Roman Ownership Essay

The purpose of this assignment is to consider the late Professor Peter Birks’ statement regarding the absoluteness of Roman ownership. Professor Birks held that Roman ownership was, broadly speaking, unrestricted, yet, restrictions on Roman ownership did exist. In this essay, Roman ownership, relating to the Roman law of things, will be discussed, and the different restrictions placed on Roman owners will be considered to determine whether Roman ownership was as absolute as it would seem or whether it was confined with interred restrictions.
2 The nature of Roman ownership Before one can consider the absoluteness of Roman ownership, one must first determine what exactly Roman ownership entailed. When one discusses Roman ownership it is

Until such a time, the possession and possessorship over it were protected by the praetor through the actio publiciana (in effect a fictitious vindicatio).
3 The absoluteness of Roman ownership From the above, it would appear as though Roman ownership was unlimited and unrestricted, in many aspects it can be regarded as such. In the 1985 Acta Juridica, Professor Peter Birks refers to three attributes of Dominium. He speaks, first, of differentiation: Roman ownership was perfectly differentiated from other forms of superiority, such as the power of a paterfamilias over his wife and children. The earliest example of ultimate dominium was that which was held in early ancient Roman law by the paterfamilias. He was the head of the family and household. Table IV of the Laws of the Twelve Tables provided that the paterfamilias had the power to condemn to death and execute his sons and daughters. The head of the family had dominium over his family, he exercised control over his family and held the power of life and death over family members, including the slaves, children, and his