Tutor: Prof. Fabio Botta Co-tutor: Prof.ssa Alice Cherchi

Keywords: Roman private law; natural incapacity; cura furiosi; tutela mulierum; normative overlap.

Short bio:

She obtained her Master Degree in Law with full marks (110/110), honours and academic distinction from the University of Bari “Aldo Moro”. She subsequently received a research fellowship from the University of Salerno and a traineeship grant in Immigration Law in Madrid. She also attended the Advanced Training Course in Roman Law at the University of Rome “La Sapienza”. She is currently a PhD student (XL cycle) in Legal Sciences, in the disciplinary field GIUR-15/A, at the University of Cagliari. She also serves as teaching assistant in Roman Law subjects, including Institutions of Roman Law, History of Roman Law, Roman Commercial Law, Exegesis of Roman Legal Sources, and Roman Law. Her research project focuses on the legal condition of furiosae in classical Roman law. She is the author of several publications about Roman inheritance law and Roman jurisprudence, and has been a speaker at nationally significant conferences and seminars. She is currently a member of the international research team of the project DEFINITIO: Las definiciones de los juristas romanos recogidas en el Digesto: una revisión crítica, hosted by Universidad CEU San Pablo in Madrid.

Thesis abstract:

This research project explores the legal status of the furiosa in Roman law—a figure positioned at the intersection of two forms of legal incapacity: one grounded in gender, the other in mental illness. A woman affected by madness could, in theory, fall under both the tutela mulierum and the cura furiosi. This distinctive overlap of legal frameworks calls for in-depth analysis. The study begins with a comprehensive review of primary sources concerning the relevant legal institutions. Particular attention will be paid to curatorship, marriage (with its implications for dissolution, repudiation, and dowry restitution), and inheritance law. Within the latter, sources not only address the general testamenti factio (active and passive) of the furiosa, but in some cases even identify her as a beneficiary of a fideicommissum. Another significant area of inquiry is legal representation—specifically, the extent to which third parties could litigate on behalf of a furiosa. Importantly, the analysis does not aim to reduce the furiosa to a figure of pure legal passivity. Some sources attribute to her active legal capacities, including parental authority, entitlement to the actio negotiorum gestorum directa, the right to benefit from property protections against the curator’s estate, and in some cases, the power to ratify third-party acts involving her dowry. These aspects suggest that, despite a general context of marginalization, the furiosa was not entirely devoid of legal agency. By continuously comparing this figure to the better-known furiosus, the study aims to shed light on Roman law’s specific responses to female mental illness, and to assess the degree to which the furiosa’s legal condition mirrored or diverged from that of her male counterpart.