Roman Statutes, Volume I 0900587695, 0900587679, 9780900587672

Citation preview

BULLETIN OF THE INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES SUPPLEMENT 64 GENERAL EDITOR: RICHARD SORABJI

ROMAN STATUTES EDITED BY M.H. CRAWFORD

WITH CONTRIBUTIONS BY J.D. CLOUD, R.G. COLEMAN, M.H. CRAWFORD, J.A. CROOK, S. DEMOUGIN, J.-L. FERRARY, E. GABBA, H, GALSTERER, E.C. GREEN, K. HALLOF, L. HORVATH, M. HUMBERT, U. LAFFI, A.D.E. LEWIS, A.W. LINTOTT, H.B. MATTINGLY, Ph. MOREAU, CI. NICOLET, J.M. REYNOLDS, J.S. RICHARDSON, P. STEIN, J. STUART-SMITH, C.H. WILLIAMSON

VOLUME I

INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON

1996

BICS SUPPLEMENT 64 ISBN 0 900587 69 5 the set volume I ISBN 0900587 67 9 volume II ISBN 0900587 68 7 © Institute of Classical Studies, University of London, 1996 First published in 1996 by the Institute of Classical Studies, University of London, 31-34 Gordon Square, London WC1H 0PY All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Designed and computer typeset at the Institute of Classical Studies Printed by Remous Limited, Milborne Port, Sherborne, Dorset DT95EP

TABLE OF CONTENTS — VOLUME I Table of Contents — Volume II

vii

List of Plates in Volume II

ix

List of Figures in Volume II

x

Editions of Greek and Latin texts cited

xi

Abbreviations

xv

Standard translations of technical terms and phrases

xxiii

Concordance

xxvii

General Introduction

1

Epigraphically attested leges Introduction to Lex repetundarum and Lex agraria

39

1

Lex repetundarum

2

Lex agraria

113

3

Nicotera Fragment A

181

4

Nicotera Fragment B

183

5

Florence Fragment A

185

6

Florence Fragment B

189

7

Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae

193

8

Tarentum Fragment

209

9

Clusium Fragments

221

10

Falerio Fragment I A

227

11

Bauer Fragment A

229

12

Lex de prouinciis praetoriis

231

13

Lex Osca Tabulae Bantinae

271

14

Lex Cornelia de XX quaestoribus

293

15

Lex Tarentina

301

16

Este Fragment

313

17

Falerio Fragment I B

325

65

vi

ROMAN STATUTES

18

Falerio Fragment II

329

19

Lex Antonia de Termessibus

331

20

Rome Fragment A

341

21

Guardia Vomano Fragment

343

22

Lex Gabinia Calpumia de insula Delo

345

23

Bauer Fragment B

353

24

Tabula Heracleensis

355

25

Lex Coloniae Genetiuae Iuliae

393

26

Rome Fragment B

455

27

Venafro Fragment

459

28

Lex de Gallia Cisalpina; Veleia Fragment I

461

29

Veleia Fragment II

479

30

Veleia Fragment

31

Susa Fragments

483

32

Fiesole Fragment

485

33

Uffizi Fragment

487

34

Riccardi Fragment

489

35

Ephesus Fragment

493

36

Lex Fonteia (Cos Fragments)

497

37

Lex Valeria Aurelia

38 39

Lex for Drusus Caesar Lex de imperio Vespasiani

III

481

507 549

TABLE OF CONTENTS — VOLUME II Table of Contents List of Plates List of Figures Leges and rogationes attested in literary sources 40 XII Tabulae 41 Lex Aquilia Lex Sulpicia 42 43 Leges de aquis 44 Lex Plaetoria Lex Papiria 45 Lex Silia 46 Lex Cincia 47 Lex Atinia 48 Lex Cornelia de proscriptione 49 Lex Cornelia de sicariis et ueneficiis 50 51 Lex Fabia de plagio 52 Rogatio Seruilia agraria Lex Tullia de ambitu 53 54 Lex lulia agraria (so-called Lex Mamilia Roscia Peducaea Alliena Fabia) Lex lulia de pecuniis repetundis 55 Lex Clodia 56 57 Rogatio Vm tribunorum Lex lulia de sacerdotiis 58 Lex Falcidia 59 Lex lulia de adulteriis 60 61 Lex lulia iudiciorum priuatorum 62 Lex lulia de ui Lex Quinctia 63 64 Lex lulia de maritandis ordinibus; Lex Papia Poppaea 65 Lex Iunia Vellaea Index of Latin Words Latin Index of Persons, Peoples and Places Index of Greek Words Greek Index of Persons, Peoples and Places Index of Oscan Words Index of Words in the XII Tabulae Plates and Figures vii

v vii viii 555 723 727 729 731 733 737 741 745 747 749 755 757 761 763 769 773 775 777 779 781 787 789 793 801 811 815 855 '859 867 869 873 at end

LIST OF PLATES IN VOLUME II 1,1 1,2

n m rv, l IV, 2 V, 1 V,2 VI, 1 VI, 2

vn vm IX, 1 IX, 2 X

xi,i-xn, xn,2 xm, l xm,2

Lex repetundanim: join between the B and D fragments Clusium Fragments: Bassetti drawing Florence Fragment A Florence Fragment B Lex Osca Tabulae Bantinae: Rosini Fragment Falerio Fragment LI Guardia Vomano Fragment Venafro Fragment Veleia Fragment I Veleia Fragment III Veleia Fragment LI S usa Fragments Fiesole Fragment Uffizi Fragment Riccardi Fragment 1 Lex Fonteia Lex for Drusus Caesar: Rome Fragment (d) Lex for Drusus Caesar: Rome Fragment (f) Lex for Drusus Caesar: Tabula Ilicitana

LIST OF FIGURES IN VOLUME II I II lu, 1 HI, 2 IV, 1 IV, 2 V, 1 V, 2 VI VII VTH DC, 1 IX, 2 X XI Xu Xm XTV

Lex repetundarum Lex agraria Lex repetundarum: 11. 52-4, join between the B and D fragments Lex repetundarum: 1. 47, hypothetical sketch of join Lex repetundarum: 11. 44-7, hypothetical sketch of join between the A and E fragments Lex agraria: 11. 61-3, join between the B and D fragments Lex agraria: 11. 51-5, hypothetical sketch of join between the A and E fragments Lex agraria: 1. 93, hypothetical reconstruction Lex agraria: 11. 3-7 and 15-18 Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae. Lex Osca Tabulae Bantinae Placing of Avellino Fragment: Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae and Lex Osca Tabulae Bantinae Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae: Avellino Fragment, 1. 26, hypothetical reconstruction Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae: Avellino Fragment, 1. 32 and Adamesteanu Fragment, 1. 1, hypothetical reconstruction Lex de prouinciis praetoriis: Delphi blocks Lex de prouinciis praetoriis: Cnidos blocks Overlap of Delphi and Cnidos copies Lex Coloniae Genetiuae Lex Coloniae Genetiuae: Tablet d

The figures for this edition have been drawn by David Williams MAAIS

EDITIONS OF GREEK AND LATIN TEXTS CITED Anon, Appian, Apuleius, Arnobius, Asconius, Augustine,

Caesar, Cato, Charisius, Cicero,

Declamano in Catilinam, ed. Hans Kristoferson (Goteborg, 1928) Ad Herennium, ed. G. Achard (Paris, Collection Bude, 1989) Bella civilia V, ed. E. Gabba (Florence, 1970) Apologia, ed. R. Helm (Leipzig, Teubner, 1912, with Addenda, 1959) Adversus nationes, ed. C. Marchesi (2nd ed., Turin, Corpus Scriptorum Latinorum Paravianum, 1953) ed. A.C. Clark (Oxford, 1907); ed. T. Stangl (Vienna and Leipzig, 1912) De civitate Dei I, ed. B. Dombart & A. Kalb (Leipzig, Teubner, 1981) De libero arbitrio, ed. W. Green (Turnhout, Corpus Christianorum Latinorum 29, 1970) Quaestiones in Heptateuchum, ed. I. Fraipont (Turnhout, Corpus Christianorum Latinorum 33, 1958) Bellum Gallicum, ed. W. Hering (Leipzig, Teubner, 1987) De agri cultura, ed. A. Mazzarino (2nd ed., Leipzig, Teubner, 1982) Ars grammatica, ed. C. Barwick, rev. F. Kühnert (Leipzig, Teubner, 1964) Brutus, ed. E. Malcovati (2nd ed., Leipzig, Teubner, 1970) De inventione, ed. G. Achard (Paris, Collection Bude, 1994) De oratore, ed. K.F. Kumaniecki (Leipzig, Teubner, 1969) Topica, ed. H. Bornecque (Paris, Collection Bude, 1924) Epistulae adAtticum, ed. D.R. Shackleton Bailey (Cambridge, 1965-70) Epistulae ad familiäres, ed. D.R. Shackleton Bailey (Cambridge, 1977) Pro Balbo, ed. G.C. Giardina (Mondadori, 1971) Pro Caecina, ed. F. Scholl (Leipzig, Teubner, 1923) Pro Caelio, ed. A. Klotz (Leipzig, Teubner, 1919) Pro Cluentio, ed. S. Rizzo (Mondadori, 1991) De domo sua adpontifices, ed. T. Maslowski (Leipzig, Teubner, 1981) Pro Fiacco, ed. L. Früchtel (Leipzig, Teubner, 1932) De harispicum responsis, ed T. Maslowski (Leipzig, Teubner, 1981) De lege agraria, ed. V. Marek (Leipzig, Teubner, 1983) Pro Milone, ed. A. Klotz (Leipzig, Teubner, 1914) Pro Murena, ed. H. Kasten (3rd ed., Leipzig, Teubner, 1972) Philippicae, ed. P. Fedeli (2nd ed., Leipzig, Teubner, 1982) In Pisonem, ed. R. Nisbet (Oxford, 1961) Pro Rabirio perduellionis, ed. V. Marek (Leipzig, Teubner, 1983) Pro Rabirio Postumo, ed. E. Olechowska (Leipzig, Teubner, 1981) Pro Roscio comoedo, ed. J. Axer (Leipzig, Teubner, 1976) Pro Sestio, ed. T. Maslowski (Leipzig, Teubner, 1986) Pro Sex. Roscio, ed. A. Klotz, rev. H. Kasten (Leipzig, Teubner, 1968) Pro Tullio, ed. F. Scholl (Leipzig, Teubner, 1923) In Vatinium, ed. A. Klotz (Leipzig, Teubner, 1919) In Verrem, ed. A. Klotz, Actio secunda, I—m (Leipzig, Teubner, 1923); Actio secunda, IV-V (Leipzig, Teubner, 1949) Academica, ed. O. Piasberg (Stuttgart, Teubner, 1922)

xii

ROMAN STATUTES

De legibus, edd. K. Ziegler & W. Görler (3rd ed., Freiburg/Würzburg, 1979) De natura deorum, ed. O. Piasberg, rev. W. Ax (Stuttgart, Teubner, 1934) De officiis, ed. M. Winterbottom (Oxford, 1984) Paradoxa Stoicorum, ed. R. Badali (Mondadori, 1968) De re publica, ed. K. Ziegler (7th ed., Leipzig, Teubner, 1969) Tusculanae disputationes, ed. M. Giusta (Turin, Corpus Scriptorum Latinorum Paravianum, 1984) Collatio Mosaicarum et Romanarum legum, edd. E. Seckel and B. Kubier (Leipzig, 1927) (lurisprudentiae Antejustinianae Reliquiae E, 2) Corpus agrimensorum Romanorum, ed. C. Thulin (Leipzig, Teubner, 1913, with Addenda, 1971) Die Schriften der römischen Feldmesser, edd. F. Blume, K. Lachmann and A. Rudorff (Berlin, 1848-52) Dio Cassius, Historiae Romanae, ed. U.P. Boissevain (Berlin, 1895-1931) Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiquitates Romanae, ed. C. Jacoby (Leipzig, Teubner, 1885-1905) Edictum Perpetuum, ed. O. Lenel, Das Edictum Perpetuum (3rd ed., Leipzig, 1927) Festus, ed. W.M. Lindsay (Leipzig, Teubner, 1913) Fragmenta Vaticana, edd. E. Seckel and B. Kubier (Revised ed., Leipzig, Teubner, 1927) (lurisprudentiae Antejustinianae Reliquiae E, 2) Fronto, ed. M.P.J. van den Hout (Leipzig, Teubner, 1988) Gaius, Institutiones, edd. E. Seckel and B. Kubier (Rev. ed., Leipzig, Teubner, 1935) Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae, ed. P. Marshall (2nd ed., Oxford, 1990) Horace, Saturae, ed. F. Klingner (3rd ed., Leipzig, Teubner, 1959) Justinian, Institutiones, ed. P. Krüger (Berlin, 1899) (Corpus Iuris Civilis I) Digest, ed. T. Mommsen (Berlin, 1870-3) Code, ed. P. Krüger (Berlin, 1877) (Corpus Iuris Civilis E) Livy, Ab urbe condita, I-V, ed. R.M. Ogilvie (Oxford, 1974) VI-X, edd. R. Conway and C. Walters (Oxford, 1919) XXI-XXE, ed. T.A. Dorey (Leipzig, Teubner, 1971) XXIE-XXV, ed. T.A. Dorey (Leipzig, Teubner, 1976) XXVI-XXVE, ed. P.G. Walsh (Leipzig, Teubner, 1982) XXVIE-XXX, ed. P.G. Walsh (Leipzig, Teubner, 1986) XXXI-XL, ed. J. Briscoe (Stuttgart, Teubner, 1991) Periochae, ed. P. Jal (Paris, Collection Bude, 1984) Joannes Lydus, De magistratibus, ed. R. Wuensch (Leipzig, Teubner, 1903) Macrobius, Saturnalia, ed. J. Willis (Leipzig, Teubner, 1963) Martianus Capella, De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii, ed. J. Willis (Leipzig, Teubner, • 1983) Cornelius Nepos, Vitae cumfragmentis, ed. P.K. Marshall (Leipzig, Teubner, 1977) Nonius Marcellus, De compendiosa doctrina, ed. W.M. Lindsay (Leipzig, Teubner, 1903) Novellae, edd. R. Scholl & W. Kroll (Berlin, 1895) (Corpus Iuris Civilis EI) Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta, ed. E. Malcovati (4th ed., Turin, Corpus Scriptorum Latinorum Paravianum, 1976) Ovid, Fasti, edd. E. Alton, D. Wormell & E. Courtney (Leipzig, Teubner, 1978) Metamorphoses, ed. W.S. Anderson (Leipzig, Teubner, 1985) Pauli sententiae, edd. E. Seckel and B. Kubier (Berlin, 1911) (lurisprudentiae Antejustinianae Reliquiae E, l)

EDITIONS OF GREEK AND LATIN TEXTS CITED

Xlll

Scholia on Persius, A. Persii Flacci satirarum liber, ed. O. Jahn (Berlin, 1843) Plautus, Comoediae, ed. W.M. Lindsay (Oxford, 1904-05) Pliny, Naturalis historia, edd. L. Jan & C. Mayhoff (Leipzig, Teubner, 1889-1905) Polybius, Historiae, ed. T. Büttner-Wobst (Leipzig, Teubner, 1882-1904; I, 2nd ed., 1905) Pomponi Porfyrionis commentum in Horatium Flaccum, ed. A. Holder (Innsbruck, 1984) Priscian, Institutiones Grammaticae, ed. M. Hertz, in H. Keil, Grammatici Latini n - m (Leipzig, 1855-59) Quintilian, Institutio oratoria, ed. M. Winterbottom (Oxford, 1970) Sallust, ed. L.D. Reynolds (Oxford, 1991) Salvian, De gubernatione Dei, ed. G. Lagarrigue (Paris, Sources Chrétiennes, 1975) Scholiasta Bobiensis, ed. T. Stangl (Vienna, 1912) Seneca, Controversiae, ed. L. Häkanson (Leipzig, Teubner, 1989) Servius, Commentarii in Vergilium, ed. G. Thilo & H. Hagen (Leipzig, Teubner, 1878-1887) Suetonius, De grammaticis et rhetoribus, ed. G. Brugnoli (2nd ed., Leipzig, Teubner, 1963) De vita Caesarum, ed. M. Dim (Leipzig, Teubner, 1908) Tacitus, Annales, I-VT, ed. S. Borzsâk (Stuttgart & Leipzig, Teubner, 1992) Tertullian, Apologeticum, ed. E. Dekkers (Turnhout, Corpus Christianorum Latinorum, 1, 1954) Theodosius, Codex Theodosianus, ed. T. Mommsen (Berlin, 1905) Tibullus, Elegiae, ed. G. Luck (Leipzig, Teubner, 1987) Tituli Ulpiani, ed. E. Seckel & B. Kubier (Leipzig, 1908) (Iurisprudentiae Antejustinianae Reliquiae I) Valerius Probus, ed. T. Mommsen, in H. Keil, in Grammatici Latini, IV (Leipzig, 1864); ed. P.F. Girard, Nouv.Rev.Historique de Droit 34, 1910, 479-520, 'Un second manuscrit des extraits alphabétiques de Probus (Paris latin 4841)' Varro, De lingua Latina, edd. G. Goetz & F. Scholl (Leipzig, Teubner, 1910); éd. R.G. Kent (Loeb Classical Library, 1938) Res Rusticae, ed. G. Goetz (Leipzig, Teubner, 1929) Velleius, ed. W.S. Watt (Leipzig, Teubner, 1988) Virgil, Eclogues, ed. R. Mynors (Oxford, 1976) Volusius Maecianus, ed. F. Hultsch, in Metrologico rum Scriptorum Reliquiae, U (Leipzig, 1866) Edict of Ti. lulius Alexander: G. Chalon, L'Edit de Tiberius Julius Alexander (Olten & Lausanne, 1964) Cyrene Edicts: J. Stroux & L. Wenger, Die Augustus-Inschrift auf dem Marktplatz von Kyrene (Munich, 1928) Lex Flavia: J. Gonzalez, JRS 76, 1986, 147-243, 'The Lex Irnitana: a new copy of the Flavian municipal law' Murecine Tablets: G. Camodeca, L'archivio puteolano dei Sulpicii I (Naples, 1992) Lex portorii Asiae: H. Engelmann & D. Knibbe, Das Zollgesetz der Provinz Asia (EA 14, 1989) Venafrum Edict: CIL X, 1, 4842; A. Pantoni, Rend. PontAce. Arch. 33, 1960-1, 'L'editto augusteo sull'acquedotto di Venafro e una sua replica alle fonti del Volturno'

ABBREVIATIONS Journals We use in addition a number of slightly abbreviated, and we hope evident, titles. AC AE AEA AION Ling. AN AJA AJP Arch. Class. Arch.Giur. Ath BCAR BCH BIDR BRAH BulUnst. CP CQ CR CRAI CSCA DdA EA EE EHR GIF Hist HZ JP JRS JS LCM MAL MDAIR MEFR MEFRA MH Mnem

Archeologia Classica L'Année Épigraphique Archivo Espanol de Arqueologia Annali dell'Istituto Orientale di Napoli. Sezione linguistica Atti dell'Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti American Journal of Archaeology American Journal of Philology Archeologia Classica Archivio Giuridico Athenaeum Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique Bullettino dell' Istituto di Diritto Romano Boletin de la Real Academia de Historia Bullettino dell'Instituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica Classical Philology Classical Quarterly Classical Review Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres California Studies in Classical Antiquity Dialoghi di Archeologia Epigraphica Anatolica Ephemeris Epigraphica. Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. Supplementum (Rome, 1872-1913) English Historical Review Giornale Italiano di Filologia Historia Historische Zeitschrift Journal of Philology Journal of Roman Studies Journal des Savants Liverpool Classical Monthly Memorie della Classe di Scienze morali, storiche e filologiche dell' Accademia dei Lincei Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Römische Abteilung Mélanges d'Archéologie et d'Histoire de l'École Française de Rome Mélanges d'Archéologie et d'Histoire de l'École Française de Rome. Antiquité Museum Helveticum Mnemosyne

xvi MonAnt NC NSc PBSR PCPhS PdelP Phil RAL REA REL Rev. Phil. RFIC RIDA RHD RhMus RIL RPAA RSI SDHI SE SSA C TAPhA Tijdschrift WS ZGR ZPE ZSS

ROMAN STATUTES Monumenti Antichi Numismatic Chronicle Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità Papers of the British School at Rome Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society La Parola del Passato Philologus Rendiconti della Classe di Scienze morali, storiche e filologiche dell'Accademia dei Lincei Revue des Études Anciennes Revue des Études Latines Revue Philologique Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica Revue Internationale des Droits de l'Antiquité Revue Historique de Droit Français et Étranger Rheinisches Museum Istituto Lombardo di Scienze e Lettere. Rendiconti. Classe di Lettere Rendiconti dell 'Accademia Pontificia di Archeologia Rivista Storica Italiana Studia et Documenta Historiae Iuris Studi Etruschi Studi Storici per l'Antichità Classica Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis Wiener Studien Zeitschrift für geschichtliche Rechtswissenschaft Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik Zeitschrift der Savigny Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Romanistische Abteilung

Books cited by short title ANRW ARS CAH CIE CGL CIL CTh CJ DE Edperp. FGH

Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt I, 1 (1972) onwards (ed. H. Temporini et al.) Ancient Roman Statutes, edd. A.C. Johnson, PR. Coleman-Norton, F.C. Bourne (Austin, 1961) Cambridge Ancient History Corpus Inscriptionum Etruscarum Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum, edd. G. Loewe & G. Goetz, 1888-1923 Corpus Inscriptionum Latinorum Codex Theodosianus (see above) Codex Justinianus (see above) Dizionario epigrafico di antichità romane Edictum Perpetuum (see above) Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker I (1923) onwards (edd. F. Jacoby & C. Fornara)

ABBREVIATIONS

XVll

FIRA

Fontes Iuris Romani Antejustiniani, edd. S. Riccobono et al., I—m, 1940-1, repr. 1968 HRR Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae, ed. H. Peter, 1906-14 IG Inscriptiones Graecae IGRR Inscriptiones Graecae ad Res Romanas Pertinentes, edd. R. Cagnat et al., I, m-IV, 1906-27 IGSK Inschriften Griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien ILLRP Inscriptiones Latinae Liberae Rei Publicae, ed. A. Degrassi, I—II, 1957-63,1 2 , 1965 ILS Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, ed. H. Dessau, 1892-1916 Inscr.Ital. Inscriptiones Italiae Milet Milet. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen seit dem Jahre 18991 (Berlin, 1906) onwards MGH Monumenta Germaniae Historie a OGIS Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae, ed. W. Dittenberger, I—II, 1903-5 ORF Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta (see above) P.Dikaiomata Dikaiomaîa. Auszüge aus alexandrinischen Gesetze und Verordnungen in einem Papyrus des Philologischen Seminars der Universität Halle (Berlin, 1913) P. Mich. Michigan Papyri 1(1931) onwards P. Oxy. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri 1(1898) onwards P.Ryl. IV C.H. Roberts & E.G. Turner, Catalogue of the Greek Papyri in the John Rylands Library IV (Manchester, 1952) PSI Papiri della Società Italiana per la Ricerca dei Papiri 1(1912) onwards P. Vind.Bosw. E. Boswinkel, Einige wiener Papyri (Leiden, 1942) P.Wisc. II P.J.Sijpesteijn The Wisconsin Papyri U (Zutphen, 1977) P. Yadin N. Lewis, The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters. Greek Papyri (Jerusalem, 1989) RE Paulys Realencyclopädie, herausgegeben von Georg Wissowa et al., 1893-1978 ROL Remains of Old Latin. IV. Archaic Inscriptions, ed. E.H. Warmington, Loeb Classical Library, 1940 Staatsverträge Die Staatsverträge des Altertums, edd. H. Bengtson & H.H. Schmitt, n - m , 1962-9, n 2 ,1975 TLL Thesaurus Linguae Latinae Books and articles cited by author or author and short title Bleicken, Lex Publica Bloch and Carcopino, Histoire romaine I Bonnefond-Coudry, Sénat

J. Bleicken, Lex Publica: Gesetz und Recht in der römischen Republik (Berlin & New York, 1975) G. Bloch and J. Carcopino, La république romaine de 133 avant JC à la mort de César (Paris, 1940-42) M. Bonnefond-Coudry, Le Sénat de la république romaine de la guerre d'Hannibal à Auguste: pratiques déliberatives et prise de décision (Rome, 1989)

XV111

Broughton, Magistrates

Bruns Brunt, Fall Buckland, Slavery Coarelli, Foro Crawford, RRC Crawford, Coinage and Money Crawford, 'Sistema provinciale'

Daube, Forms David, Patronat De Meo, Lingue Demougin, L'Ordre équestre Dilke, Land Surveyors Ferrary, Philhellénisme

Frederiksen, Campania Frederiksen, 'Municipal laws' Frier, Jurists Gabba, Esercito e società Galsterer, Herrschaft

Girard Hardy

ROMAN STATUTES T.R.S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic I - n (New York, 1951-2), HI. Supplement (Scholars Press, Atlanta, 1986) Fontes Iuris Romani Antiqui, ed. C.G. Bruns (7th ed., O. Gradenwitz, Tübingen, 1909) P.A. Brunt, The Fall of the Roman Republic and Related Essays (Oxford, 1988) W.W. Buckland, The Roman Law of Slavery: the condition of the slave in private life from Augustus to Justinian (Cambridge, 1908) F. Coarelli, Il foro romano I—II (Rome, 1983-85) M.H. Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage I—II (Cambridge, 1975) M.H. Crawford, Coinage and Money under the Roman Republic (London, 1985) M.H. Crawford, in Storia di Roma II, 1 (Turin, Einaudi, 1990), 91-121, 'Origini e sviluppi del sistema provinciale romano' D. Daube, Forms of Roman Legislation (Oxford, 1956) J-M. David, Le Patronat judiciaire au dernier siècle de la République romaine (Rome, 1992) C. De Meo, Lingue tecniche del latino (2nd ed., Bologna, 1986) S. Demougin, L'Ordre équestre sous les JulioClaudiens (Rome, 1985) O.A.W. Dilke, The Roman Land Surveyors (Newton Abbot, 1971) I-L. Ferrary, Philhellénisme et impérialisme: aspects idéologiques de la conquête romaine du monde hellénistique, de la seconde guerre de la Macédoine à la guerre contre Mithridate (Rome, 1988) M.W. Frederiksen, Campania, ed. N. Purcell (London,1984) M.W. Frederiksen, JRS 55, 1965, 183-98, 'The Republican municipal laws: errors and drafts' B.W. Frier, The Rise of the Roman Jurists: studies in Cicero's pro Caecina (Princeton, 1985) E. Gabba, Esercito e società nella tarda repubblica romana (Florence, 1973) H. Galsterer, Herrschaft und Verwaltung im republikanischen Italien: die Beziehung Roms zu den italischen Gemeinden vom Latinerfrieden 338 v. Chr. bis zum Bundesgenossenkrieg (Munich, 1976) V. Giuffté (ed.), Les lois des Romains = P.F. Girard and F. Senn (edd.), Textes de droit romain II 7 (Naples, 1977) E.G. Hardy, Roman Laws and Charters (Oxford, 1912: pp. i-viii + 1-176 and 1-160)

ABBREVIATIONS J.B. Hofmann, Lateinische Umgangsprache (3rd ed., Heidelberg, 1951) M. Humbert, Municipium et civitas sine suffragio: Humbert, Municipium VOrganisation de la conquête jusqu'à la guerre sociale (Rome, 1978) A.H.M. Jones, The Criminal Courts of the Roman Jones, Courts Republic and Principate, éd. J. Crook (Oxford, 1972) M. Kaser, Das römisches Privatrecht (2nd ed., Kaser, RPR Munich, 1971-5) Käser, ZPR M. Kaser, Das römisches Zivilprozessrecht (Munich, 1966) M. Kaser, ZSS 62, 1942, 1-81, 'Die Typen des Käser, 'Typen' römischen Bodenrechts' J.M. Kelly, Studies in the Civil Judicature of the Kelly, Judicature Roman Republic (Oxford, 1976) Keppie, Colonisation L. Keppie, Colonisation and Veteran Settlement in Italy 47-14 BC (London, 1983) Kunkel, Untersuchungen W. Kunkel, Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung des römischen Kriminalverfahrens in vorsullanischer Zeit (Munich, 1962) U. Laffi, Adtributio e Contributio: problemi del Laffi, Adtributio e Contributio sistema politico-amministrativo dello stato romano (Pisa, 1966) M. Leumann, J.B. Hofmann & A. Szantyr, Leumann-Hofmann-Szantyr Lateinische Grammatik 1-2 (Munich, 1963, 1965) W. Liebenam, Städteverwaltung im römischen Liebenam, Städteverwaltung Kaiserreiche (Leipzig, 1900) E. Löfstedt, Syntactica: Studien und Beiträge zur Löfstedt, Syntactica historischen Syntax des Lateins I—II, (Lund, 1928-33) D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor, I—II Magie, Roman Rule (Princeton, 1950) D. Mantovani, // problema d'origine dell'accusa Mantovani, Accusa popolare (Padua, 1989) Marquardt, Organisation militaire J. Marquardt, L'organisation militaire chez les Romains, transi. J. Brissaud (Paris, 1891) H.J. Mason, Greek Terms for Roman Institutions Mason (Toronto, 1974) Th. Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht (3rd ed., Mommsen, St. Leipzig, 1887-8) Th. Mommsen, Le droit public romain, transi. P.F. Mommsen, DP Girard (Paris, 1887-94) Th. Mommsen, Römisches Strafrecht (Leipzig, 1899) Mommsen, Str. Th. Mommsen, Le droit pénal romain, transi. J. Mommsen, DPén Duquesne (Paris, 1907) Th. Momsen, Gesammelte Schriften (Berlin, Mommsen, GS 1905-13) Hofmann, Umgangsprache

ROMAN STATUTES Mommsen, 'Stadtrechte' Niccolini, Fasti Nicolet, Citoyen Nicolet, L'Ordre équestre Norden, Priesterbüchern Pascucci Platner & Ashby Poccetti Pugliese, Processo civile

Reynolds, Aphrodisias Ritschi Sartori, Problemi Sherk, RDGE Sherk, Municipal Decrees Sherk, Greek East Sherwin White, Citizenship2 Spitzl Talbert, Senate Tibiletti, 'Lex' Ville, Gladiature Wackernagel, Syntax Watson, Law Making Watson, Obligations Watson, Property

