The paper explores some of the peculiar events that link the illustrious figure of Vittorio Scialoja to two jurists: Evaristo Carusi and David Santillana, main figures, in their turn, of the events that lead to the creation of the juridical section in the Oriental School of the Faculty of Literature in Rome. The author traces the origins of the course of Introduction to Comparative Law in the Law School of Rome, a course that is established at the meeting of the Faculty Council on November 13, 1922, and assigned to Carusi, with the support of Scialoja and Bonfante. At the same meeting, it is also decided that the course has to be included in the newborn Special School of Roman and Oriental Law, sought by Carusi and Scialoja, in this way finally ceasing the dispute related to the creation of the Oriental juridical section inside the Faculty of Literature. The author points out that while Carusi’s papers on the relationship between Roman law and Oriental rights have recently found new attention, his work on legal comparison is still almost ignored and, above all, the fact that he has been the first professor of comparative law in the Law School of Rome does not seem to have interested scholars. The stability of the Comparative Law course is, however, soon called into question when the Dean of the Law School announces a communication from the Rector, based on a directive from the Ministry, which states that the proposal of the Law School cannot be accepted. After this interruption, however, the teaching restarts and the name of the course, Introduction to the study of comparative law, in 1932, is changed into Comparative Private Law, according to a proposal of Carusi himself. Closely linked to the call of Carusi is the figure of David Santillana; the author highlights the central role assumed by Santillana in the Tunisian codification and, together with Scialoja, in the colonial one. Santillana, appointed member of the Commission for the Formation of a Tunisian Code in 1896, presents a ‘Projet préliminaire de Code civil et commercial tunisien’ first, then replaced by a more detailed one: the ‘Avant-projet de réforme du droit civil et commercial’, model for the Tunisian Code of obligations and contracts of 1906 and also for the codes of the Maghreb. These projects reflect the pioneering initiative of the Italo- Tunisian jurist in the unification of civil and commercial obligations, considered as a fundamental basis for the creation of a law in common between populations of Europe and beyond the Mediterranean. Once his work in Tunisia is ended, Santillana begins another codification project in Eritrea; in 1906, together with Scialoja, they are called to participate in the third commission in charge of drafting the Eritrean civil code and they are particularly active during the final editing stage. The author, in this circumstance, highlights the difference of thought between Santillana and Scialoja: while Scialoja expresses his favorable opinion on the interruption of the codification project due to the doubts about the appropriateness of applying codes in Eritrea, Santillana shows, on the other hand, support for a codification which is more attentive to the country and to its need for an autonomous livelihood. But Santillana's great closeness to the Italian Institute of Roman Law especially appears during the period in which he holds the teaching of Islamic Law, started in the academic year of 1912-1913 and lasted for ten years. This period is also linked to the issues arising in the newly born Oriental School, founded in 1904 inside the Faculty of Literature; since the foundation, the regulations of this School provided the possibility of aggregating teachings from other faculties which revolved around oriental subjects. In this sense, the reaction of the Law School is immediate: a commission with Scialoja, Vivante and Simoncelli is set up to examine the possibility and in the report (written by Simoncelli) there is a clear claim that the Law School has the right to establish the chairs of Oriental law subjects in its autonomous section, demanding in this sense the constitution of the juridical section inside the Oriental School as an issuance of the Law School itself. Therefore, here occurrs the call of Carusi, together with the call of Santillana as for the teaching of Muslim law. In 1922-1923 the section is given the name of Oriental section of the School of Law, but it disappeared only two years later, because of the greater interest raised by the Oriental School over the Law School, which can only fall back on the creation of the Oriental School of Roman Law. The teaching is given to Santillana who, despite the commitment of Chiovenda and the unanimous vote of the Faculty, is unable to become Full Professor due to some formal requirements.
