citizenship made
capitis deminutio media a mere instrument of punishment. Moreover, the
ncrease in the power of the state reduced the importance of the family links
snce the citizen dealt more and more directly with the state and capiLs
deminutio minima devenait chaquejour plus fantmale lO~ B ut Declareuils
view is contradicted by the jurists who seem to have escalated their concern
for capitis deminutio minima, -if we judge by the number of references to
it- to the neglect of the other types.
Efforts to trace the evolution of capitis deminutio in Roman Civil law
were put at rest by the comprehensive and learned paper by Max Kaser Zur
Gesehichte der capitis deminutio in Jara II, The author claims that the
tripartition into maxima, media and mininia t2 was not adopted by the great
classic jurists, but only by later seholars. In addition he has doubts about
Paulus triad freedom, citizenship and family because they are not classieal
Etucles sur laJrcnaiion luistorique dela copi/s clenuinuxio; 1. A ncienne/ respective des o
el cies sourccc de lo capixis detoinut jo, Di jan 1909, ibis view is ibared by Robert von Mayr.
Mis/oria del clerecito Romotto, Barcelona 1941. p. 3 6 wbo states that in earlv times tbe foreigner
was as deprived of rigbts as tbc save, so the capitis denujuLutia could adopt only one form,
namelz roaxinuo. He also argues (probably from Diges IV. 5. 7) thai already in tbe Twelve
Tables tbere were twa types, one including tbe loss of freedom and citizenship, tbe otber tbe
ebange of the family status, cf also Emilio Costa, Cicerone Giurecansulia. Roma 1964, p. 87:
[a c.apis clcnuinutic, consistente in una ,thmioe oua/olio di tin soggeto ad altrui potes/as da
riguardare adunque come la pi recente de le tre specie di denuinutio rapprescntate dai
u reconsulti classici, cerameote gi ben fissai a buon tratto innanzi 1 momento a co 1 Nostro
(Cicert,) appartiene.
See later lopico, VI. 29 o p. 59.
Op. cit.. p. 70.
Borne n 1 Orgonisation cta Droit. Paris 1924, p. 3 51.
O Ibid.
Revista In/ernaz ionale di Dirilta Ranua/La e Antico,3 (1952) 48-89.
L2 Tbe nomenclature is not uniform. Gaius 1. 159: Est autem capitis deminutio prioris status
permutamio: eaque tribus modis accidit: nam aut maxima est capilis deminutio aut minor, quam
quidam mediam uocant, aut minima. In Ulp. 1>. 3 8.16.1.4 nuaxjno and toedia are called nuagtua
in appositio it to toLilLar e. nuinitixa,
53
Copiti\ derninatio minima. An anre.solvcd problein
concepts 3, In Kasers view, oDie Schulschriftsteller sagen also mit ibrer
Terminologie nichts Unrichtiges aus, sonder volziehen nur eme sachlich
berichtigte Klassifizierung 4, He wonders how the non-juridical expression
caput diminuere alicui became a technical legal expression meaning the
separation of a person from a particular group and sees in the damnati capitis
orpoena capitis the link that explains the change 15, This is not hard to accept
for capitis deminutio maxima and media; but capitis deminutio minima is
quite different hence the division of the phenomenon of capitis deminutio
into two different modes, the minima in opposition to the others. In the case
of the minima, Kaser explains its heterogeneous nature by tracing its history.
He assumes that adrogatio and conuenlio in manum were not originally cases
of capitis deminutio, and that thejurists later bunded together disparate legal
situations of which they had no firm grasp 16 Even so, Kasers study of the
historical development, however erudite, is based on numerous presuppos-
tions 1 7 that cannot be confirmed and, ultimately, fals to explain the
disparities between the types of capitis deminutio.
The nature of the phenomenon
Paul Frdric Girard equates capitis deminutio with civil death. This he
does on the basis of Gajus 1 , 1 53 : ciuili ratione capitis deminutio morti
aequatur ~. This civil death entails the loss of freedom, citizenship and family
and a resurrection ensues: the ensaved person resurrects iure naturali
( although the author admits that the Romans do not use the expression); the
citizen who becomes a peregrinus resurrects iure gentium and the one who
loses the family acquires a new civil family, even if he is the only member of
it. The idea is ingenious but, not only is that principle of ius naturale
conjectural, but also it does not account for the more deleterious condition in
which those who suffer capitis deminutio maxima and media find themselves
vis vis those who underwent the minima 1 9 Correctly, in my opinion, W.W.
13 ( /1 also Savigny who bases most of his arguments on the fact tbat Paul is unreliable, op.
ci/. p. 474.
14 Zur Geschicbte... p. 53 .
LS Ibid. pp. 63 -75.
~ Ibid. p. 87: Dic zum Teil recht heterogenen Prinzipen,.dte tn hr vereogt Bnd. legen fest
und werden in der Falgezeit nicbt mebr veritndert.
7 Verma/en and vertnatlich are well represented in Kaser s prose.
It Manuel Elmen/aire de Droi/ Romoin, Paris 1918 pp. 195-196. Kaser, aZur Geschicbte
tu pp. 75-76 accepts the parailel witb death for the capitis derninuxiones moxinla and medio,.
but in the case of the mini/no, it becomes totally inappropriate. On tbat pont cf. also
Desserteaux p. 3 80 ff
19 Bonfante, op. ch., p. 172 states that this parallelism wth death had only bistorical value
in Gajos time and in J ustinian times capilis derninutia was compared witb death only in case
of slavery.
54
AIba Rcnna,xo
B uchland
2 0 says that the idea of death is used as a mere analogy and that the
effects are different: death brings a will into operation whereas no type of
capit deminutio did. In addition, the persons who suffcred capitis deminutio
tninimo did not lose their rights to legitimate inheritance2 l. Concerning the
acquisition of a new family, there are difficulties in spite of D. 50, 1 6,1 95,2 :
o...idemque eueniet et in ea qui emaneipatus est: nam et hie sul iuris effectus
propriam familiam habetso. The jurist clearly has only the Roman male in
mmd (quiemancipatus, hic... ef/cus) who, married or not, is apater/nilias;
the female, un the other hand, even if sai iuris, does not constitute a family.
Fritz Schulz2 2 follows a well established tradition 2 3 and claims, in spite of
the evidence of our earliest sources where Use meaning of caput is the literal
one 2 4, that originally the word captx was synonymous with persona and the
capihs dentinutio was applicable lo the group of people who lost a member2 5.