Th. Mommsen, in GS I, 265-382, 'Die Stadtrechte der latinischen Gemeinden Salpensa und Malaca in der Provinz Baetica' G. Niccolini, / fasti dei tribuni della plebe (Milan, 1934) C. Nicolet, Le métier du citoyen dans la Rome républicaine (Paris, 1976) = The World of the Citizen in Republican Rome, transi. P.S. Falla (London, 1980) C. Nicolet, L'Ordre équestre à l'époque républicaine (312-43 avant J-C), I-II (Paris, 1966 and 1974) E. Norden, Aus altrömischen Priesterbüchern (Lund & Leipzig, 1939) G. Pascucci, Scritti scelti I—II (Florence, 1983) S.B. Platner & T. Ashby, A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (Oxford, 1929) P. Poccetti, Nuovi documenti italici (Pisa, 1979) G. Pugliese, // processo civile romano I. Le legis actiones (Rome, 1961-2), //. Il processo formulare I (Milan, 1963) J. Reynolds, Aphrodisias and Rome (London, 1982) F. Ritschl,Pris c ae Latinitatis Monumenta Epigraphica (Berlin, 1862) F. Sartori, Problemi di storia costituzionale italiota (Rome, 1953) R.K. Sherk, Roman Documents from the Greek East (Baltimore, 1969) R.K. Sherk, The Municipal Decrees of the Roman West (Arethusa Monographs II, Buffalo, 1970) R.K. Sherk, Rome and the Greek East to the Death of Augustus (Cambridge, 1984) A.N. Sherwin White, Roman Citizenship (2nd ed., Oxford, 1973) T. Spitzl, Lex Municipii Malacitani (Vestigia 36, Munich, 1984) R.J.A. Talbert, The Senate of Imperial Rome (Princeton, 1984) G. Tibiletti, in G. Barbieri & G. Tibiletti, DE IV, 22-5 (Rome, 1957), 702-93, 'Lex' G. Ville, La Gladiature en Occident des origines à la mortde Domitien (Rome, 1981) J. Wackernagel, Vorlesungen über Syntax I-II (Basle, 1926-8) A. Watson, Law Making in the Later Roman Republic (Oxford, 1974) A. Watson, The Law of Obligations in the Later Roman Republic (Oxford, 1965) A. Watson, The Law of Property in the Later Roman Republic (Oxford, 1968)

ABBREVIATIONS Watson, Succession Watson, XII Tables Wieacker, RRG Wissowa, RuK

A. Watson, The Law of Succession in the Later Roman Republic (Oxford, 1971) A. Watson, Rome of the Twelve Tables: persons and property (Princeton, 1975) Fr. Wieacker, Römische Rechtsgeschichte I (Munich, 1988) G. Wissowa, Religion und Kultus der Römer (Munich, 1902)

Other abbreviations GS KS

Gesammelte Schriften Kleine Schriften

STANDARD TRANSLATIONS OF TECHNICAL TERMS AND PHRASES The order is alphabetical, but where appropriate by the principal word of a phrase. actio: action addicere: to confirm (an agreed judge; see also dare) adigere: to administer (an oath) aduersus ea: contrary to these rules agere: to bring an action (see also lege agere) qua de re agitur: the matter at issue arbitratus: decision cauetur ut/ne: it is prescribed that + a formula of a mandatory or prohibitory type in the subordinate clause causa: grounds, position, case cautum: prescribed comprehendere: to lay down condicio: position creare: to elect curare: to see (to it) that damnum: loss (see D. Daube, in Studi S. Solazzi (Naples, 1948), 93-156 = Collected Studies in Roman Law (Frankfurt-am-Main, 1991), 279-339, 'On the use of the term damnum'\ D. Liebs, ZSS 85, 1968, 173-252, 'Damnum, damnare und damnas'; G. Colonna, Opus 3, 2, 1984, 311-17, 'Etrusco 0APNA: latino damnum') dare: to issue (a statute); to appoint (an imposed judge; see also addicere); to prescribe {^formula) dare addicere: to appoint and confirm dare damnas esto: he is to be condemned to pay dolo malo: with wrongful deceit (see Dig. IV, 3, 1-3 (Ulpian); A. Carcaterra, Dolus bonus/dolus malus. Esegesi di D. 4.3.1.2-3 (Naples, 1970); G. MacCormack, in Sodalitas m (Naples, 1984), 1445-53, 'Sciens dolo malo'; BIDR 88, 1985, 1-38, '"Dolus" in Republican law'; also on Law 43) edere: to publish exactio: exaction (enforcement of payment) facere: to appoint facere ut: to see (to it) that sine fraude sua liceto: it is to be lawful (for him/for them) without personal liability legi fraudem facere: to compass evasion of the statute gerere:

to behave

iniuria:

damage

xxiii

XXIV

ROMAN STATUTES

ita uti ei e re publica fideque sua uidebitur esse: just as shall seem to him to be according to the public interest and his own good faith iudex: juror, judge iudicatio: right of judgment iudicium: trial, trial-procedure (hence, formula) ius: source of rights, right(s), law ius potestasque: right(s) and power(s) ius ratumque: legal and binding in ius, in iure: to a pre-trial, at a pre-trial qui iure dicundo praeerit: whoever shall be in charge of the administration of justice iuris dictio: jurisdiction, administration of justice iustus: lawful (ex) hac lege: according to this statute lege agere: to bring an action according to statute ante hanc legem rogatam: before the proposal of this statute post hanc legem rogatam: after the (successful) proposal of this statute lex: statute; status (in the phrase optimo iure optima lege) licere: to be lawful Us: case litis aestimatio, litium aestimatio: assessment of damages multam dicere: to impose a fine negotium: business eo nomine: on that account nominis delatio: prosecution (see the Lex repetundarum, Law 1, Translation) in numero: in the category of oportere: to be appropriate, ex iure ciuili or ex lege, as the case may be (see Daubé, Forms, 8-23; M. Kaser, ZSS 83, 1966, 1-46, 'Oportere und ius civile') pecunia: money, sum persecutio: claim petitio: suit petere: to sue (for); to stand for (office) unde/ita ut de plano recte legi possi(n)t: in such a way that it/they can be read properly from ground level postulare: to request potestas: power(s) prohibere: to restrain pronunciare: to declare proponere: to publish proscribere: to display quaerere, quaestio: to investigate, an investigation; quaestio is in effect the normal word to convey 'a court in a criminal case' quod eius rei fieri poterit: insofar as it shall be possible (the phrase is probably already attested in Polybius VI, 21, 2)

STANDARD TRANSLATIONS OF TECHNICAL TERMS AND PHRASES

xxv

ratum: binding recte: properly redigere: to collect referre: to raise (a matter); to enter (in records) res: matter, thing, case eius hac lege nihilum rogatur: nothing of that is proposed by this statute rogare: to propose scribere: to write down sententia: opinion (hence, vote) setius: improperly trac tare:

to handle

uti quod recte factum esse uole(n)t: as he/they shall deem it proper (garbled in Valerius Probus, §5, 3) uti supra scriptum est: as is written down above

CONCORDANCE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

Bruns

Girard

FIRA

10 11

7 8

7 8

6 9

6

10

25a 25b 9 25c

8 12 27 17

IV. 1

17

9 16 10 18 20

14

12

11

11 IV.2

15 13

18 28

IV.3

13 21

16

16

19

18 19

15

33

32 25d 56

ROMAN STATUTES

XXV111

40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

II II II

2 7;111 111 1 4 3 5 6

5

5

3 2 1

3 2 1

4

4

14

12

13

15

19 21 20 22 23 24

14

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

Preface This is a collection of texts of Roman leges, statutes;1 in compiling it, we have begun from the narrow definition of a lex offered by our sources: quae sciscer et plèbes aut quae populus iuberet (Cicero, Flac. 15); generale iussum populi aut plebis rogante magistratu (Gellius X, 20, 2; compare Gaius I, 3); scitumpopuli [...] (Festus, 442 L); nequepopuli iussu neque plebis scitu (Cicero, ad Att. IV, 2 = 74 SB, 3); [... H]ercle deaero [do]no, plebe{s) iousiit) (ILLRP 129, Lago Albano); populii) iussu (Crawford, RRC, no. 518/2). There were of course other kinds of leges, such as the lex pronounced by the censor in letting a contract. 2 But we are unpersuaded by the attempt of A. Magdelain to show that a lex is any normative text in the imperative and that any normative text in the imperative is a lex;3 or that of A. D'Ors to argue that a lex is really an act of a magistrate. 4 Naturally, as we shall see below, an assembly could not act without the involvement of a magistrate: the 'Zusammenhandeln des Magistrats und der Bürgerschaft\ 5 Given that certainly after the Lex Hortensia of c. 287 BC a lex and a plebiscitum had equal force, we naturally include both; indeed our texts randomly refer to themselves and to other statutes as lex or lex plebiue scitum.6 We are fortunately not called upon to decide whether plébiscita earlier than 287 BC came to have the force of law. Perhaps slightly illogically, we also include rogationes. There is a tendency from the Late Republic for leges to be published without the text of the rogano being converted into the format of a lex (see Ch. VII below); and by the time we get to the Lex de imperio Vespasiani, Law 39, and the Lex Flavia, Ch. 91, rogationes are cited along with leges and other sources of law: compare perhaps already the Rome Fragment B, Law 26. 1 An earner version of part of this General Introduction appeared as M.H. Crawford, in J. Gonzalez & J. Arce (edd.), Estudios sobre la Tabula Siarensis (Madrid, 1988), 127-40, 'The laws of the Romans: knowledge and diffusion'. Here and elsewhere, for reasons of space, we normally translate only those texts where the particular translation we adopt forms part of the argument. 2 This fact no doubt lies behind the definition offered by Aelius Gallus, to be found torn from its context in Festus, 326 L. 3 La loi à Rome (Paris, 1978), passim; for aedilician edicts in the imperative, see Magdelain, 26 n. 12; A. Watson, Tijdschrifi 39, 1971, 73-83 = Studies in Roman Private Law (London, 1991), 333-43. 'The imperatives of the aedilician edict'; for leges mancipii not in the imperative, see Magdelain, 51. 4 Emerita 37, 1969, 137-48, 'La ley romana, acto de magistrado'. 5 Mommsen, St. Ill, 301; see also 312: 'Vereinbarung', 'combination' (the French translation, DP Vu, 1, 342 and 355, is misleading). See also O. Behrends, in id. and C. Link (edd.), Zum römischen und neuzeitlichen Gesetzesbegriff (Abh.Akad.Wiss.Göttingen, Phil.-hist.KL, Dritte Folge, 157, Göttingen, 1987), 34-114, 'Der römische Gesetzesbegriff und das Prinzip der Gewaltenteilung', with reflections on the early history of the relationship. Bleicken, Lex Publica, makes no significant use of the material with which we are concerned. 6 See the Index, svv. lex and VOJIOC; compare also the sources of law cited in the Lex Flavia, Chs. 19,20,81/

1

2

ROMAN STATUTES

The work does not include all leges, but only those of which some part of the text survives; but it accompanies those it does include with much scholarly discussion. This Introduction aims both to provide a way into the material for those unfamiliar with it and on certain contentious matters to discuss all the evidence. Some recent discussions could have been improved by the availability of this material. In order to keep the annotation under control we have usually cited only the first author to propound an idea. We are the inheritors of a long line of scholars who have sought to use the epigraphic material to illuminate the law: perhaps the authors of the libri antiqui foederum et legum cited by Marius Victorinus;7; Antonio Agustin and Fulvio Orsini, whose De legibus et senatusconsultis appeared in 1583; CG. Haubold, whose Antiquitatis Romani monumenta legalia appeared posthumously in 1830;8 Theodor Mommsen, who wrote to Bartolomeo Borghesi, on 17 January 1845, 'Je me propose de faire une collection de toutes les lois et des senatusconsulta Romains qui en bronze ou en marbre sont parvenus jusqu'à nos temps';9 Cari Georg Bruns; and others more recent still. We hope that our work is a worthy repayment of our debt to them.10 I - Inclusions and exclusions The collection includes: 1) All known texts of leges, statutes, and rogationes, proposals, passed by or presented to the assemblies of the Roman people or plebs and directly attested by inscribed copies. 2) All known epigraphic texts quoting from leges or rogationes passed by or presented to the assemblies of the Roman people or plebs; a clear example of a text which was never presented as it stands is the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24. 3) All similar texts attested by literary or juristic sources, provided that these claim to quote the ipsissima uerba of the text, that they quote more than isolated words or phrases and that they can be regarded as quoting accurately. The problem is that such material forms a continuum. Texts known from explicit quotations shade into texts which can be reconstructed with some certainty from a variety of sources which are not explicit quotations and texts which can be identified because they are stylistically different from their surroundings (see Ch. XII below), and on into texts which are no more than résumés. The collection in consequence excludes: 1) Such leges as the Lex Iulia de ciuitate, although the words 'uirtutis causa' are attested by an inscription and are certainly part of the lex. 2) Isolated words or phrases from leges preserved in literary or juristic sources. 7 6, 11. 11-12 Keil; 'populoi in his text is impossible and we must read poploi or less probably *popeloi or *popoloï (R. Coleman, PCPhS, N.S. 36, 1990, 1-25, 'Dialectal variation in Republican Latin', at 25 n. 84). 8 See also Serapewn 18, 1857, 198-208, 'Verzeichniss der noch verkäuflichen Manuscripte des am März 1824 verstorbenen Domherrn Dr Christian Gottlob Haubold, Professor der Rechte u.s.w. an der Universität Leipzig'. 9 E. Costa, Teodoro Mommsen (Bologna, 1905), 96-9; compare L. Wickert, Theodor Mommsen: eine Biographie II (Frankfurt am Main, 1964), 292. 10 Note also I. Alibrandi, Diss.Pont.Acc.Rom.Arch. 14, 1858, 245-73 = Opere giuridiche e storiche I (Rome, 1896), 23-46, 'Dell'uso dei monumenti epigrafici per l'interpretazione delle leggi romane'; A. Couraud, Rev.GenDroit 2, 1878, 10-46, 'De l'épigraphie juridique'; G. Gatti, Studi e Documenti di Storia e Diritto 6, 1885, 3-23, 'Della utilità che lo studio del diritto romano può trarre dall'epigrafia'.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

3

3) Such leges as the Lex Cornelia de falsis or the Lex Pompeia de parricidio or the Lex Iulia maiestatis.11 For although in many cases various combinations of references in epigraphic, literary and juristic sources may bring us close to the ipsissima nerba, it is clear that often we cannot be sure that we have these; and in particular that often we cannot know how much has been added to the original provisions by juristic interpretation. Such texts as Cicero, Clu. 153; Balb. 32-3; 38 (cf. 19); Sest. 33; post red. in sen. 11, should never have been printed in editions of those texts as quotations. There will no doubt be disagreement at the margins of the categories included or excluded. Note that some material omitted from the collection is cited in commenting on material which is included, such as J.M. Reynolds, Aphrodisias and Rome (London, 1982), Doc. 9, 11. 1-6, 10-15: see on the Lex Antonia de Termessibus, Law 19, and the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25. (Within the SC de Aphrodisiensibus, Doc. 8, there are two short passages, 11. 55-8 and 67-9, where the verbs are in the imperative (Reynolds, p. 84, overstates the extent of the phenomenon); and Reynolds suggested that 'this section was drafted as for the law which was to be passed in accordance with the senatus consultum.' The problem with this view is that the draft of a statute was of course a rogano, whose verbs were in the subjunctive; and that if anything the tendency in the late Republic and early Empire was to pubhcise the text of a rogano without converting its verbs into the imperative: see below, Ch. VII. The better view is that of Daube, Forms, 88-9, who knew only 11. 55-8 and argued that they had been lifted without change from a lex tempio dicta; 11. 67-9 will then be from a lex locationis, for which see on the Lex de prouinciis praetoriis, Law 12, Cnidos Copy, Column H, 11. 28-31; the Lex Gabinia Calpurnia, Law 22.) We have been unable to consider the inclusion of 'tre frammentini di tavole epigrafiche in bronzo', found at Falerone and transmitted via E. Brizio from Sig. Zamponi to the Museo Nazionale di Bologna;12 we are informed by Dott.ssa Meconcelli that they had disappeared by the time the Museo Nazionale di Ancona came to be constituted, and there is no evidence in the Carteggio F. Barnabei in the Biblioteca dell'Istituto Nazionale d'Archeologia e Storia dell'Arte, Rome (XIV, 6 and 16-21 (Firmum and Falerio)). We have also excluded: (1) two tantalising fragments in the British Museum, London: [-]NLO[-] [—]TLOCA[—] (1975.9.2.1)

HICH [—]GER[—] (1975.9.2.2); (2) two fragments from Clunia: A. D'Ors, Emerita 40, 1972, 59-60, 'Miscelanea epigrafica' = AE 1971, 204; (3) numerous quite unidentifiable fragments in Seville: F. Fernandez Gómez, ZPE 86, 1991, 121-36, 'Nuevos fragmentos de leyes municipales y otros bronces epigrâficos de la Betica en el Museo Arqueológico de Sevilla'. 11 For thefirst,see the discussion of J.A. Crook, Ath 75 (n.s. 65), 1987, 163-71, 'Lex Cornelia "de falsis'"; for the second, J.D. Cloud, ZSS 88, 1971, 1-66, Tarricidium: from the lex Numae to the lex Pompeia de parricidiis'; L. Fanizza, Labeo 25, 1979, 266-89, 'Il parricidio nel sistema della "lex Pompeia'"; for the third, J.E. Allison and J.D. Cloud, Latomus 21, 1962, 711-31, 'The lex Julia maiestatis'; J.D. Cloud, ZSS 80, 1963, 206-32, 'The text of Digest XLVÏÏI, 4, Ad Legem Iuliam Maiestatis. 12 NSc 1903, 109.

4

ROMAN STATUTES 2

We exclude CIL I , 35 = VI, 31620 + p. 3799, suggested as a lex at CIL I 2 , pp. 863 and 918; 11. 4 (5) probably, and 6 (7), which ends with a vacat, certainly, contain the archaic termination in D, which is not otherwise attested in our epigraphic material. The fragment may belong to a lex sacra. We do not know what to make of the Late Republican inscription from near Trieste published by C. Zaccaria, in Epigrafia (Rome, 1991), 427-9: haec lex lata est Fersimo; quern quis uolet [—]. We have excluded the lapis niger. We have excluded the leges regiae, though we discuss them in the Twelve Tables, Law 40, Introduction. For the so-called Lex Tappula, see Ch. XVIII, below. It is worth noting that some material inscribed on bronze seems to have survived into the Middle Ages, only to be lost before being recorded (we have tacitly made minor corrections to the orthography): ante hanc (lupam) enea tabula est, ubi pociora legis precepta scripta sunt, quae tabula 'prohibens peccatum' dicitur. in hac tabula plura legi, sed pauca intellexi. sunt enim afforismi {^.technical expressions'!), ubi fere omnia verba subaudiuntur. (Magister Gregorius, ed. R.B.C. Huygens (Leiden, 1970), § 33, p. 31, 12th-13th centuries) et de istis duabus tabulis (the last two of the Twelve Tables) aliquid est apud Lateranum Romae et male sunt scriptae quia non est ibi punctus nee § in litera et nisi resolveretis litteras non possetis aliquid intellegere. (Odofredus (Lyon, 1550), f. 8 r , 13th century, commenting on Dig. I, 2, 2 (Pomponius): it is not certain that one should read 'resolveretis', rather than 'revolveretis', for the printed 'revolveritis': 'unless you go back over the letters' makes as good sense as 'unless you separate the letters'. The reference in Odofredus was cited already by Jean Matal, in Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Vat.Lat. 8495, f. XIUF.) item neben an der seul stet der zwelf tafel eine von messing, dorin die recht geschriben stand, der den Romern von Athenis geschickt wurden, do Rom nur XX jar gestanden was. (N. Muffel, in R. Valentini and G. Zucchetti, Codice topografico della città di Roma IV (Rome, 1953), 351, 15th century) Despite the echoes in the first passage of Horace, Epist. II, 1, 1-27, there seems no reason to doubt that Magister Gregorius, Odofredus or for that matter N. Muffel saw the tablets of which they spoke; or on the other hand to suppose that what any of them saw was the tablet which still exists of the Lex de imperio Vespasiani, in which one would suppose that names of Emperors would always have stood out. It looks as if at any rate in the case of Magister Gregorius and Odofredus we are dealing with a text rather like the Lex repetundarum or the Lex agraria of the Tabula Bembina;13 N. Muffel offers no detailed description. There is in any case no likelihood that what any of the three men saw was a part of the Twelve Tables: see also Law 40, Introduction.

13 See I. Calabi Limentani, Acme 23, 1970, 253-82, 'Sul non saper leggere le epigrafi classiche nei secoli XII e XIII; sulla scoperta graduale delle abbreviazioni epigrafiche'.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

5

II - Principles of arrangement Our first principle has been to print separately epigraphical and literary texts, since the sources on which they are based present wholly different problems, as we have already seen. Within the former, our aim has been to reverse the process whereby successive editions have shown an ever diminishing faithfulness to the structure of the original text, from Agustin and Orsini through Haubold, Bruns and Girard to Riccobono.14 Leges rogatae and leges datae Some discussion is necessary of the distinction drawn by Mommsen between a lex rogata and a lex data, between a lex passed through the assembly and a lex issued by a magistrate. That magistrates in their own right issued leges to individual communities, in Italy and overseas, cannot be doubted. One has only to think of the activity of Flamininus, attested by Livy XXXIV, 51,'6, and by the SC de Narthaciensibus (Sherk, RGDE, 9, 11. 50-65); or of the action of Sulla, who 'wrote a nomos for them (the people of Puteoli) according to which they were to conduct their public business' (Plutarch, Sull. 37). Equally revealing are the general remarks of Cicero at // in Verr. 2, 121: quas enim leges sociis amicisque dat is qui habet imperium a populo Romano, auctoritatem legum dandarum ab senatu, eae debent et populi Romani et senatus existimari; and the end of the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24. There is also no doubt that the Romans talked regularly of a lex data to a community, as in the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Chs. LXVII, LXXH, CXXXII; the Lex Flavia, Ch. 26 (compare Chs. F and L); Siculus Flaccus 163, 25-7 L = 128, 14-15 Th; Hyginus 118, 5-8 L = 81, 7-10 Th (compare Frontinus 19, 3-4 L = 8, 1-2 Th). It is unimaginable that all leges which were issued to individual communities were passed through the assembly, because of the volume of legislation that would have resulted; and it must be right to accept the existence of the two broad categories, statutes which were passed and statutes which were issued, though there is no reason to exclude the possibility that a lex might be both passed and issued. Where Mommsen erred was in treating rogata and data as adjectives, rather than participles, and in creating two mutually exclusive categories existing in Roman minds.15 As far as our surviving material is concerned, Tibiletti and Frederiksen both argued that the presence in the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Ch. XCV, of 'quo magis ... res iudicetur ex h.l.n.r.' showed that the statute had been voted through the assembly;16 but a similar formula appears three times in the Lex Flavia, Chs. 31, A and 79, and no-one

14 C. Zell, Handbuch der römischen Epigraphik III (Heidelberg, 1857), 'Leges municipales Salpensana et Malacitana aliaque supplementa ad monumenta legalia quae continet delectus inscriptionum Romanarum cum monumentis legalibus fere omnibus'; C. Giraud, Juris Romani antiqui vestigia, fragmenta, monumenta (Paris, 1872), are hardly in the same class. 15 Thus Mommsen wrongly infers from the phrase post nane legem datam that 'so nennt auch unser Stadtrecht sich eine lex data\ 'Stadtrechte', 394 = 288! F.J. Bruna (see on the Lex de Gallia Cisalpina, Law 28), 325-31, made a point similar to that being made here, but spoilt it by suggesting that legem dare means 'to publish a statute'. Note that iudicem dare means 'to appoint a(n imposed) judge' : legem dare is an act of imperium. 16 Tibiletti, 'Lex', 610 n. 4; Frederiksen, 'Municipal laws', 190.

ROMAN STATUTES

6

should even contemplate believing that it, or any other Flavian statute for a city in Baetica, was voted through the assembly.17 On balance, it is easiest to believe that the Lex Tarentina, Law 15, and the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, for instance, although in both cases issued by a Roman source, were never passed through the assembly; the presence in both of references to themselves as rogatae will be the result of borrowing chapters from leges passed through the assembly, without fully adapting them to their new context. Similarly, it is easiest to suppose that the Lex Osca Tabulae Bantinae, Law 13, and the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24, were put together in a not altogether systematic way by local magistrates using chapters drawn from a variety of Roman leges. On the other hand, precisely because leges issued to or adopted by local communities were made up of chapters from leges passed through the assembly and were sources of law, there are no grounds for placing such leges in a separate category in this volume, even if it were possible always to distinguish them.18 Public law and private law Nor have we felt any need to treat public and private law as separate categories. That there was a distinction was of course clear to Cicero and his contemporaries, and indeed earlier.19 Note already Plautus, Men. 587: ... aut ad populum aut in iure aut ad iudicem rest (= res est). At Cicero, Caec. 6, omnia iudicia aut distrahendarum controversiarum aut puniendorum maleficiorum causa reperta (sunt), the context makes it clear that Cicero is thinking of iudicia priuata;20 similarly, the concept of private law is clear at Balb. 21, tulit apud maiores nostros legem C. Furius de testamentis, tulit Q. Voconius de mulierum hereditatibus, innumerabiles aliae leges de ciuili iure sunt latae, .and 2lde leg. I, 17, non ergo a praetoris edicto, ut plerique nunc, neque a duodecim tabulis, ut superiores, sed penitus ex intima philosophia hauriendam iuris disciplinam putas? But our epigraphic material, although predominantly public in character, does contain some legislation relating to private law, notably the preserved part of the Lex de Gallia Cisalpina, Law 28; and the various references in our material to the administration of justice clearly reveal the mingling of the two categories. It is again Cicero who reveals many of the conceptual links between the two categories. Thus at Tuli. 8 he remarks that uis armata relates 'non solum ad res 17 Contra J.-L. Mourgues, JRS11, 1987, 78-87, 'The so-called letter of Domitian at the end of the Lex Irnitana', atn. 3. 18 For a full discussion of the lex municipalis see M.H. Crawford, 'Rome and Italy after the Social War' (forthcoming). 19 See G. Lombardi, RIL 72, 1938-9, 465-83, 'II concetto di ius publicum negli scritti di Cicerone', for the view that for Cicero public law was law deriving from public bodies. 20 See Frier, Jurists, 242-3.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

7

priuatorum, sed ad summam rem publicam'; in a list of offences at ND IH, 74, we have 'inde iudicium publicum rei priuatae lege Plaetoria'; Caec. 6, cited above, shows the intrusion of the public law notion of punishment into private law; and Ser. Sulpicius, known for his learning in the private law, helped to draft the Ciceronian lex de ambitu. In our epigraphic material, 11. 18-19 of the Lex agraria, Law 2, provide a remedy similar to that provided by the praetorian interdict unde ui; the wording of the interdict de loco publico fruendo bears comparison with that of the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24,11. 73-6; an early form of the edict qui nisi pro certis personis ne postulent perhaps influenced the concept of infamia which lies behind the Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae, Law 7. The Clusium Fragments, Law 9, contain a reference to a stipulation; in 11. 40-5 of the Tabula Heracleensis, a private procedure is used to collect a public debt; and in 11. 108-18, condemnation in certain iudicia priuata leads to exclusion from local senates and magistracies. (See also Ch. XTV below.) UI - Chronology The texts in the two series are printed as far as possible in chronological order; and the evidence for the date of each text is normally discussed in the Introduction thereto. A number of texts, however, cannot be closely dated. Thus, Laws 3-6 and Laws 9-11 may be placed in the period between the Gracchi and the Social War on grounds of letter forms and orthography: Laws 3-6, which are opisthographic, are placed after the two texts of the Tabula Bembina; and Law 9, which has a Roman legal text on one side only, is placed after Laws 7-8, along with Laws 10-11, where the text on the reverse is substantially later. Law 15 may be placed after the Social War on grounds of letter forms and orthography, along with Laws 16-18; all deal with the affairs of colonies and/or municipia and we regard them as forming part of the legislation consequent on the enfranchisement of Italy. Law 23 cannot be dated more closely than to the Late Republic. Laws 29-34 are probably all texts dealing with or issued for colonies and/or municipia, which do not reflect the existence of the Lex Flavia; they are of Augustan or later date and we begin with the two texts from Veleia and then print the others in geographical order from north to south. Although mostly unrevealing individually, they form a collective phenomenon of some importance. IV - Draftsmen We are miserably ill informed on the existence and use of professional draftsmen, who will in any case presumably have come from the élite itself or from those close to it. It may well be that insofar as they were used, this was a feature of the last generation of the Roman Republic. For it is the clear implication of Cicero, de inv. II, 130-1, that proposer and draftsman of a statute were the same and that one could make inferences about the intention of a scriptor of a particular statute by looking at other statutes of which he had been scriptor: this surely applies to a holder of office, not to an anonymous adviser. Later, however, we know that Ser. Sulpicius helped to draft the Lex Tullia de ambitu; and we may perhaps infer that P. Clodius had assistance for his legislative activity in 58 BC (Cicero, Sest. 133):

8

ROMAN STATUTES ... ille (P. Vatinius) se sic cum inimico meo copularat, ut illius meae proscriptionis, quam adiuuabat, Sex. Cloelius, homo iis dignissimus quibuscum uiuit, tabulam eum, sese scriptorem esse diceret.

