The “Ut Exportetur” “Ne Serva Prostituatur,” “Ut Manumittatur,” and “Ne Manumittatur” Clauses in Roman Law
Güzide Burcu GünverenRoman law recognized certain restrictive clauses in contracts for the sale of slaves. The “ut exportetur,” “ne serva prostituatur,” “ut manumittatur,” and “ne manumittatur” clauses were added to sales contracts to restrict the buyer, in such contracts, from taking certain actions. The said clauses were not applied to general sales contracts. These clauses have been the subject of various studies to date. In our study, first of all, these clauses and the content of the clauses will be explained. In the following parts of our study, the distinguishing features of these clauses will be explained. What the sanctions will be in case of non-compliance with the clauses will also be the subject of our study. According to the information obtained from the legal texts, the “ut manumittatur” (i.e., shall not be manumitted) or “ut exportetur” (i.e., shall be exported) clauses created obligations for the buyer to act in certain ways, while “ne manumittatur” (i.e., shall not manumit) and “ne serva prostituatur” clauses (i.e., shall avoid behavior that would lead to prostitution) created obligations for the buyer to take certain actions. D 18.7.9, which contains information on sales contracts with the clauses “ut exportetur” and “ne serva prostituatur,” provides that if the buyer does not comply with these clauses in a purchase-sale contract, the manus iniectio sanction will be applied and the buyer will lose ownership of the slave. To this end, the emperor, who arranges that abolishes the property right of the next buyer, creates a new legal situation that is contrary to the principle of proportionality of the contracts and completely alien to the real rights protected by actiones in rem in case of a violation. The aim of this study is to reveal the differences and sanctions of the clauses added to in contracts for the sale of slaves. In addition, the legal consequences developed due to the clauses are also explained in our study.
Roma Hukukunda “Ut Exportetur”; “Ne Serva Prostituatur”; “Ut Manumittatur” ve “Ne Manumittatur” Kayıtları
Güzide Burcu GünverenRoma hukukunda kölenin konu edildiği satış sözleşmelerine eklenen kısıtlayıcı nitelikte kayıtlar vardı. “Ut exportetur”; “ne serva prostituatur”; “ut manumittatur”; “ne manumittatur” kayıtları, sözleşmeye taraf olan alıcı açısından kısıtlayıcı nitelikteki kayıtlardı. Bu kayıtların satış sözleşmelerine eklenen ve bugüne kadar çeşitli çalışmalara konu olan kayıtlardan ayırt edici özelliği sadece kölenin konu edildiği satış sözleşmelerine eklenebilmesiydi. Çalışmamızda öncelikle bahsedilen bu kayıtlar ve kayıtların içeriği açıklanacaktır. Çalışmamızın ilerleyen kısımlarında bu kayıtların ayırt edici özellikleri açıklanacaktır. Yine kayıtlara uyulmaması halinde yaptırımların ne olacağı da çalışmamızın konusunu oluşturacaktır. Hukuki metinlerden edindiğimiz bilgilere göre, kölenin konu edildiği satış sözleşmelerine “ut manumittatur (azat edilsin diye)” kaydı veya “ut exportetur (bir yere gönderilsin diye)” kaydı eklenebilirdi. Bu tür kayıtlardan alıcı için belli bir davranışta bulunmaya yönelik yapma borcu doğardı. Yapma borcu doğuran söz konusu kayıtların yanı sıra kölelerin konu edildiği satış sözleşmelerine “ne manumittatur (azat edilmemesi)” veya “ne serva prostituatur (fuhuşa sevk edecek davranışlardan kaçınılması)” kaydı da eklenebilirdi. Bu kayıtlardan alıcı için doğan edim yükümlülüğü, “yapmama borcuna” örnek teşkil edecek nitelikteydi. “Ut exportetur” ve “ne serva prostituatur” kaydı ile satış sözleşmesi hakkında aynı metinde bilgiler içeren D. 18.7.9; alıcının, alımsatım sözleşmesine eklenen bu kayıtlara uygun davranmaması halinde, manus iniectio yaptırımının uygulanacağını ve alıcının kölenin mülkiyetini kaybedeceğini ifade etmektedir. “Ne serva prostituatur” kaydı ile satış sözleşmesine aykırılık ise mülkiyet hakkına sahip olan malik bakımında manus iniectio’dan daha ağır bir yaptırımı da ihtiva edebilmektedir. Bu hususta sonraki alıcının mülkiyet hakkını ortadan kaldıran bir düzenleme yapan imparator, aslında sözleşmelerin nisbiliği ilkesine aykırı olan ve ihlali halinde actiones in rem ile korunan ayni haklara tamamen yabancı yeni bir hukuki durum yaratmaktadır. “Ut manumittatur” kaydı farklı saiklerle köleye özgürlüğünün bahşedilmesini sağlamaya yönelikti. Dolayısıyla satıcının iradesi ile sözleşmeye eklenen bu kayıt, köle menfaatine bir beklenen hak doğururdu. Bu çalışmanın amacı köle alım-satımlarına eklenen kayıtların birbirinden farkını, yaptırımlarını ortaya koymaktır. Ayrıca kayıtlar dolayısıyla gelişen hukuki sonuçlar da çalışmamızda açıklanmıştır.