Nel lavoro vengono approfondite alcune vicende peculiari che legano l’autorevole figura di Vittorio Scialoja a due giuristi in particolare: Evaristo Carusi e David Santillana, protagonisti, a loro volta, delle vicende che porteranno alla creazione della sezione giuridica nella Scuola orientale della Facoltà di lettere romana. L’autore, ripercorre le origini dell’istituzione del corso di Introduzione allo studio del diritto comparato nella Facoltà giuridica romana, corso che viene istituito nella seduta del Consiglio di Facoltà del 13 novembre 1922 e affidato a Carusi, con il sostegno di Scialoja e Bonfante. Nella stessa seduta, è stabilito, inoltre, che il corso debba essere inserito nella neonata Scuola speciale di diritto romano e di diritti orientali, voluta da Carusi con l’appoggio di Scialoja, ponendo così fine alla lunga vicenda relativa alla creazione della sezione giuridica della Scuola orientale della Facoltà di lettere. L’autore sottolinea che Di Carusi, sono stati ricordati, di recente, gli scritti sul rapporto tra diritto romano e diritti orientali, non sembra, invece, aver interessato gli studiosi il lavoro di Carusi sulla comparazione giuridica e, soprattutto, il fatto che egli sia stato il primo professore della materia nella Facoltà giuridica romana. La persistenza dell’insegnamento comparatistico è, però, presto messa in discussione quando il Preside della Facoltà rende nota una comunicazione del Rettore, basata su una direttiva del Ministero, che dichiara di non accogliere la proposta della Facoltà stessa. Dopo l’interruzione, la storia dell’insegnamento prosegue e la denominazione del corso di Introduzione allo studio del diritto comparato, nel 1932, viene modificata in Diritto privato comparato, su proposta dello stesso Carusi. Strettamente legata alle vicende che portano alla chiamata di Carusi, è la figura di David Santillana; l’autore evidenzia il ruolo centrale assunto da Santillana nella codificazione tunisina e, insieme a Scialoja, in quella coloniale. Santillana, nominato componente della Commissione per la formazione di un codice tunisino nel 1896, presenta un primo Projet préliminaire de Code civil et commercial tunisien, che sarà poi sostituito da uno più approfondito: l’Avant-projet de réforme du droit civil et commercial, base del Code tunisien des obligations et des contracts del 1906 e modello di quelli del Maghreb. In questi progetti, si riflette l’iniziativa d’avanguardia del giurista italo-tunisino, consistente nell’unificare le obbligazioni civili e commerciali, ritenuta presupposto fondamentale per la creazione di un diritto comune ai popoli dell’Europa e al di là del Mediterraneo. Esaurito l’impegno in Tunisia, Santillana comincia un’altra avventura codicistica in Eritrea; nel 1906 insieme a Scialoja sono chiamati nella terza commissione preposta per la redazione di un codice per la colonia, partecipando, in particolare, alla fase finale di redazione del Codice civile eritreo. L’autore, in detta circostanza, mette in risalto la diversità di pensiero tra Santillana e Scialoja: mentre Scialoja esprime, nel corso dei lavori, parere favorevole all’interruzione del progetto di codificazione, a causa dei dubbi sull’opportunità di applicare codici in Eritrea, Santillana si dimostra, invece, a favore di una codificazione più attenta al paese coloniale e alle sue esigenze di autonoma convivenza. Ma, la maggior vicinanza di Santillana con l’Istituto di diritto romano, si riscontra durante il periodo dell’insegnamento di Diritto islamico, che egli ricopre per dieci anni a partire dall’anno accademico 1912-1913. Tale periodo, si collega anche alle questioni relative alla neonata Scuola orientale, fondata nel 1904 presso la Facoltà di lettere; il regolamento di questa Scuola (già nel 1904), prevedeva il diritto di aggregare insegnamenti di carattere orientalistico impartiti in altre Facoltà. La reazione della Facoltà giuridica è immediata: viene costituita una commissione composta da Scialoja, Vivante e Simoncelli per approfondire la questione e nella relazione (redatta da Simoncelli), emerge chiaramente la volontà di rivendicare alla Facoltà stessa il diritto di istituire le cattedre di materie giuridiche orientali in una sezione autonoma, proponendo la fondazione della sezione giuridica della Scuola, come emanazione della Facoltà stessa. Scaturisce, dunque, la ricordata chiamata di Carusi a cui si aggiunge quella di Santillana per l’insegnamento di diritto musulmano. Nel 1922-1923 la sezione giuridica assume la denominazione di sezione orientalistica della Facoltà di giurisprudenza, sezione che scompare nel 1924-1925, segnando il successo della Scuola orientale sulla Facoltà giuridica, costretta a ripiegare sull’istituzione di una Scuola orientale di diritto romano. L’insegnamento è conferito a Santillana che, nonostante l’impegno di Chiovenda e il voto unanime della Facoltà, non riesce ad ottenere l’ordinariato per alcune questioni formali
Al di là del mediterraneo. Comparazione, modelli europei e diritti orientali nell'Istituto di Diritto Romano della Sapienza / Moscati, Laura. - In: BULLETTINO DELL'ISTITUTO DI DIRITTO ROMANO VITTORIO SCIALOJA. - ISSN 0391-1810. - VIII:(2018), pp. 81-108.