If this is the correct text, the metaphor of tablet and writer expresses closeness of association; but the metaphor receives added point from the fact that Sex. Cloelius had helped to draft, inter alia, the Lex Clodia on Cicero's exile;21 and note that at de har.resp. 11, Cicero talks of P. Clodius using the stilus of Sex. Cloelius.22 Tralatician chapters, apart from being obvious in our material, see e.g. on the Lex Tarentina, Law 15, or the Lex lulia agraria, Law 54, are mentioned also in the literary sources. Thus PUny, NH X, 139, in talking of the Lex Fannia sumptuaria, talks of a chapter, quod deinde caput translatum per omnes leges ambulauit; and the sources for the Lex lulia de pecuniis repetundis, Law 55, make ample mention of the earher legislation on which it drew. That the results of spatchcocking clauses or chapters from one statute into another were sometimes infelicitous should not be a matter for surprise. That there were standards, however, is implied by the criticisms of form, as well as of substance, levelled by Cicero against the proposal of Rullus in 63 BC, Law 52; also by Cicero's condemnation of the drafting of the Lex Clodia on his exile (dorn. 47, compare 82). Ph. Moreau has shown that the eight tribunes of 58 BC were extremely ingenious in drafting their bill for Cicero's recall, evidently using the expertise of L. Ninnius Quadratus;23 but he has also shown that when Cicero refers to C. Visellius as drafting the proposal of T. Fadius (ad Att. EI, 23 = 68 SB, 4), he does so as to something perfectly normal.24 It is possible occasionally in our material to observe developments, which may relate to a growth in professionalism. Thus, we have the impression that the drafting of the Lex agraria, Law 2, is more assured than that of the Lex repetundarum, Law 1; and if we are right to see in the Falerio fragment IB, Law. 17, a piece of legislation on colonial or municipal jurisdiction, it is apparently less detailed than the corresponding material in the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Fragments 6, 7, 5, 2, 3, 8, 4. The same is true of the relationship between the Este Fragment, Law 16, and the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae. There is also in this latter text an embryonic sense of structure, contrary to what has often been supposed; by the time we reach the Lex Flavia, the sense of structure is impeccable. There seems also to have been a development in the way in which statutes refer to earlier statutes. There are brief references to a Lex Porcia in the Lex de prouinciis praetoriis, Law 12, Cnidos Copy, Col. Ill, 11. 3-15, and in the Lex Antonia de Termessibus, Law 19, Col. II, 11. 6-17 (see the article of J.-L. Ferrary cited in the Commentary, ad locc; also Ch. XI below); and there is an obscure reference to a Lex Roscia in the Este Fragment, Law 16. By way of contrast, the Lex lulia de adulteriis, Law 60, seems to have dealt systematically with earher legislation on the same subject; the Lex Valeria Aurelia, Law 37, builds certain of the provisions of the Lex Valeria Cornelia into its own provisions; and the relationship of the Lex Papia Poppaea, Law 64, to the Lex lulia was such that they were always discussed by the jurists as a unity. 21 See Cicero, dorn. 47-8; 83; 129: tuus scripton C. Damon, HSCPh 94, 1992, 227-50, 'Sex. Cloelius, scriba'. Asconius, 52 St = 64 C, seems to refer to one legislator passing on a project to another. 22 Note that at Cicero, Acad. II, 13, auctores refers to supporters, not draftsmen, contra R. Bauman, Lawyers in Roman Republican Politics (Munich, 1983, 245-9. 23 Ath. 11 (n.s. 67), 1989, 151-78, 'La rogatio des huit tribuns de 58 av.J.-C 24 Ibid., 154 n. 10; see also Cicero, Brut. 264, and the texts cited in n. 21.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

9

V - Preparation for legislation A full discussion of this subject would be nothing less than a history of the late Republic; but it is worth observing that the way in which legislation is embedded in a senatorial decree in the Lex Valeria Aurelia, Law 37, and the Lex for Drusus Caesar, Law 38, is strikingly echoed in Horace, Carm.Saec. 17-20 (compare the development discussed in Ch. V E below). 25 we draw attention only to two points that arise out of the texts themselves. First, it emerges that the drafting of the Lex Cornelia de XX quaestoribus, Law 14, reflects the politics of the Sullan age; and on our dating of the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24, there is a clear reference by Cicero to the preparation of one of its clauses.

VI - Promulgation Rogationes were presumably read out at promulgation and then posted up (Dio XLII, 32, 3); at this point there was complete freedom of access. Thus Cicero could have the text of the Rogatio Seruilia agraria of 63 BC copied out, Law 52; and his informants had no difficulty in discovering the exact terms of the Rogatio Clodia concerning his exile in 58 BC, Law 56. Rogationes were presented in whole or in part at contiones before or after promulgation (or both, Cicero, de leg.ag. II, 10-13; Dio XXXVIII, 5, 3, quoted below); and they were read out in full on the occasion of the final vote. 26 The most probable text at Cicero, de leg. EH, 11 (III, 43, is no help) advocates that copies of rogationes when promulgated be deposited in the aerarium: promulgata proposita in aerano (condita) (cognita, MSS) agunto, they are to deal with the people in respect of material which has been promulgated, published, deposited in the aerarium. The emendation is justified and the text explained by the Bobbian Scholiast on Cicero, Sest. 135 (140 St), according to whom the Lex Iunia et Licinia: cauebat ne clam aerario legem ferri liceret, quoniam leges in aerano condebantur, provided that it should not be lawful for a statute to be voted without the knowledge of the aerarium, since statutes (= rogationes) were deposited in the aerarium.21 A period described as trinum nundinum had normally in the late Republic - the early history of the institution is lost - to elapse between promulgation and voting, as emerges, for instance, from Cicero, dorn. 41, si quod in ceteris legibus trinum nundinum esse oportet... It cannot unfortunately be established with certainty whether this was a period

25 Note CI. Nicolet, RHD 36, 1958, 260-75, 'Le sénat et les amendements aux lois', for examples of the role of discussion in the senate in the drafting of the final form of a rogatio. 26 See below; there are further references in Mommsen, St. Ill, 391 nn. 3-4 = DP VI, 1, 450 n. 3 451 n. 1. 27 Compare Ch. XVI below. The process of writing referred to in Cicero, Phil. V, 7, may be that involved either in display or in deposit.

ROMAN STATUTES

10 28

of three Roman weeks; or a period which included three nundinae and might be as little as 17 days. 29 Macrobius, Sat. I, 16, 34, however, scita ... quae trinundino die proposita ... noscebantur, implies that rogationes were displayed on the third market day before the vote and hence 17 days before, assuming inclusive reckoning. In 58 BC, Cicero, ad Att. HI, 4 = 49 SB, shows that the time from the promulgation of the corrected rogatio on the exile of Cicero to the day of the vote was equivalent to the time taken by the journey to Vibo from Rome and to Brundisium from Vibo, presumably more than 17 days. Note that the senate could dispense a magistrate from observing the period of delay; and that it was impossible for it to be observed when one tribune set out to depose another. 30

VII - The form of the rogatio The only complete example of the form which we have is that recorded as a model for an adoption by Gellius (V, 19, 9): eius rogationis uerba haec sunt: 'Velitis iubeatis, uti L. Valerius L. Titio tarn iure legeque filius siet, quam si ex eo patre matreque familias eius natus esset, utique ei uitae necisque in eum potestas siet, uti patri endo filio est. Haec ita, uti dixi, ita uos, Quirites, rogo.' It also so happens that the statute of P. Clodius dealing with the exile of Cicero was known to the latter in its form as a rogatio, not as a lex, Law 56 (see also Ch. XI below). The opening phrase, uelitis iubeatis, is also attested by Cicero, dorn. 80: hoc tu igitur, homo popularis, iure munitam ciuitatem et libertatem nostrani putas esse oportere, ut si tribuno plebis rogante 'Velitis iubeatisne' Fidulii centum se uelle et iubere dixerint, possit unus quisque nostrum amittere ciuitatem? 31 More surprising is the fact that in the late Republic and the age of Augustus some leges, which had presumably been passed by the assembly, were nonetheless publicised in the form of the rogatio (for the citation of rogationes, see p. 1 above). This is certainly the case for the Lex Valeria Aurelia, Law 37, for the Ephesus Fragment, Law 35 and for the Lex Gabinia Calpurnia de Insula Delo, Law 22, where we have both the Latin text and the beginning of a Greek translation; it is presumably also the case for the Lex for Drusus Caesar, Law 38. Given this, the conventional view of the Lex de imperio Vespasiani, Law 39, is clearly mistaken, namely that it is in form a decree of the senate: the repeated utique with subjunctive, depending on an originally present uelitis iubeatis, represents the form of a rogatio. (For the sanctio, see Ch. XTV below.) 28 Mommsen, St. Ill, 375-7 = DP VI, 1, 430-3; A.K. Michels, The Calendar of the Roman Republic (Princeton, 1967), 191-206. 29 L. Lange, RhM 30, 1875, 350-97, 'Die promulgatio trinum nundinum, die Lex Caecilia Didia und nochmals die Lex Pupia', holding reasonably enough that the day for voting was normally fixed at the time of promulgation; A.W. Lintott, CQ 15, 1965, 281-5, 'Trinundinunï \ CQ 18, 1968, 189-94, 'Nundinae and the chronology of the late Roman Republic'; see also on the Lex Osca Tabulae Bantinae, Law 13,11. 13-18. 30 To the references in Mommsen add, for the former phenomenon, the concrete example in Macrobius, Sat. Ill, 17, 7 (the Lex Licinia sumptuaria); the Tabula Siarensis, Law 37, Fragment (b), Col. II, 11. 27-30; and for the second, Asconius 57 St = 72 C (L. Trebellius in 67 BC). 31 Compare the form of the legis actio discussed in connection with the Twelve Tables, Law 40, Tabulai, 12.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

11

Equally to be rejected are the view of Festus (326 L): rogatio est, cum populus consulitur de uno pluribusue hominibus, quod non ad omnis pertineat, et de una pluribusue rebus, de quibus non omnibus sanciatur. nam quod in omnis homines resue populus sciuit, lex appellatur;32 and the view of A. Magdelain, that it was in the case of a 'loi de circonstance' that the form of a rogatio was preserved.33 For bills in saturam or per saturam, see Ch. XIV below; and the Lex repetundarum, Law 1,1. 72. VIII - The passage of the statute The essential feature of the process was that the magistrate read out or had read out the rogatio - the normal term is recitare - and asked the people or plebs to approve: (P. Seruilius Globulus), ubi legis ferundae dies uenit et praeco subiciente scriba uerba legis recitare populo coepit, et scribam subicere et praeconem pronuntiare passus non est. turn Cornelius ipse codicem recitauit. (Asconius 48 St = 58 C) Cornelio eiusmodi nihil obiectum est. codicem legisse dicebatur; defendebat testibus conlegis suis non se recitandi causa legisse, sed recognoscendi. (Cicero, in Vat. 5) eas leges quas ipse (Caesar) nobis inspectantibus recitauit, pronuntiauit, tulit ... (Cicero, Phil. I, 24; that there is here no difference between recitare and pronuntiare emerges from the passage of Asconius cited above.) The approval of the people was described as legem accipere.34 It emerges from Livy XLV, 36-9, and Plutarch, Paul. 30, 4-8, on the dispute over the triumph of L. Aemilius Paullus, that advocacy on either side was possible before the vote, in addition to whatever may have occurred in contiones beforehand. The level of debate will have varied:35 one may contrast the approach of Glaucia (see below) with that of Cn. Pompeius Magnus (Dio XXXVm, 5, 3): After saying this, he went through every part of the proposal and spoke in favour of all of them ... One may also note that on at least one occasion P. Clodius used a moderately abstruse constitutional point in a contio (Cicero, adAtt. lu, 23 = 68 SB, 4, with Ph. Moreau (1989, n. 23), 164 n. 58). Nor was detailed argument thought inappropriate to the people, as emerges from the fact that in his de lege agraria II Cicero sometimes goes into more detail than in the de lege agraria I. And later rhetorical treatises preserve substantial and fascinating accounts of the points to be covered in recommending or attacking legislation, 32

See Mommsen, St. Ill, 304 = DP VI, 1, 345. La loi à Rome (Paris, 1978), 78-80. 34 Magdelain, I.e., 75 n. 96; Lucilius 1088 Marx = 1017 Warmington = 1054 Krenkel; Cicero, Mil. 10; Macrobius, Sat. I, 16, 34. 35 See in general F. Millar, JRS 76, 1986, 1-11, 'Politics, persuasion and the people before the Social War', discounting however the implausible notion that the Roman Republic was ever a democracy. 33

12

ROMAN STATUTES

which must reflect Republican practice. 36 It remains, however, optimistic to suppose that a speech such as the de lege agraria II represents in its published form the level of complexity achieved in actual debate. 37 In the 50s BC, P. Clodius and his associates attempted to organise contiones in such a way as to ape comitia, by asking their audience questions and treating their responses as a mandate, as for instance in 57 BC (Cicero, Sest. 126): at uero ille praetor (Ap. Claudius Pulcher), qui de me ... contionem interrogare solebat, uelletne me redire, et cum erat reclamatum semiuiuis mercennariorum uocibus populum Romanum negare dicebat ... 3 8 Naturally, a statute might not be a wholly new measure, but might abrogate, derogate from or obrogate against an earlier statute. There should be no doubt that this officiai list of possibilities for the Republican period is to be found in the Lex Clodia on the exile of Cicero, Law 56, abrogare, derogare, obrogare\ it appears in the reverse order to achieve a rhetorical crescendo in Cicero, de re pub. HI, 33: huic legi nee obrogari fas est neque derogali aliquid ex hac licet neque tota abrogari potest, nee uero aut per senatum aut per populum solui hac lege possumus ... Abrogare is unproblematic; 39 but it is not immediately obvious how to distinguish derogare and obrogare. (The addition of subrogare to the list in the Titoli Ulpiani I, 3, is clearly the result of juristic interpretation; no trust can be placed in such definitions for our period.) Faith in the Epitome of Festus is diminished by the fact that it gives virtually the same definition both for derogare (61 L), derogare proprie est cum quid ex lege uetere quo minus fiat sancitur lege noua, derogare ergo detrahere est, and for the curious word exrogare (72 L), exrogare est ex lege uetere aliquid eximere per nouam legem. The word exrogare is almost certainly an invention of the grammarians: see TLL V, 2, 799, s.v. erogo. One might suggest that derogare involved the explicit invalidation of part of a statute, as in de re pub. IH, 33, cited above; and it seems likely from Cicero, Phil. I, 2 1 - 3 , that obrogare involved the passage of a measure which in part conflicted with an earlier statute without explicit reference to it; 40 it is thus possible to explain the abundant evidence for contradictory statutes, ad Her. I, 11, 20; II, 10, 15; Cicero, de inv. I, 17; H, 116 and 144-7 (see also on the Twelve Tables, Law 40, [Tabula XII, 5]). With all this in mind, we can turn to the fragments of the pro Cornelio preserved by Asconius (54.19 - 55.6 St = 68.7 - 69.10 C): 36 Fortunatianus 7 = 106 Halm (thirteen separate points to be covered); Sulpicius Victor 10 = 318-19 Halm. 37 Contra C. Williamson, CPh 85, 1989, 265-76, The Roman aristocracy and positive law': see Cicero, Brutus 91-2, with commentary of A.E. Douglas. 38 E. Noe, in Studi E. Gabba (Pavia, 1988), 49-72, Ter la formazione del consenso nella Roma dell sec. a.C.\ 39 See A. Biscardi, RIDA, 3e série, 18, 1971, 449-70, 'Aperçu historique du problème de Y abrogano legis\ 40 Contra Ph. Moreau (1989, n. 23), 171 with nn. 89-90: the use of the first chapter of the Lex Iulia de adulteriis, Law 60, to deal explicitly with earlier legislation should be regarded as a development in the quality of drafting in the Augustan age, see above, Ch. IV. Festus, Pauli Exe. 203 L, is ambiguous.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

13

quattuor omnino genera sunt, iudices, in quibus per senatum more maiorum statuatur aliquid de legibus, unum est huius modi: piacere legem abrogari; ut Q. Caecilio M. Iunio cos. quae leges rem militarem impedirent, ut abrogarentur. (alterum), quae (quantum quae or quantumque, MSS) lex lata esse dicatur, ea non uideri populum teneri; ut L. Marcio Sex. Iulio cos. de legibus Liuiis. tertium est de legum obrogationibus (abrogationibus, MSS); quo de genere persaepe S.C. fiunt, ut nuper de ipsa lege Calpurnia, quo (que, MSS) derogaretur. It is important to remember that we are dealing with senatorial procedure and that a perfect fit with assembly procedure is not to be expected. The first procedure is clearly one in which the senate expresses the view that the statute should be abrogated by the assembly. Cicero then passes to a procedure whereby the senate itself invalidates the statute;41 given the corruption of the manuscript tradition, it is clearly preferable to emend the text with Manutius and Clark, than to read 'quartum, quae ... ' and transpose this and the next section of the text with Kiessling-Schoell, Stangl and Giarratano.42 In the third procedure, as in the first, the senate expresses the view that the statute should be handled in the assembly, but modified, not rejected. It is important at this point to notice both that the fourth procedure is missing from the report by Asconius of the speech of Cicero and that it is analogous to the third procedure. The fourth procedure is the revision of a text which has already been promulgated, with the intention that it should be presented anew; this emerges if one reads the whole commentary, and in particular 48.13-16 St = 58.24-59.3 C; 57.23-6 St = 72.22-6 C; and it is perfectly intelligible within the economy of the commentary as a whole that there is no comment, and hence no quotation, by Asconius here. Cicero thus passes from two forms of total invalidation of a statute to two ways in which they were changed. As far as the third procedure is concerned, given the closeness in meaning which we have observed between derogare and obrogare, there is no problem in the text printed above, which is also that of Puccioni (1963) and (1971); and there is no serious difference between the readings (quo) derogaretur, 'in order that there might be a derogation', and (cui) derogaretur, 'against which there should be a derogation'. We should deal briefly with the word perrogare; it is used at Livy XXEX, 19, 10, of the taking of sententiae in the senate (cf. Tacitus, Hist. IV, 9, 1); and at XXXII, 22, 5; 23, 1, of a similar procedure in a meeting of the Achaean-League, doubtless envisaged by Livy in the form of a senate; by Valerius Maximus I, 2, ext. 1 (Julius Paris), with a sense not obviously different from that of rogare; and Vm, 6, 4, with a sense of rogare against opposition (cf. also perhaps Schol.Bob., 149 St). At Cicero, Mur. 47, the word perrogatio is restored by Mommsen, St. m, 440 n. 1 = DP VI, 2, 25 n. 1, but probably wrongly: it only occurs otherwise at CIL VI, 29682, with a completely different meaning, 'voting one by one of senators', from that postulated at Mur. 47.43

41 42

See J. Linderski, ANRW11, 16, 3 (1986), 2146-312, The augural law', at 2162-8. Contra S. Carson, AJP 109, 1988, 537-42, 'Asconius, in Cornelianam 68.7-69.13 (Clark) and Roman legislative procedure: a textual note'. 43 For the procedure of intercession, see Asconius 56 St = 71 C; R. Rilinger, Chiron 19, 1989, 481-98, '"Loca intercessionis" und Legalismus in der späten Republik'; for the topography of the Forum, see F. Coarelli, // Foro Romano II (Rome, 1985), esp. 163-6 (mis-reading the text of the Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae).

14

ROMAN STATUTES IX - The conversion of the text from a rogatio to a lex

Once the statute had been passed, the sequence of subjunctives depending on 'Velitis iubeatis ut ... ' had to be converted into the sequence of future imperatives which are the hallmark of Roman legislative texts, as Cicero himself observed (Balb. 35-6); 44 it is not surprising that lassitude sometimes supervened, so that the subjunctive was left by accident, for instance in the Lex agraria, Law 2, 11. 19-20; the Lex de prouinciis praetoriis, Law 12, Cnidos Copy, Col. IV, 11. 24-30; Delphi Copy, Block C, 11. 18-19; the Lex Antonia de Termessibus, Law 19, Col. I, 11. 12-26; the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24, 11. 20-1; and the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Ch. CXXXK (For the publication of the entire text in the form of the rogatio, see above, Ch. Vu.) There are two other problems. The first is particularly intractable: we shall observe (see Ch. XTV below) that at the end of a statute there was a sanctio, '... eius hac rogatione nihilum rogatur\ the only place in the text of a lex where a verb appears in the indicative. The formula also frequently occurs in the body of a statute (see Ch. XII below); but it is not clear how it should appear. For, whereas at the end of the statute the formula is a statement by the rogator, in the body of the statute it resembles a command of the people or plebs; thus 11. 73-4 = 11. 80-1 of the Lex repetundarum, Law 1, has an identical function to the clauses in the future imperative in 11. 56-7 or 74-5 = 11. 81-2. But the future imperative, for the verb describing the proposal of the measure, is obviously inappropriate in the text of the statute, although the present subjunctive no doubt stood in the text of the rogatio. Our texts of statutes are inconsistent, offering an active future imperative in the Lex repetundarum, Law 1, 1. 78 = 1. 85, and the Lex Quinctia, Law 63, 11/ 43 and 47; a passive present indicative in the Lex Antonia de Termessibus, Law 19, Col. H, 1. 30, and the Lex Flavia, Ch. 31 (cf. Valerius Probus, §3, 2 (garbled)); a passive perfect indicative in the Lex de prouinciis praetoriis, Law 12, Cnidos Copy, Col. lu, 11. 20-1 and 26-7. Since the formula was almost always abbreviated in engraved texts, it is likely that the Romans themselves never achieved clarity on the matter.45 The second problem is less grave: if our interpretation is right, in the Lex Valeria Aurelia and the Lex for Drusus Caesar, Laws 37-8, although the rest of the text was in the subjunctive of the rogationes, the sanctio at the end used future imperatives, since it was simply a question of copying an existing formula and not of deploying effort in converting subjunctives to imperatives. Similarly with the Lex de imperio Vespasiani, Law 39. It is also worth noting that the Lex Osca Tabulae Bantinae, Law 13, is inconsistent in its use of imperatives, but probably rather because of the poverty of Oscan morphology; note that Vetter 218, a statute of the Marrucini from Rapino, does not use the imperative.46

44 See G. Pascucci, SIFC 40, 1968, 3-43 = Scritti scelti I (Florence, 1983), 309-51, 'Aspetti del latino giuridico', at 34-7 = 342-5. The future imperative of sciscito relating to the centuria ni quis sciuit (Festus, 184 L: 'nam "sciscito" significat "sententiam dicito" ac "suffragium ferto", unde scita plebis'), is more likely to be that of an edict by a magistrate than of a statute, contra CI. Nicolet, AEPHE 1973-4, 378-81. 45 The suggestion of E. Badian, MH 45, 1988, 203-18, 'E.H.L.N.R', at 206 n. 8, that the formula appeared as an abbreviation in the text of the rogatio, is implausible: the rogatio was read out and it is unlikely that a praeco was left to work out therightform from a sequence of letters. 46 For the subjunctive in edicts, see Daube, Forms, 37-49.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

15

X - Index It is clear that.at any rate by 63 BC a statute was expected to have a title, in the form with which we are familiar: if the proposal of Rullus had been passed, the result would have been a Lex Seruilia agraria (Cicero, de leg.ag. II, 22, cf. 13-22 as a whole; Sest. 72-5): et uidelicet collegas suos ascriptores legis agrariae non repudiabit, a quibus ei locus in indice et in praescriptione legis concessus est. The practice underlies the choice of example to illustrate a group of endings in -rius in Priscian, Inst. H, 49-50 = H, 75 Keil: ... ut frumentaria est lex de frumento et agraria de agris et nummaria lex de nummis ... The legum latarum tituli proposed for the funeral procession of Augustus, Tacitus, Ann. I, 8, 4, are presumably also tides of statutes. Surviving examples in our material are the Lex Cornelia de XX quaestoribus, Law 14, and the Lex Antonia, Law 19. XI - The opening formulae A further consequence of the conversion from rogatio to lex was the removal of the words 'Velitis iubeatis ut' and their replacement by a standardised prescript. This is preserved for us (nearly) complete only in the Lex Quinctia, Law 63; parts are preserved in the Lex agraria, Law 2; the Lex Cornelia de XX quaestoribus, Law 14; the Lex Antonia de Termessibus, Law 19; the Lex Gabinia Galpurnia, Law 22; the Veleia Fragment H, Law 29; the Lex Fonteia, Law 36; also in Valerius Probus, §3, 1. There is a partially preserved pastiche in the Lex Tappula (see Ch. XVHI below); and Cicero, Phil. I, 26, offers a model for the prescript of a statute proposed by two "consuls: et in aes incidi iubebitis, credo, ilia légitima 'Consules populum iure rogauerunt (...) populusque iure sciuit'.47 In the first case in which the Lex Porcia is cited and in the case in which the Lex Roscia is cited (see on the Lex de prouinciis praetoriis, Law 12, and the Este Fragment, Law 16), the citation takes over from the prescript the date within the year. J.-L. Ferrary has shown that there are no grounds for inferring that the statute cited and the statute which cites it belong in the same year: see on the Lex de prouinciis praetoriis, Cnidos Copy, Column DI, 11. 5-6. In the case of this statute, there is no obvious reason why the citation should take such a form; in the case of the Este Fragment, there may be.48 The difference between the prescripts of the Lex Antonia, Law 19, and the Veleia Fragment II, Law 29, on the one hand, and the Lex Quinctia, Law 63, on the other hand, proves, if proof were needed, that the concilium plebis and the comitia tributa were different assemblies.

47 For the different elements of the opening formulae, see Insula Sacra, 45-61; see also the Introduction to the Lex repetundarum, Law 1. 48 Note that Roman statutes do not have a prescript in the sense of an explanatory preamble, except for the Lex Gabinia Calpurnia, Law 22, and the Lex Clodia, Law 56: see G. Ries, Prolog und Epilog in Gesetze des Altertums (Munich, 1983), 127-30.

16

ROMAN STATUTES X u - Other linguistic aspects

To turn to the characteristic style of Roman statutes. As J. Marouzeau showed, the Romans during the Republic produced legal texts in two very different styles, both deeply rooted in Latin literary style in general. 49 There is first the austere style of the Twelve Tables, preserved in a modified form for the praetor's edict: 50 si in ius uocat, ?ito?; ni it, antestamino; igitur (im) capito, and si quis in ius uocatus ... non ierit siue quis eum uocauerit, quern ex edicto non debuerit, ... (iudicium dabo). The same style is to be found in two leges from Spoletium and Luceria, Bruns 104b = ILLRP 5 0 5 - 6 ; 104a = ILLRP 504 (see on the Lex Silia, Law 46); and in those leges regiae which perhaps preserve early elements. 51 It is on this style that are modelled the statutes formulated in the De legibus of Cicero. The second is a fuller style, used for statutes passed through the assemblies. It is immediately recognisable, with its use of doublets such as 'ius ratumque'; its use of repetition in phrases such as 'ob earn rem, quod eo nomine lis aestumata erit' or 'de agro, quei ager in Africa est'; 5 2 its cumulation of tenses in phrases such as 'qui municipibus municipi Flaui Irnitani petet petfent pe]titurus petituriue erunt petierit (petierintue)'. 53 At any rate from the late second century BC onwards, the two styles seem to have been used in the distinct contexts characterised above, presumably by deliberate choice. The one case of an occurrence of the first style out of context is the first preserved chapter of the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, where we surely have a case of the copying of an earlier text, not the deliberate use by Caesar of an idiosyncratic style. 54 49 J. Marouzeau, in Mélanges H. Lévy-Bruhl (Paris, 1959), 435-44, 'Sur deux aspects de la langue du droit'; E. Volterra, in La crìtica del testo II (Florence, 1971), 821-1097 = Scritti giuridici VI (Naples, 1994), 3-279, 'Il problema del testo delle costituzioni imperiali', at 834-42, conflates the two styles. There is much relevant material in B. Vine, Studies in Archaic Latin Inscriptions, (Innsbruck, 1993). See also G. Pascucci (n. 44), for the derivation of both legal and popular Latin from archaic. G. Devoto, ASNP, Ser. II, 2, 1933, 225-40, 'I problemi del più antico vocabolario giuridico romano' = Scrìtti minori I (Florence, 1957), 95-109, 'Parole giuridiche', is rather about meanings and etymologies. 50 Marouzeau, I.e., 435; for one later modification, see Daube, Forms, 6-8 and 57-61: the addition of a grammatical subject in the subordinate clauses of the praetor's edict. On the omission of the subject, see Pascucci, I.e., 7-12 = 315-20; also M. Kaser, Festschrift Fr. Schulz II (Weimar, 1951), 21-70 = Ausgewählten Schriften I (Camerino, 1976), 207-59, 'Zum Ediktstil'. 51 See the Twelve Tables, Law 40, Introduction. 52 Note the trick of phrase in a legal context in Varro, LL VI, 30, ... dies nefasti, per quos dies nefas fari praetorem: do dico addico. On doublets, see O. Altenburg, De sermone pedestri Italorum vetustissimo (Jahrb.f.class.Philol., Suppl.Bd. 24, 1898), 487-95; G. May, in Mélanges M. Gérardin (Paris, 1907), 'Sur quelques exemples de gemination juridique dans les auteurs littéraires latins'. 53 Lex repetundarum, Law 1,1. 61; Lex agraria, Law 2,1. 68; Lex Flavia, Ch. 70,11. 42-3; for the first two stylistic markers, see also Pascucci (n. 44), 39-43 = 347-51; 12-17 = 320-5. It is not clear that the cumulation of near synonyms or the recurrence of the same word in successive phrases is very characteristic of the style, contra Marouzeau (n. 49), 441 (comparing the style of Roman prayers), 437. 54 See Norden, Priesterbüchern, 12 n. 3; the résumé by Marouzeau (n. 49), 436, is not accurate. Y. Thomas argues, L'écrit du temps 19, 1988, 61-85, 'Sanctio', that early statutes use the forms, 'if anyone does ...'or 'whoever does ...', whereas later statutes use the forms 'do ...' or 'do not do

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

17

Naturally, members of the elite were familiar with the style of statutes passed through the assemblies. The elder Cato, for instance, used the future imperative some 200 times in his De agri cultura;55 he also invented a very passable pastiche of a Roman statute in the course of his speech in defence of the Rhodians (Gellius VI (Vu), 3, 37): ecqua tandem lex est tarn acerba, quae dicat 'si quis illud facere uoluerit, mille minus dimidium familiae multa esto; si quis plus quingenta iugera habere uoluerit, tanta poena esto; si quis maiorem pecuum numerum habere uoluerit, tantum damnas esto' . What is interesting about this pastiche is that although it is clearly in the style of a Roman statute, notably by its use of the phrases multa esto, poena esto and damnas esto (compare Ch. XTV below), it does not reflect the developed style of such statutes as the Lex repetundarum and the Lex agraria. That this style is a new feature of these statutes is suggested by the next piece of evidence. This belongs to 117 BC, when the two brothers who were responsible for the arbitration between the Langenses and the Genuenses composed it in the style of a Roman statute (ILLRP 517): ... qua ager priuatus casteli Vituriorum est, quern agrum eos uendere heredemque sequi licet, is ager uectigal(is) nei siet ... quern agrum poplicum iudicamus esse, eum agrum castelanos Langenses Veiturios po[si]dere fruique uidetur oportere ... Modern criticism of the style is inappropriate: it no doubt evolved in the context of attempts to defend the law against such attempts to wriggle out of it as that of P. Vatinius (Cicero, Sest. 135); or to push its interpretation too far, as with the Lex Atinia, Law 48, precisely in the period when the style emerged. But legislators always had lawyers to reckon with (Cicero, Top. 96): turn enim defenditur non id legem dicere quod aduersarius uelit, sed aliud, id autem contingit, cum scriptum ambiguum est, ut duae sententiae différentes accipi possint.