For instance, the argument goes. when a Roman citizen lost his citizenship,
it was the Roman people who suffered the diminution, papulus Romanus
capite cleminults es. Similarlv, when a son was adopted it was his natural
family that suffered that diminution. Moreover, if a son. because of bis
fathers death, becomes sui ixris, there is no ca,nilis deminutio because the
death of the father dissolves the Jmilia. which, in consequence, cannot be
clenuinuto 2 This interpretation is arguable. A close look at copitis dcnxinutio
mininua proves that the theory tliat the group, e. the family, is the one being
deprived, would not be adequate in cases such as the arrogation of a
ireedman or the marriage manu of a freedwoman since, in both instances,
there would not be a family to suffer a ioss. Furthermore, men or womcn sux
/tris who, having lost Iheir agnates. do not have a family that can be
deminuta; instead they themselves could become respectively demintaus or
deminuta by adrogario or contentio in nxonum. SehuIz. unaware of or
ndifferent to these cases. claims that the deminutio was later applied to the
person who was separated from thc group and, after this change, copitis
cleminutio could be correctly applied to the deminui who suffered a Ioss. In
thc case of capit deminutio nuavinio and media this theory works but it does
not aceount for the person who changed family, for example an adopted son
who is adopted by another poteclnLilias. This is regarded as copilAs
~>> Op. <it.. P ac.
~> Digcst, 3 8. 17. 8: Capitis minutio saluo stat contingens liberis nibil nacet ad legitirnam
bereditalem... Proinde sive qois .. capile minuatur ad legitinuatn bereditatcm admttetur: ts
magna capitis deminu io interueni at. q oae uc ciu itatein ad ini it. ut puta si deportctu r.
22 Clossical Ronuan Loo, Oxford 1951. pp.72-3 .
22 Cf Savignv. op. <it., pp. 451 ff.
24 Plaut., AIas/. 266: lii speculo dminuam caput: Metu. 3 04: illie bon,ini d iminu am capur:
Ter.. Lan. 803 : di mIni n uam ego ibi caput. nis i abis: A clelp>. 57 : di ni ni i noal ur ti bi quidem iam
cerebrum.
25 ibis poi nl is st ronuly den ied by K aser. Zu r ciescbicbte. u> pp. 59 63 . wbo clainis tbat it
is an argo me nt of iris ciuile and o nly a free person (and oat a grau p of persano) cansufUer capitis
cletnttLu/ta.
25 Ibid? p. /3 .
Capitis deminatio mini/no. Aa anresolved problemn
55
deminutio althou~h, from the sons point of view, the new status does not
differ fromthe prevous one. The same is true in the case of a father who, by
emancipating his son, makes him an horno sui iuris. His new independence
can hardly be considered a deminutio for the son, yet the family is deminuta.
This explanation of capitis deminutio minima is unsatisfactory because it is
based on the assumption of semantie change: the signifier capul has changed
its signified. It used to stand for a body of people and later it stood for an
individual. There is no evidence of such a change.
B onfante rejects contemporary views that consider that capitis deminutio
minirna was, originally, a unique phenomenon and declares that it cannot be
discussed outside the framework of the general capitis deminutio 2 7 Neverthe-
less, when confronted with its triple nature, he does not attempt to explore
the possible unifying factor, merely stating that the first two capitis
deminutiones have a uniform definition in the sources and a clear meaning.
The lack of an equally uniform and precise definition of capitis deminutio
minirna in the sources is due to historical reasons: this version of capitis
deminutio was in the process of disappearing already in classical times and it
is understandable that the jurists did not have a clear 2 8 In another non
sequitur, B onfante declares that oc. d. minima la capitis denz inutio per
antonomasia, data la simplicit delle altre due figure
2 9. In B onfantes view
complexity grants a greater value to the least comprehensible aspect of a
tripartite institution. Nevertheless he does not address the problem of the
relation between these parts and nor does he attempt to explain that
complexity.
Sofar we have failed to find any cogent argument that explains thejurists
classing together of disparate legal conditions. Y et it is hard to believe that
the incongruity was not obvious to them.
Capitis deminutio minima
Since the tertius discordans is capitis derninutio minima, is natural that we
should concentrate on it.
The historical approach does not seem rewarding and we are preparedto
accept, with Kaser, that capitis derninutio minima introduces a new concept,
movng away from the original one. This new concept is what the jurists had
in their minds:
Liess sich bei den altrmisehen RUlen der c.d. maxima und media dic
Parallele mit strafweisen Ttung unschwer herstellen, so gewhren die
Tatbestflnde der c.d. minima demgegenber ein gana anderes B ild. Wir
22 Op. cix. p. 65.
2> Ibid. p. 166.
29 Ibid. p. 67.
56 A Iba Batnctno
erkennen darin dic Zeichen einer tielgreifenden Umgestaltung, dic sich der
B egriff der cd. hat gefallen lassen mtissen. Bei den J uristen, denen ja
vornehrnlich dic privatrecbtlichen Erscheinungen an Herzen liegen, stehen
die Falle der c.d. nuininua in Vordergrund des lntercsses. ~
As far back as 1 8 41 . M.F.C. de Savigny in Appendix VI of his Trait dc
I)rit Romain, 3 1 much attaeked 3 2 and frequently unfairly discarded, suggests
that there are conflicting systems of interpretation of capitis deminutio
minima, that involve agnation, dependenee or a mixture of both:
Dans un systme, la famille des agoats:
Dans un autre systme. la indpendance ou la dpendance;
Dans un traisime systme, tous les rapports de famille. ce qti
embrasserait la fois les changements reconnus par les deux prcmiers
systmes. 32
This is a neat elassification, but we shall adopt a different order and before
dealing with the first point, that is agnation, we shall explore whether 1 )
capitis deminulio minima involves a change that affects legal dependence or
independence and 2 ) the concept of status can be applied to the family.
Finally, we shall discuss 3 ) mutatio status and agnation.
1 ) Legal dependence
J ustinian, Jnst.. 1, XVI, 3 : Minima capitis deminutio est, quum et ciuitas et
libertas retinetur, sed status hominis commutatur; quod accidit in his, qui,
quum sui iuris fuerun, coepcrunt alieno iuri subiecti esse, uc contra.