Al di là del mediterraneo. Comparazione, modelli europei e diritti orientali nell'Istituto di Diritto Romano della Sapienza
Laura Moscati
2018
Abstract
The paper explores some of the peculiar events that link the illustrious figure of Vittorio Scialoja to two jurists: Evaristo Carusi and David Santillana, main figures, in their turn, of the events that lead to the creation of the juridical section in the Oriental School of the Faculty of Literature in Rome. The author traces the origins of the course of Introduction to Comparative Law in the Law School of Rome, a course that is established at the meeting of the Faculty Council on November 13, 1922, and assigned to Carusi, with the support of Scialoja and Bonfante. At the same meeting, it is also decided that the course has to be included in the newborn Special School of Roman and Oriental Law, sought by Carusi and Scialoja, in this way finally ceasing the dispute related to the creation of the Oriental juridical section inside the Faculty of Literature. The author points out that while Carusi’s papers on the relationship between Roman law and Oriental rights have recently found new attention, his work on legal comparison is still almost ignored and, above all, the fact that he has been the first professor of comparative law in the Law School of Rome does not seem to have interested scholars. The stability of the Comparative Law course is, however, soon called into question when the Dean of the Law School announces a communication from the Rector, based on a directive from the Ministry, which states that the proposal of the Law School cannot be accepted. After this interruption, however, the teaching restarts and the name of the course, Introduction to the study of comparative law, in 1932, is changed into Comparative Private Law, according to a proposal of Carusi himself. Closely linked to the call of Carusi is the figure of David Santillana; the author highlights the central role assumed by Santillana in the Tunisian codification and, together with Scialoja, in the colonial one. Santillana, appointed member of the Commission for the Formation of a Tunisian Code in 1896, presents a ‘Projet préliminaire de Code civil et commercial tunisien’ first, then replaced by a more detailed one: the ‘Avant-projet de réforme du droit civil et commercial’, model for the Tunisian Code of obligations and contracts of 1906 and also for the codes of the Maghreb. These projects reflect the pioneering initiative of the Italo- Tunisian jurist in the unification of civil and commercial obligations, considered as a fundamental basis for the creation of a law in common between populations of Europe and beyond the Mediterranean. Once his work in Tunisia is ended, Santillana begins another codification project in Eritrea; in 1906, together with Scialoja, they are called to participate in the third commission in charge of drafting the Eritrean civil code and they are particularly active during the final editing stage. The author, in this circumstance, highlights the difference of thought between Santillana and Scialoja: while Scialoja expresses his favorable opinion on the interruption of the codification project due to the doubts about the appropriateness of applying codes in Eritrea, Santillana shows, on the other hand, support for a codification which is more attentive to the country and to its need for an autonomous livelihood. But Santillana's great closeness to the Italian Institute of Roman Law especially appears during the period in which he holds the teaching of Islamic Law, started in the academic year of 1912-1913 and lasted for ten years. This period is also linked to the issues arising in the newly born Oriental School, founded in 1904 inside the Faculty of Literature; since the foundation, the regulations of this School provided the possibility of aggregating teachings from other faculties which revolved around oriental subjects. In this sense, the reaction of the Law School is immediate: a commission with Scialoja, Vivante and Simoncelli is set up to examine the possibility and in the report (written by Simoncelli) there is a clear claim that the Law School has the right to establish the chairs of Oriental law subjects in its autonomous section, demanding in this sense the constitution of the juridical section inside the Oriental School as an issuance of the Law School itself. Therefore, here occurrs the call of Carusi, together with the call of Santillana as for the teaching of Muslim law. In 1922-1923 the section is given the name of Oriental section of the School of Law, but it disappeared only two years later, because of the greater interest raised by the Oriental School over the Law School, which can only fall back on the creation of the Oriental School of Roman Law. The teaching is given to Santillana who, despite the commitment of Chiovenda and the unanimous vote of the Faculty, is unable to become Full Professor due to some formal requirements.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
Moscati_Aldilà -del -Mediterraneo_2018.pdf
solo gestori archivio
Tipologia:
Versione editoriale (versione pubblicata con il layout dell'editore)
Licenza:
Tutti i diritti riservati (All rights reserved)
Dimensione
499.15 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
499.15 kB | Adobe PDF | Contatta l'autore |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.