We add notes on a number of particular words and formulae: a A. V. eid.Mar., etc.: the resolution ante diem quintum eidus Manias is assured by Varro, LL VI, 28. ast: the meaning is 'and if, see Pascucci (n. 44), 29-34 = 337-42; cf. id., in Studia A. Ronconi (Rome, 1970), 311-24 = 823-38, 'L'arcaismo nel "De legibus" di Cicerone', at 320-4 = 834-8; cf. De Meo, Lingue, 97-8.

...', followed by 'if anyone acts aduersus hanc legem'', 'l'illégalité est mise hors la loi'. This suggestion falls foul of the evidence; the two forms are combined in the Lex Osca, Law 13, 1. 11 ; the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24,11. 19-20; the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Ch. CXXV. 55 Daube, Forms, 91-7; the argument that Cato, rather than someone else, was responsible for the aedilician edicts on slaves and cattle, which also use the future imperative, is naturally more speculative, see Watson (n. 3). See also Daube, I.e., 47, for Cato's use of the form 'ne quis fecisse uelit', characteristic of edicts.

18

ROMAN STATUTES

aut: for a meaning very close to 'and', see Leumann-Hofmann-Szantyr H, §269; P. Birks, A. Rodger, J.S. Richardson, JRS 14, 1984, 45-73, 'Further aspects of the Tabula Contrebiensis', at 55; cf. Dig. L, 16, 53 (Paul). cui, qui: see E. Kalinka, Glotta 30, 1943, 218-25, 'qui = cuV. e.h.In.r. in the body of the statute (cf. Ch. DC above): the phrase occurs after quo minus or quo magis\ the problem is that while eius is the appropriate resolution after si quid in the closing sanctio (see Ch. XTV below), it is not obvious that it is appropriate here, although it is offered by Valerius Probus, §3, 2. The plain ablative is required; ex is odd, but common; other forms occur in error. The occurrences are: the Lex repetundarum, Law 1,11. 9, 25, 74, 77-8; the Lex agraria, Law 2,11. 13, 34, 35, 36, 36, 87, 89; the Lex de prouinciis praetoriis, Law 12, Cnidos Copy, Col. m, 11. 20-1 and 26-7, cf. Delphi Copy, Block A, 1. 11; the Este Fragment, Law 16, 11. 9 and 22; the Lex Antonia de Termessibus, Law 19, Col. H, 1. 30; the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24,11. 52, 65, 67, 76, 79, 81, 82, 158; the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Ch. XCV, 1. 28; the Lex de Gallia Cisalpina, Law 28, Ch. XXI, 11. 21-4; the Lex Iulia de iudiciis priuatis, Law 61; the Lex Quinctia, Law 63,11. 37, 43, 47; cf. G. Rotondi, Riv.It.Sc.Giur. 64, 1920, 147-80 = Scritti giuridici I (Milan, 1922), 370-402, Troblemi di diritto pubblico romano. I. Eius hac lege nihilumrogatum'. in with accusative indicating place: the construction is standard in our texts (it was expunged as 'unclassicaT by H.A. Seidel, Observationum epigraphicarum Capita duo (Diss. Breslau, 1880), 41-62, except for in orchestrant sedeto and in Italiani sine imperio priuatus erit, in the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Chs. CXXVII and CXXX). is: Frederiksen, 'Municipal laws', 191 n. 41, argues that the meaning of is may be 'suchand such'; but in the Lex Tarentina, Law 15, 11. 39-42, the reference is to that municipium (which has just been mentioned); in the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24,1. 135, to that praefectura (of which the magistrate is a magistrate); in the Lex Flavia, Chs. 56 and 56, to that election (which has just been mentioned). nee meaning non: see Pascucci (n. 44), 22-9 = 330-7; De Meo, Lingue, 91. quo: our texts tend to prefer quo to ut (or ne) to introduce a final clause, presumably to avoid confusion with ut at the beginning of every clause in the rogatio. quod: see M. D'Elia, Studi G. Bonfante I (Brescia, 1976), 191-204, 'Sull'uso di quod con il senso di si nel latino giuridico'. quo magis, quo minus: see on e.h.l.n.r. above. sciens dolo malo, sine dolo malo: see the Lex de prouinciis praetoriis, Law 12, Cnidos Copy, Col H, 1. 6. si quis: it is hard to see any real difference from qui, contra Daube, Forms, 6-8. siremps: the word was used by Plautus, Amph., 73, and Cato, ORF 8, LXXDC, 234, cited by Festus, 466 L: it had clearly already entered Roman legal style. Its nature was already a puzzle in the late Republic (Charisius, 143-4 Keil = 182 Barwick, cf. 93 = 119, 146 = 185): ... Caesar ergo (jr. 29 Funaioli) 'siremps lex esto quasi sacram (read sacr(u)m) uiolauerit' dixisse pronuntiandus est (dixit pro nominatiuo esse, Ritschl), nisi forte quidam aduerbialiter legere maluerint, similiter lex esto. (We take it that Caesar is here inventing an example, not quoting a statute.)

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

19

For its occurrences in our texts, see the Index, s.v., adding perhaps the Lex de prouinciis praetoriis, Law 12, Delphi Copy, Block A, 1. 9; cf. Valerius Probus, §3, 3; Seneca, ad Lucilium 14, 3: discede ambino; omnium quae terram premunì, siremps lex esto\ F. Ritschl, Opuscula Philologica IV (Leipzig, 1878), 34-81; Fr. Stolz, WS 13, 1891, 293-9, 'Sirempse (siremps)'. -ue: for a meaning very close to 'and', see the Lex de Gallia Cisalpina, Law 28, Col. II, 11. 14 and 16; cf. Dig. L, 16, 53 (Paul).

*** We add notes on a number of grammatical and related points: For doubled vowels to indicate lengthening, see F. Ritschl, Opuscula Philologica IV (Leipzig, 1878), 393-4; R. Lazzeroni, ASNP, Ser. II, 25, 1956, 124-35, Ta "geminatio vocalium" nelle iscrizioni latine'. The letter K occurs in the formula n(on) k(alumniae) c(ausa), Valerius Probus, §5, 11; cf. CGL V, 79, 19; 571, 28. The spelling seems to have influenced that of haussa in the Guardia Vomano Fragment, Law 21. -es, -eis: A. Ernout, Mémoires de la société de linguistique de Paris 13, 1905, 293-349, 'Le parler de Préneste', at 343-6, argues that the forms as nominative plural of the second declension in the Lex repetundanim, the Lex agraria and the Sententia Minuciorum are forms invented for juristic texts on the basis of hisce and eisdem. For masculine and neuter nouns with a masculine adjective, see Pascucci (n. 44), 318-19 = 832-3. The Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Ch. LXIII, has pro eo and itque following feminine nouns. See in general Altenburg (n. 52), 520. For the combination of plural and singular parts of speech, see, e.g., the Lex repetundanim, Law 1,11. 64 and 73 = 80, with Löfstedt, Syntactica I, 5-7; the Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae, Law 7,11. 24-5; the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24,11. 20-1; Altenburg (n. 52), 517-20. Abrupt changes of subject are common in our texts (see Altenburg (n. 52), 521-2). Daube, Forms, 57-61, attempted to eliminate the phenomenon in the Twelve Tables, by claiming that third person singulars are impersonal, si in ius uocat, 'if there is a summoning'; for justified scepticism, see Badian (n. 45), 205 n. 6. For lists, where not everything in the list necessarily applies and one needs to understand 'as appropriate', see, e.g., the Lex repetundanim, Law 1, 11. 17-19; the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24,11. 146-7; the Lex Valeria Aurelia, Law 37, Fragment b, Col. 1,11. 7-11; the Lex Flavia, Ch. 19, on aediles; Ch. 86, on the Latin right. Xin - Provision for publication Not surprisingly, there are a number of epigraphic references to the obligation to inscribe in public either the statute itself or related material: thus, in the Lex de prouinciis praetoriis, Law 12, the statute itself;56 in the Lex repetundanim, Law 1,11. 65-6, the Lex 56 For the full Latin formula, see the Lex Flavia, Ch. 95. C. Williamson, Class.Ant. 6, 1987, 159-83, 'Monuments of bronze', at 164, is wrong to assert that 'the prescription unde de plano recte legi possitur was never applied to bronze tablets'. For the Lex (probably) Rubria Acilia of the SC de Astypalaeensibus, see on the Tarentum Fragment, Law 8.

20

ROMAN STATUTES

Cornelia de XX quaestoribus, Law 14, Col. H, 11. 38-41, and the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24, 11. 13-16, lists arising out of the statute; in the Tarentum Fragment, Law 8, 11. 14-19, material which cannot be certainly identified, but which is not the statute itself. . The standard formula prescribing the criteria for publication is recorded by Valerius Probus, §3, 11, V.D.P.R.L.P., unde de plano rede legi possit\ compare the Lex de prouinciis praetoriis, Law 12, Delphi Copy, Block B, 11. 24-6, and see the Index, s.w.; the formula is slightly expanded by Ulpian (Dig. XTV, 3,11, 3): proscribere palam sic accipimus Claris litteris, unde de plano recte legi possit... An earlier equivalent will be the wording in the SC de Bacchanalibus, ILLRP 511, 11. 25-7: atque utei hoce in tabolam ahenam inceideretis, ita senatus aiquom censuit, uteique earn figier ioubeatis, ubei facilumed gnoscier potisit.57 Compare Macrobius, Sat. I, 16, 34: ... quae (rogationes, in effect) trinundino die proposita a singulis atque uniuersis facile noscebantur. Obligatory inscription is only attested, in the case of statutes, as being on stone or bronze. We cannot, however, exclude the possibility that the texts of statutes were sometimes (instead or as well) displayed temporarily on whiteboards; and it may be that this means was used for the diffusion of copies outside Rome. XTV - The closing formulae The formula which closes a statute passed through the assembly is conventionally known as a sanctio. General discussions of what was sanctum may be found in Dig. I, 8, 8pr. (Marcian); I, 8, 9, 3 (Ulpian); Festus, 420 L, is too fragmentary to be much help; the first serious modern discussion, as far as we know, is that of Barnabe Brisson, De formulis (Paris, 1583), 153-6. In the late Republic, the word has a number of different meanings. 1) It may refer to the part of a statute which imposes a duty of obedience to its provisions and a penalty for disobedience. Thus Cicero, // in Verr. 4, 149, nisi legis sanctionem poenamque recitassem; for examples, see the Lex Silia, Law 46; the Lex repetundarum, Law 1, 11. 69-72; the Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae, Law 7; the Tarentum Fragment, Law 8; the Lex de prouinciis praetoriis, Law 12; the Lex Gabinia Calpurnia, Law 22; the Ephesus Fragment, Law 35; the Lex Fonteia, Law 36; the Lex Valeria Aurelia, Law 37; the Lex for Drusus Caesar, Law 38; the Lex de imperio Vespasiani, Law 39; the Lex Flavia, Ch. 96; note also that the reference to the Lex Laetoria in the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24,11. 111-12, is a reference to a condemnation for infringing it. Our texts sometimes also refer to failure to obey specific parts of a statute: the Leges de aquis, Law 43, the Lex Osca Tabulae Bantinae, Law 13, 1. 17; the Lex Iulia agraria, Law 54, Ch. V = the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Ch. CIIII; the Tabula Heracleensis, 11. 18-19; the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Chs. Cull, CXXV, CXXVI, CXXVm, CXXIX. Similarly, 1. 56 of the Lex repetundarum, Law 1, '... aut nisei de 57

The denial of this by Williamson, I.e., 172 n. 49, is unreasonable.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

21

sanctioni hoiusce legis, actio nei es[to]\ refers to this part of the statute; and it appears also in Dig. X L V m , 19, 41 (Papinian). Actions for the benefit of the populus A common means for the enforcement of a statute was the action for the benefit of the populus. It must be distinguished from the actio popularis in the technical sense, which is a private action in which anyone can plead. 58 The action with which we are concerned forms part of an apparatus which included multam dicere by a magistrate, multam petere by qui uolet, and multam irrogare normally by a magistrate. The early existence at Rome of the action for the benefit of the populus is implied both by the lex from Luceria (see Ch. XII above) and by the probability that the Lex Osca Tabulae Bantinae, Law 13, is based on the charter of a Latin colony of about 300 BC; the action probably occurs in the Lex agraria, Law 2,1. 102 (we suspect that the procedure here is the same as in the Lex Iulia agraria, Law 54, Ch. V); perhaps in the Florence Fragment A, Law 5,1. 8; certainly in the Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae, Law 7; the Lex de prouinciis praetoriis, Law 12, Delphi Copy, Block C, 11. 19 and 2 3 - 4 ; then in the Lex Osca Tabulae Bantinae; ad Her. I, 11, 20; the Lex Tarentina, Law 15, col. 1,1. 35; the Lex Iulia agraria, Law 54; ILLRP 508 (Furfo); the Lex Fonteia, Law 36; the Venafrum Edict; the Lex Valeria Aurelia, Law 37, Todi Fragment, 11. 2-4; and widely in a municipal context. 59 The structure is not rigid, however, since in the Lex Tarentina, 1. 6, and the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Ch. XCV, we have petere by a magistrate, while the Lex de prouinciis praetoriis, cited above, has multam irrogare by qui uolet. The action with which we are concerned in many ways resembles a private law action. 60 But there is no doubt that it was a iudicium publicum and that the language used of it, at any rate in the Late Republic, was similar to that used of quaestiones (Cicero, // in Verr. 1, 155, with Mantovani, Accusa, 147 n. 84; we do not understand why Mantovani, 24 n. 67, thinks that Cicero is guilty of an 'uso improprio'): atque etiam iudicium in praetura publicum exercuit; non enim praetereundum est ne id quidem. petita multa est apud istum praetorem a Q. Opimio; qui adductus est in iudicium, uerbo quod, cum esset tribunus plebis, intercessisset contra legem Corneliam ... (cf. Clu. 89-96, 103, w i t h / / i n Verr. 1, 157-8; andMDHI, 74) Similarly, the Lex de prouinciis praetoriis, cited above, combines the terms multam irrogare and nomen déferre. It is also worth noting that one of the two securely attested fragments of the de iudiciis publicis of Ateius Capito probably deals with a case which led to an action for the benefit of the populus (Gellius, X, 6, 2 - 4 ; Bremer II, 284). And there can be little doubt that the iudicia publica of the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24, 11. 118-19, are municipal actions for the benefit of the populus: the Tabula Heracleensis is in our view newly drafted Caesarian legislation, whereas a municipal quaestio in our view 58 Kaser, ZPR, 255 n. 44; RPR I, 610. The definitions of the classical jurists of actio, petitio, persecutio are irrelevant to our concerns: see F. Sturm, ZSS 83, 1966, 485-91, reviewing F. Casavola, Actio petitio persecutio (Naples, 1965). 59 See in general Dig. XLVII, 23; Th. Mommsen, ZSS 24, 1903, 1-12 = GS III, 375-85, 'Die Popularklagen', citing and criticising the earlier account by Bruns. We do not know when it became possible multam petere under the Lex Aquilia (Cicero, Brut. 131). 60 It may perhaps in early times have involved uindiciae: see the speech of Cato cited under Law 40, Tabula XII, 3; note also the use of manus iniectio in the lex from Luceria; and see in general G. Pugliese, in Studi S. Solazzi (Naples, 1948), 391-417, 'Figure processuali sui confini tra iudicia publica e iudicia priuata\ at 408-16.

22

ROMAN STATUTES

appears in the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Chs. XCVI and CE, as a fossilised relic. The Lex Coloniae Genetiuae and the Lex Flavia, taken as a whole, make it abundantly clear that municipal actions for the benefit of the populus were not subject to the same monetary limits as jurisdiction inter priuatos. It is also worth noting the use of recuperatores in actions for the benefit of the populus;61 for the only case in which the Lex agraria insists on their use, Law 2,11. 36-9, is that in which the claims of publicani, and hence the advantage of the populus, are involved. (For a brief account of our view of the development of the quaestio, see the Introduction to the Lex repetundarum and the Lex agraria, Laws 1-2.) 2) The word sanctio may refer to that part of a statute which attempts to prevent its own subsequent repeal. A version of the formula is preserved by Festus, 416 L: itaque in sanctione legum adscribitur: 'neve (quis) per saturam abrogato aut derogato (...)' Despite the implication of Festus that the formula is a typical one, neither it nor anything like it is otherwise attested and it is likely to be a particular example, whose context is now lost.62 The best known case is the Lex Clodia on the exile of Cicero, Law 56, where Cicero's account also reveals how such a provision was normally circumvented. The means used was in part the so-called 'caput tralaticium de ïmpunitate' of Cicero, ad Att. m , 23 = 68 SB, 2, see on the Rogatio VTÏÏ tribunorum, Law 57; the clause occurs also in the Falerio Fragment, Law 16; the Lex Valeria Aurelia, Law 37, Todi Fragment, 11. 10—11; the Lex for Drusus Caesar, Law 38; the Lex de imperio Vespasiani, Law 39.63 The effect of the clause is to remove from the embrace of the general obligation (see below) to swear to the laws any earlier statutes abrogated, derogated from or obrogated against by the statute in question: in the phrase huius legis ergo, ergo means 'for the sake of the passage of (this statute)'.64 The rest of the process is best explained by Cicero, ad Att. m , 23 = 68 SB, 2: scis enim Clodium sanxisse ut uix aut omnino non posset nee per senatum nee per populum infirmari sua lex. sed uides numquam esse obseruatas sanctiones earum legum quae abrogarentur. nam si id esset, nulla fere abrogali posset; neque enim ulla est quae non ipsa se saepiat difficultate abrogations. sed cum lex abrogatur, illud ipsum abrogatur quo (minus) (non or modo, MSS) earn abrogali oporteat. P. Clodius went much further than was normal, seeking to prevent the case of Cicero being raised or discussed in the senate, Cicero, post red. in sen. 8; ad Att. IE, 12 = 57 SB, 61 D.E.L. Johnston, JRS 11, 1987, 62-77, 'Three thoughts on Roman private law and the Lex Irnitana', at 67-70. For the distinctive features of trials before recuperatores, see the Commentary on the Lex agraria, Law 2, 11. 29-31: we are not so convinced as Mantovani, Accusa, 129, that there was a 'disciplina unitaria'. 62 There is no reason with Mommsen, St. Ill, 336 n. 5 = DP VI, 1, 384 n. 2, to link the example with the speech of the Gracchan age which follows in the text of Festus, see on the Lex repetundarum, Law 1,11. 69-72. 63 Lex agraria, Law 2, 11. 40-1; 41-2, are analogous, where the legislator exempts those who act under that statute from the provisions of earlier statutes; for the relationship of the caput tralaticium to a supposed rule of the Twelve Tables, Law 40, [Tabula XII, 5], see the lucid discussion of Stein, Regulae, 19-21. 64 Compare the usage of ergo in Cicero, de leg. II, 59 = the Twelve Tables, Law 40, Tabula X, 4 (compare Tabula X, 6-7); de leg. Ill, 9 (twice); III, 10; the usage does not occur in the Lex Flavia, Ch. 96, contra Ph. Moreau (1989, n. 23), 161 n. 45.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

23

1; 15 = 60 SB, 6; 23 = 68 SB, 2. The proposal of Caesar in 63 BC, that the Catilinarian conspirators are to be imprisoned and 'neu quis de eis postea ad senatum referat neue cum populo agat' (Sallust, Cat. 51, 43; compare Cicero, N in Cat. 8), suggests that the approach adopted by P. Clodius was not new in 58 BC. 3) Some statutes included a provision that one or more categories of persons were required to swear obedience to them. This approach is first certainly attested in the case of Saturninus (Appian, BC I, 131). It was also certainly used by Caesar for the Lex agraria (Campana) of 59 BC.65 Straightforward epigraphic examples are the Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae, Law 7, the Tarentum Fragment, Law 8, and the Lex de prouinciis praetoriis, Law 12. The five-day time-limit is clearly taken over from the general obligation on all magistrates to swear to uphold the laws within five days of taking up office (Livy XXXI, 50, 7; cf. Cicero, Clu. 91 and 96). For the more complex case of the Lex agraria, Law 2, 11. 41-2, see the Commentary thereon. 4) Finally, there is the closing formula known from Valerius Probus, §3, 14, and also from the Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae, Law 7, the Tarentum Fragment, Law 8, the Lex Gabinia Calpurnia, Law 22, and the Lex Valeria Aurelia, Law 37: S.Q.S.S.E.Q.N.I.S.R.E.H.L.N.R.66 This is resolved by Valerius Probus as si quid sacri sancti est, quod non iure sit rogatum, eius hac lege nihil rogatur: our text of the Lex Latina offers a slightly different version which is supported by or compatible with all the other epigraphic attestations. The formula is also reflected in the language of Plutarch, Mar. 29, 6. It is omitted by Frontinus from his text of the Lex Quinctia, Law 63. Cicero naturally knew and, addressing P. Clodius on the subject of his measure of 58 BC, quoted in indirect speech this standard formula with which a statute ended (dorn. 106): non exceperas ut, si quid ius non esset rogari, ne esset rogatum? One may compare the near quotation, though still in indirect speech, from the text of the Lex Cornelia de municipio Volaterrano (Caec. 95): ... hoc tibi respondeo, ascripsisse eundem Sullam in eadem lege, si quid ius non esset rogarier, eius ea lege nihilum rogatum. We think on balance that the Ciceronian evidence confirms against Valerius Probus the correctness of the version of the Lex Latina, quod non ius sit rogare.61 A different use of the formula occurs in Cicero, Balb. 32-3: ac sicubi esset {and if there were a clause in the treaty between Gades and Rome, forbidding a grant of Roman citizenship to a Gaditane), lex id Gellia et Cornelia, quae definite potestatem Pompeio ciuitatem donandi dederat, sustulisset. 'exceptum' inquit 'est foedus, siquidem sacro sanctum est'.... nee quicquam illis 65

Appian, BC II, 42; Dio XXXVIII, 7, 2; Plutarch, Cat.Min. 32; Cicero, ad An. II, 18 = 38 SB, 2; Sest. 61; Schol.Bob. 161 St; S. Borsacchi, Studi senesi 88, 1976, 93-132, 'Appunti sulla sanctio delle leges Iuliae agrariae'. 66 See also Ch. XII above. 67 Despite the hesitations of Ph. Moreau (1989, n. 23), 166-7 and Addenda, para. 6; in both cases, however, the formula depends on a verb in the past tense and reconstruction on the basis of such texts is hazardous; nor should the false archaism of rogarier deceive. See in general the lucid discussion of Stein, Regulae, 14.

24

ROMAN STATUTES uerbis 'si quid sacro sanctum est' esse exceptum uideretur; de iis cum populus Romanus nihil umquam iusserit, quicquam audes dicere sacro sanctum fuisse?

This both suggests the correction sacro sanctum to the resolution offered by Valerius Probus, adopted for all the epigraphic texts cited above, and reveals something of the meaning of the clause. For Cicero, dorn. 78-82, argues that certain kinds of statutes were impossible; and the clause no doubt represents a claim by the legislator that his statute was not of this kind, by way of an admission that, if it was, it was invalid; that is why the last word of the formula is to be resolved as rogatur, the present indicative representing a statement by the proposer, not a command of the people.68 The suggestion of Badian (n. 45), 212, that 'the formula was invented, or at least made a necessary concluding portion of all laws' to prevent a repetition of Ti. Gracchus' deposition of his colleague is curious: there is no reason to suppose that anyone who intended to depose a colleague would have thought that it was not ius to propose this. Observe that in a no longer Republican world the clause does not appear at the end of the Lex de imperio Vespasiani, Law 39, which has a sanctio similar to that of the Lex Flavia, Ch. 96. XV - Layout No statutes after the two on the Tabula Bembina are known to have been inscribed in long lines covering the entire width of a single wide tablet; presumably someone pointed out that such texts were much more legible if arranged in columns with relatively short lines. At least from the Sullan age, the prescript was sometimes inscribed in larger letters across the tops of all the columns. Such an arrangement may be seen in the Lex Cornelia de XX quaestoribus, Law 14; the Lex Antonia de Termessibus, Law 19; the Veleia Fragment H, Law 29; and F. Ritschl calculated on this basis that the Lex Cornelia once occupied 9 tablets, the Lex Antonia 4 or 5.69 We can be reasonably certain in the case of the Delphi copy of the Lex de prouinciis praetoriis, Law 12, that no prescript was ever inscribed, and the same is probably true of the Ephesus Fragment, Law 35. For the complex problem of the first line of the Lex repetundarum, Law 1, see the Introduction thereto; the prescript of the Lex agraria, Law 2, occupies part of 1. 1. The tablets perhaps of the Tarentum Fragment, Law 8, certainly of the Lex Cornelia, Law 14, the Lex Tarentina, Law 15, the Lex Antonia, Law 19, and the Lex de Gallia Cisalpina, Law 28, were numbered; those that survive of the Lex Cornelia and the Lex Antonia bear an abbreviated version of the index at the head.70 The use of chapter headings seems not to be attested between the Lex repetundarum and the municipal statutes of the Flavian age (see Law 1, Introduction). Divisions between chapters are initially indicated by a vacat in the Lex agraria, Law 2; sometimes by space bars in the Delphi copy of the Lex de prouinciis praetoriis, Law 12, and in the 68 See Ph. Moreau (1989, n. 23), 172-5 and Addenda, paras. 2-3; 166-9 with n. 69 and Addenda, para. 5. The terms exceptio, occurring at Cicero, de inv. I, 56; II, 130-3, and adscriptio are not the correct technical terms, contra E. Badian (n. 45); Y. Thomas (n. 54), 83-4: see Ph. Moreau, I.e., 169 n. 78 and Addenda para. 4. 69 Opuscula Philologica IV (Leipzig, 1878), 427-45, 'In leges Viselliam Antoniam Corneliam observationes epigraphicae' ; something of the impression created by the presence of the names of an entire college of tribunes comes across in Cicero, Sest. 72. 70 There is no good reason to suppose that the Tarentum Fragment ever bore anything similar at the end, see the Introduction thereto.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

25

Lex Valeria Aurelia, Law 37, Tabula Hebana; but normally elsewhere by a vacat at the end of a chapter, with or without outspacing of the beginning of the next chapter.71 The only text inscribed before the Flavian age to number its chapters is the Lex de Gallia Cisalpina, Law 28; this despite the fact that chapters of statutes were thought of as numbered at least by 63 BC (Cicero, de leg.ag. I, 4, etc., on the Rogatio Seruilia agraria, Law 52; compare the Lex lulia de pecuniis repetundis, Law 55). The jurists number the chapters of the Lex Cornelia de sicariis, Law 50, not to mention those of the Lex Aquilia, Law 41; and the chapters of the Lex lulia de pecuniis repetundis, Law 55, were numbered by Cicero. It may be that those who used these texts in book form numbered them long before inscribed texts were numbered. XVI - Publication Once a measure had become law, it was both inscribed in public and placed in an official archive (Suetonius, lui 28, 2 (for Cicero, de leg. m, 11, see Ch. VI above)): acciderat autem, ut is legem de iure magistratuum ferens eo capite, quo petitione honorum absentis submouebat, ne Caesarem quidem exciperet per obliuionem, ac mox lege iam in aes incisa et in aerarium condita corrigeret errorem ... But it had so happened that, while he was carrying a statute concerning the law of office-holding, he actually forgot to exclude Caesar from the operation of the chapter in which he was in the process of depriving those who were absent from candidature for office; and that he later corrected the error when the statute was already inscribed on bronze and deposited in the aerarium (two separate processes)... 72 In a revolutionary age anything was possible. Publication on bronze was, however, clearly normal. Most of our epigraphic texts come from copies on bronze once on display; and the practice is also widely attested in the literary sources: For the testimonia relating to the Twelve Tables, including their display, see Law 40, Introduction, The nature of the collection'. Dion.Hal. EQ, 36, 4: display of the leges of Numa. Dion.Hal. X, 32, 4: the Lex Icilia was displayed in the temple of Diana on the Aventine. Varro in Macrobius, Sat. I, 13, 21: see p. 32 below. Livy VU, 3, 5: see p. 33 below. Livy VUE, 11, 16 (340 BC): 'equitibus Campanis ciuitas data monumentoque ut esset aeneam tabulam in aede Castoris Romae fixerunt'.

71 See in general, M.B. Parkes, Pause and Effect (Aldershot, 1992), Ch. 1, with earlier bibliography. 72 Compare the Tabula Hefacleensis, Law 24, 1. 156; Nonius XII, 520 Mercerus = 837 Lindsay: Varro de uita populi Romani lib. Hi: nam lateres argentei atque aurei primum conflati atque aerarium conditi', Livy X, 46, 5: omne aes argentumque in aerarium conditum\ the Ripoll Glossary J. Alturo i Perucho, Faventia 12-13, 1990-1, 141-64, at 143: aerarium dicebatur antiquitus ubi condebatur pecunia publica ...