Justinian is here concerned only with the condition sui iuris or alieni iuris
of a Roman citizen and the change of this condition is the result of capitis
deminutio minima. Moreover he makes elear in the following paragraph ( 4)
that this change is restricted to Roman citizens:
Seruus autem manumssus non capite minuitur, quia nullum caput habuit.
Had Justinian limited his statement in paragraph 3 to those who, having
beensui iuris become alieni iuris, we would have beenin a position to support
the assertion that capitis cleuxinutia involves s a loss, a change in deterius, a
concept dear to Savigny3 ~. This concept 5 made more attractive by the fact
that the manumitted save or the foreigner who becomes a citizen, that is
those who by changing status acquire freedom or citizenship, do not suffer
capitis denuinutio. lf this were the case, a satisfactory parallelism with the
aZur Gesebicbte to p. 75.
~ Pp. 423 -473 .
32 J Ite excurs os 1 Pp 3 8 1 1 84 i n /01/ injoal Itz stitu/ianu,uL Libri Qoat tao>, i itt rod, . e amme ntary
and excursos b~ IB, Moylc, Oxford 1964, is tbe least ebarilable attaek.
Op it. Pp. 445-446.
34 Op. <it, p. 446. When discussine the concept of status i n the ju rists. Savigny conc udes
tbat in tbe case of cop/is detutno/ja tite defin itian s bould be con pleted: 5/caos nuatotio itu
delerius.
57
Copitis detnitua/io mini/no. An anresalved problem
other types of capitis deminutio would have emerged ~. The explanation of
cases such as the children of the adrogati or a filiafamilias entering into
manus ( i.e those who change but not necessarily in deterius) could be that the
were relatively late examples of capitis deminutiones
36. However, it would
not be so easy to explain why a senator or a magistrate can lose hs status,
which is true demotion, without undergoing capitis deminutio ~ In spite of
thes~ cases, the argument in favour of a change in deterius is cogent, but
Justinian says vel contra, that is those who having beenalieni iuris become su>
iuris. The temptation to declare vel contra an interpolation or an infelicitous
second thought is strong, but we shall resist it since it is our intention to
explore the texts as they stand, without doing them violence to suit our
theories. To be consistent with this principle we should read in Justntan s
words that the transit into independence involves a capitis deminutio, but it
will be necessary to add that the change of status should be the result of a
legal act not of a natural event3 t such as the death of the paterfamilias, which
alters the status of those previously under his potes/as.
2 ) Status and family
We should enquire first whether or not capitis deminutio minima ts a
change of family and then whether or not capitis deminutio minima is a
change of status.
Not sufficient attention is given, in my opinion, to the fact that the only
jurist who mentions the change of familia in the context of capitis deminutio
is Paulus3 9 Diges IV, Y , 3. Libro XI. ad Edictum:
Liberos qui arrogatum parentem sequuuntur, placet minui caput, quum
aliena potestate sint, et quum familiam mutauerint. 40
The fact that the jurists do not always agree4 or, as in this case, one of them
has no textual support from any of the others is not enough reason for us to
~ Savigny, op. cit. passicn. in fact contends tbat copi/is derninatio occurred when a person
su, Loas passed into potes/os or monas ar when afiliusjhmilios or a woman married mona was
conveyed into rnancipiutn in arder tobe emancipated or given into adoption. Since the texts do
not provide substantial support far tbis hypotbesis, Savigoy is forced to resort toargumento ex
silentio or tbe postulation that Paulus text is corrupt.
~WW. Buchland, op. ch. p. J I.
27 D. 4. 5. 5. 2 (Paul lled.) : Nune respiciendum, quae capitis deminitione pereant: et primo
de ea capitis deminutione, quae salua ciuitate accidit, per quam publica iura non interuerti
constant: nam manere magistratum uc senatorem uc iudicem certuni est.
~ Savigny, op. <it., p. 446.
~Ulpian (Digest IV, V, 6) mentions tbe family in the context of copixis derninutio but be
is referring to the rights of tbe family of the deninuxus, not to tbe Ioss or change of family.
Libro LI od Sobinani-.; capts emm mnutio priuata baminis et familiae eius iura, non
ciuitatis amittit.
See also paragraph II quoted in p. 50.
41 Discrepancies are not infrequent, for instance Gaius 2. 23 4 and Ulpan. Lpx/. II. 14
concerning tbe seape nf early testaments.
58 A Iba l?onLoncu
diseard a statement. Nevertheless, the uniqueness of an opinion should act as
a caveat.
Seeondly, capitis deininutio perceived as a change of status enjovs a
greater textual popularity. This concept could be general. Diges IV, V, 1 ,
Gaius libro IV ad Edicum prouincialc:
Capitis deminurio cst status permutatia.
Gr the coneept of status conid be restricted to copis deminulio mnxnua:
U Ipian Xl. 13 Minima capitis deminutio est. per quam er ciuitatc ct
libertate sal ua, status ( 1 u mtaxat boninis mutatiir quod fit adaptione et in
manum canuentione.
J usti n ian. Irxst 1. XVI .3 . Mi nima capitis deminrttio est. q uum et ciuitas cl
libertas ret inetor. sed st atos hominis cammutattur 42-
Ihe nature of status de~erves some discusssion. Savigny, who addresses
this matter comprehensivelv
43 . states the accepted definition:
On appeIle sic/a> la manire < 1 tre en vert u de laq ucle u o hammc a ce rta os
droits 4%
Consequently, there are status noturales and tatus civiles and, within the
latter, the status liberatis, the status civitatis and the stous hmilioe. J .B
Movle in his notes to title X VI in fmperaors Justiniani Institutionun Libri
Qualtuor agrees with the traditional definitionof status and adds that a nans
position in respect to legal rights ois usually determined by referenee to three
mamenta; libertas, civibas and lmilia ~. As far as freedorn is concerned,
there is no difficultv because no person can have a status unless he or she is
free. Modestinus, libro 1 P andccarum in D. IV, V, 4 is unequivocal when.
referring to a manumittcd save. he says: hodie enim incipit statum haberes>.
Similar argumentation can be applied to citizenship. Familv is dilferent
because the legal texts mention mutado status4 and mutado /nuiliae7 but
status fnuiliae45 has no textual support ~. Ihe attempt to deline status
42 Already quoted o p 56 Also Gaius 1 162 quoted in ex/etusa o p 62
Op <it. Pp. 424-445
~ ibid p. 424
~ p 155
(/1 Ulpiam XI. 23 and .lust.. ltLst XVI 3 Also it IV. VI. 1: satus pern=ulamia.
