In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Chapter 10 Ornandi Causa Another criterion must be added to the previously mentioned plurality governing the union or transformation of materials, which, in turn, cancels the rules of inseparability, part, and price: the ornandi causa, whose consequence is that ornamentum sequitur rem ornatam. The gloss and commentary writers refer generally to Title 34.2 of the Digest dealing with gold and silver legacies, and particularly to D.34.2.19 Cum aurum. Let us first review the texts in question: Perueniamus ad gemmas inclusas argento auroque.Et ait Sabinus,auro argentove cedere. Ei enim cedit,cuius maior est species,quod recte expressit Semper enim cum quaerimus, quid cui cedat: illud spectamus, quid cuius rei ornandae causa adhibetur: ut cessio accedat principali. Cedant igitur gemmae phialis uel lancibus, inclusae auro argentove. [Let us now turn to gems set in silver or gold. Sabinus says they appertain to the gold or silver, because an element appertains to the other whose species is more important. He is right to so affirm. Indeed, each time we ask which element appertains to which, we assess which was added to ornament the other, so that the accessory appertains to the principal. Gems must therefore appertain to the vessels or spears when they are set in gold or silver.] (D. D.34.2.19.13) In margaritis quoque et auro idem est. Nam si margaritae auro ornandi gratia adhibitae sunt, auro cedunt. Si contra, aurum margaritis cedet. [The same goes for pearls and gold. Indeed, if pearls have been added to embellish a gold object, they appertain to the gold. If the situation is reversed, the gold appertains to the pearls.] (D.34.2.19.15) Idem in gemmis annulis inclusis. [The same [applies to] gems set in rings.] (D.34.2.19.16) Siue gemmae sint in aureis vasis, siue in argenteis, auro argentove cedant: quoniam hoc spectamus, quae res cuius rei ornandae causa fuerit adhibita, non quae sit pretiosior. 90 Chapter 10 [If gems are on gold vessels or on silver vessels, they appertain to the gold or silver, because we assess which element was added to embellish the other, and not which is the most precious.] (D.34.2.19.20) Once one has established which of the two elements is the ornament of which, regardless of the respective price, one assumes, as the ordinary gloss prescribes, that, by means of a legal fiction, there is extinction of the added ornament. Indeed, the excerpt “cuius maior est species” (D.34.2.19.13) seemed to call for a commentary, and the gloss explains it applies neither to price nor to quantity. Contardo Ferrini’s interpretation of species as the set of characteristics of a thing—what makes that thing specific—clarifies both the syntagma and the gloss, which bring ornandi causa closer to specificatio. Non pretio vel quantitate: sed ornandi vel specificandi causa posita [. . .] Et sic fictione iuris dicitur gemma extingui, et non possederi si autem neutrum alterius causa apponatur neutrum alteri cedit, et vtrumque possidetur. [Not by its price or its quantity, but when it is used to embellish or specify (. . .) And thus, by way of a legal fiction, one says that there is (legal) extinction of the gem, and it cannot be owned. However, if none of the two elements was added to embellish the other, none appertains to the other, and one and the other can be owned.] (D.34.2.19.13 Species) The ornament seems to abide by both the principle of accessio and that of specificatio, to the extent that it generates a new object. As such, it contradicts the rule of praevalentia and shatters its rationale. Such was also Bartolo’s opinion. For him, gold should appertain to the gem if the gold was “causa gemmae,” and vice versa, but the causa could be extrinsic to the relationship between the materials composing that object; hence a ring made “causa ornandi mulierem” (to adorn a woman), or a seal ring in which “argentum poneretur causa gemmae” (silver is used to hold the gem) due to its utility.1 For Paolo da Castro, the ornandi causa must be a primary criterion permitting one to determine whether the tabula appertains to the painting: Interdum pictura fit ad ornatum tabulae, et ipsius tabulae gratia, ut in cameris dominorum , ubi pinguntur postes de uili materia ad ipsorum ornatum, et tunc pictura cedit tabulae [. . .] aut econtra, tabula adiicitur gratia picturae, et tunc aut est uilis pictura, et idem dici potest, ut hic [. . .]. Aut...

Share