ROMAN STATUTES

26 Plautus, Trin. 1037-40:

mores leges perduxerunt iam in potestatem suam, magi'que is sunt obnoxiosae quam parentes liberis. eae miserae etiam ad parietem sunt fixae clauis ferreis, ubi malos mores adfigi nimio fuerat aequius. Festus, 277 L: Cato (ORF 8, LXVITJ, 220) records a statute displayed 'in atrio Libertatis' as being destroyed by fire. Cicero, /// in Cat. 19; de div. I, 19; H, 47; Dio XXXVÜ, 9, 1-2; Obsequens 61 (122): statutes displayed on the Capitol are struck by lightning. Cicero, Mil. 87, cf. 89: 'incidebantur iam domi leges quae nos semis nostris addicerent' can hardly be taken at face value, but is evidence for the general practice of engraving the texts of statutes (see Mommsen, St. m, 371 = DP VI, 1, 425, for a less sceptical exposition; but one can surely not infer from this flight of Ciceronian rhetorical fantasy that statutes were engraved beforehand and then never passed). Cicero, dorn. 80: P. Clodius engraves the name of the first voter. Cicero, ad Att. HT, 12 = 57 SB, 1; 15 = 60 SB, 6: Clodius displays a clause of his statute relating to the exile of Cicero. The nature of the tablets of Clodius removed by Cicero is unclear. The demarchikai deltoi of Plutarch, Cicero, 34, and Cat.Min., 40, seem in the context not to be statutes; the tablets of Dio XXXIX, 21, are most naturally taken as bearing the statute relating to the exile of Cicero, though they perhaps need not be. Dio XLI, 14, 3: statutes displayed on the Capitol are struck by lightning. Dio XLV, 17, 3; Obsequens 68: tablets displayed on the Capitol and in the Forum are removed by wind. Varius, de morte, in Macrobius, Sat. VI, 1, 39 (for refigere compare Cicero, de aere alieno Milonis, in Schol.Bob., 171 St; adfam. XII, I = 327 SB, 2): uendidit hie Latium populis agrosque Quiritum eripuit; fixit leges pretio atque refixit (taken over in part by Virgil, Aen. VII, 622). There are numerous references in Cicero's Philippics to the display of statutes by M. Antonius: I, 3, 16, 23 and 26 (quoted in Ch. XI above); H, 98; HI, 30; V, 11; XH, 12; Xm, 5; compare ad.Att. XIV, 12 = 366 SB, 1; adfam. Xn, 1 = 327 SB, 2; Servius, on Virgil, Aen. VI, 622, probably cites Phil. II, 98. Suetonius, Cal. 41: 'eiusmodi uectigalibus indictis ncque propositis, cum per ignorantiam scripturae multa commissa fièrent, tandem flagitante populo proposuit quidem legem, sed et minutissimis litteris et angustissimo loco, uti ne cui describere liceret'. Suetonius, Vesp. 8: Vespasian replaces 3,000 tabulae, including plebis scita, cf. Tacitus, Hist. TV, 40. Contrast 'leges incidere ligno' in the mythical past, Horace, AP 399 (also postulated by some sources for the Twelve Tables).

GENERAL INTRODUCTION XVII - Archives

27

73

The conservation of statutes in archives is also attested: Dig. I, 2, 2, 21 (Pomponius); Zonaras VII, 15, 10: the acta plebis are conserved by the aediles. Sisenna, fr. 117 P: a lex is deposited with the quaestor. Servius, on Virgil, Aen. VIE, 322: 'leges in aerario claudebantur'. Servius, on Virgil, Georg. II, 502: TOPULI TABULARLA, ubi actus publici continentur. significat autem templum Saturni, in quo et aerarium fuerat et reponebantur acta, quae susceptis liberis faciebant parentes Cicero, de leg. EU, 46: 'extremae leges sunt nobis non usitatae, rei publicae necessariae. legum custodiam nullam habemus, itaque eae leges sunt quas apparitores nostri uolunt: a librariis (scribes) petimus, publicis litteris consignatam memoriam publicam nullam habemus'. The phrase 'legum custodiam nullam habemus' is no doubt in part an exaggerated comment on the anarchy of the last decade of the Republic; see also E.D. Rawson, ANRW I, 4 (1963), 334-56 = Roman Society and Culture (Oxford, 1991), 125-48, The interpretation of Cicero's De legibus', at 353-4 = 145-6: consignata = 'attested', on the model of the decrees of the senate. For traces of complex systems involved in the conservation of decrees of the senate, see R.K. Sherk, RDGE, Index I, s.w. ôetaoç, Kf|pcû|ia; Josephus, AJ XIV, 219; Reynolds, Aphrodisias, Doc. 8; CIL X, 7852 (Sardinia); and in the conservation of municipal records, CIL XI, 3614 (Caere).

XVm - Diffusion The paradox, if it is a paradox, of a vast corpus of law not only reinforcing the position of the Roman elite, but also used principally by that same elite, is perhaps in the end irresolvable.74 Nonetheless, it seems worth exploring one aspect of the problem, the extent to which the statutes of the late Republic and early Empire were known to the population of the Roman world. Celsus remarked (Dig. I, 3, 17) that to know the laws was a question of grasping not their wording, but their uis and potestas. We argue that knowledge of the content, wording and characteristic style of Roman statutes was diffused outside the Roman elite, even though our source material does not offer quantitative data. 73 For Schol.Bob., 140 St, see Ch. VI above; for Cicero, Arch. 8, see the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24, Introduction; see also the Index, s.v., tabula. The pessimism of P. Culham, CP 84, 1989, 100-15, 'Archives and alternatives in Republican Rome', is excessive. 74 D. Daube, Roman Law (Edinburgh, 1969), 71-5; J.A. Crook, PCPhS, N.S. 19, 1973, 38-44, 'Intestacy in Roman society'. The debate is in part between two people talking about different things. No doubt there were people so poor that they never made a will, just as there were people so poor that even the law of debt was irrelevant to them, for no-one would lend to them. But that still leaves a wide range of social strata to be differentiated and understood. J.M. Kelly, Roman Litigation (Oxford, 1966), esp. 1-84, is the principal exponent of the view that Roman law was only of use to the rich.

28

ROMAN STATUTES

As we have seen, the texts of Roman statutes are known to us from the chance discovery of inscriptions, from the writings of the jurists, from the treatises of technical authors and from sources such as Cicero. What is at first sight surprising is the limited distribution of inscribed copies. Four statutes are known from the Greek world, one in two copies, all inscribed on stone; 35 statutes are known from the west, all inscribed on bronze. This impression may of course be the result of the poor survival rate of the inscriptions in question. We now know that the consuls were instructed to publish, proponere, the SC dealing with the honours for Germanicus, that municipia and colonies in Italy and colonies in the provinces were to have copies and that governors were to order copies to be set up, figiy Law 37. All that we now have are fragmentary copies of SC or statute from Rome, Heba, Tuder and Siarum, as well fragmentary copies of the SC or statute for Drusus Caesar from Rome and Ilici, Laws 37-8. Similarly, Cicero talks of the Latins adopting those laws dealing with the ius ciuile which they wished to observe and implies that there were numerous cases (Balb. 21, cited above). The only inscribed examples of what looks like the free adoption of Roman enactments by communities outside Rome are the Lex Osca Tabulae Bantinae, Law 13, and the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24; and here it is mostly public law that is in question. It may be that in dealing with the inscribed copies of Roman statutes we are dealing with the tip of an iceberg of entirely unknown shape. Yet the pattern of distribution of inscribed copies of Roman statutes does not change with new discoveries; and it is better to conclude that the display in permanent form of statutes was an extremely restricted phenomenon, falling as far as date is concerned between Caius Gracchus and the Emperor Vespasian and occurring largely in Italy. The display of leges assumed by Plautus, Trin. 1037-40 (quoted above, Ch. XVI), has so far no counterpart in the inscribed material. Display in temporary form on whiteboards was also possible and there were also archival copies, as we have seen;75 either of these, along with such inscribed copies as there were, may then have generated manuscript copies in private hands. We may perhaps be optimistic that there are no catastrophic gaps in our knowledge, since there is no significant relevant element in the list of abbreviations of Valerius Probus, which was presumably intended to be complete, which is not attested elsewhere. The texts so far cited show, naturally, that specialists of one kind or another knew the statutes relevant to their concerns, jurists, Cicero and other Roman advocates, presidents of courts,76 Verrius Flaccus and other antiquarians,77 Frontinus for his treatise on the aqueducts of Rome, Valerius Probus for his booklet on abbreviations, and the Agrimensores. It is worth noting that Latin texts transmitted in the literary tradition make far less use of abbreviations than Latin epigraphic copies; and that the users of manuscript texts seem to have divided them up into capita, unlike the engravers of epigraphic texts (see Ch. XV above). 75 For a frieze representing people reading from whiteboards, see S.C. Nappo, Riv.Stud.Pompeiani 3, 1989, 79-96, 'Fregio dipinto dal "praedium" di Giulia Felice con rappresentazione del foro di Pompei'; compare Vetter 367d = CIL I2, 565: a Praenestine cista with a scene involving the display of leges. 76 See Cicero, de or. I, 18 and 159; E. Costa, Cicerone giureconsulto (Bologna, 1927), 45-251. Mistakes of course occurred: for the case of Laterensis see on the Lex Iulia de peeuniis repetundis, Law 55. 77 For Gellius' account of the model to be used for a rogatio dealing with an adoption, see Ch. VII above.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

29

Cicero records that in his youth schoolboys had learnt the Twelve Tables by heart (de leg. II, 59), though this was no longer true; and Lucilius' jest at their expense (552-3 Marx = 579-80 Warmington = 553-4 Krenkel: Law 40, Tabula I, 2-3) shows that in his day they were familiar at least to the elite. In the same period, C. Servilius Glaucia, in addressing the people, also apparently produced two very passable pastiches of the beginning of a Roman statute (Cicero, Rab.Post. 14): Glaucia solebat, homo impurus, sed tarnen acutus, populum monere ut, cum lex aliqua recitaretur, primum uersum attenderet. Si esset, "Dictator, consul, praetor, magister equitum", ne laboraret; sciret nihil ad se pertinere; sin esset "Quicumque post hanc legem", uideret ne qua noua quaestione adligaretur. In an early work, de inv. II, 118, Cicero used an invented lex as an example. It is then not surprising to find phrases reminiscent of Roman statutes in works of Caesar, for instance BG I, 6, 1 : erant omnino itinera duo, quibus itineribus domo exire possent.78 But the most assiduous user of the style of Roman statutes was the historian Livy, following the advice of his predecessor Asellio to record what statute or rogano was passed (Gellius V, 18, 9 = fr. 1 P). The most spectacular of numerous examples of his art is to be found at XXII, 10, 2-6: 'uelitis iubeatis haec sic fieri? si res publica populi Romani Quiritium ad quinquennium proximum sic ut uelim uoueamque salua semata erit hisce duellis, quod duellum populo Romano cum Carthaginiensi est quaeque duella cum Gallis sunt qui eis Alpis sunt, datum donum duit populus Romanus Quiritium ... ' 79 Finally, the inventor of the formula for euocatio recorded by Macrobius (Sat. EI, 9, 6-7) was clearly familiar with the style in question: 'si deus, si dea est, cui populus ciuitasque Carthaginiensi s est in tutela, teque maxime, ille qui urbis huius populique tutelamque recepisti, precor uenerorque '80

But there is at least one context where one can show that a wide range of day to day business depended on knowledge and use of the law. The Lex Flavia reveals with dramatic clarity that anyone who wished to engage in litigation needed to know not only the relevant parts of that statute, but also a whole range of other legal texts.81 The references to a lex municipalis in the Digest and the Code, it is true, deal mostly with 78

Other examples in Marouzeau (n. 49), 440-1; see also De Meo, Lingue, 87-9. For the inauthenticity of the pastiche see Ph. Moreau, Ath 75 (n.s. 65), 1987, 465-92, 'La loi Clodia', at 487 n. 156; for similar pastiches in Livy, see I, 46, 1; III, 55, 5 and 7 (with Daube, Forms, 27); 64, 10; XXI, 17, 4; XXVI, 33, 12-14; XXX, 43, 2; XXXI, 6, 1; XXXVI, 1, 5; XXXVIII, 54, 3-4; XLII, 21, 4; XLV, 21, 1-4 (the compilation of the list owes much to Philippe Moreau). 80 The arguments for and against authenticity, the latter in our view compelling, are set out by E.D. Rawson, JRS 63, 1973, 161-74 = Roman Culture and Society (Oxford, 1991), 80-101, 'Scipio, Laelius, Furius, and the ancestral religion', at 168-73; Marouzeau (n. 49), 440, accepts the authenticity of the prayer. 81 See the arguments of D.E.L. Johnston (n. 61). 79

30

ROMAN STATUTES

public business, with the exception of the rules for location of burial, to which we shall return in a moment. Nonetheless, rules relating to the right of a community to the site of a collapsed building were likely to affect at any rate the whole of the propertied class. And rules for the performance of munera obviously affected the entire community. The literary references, to the lex of the colony of Concordia (Fronto, ad amicos 2, 7) and to the leges of the communities of Bithynia and Pontus (Pliny, Ep. X, 47 and 79), also deal with public business, in the first case the qualifications for the office of scribe, the privileges of a decurion, embassies and expenses for embassies, in the second case the honorarium decurionatus. And the same concern with public business is characteristic of most references in inscriptions to what appear to be municipal statutes, whether specific or general.82 But at least one inscription from Pompei provides us with a reference to public business according to the statute (of the colony) which presumably had a considerable impact on the community as a whole, buildings erected 4out of that money which it was appropriate for those Eviri to spend on games or on a monument according to the statute'.83 And the edict of Augustus on the aqueduct of Venafrum refers to the possibility of a trial by recuperatores, as in the Lex lulia de iudiciis, surely in a context of general interest to the citizens of Venafrum. Finally, when Hyginus tells us that before considering the status of any piece of land in any colony or municipium, their leges must be consulted (118, 5-8 L = 81, 7-10 Th; compare 19, 3-5 L = 8, 1-4 Th; 24, 6 L = 10, 7 Th; 234, 21 L), he reveals an area of activity in which the content of the lex must have been of wide concern. As far as the rules for location of burial are concerned, the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Chs. LXXffl-LXXTV, bans anyone from bringing a body into the city, burying or burning anyone there, or erecting a monument there, and from establishing a new ustrinà within 500 yards of the city. It is interesting to observe that similar rules were obviously quite consciously observed elsewhere: at Sassina, a wealthy individual gave the city a burial area outside the town; and at Puteoli, and perhaps also Cumae, the operae of the local funeral contractor were not only required to live outside the town, but also had their lives regulated by what was cautum or exceptum in the statute and had to face the possibility of 'reciperatoria iudicia e lege coloniae'.84 Similar rules for location of burial, going back at least to the Twelve Tables, Law 40, Tabula X, were naturally also observed at Rome; what is more, one of the inscriptions on the Esquiline recording the rules bears also a vernacular version of part of the same rules,

82 Lex Cornelia: CIL X, 113; 114 = ILS 6469; ILS 6468 (Petelia, Tllluir leg.Cor.'); Lex lulia municipalis: CIL V, 2864 = ILS 5406 (Padua, Tllluir aediliciae potestat. e lege lulia municipali'; for the date, AD 69, see W.V. Harris, ZPE 27, 1977, 283-93, 'The era of Patavium'); Lex Petronia (on which see F. Sartori, in G.C. Susini (ed.), Colloque internationale AIEGL: Bartolomeo Borghesi (Bologna, 1982), 211-22, 'La legge Petronia'): CIL IX, 2666 = ILS 6518 (Aesernia, 'fflluir. lege Petronia'); X, 858 = ILS 6359 (Pompei, 'praef.i.d. ex d.d. lege Petron.'); 5405 = ILS 6125 (Fasti of Interamna, AD 69-70, 'lllluir(i) p.l.P.'); 56554 (Fabrateria Vetus, 'aed. F.N. iter LP.'); RAL 1978, 517 = AE 1978, 100 (Interamna Lirenas, prae[fectus] quinq(uennalis) le[ge] Petronia'); Lex Flavia: W. Johannowsky, RAAN 50, 1975, 3-38, 'Problemi archeologici campani', at 32 no. 1 (Forum Popili, 'duouir cui lege Flauia datum est primus sententiam sui ordinis interrogaretur'). 83 ILLRP 648, 'ex ea pequnia quod (sic) eos (Iluiros) e lege in ludos aut in monumento consumere oportuit'; as far as we know, this is our first reference after the Social War to the lex of a community. 84 ILLRP 662 (Sassina); L. Bove, RAAN 41, 1966, 207-39, 'Due nuove iscrizioni di Pozzuoli e Cuma' = Labeo 13,1967, 22-48, 'Due iscrizioni da Pozzuoli e Cuma\

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

31

showing that someone read them and understood them and added his own version (ILLRP 485): 8 5 stercus longe aufer, ne malum habeas take your rubbish a long way away, or you will suffer for it On a different level, the well-known remark attributed to Glaucia is even more revealing (Cicero, Rab.Post 14, quoted above), showing as it does that the people were expected to fear, and need to know, the terms of any law intended to set up a quaestio. There are two further clues of a different kind. Sherwin White has argued that one reason why communities put up the texts of extortion statutes was that they were interested in the protection they had to offer and in the rewards that followed from a successful prosecution. 86 And documents in far-away Egypt sometimes refer to Roman legislation: thus, for instance, a papyrus records a declaration of birth of twins 'ex inc[ert]o patre ... ideoque [s]e has testationes interposuisse dixit quia lex [Ae]lia Sentia et Papia Poppaea [spu]rio[s] spuriasue in albo pr[ofiteri ue]tat\ 8 7 What is more surprising, however, is the evidence, small in bulk, but nonetheless suggestive, for the passage of elements of the style we have been discussing into discourse of a less elevated level. The prologue of Plautus' Amphitruo makes use of doublets of the kind discussed above, such as aequum et iustum (16) and also of the archaic word sirempse discussed by Caesar (73, see above); and already in the time of Lucilius there was in circulation a popular take-off of the form and style of a Roman statute, a text of which is in part known to us, the so-called Lex Tappula: 88 [Lex] Tappula [—]ius Tapponis f. Tappo eis [über] [secundum e]dicta conlegarum eoru[m ad] 85 Note the longer formulation of the same rules, probably in a decree of the senate, in the inscription published in R. Lanciani, BCAR 1875, 194 = CIL I 2 , 591: •Side A [...] eisque curarent tu[erenturq(ue)] [... ar]bitratu aedilium pleibeium [quei-] [qu]omque essent; neiue ustrinae in eis loceis regionibusue niue foci ustri­ nae {ue} caussa fièrent niue stercus terra[m]ue intra ea loca fecisse coniecisseue ueli[t] quei haec loca ab paago montano vac

SideB [quei ...] [intra ea] loca iecerit in [...] [ma]nus iniectio pignorisq(ue) capi[o ...] 86 JRS 72, 1982, 18-31, 'The political ideas of Gaius Gracchus'. 87 H.A. Sanders, AJA 32, 1928, 309-29 = AE 1929, 13 = P.Mich. III, 169 = AE 1939, 314 = FIRA III, pp. 9-11; cf. FIRA El, pp. 5-7; P.Mich. VII, 436; P.Wisc. II, 50; RVind.Bosw. 5; J.-Ph. Levy, Etudes J. Macqueron (Aix-en-Provence, 1970), 439-49, 'Nouvelles observations sur les "professiones liberorum'"; see also the Introduction to the Lex Iulia et Papia Poppaea, Law 64. 88 Bruns 26 = ILS 8761; A. von Premerstein, Hermes 39, 1904, 327-47, 'Lex Tappula', with earlier bibliography and rich commentary; CF. Konrad, ZPE 48, 1982, 219-34, 'Quaestiones Tappulae'; S. Roda, Iscrizioni latine di Vercelli (Vercelli, 1985), 57 (confused: the text was no doubt composed in the late Republic and engraved in the high Empire); note that pane repetito is a jocular resolution of the abbreviation priimus); see also Lucilius 1307 Marx = 1239 Warmington = 1323 Krenkel (Festus, 496 L): 'Tappulam rident legem, conferai et) opimi'.

ROMAN STATUTES

32

4

8

[quos e(a) r(es) p(ertinet),] M. Multiuori, P. Properoci[bi,] [— Me]ronis, plebem Romanam [iure] [rogauit pl]ebesque Romana iure sci[uit —] [— pro ae]de Herculis a.d. XI k. Unde[cembres.] [— trib]u(s> Satureia principi [um fuit, pro] [tribu — Ta]pponis f. pane repeti [to sciuit:] [—]e qui quaeue [—]

1. 4 p(ertinuit), edd.; Properoc[ibi], Hirschfeld; Properoc[i], earlier edd.; the final I is clear 1. 5 The final M is clear 1. 8 [trib]u, Konrad, 229 n. 47, treating it as a vulgar form We do not hazard supplements for 11. 2, 5, 6 - 7 , 8, 9 [Lex] Tappula. [—] Buffoon, son of Buffoon, magistrate this side of the Tiber, [according to] the edicts of those colleagues [to whom that matter pertains,] namely Marcus Glutton, Publius Gobbler, [—] Boozer, [legally asked] the Roman plebs and the Roman plebs legally decided [— in front of] the temple of Hercules on the eleventh day before the Kalends of the last month of the year plus one [—] the Guzzling tribe [was] the first to vote, [for the tribe —] son of Buffoon, after recovering rus bread, [decided: —] whatever man or woman [—] The purpose of inscription in public was no doubt in part practical, in (perhaps larger) part symbolic, to demonstrate that the statute in question was in the public domain, as the Romans themselves recognised in a similar context (CIL XIV, 2795, Gabii): placuit in tabula aerea scribi et proponi in publico unde de plano recte legi possit. 89 Nonetheless, it is methodologically unsound to suppose that the Romans found it hard to read the inscribed texts of statutes, just because we, who are used to printed books and elaborate typographical conventions which facilitate reading, find it difficult. 90 The Romans rapidly abandoned the long lines which characterise the Lex repetundarum and the Lex agraria and which are hardly compatible with beginning each chapter on a new line; and we should respect the judgment of the anonymous early sixteenth author of the MS, Paris, BN, Lat. 5825L, who remarks that the tablet bearing the arbitration between the Langenses and the Genuenses was 'Uteris antiquissimis, et eis ut appellant maiusculis, minutis tarnen, perscripta, ita ut expeditissime legator'. There is also some evidence to suggest that the inscribed texts were consulted. Part of the evidence relates to scholars and historians. Macrobius (Sat. I, 13, 21) seems to show Varro citing 'the most ancient statute', to which the intercalary month is ascribed, from 89 The choice of bronze is explained by CIL VIII, 17896 (Thamugadi): 'at perpetui tati s memoriam'; for a comparable view of the purpose of public records, see Valerius Maximus IX, 2, 1 Int., 'quattuor milia et septingentos dirae proscriptionis edicto iugulatos in tabulas publicas rettulit, uidelicet ne memoria tarn praeclarae rei dilueretur'; Pliny, NH XXXIV, 99, 'usus aeris ad perpetuitatem monimentorum iam pridem tralatus est tabulis aeris, in quibus publicae constitutiones inciduntur'. Because inscription on bronze was often employed for statutes, authors under the Empire often assumed wrongly that it was distinctive to statutes, see Mommsen, St. Ill, 419 n. 3 = DP VI, 1, 482 n. 4. The claim of Williamson (n. 56), 174-5, that bronze tablets with legal texts were protected by laws against sacrilege, is wrong. 90 For the centrality of writing to Roman culture, see in general the suggestive remarks of F. Hinard, Les proscriptions de la Rome républicaine (Rome, 1985), 18-35.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

33

the bronze tablet on which it was inscribed; Livy's words at VII, 3, 5-8, are similarly suggestive: lex uetusta est, priscis uteris uerbisque scripta, ut qui praetor maximus sit Idibus Septembribus clauum pangat. And Dionysius of Halicarnassus (IV, 26, 4-5) appears to claim autopsy of the bronze stelai in the Temple of Diana regulating the relationship of the Romans and the Latins. More important, where Cicero talks of the false measures of M. Antonius, he sometimes seems to assume that it is from the inscribed versions that his hearers know of them (Phil. II, 92): 'inspectantibus uobis, toto Capitolio tabulae figebantur'. And Ovid assumes the reading of statutes on display in his own day; for, in contrast, in the Golden Age (Met. I, 90-1): poena metusque aberant, nee uerba minantia fixo aere legebantur ... On the other hand, texts in the aerarium probably generated the copies in the hands of the experts mentioned above; like Cato the Younger (Plutarch, Cat.Min. 18), they will simply have had copies made. That these copies were likely to be accurate can hardly be doubted in the light of the almost identical wording of a chapter of the Lex Iulia agraria, Law 54, in the Agrimensores and the Digest and of another in the Agrimensores and the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25. This will be true despite the fact the jurists excerpted in the Digest clearly extend by interpretation the range of items specified in Republican statutes and show a lack of concern with the exact wording of Republican statutes: compare the Lex Iulia de annona in the Digest and the Lex Flavia, Ch. 75, the Lex Iulia de ui (dealing with coetus) in the Digest and the Lex Flavia, Ch. 74; and note that the jurists had differing views on what the Lex Aquilia actually said. But it seems likely that it was the reading aloud of statutes at promulgation, in condones, before the final vote, that directly and indirectly generated much of the knowledge which many Romans had of their statutes. This will remain true, even if Mommsen was probably wrong to argue that it was the renuntiatio at the final vote, rather than inscription in public, that constituted the act of publication.91 Nonetheless, in an age when statutes passed by the assemblies were a thing of the past, Valerius Probus still thought that '(notae) publicae sane tenendae, quae in monumentis plurimis (referring back, among other things, to leges publicae) et in historiarum libris sacrisque publicis reperiuntur'. By one means or another Romans far and wide knew their law and used it. It may be worth offering one last point, by way of conclusion. The praetor's edict is a lawyer's text, dense and economical, much admired by lawyers and hard for laymen. Roman statutes are full and repetitious, concerned to cover every possibility and leave no room for uncertainty. We have already seen that the typical style of Roman statutes seems to develop in the democratic context of the Gracchan period, the period also when diffusion of the texts on bronze seems to become a significant phenomenon, if our surviving 91 Th. Mommsen, Annali dell'Institute di Corrispondenza Archeologica 1858, 181-212 = GS III, 290-313, 'Sui modi usati da' Romani nel conservare e pubblicare le leggi ed i senatusconsulti'; St. Ili, 418 = DP VI, 1, 481; the arguments used are essentially arguments from silence and look rather weak, now that we have for thefirsttime the complete last chapters of an inscribed statute, the Lex Irnitana, albeit a municipal statute of the Flavian period.

34

ROMAN STATUTES

specimens are anything to go by. Is it possible that the development of the style of statutes that we know was the result of a deliberate attempt to make the law more widely accessible and intelligible, comparable to the publication of the legis actiones in an earlier age? XIX - Bibliography and Introduction The Bibliography attached to each statute is arranged in chronological order; we have attempted to give a brief indication of the content of articles and books, where this is not apparent from the nature of the work or the title of the article, especially in the case of long lists. The Bibliography does not necessarily include references to the derivative texts in Bruns and similar works, unless these represent contributions to the establishment of the text; all such references may be found in the Concordance. The Bibliography attached to statutes attested in the literary sources is normally very selective; a much fuller bibliography will be found in J.-L. Ferrary & Ph. Moreau (edd.), Les lois du peuple romain (Rome, forthcoming). Humanist copyists of inscriptions are normally cited by their vernacular names, with their Latin names added if necessary. The Bibliography is primarily of works relating to the document in question; some works on individual points are cited only in the Introduction or Commentary. We do not in general give references for legal or other institutions, such as are to be found in any standard handbook, unless the institutions in question are problematic in the context. In such works as CIL or Bruns, 000 refers to the document number in question; elsewhere it refers to the page or the plate, as the context determines; no. 000 very occasionally figures also, to remove a possible source of ambiguity; f. 000 refers to the folio in question; p. 000 or pi. 000 occasionally refers to a page or a plate in a context where a document number might be expected. Long bibliographies are divided into paragraphs, arbitrarily, at least with each successive fascicle of CIL I 2 . Works cited in the Bibliography attached to each statute are cited under thatstatute by author or by author and date. In attempting to devise a reasonably consistent numbering system for each text and its separate elements, we have respected earlier systems as far as possible. m = metre; dimensions are maximum dimensions. XX - Conventions 1) Each new line of an inscription is represented by a new line of our text. Every fourth line is numbered, except where the layout of the inscription makes this impossible. For Laws 1-2 every line is numbered. 2) Letters no longer preserved are enclosed within square brackets, thus, 'any [La]tin word' ; lacunae are similarly enclosed, whether they occur at the beginning, middle or end of a line, thus, *[...] Latin [..] Greek [word — ] ' ; dots represent by their number a lacuna of known length, dashes represent a lacuna of unknown length. ??? indicates the presence of an element of unknown, but finite length, such as a figure or a praenomen. 3) Letters seen by earlier scholars, and now visible neither on the original nor on a photograph, are underlined, except in the case of the E fragment of Laws 1-2. 4) Upper case is used only for letters which have been seen, but which cannot be understood as forming the whole or the part of a known Latin or Greek word; and for some numerals (see below).

