Dictionary of Greek and Roman antiquities. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by numerous engravings on wood.

9 0. POSTLIMINIUM. POSTLIMINPUM.
those who have been falsely reported to have died Arms were not Res Postliminii, for it was a maxin
in a foreign land, not received into the house that they could not be honourably lost.
through the door, in case of their return, but let The recovery above referred to seems to mean the
down through an opening in the roof? recovery by the Roman state or by the original
If a Roman citizen during war came into the,owner. If an individual recaptured from an enemy
power of all enemy, he sustained a diminu-tio wlhat hadbelonged to a Roman citizen, it would be
eapitis maxima, and all his civil rights wore;in consistent that we should suppose that the thing
abeyance. Being captured by the enemy, he be- recaptured was made his own by the act of capcame a slave; but his rights over his children, if ture; but if it was a res postliminii, this might
lie had any, were not destroyed, but were said to not be the case. If a thing, as a slave, was
be in abeyance (pendere) by virtue of -the Jus ransomed by a person not the owner, the owner
Postliminii: when he returned, his children were colild not hav-e it till -he had paid the ransom: but
again in his power: and if he died in captivity, it does not appear to be stated how the matter
they became sui juris. Whether their condition was settled, if a Roman citizen recaptured property
as sui juris dated fiom the time of the captivity.ar (of the class res postliminii) that had belonged
of the death, was a disputed matter (Gaius, i. 129); to another Roman citizen. This apparent diffi.
but Ulpian, who wrote after Gaius, declares that culty may perhaps be solved thus: in time of war
in such case he must be considered to have died, no Roman citizen could individually be considered
when lie was made captive; and this is certainly as acting on his own behs lf insder any circumthe true deduction fronm the premiises. In the Case stances, and therefore whatevcr he did was the act
o(f a filius or nepos be:ing made a captive, the pa- of the State. It is a remark of Labheo (Dig. 49.
rental power was suspended (iso suspenso). If the tit. 15. s. 28), " Si quid bello captum est, il;
son returned, he obtained:his civic riohts aend the praeda est, non postliepinio redit.;" and Pomponius -
father resumed his parental poer; whicllh is the (Dig. 49. tit. 15. s. 20) states, that if the enernmy
case mentioned in the Digest (49. tit. 15. s. 14). is expelled from Ronman lands, the lands return to
As to a wife, the matter xwxas different: the hus- their former owners, being neither considered pubband did not recover his wife jure poseiliin!i, bilt lie land nor praeda; in making which remark lie
the marriage was renewed by consent. Th'lis rule evidently assumes theyeneral doctrine laid clown by
of law involves the doctrine, tllhat if a husband wvas Labeo. Paulus also, in his remark on Labeo's rule
captured by the enemy, his marriage, if anly tlie i of law r merely mentions an exception to the rule,
existed, was dissolved. If a Romlle weas ransoimed'which is of a peculiar kind. If then anything taken
by another person, he became fiee, but lie w as in in war was booty (pracdci), to what did the Jus
the nature of a pledge to the ransomer, and.the Postliminii apply? It applied at least to all that
Jus Postliminii had no effect till he lhad paid the xwas restored by treaty or was included in the terms
ransom money. of surrender, and slaves no doubt were a very ileiSometimes by an aot.of the state a m'nan -was portant part of all such things as were captured or
given up bound to. au enemy; and if the enemy lost in time of war; and they were things that
would not receive hiln, it was a questioll whethle could be easily identified, anid restored to their
lhe had the Jus Postlimilii. This was the oas oners. It also applied to a slave who escaped
Awith Sp. Postuiniuti who wevas given up to the from the enemy and returned to his master. The
Samnites, and with C. Hostilius Mancinius who mllaxim quae res hostiles apud nos sunt, occuwas given up to the Numantines; beut the better pantiunm fiuent" (Dig. 40. tit;. 1. s, 51) has no
opinion was that they had no Jus Postlilllillii (Cic. reference to capture froml the eneiul, as it some.
De 0r. i. 40, De QOfe iii. 30, Topl., Pro Cae- times seems to be supposed. (Miillenbruch, Doet.
cinn, c. 34; Dig. 49. tit. 15. s. 4; 50. tit. 7. s. 17): PastCd. p. 242.)
and Mancinus wnas restored to his cieic rights Ly)- a It may be obj.ected that thle explanation of one
Lex. (Dig. 50. tit. 7.. s. 17.) difficulty, that bha been already suggested, raises
Cicero (Pro Balb5o, c. 12) uses the wrord Postli- another. According to this explanation, if a man
mininium i a different sense; fqr lie applies it to in time of war recaptured his oenn slave, it would
the case of a man who had, by iis ownl voluntariy he praeda, and lie would not at once recover the
act, ceased to be a citizen of a stte, and subse- ownership, as above supposed. The ansower is,
quently resumed his original civ\ic xrights by ePostli- that it may be so, and that this matter of Postlimuimim. miniunm, particularly as regards things, waits for a
It appears that the Jus Postliniinii xvas founided careful investigation. As a general rule all moveon the fiction of the captive haveing nex-er been ables belonging to an enemy, Mwhich were captured
absent from home; a fiction which was of easy -:pl biy a Bonmae army were Praeda, apparently not
plication, for as the captive during his absencee the property of the individual soldier who hap-.
could not do any legal act, the interval of captivity pened to lay his hands oni theem but the property
was a period of legal non-activity, which was ter- of the state or at least of the armyr. Now the
minated by his showing himself again. difficulty is to ascertain whether all inoveables so
The Romans ackno-wledged capture ill war ae taken were Praeda, except Res Postliminii; or
the source of ownership in other nations, as they whether all things so taken were Praeda, Res
claimed it in their own ease. Accordingly things Postliminii included. In the former case, the
taken by the enemylost their Roman owners; but Res Postliminii would be the property of the
when tlhey were recovered, they reverted to their owner when he coull prove them to have been
original owners. This was tlhe case with land that his, as in the case mentioned by Li'vy (v. 16): in
had been occupied by the enemy, and with the fol- the latter, when a thing had become Praeda, it
lowing moveables, which are enumerated by Cicero had lost its capacity (if we may so speak) of being
as Res Postliminii (Top. 8),'"homo (that is slaves), a Res Postlimillii. The distinction here nmade is a
navis, mulus clitellarins, equus, equa quae fraena fundamental one. The difficulty partly arises
recipere solet." (Compare Festus, s.v. Postliminie2zo.) I from the expression of Labeo above quoted, Si