Cf Divo, iv. V. II
~ Paul I rc< lric Girard. tIcutuel El,u>etutair< ce t)raiu RouuuojtL. Paris 1918 p 195 mentions
ube 5/chus /cttutluae and tses Paul. L) IV. 1 II as mlie aotborirv disregarding tite fact thai Paul
tes e r oses socb an ex pressitun. li kewisc Robert von Ma Vr. Jhs/aria del I)ereclma Rcmuatua,
traduc dcl alentn por Wenceslao Roces. Barcelona 1964. p. 165. An tupposite view is takcn bv
Al~ uro Ii Or Derecho P ti>.acla Ra,uuatuou. Pamplona 1973 . p. 23 5 iv II wbo states:s> No es
romana la triparticin correspondiente de s/caus lihertatis, jaita/is. /huilioes. a poi nr al readx
nsadc b; Sa; nc. op. <it p. 443 .
It can be argued tbat t.ilpiat. in particular (Xl. 13 ) and. more gemterallv. .lustioian ltus/
XVI 3 (cf ext supra) can onlv refe r to be fani lv Ibis is possib le, but remaios i n t be arca of
5 pee ul at 00
59
Capitis deminatio mini/no An unresolved problein
familiae as the totality of people united by agnation and the rights derived
from that agnation is unconvincing. This is because those rights, as inthe case
of patriapotes os or marriage, are not calledstatus. To restrict the concept of
status as faras the family is concerned to the division of freeborn persons into
independent and dependent (sui iuris or alieni iuris) is the only possibility but
this is too limited. B ecause of this, we find some merit in Savigny who
introduces the concepts of privata and publica ura and, after a long
discusion, concludes:
Status hominum ou horninis ne dsigne done pas un tat juridique en
gnral, mais la place que lindividu occupe dans la fansille, par opposition
celle quil occupe dans lEtat. Le status hominis constitue la position de
l homme (priva/a hominis el familiae iara)
56 mise en parallle avec la
position de citoyen (publica. civitatis iura01.
Wc need have no reservation in accepting that mutatio status designates
a change infreedom, citizenship and but we must stretch the meaning of it to
include al the different family connections. Wc have already noted an
asymmetry i.e. capitis deminutio maxima and media involved change and loss
and capitis deminutio minima mere change-mutatio. The change in capitis
deminutio maxima and media concerns the publica iura while the minima
concerns the privata iura. Anew dissymmetry, not different fromthe original
one, albeit less pronounced, emerges.
3 ) Mutatio status and agnation
N4oyle says that the essence of capitis deminutio minima is the leaving,
by the minutus, of his previous agnatie family 52 , This statement deserves
inspection.
The only classical text that could be suitable for our purpose is Cicero,
Topica, VI, 2 9:
Itemque ut illud: Gentiles sunt qui inter se eodens nomine sunt. Non est
satis. Qui ab ingenuis oriundi sunt. Ne id quidem satis est. Quorum
maiorum nemo seruitutem seruiuit. Abest etiam nunc. oQui capite non
sunt deminutio. Hoc fortasse satis est. Nihil enim uideo Scaeuolam
pontificem ad hanc definitionem addidisse.
50 Savigny op. cii. p. 443 says tbat the double meaning of status coocerning public and
private law is not directly establisbed by tbe Roman law but is recognized indirectly. In my
opinion tbe following passages are sufficiently explicit: Digest LV, y, 6 - Ulpianus, Libro LI ~8)
ad Sabinarn.: Namet cetera officia, quae publica sunt in eo non finiuntur; capits enim minutio
priuata hominis et familiae cius iura, non cinitatis ammittit. Tbispriuo/a iura is the counterpart
of publico iara which is retained after copitis deniina/io. cfi Digest IV, V, 2: Nune respiciendum,
quae capitis deminutione pereant; et primo ea capitis deminutione, quae salua ciuitate accidit,
per quam publica ura non interuerti constat; nam manere magistratufl uel senatorem uel
iudicem certun est.
o p . cix p. 43 8.
52 O p . cit. p. 156.
60
Alba RanLana
The assertion that the capite deminuti break their gentile links is undermined
by forassc, and it is followed by Scaeuolas reticence in elaborating any
further. These facts warn us not to draw conclusions from this passage
53 .
Centuries later, Csaius 1 , [ 63 is more explicit:
Nec solum maioribus ( capitis> deminutionibus ius agnationis corrumpitur,
sed etam mlntma. et ideo, si ex duobus liberis alterum pateremancipauerit,
post obitum cius neuter alteri agnationis iure tutor essc poterit.
The first sentenee is unequivocal and the prohibition on exerting the lulela
legitima in the second is a clear corroboration.
In the Diges IV, V, Paulus libro Xl ad Edictum, 7 confirms Ciaius view:
Sed legitimae tutelae ex duodecim tabulis interuertuntur eadem ratione, qua
et hereditates exinde legitimae, quid agnatis deferentur, qui desinunt esse
familia mutati.
lf agnation was destroyed by capitis deminutio minima, cognation survived.
Gaius 1 , 1 58 :
Sed agnationis quidem ius capitis deminutione perimitur, cognationis ucro
ius Co modo non commutatur, quia ciuilis ratio ciuilia inra corrumpere
potest, naturalia ucro non potest.
This is ratified by Just. Ins. 1 , X VI, 6:
Quod autemdictum est, manere cognationis ius et post capitis deminutionen,,
hoc ita est, si minima capitis deminutio interueniat; manet enin cognatio ~
lf capitis deminutio minima had as its purpose the breaking the agnatic
bond ~, we face some difficulties when reading two texts that have not been
questioned:
Aulus Gellius, 1, 12,9: uirgo autem Vestalis simul est capta atquc in atrium
Vestac deducta est et pontificibus tradita, eo statim tempore sine emancipa-
tione ac sine capitis minutione e patris potestate exit ct ius testamenti
faciendi adipiscitur~<.
