When relatives were not present or were unable to collect enough money, somebody else could pay the ransom. This behaviour was considered virtuous. Cicero distinguished two categories of generous people: the prodigal; and the noble. The former spent money on fleeting pleasures, while the latter paid off their friends’ debts, provided for their daughters’ dowries or bought them out from pirates. Squandering was universally condemned by the Romans, as it could lead to a reduction in their capacity to perform legal actions; on the other hand, generosity was viewed favourably.
However, there is a fundamental question regarding the possibility of recovering the money intended to buy somebody out from the hands of pirates. Naturally, there could be occasions when the benefactor did not ask for a refund, but surely such demands could sometimes be made. Here, it is difficult to use an analogy with the situation of the redemptus ab hostibus, because a person captured by enemies became a slave and, after being bought out, they were subject to the authority of the one who had provided the ransom until the debt was repaid. At the same time they could use the ius postliminii only after that. Similarly, a slave captured by enemies became the property of the one who had bought them out, and only after paying the ransom, they returned to the former owner. Meanwhile, those abducted by pirates remained free and therefore did not have to use the ius postliminii; and captured slaves remained the property of their masters and could not become the subject of usucaption since they were regarded as res furtivae. In the texts known to us, jurists did not deal with the problem of buying out prisoners from pirates but wrote instead about buying out property:
‘D. 14.2.2.3 (Paul. 34 ad ed.): Si navis a piratis redempta sit, Servius Ofilius Labeo omnesque conferre debere aiunt.
If a ship is redeemed from pirates, Servius, Ofilius, and Labeo declare that everyone should contribute. Paulus noted that in the event of a ship being bought out, everyone should contribute to the costs, as was the case with jettison, which was justified by acting in the interest of all. Obviously, pirates seldom hijacked the ship itself and most often took prisoners, allowing them, as mentioned previously, to write to their relatives or send someone to collect funds for a ransom. It therefore seems that settlement with the ransom payer was obligatory. If one of the people travelling by ship paid, the settlement was probably in the form of legal recourse claims under the lease contract. However, in the case of a third party, it seems probable that it was possible to settle it on the basis of a loan agreement.
However, there is a fundamental question regarding the possibility of recovering the money intended to buy somebody out from the hands of pirates. Naturally, there could be occasions when the benefactor did not ask for a refund, but surely such demands could sometimes be made. Here, it is difficult to use an analogy with the situation of the redemptus ab hostibus, because a person captured by enemies became a slave and, after being bought out, they were subject to the authority of the one who had provided the ransom until the debt was repaid. At the same time they could use the ius postliminii only after that. Similarly, a slave captured by enemies became the property of the one who had bought them out, and only after paying the ransom, they returned to the former owner. Meanwhile, those abducted by pirates remained free and therefore did not have to use the ius postliminii; and captured slaves remained the property of their masters and could not become the subject of usucaption since they were regarded as res furtivae. In the texts known to us, jurists did not deal with the problem of buying out prisoners from pirates but wrote instead about buying out property:
‘D. 14.2.2.3 (Paul. 34 ad ed.): Si navis a piratis redempta sit, Servius Ofilius Labeo omnesque conferre debere aiunt.
If a ship is redeemed from pirates, Servius, Ofilius, and Labeo declare that everyone should contribute. Paulus noted that in the event of a ship being bought out, everyone should contribute to the costs, as was the case with jettison, which was justified by acting in the interest of all. Obviously, pirates seldom hijacked the ship itself and most often took prisoners, allowing them, as mentioned previously, to write to their relatives or send someone to collect funds for a ransom. It therefore seems that settlement with the ransom payer was obligatory. If one of the people travelling by ship paid, the settlement was probably in the form of legal recourse claims under the lease contract. However, in the case of a third party, it seems probable that it was possible to settle it on the basis of a loan agreement.
Compare to 1 Corinthians 6:19-20.
19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
1 Corinthians 7:22-23.
22 For he who was called in the Lord as a bondservant is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a bondservant of Christ. 23 You were bought with a price; do not become bondservants of men.
Colossians 1:13-14.
13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.