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

35

5) Underdotting indicates that a trace which has been seen is compatible with, but does not demand, the letter printed; incomplete letters of whose identity there is no doubt, independently of the context, are not underdotted. 6) An uncertain trace of a letter is represented by +. 7) Ligatures are recorded in the Apparatus Criticus. 8) Letters wrongly added by the engraver are enclosed within broken brackets, thus, 'any Lat{t}in word'. 9) Letters wrongly omitted by the engraver and letters to replace letters inaccurately inscribed by the engraver are enclosed within angled brackets, thus, 'any La(t)in word'; the reading of the bronze or the stone is recorded in the Apparatus Criticus. 10) Letters in resolution of abbreviations are enclosed within round brackets, thus, 'any L(atin) word'. In the body of a text, numerals are resolved as cardinals or ordinals within round brackets, except where part of the numeral is underdotted or within square brackets, or where the numeral is split between two joining fragments (see the Lex repetundarum, Law 1, 1. 16. 'Iluir' and similar words are not resolved, in order to make the contrast with 'duouir' and similar words more prominent. 11) Small capitals are used in the Apparatus Criticus to represent the reading of the stone or the bronze or the reading of a MS copy in majuscule; italics to represent the reading of a MS copy in minuscule. The need to differentiate does not arise with Greek texts. 12) Letters which have been wholly or partially erased are enclosed within double square brackets, thus '[[any Latin word]]'. 13) Letters which have been inscribed on an erasure are enclosed within double angled brackets, thus ' « a n y Latin w o r d » ' . 14) Corrections to the text made already in antiquity are where appropriate recorded in the Apparatus Criticus. 15) Corrupt sequences of letters are enclosed between obeli, thus tlsex|. 16) We indicate spaces and marks for paragraphs by vacat or space-bar respectively. The length of a lacuna is indicated by v, w , vvv, etc., according to the number of letters.. A lacuna of unknown length may be indicated by vac rather than vacat, if there is some reason to suppose it short; a lacuna of a whole line or an end of line is indicated by vacat. 17) The Apparatus Criticus is intended to explain the relationship of our text to the stone or the bronze and to the work of earlier scholars. We have sometimes attributed suggestions to individual members of the group: to have recorded the origin of all the suggestions which emerged in the course of discussion would have required superhuman feats of memory and would not represent thè interaction within the group which frequently lies behind the printed text. Alternative conjectures are naturally recorded selectively. We do not normally discuss differences in punctuation. The Apparatus Criticus does not necessarily include references to the derivative texts in Bruns and similar works, unless these represent contributions to the establishment of the text; hypothetical supplements of any length will normally be discussed in the Commentary. We use our conventions, not theirs, in reporting in our Apparatus Criticus the texts of earlier scholars. 18) The Apparatus Criticus does not normally deal with the presence or absence of interpuncts between words. Note that in many texts single-syllable prepositions are often merged with the following word, single-syllable prefixes are often separated from the following stem (M. Niedermann, Mnem, Tertia series, 11, 1943, 122-8, 'Zwei textkritisch-sprachliche Probleme', a propos of the Tabula Heracleensis; but the phenomenon is very widespread). We do not normally record the variation between C and G. The observation that many of the errors of engraving in our texts probably result from

36

ROMAN STATUTES

faulty resolution of abbreviations goes back at least to H.A. Seidel, Observationum epigraphicarum Capita duo (Diss. Breslau, 1880), 9-40. 19) Given the variability within individual texts, it has not been possible to prescribe morphological or syntactical rules to be followed in filling lacunae. We have on the whole been conservative editors, given that we are not drafting the texts of Roman statutes, but attempting to present a text as the legislator and engraver intended it to be read. As a general principle, we have avoided normalising orthography; but we have normally corrected gross syntactical errors. 20) We have where possible checked every text against the original and we have indicated which of us has been responsible; some originals are missing: Lex repetundarum, Law 1; Lex agraria, Law 2 - the bottom half of the A fragment, and the E fragment; Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae, Law 7; Lex Osca Tabulae Bantinae, Law 13 - the Avellino fragment and the Rosini fragment; Clusium fragments, Law 9 - all six fragments; Rome Fragments A and B, Honours for Germanicus, Law 37; Rome Fragment D, Honours for Drusus Caesar, Law 38. We have after much agonising adopted analogous conventions for literary and epigraphic texts: we realise that this flies in the face of tradition; but it seemed worse to have two different sets of conventions in the same book. For all literary texts except the Lex Iulia agraria, Law 54, we present first the testimonia and then our reconstruction. XXI - Translations It has not been easy to combine a consistent use of technical terms with translation into English, rather than gobbledygook. Note that it has proved impossible both to write English and to preserve the distinction between qui and quicumque. Earlier translations are recorded very selectively. We have not normally translated tiny fragments. Within the limits suggested by common sense, we have used [...] and (...) in the translations where they occur in the originals. XXn - Commentaries Topics which occur more than once are discussed either in the General Introduction or where they first occur. Each entry is identified by the initials of the member or members of the group responsible for it; initials within brackets indicate that the person concerned has made an essential contribution to the entry, but is not responsible for the entry itself.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

37

XXm-Index Nouns appear in the nominative singular, adjectives in the masculine nominative singular, verbs in the first person present indicative, where possible. Comparative and adverbial forms are separately indexed. Anomalous forms are listed in brackets where they are specific to the word in question, i.e., not profiterei. Words expunged from our text are not indexed. We use [...] and (...) to indicate where the word, not simply the form, is restored or results from correction. And where, for instance, the word a in our text results from correction of a{d}, we use (...). XXIV - Plates The plates illustrate only those pieces where accessible photographs have not previously been published. We are aware that our plates are not all of the highest quality and can only plead that the photographs have often had to be taken in less than ideal circumstances.

*** Finally, it is a pleasant duty to thank all those who have helped in the preparation of this volume: Prof. M.G. Angeli Bertinelli, Prof. E. Badian, Prof. P.W.H. Birks, Prof. P.A. Brunt, Prof. R.G. Coleman, Prof. W. Eck, Dr C. Edwards, the late Mr M.W. Frederiksen, Prof. E. Frykman, Dr B.P. Hillyard, Prof. D.E.L. Johnston, Prof. F.S. Kleiner, Prof. D. Mantovani, Prof. P.J. Parsons, Dr J. Penney, Dr D.W. Rathbone, Prof. P.J. Rhodes, Messrs T. and M. Richardson, Lord Rodger, Prof. J. Untermann, Prof. F.W. Walbank, Prof. J.J. Wilkes, Prof. J.-G. Wolf; Mr B. Bovili, Mr J. Dardis (University of London Computing Centre); Dr C. Hope, Dr J. Kraye (Warburg Institute); the British Academy, the Roman Society, the Carnegie Foundation, the Law Society of Scotland, the Society of Solicitors in the Supreme Courts of Scotland, the Society of Writers to HM Signet, the Faculty of Advocates, the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, the Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft; Prof. J.M. Abascal Palazón (Alicante); Dr H. Krummrey (Berlin); Prof. R. Frei-Stolba (Bern); Prof. W. Blümel, Dr M. Hassall, Prof. I. Love (Cnidos); Dr D.G. Romano (Corinth); Prof. D. Knibbe (Ephesus); Prof. G. Clemente, Dr P. Conti (Florence); Prof. A. Sartori (Milan); Dr K. Brodersen, Dr J.G. Garbsen (Munich); Prof. E. Lo Cascio, Dr A. Storchi Marino (Naples); Prof. S. Panciera, Prof. S. Rizzo (Rome); Prof. J. Gonzalez (Seville); Dr D. Gantz (Wolfenbüttel); Prof. W. Eck (the text of the SC de Cn. Pisone); Prof. P. Le Roux (the copy of the Lex Tarentina); Prof. R.H. Rodgers (the text of the Lex Quinctia); Dr A. Sty low (the text of the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae); and all the directors of museums and librarians, who have given us access to the material in their care and furnished us with photographs. Naturally, we have all checked things for each other in libraries and museums. Errors and inadequacies will remain and we shall be grateful to be told of them.

***

38

ROMAN STATUTES

Special thanks are also due: first of all to the librarians and staff of the libraries in which much of the work for this volume has been completed, Naomi Alvarez and Colin Annis of the Institute of Classical Studies, Leonard Boyle of the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Pierre Petitmengin of the École Normale Supérieure, Will Ryan of the Warburg Institute, each without exception 'docto, acorto et diligente*; to David Williams for the figures; to Richard Simpson for his work on the design of the volumes and for sharing the agony of typesetting; then to the past and present graduate students of London, Oxford and San Marino, without whose help - and cheerfulness - the author of these lines would never have completed his task, Nigel Beadsworth, Ed Bispham, Guy Bradley, Clive Cheesman, Amanda Collins, Fay Glinister, Lâszlo Horvâth, Michael Koortbojiaii, Lucy McGuinness, Deri Miles, Mark Pobjoy, Jane Stuart-Smith, Clare Woods; to all the teachers of Ancient History at University College London, who probably never want to hear of a Roman statute again; and to the Trustees of the British Museum for the photographs which adorn the dust-jackets of these volumes. John Crook has of course been a member of the group from the outset; but the author of these lines has depended more than he can say, particularly in the closing stages of the project, on the intellectual and moral support afforded by the range and generosity of his learning. Lastly, much of the redaction of the final version has been undertaken in the quiet of Romagnano' Sesia; those to whom it is home know what that means. MHC

1 - 2 LEX REPETVNDARVM, LEX AGRARIA BIBLIOGRAPHY Lex repetundarum Editions and Discussions of the Reconstitution of the Text F. Orsini, in A. Agustin, De Legibus et Senatus Consultis (Rome, 1583), 'Leges et Senatusconsulta quae in ueteribus cum ex lapide tum ex aere monumentis reperiuntur' ; F. Blume (1821): see C.A.C. Klenze; C.A.C. Klenze, Fragmenta legis Serviliae repetundarum (Berlin, 1825), using copies made in 1821 by F. Blume in Naples; C.W. Göttling, Fünfzehn römische Urkunden auf Erz und Stein nach den Originalen neu verglichen und herausgegeben (Halle, 1845), 3 6 - 4 3 ; A.F. Rudorff, Abh.Akad.Wiss.Berlin, phil.-hist.KL, 1861, 411-553, 'Ad legem Aciliam de pecuniis repetundis'. Th. Mommsen, CIL I 1 (1863), 198, heavily revised in GS I (1905), 1-64, with some readings checked by Chr. Hülsen; CIL XI, 1 (1888), 364a (F fragment); W. Hesky, WS 25, 1903, 272-87, 'Anmerkungen zur lex Acilia repetundarum'; S. Brassloff, WS 26, 1904, 106-17, 'Beiträge zur Erläuterung der lex Acilia repetundarum'; Chr. Hülsen (1905): see Th. Mommsen; E. Bormann, in Festschrift O. Hirschfeld (Berlin, 1905), 431-9, 'Zu römischen Urkunden der Zeit der Republik', at 432-4, on the F fragment. CIL I 2 (1918), 583, in all essential points reproducing the text in GS I; CIL XL Add. (1926), p. 1234; CIL I 2 (1931), pp. 723, 739; CIL I 2 (1943), p. 832; G. Tibiletti, Ath 31, 1953, 5-100, 'Le leggi de iudiciis repetundarum fino alla guerra sociale', esp. 21-31; H.B. Mattingly, JRS 59, 1969, 129-43, 'The two Republican laws of the Tabula Bembina'\ W. Eder, Das vorsullanische Repetundenverfahren (Munich, 1969), 120-231; C. Venturini, Studi sul crimen repetundarum nell'età repubblicana (Milan, 1979). CIL I 2 (1986), pp. 908-10; A.W. Lintott, Judicial Reform and Land Reform in the Roman Republic (Cambridge, 1992). Other Discussions Th. Mommsen, Zeitschrift für die Altertumswissenschaft (Marburg, 1843), 812-29 = GS IH (1907), 339-55, 'Ueber die leges iudiciariae des VU. Jahrhunderts bis zur lex Aurelia'; CT. Zumpt, De legibus iudieiisque repetundarum I (Berlin, 1845); L. Guenoun, in Études P.F. Girard (Paris, 1912), 85-97, 'La Lex Sempronia iudiciaria'; E.G. Hardy, JP 32, 1913, 96-106, 'Notes on the Lex Judiciaria of G. Gracchus, the Lex Servilia of Caepio and the Lex Thoria'; A. Rosenberg, Hermes 55, 1920, 337-63, 'Die Entstehung des sogenannten Foedus Cassianum und des Lateinischen Rechts', at 346-9; W. Bannier, Phil. 83, 1928, 443-8, 'Zur lex Acilia repetundarum'; M.A. Levi, RFIC51, 1929, 383-7, 'A proposito della lex repetundarum delle Tavole di Bembo'. W.W. Buckland, JRS 27, 1937, 37-47, 'Civil proceedings against ex-magistrates in the Republic'; J.P.V.D. Baisdon, PBSR 14, 1938, 98-114, 'The history of the extortion court

39

40

ROMAN STATUTES

at Rome 123-70 B C ; A.N. Sherwin White, PBSR 17, 1949, 5-25, 'Poena legis repetundarum'; M.I. Henderson, JRS 41, 1951, 71-88, The process de repetundis'; A.N. Sherwin White, JRS 42, 1952, 43-55, 'The extortion procedure again'; E. Badian, AJP 75, 1954, 374-84, 'Lex Acilia repetundarum'; F. Serrao, in Studi in onore di Pietro di Francisci II (Milan, 1954), 473-511 = Classi, partite e leggi nella repubblica romana (Pisa, 1974), 233-75, 'Appunti sui patroni nei processi repetundarum'; A.H.M. Jones, PCPhS, n.s., 6, 1960, 39-42, 'De legibus Iunia et Acilia repetundarum'. W. Kunkel, Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung des römischen Kriminalverfahrens in vorsullanischer Zeit (Abh.Bay.Akad.Wiss., phil-hist.KL, n.f. 56, Munich, 1962); B. Schmidlin, Das Rekuperatorenverfahren (Freiburg, 1963); W. Kunkel, RE XXIV (1963), 720-86 = Kleine Schriften (Weimar, 1974), 33-110, 'Quaestio', at 736-7 = 51-2; A.R. Hands. Latomus 24, 1965, 225-37, 'The political background of the "lex Acilia de repetundis'"; Cl. Nicolet, L'Ordre équestre I (Paris, 1966), 467-515; D. Liebs, ZSS 84, 1967, 104-32, 'Die Herkunft der "Regel" bis de eadem re ne sit actio'; B. Levick, CR, n.s. 17, 1967,256-8, 'Acerbissima Lex Servilia'. H.B. Mattingly, JRS 60, 1970, 154-68, 'The extortion law of the Tabula Bembina'; A.N. Sherwin White, JRS 62, 1972, 83-99, 'The date of the lex repetundarum and its consequences'; M.T. Griffin, CQ 23, 1973, 108-26, 'The "leges iudiciariae" of the preSullan era'; Cl. Nicolet, in ANRW I, 2 (1974), 197-214, 'Les lois judiciaires et les tribunaux de concussion'; E. Badian, AJP 96, 1975, 67-75, 'Manius Acilius Glabrio and the audacissimi'; H.B. Mattingly, CQ 25, 1975, 255-63, 'The extortion law of Servilius Glaucia'; H.B. Mattingly, Latomus 34, 1975, 726-8, 'The jury-panel of the Lex repetundarum'; A.W. Lintott, ZPE 22, 1976, 207-14, 'The procedure under the Leges Calpurnia and Iunia de repetundis and the actio per sponsionem'\ H.D. Meyer, ZSS 95, 1978, 138-57, 'Die Strafklagekonsumption beim Repetundendelikt und die Rechtsregel "bis de eadem re ne sit actio'"; H.B. Mattingly, Hermes 107, 1979, 478-88, 'The character of the Lex Acilia Glabrionis'; H.D. Meyer, Studien zur antiken Sozialgeschichte. Festschrift F. Vittinghoff (Cologne and Vienna, 1980), 145-56, 'Der civis Romanus als Kläger im Repetundenprozess'; A.W. Lintott, ZSS 98, 1981, 162-212, 'The leges de repetundis and associate measures under the Republic'. A.N. Sherwin White, JRS 72, 1982, 18-31, 'The political ideas of C. Gracchus'; M.C. Alexander, Class.Ant. 1, 1982, 141-66, 'Repetition of prosecution, and the scope of prosecutions, in the standing criminal courts of the Late Republic'; J.-L. Ferrary, Labeo 29, 1983, 1, 70-77, 'Sulla legislazione "de repetundis'"; M.C. Alexander, CP 80, 1985, 20-32, Traemia in the quaestiones of the Late Republic' ; J.S. Richardson, JRS 11, 1987, 1-12, 'The Purpose of the Lex Calpurnia de repetundis'; H.B. Mattingly, Phil 131, 1987, 71-81, 'A new look at the lex repetundarum Bembina'; B. Rankov, in Homo Viator. Classical Essays for John Bramble (Bristol & Oak Park, 1987), 89-94, 'M. Iunius Congus the Gracchan'; D. Mantovani, // problema d'origine dell'accusa popolare (Padua, 1989); C. Venturini, Labeo 39, 1993, 95-111 (review of Mantovani). Facsimiles: Ritschi, XXI-XXV. Photographs: see below. Translations: Hardy, IMWS, 1-34; ARS, 38-46; Lintott (1992). Twelve fragments of a bronze tablet, on the other side of which is inscribed the Lex agraria, Law 2, see below: eleven discovered in the late fifteenth or early sixteenth century, which passed from the possession of the Dukes of Urbino to Pietro Bembo, now partly in the Museo Nazionale di Napoli, partly in the Kunsthistorisches Museum,

1 - 2 LEX REPETVNDARVM, LEX AGRARIA

41

Vienna, partly lost; one discovered in the nineteenth century, according to Gamurrini, either at Verucchio (near Ariminum) or at Fossombrone (Forum Sempronii), now in the Museo Nazionale di Napoli. For a full account of their history, see M.H. Crawford, 'Tabula legum Bembina' (forthcoming); we here record only the evidence relevant to a reconstruction of the text: Aa, Museo Nazionale di Napoli, Inv. 2636, 0.263 m high x 0.355 m wide, Imagines, 384c. Ab, lost, attested by J. Mazochi, Epigrammata Antiquae Urbis (Rome, 1521), f. CLXXXr (whence all other early texts (see below): C. Sigonio, De antiquo iure populi Romani (Bologna, 1574), De iudiciis, II, eh. 27; Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Vat.Lat. 6531, f. 179r (G.V. Pinelli); Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS Dupuy 461, f. 69 (copy made for Claude Dupuy); Orsini, no. XI). Ba+b+c, Museo Nazionale di Napoli, Inv. 2636, 0.50 m high x 0.66 m wide, Imagines, 384a-b. C, Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Inv. m. 172 (R. Noli, Griechische und lateinische Inschriften der Wiener Antikensammlung (Vienna, 1986), no. 421), 0.178 m high x 0.18 m wide, Simulacra, 7, Imagines, 384e, Lintott, pi. 1. Bronze replica, Museo Nazionale di Napoli, Inv. 4611 ([G. Fiorelli,] Catalogo del Museo Nazionale di Napoli. Raccolta Epigraphica. IL Iscrizioni latine (Naples, 1868), p. 204, no. 2054), Lintott, pi. 2 (photograph). Da+b+c, Museo Nazionale di Napoli, Inv. 2636, 0.325 m high x 0.481 m wide, Imagines, 384d. Db appears to be composed of two pieces, joined by a lead solder. Db + c were published by S.V. Pighius, Annales Romanorum (Antwerp, 1615), 137-8. Dd, Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Inv. m. 173 (R. Noll, no. 422), 0.113 m high x 0.128 m wide, Simulacra, 9, Imagines, 384f. E, lost, attested by Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Vat.Lat. 6531, f. 175 = 254r (JJ. Scaliger); Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS Dupuy, 461, ff. 89—89bis (majuscule copy made for Claude Dupuy); Vat.Lat. 6040, ff. 36v-37r (P. Chacon) (whence Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, MS CLM 743, f. 11 l v (copy made for P. Vettori); Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale, Fondo Magliabecchiano, MS ELx.70, p. 1 (copy made for V. Borghini); Orsini, no. XIV); Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS Lat. 8958, f. 167v (N. Fabri de Peiresc, from the lead replica of Henri de Mesmes). See also below. F, Museo Nazionale di Napoli, Inv. 112521, 0.052 m high x .0.037 m wide, R. Garrucci, Sylloge inscriptionum Latinarum aevi Romanae reipublicae (Turin, 1875), no. 2311 (facsimile), whence E. Bormann, CIL XI, 364a, Lintott, pi. 10 (photograph). The Guida of the Museo Nazionale di Napoli of 1908, talking of the Tabula Bembina, says 'sette frammenti di una tavola di bronzo opistografa riuniti in tre pezzi distinti e separati ... Il Garrucci donò al Museo nel 1882 un piccolo frammento opistografo (n.inv. 112521) spettante a queste due leggi.' The texts in the corpus of Martin de S met derive from Orsini. The facsimiles in Ritschl cannot be treated like photographs, as evidence for the text independent of the scholars who actually prepared them. The bronze is 0.004 m thick; the letters in 1. 1 are 0.010 m, in 11. 2-90, 0.005-0.006 m. There is one nail-hole near the top of B; but the marks on the top edge of B suggest that the weight was borne at one stage in antiquity by metal brackets which fixed the bronze to a wall on all sides. (When the fragments were seen by Göttling, they were in wooden frames, presumably those attested in the will of Orsini: the marks on the top edge of B are unlikely to be modern.)

42

ROMAN STATUTES

Careful inspection of the bronze as it is now reveals that there are a number of small slivers near the edges which are close to detaching themselves; it cannot be excluded that some slivers have been lost since the sixteenth century. The Lex repetundarum is provided with rubrics, on which see below. There are apparently random gaps in 11. 22, 74, 78 and 79; and a gap between two sentences in 1. 72. Lex agraria Editions and Discussions of the Reconstitution of the Text F. Orsini, in A. Agustin, De Legibus et Senatus Consultis (Rome, 1583), 'Leges et Senatusconsulta quae in ueteribus cum ex lapide tum ex aere mònumentis reperiuntur' ; F. Blume (1821): see A.F. Rudorff; C.A.C. Klenze (1821): see A.F. Rudorff; A.F. Rudorff, Zeitschr.f. geschichtliche Rechtswissenschaft 10, 1839, 1-194, 'Das Ackergesetz des Spurius Thorius', using copies made in 1821 by Blume in Naples and Klenze in Vienna, with figure; Ph.E. Huschke, Kritische Jahrbücher für deutsche Rechtswissenschaft 5, 1841, 579-620 (review of Rudorff); C.W. Göttling, Fünfzehn römische Urkunden auf Erz und Stein nach den Originalen neu verglichen und herausgegeben (Halle, 1845), 30—5. Th. Mommsen, CIL I 1 (1863), 200, heavily revised in GS I (1905), 65-145, with some readings checked by Chr. Hülsen; CIL XI, 1 (1888), 364a (F fragment); Chr. Hülsen (1905): see Th. Mommsen. CIL I 2 (1918), 585, in all essentials reproducing the text in GS I; CIL XI Add. (1926), p. 1234; Ch. Saumagne, Rev.Phil. 53, 1927, 50-80, 'Sur la loi agraire de 111'. CIL I 2 (1931), pp. 723, 739; CIL I 2 (1943), p. 832; F.-T. Hinrichs, ZSS 83, 1966, 252-307, 'Die lex agraria des Jahres 111 v.Chr.'; H.B. Mattingly, JRS 59, 1969, 129-43, 'The two Republican laws of the Tabula Bembina'\ K. Johannsen, Die lex agraria des Jahres 111 v.Chr. (Diss.Munich, 1971); A.W. Lintott, CR n.s. 25, 1975, 98-101 (review of Johannsen). CIL I 2 (1986), pp. 910-12; A.W. Lintott, Judicial Reform and Land Reform in the Roman Republic (Cambridge, 1992). Other Discussions A.W. Zumpt, Commentationes Epigraphicae I (Berlin, 1850); M. Weber, Die römische Agrargeschichte (Stuttgart, 1891); F. Kniep, Societas Publicanorum (Jena, 1896); R. Maschke, Zur Theorie und Geschichte der römischen Agrargesetze (Tübingen, 1906); E.G. Hardy, JP 31, 1910, 268-86, 'Were the Lex Thoria of 118 BC and the Lex Agraria of 111 BC reactionary laws?' = Hardy, Laws, 35-55, 'The lex agraria'; id., JP 32, 1913, 96-106, 'Notes on the Lex Judiciaria of G. Gracchus, the Lex Servilia of Caepio and the Lex Thoria', at 104-6; G. Cardinali, Studi graccani (Genoa, 1912); F.C. Thompson, CR 27, 1913, 23-4, 'The agrarian legislation of Spurius Thorius'; M.O.B. Caspari, Klio 13, 1913, 184-98, 'On some problems of Roman agrarian history'. J. Carcopino, Autour des Gracques (Paris, 1928; 2nd ed., 1967); M.A. Levi, RFIC 57, 1929, 231-40 = // tribunato della plebe (Milan, 1978), 45-51, 'Intorno alla legge agraria del 111 a . C ; A. Piganiol, Annales 1, 1929, 382-9 = Scripta Varia II (Collection Latomus 132, Brussels, 1973), 330-41, 'L'Oeuvre des Gracques'; J.A.O. Larsen, CP 25, 1930, 279, 'Sortito and sorti in CIL I, 200'. L. Zancan, Ager Publicus (Padua, 1935); F. Bozza, La 'possessio' dell' ager publicus (Naples, 1938); J. Gòhler, Rom und Italien (Breslau, 1939); M. Käser, ZSS 62, 1941,

1 - 2 LEX REPETVNDARVM, LEX AGRARIA

43

1-81, 'Die Typen des römischen Bodenrechts'; G. Tibiletti, Ath 38, 1950, 183-266, 'Ricerche di storia agraria romana'; A. Burdese, Studi sull'agerpublicus (Turin, 1952). F. Serrao, La 'iurisdictio' del pretore peregrino (Milan, 1954), 57-74; A. Caillemer & R. Chevallier, Annales 9, 1954, 433-60, 'Les centuriations de l'Africa Vêtus'; A.E. Douglas, AJP 77, 1956, 376-95, 'The Legislation of Spurius Thorius'; id., AJP 78, 1957, 89, 'The Legislation of Sp. Thorius. Corrigenda'; R. Chevallier, MEFR 70, 1958, 61-128, 'Essai de chronologie des centuriations romaines de Tunisie'. E. Badian, Studi in onore di Biondo Biondi I (Milan, 1963), 187-96 = Studies in Greek and Roman History (Oxford, 1964), 235-42, 'The lex Thoria. A reconsideration'; H.B. Mattingly, Latomus 30, 1971, 281-93, 'The agrarian law of the tabula Bembina'; E. Badian, ANRWl, 1 (1972), 668-731, 'Tiberius Gracchus and the Roman Revolution'; J. Molthagen, Historia 22, 1973, 423-58, 'Die Durchführung der gracchischen Agrarreform' (survey); D. Flach, HZ 217, 1973, 265-95, 'Die Ackergesetzgebung im Zeitalter der römischen Revolution'; K. Meister, Hist 23, 1974, 86-97, 'Die Aufhebung der gracchischen Agrarreform'; M. Pani, Ann.Fac.Lett.Fil.Bari 19-20, 1976-7, 131-46, Totere di iudicatio e lavori della commissione agraria graccana dal 129 al 121 a . C ; D.L. Stockton, The Gracchi (Oxford, 1979); R. Develin, Antichthon 12, 1978, 45-50, 'The Lex agraria of 111 BC and procedure in legislative assemblies' (claiming that the statute was passed in the comitia centuriata); id., Antichthon 13, 1979, 48-55, 'The dismantling of the Gracchan agrarian programme'; R. Bauman, Historia 28, 1979, 385-408, 'The Gracchan land-commission: four questions'; CI. Nicolet, Annales 35,1980, 871-94 = id., in Tra Grecia e Roma (Rome, 1980), 93-110 (somewhat abbreviated), 'Économie, société et institutions au Hé siècle av.J.-C: de la Lex Claudia à Yager exceptus'; M. Lemosse, in Hommage R. Besnier (Paris, 1980), 119-25 = Études romanistiques (Clermont-Ferrand, 1991), 99-105, 'Observations sur l'acquisition originaire de la propriété foncière romaine'. J.S. Richardson, JRS 70, 1980, 1-11, 'The ownership of Italian land. Tiberius Gracchus and the Italians'; W. de Neeve, Colonus (Amsterdam, 1984); K. Bringmann, Die Agrarreform des Tiberius Gracchus. Legende und Wirklichkeit (Stuttgart, 1985); F. de Martino, Nuovi studi di economia e diritto romano (Rome, 1988), 163-87, 'Gromatici e questione graccane'; A.W. Lintott, RHD 68, 1990, 1-11, 'Le procès devant les recuperatores d'après les données épigraphiques jusqu'au règne d'Auguste'; J. Bleicken, in Memoria rerum Veterum. Festschrift für C.J. Classen (Stuttgart, 1990), 101-31, 'Tiberius Gracchus und die italischen Bundesgenossen'; J.A. North, in Apodosis. Essays Presented to Dr W.W. Cruickshank to Mark His Eightieth Birthday (London, 1992), 75-83, 'Deconstructing stone theatres'. Facsimiles: Ritschl, XXII, XXVI-XXVIII. Photographs: Johannsen; see also below. English translations: Hardy, Laws, 35-90; ARS, 50-7; Lintott (1992). Twelve fragments of a bronze tablet, on the other side of which is inscribed the Lex repetundarum, Law 1, see above for details; we here record only the evidence relevant to a reconstruction of the text: Aa, Museo Nazionale di Napoli, inv. 2636, 0.263 m high x 0.355 m wide, Imagines 385c. Ab, lost, attested by J. Mazochi, Epigrammata Antiquae Urbis (Rome, 1521), f. CLXXXV (whence all other early texts (see below): C. Sigonio, De antiquo iure populi Romani (Bologna, 1574), De antiquo iure Italiae, II, eh. 2; Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Vat.Lat. 6531, f. 18 l r (G.V. Pinelli); Vat.Lat. 6037, f. 54r (P. Chacón)

44

ROMAN STATUTES

(whence Orsini, no. IV); Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS Dupuy 461, f. 68 (copy made for Claude Dupuy)). Ba+b+c, Museo Nazionale di Napoli, inv. 2636, 0.50 m high x 0.66 m wide, Imagines 385a-b. C, Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, inv. m. 172 (R. Noli, Griechische und lateinische Inschriften der Wiener Antikensammlung (Vienna, 1986), no. 422), 0.178 m high x 0.18 m wide, Simulacra, 8; Imagines, 385e. Bronze replica, Museo Nazionale di Napoli, inv. 4611 ([G. Fiorelli,] Catalogo del Museo Nazionale di Napoli. Iscrizioni latine (Naples, 1868), p. 204, no. 2054). Da+b+c, Museo Nazionale di Napoli, inv. 2636, 0.325 m high x 0.481 m wide, Imagines, 385d. Db appears to be composed of two pieces, joined by a lead solder. Db + c were published by S.V. Pighius, Annales Romanorum (Antwerp, 1615), 137. Dd, Vienna, Kunsthistoriches Museum, inv. EI. 173 (R. Noll, no. 422), 0.113 m high x 0.128 m wide, Simulacra, 10; Imagines, 385f. E, lost, attested by Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Vat.Lat. 6531, f. 176 = 249r (JJ. Scaliger); Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS Dupuy 461, f. 88 (minuscule copy made for Claude Dupuy); Vat.Lat. 6040, f. 36 r_v (P. Chacon) (whence Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, MS CLM 74?, f. 178r (copy made for P. Vettori; Orsini, no. Vu); Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS Lat. 8958, ff. 168r, 178r (N. Fabri de Peiresc, from the lead replica of Henri de Mesmes). See also below. F, Museo Nazionale di Napoli, inv. 112521, 0.052 m high x 0.037 m wide, Garrucci, Sylloge inscriptionum Latinarum aevi Romanae reipublicae (Turin, 1875), no. 2311 (facsimile), whence E. Bormann, CIL XI, 364a, Lintott, pi. 10 (photograph). The Guida of the Museo Nazionale di Napoli of 1908, talking of the Tabula Bembina, says 'sette frammenti di una tavola di bronzo opistografa riuniti in tre pezzi distinti e separati ... Il Garrucci donò al Museo nel 1882 un piccolo frammento opistografo (n.inv. 112521) spettante a queste due leggi/ The texts in the corpus of Martin de Smet derive from Orsini. The facsimiles in Ritschl cannot be treated like photographs, as evidence for the text independent of the scholars who actually prepared them. The bronze is 0.004 m thick; the letters in 1. 1 are 0.008 m, in 11. 2-13, 0.0055 m, in 11. 14-105, 0.0045 m. There is one nail-hole near the top of B; but the marks on the top edge of B suggest that the weight was borne at one stage in antiquity by metal brackets which fixed the bronze to a wall on all sides. (When the fragments were seen by Gòttling, they were in wooden frames, presumably those attested in the will of Orsini: the marks on the top edge of B are unlikely to be modern.) Careful inspection of the bronze as it is now reveals that there are a number of small slivers near the edges which are close to detaching themselves; it cannot be excluded that some slivers have been lost since the sixteenth century. By contrast with the face carrying the Lex repetundarum, Law 1, the face with the Lex agraria is in places rough; in addition, the letters are small, the lines close together, abbreviations erratic. It is not the case, as asserted by Rudorff without seeing the bronze, that the backs of the letters on the Lex repetundarum face are visible on the Lex agraria face. A new clause is indicated by a vacat with interpuncts down to 1. 28. There is a random gap in 1. 6.

