Actio Publiciana and Mancipatio Adolfo A. Diaz-Bautista Cremades * Abstract Mancipatio was the established way to trade res mancipi (slaves, italic soil and big animals), so if these things were delivered by traditio the transmission was invalid. This distinction disappeared before Justinian’s compilation, generalizing the traditio as a mechanism for the transmission of all goods. This work discusses the possibility that the mechanisms for protecting the Praetorian owner (especially the actio publiciana) could have determined the disappearance of mancipatio. Keywords: Roman law; mancipatio; res mancipi; tradition; property; trade. 1. Res mancipi y res nec mancipi The oldest classification of things in Rome separates res mancipi or nec mancipi 1 in view of their social function. Gaius shows that res mancipi were the servi, animalia quae collo dorsove domantur, fundi in soli italico and the rustic easements (iter, via, actus and aquaeductus) Gai 2 14 th . Res praeterea aut mancipi sunt aut nec mancipi. […. vv. 5. seruitutes praediorum urbanorum nec mancipi sunt. item stipendiaria praedia et tributaria nec mancipi sunt. 15. Sed quod diximus ea animalia, quae domari solent, mancipi esse, n[…. vv. 1 3/4. statim ut nata sunt, mancipi esse putant; Nerua uero et Proculus et ceteri diuersae scholae auctores non aliter ea mancipi esse putant quam si domita sunt; et si propter nimiam feritatem domari non possunt, tunc uideri mancipi esse incipere, cum ad eam aetatem peruenerint, in qua domari solent. 16. At ferae bestiae nec mancipi sunt, uelut ursi, lions, item ea animalia, quae ferarum bestiarum numero sunt, uelut elefanti et cameli, et ideo ad rem non pertinet, quod haec animalia etiam collo dorsoue domari solent; nam ne notitia quidem eorum animalium illo tempore fuit, quo constituebatur quasdam res mancipi esse, quasdam nec mancipi. 17. Sed item fere omnia, quae incorporalia sunt, nec mancipi sunt, exceptis seruitutibus praediorum rusticorum; nam eas mancipi esse constat, quamuis sint ex numero rerum incorporalium. The origin of the distinction is not peaceful between the doctrine 2 , but the authors seem to agree that, in the early Ro- man society, the so-called res mancipi were capital goods whose acquisition required extraordinary formalities containing an effect of formal advertising 3 , while the nec mancipi could be assimilated to consumer goods, for which mere traditio was suf- ficient. 2. Transmission of res mancipi The res mancipi had to be transmitted solemnly: by manci- patio, in iure cessio, will or addictio of the praetor. Mancipatio was a ceremony 4 in which accipiens, in the presence of at least * Adolfo A. Díaz-Bautista Cremades, PhD, Professor of Roman Law, Universidad de Murcia, Spain. 1 The etymological origin of the name is debatable. D’ORS refers the term mancipi to an archaic gentile of mancipium with reference to Seneca. D’ORS, A.: Derecho Privado Romano, Eunsa, Pamplona, 1989, pp. 179. 2 TORRENT RUIZ cites the views of BONFANTE and VISSCHER in this regard and suggests that the distinction between res mancipi and nec mancipi could entail a different ownership regime. However, it warns, the distinction that might make sense in the primitive archaic society was declining for the classification between movable and immovable property, as can be seen, for example, in the order to proceed in the embargoes set out in the pignus in causa iudicati captum. TORRENT RUIZ, A.: Diccionario de Derecho Romano, v. res mancipi, Edisofer, Madrid, 2005, pp. 1078. BONFANTE, P., “Forme primitive ed evoluzione della proprietà romana”, Scritti giuridici vari, vol. II, Roma, 1916, pp. 1-326; GALLO, F., Studi sulla distinzione fra res mancipi e res nec mancipi, Giappichelli, Torino, 1958, DE VISSCHER, F., “Mancipium et res mancipi”, Nouvelles Etudes de Droit romain public et privè, Giuffrè, Milano, 1949, pp. 193-261. DÍAZ-BAUTISTA CREMADES, A.: El embargo ejecutivo en el proceso cognitorio romano. Pignus in causa iudicati captum, Marcial Pons, Madrid, 2013, pp. 106 ss. A detailed analysis of the institution’s origin in archaic law can be found in AMUNÁTEGUI PERELLÓ, C.: Problems con- cerning mancipatio, en Revue d’Histoire du Droit 80 (2012) 329-352. 3 VARELA GIL, C.: El origen de la mancipatio: de medio de publicidad dominical a modo de adquirir la propiedad, en RGDR, 9(2007) pp. 4. 4 BONFANTE, P., “Forme primitive ed evoluzione della proprietà romana”, Scritti giuridici vari, vol. II, cit., pp. 1-326; BREZZO, C., La mancipatio, L’erma, Roma, 1972 (reimpresión de la edición de 1891); SCHLOSSMANN, S., In iure cessio und mancipatio, Berlin, 1904; ARANGIO-RUIZ, V., La compraven- dita in diritto romano, 2 vols., Jovene, Napoli, 1954; FUENTESECA, P., “Mancipium, mancipatio, dominium”, Labeo, n.° 4, 1958, pp. 135-149; WOLF, J. G., “Funktion und struktur der mancipatio”, Mélanges Magdelain, 1998, pp. 501 y ss, FERNÁNDEZ DE BUJÁN, A., El precio como elemento comercial en la compraventa romana, 3.ª ed., Reus, Madrid, 1993.