fbict 18: Praeterea in Conunucnariis Labeonis, quae ad Duodeci/n Tabulas
composuit, ita scriptum est: Virgo Vestalis neque heres est euiquaon
~ If applied to adoptitun, tbe passage could be inierpremed mhat tite adopted person eotcred
tbe gens of tbe adopter wbose nanie be took, but it enuld also indicate rhat tbe adoptee never
becante a member of tbe geas of tbe adopter
5~ 1 n case of copiuis denuinutio ma.vinua cognation 5 destroycd
~ Moyle op. ci/. p. 184 explains wby the Vestal Virgins and tbe Flamen Dialis did escape
api/ls ctemitutio nsentioning a text of Cicero tbat 1 have not beco able to trace nol even witb
tbe assistance of E. Costa, op cj/. . Moyle srates tbat i he ttere was nuu/o/ia /at;milioe i o ans
those [amis wheb movolved entrymro nmancipiurn, so the acrogatos and tbe woman wbo inade
a canveutio in manan, d id oom u ndergo <apiris cletnina/ ia. An artract ve beory. but wbere is 1 be
evide ncc
~ Plutarcb, Numo, lO 3 attributes rbe capacity of mak ng a ;viil and managing tbeir own
affairs to Numa
61
Capitis cleminatio minima. An anresolved problem
intestato, neque intestatae quisquam, sed bona etus in publicum redigi
aiunt. d quo iure fiat quaeritur
57 .
In the first text we see that the destruction of agnation was possible without
capitis deminutio; the second one points to a consequence of the disappearance
of agnation: neither is the Vestal virgin an heir inintestacy nor does she have
heirs when dying intestate because she has no agnates. If ths was done tn
deference to their special relation to the gods (in honorem sacerdotii) as
claimed by Gaius ( 1 , 1 45), this must have been obvious to the classicaljurists
and there would not have been a reason for puzzlement, consequently it is
likely that this reason was invented by Gaius and/or his contemporarles.
Labeos perplexity (id quo iureflat quaeritur) is due, most likely, to the fact
that ihose agnatie links were severed without capitis deminutio, as the
practice required. We must accept the fact that not every break of agnatsc
links was due to capitis deminutio and, conversely, agnation could be
destroyed without capitis deminutio. Indeed, if we change the focus in a
mutatio status such as adoption and look at the natural father, it could be
said that he, in giving his son in adoption, severs himself from an agnatic
bond without suffering capitis deminutio.
The case of the flamen Dialis is similar. Gaius 1 , 1 3 0:
Praeterea exeunt liben uirilis sexus de parentis potestate si flamnines Diales
inaugurentur et femintn sexus s uirgines Vestales capianturtt
Other instances of what Kaser labels as ius singulare could be added to the
cases of the Vestals and the Flamen Dialis59. Ulpian in D. X IV, 6, 4, 3 :
Si a filiofamilias stipulatus sim, et patrifamilias facto credederim, sine capite
deminutus sit, siue morte patris uel alias sui iuris sine capitis deminutione
fuenit effectus, debet dici cessare senatusconsultum quia mutua iam
patrifamilias data est.
It is natural to restrict alias to the known cases, but there is no reason for
denying the possibility of other unrecorded cases. It is worth noting that in
Justinians times a new type of adoptio was introduced adoptio minus
plena, whereby the adoptee acquired rights of inheritance from the adopted
father without losing his right to inherent from his own family (CI 8 , 47 ,1 0
~7 In addition, because of tbe absence of agnates atela becomes rcdundant, inclusive the
legitimo one. Gaus 1, 45: itaque, s quis filio filiaeque testamento tutorem dederil, et ambo ad
pubertatem perueoerint, filis quidem desnit habere tutorem, fila uero nihlo mnus in tutela
permanet, . Loquimur autem exeeptis uirginibus Vestalibus. quas etian neteres in honorem
sacerdoti liberas esse uoluerunt; itaque etian lege XII tabularurn cautum est
~> Tacitus, Ann. IV, 16,3 : .. et quoniani exiret e iure patrio qui d flanoniuni apisceretur
quaeque in manum flaminis conuenerit. later the situation of Ihe flamen did not change but
legislation was passed whereby the naminica was subject to tbe general law for women.
~> Kaser, Zur Ges2hicbte... p. 85.
62
A Iba Ba,na,xa
dated 53 0 AD.). In this case there was capitv derninutio but the agnatic links
were not broken.
Cases of capifis deminatio mini,na
In the present exploration of capitis deminutio minima it will be useful to
list the instances generally acknowledged by Ronian law scholars and to cite
their textual authority. Two texts are important. Just. lnst., 1 , X VI 3
establishes general principIes:
Minima capitis deminutio est quuns ct ciuitas et libertas retinetur, sed status
hominis commutatur: quod accidit in bis, qui, quum sui iuris fuerunt,
eooperunt alieno iuri subiecti esse, uel contrato.
lo addition, Gaius, 1 , 1 62 offers a catalogue of sorts:
Minima est capitis deminutio cum et cinitas et libertas retinetur, sed status
homns commutatur; quod accidit in his qui adoptantur, tem in his quae
coemptionemfaciunt, et in his qui mancipio dantur quique cx mancipatione
manumittuntur; adeo quidem ut, quotiens quisque mancipetur aut manu-
mittatur, totiens capite deminuatur.
On the basis of these passages we shall attempt a classification of capit
deminutio minima in its various instances. It is to be hoped that a clearer
picture will emerge. The organization is made around two axes: 1 . change
from independence to dependence and vice versa, and 2 . change of family. In
some cases both changes take place so we shall cross-reference them.
1. Change from independence to dependence or vice versa
a) A person sui iuris becomes subject to someone elses polestas.
(U adrogotio. Gaius 1 , 99:
Populi auctoritate adoptamus cas qui sui iuris sunt. quae species adoptionis
dicitur adrogatio.
In addition if, according to Paulus Libro ad Edictum ( > 1 the children of the
adrogatus suffer capitis deminutio, aJbrtiori the adrogatus suffers it himself.
The praetor in O. IV, V 2 referring to capite deminuti, includes the adrogatus;
Et quidem, si adrogatus sit, nullus labor: naos perinde obligabitur ut
filiuslamilias 52.
Already quoted p 56,
Ql nfra p 64.
62 Nl ax Kaser. Das RriinLisclLen P rivo/reclu/, Er/ser A bslunitt os A ltr&tJLiscILe. <las
Vorklassische und lassjelue RecIa, Mtinchen 1971. p 3 48: sDic Arrogaion moacbt den
arrogierten zuns Kind der Anoebmenden. Er erleidel cines <apitis clenuiuutja (mi/Liaua). seine
(iewaltunterworfenen und 5cm Vermgen fallen an den ocuen Gewaltbaber Coneernog tbe
posirion of tbe adrogaxas in carlier times see ibid. p 67
63
Capitis cleminatio mininua. An anresolved problen7
tlnderthis rubric of adrogatio could be inserted the causaeprobationis of
the ancient laws and the legitimationes of more recent law, but we have no
texts to corroborate these assumptions.