1 - 2 LEX REPETVNDARVM, LEX AGRARIA

45

The Reconstruction of the Tabula Bembina Citation of either of the statutes of the Tabula Bembina is inevitably hazardous without an understanding of the limits within which the texts can be known; we have tried to make the following discussion as accessible as possible; but the difficulty of the subject matter cannot be disguised; and attention is necessary. Above all, it is important to have the whole of both texts in mind at every stage: it is rarely possible to suggest a change in one place without its having an impact elsewhere (see Figs. I-II). Of the various fragments, two do not survive: the bottom half of A, known as Ab, and E. A, however, was copied as two physically joining pieces in the sixteenth century and the association of Aa and Ab is certain. Ba, Bb and Be form three physically joining pieces in Naples. Da, Db and Dc form three physically joining pieces in Naples; Dd has not been in the same place as Da, Db and Dc since the sixteenth century, when the join was not noticed; but it can be documented from photographs and is certain. It was first noticed by Klenze, with whom modern study of the Tabula Bembina begins. Between C and E, 7 lines on the Lex repetundarum side, 9 lines on the Lex agraria side, run on without a break; it is not possible to make the join, but it has not been doubted since Klenze. Ba + Bb preserve a top edge; C, viewed from the Lex repetundarum side, preserves a left-hand edge, from the Lex agraria side, a right-hand edge. Although E does not survive, we know what shape it was, since N. Fabri de Peiresc (hereafter Peiresc) drew the outline from the lead replica in the possession of Henri de Mesmes. The appropriate edge fits the outline of C perfectly; it is therefore possible to locate E in relation to one side of the bronze. Mommsen placed the bottom of B some 40 letter spaces to the right of D and the two fragments are separated even further by Lintott; but in 1969 Mattingly argued for a 'nearjoin' and we now know that the very bottom of B actually joins the very top of D in 11. 53-4 (see PI. I, 1; Figs. IE, 1; IV, 2). The two fragments therefore form a column which must be located in relation to one or both sides of the bronze. The argument falls into two parts: (1) the relationship between C + E and B + D; (2) the relationship between B + D and A. Two preliminary stages were established by Mommsen: that there are continuities of sense on both the Lex repetundarum side and the Lex agraria side from A to B and back to A and so on, such that it is possible to ascertain the vertical location of A in relation to B; and that A, viewed from the Lex repetundarum side, lies to the left of B, from the Lex agraria side, to the right of B. (1) There are very close continuities of sense from E to D on the Lex repetundarum side, from D to E on the Lex agraria side. Thus, on the Lex repetundarum side, between 11. 55 and 70, on the Lex agraria side, between 11. 64 and 87, only very short supplements are needed. It has not been doubted since Klenze that D can be located close to E. (2) For the next step, let us consider in the first instance the Lex repetundarum side. In 1. 68, there are 144 letters between the left-hand edge of the bronze and the O of in diebus u proximis on D; the O in turn lies underneath the M of iudicium in 1. 53, which is partly above and partly below the join between B and D; this M in turn lies underneath the M of actum siet in 1. 23 on B, at the widest point of the fragment. Since there are 30 letters between the left-hand edge of B and the M of actum siet, there are some 114 letters for the gap between the left-hand edge of the bronze and A, the Afragmentitself, and the gap between A and B, or perhaps somewhat less, given the fact that there is some tendency towards crowding in the lower third of the Lex repetundarum. In 1. 23, A has 61 letters; there will therefore be a maximum of 53 letters left for the gaps between the left-hand

46

ROMAN STATUTES

edge of the bronze and A and between A and B. In fact, there will be fewer, given the wider spacing of 1. 23 as against 1. 68. The nub of the question is whether, assuming a rectangular tablet, it is possible to suggest supplements for the gap between A and B which respect this constraint; and whether it is possible to suggest supplements for the gap between the right-hand edge of B and the left-hand edge of A on the next line which are consistent with the supplements for the gap between A and B. For we shall see in a moment that choices for one gap imply choices for the other. If we fail, we shall be forced to abandon the belief that D can be located close to E. Our calculations must take account of two factors. First, there is considerable variability from one line to another in the number of letters occupying the same space, variability which is only partly to be explained by the different space occupied by different letters. Thus 1. 24 on B occupies a slightly shorter space than 1. 23, but has 130 letters as against 121. A more dramatic case is that of 11. 17-18 = A, 11. 13-14, where A, 1. 14, is five letter spaces wider than A, 1. 13, yet contains 66 letters as opposed to 51, a difference of 20 %; or 11. 22-3 = A, 11. 18-19, where A, 1. 19, is one letter space narrower than A, 1. 18, yet contains 61 letters as opposed to 78, a difference of 25 %. It is optimistic to expect to be able to calculate with precision the number of letters in a lacuna even of about 50 letters, though there will obviously be an outside limit. (The fallibility of modern attempts to estimate the lengths of lacunae by drawing the letters in them emerges from Lintott's drawing of the lost E fragment: the result is a break that is both so jagged as to be inconceivable and incompatible with the outline of the E fragment known from the drawing of Peiresc.) Second, on C, and presumably elsewhere, every line begins with the beginning of a word; some lines may therefore have had substantial spaces at the end, if the next word happened just not to fit into them. Let us take the example of 1. 23. We have seen that the relationship of E to D suggests that at this point the gaps between the left-hand edge of the bronze and A and between A and B amount to an absolute maximum of 53 letters. A perfectly acceptable supplement for the A-B gap in 1. 23 is neiue eum [quei condemnatus siet, quod cum eo lege Calpu\rnia, 37 letters; and we assign 6 letters to the gap between the left-hand edge of the bronze and A. In fact, the edges of A and B are roughly parallel to each other over the whole of 11. 19-35, moving apart in 11. 36-42; our supplements for 11. 19-35, where we offer them, range between 30 (or 26 + vacai) and 42 letters. How does the A-B gap here relate to the A-B gap higher up, where we should expect it to be wider, given the shape of A? It is necessary to look at the parallel clauses, 11. 12-15 and 15-18, on the choice and publication of jurors for the current year and for future years. We print them in parallel to show where certainties and uncertainties lie and where the supplements for the gap between A and B affect also those between B and A. We print the clauses also: without resolving abbreviations; using — to indicate gaps whose supplements are insecure; indicating edges of fragments, above and below lines; indicating line numbers. For the purposes of this argument the placing of the beginnings of lines is unimportant. Note that very slight differences between the clauses do not affect the calculations.

1 - 2 LEX REPETVNDARVM, LEX AGRARIA

1. 12 1. 15

B de cdl uireis in hunc an]num legundis vv de cdl uireis quot annis [legundis. vacat B

pr., quei inter peregrinos ious deicet, is in diebus x proxum., pr., — — is in diebus x proxum., quibus h.l. populus plebesue iouserit, facito utei cdl uiros quibus (1. 16) quis]que eorum eum mag. coiperit, facito utei cdl uiros A B legat, quei in hac ceiuit[ate —, dum ne quem eorum ita legat, quei ha[c ceiuitate —, d]um ne quem eorum A B legat, quei tr.pl., q., iiiuir cap., tr.mil. 1. iiii primis legat, quei tr.pl., q., iiiuir cap., tr.mil. 1. iiii primis A aliqua earum, (1. 13) iii ui]rum a.d.a. siet fueritue, queiue in senatu aliqua earum, trium uir(um) a.d.a. siet fueritue, queiue in senatu A siet fueri{n}t(u)e, quei[ue mercedem ceperit quaestioneue siet fueritue, queiue merc[edem ceperit quaestioneue B B ioudicioque puplico conde]mnatus siet quod circa eum ioudicioque puplico condemnatus siet quod circa eum in senatum legei non liceat, queiue minor anneis xxx maiorue in senatum legei non liceat, queiue minor anneis xxx (1. 17) maior B annos lx gnatus siet, queiue in urbem Romam propiusue u[rbem a]nnos lx gnatus siet queiue in urbe Romae propiusue urbem A Romam p.m. domicilium non habeat, queiue eorum quoius mag., Roma[m p.m. domicilium non habeat, queiue eorum quoius mag.,] A queiue eius, quei in senatu siet fueritue, pater frater filiusue siet, queiue eius, quei in senatu siet fueritue, pater frater filiusue siet, B

47

48

ROMAN STATUTES

A queiue trans (1. 14) mar]e erit; quos legerit, eos patrem trib{un}um cognomenque queiue trans mare erit; quos legerit, eos patrem tribum cognomenque A B ioudice(s) q[uei ex h.l. in hunc annum sient — quei ex] h.l. cdl ioudices quei ex h.l. in eu[m annum sient — quei ex h.l. cdl B uirei{s} in eum annum lectei erunt, ea nomina omnia in tabula uirei in eum annum lectei erunt, ea nomina omnia in tabula in albo, atramento script(o)s, patrem tribum cognomenque in albo, atramento scriptos, (1. 18) patr]em tribu(m) cognomenque A B tributimque d(i)scriptos hab[eto, eosque propositos suo tributimque discriptos habeto, eosque propositos suo magistrata — habeto potestatemque scribundi, quei uolet, facito. ma[gistratu — habeto pò testate] mque scribundi, quei uolet, facito. A B A pr., quei legerit, is eos (1. 15) quos e]x h.l. cdl uiros legerit, pr., quei legerit, is eos quos ex h.l. c[dl u]iros legeri{n}t, A facito recitentur in contione, iuratoque sese [eos ex h.l. facito in con [[e]] ti one recite(n)tur, iouratoque sese eos ex h.l. B legise, de quibus sibei consultum utei idonei sient io]udices legise, de quibus sibei consu[ltum utei idonei sient ioudices B exaestumauerit esse, eosque cdl uiros, quos ex h.l. legerit, exaestumauerit esse, eosque cdl uiros, quos ex h.l. legerit, is pr. omnis in taboleis puplicis scriptos in perpetuo habeto. is pr. omnis in taboleis puplicis scriptos in perpetuo habeto.]

1 - 2 LEX REPETVNDARVM, LEX AGRARIA

49

In 11. 12-18 also, the figures for supplements for the A-B gap, indicated in the text printed below, are well within the range to be expected, given the relevant factors already mentioned making for variability: 50 + vacat, 52, ???, 52, ???, 42, ?38?. If we turn to the B-A gap, the figures are once more well within an acceptable distance from each other. We may provisionally conclude that at the level of 1. 23 the Lex repetundarum was about [6] + 61 (A) + [37] + 121 (B) + [115] letters wide, say 340 letters in all. We may observe at this point that a gap of some 115 letters between B and the righthand edge of the Lex repetundarum is the equivalent of some 125-130 normal letters between the left-hand edge of the Lex agraria and B. Both are the equivalent of about 55 cm, which is sufficient to accommodate about 90 missing letters of the prescript of the Lex agraria. Two problems remain. (1) It has been assumed since Mommsen that the beginning of the first line of the Lex repetundarum must have contained a normal prescript, such as we find in a number of statutes: see the General Introduction, Ch. XI. There is certainly not space for such, as well as the beginning of the first clause, in the gap between the left-hand edge of the tablet and B, as we have placed it. But two factors need to be borne in mind. Since almost every clause of which the beginning is preserved has a rubric, it is natural to suppose that thefirstclause did so also. It is unlikely to have been short and poses problems for the traditional reconstruction of the tablet and its variants. But there is a much more important point. We are in a much better position than Mommsen to appreciate the unique and original nature of the Lex repetundarum. No other inscribed statute, until we come to the municipal statutes of the Flavian age, has rubrics. What is more, it is unlikely that the rogatio, as read to the assembly, had rubrics, which would have interrupted the grammatical sequence. In other words, we are not dealing with a text which is simply that of a rogatio converted to that of a lex in the way described in the General Introduction, Ch. IX, but with a specially edited text for a so far unique form of publication. At this point, all bets are on. But the most plausible hypothesis must be that the beginning of the first line of the Lex repetundarum consisted not of a prescript, but of an informative title and the rubric of the first clause. To describe a statute as, for instance, the Lex ??? de pecuniis repetundis, is a perfectly good way of indicating the authority of the text, as centuries of Roman juristic writing show. (It is of course possible, if unprovable and unlikely, that there was a prescript on a separate strip of bronze placed above the tablet.) (2) There remains the problem of the Lex agraria, 11. 15-18, to which we now turn. Mommsen, but not his predecessors, argued that these Unes contained two clauses, each introduced by the same description of ager publicus populei Romanei. If this was so, a tablet wider than we have supposed would be necessary. There is certainly a vacat with interpuncts and a break in sense in 1. 16. But it is only an assumption that the second clause was introduced by the full description of ager publicus populei Romanei (see the discussion in the Commentary on 11. 15-18 and 16). A perfect sentence structure is achieved, if it is supposed that 11. 15-18 formed a single clause with two parts: the skeleton of the sentence would be: ager publicus p.R., quei... fuit, eius agri Hluir a.d.a. ... quoi celui Romano quod dedit ... (the magistrate concerned) ius deicito decernitoque utei etc.; quodque eius agri Hluir a.da. ... ueterem proue uetere possesionem dedit ... (the magistrate concerned) ius deicito decernitoque utei etc. Such a sentence fits perfectly a tablet such as we have supposed; and a vacat before [quodque eius agri Hluir a.d.a. ...] is perfectly intelligible.

ROMAN STATUTES

50

Lower down, the edges of B and A are roughly parallel to each other in 11. 21-40, moving apart in 11. 41-8; our supplements for.11. 21-40, where we offer them, range between 37 and 52 letters. Four final points. (1) The join postulated by Mommsen between the bottom of Ab and E is of course to be accepted (see Figs. IV, 1; V, 1). (2) With Lintott, we accept Mattingly's placing of F. (3) At 11. 10-26 on the Lex repetundarum side, our reconstruction places A very close to the left-hand side of the tablet; and at 11. 52-64 on the Lex repetundarum side, any reconstruction places E very close to the left-hand side of the tablet. Our supplements on the Lex agraria side in 11. 11-30 and 60-75 accord approximately with the space available, bearing in mind the probability that every line ends with the end of a word. (4) We argue ad loc. that the clauses with overlapping content in 11. 72-86 form in fact, as Mommsen held, a segment of text which has been engraved twice. The figures indicated for each line in the text printed below show that this view is perfectly compatible with our view of the width of the tablet.

The overall width of the Lex repetundarum in the main body of the text, from 1. 2 onwards, is then of the order of c. 340 letters, though we should not be surprised at a variation of about 10% either way and we shall see in a moment that there may be more letters per line in the lower part of the tablet. The position over the Lex agraria is complicated. Its letters are often narrower and more crowded, but the engraving is not uniform: 1. 20 of the Lex repetundarum = 1. 23 of the Lex agraria On A, 62 letters of the Lex rep. = 76 letters of the Lex ag. On B, 126 letters of the Lex rep. = 146 letters of the Lex ag. 1. 21 of the Lex repetundarum = 1. 24 of the Lex agraria On A, 69 letters of the Lex rep. = 81 letters of the Lex ag. On B, 130 letters of the Lex rep. = 142 letters of the Lex ag. But: 1. 27 of the Lex repetundarum = 1. 32 of the Lex agraria On A, 58 letters of the Lex rep. = 59 letters of the Lex ag. On B, 99 letters of the Lex rep. = 101 letters of the Lex ag. 1. 28 of the Lex repetundarum = 1. 33 of the Lex agraria On A, 53 letters of the Lex rep. = 54 letters of the Lex ag. On B, ?90? letters of the Lex rep. = 92 letters of the Lex ag. And: 1. 69 of the Lex repetundarum = 1. 80 of the Lex agraria On D, 86 letters of the Lex rep. = 86 letters of the Lex ag. On C + E, 93 letters of the Lex rep. = 101 letters of the Lex ag. 1. 70 of the Lex repetundarum = 1. 81 of the Lex agraria On D, 92 letters of the Lex rep. = 92 letters of the Lex ag. On C + E, 97 letters of the Lex rep. = 101 letters of the Lex ag.

1 - 2 LEX REPETVNDARVM, LEX AGRARIA

51

In part, this reflects some crowding of the Lex repetundarum in the bottom third of the tablet, in part greater spacing of the Lex agraria; the former may have more than 340 letters per line towards the bottom, the latter may range either side of 380 letters per line for the tablet as a whole, with a tendency to fewer towards the bottom. The Lex repetundarum The provision of rubrics has also served to make the Lex repetundarum relatively comprehensible in modern times; and they provide a good summary of its content: ?Who may prosecute?; a trial shall not take place concerning these men, while they shall hold a magistracy or imperium; concerning the appointment of a patron; concerning the repudiation of a patron; concerning the selection of 450 men for the current year; concerning the selection of 450 men every year; concerning prosecution and the choosing of jurors; that the names should be held written down in the records; that the same men should be jurors of one matter to the end; ???; that the names should be written down; concerning the trial of a person who shall have died or shall have gone into exile; concerning the serving of notice; (conquaerere); concerning the serving of notice on witnesses; concerning records; (mora); that the praetor should question; that the jurors should swear before they take their seats; that no juror may argue; concerning postponement; ???; that the jurors should swear before they enter upon their deliberation; that the maximum fine may be imposed on a juror; how the jurors should enter upon their deliberation; how judgment should be delivered concerning the defendants; how opinions should be declared; concerning the acquittal of the defendant; concerning the condemnation of the defendant; (no further action); concerning the giving of guarantors or the seizure of goods; concerning the assessment of damages; concerning the payment of the money from the treasury; concerning the imposition of a distribution; concerning the observance of the distribution; that the remainder should be in the treasury; concerning the displaying of the distribution; the money shall belong to the people after five years; concerning the exaction of the money; that the money should be sealed in baskets; the quaestor is not to cause delay; that no-one may hinder the trial; (replacement of magistrate); concerning matters judged according to the Lex Calpurnia and the Lex Iunia; concerning collusion; concerning the granting of citizenship; concerning the granting of prouocatio and exemption; (enforcement); (rewards for citizens). The glaring absence is any clause dealing with the presentation of the cases for the prosecution and the defence: the rubric in 1. 38 does not look like the beginning of such a clause; and it is hard to see how such a clause can lurk in 11. 42-3. The principal argument, perhaps indeed the only one, for regarding our text as Gracchan, is that it prescribes equestrian juries for a quaestio de repetundis', and given the way in which the text is organised, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that equestrian juries are an innovation: the link with Appian, BC I, 92-3, is evident. (Plutarch, C.Gr. 5, 3, Comp. 2, 1, and Liv.Epit., 60, are not talking about our text.) On orthography, W. Weissbrodt, Specimen grammaticum (Diss. Münster, 1869), remains fundamental. It is also important to observe that enough of our text is preserved to make it extremely unlikely that three features known to have been innovations of the Lex Servilia Glauciae can have appeared in it: diuinatio\ comperendinatio; and the clause quo ea pecunia perueneril (see on the Tarentum Fragment, Law 8). We regard the attempts of Mattingly, most recently in 1987, to argue otherwise as involving an unacceptable cumulation of

52

ROMAN STATUTES

hypotheses. (We know too little about the evolution of quaestiones to base any argument on the conquaerere of 1. 31.) We also reject Mattingly's claim that 11. 85-90 of the Lex repetundarum are the same text as the Tarentum Fragment, 11. 2-16, quite apart from the rash rejection in CQ 25, 1975, 255-63, of the testimony of Cicero, Plane. 41: in our 1. 86, the only point at which an extended comparison can be made, there is presumably to be restored, from 1. 79, munerisque poplici in sua quoiusque ceiuitate; but the Tarentum Fragment, 1. 4, has [— mu]nerìsue esto atque aera militarìa stipendiaque; and the formula for describing children and grandchildren in our text, 11. 76-7, is completely different from that in the Tarentum Fragment, 1. 9. (Note that in the Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae, Law 7, like the Tarentum Fragment a text of the last years of the second century BC, the formula for describing senators is completely different from that in the Lex repetundarum.) E. Badian (1954), (1975), produced arguments, about which we are neutral, for regarding the proposer of our statute as Mn. Acilius Glabrio, father of the consul of 67 BC. For a Gracchan statute proposed by another, compare the Lex Rubria on the colony of Carthage. (If we accept that our text is Gracchan, the Lex Rubria of 1. 22 is likely to be that statute.) The surface of the side of the tablet on which the Lex agraria is inscribed, although in places good, is as a whole less well prepared than that on which the Lex repetundarum is inscribed. The orthodox view seems to us correct, namely that the bronze was re-used for the Lex agraria of 111 BC. (The nail-hole (see above) perhaps suggests that the tablet was in both its states nailed to a wall, as well as being held by brackets, rather than being fixed in a frame in which both sides were visible.) The history of the quaestio We cannot here do more than sketch the view of the development of the quaestio that underlies what we say about this and other statutes; it owes much to Kunkel and Mantovani. The first quaestio, that de pecuniis repetundis, was established by the Lex Calpurnia of 149 BC (Cicero, Brut. 106); it combined a private law procedure, the legis actio sacramento, adapted to allow for recovery by peregrines to whom the ius ciuile was not normally available (see Crawford, 'Sistema.provinciale', 99-103), with a procedure, namely condemnation or acquittal by a majority vote, drawn from the action for the benefit of thepopulus (see the General Introduction, pp. 21-2). Our statute combines this still largely private procedure (see Sherwin White (1952), 47-50) with a prominent role for a magistrate whose responsibility is quaerere (see below; and compare the Lex Osca Tabulae Bantinae, Law 13, 11. 13-14). Later statutes combine this procedure with yet another element of the action for the benefit of the populus, accusation by qui uolet. The role of the magistrate from 123 BC onwards in the view of the writer of these lines arises out of his historical powers of criminal jurisdiction. Leaving aside the mists of the early Republic, Rome in the 50s BC was a teeming city with an impoverished underclass. It is not credible that it managed without several homicides a day; nor is it credible that juries of senators, équités and tribuni aerarli solemnly sat in judgment on common murderers: rather, Roman magistrates with imperium simply executed those they regarded as guilty, as they had done for centuries, Ciceronian rhetoric and Gracchan legislation notwithstanding. (It may be that the mysterious quaestores parricida and the almost equally - if differently - mysterious Illviri capitales played a subsidiary role.) Magistrates might be deterred by the intervention of a magistrate with equal or greater power, or by that of a tribune (see, e.g., Plautus, Cure. 694-6), or by fear of eventual prosecution. There was no definition of lower-class citizens who could be summarily despatched; but

1-2 LEX REPETVNDARVM, LEX AGRARIA

53

the factors making for restraint mostly only operated in the case of those who were well­ born or well-connected: even the case of Damio in 58 BC was essentially political. Such a view avoids anything as abstract as a doctrine of manifest guilt, but still seems to explain Sallust, Cat. 52, 36: ... de confessis (the conspirators: this claim is of course tendentious), sicuti de manufestis rerum capitalium, more maiorum supplicium sumundum. The argument which Sallust attributes to Cato would lose all its force if the general practice to which it appeals were known not to exist. The claim of Polybius VI, 14, 6, that 'it is only the people who judge in capital cases' is perfectly compatible with a world in which magistrates with imperium summarily despatched those they regarded as guilty: only the people judged, but not everyone was judged. And any attempt to use jokes about ponces prosecuting slaves (Plautus, Pseud. 1232; the usages at Aul. 700 and True. 819 are metaphorical), to prove the universal criminal competence of the comitia centuriata, proves only the humourlessness of those" who make the attempt. (It may also be the case, as Kunkel held, that some crimes were followed by a private criminal prosecution, which resulted in a convicted party being handed over to the plaintiff (Livy XXIII, 14, 2-4; cf. Dion.Hal. X, 7).) The Lex agraria Note that in discussing the Lex agraria it is inappropriate to use the term occupatorius ager. it is not attested before Hyginus and there and elsewhere in the Agrimensores refers only to land which is arcifinalis (see also E. Heck, ZSS 84, 1967, 355-7, 'Occupatio'; and, at greater length, P. Botteri, Metodi e Ricerche, n.s. 10, 2, 1991, 81-90, 'Ager occupatorius: una definizione indefinita' = Cahiers du Centre G. Glotz 3, 1992, 45-55, 'La définition de Vager occupatorius'). The date of the statute The statute refers, 1. 95, to the future wine and oil harvest in what can only be the consular year 111 BC, P. Cornelio L. C[alpurnio\\ to the preceding censorship of L. Caecilius and Cn. Domitius in 115-114 BC, 11. 28, 86-9; to a consul of 113 BC, 1. 89; and to the consuls of 112 BC, 1. 29 (the supplement is unsure in 11. 54 and 63). The reference in 1. 95 simply dates the statute after the election of the consuls of 111 BC, which probably took place late in the previous year, as was customary before Sulla, and before the wine and oil harvest of their consulship. But in the use of the next Ides of March as a terminal date for law-suits, 11. 17-19, one would suppose that a reasonable interval would elapse before this date (the reference in 1. 70 to thefirstIdes of March after the new tax-assessment is less significant). The statute was probably passed some time between 15 March 111 BC and the harvests in the following autumn. The nature of the statute What we have of the statute falls into three sections, the first dealing with Italy, the second with Africa, the third with Greece. Very little remains of the third section, but enough to make it clear that its provisions are very different from those of the second section. The first and the second section both take the form of a sequence of substantive regulations, with intermittent provisions for jurisdiction. The first section is by far the most complex. (We regard the account in Appian of the history of Roman ager publicus

ROMAN STATUTES

54

in Italy as in essentials accurate; the origins of the institution are in any case not our concern here.) The content of the Italian section may be summarised as follows (the Roman distinction between ownership and possession is of course fundamental): Ager publicus populi Romani existing in Italy in 133 BC, but not public land excluded from division by C. Gracchus: (a) 11. 1-2 taken or kept up to a certain limit (presumably by a possessor), (b) 11. 2-3 granted or assigned by lot to a Roman citizen by a Illvir according to statute or plebiscite, within a particular (probably geographical) limit, (c) 11. 3-4 ??? or restored (probably to a possessor), ???, (d) 11. 4-5 . (e) 11. 5-6 granted or assigned by a Illvir, outside Rome, in an urbs, oppidum or ulcus, (f) 11. 6-7 including land, site or building, granted or assigned or left, or entered on maps or in records, by a Illvir, 11. 7-8 all such land, site or building is to be private; 11. 8-11 all such land is to be registered in the census; no-one is to do anything to infringe possession. 11. 11-12 11. 12-13

no-one is to do anything to infringe possession by uiasii and uicani of land granted or assigned or left; land of uiasii and uicani is not to be private.

Ager publicus populi Romani existing in Italy in 133 BC, but not public land excluded from division by C. Gracchus: 11. 13-14 insofar as remaining public land, if in the future possessed and held, up to 30 iugera, is to be private. 11. 14-15

pasture is to be free on ager compascuus up to a certain limit.

11. 15-16

jurisdiction is to be available, up to the Ides of March next following, in relation to land granted or assigned by lot to a Roman citizen by a Illvir according to statute or plebiscite (cf. 11. 2-3); jurisdiction is to be available to the men concerned, their heirs and eventual purchasers, up to the Ides of March next following, in relation to land granted or assigned or left by a Illvir as uetus possessio or pro uetere possessio (cf. 11. 3-4); and probably in relation to land otherwise granted or assigned or left (1. 16 at end,l. 17 at end; cf. 11. 4-7); there is to be restitution in case of ejection; there is to be no uectigal or scriptum on land made private now or in the future.

11. 16-18

11. 18-19 11. 19-20 11. 20-3 11. 23-5

11. 25-6 1. 26

land granted in exchange for land surrendered by a Roman, allied, or Latin uetus possessor or pro uetere possessor for an oppidum or colony is to be private; jurisdiction is to be available (perhaps up to the Ides of March next following) in relation to this land; and the magistrate is to protect the land which has been made public (in exchange). pasture is to be free on the land which has been made public up to a certain limit; movement and pasture on calles and uiae publicae is to be free;

1 - 2 LEX REPETVNDARVM, LEX AGRARIA 11. 27-8

1. 28

land which has been made private in exchange is to be private utei quoi optuma lege priuatus est; land which has been made public in exchange is to be as ager publicus populi Romani existing in Italy in 133 BC; existing leases pro patrito are to be undisturbed; Eviri are to see that roads are kept open.

I. 29 II. 29-31

existing rights of Latins and peregrines are to be undisturbed; jurisdiction is to be available for Latins and peregrines (?).

11. 31-2

existing rights of colonies etc. on ager in trientabuleis are to be undisturbed (?); existing rights of lessees are to be undisturbed (?); jurisdiction is to be available in general in the long term, in relation to land which has been made private or public.

11. 32-3 11. 33-6 11. 36-7 11. 37-9 11. 40-2

55

no-one (?) is to do anything to prevent publicani collecting scriptura or uectigal; jurisdiction is to be available and recuperatores are to be granted. there is to be exemption from swearing to and obedience to statutes which contradict this statute.