In pactums (i.e., purchase-sale contracts), which were considered as goodwill contracts in Roman Law, it was possible to add some clauses in favor of the buyer or the seller. Unlike other clauses added in this context (such as in diem addictio, pactum displicentiae, pactum arrhale, and lex comissoria…), “ut manumittatur (i.e., shall be manumitted),” “ut exportetur” (i.e., shall be exported), “ne manumittatur” (i.e., not to be emancipated), and “ne serva prostituatur” (i.e., shall avoid behavior that will lead to prostitution) could be added to sales contracts for the sale of slaves. The clauses “ut manumittatur” (shall be manumitted) and “ne manumittatur” (shall not be manumitted) concerned emancipating the slave. Refusing to grant them freedom was seen as a criminal act. The clause “ut exportetur” (shall be exported) involved the exportation of slaves from one place to another. This clause was added in the interest of the seller as it was intended to ensure his safety. Based on relevant legal texts, it was also possible to determine sanctions to ensure that if the buyer violated his commitment, the seller could take back the slave, the subject of the purchase-sale contract, with manus iniectio and the buyer would either be liable to penal sanctions determined by the parties, or the slave would be freed.
D 18.7.9 contains information about sales contracts with the clauses “ut exportetur” and “ne serva prostituatur.” It states that if the buyer does not comply with these clauses in the purchase-sale contract, the sanction of manus iniectio will be applied and the buyer will lose ownership of the slave. The violation of the sales contract with the clause “ne serva prostituatur” may also include a more severe sanction than manus iniectio from the owner who has the property right to the slave. If the sales contract in which the slave is the subject includes the stipulation that the slave will be freed when forced into prostitution, the slave is freed (by the first buyer or the second buyer in the subsequent sale) regardless of who violates the obligation. Emperor Vespasian subsequently introduced an arrangement whereby a subsequent buyer assumes responsibility under the clause even when the buyer is not aware of the clause “ne serva prostituatur.” This created a new legal situation that is contrary to the principle of proportionality of contracts and completely alien to the real rights protected by actiones in rem in case of a violation. The new buyer, who was not a party to the first contract and was therefore unaware of the clause in the contract, was held responsible as if they were a party to that contract. An arrangement bearing the will of the empire determines the clause “ne serva prostituatur” as the limit of the property right. Thus, the will of the first seller to keep the slave away from prostitution was also protected by the emperor. Moreover, D 2.4.10.1 indicates that the order even protects against any attitude contrary to the will of the first seller who introduced the clause “ne serva prostituatur.” To this end, the clause “ne serva prostituatur” is remarkable in that it reveals the intervention of state policy regarding prostitutes in the private law system of the Roman State.
As we have included in our study, the clause “ut manumittatur” was aimed at granting freedom to the slave in different ways. Therefore, the clause added to the contract with the will of the seller would create an expected right in the slave’s interest. Within the scope of private law, if the buyer acts contrary to his obligation, the fact that the seller had the opportunity of manus iniectio and that the penal clause could be accepted as a sanction constituted important factors affecting the freedom of the slave. Such sanctions were the elements that left the slave’s attainment of the expected right to the initiative and mercy of the seller.
The emperor intervened in this issue and accepted that an act contrary to the obligation arising from the clause “ut manumittatur,” added with the will of the parties, would give the slave ipso iure freedom as of the 2nd century AD. In other words, the understanding was that the slave, who anticipated attaining their freedom with the purchase and sale contract to which the clause “ut manimittatur” was added, should be protected by favore libertatis (in favor of freedom) gained strength over time in Roman Law. The sanctions added to the purchase-sale contract based on the will of the parties were also invalidated by the imperial regulations. Therefore, when there was a violation of the clause “ut manumittatur,” the regulations based on the will of the empire created a limitation on the ownership of the slaves.