(u) conventio in manum 63 Since the jurists do not specify whether the
woman is sui un or alieni iuris we shall include this case under 1 and 2 .
Gaius, 1 1 1 , 8 3 says:
Etenim, cum paterfansilias se in adoptionem dedit mulierue in manum
conuenit, omnes eius res incorporales et corporales, quaeque ei debitae sunt,
patri adoptiuo coemptionatoriue adquiruntur.
Since the paterfamilias is necessarily sui iuris, it is natural to assume that the
woman mentioned inthe same sentence is of a similar status. Nevertheless, it
basto be borne inmmd that the text is imprecise not only because it does not
mention the status of the woman but also we would expect the word
adrogatio for tbe patenfamilias. Ulpian X I, 1 3 repeats the imprecision:
Minima capitis deminutio est, per quam et ciuitte et libertate salua, status
dumtaxat homines mutatur quod fit adoptione at tn manuns conuenttone.
In Kasers
64 opinion these two manifestations of capitis deminutio were
recognized as such only in the late Republie. B efore that time, he claims, the
rights of the adrogatus and the woman in manu remained, in spite of their
being subject to alienapotestas, almost intact. He bases bis point on the edict
De capite minutis65 whereby an adrogatus and a woman in manu remain
responsible for their own debts ( unless hereditary). It is added, in a
convoluted way, that, in spite of the fact that they are not hable because they
have undergone capitis dexninutio, an utilis actio against them ts gven in
which the capitis deminutio is set aside. There are some problems, the first
one being the date of the Edict which Kaser speculates could go back to the
2 nd or lst centuryD.C., but no evidence is available. The second one is what
happened before the Edict. It is easy to realise that the situation of the
creditors of sui iuris people was extremely precarious because the male could
3 For a comprehensive bbliograpby on ths point see J uan Iglesias, fnsxi/uciones de
Derecho P rivado, Barcelona 1965, p 512 n. 49
< Zur Gescbichte... p 79-85.
< > ~ C> aius Iii, 84: Ex diuerso, quod is debuit qui se in adoptionem quache o manum
coouent, non transit ad coemptionatoiem aut ad patrem adoptiuum, nis si hereditarium aes
alienuro fuerit; de Co enm. quid ipse pater adoptiu..s aut coemptionator heres fit, directo
tenetur ure; is ucro qui se adoptatun dedt quaeue in manum conuenit, desiot esse heres; de
eo nero quod proprio nomine eae personae debuerint, licet neque pater adoptuus teneatur
neque coemptionator, et ne ipse quiden qui se in adoptionem dedit uel ipsa quae in manum
conuent mnaneat obligatus obligatane, qua scilcet per capits deminutioneni liberetur, tamen in
eum eamue utlis aedo datur, rescissa capits deminutione; .. . Tbis is corroborated in IV, 3 8:
Praeterea aliquando fingimus aduersarum nostrum capite deminutum non esse. ... sed ne in
potestate eius sit bis nostrum corrumpere. introducta cst contra eum eamue actio utils rescssa
capite deminutione, d est in qua fngitur capite deminutus deminutaue non esse.
64
A II,a Baitucato
engineer an oc/rogado and the female a conuentio in manum to avoid paying
their debts. Kaser does not attempt an explanation: Aber davon wtssen
unsere Quellen nichts but supposes that there must have been something
before the Edict to protect the ereditors ~. Even if Ihis assumption is
understandable it does not necessarily imply that adrogatio and conuenhio iii
manum of a woman sui iuris did not involve cap/fis deminutio, but it should
be noted that the condition of capitis deminutio can be suspended.
(ib) revocatio emanct~ationis. This is implied in Gaius 1, [ 62 :
Minima est capitis deminutio cum et ciuitas et libertas retinetur, sed status
bominis consmutatur; quod accidit in his qui adoptantur, item in his quae
coemptionem faciunt, eL in his qui mancipio dantur quique cx mancibatione
manumittuntur; adeo quidcm ut. quotiens quisque mancipetur aut mano-
mittatur, totiens capite derninuatur.
b). Those alieni iuris (vel contra) who become sui iuris:
(Q emancipado after manumissio ex nxancipatione. The very confused text
by Gaius 1 , [ 62 on this point finds sume clarification in Paulus in D. IV, V, 1 :
Emancipatio filio et ceteris personis capitis minutio manifesto accidit, quumn
emanctpar nemo possit, nis in imaginariam seruilem causam deductus.
Since three fietitious sales were necessary to emancipate a son, it is not
clear whether the son reverted itt potestate after the first and second stages of
the process and, eonsequently. whether there were three copitts deminutiones
or whether patrio po/estas was held in suspense 69 The daughter, after the
capifis deminurio became sui iuris since she could not be sold in mancipium
more than once 7O~ ~ ~
5 interesting to note that emancipation is in Leagues
opnion the essence of capitts deminurio mininia because the other cases such
as oc/opilo, conventio in manun> and odrogotio presuppose a previous
emancipation 7>~
Emancipation can prove or refute the theory that copitis deminutio is a
change in deterius. The emancipated child becomes sul uris and, therefore, a
Ibid p. 82
Ibic p 83 . cf Alan Wat sois, 1 iLe Icxst cu P e,sa,us it> tlue Lc,ter Banucpu Re, u/ulic, Oxfod
1967. p 87
>> Already quoted page 62. Nl ave. op. eit p 157 declares u bat t here is capitis cleninuxio
ami/Lima wbeo a person sai iuri.s beconies alieni ixtrir bx adragatio o r legi;ituuouio Iegi/inuaticu
seenis to [it onifortabiy in tbe pattern but Wc do not include u because tbejurists bave not done
so
[.eaguc, RornauL tivote Lcxuv Faunclcc.l a the bus/ita/es al Gaius aocI Justiniatu. Lontion
[967, p 147
2 Ibis interpreta ion, i e t bat tbec are as nany copitis detuujnutic=nesas etuLoncipci/iatue.s is
based o tbe reading of Studemund of c;aius 1. [62. Por Savigny. op ci/. p 448. tbe kcy words
are almos Ilegible
~ Op <it p. [47.
