Summary

It has recently been sustained that chirographs had only evidential value and no constitutive effect in classical Roman law. That is correct regarding their origin in Roman law, however, the nature of a chirograph was such that as evidence it was effectively constitutive. Only the remedies later created (the exceptio and later the querimonia non numeratae pecuniae) provided relief. They and the actiones utiles granted to acquirers of chirographs prove that in the course of time chirographs were considered by their users as constitutive, if not already declared so. It appears from the Murecine texts where debtors declare themselves indebted by chirographs that this situation may already have existed in the middle of the first century ad. Hence we should accept the possibility of an early shift in legal categorisation of the chirograph to a contractus litteris.

中文翻译：

---

罗马法中的手写体：构成性的还是证据性的？

概括

最近有人认为，手写体在古典罗马法中只具有证据价值，没有构成效力。关于它们在罗马法中的起源，这是正确的，然而，手写体的本质是作为证据，它实际上是构成性的。只有后来制定的补救措施（例外和后来的querimonia non numeratae pecuniae）才提供了缓解。它们以及授予手写体购买者的行动效用证明，随着时间的推移，手写体被其用户视为构成性的，即使尚未如此声明。从穆雷西尼文献中债务人以手书声明自己欠债的情况来看，这种情况可能在公元一世纪中叶就已经存在了。因此，我们应该接受早期将手写体的法律分类转变为契约体的可能性。