Definition
In Roman and civil law, *anum* is a Latin term appearing as a component of the phrase *senatus consultum* (decree of the senate), used to identify three distinct Roman senatorial decrees absorbed into the classical civil law tradition:
1. **Senatus Consultum Bacchanalium.** A decree of the Roman senate, enacted during the consulship of Q. Marcius and S. Postumus, regulating or suppressing the celebration of the Bacchanalian mysteries.
2. **Senatus Consultum Pegasianum.** A decree enacted during the consulship of Pegasus and Pusio, in the reign of the Emperor Vespasian. It permitted an heir who was requested by the testator to restore (transfer) an inheritance to a third party — a device known as a fideicommissum — to retain one-quarter of the inheritance for himself before making the restoration. This quarter was analogous to the *quarta Falcidia* under statutory law. Justinian later declared the Pegasian decree superseded by the earlier Senatus Consultum Trebellianum, which governed the legal mechanics of how actions passed between the transferring heir and the beneficiary of the fideicommissum.
3. **Senatus Consultum Velleianum.** A decree enacted during the consulship of Velleius, prohibiting married women from making contracts or acting as sureties on behalf of others. This decree had long downstream influence in European civil law systems and is referenced in conflict-of-laws analysis regarding the contractual capacity of women.
Common Confusion
The three decrees are distinct instruments addressing wholly unrelated subjects — religious regulation, succession law, and contractual capacity — but historical legal dictionaries sometimes list them in sequence under the same headword, creating the appearance of a unified doctrine. Researchers should treat each *senatus consultum* as a freestanding rule and locate authority accordingly. The Pegasian and Trebellian decrees are particularly prone to conflation because both govern fideicommissary substitutions; the critical difference is which one controls the transmission of actions, a question Justinian resolved in favor of the Trebellian.
Why It Matters in Research
This term is almost exclusively a term of historical civil law and will surface in corpus research in three contexts: (1) treatises and commentaries on Roman law and the *Institutes* of Justinian; (2) early American and English conflict-of-laws sources discussing the Velleianum in connection with the contractual capacity of married women, particularly in international or interstate transactions — Story's *Conflict of Laws* § 425 is the standard reference point in American legal literature; and (3) civil law jurisdiction sources, especially those from Louisiana, Scotland, Quebec, and other mixed or civilian systems, where fideicommissary substitution rules derived from the Pegasianum and Trebellianum remained operative longer than in common law jurisdictions.
Researchers using historical sources should be alert to two traps. First, older digests and abridgments may index these decrees under *senatus consultum* rather than under their individual names, requiring cross-referencing across headwords. Second, the Velleianum presents a jurisdictional complexity in early conflict-of-laws materials: courts and treatise writers disagreed sharply about whether the incapacity it imposed on married women was a rule of personal status (following the woman regardless of where a contract was made) or a rule of the forum. Story's treatment was influential but not universally followed, and researchers tracing this question across jurisdictions will find significant variation in how the decree was characterized.
The Pegasianum has narrower practical significance in Anglo-American sources but is essential background for understanding fideicommissary trust mechanics in civilian systems and comparative succession law.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary addresses all three decrees under sequential headings, providing brief but accurate identifications. Burrill's Law Dictionary covers the Pegasianum in greater depth and adds the important clarification — drawn from the *Institutes* at 2.23.7 and from Heineccius's *Elementa Juris* — that Justinian explicitly subordinated the Pegasianum to the Trebellian decree. This is a meaningful addition that Black's omits. Neither dictionary addresses the Bacchanalian decree in any detail, nor do they discuss the historiographical debate around whether the *Senatus Consultum de Bacchanalibus* (known from an extant inscription) is the same instrument referenced in the legal sources. For research purposes, that question belongs to Roman historical scholarship rather than legal doctrine. The Velleianum entry in Black's is minimal; Story's *Conflict of Laws* remains the more useful authority for its legal application in American sources.
Jurisdictional Note
These decrees are operative concepts in civilian jurisdictions (Louisiana, Quebec, Scotland, South Africa, and continental European systems) and in comparative law scholarship. They have no direct force in common law jurisdictions but appear in American conflict-of-laws authorities through Story and in historical equity materials discussing the capacity of married women to contract.