Copitis oerninatio /ninima. An unresolved prahlem
65
ful citizen enjoying al the rights concomitant with its status. B ut eman-
cipation could also be a punishment for an impious child, since the family
links and support could be severed and the child ceases to be suus heres
entited to inheritance in case of intestacy > ~.
(u) release of manus by means of [farreatio is not mentioned clearly in
texts
7 > but in an inscription7 4 dated later than the accession of Commodus
there is mention of a priesthood confarreationum el cftffarreationum. In P .
L.Corbetts opinion7 5 when manus was the result of coemplio Or usus,
remancipatio of the wife took place after the dissoltion of the marriage.
Corbett, prudently, says probablys> whereas B onfante, undisturbed by the
absence of evidence supposes the existence of a capitis deminutio 7 6 as does
Kaser>7 . The situation of a wife whose husband has been capite minutus in
deterius is also open to speculation. The marriage remains after adrogation,
adoption, emancipation of the spouse>8 but we do not know what happens
after noxiae datio or manc4oium.
2 . Change of family.
a) A person alieni iuris passes in potestatem of another person. This
includes:
(i) adoptio by a paterfamilias of a son in patria potesate. A triple
manumissio was necessary for the adoption to become rreversible ~ The son
72 Moyle, op. <it. p 83 fails to see this point wben, arguing against the idea that copi/is
derninatio was a deterioration. he says no matter bow tentatively sin many cases of capitis
derninatio tninit,Lo (e.g often in adoption) the agnatie rights which were lost were more than
outbalanced by tbe rights acquired in tbe new family.
23 Ulpian, Reg. 9, talks ony of conjrreatio and in a very fragmentary way.
~ CJIL lO, 6662.
75 The Romon Lote ofMarrioge, Oxford [929, p. 223 .
26 ~ ci/. p. [68: E facle supporre che dovesse ayer luogo una capi/is deminaxio <uLiniuna
anche nella renuancipatio e d/frrea/to delle donne uscent dalia manas, cioe nelli atti inverse
della c.oeaupio e della c.onforreotio: essa non e ci attestata dalle fonti solo perch di quest due
istitut arcaic, specalmente del secondo non abbiamo che una fugace menzione
Zur Gescbichte ... p 84. Also in Das Rmiscbe...p 68: Die tuz onas Uber dic Ehefrau
wird aufgehoben durcb dic renioncipatio bei der Scheidung> u He provides no textual evidence.
cf also p. 272.
~> Kaser. Das Rauiscbe... p. 3 25
7> R.W League, op cit explains bow tbe son inpotesta/e undergoing capitis deminutio for
tbe purpose of adoption does not become a paterfamilias tbus requrng odrogatio:
Investigation of the procedure of odoptio is instroetive: the patrio potes/os was lost by the tbird
sale: tbe rnoncipia/n, bowever kept tbe cbild alieni taris so tbat the c.essio was effective to gve
tbe new poter potes/os and tbe cbild its new familia. p. 47. Kaiser, Das Rrnisehe... explains
tbe triple nsananuissio in a more convicing way: Dic dreimalige mancipatio war erforderlicb,
damit nicbt oach Tod oder copixis dea>inutio des Adoptivvaters dic patria po/estas des
leiblicheo Vaters wiederauflebte. p 67. o. 9.
66
A Ibc Bcnnono
breaks his agoatie links but if the adoptee himself has children the question
arses whether the children follow the status of their natural father or reman
under the potestas of their grandfather ~.
( fi,) coenuptio of a woman. Gaius talks of caemplio in one passage and in
anuther of conuentia in axanum althuugh the husband is mentioned as the
coenLptor. JIpian, oh the other hand, uses the more geoeric conuentio in
nanttm. It is legitimate tu ask why Gaius is so restrictive, especially at a time
when formal ways of marriage were falling into disuse. It must be noted also
that there is no specification whethcr the woman is sux turis or not. Savigny,
on the basis ol the texts quoted aboye and un Cic. Top. 4
1 <claims that unly
the woman sui iuris underweot <api/tv denuinutio 82. This statement is based
un ao argunuentum ex silentio, which 1 consider admissible only if no belter
explanation can be offered.
(it?) children of the adrugatus. Gaius 1 , [ 07 :
Illud proprium cst adoptionis quae per populum lit, quod 5 qui [iberos in
potestate habct. si se adrogatum dederit. non solum ipse potestat
adrogatons subicittur. sed etiam libe ri e ios i o e iusdc m [u int potestate
tamquam nepotes.
This is conlirmed by O. IV. V. 3 . Paulus libro XI adec/ictun:
Liberos, q iii adrogalu m pare oLe m seq uit ur. p lacet miouit caput. 9 u u rn itt
aliena potestate smnt. et curn familiam mutauermot.
Consisteot with his view thaI capitis denuinutio mininio occurred only in
two cases: a) when a person sai iurkv passed into sume elses potes/os or
uxanus, or b) when a jilius/hmnilia.s or a woman in nana wcrc conveyed intu
nloncipiunL in order to be emancipated or given into adoption, Savigny
asserts that the children of the oclrogaus d id nut suffer copilis clevtuiiuttio
when they passed into the new family with their father This is tu ignore
Paulus wurds abou mu/olio /milioe which we cannot discard even if he is
not supported by other jurists. Also Savigny ioterprets pacc as an
expression of personal upinion. which is nut self-cvident. ~
b) A person alieni iuris suffers copitis deminutio without changing farnily
n case of noxae dotio. 84 ihis situation should be considered eveo if it is,
presumably, a temporary one and after entoncipatio the son ur daughter will
revert tu the patria pates/os.
>5 jt,bn Crook. Loo cual Lib its l?at,ue, [anclan [967. p [3 addresses onh tbc situalion of
be son wit boom mentani ng t be possi bi ita of bis baving child ren Ibe parallclism wil b be
position of tbe cuctuogatur cuuld suggest Iltal tIte cbldren may follow tbeir natural luther. btm it
s 00< certain cf? ti 3 8. 1 4 and 3 8. 1. 7
> Quoted nfra p 67
> ~ Op. <ix. p. 463 : Gaius, qui dcrit ayee dtail ces diverses formalits, parle de la
dgradatiu passagre pour 1 adoption: mais 1 nc dit pas un mot pour la cocautio (sic)
> 2 Op cix p 468
~ Kaser. Zur Cescbicbte... p 84
Capitis deminatio minin>a. An anresolved problem
67
The tes/amez t. of a woman.
There is another facet to capitis deminutio minima namely the fact that it
was required for the validity of a womans will. On this matter a classical text
is preserved. Cic. Topica IV, 1 8 :
Ab adiunctis: Si ea mulier testamentum fecit quae se numquam capite
demninuit, non uidetur ex edicto praetoris secundum eas tabulas possessio
dan. Adiungitur enim, ut secundum seruorum, secundum exsulum,
secundum puerulorum tabulas possessio uideatur ex edicto dan.
A woman was required to undergo capitis deminutio for her testamentary
instructions to be implemented. If that was not the case, according to Cicero,
the will would be unactionable as if void. This rare Republican piece of
information is confirmed by Gaius 1 , lISa:
Ohm etiam testamenti faciendi gratia fiduciaria fiebat coemptio. tunc enim
non aliter testamenti faciendi ius habebat, exceptis quibusdam personts,
quam si coemptionem fecissent remancipataeque et manumissae fuissent.
sed hanc necessitatem coemptionis faciendae ex auctoritate diui Hadriani
senatus remisit.
Gaius leaves us n no doubt about the procedure by mentioning the
coemplio, manumissio and rernancipatio.The reason for this requirement is
not obvious. P rima jcie it seems that the law was attempting to prevent the
assets of a woman leaving the family. This obstacle would have been
welcomed by the agnates, who would have preferred the laws of intestacy to
operate unimpeded. If the permission of the tutor was also necessary
8 5 this
theory would be unchallenged inthe case of mIela legitimo and we could also
find another argument in favour of the theory that capitis deminutio has as
its main purpose the breaking of agnation. There are some problems. Cicero
does not specifywhether the woman was sui iuris or alieni iuris or, if in tutela,
what sort of tutor she had. To argue that Livy ( 3 9.9.7 ) does not mention
capitis deminutio when saying that Faecenia Hispala, a freedwomanwho was
not in tutelo legitima, made a will is hardly conclusive. It could be aligued that
it was so self-evident that Livydidnot need to mention the process or that the
manumissio already undergone was enough of a capitis deminutio. 86
Jane F. Gardner inher most authoritative book states: ... and by entering
into manus she had undergone capitis deminutio, a change of status, she
could make a will without the need of a further coemptio.87 This is utterly
commonsensical but Gardner seems to forget that the woman married manu
becomes locofiliae to herhusband and thus she acquires a new set of agnates.
> Gaius II [12.
>6 Watson, op. cix. pp. 53 -4, suggests tbat originally women were not allowed to make a
will, even with the tutors consent, untiL the emergence of testamentamper oes ex libran> and that
later on they were allow tu do so when their heirs in intestacy were not ther natural reLatives.
This not supported by documentary evidence.
> 2 Woman in Romon Lote and Sacie/y. London [986, p. 12.
68
A Iba Itonuana
lf capitis deminutiois required tu break agnation ( a fact that is far from
conclusively proven), the woman in nana needs that capitis dexninu/io tu
write a will. Of course, al this is guesswork and, if 1 were untrammelled by
the tyranny of the sources or their absence. 1 would restrict copitis deminutio
to the woman sui uris married manu and 1 would make this original capitis
deminutio sufficient for the writing of a will and 1 would be closer to
Gardners position.
Conclusion
have tried tu quote al the important Roman references about capitis
deminutio minima and discuss what the most eminent scholars have to say
about them. 1 have reached no consistent overview and a number of
unconsistencies survuve.
To list the most glaring:
Tbere is no unitv irs tbe three types of cap itis deminutiones. The maN/ma
and [he xnedia can be groupcd togcther, bu the nuininia remains in a class
of its own.
Liberas, ely/tas and familia have no cummon leatures. lf Paulus classcs
them together, he is the only une who dues so.
lf change of family involved capitis deminatio, why do not al the texts
mention hat the children of [ he adrogotas who changed family
accompanying their father did suifer copitis deminatio.
Lf the purpose of capitis deminatia mm/ma is lo break agnation, it is hard
-even for Labeo- to explain why the Vestals and thc flamen Dialis were
exempt from copifis dexn/nut/o and becaine sai /uris whcn thcir
paterfamilias was still alive.
The requirement for a woman tu undergo copifis dexninutio in urder tu
write a will presuppose that cOJ)t/is denuixuatia broke agnation. a fact not
definitively proven.
II agnation and capitis deminatio are related, freedmen and freedwon3 en
who do not have agnates should have been exempted from capitis
deininatio. ~ Tbere is no conclusive evidence of ibis.
The texts do not specify whether ihe copitis denuinatio required fur
conaenta in xnonaxn applied both to women sxx laris and al/en, ,arts or
whether thc cap/xis detninaio euncomitant with can ventia in man/mL had
a lasting effect that al[ owed a woman tu write her will. lf this is out the
case, it cuuld mean that a woman in potes/ate who married mona could
require three cap/tv deminationes
ttin order tu write a will. Ibis seems
sumcwhat excessive.
58 [ibis were tbe case, it is possiblc tu explain Livv s silenee about <api/ls clenuinuxio wben
be mcntions Faecena Hispala
~> Wlten emantcipated fromtt pa/rio pates/as, whet utde rgoi ng cotuxetm/ic) ix> x>ucxuutu aod
wben writing ber will
Cap/i.s denuinatio mnima. Aa anresolvedproblem
69
Scholars who have given answers more or less ingenious
90 more or less
convincing to these questions have operated along two tracks, historical and
logical.The former have postulated a historical develop>nent which we can
only surmise based on very scanty documentation. The latter, departing from
known legal practices, have devised coherent systems through deduction and
have filled gaps and eliminated irregularities. These endeavours are unques-
tionably praiseworthy but it should be kept in mmd that reality frequently
defies logical cogency and that historical reconstruction can have very shaky
fundations.
Capitis deminutio is insistently present in the Roman legal texts and we
have looked at them closely. The job has been laborious. We can offer more
of a recension that a satisfactory conclusion. B ut the fact that capitis
deminutio remains an elusive protean figure resisting apprehension and
classification does not detract from its importance. This paper s an nvitation
to further exploration.
~Sometimes not so ingenious. Savgny declares Paulus mistaken, Bonfante blames
J ustinian for our confusion as far as coptOs deminutio goes.