Note: (1) Our statute takes as its starting point ager publicus in the consulship of P. Mucius and L. Calpurnius, 133 BC, the year of the tribunate of Ti. Gracchus. It is interesting that as late as 60 BC the year of the tribunate of Ti. Gracchus was still a point of reference for ager publicus in Italy, in terms which echo those of our statute: liberabam agrum eum qui P. Mucio L. Calpurnio consulibus publicus fuisset (Cicero, ad Att. I, 19 = 19 SB, 4, with the important remarks of Hinrichs, 300 n. 118). (2) No continuous sense is possible in 11. 43-52; it is possible that 11. 43-4 use the jurisdiction provided in Italy to resolve cases pending elsewhere: see the Commentary. (3) There is no reason to hold with Lintott that a confusion over the distinction between public and private land, in the mind of recipients, lies behind the statute. (4) Even if it is the case that 11. 7-10 on the census do not exclude that Roman ager publicus may have been held by non-citizens, the preoccupation of most of the statute is with citizens. Contra Serrao, 70-2, the exceptions are marginal: 11. 20-3 refer to Roman ager publicus received in exchange for land already held by allies and Latins as well as Romans; 1. 29 perpetuates existing rights of Latins and peregrines, analogous to those of Romans; 1. 50 relates to Africa (it is probably wrong to restore Latins or peregrines in 1. 83). To adapt Cicero, the statute as a whole perseuerat in ciuibus.

* ** The content of the African section may be summarised as follows (we have sought to resolve the ambiguity of uenire, which may mean 'to be leased out' or 'to be sold'): 11. 52-6 I. 57 II. 57-8

A Ilvir is to organise declarations of land originally assigned lege Rubria\ there are to be negative consequences for non-declaration; there are to be provisions for exchange of land;

ROMAN STATUTES

56 11. 58-61 11. 61-2 11. 63-5 11. 65-6 I. 66 II. 66-7 11. 67-8 11. 68-70 11. 70-2 I. 73 II. 73-4 11. 74-7 11. 77-8 11. 78-82

1. 82 I. 83 II. 83-4 11. 85-9 I. 89 II. 89-90 I. 90 II. 90-1 11. 91-2 11. 92-3

a Ilvir is to produce a reckoning and enforce limits on size of allotments and number of colonists according to the Lex Rubria; there is to be a consequential adjudication to the colonists of allotments not previously sold by them; there is to be where appropriate confirmation for purchasers of allotments, except insofar as publicly leased out (by mistake); a Ilvir is to provide land in exchange for land publicly leased out over the head of its purchaser; the purchaser is to give for it one sestertius; it is to be ager priuatus uectigalisque, ita utei supra scriptum est\ a Ilvir is to provide land in exchange for land promised, but not actually assigned (?); a Ilvir is to grant and adjudge to a colonist or to his heir, if the land is currently subject to litigation (as implied by the word comperietur), as much land as shall be established as his; a Ilvir is to grant and adjudge to a purchaser of an allotment, or his guardian, procurator, or heir, as much land as he shall have judged not in fact to have belonged to the colonist; money (uectigal) is only to be paid from the Ides of March next following; there is to be security in cases of non-payment; the land in question is to be sold for ready cash in cases of (non­ payment and) non-provision of security; land is to be granted in exchange for land assigned to allies of Rome or deserters from Carthage, but which has become the land of a Roman citizen; a Ilvir is to implement grants of land to stipendiarii; apart from land granted according to the Lex Rubria (unless previously exchanged), land confirmed to allies of Rome, land granted to deserters from Carthage, land to be made private according to this statute (unless previously exchanged) (cf. 11. 58-70), land of stipendiarii, land granted to the sons of Massinissa, land where Carthage once stood, and land granted to Utica, all other land ? is to belong to the Roman people; • exemptions according to the Lex Sempronia are to be transferred in cases of exchange of land; others are to pay as if Roman citizens for land publicly leased out; a praetor is to see to security being given; the arrangements of the censors L. Caecilius and Cn. Domitius are to stand; the arrangements of the consul Cn. Papirius are to stand; roads existing before 146 BC are to remain; there are to be negative consequences for false declarations; there are to be rewards for informers; There are to be provisions for exchange of land awarded to informers (?); there is to be no scriptura in addition to rent (?);

Note: (1) No continuous sense is possible in 11. 48-52: but it is likely that they explained the category of ager qui publice uenit, land which is publicly leased out; and of ager priuatus uectigalisque. The former is referred to in passing as something well understood from 1. 58 onwards; the latter is referred to as already mentioned in 1. 66. It is possible that these lines provided for some land publicly leased out to become ager priuatus uectigalisque.

1 - 2 LEX REPETVNDARVM, LEX AGRARIA

57

(2) Mommsen held that land 'sold' which became ager priuatus uectigalisque and land leased out periodically were two different categories. Hinrichs, 293-7, argued that there was only one category and that the supposed rent on land leased out was in fact the uectigal on ager priuatus uectigalisque. But this is hard to reconcile either with the sequence of provisions of this part of the statute or with the way in which lessees, among others, are described in 1. 83 as 'possessing' land (cf. 11. 87-9, 92-3), whereas in 1. 76 the text has talked of a quantity of land which ceiuis Romanei ex h.L factum erit. It is quite uncertain that 'sales' of land which became ager priuatus uectigalisque began in 112 BC (contra Hinrichs, 296 n. 110); and his account'of the political background (Hinrichs, 298-301) is very speculative. (3) It seems likely that colonists according to the Lex Rubria could alienate their land. (4) The date and significance of the inscription from Carthage of a Galba, a Carbo and a Bestia (ILLRP 475) remain obscure, despite the exhaustive discussion of H. Chantraine, Untersuchungen zur römischen Geschichte (Kallmünz, 1959), 15-28.

*** The content of the Greek section may be summarised as follows: 1. 93 1. 94 1. 95 1. 96 1. 97 1. 98

there is to be confirmation of possession; there is to be consequential jurisdiction; there is to be some action in relation to crops (?); there is to be some action in relation to wine and oil; a Ilvir is to take some action in relation to land which was once Corinthian; land to be leased out is to be measured; building is to be undertaken;

LI. 99-105 contain references to purchase, praedes, mancupes, penalties, jurisdiction, leasing out, possession. Legislation after 123-122 BC It is clear from 11. 16-17 and 20-4 of the Lex agraria that arrangements had been made to render it possible to sell ager publicus held by an individual before 111 BC. There is no objection to supposing that it is this possibility that Appian allows for when he says that Ti. Gracchus gave to possessores xr|v éÇoripexov aveu xiufiç Kifjaiv éç atei ßeßaiov of 500 iugera each {BC I, 46). Ti. Gracchus did not make such land private for the obvious reason that a possessor of ager publicus could at that point have started the process all over again (so rightly Burdese, 84; Lintott, 45). The first of the three post-Gracchan statutes in Appian, BC I, 121-5, will in our view have dealt only with the alienability of the allotments distributed by the Gracchan commissioners (contra Lintott, 45, 48, 209-10,218,219). Two problems then arise: with which, if any, of the three statutes our statute is to be identified; and what is the relevance of the Lex Thoria twice mentioned by Cicero. Let us begin with Appian: vo|ioç Te où TioAA) ÜGxepov éicupcutìri TT|V Yf\v, vnkp TJÇ 8i£(pépovxo, éÇâvai 7U7tpàaK£lV TOÎÇ E^ODOIV- à7C£ipT|TO yap £K rp(XK%OD TOÛ 7tpOT£pOD KOI TOÔ£. m i £\)-ô\)ç oi 7cXo\)aioi Tcapa xcbvTCEVTJTCUVèœvoûvTO, f| xaîaÔE i a î ç 7tpo(pàa£aiv dßiaCovTO. Kai repifjv èq %£Îpov è'xi xoîç 71£VT|GI, jaéxpi Zrco'upioç

58

ROMAN STATUTES Bópioc ôrifiapxœv eior|yr|aaxo vóu.ov, TT|V uèv yf\v UT|K£TI Ôiavéu.eiv, aXVelvai TCÛV exóvTcov, Kai (pópouc t)7cèp avif\q TCÖ ôr||icp KaxaTÌi^eai5ai Kai xàôe t a Xpii|J.aTa xcopeîv ëç ôiavojiàç. örc£p fjv jiév TIÇ TOÎÇ Ttévriai 7tapT|yopia 5ia TCCÇ ôiavojiàç, o(peXoç ô'o-oôèv eç 7ioXi)7tA,r|i5iav. oacaÇ Ôè TOÎÇ aocpiau.aai ToîaÔe xov rpaKxeioa) vóu.ot) 7iapaÀA)i!>£VToç, àpiaTOi) m ï œcpEtau.cDTàTO'u, ei èÔ-ovaxo Tcpax^fjvai, TEvouivoi), Kaï TOÙÇ (popouç oùTCOÀA)i)aT£pov Ôié^ae Ôf||iapxoç ëxepoç, Kaï ó 8fjo.oç àtfpocoç arcavTCuv £Ç£7T.£7CTO)KEI. öi^ev éarcàviÇov ëxi fiâiXov ófioó) TcoXiTcbv xe Kaï axpaxicoTcov Kaï yf\q npooóòov Kaï ôtavo|iœv Kaï VO|ICÛV, 7tevT£KaiÔ£Ka \iàXioxa exeoiv à7to Tf\q rpaKxot) vou,oi>eaiaç, £7d ôiKaiç £v àpyia TEYOVOTEÇ. xœ S'aiixô) xpóvcp Kauutcov VKOLTOÇ Ka-deîXe TÒ t>éaTpov, o-u Ae-OKioç KaGOioç TJPKTO ... (We do not see the need to posit a lacuna between the references to the legislation of Gracchus and litigation; and preserve Kaï 7uia>v of the best manuscripts as Caepio, rather than emending to Scipio. For Sp. Bonus, see below.) And not long afterwards a statute was passed to make it possible for those who held it to sell the land over which there was the controversy; for precisely this had been forbidden from the time of the older of the two Gracchi. And immediately the rich bought from the poor or forced them out under the pretext that this was what they were doing. And things got steadily worse for the poor, until Spurius Borius as tribune introduced a statute to put an end to distribution of the land and to make it the property of those who held it; and to levy payments on it for the people and to use this money for distributions. This was some relief for the poor because of the distributions, but no contribution to manpower. And once the Gracchan statute had been nullified by such devices, a statute which would have been very good and very useful, if it could have been implemented, not long afterwards another tribune abolished even the payments and the people had been wholly deprived of everything. The result was that they (the Romans) lacked citizens and soldiers and revenue from the land and distributions and pastures to an even greater extent, it now being some fifteen years from the legislation of Gracchus, having already been reduced to inactivity by litigation. At the same time the consul Caepio destroyed the theatre which L. Cassius had begun ....

Two preliminary points about Appiani he is interested in the fate of the poor and what he says about the land is subsidiary to that interest; and he is, no doubt in consequence, not systematically explicit about which land he is discussing, whether he is talking of assignations, acquisition of ownership, or payments. Appian is also not explicit as to whether his period of fifteen years begins with the tribunate of Ti. Gracchus, the occasion of the only Lex agraria which he mentions, or with the death of C. Gracchus, the point which his narrative has reached at the begining of the paragraph quoted above. North has now shown that the reference to an unsuccessful attempt to build a permanent theatre is not a garbled and misplaced account of the building and destruction of a theatre in 154-153 BC, but a real notice of a real event in 106 BC. It should follow that Appian's third statute belongs close to 106 BC: 15 years after the.tribunates of C. Gracchus bring us to 109-108 or 108-107 BC. Note that although Appian has earlier used vou.oi!>£Tr|ç of Ti. Gracchus (I, 55 and 88), this is the only time he ever uses the word vou.otì£oia. We suggest that he perhaps uses it precisely to refer to a whole legislative programme, that brought to an end by the death of C. Gracchus: compare Cicero, Phil I, 18, where the legislation of C. Gracchus figures as one of four great periods of Republican legislation.

1 - 2 LEX REPETVNDARVM, LEX AGRARIA

59

If then our statute is to be identified with any of the three in Appian, it must be the second. This is in fact very plausible, since our statute undoubtedly forms a moment of consolidation at the end of a period of change, including distribution of land; makes a great deal of land private; and provides for the collection of payments on certain cate­ gories of land in Italy and Africa. Our text breaks off before there is any reference to dis­ tributions; but even if we had only had Appian, we might have wondered whether there were not two measures, the second dealing separately with distributions of money. (Lintott's claim (284), following others, that the second statute 'if we believe Appian, actually imposed rents on old possessors of public land', reads into Appian what is not there.) Borius appears to be unknown as a Roman nomen and even if no other considerations had come into question, it would have seemed likely that there had been a fault in the transmission of Appian's text. The praenomen Spurius is also relatively rare and it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Appian's second statute was passed by the Sp. Thorius to whom Cicero twice attributes an agrarian measure: ... innumerabilia sunt exempla, ut Appii maioris illius, qui in senatu, cum ageretur de agris publicis et de lege Thoria et premeretur Lucilius (see F. Münzer, RE XIII, I (1926), 375-6; A. Kappelmacher, XIII, 2 (1927), 1620-1) ab eis, qui a pecore eius depasci agros publicos dicerent, 'non est' inquit 'Lucilii pecus illud; erratis' defendere Lucilium uidebatur - 'ego liberum puto esse: qua libet pascitur.' (de or. EL 284) Sp. Thorius satis ualuit in populari genere dicendi, is qui agrum publicum uitiosa et inutili lege uectigali leuauit. (Brut. 136; the Codex Laudensis had uectigale) The first passage is perfectly compatible with our statute, which certainly deals with public pasture. The second passage has been more tortured than most (there is a full discussion of the different solutions proposed up to the relevant moment in Badian (1963) = (1964); Johannsen, 25-91); but before we contemplate emending leuauit, we should look at de or. I, 166: ... ne is ... turpi tutelae iudicio atque omni molestia stultitia aduersarii liberaretur. This suggests that Cicero might have expected his readers to understand that Sp. Thorius 'relieved ager publicus of a flawed and useless statute by means of a uectigaV. There is a further argument. Every Roman knew that a uitium was the sort of thing that made elections invalid; Cicero surely could not have imagined the notion that anything could be achieved with a uitiosa ... lex as an instrument. Our statute certainly assumes the existence of a uectigaV. on Roman ager publicus in Italy, other than that which had become private (11. 19-20, cf. 11. 13-14, 24-6, for surviving ager publicus in Italy; Niccolini, Fasti, 178-84). It is not a serious objection that on this view Appian does not clearly separate, in an extremely brief survey, land which became the property of those who held it and land on which it was decided to levy payments. Appian's finale, '... another tribune abolished even the payments and the people had been wholly deprived of everything', in any case sacrifices history to drama. Both Appian and Cicero are brief and epigrammatic; any statute to which they might have referred is likely to have been long and complex. It seems misplaced ingenuity to doubt the identification of our statute with the second statute of Appian and the statute of Cicero; or to interpret the second reference of Cicero other than as above. Note that what is known of the career of Ap. Claudius, if the consul of 79 BC, and of the chronology of

60

ROMAN STATUTES

the Brutus is compatible with a tribunate for Sp. Thorius in 111 BC and a role for Ap. Claudius in a senate discussion of his statute at any time thereafter. (The following emendations of Brut 136 are known to us: uectigali uexauit (R. Seager, CRy n.s. 17, 1967, 12-13); uectigali liberauit (Mattingly (1971), 286); uectigali onerauit (A.W. Lintott, reviewing Johannsen); uectigali locauit (J. Willcock, CR, n.s. 32, 1982, 474-5); uectigalem liberauit (Lintott (1992), 283-4). If we now return to the first statute, there is no good reason to doubt Appian. Lintott's contrary reasoning is misconceived, that the assignees of land by the Gracchan commission cannot have been allowed to sell their land under the first statute, since purchase from them is not recognised as granting title to land in the provisions for judicial confirmation of holdings anywhere in the relevant part of our statute, 11. 15-19. But if there was a statute allowing the assignees to sell their land, it must also have made sure that purchasers had good title. The fate of such land was therefore settled and there was no compelling reason for any subsequent statute to deal with it at all. By contrast, the statute of 111 BC confers private status on the land which the assignees had not alienated; and it innovates dramatically in conferring private status on the land of possessores, up to a certain limit. It is this to which Appian briefly refers when dealing with his second statute and it is quite unreasonable to criticise him for not mentioning the limit. Since Appian is not explicit about which land generated payments for the people in his second statute, what he tells us of his third statute is not very helpful. What he tells us is in any case innaccurate, since there was much ager publicus in Italy which continued to generate revenue in one way or another long after 106 BC. Problems no doubt remain, as with any account of this intractable puzzle. But identifying the Lex Thoria with the statute of 111 BC solves one problem: it really would have been very odd for our statute not to have cited the Lex Thoria at 11. 14-15, 19-20 and 25-6, if it had already been passed (so rightly Johannsen). The fact that on this view Cicero twice cites the Lex Thoria, rather than the third of Appian's statutes, is on the other hand not surprising: as we have just seen, that statute can have had no major impact on the long-term history of uectigalia on ager publicus in Italy. The Apparatus Criticus We have come to the conclusion, for fragments that survive, that when Pinelli and other early sources read, e.g., in the Lex agraria, 1. 1, CALPVRNIO, not CALPVR[NIO], in 1. 2, AGRVM and SVMERE, not [A]GRVM and SVMER[E], they are engaging in tacit restoration, rather than recording letters not now visible; similarly, in 1. 1 of the Lex repetundarum, Sigonio prints OMINISVE, where only MINIS VE was surely ever visible, presumably supplementing as far as was possible and allowing for hominisue or nominisue. It is of course the case that Sigonio and other early authors also use a variety of graphic and typographic devices to indicate longer supplements; but there is at least one glaring case of a supplement printed in error as existing, in Sigonio's text of the Lex agraria, 11. 30-1. Early copyists and editors may sometimes deserve credence if they give an extra letter or two without completing the word; but we regard it as in general safe to ignore them, for fragments that survive, without there being any impoverishment of the text we print. (For humanist copies and editions, see above.) Contra Lintott, we also hold with Mommsen that when early copyists and editors give, on the B fragment, 11. 7-11 and 18-21 of the Lex repetundarum and 11. 9-10, 12 and 20-6 of the Lex agraria without lacuna between the two fragments, they do so by conjecture.

1 - 2 LEX REPETVNDARVM, LEX AGRARIA

61

For the lost Ab fragment, the Pinelli copy cannot be accepted as independent of the Mazochi edition, unless we are prepared to believe that the bronze actually had quaerat, rather ihanfiierint, in 1. 33 of the Lex repetundarum. But the decisive evidence is that of 1. 35 of the Lex agraria, on the Aa fragment: although the Mazochi edition in general does not engage in tacit restoration, it is evident that the copyist concerned could not have seen the whole of the word iudicium, as soon as one looks at what he preserved at the corresponding point on the Lex repetundarum side. Yet the Pinelli copy and Dupuy copies and the Sigonio edition all reproduce iudicium. (It is clear in general that the three texts are close relatives.) None of the alternative readings in the three texts need be the result of autopsy. For the lost E fragment (see M.H. Crawford, Tabula legum Bembina' (forthcoming), for further detailed argument), the only copies which need be cited are those deriving from Claude Dupuy and J J. Scaliger, both at least very close to a copy made from the bronze; that of Chacon, made for Orsini and probably deriving from another copy made for Claude Dupuy and received via G.Y. Pinelli; and that of Peiresc, made from the lead replica. The copy of Chacon is a working copy in minuscule, with many abbreviations and some tacit supplementation; but he had a source independent of the copy of Scaliger and corrected his copy from the latter, e.g., changing edicito to edicto in the Lex agraria, 1. 56. Since the copy of Chacon underlies the edition of Orsini, his readings are of course for the most part known to Rudorff and Mommsen. Note: (1) There is for the Lex repetundarum a minuscule, as well as a majuscule, copy made for Claude Dupuy; it has no independent authority. (2) Peiresc sometimes managed to read more than is present in the copies of Dupuy, Scaliger or Chacon; cases where he read less or made an obvious error are not worth recording, since they may be the result of the deficiencies of the lead replica. Peiresc paid particular attention to the edges, regularly ignoring most of the rest of the line; it is clear that he knew and took for granted the edition of Orsini, which we now know to derive from the copies of Chacon. We occasionally report Peiresc alone where he is clearly superior. (3) The copy which underlies the edition of B. Brisson appears to have been a cousin of those deriving from Dupuy and Scaliger; it is superseded by their discovery. (4) The source of the copies of JJ. Boissard is uncertain; they are in any case full of. errors due to carelessness, tacit supplementation, and archaising of the spelling; at no point do they preserve a reading which is otherwise unattested and deserving of attention. The edition of Boissard is manifestly worthless. (5) The copy of J. Hamon is so full of obvious errors that it can possess no authority. (6) The E fragment should not be used for statistics on spelling: it is hard to avoid the suspicion that the spelling of both the Dupuy and the Scaliger copies is sometimes unconsciously archaising. (7) In our Apparatus Criticus, we ignore what are quite clearly incidental errors in the Dupuy, Scaliger and Chacon copies. The copies made for Vettori, as we know from contemporary correspondence, the copy made for Borghini, and the edition of Orsini, all derive from the copies of Chacon and have no independent authority. (In the Lex repetundarum, 1. 33, the copy made for Vettori has de..tabo[—]; but this may be a guess based on the de t[—] of Chacon (Vat.Lat. 6037, f. 52 v ). And in the Lex repetundarum, 1. 62, the copy made for Vettori has quibus o[—], where our other copies have quibus[—]; but the o may be the result of the o of possidebit

62

ROMAN STATUTES

having come through from the other side of the paper of the copy of Chacon (Vat.Lat. 6040, f. 36v). It is, however, also possible that in these two cases Chacon checked the bronze for the copyist. Other cases of apparent independence of the Vettori copies are delusive: in the Lex repetundarum, 1. 40, and the Lex agraria, 1. 55, the copyist has misread one letter in the original as two; in the Lex agraria, 1. 57, the copy made for Vettori has in fact exactly the same reading as the copy of Chacon (VatLat. 6040, f. 34v), ex h.l. n[—], although this is unclear on a photograph.) We have discovered almost no cases where the readings of Pighius for the Db and Dc fragments are deserving of attention. We print the readings of minuscule copies of missing fragments in italics, except where they are the same as those of majuscule copies,. Note that the Naples fragments were copied by F. Blume and the Vienna fragments by C.A.C. Klenze, both in 1821, and that Rudorff never saw the tablet, but depended on the material of Blume and Klenze, inherited from the latter at his death. It seems to be a pure aberration when in the last line of the Lex agraria on the B fragment Rudorff (from Blume) prints AGRI RE ROM, instead of RE ROM --- AGRI: the plate in Ritschl has [—]RE-ROM[—]AGRI[—].

Despite the statement to the contrary by O. Hirschfeld in the preface to the first volume of the Gesammelte Schriften of 1905, it is clear that Mommsen made a substantial number of changes to text and apparatus after the publication of CIL I 1 in 1863; in particular, the Naples fragments were checked for Mommsen by Chr. Hülsen, the Vienna fragments by 'amici Vindobonenses'. (Note that whoever prepared the apparatus for publication in 1905 does not seem to have realised that 'tabula' in CIL1 means the plate in Ritschl: thus, in the Lex agraria, 1. 61, 'ISÉVE ego, SEVE tabula' (= Ritschl) of 1863 has become 'ISEVE ego, SEVE aes' in 1905.)

Where Mommsen (1863) and (1905) agree, we cite the two versions together as 'Mommsen'. Where we cite only 'Mommsen (1905)', that indicates either that Mommsen (1863) is slightly - but insignificantly - different or that Mommsen (1863) is no longer worth considering. Mommsen (1863) sometimes reports in the apparatus criticus traces of letters, which he had seen at the edges of the fragments, that we have not seen. We do not report these readings unless anything turns on them: note that in the Lex repetundarum, 1. 33, and in the Lex agraria, 11. 10, 12, 32, they are certainly or probably wrong. Since CIL I 2 reproduces Mommsen (1905) almost without change, we cite it with extreme rarity. For the purposes of the Apparatus Criticus, we also ignore what are quite clearly incidental errors; also differences between editors and editions as to punctuation, resolution of. abbreviations and spelling of supplements; arid we print abbreviations unresolved in the Apparatus Criticus, unless some particular point is involved. We also ignore supplements based on wrong readings of the letters at the edges of lacunae; and cases where earlier editors failed to read, or misread, letters where the reading is in fact clear, unless anything turns on an explicit statement that a reading has been confirmed. Similarly, we normally ignore changes involving the reading of one letter more or less of a word which is secure. Some of our readings at the edges of the fragments have benefited from the programme of cleaning undertaken by the Museo Nazionale di Napoli in 1992-3. We also record only the scholar who first proposed a correction or supplement, since it seems to us not a rational endeavour to compile an Apparatus Criticus in such a way as to allow the reconstruction of printed texts which are readily available in any good library; nor do we record the origin of small and obvious supplements which have long formed part of the critical vulgate; or early conjectures which are manifestly wrong.

1-2 LEX REPETVNDARVM, LEX AGRARIA

63

For the Lex repetundarum, 11. 44-7, and for the Lex agraria, 11. 51-5, we do not normally report the supplements of Rudorff or Lintott, since the former did not know and the latter rejected the join between the A and E fragments. We do not normally report the supplements of Lintott for the gap between the B and E fragments or between the B and D fragments in subsequent lines, since they are superseded by the discovery of the join between the B and D fragments. At the end of each line, we record the number of letters on each fragment and in each supplement; figures between two question marks represent figures for supplements suggested in the Commentary; note that the number of letters for each fragment is the number actually inscribed in the line in question, and not necessarily the number in our text, if this reflects the correction of an error in engraving. The total of letters includes also where appropriate the number of spaces in a vacat; and letters seen by earlier scholars and not any longer visible; in addition, it includes the letters in the small lacunae between the two halves of the B fragment and between the A and E fragments. Since it is thus evident to which fragment which portion of text belongs, we do not underline the text of the now lost E fragment, in contrast with our practice elsewhere. We indicate joins between fragments by //; a letter part of which appears on each side of a join is framed between // and //. (We do not regard it as serving any useful purpose to indicate joins within the D fragment.) (HBM, AWL,) MHC

1 - LEX REPETVNDARVM TEXT 1 [— quoi socium no]minisue Latini exter//arumue nationum, quoiue in arbitratu dicione potestate amicitiau[e populi Romani —] Edge - B = ???, B = 74, B - edge = ??? 2 [— ab eo quei dic(tator), co(n)s(ul), pr(aetor), mag(ister) eq(uitum), cens(or), aid(ilis), tr(ibunus) pl(ebis), q(uaestor), Illuir cap(italis), niuir a(greis) d(andeis) a(dsignandeis), tr(ibunus) mi]l(itum) l(egionibus) (quattuor) primis aliqua earum fu//erit, queiue filius eorum quoius erit, quoius pater senator siet, in annos singolos pequniae quod siet amp[lius (sestertium) n(ummum).??? —] Edge - B = ???, B = 112, B - edge = ??? 3 [— quod ipsei parenteiue suo filioue suo, qu]oiue ipse{i} paren(s)ue suos filiusue su//os heres siet, ablatum captum coactum conciliatum auersumue siet, de ea re eius petitio nominisque delatio esto, [pr(aetoris) quaestio esto, ioudicium ioudicatio leitisque aestumatio, queiquomque ioudices ex h(ace) l(ege) erunt, eorum h(ace) l(ege) esto —] Edge - B = ???, B = 123, B - edge = ??? 4 [— sei quis pr(aetori) satis fecerit a rege populoue ceiueue suo se legatujm esse utei peteret, de ea re eius petiti//o nominisque delatio esto, pr(aetoris) quaestio esto, ioudicium ioudicatio leitisque aestumatio, queiquomque ioudic[es ex h(ace) l(ege) erunt, eorum h(ace) l(ege) esto —] Edge - B = ???, B = 123, B - edge = ??? 5 [—]s iu[— quei eorum postea aduersus h(ance) l(egem) fecerit quam ea res iudjicata erit, aut quoius nomen pr//aeuaricationis caussa delatum erit, aut quoium nomen ex h(ace) l(ege) ex reis exemptum erit, sei quis eius nomen a[d pr(aetorem), quei ex h(ace) l(ege) quaeret, denuo detulerit, pr(aetoris) quaestio esto, ioudicium ioudicatio leitisque aestumatio, queiquomque ioudices ex h(ace) l(ege) erunt,] Edge - A = ???, A, 1.1 = 3, A - B = ???, B = 109, B - edge = 112 (with the line-break we adopt) 6 [eorum h(ace) l(ege) esto. — ali]eno nomin[e petet —] quaestio eius pr(aetoris) esto, ioudicium(q)ue io//udicatio litisque aestumatio, queiquomque ioudic(es) ex h(ace) l(ege) erunt, eorum h(ace) l(ege) esto. is eum unde petet in ious ed[ucito ad pr(aetorem), quoius ex h(ace) l(ege) in eum annum quaestio erit, ante k(alendas) Sept(embres), quae eo anno erunt, nomenque eius deferto; —] Edge - A = ???, A, 1. 2 = &, A - B = ???, B = 119, B edge = ??? 7 [—] deque eo homine de[— qu]oius eorum ita nomen ex h(ace) l(ege) post k(alendas) [Se]pt(embres), quae eo anno fuerint, delatum erit, quei eorum eo ioudicio condemnatus erit, quanti eius rei slis ae[stumata erit, tantam pequniam —] Edge - A = ???, A, 1. 3 = 15, A - B = ?17? + ?60?, B = 107, B - edge = ??? 8 [eaque pequnia, quei petiuer]it, eius esto. pr(aetor), quei ex h(ace) l(ege) q[uaeret, facito — quantum ita aestumat]um erit, id utei priuato soluatur, quei [eoru]m petet. vvv de heisce, dum mag(istratum) aut inperium habebunt, ioudicium non fiet. w dic(tator), co(n)s(ul), pr(aetor), mag(ister) eq(uitum), [cens(or), aid(ilis), tr(ibunus) pl(ebis), q(uaestor), niuir cap(italis), Eluir a(greis) d(andeis) a(dsignandeis), tr(ibunus) mil(itum) l(egionibus) (quattuor) primis aliqua earum quei erit, dum mag(istratum) aut inperium

65

66

ROMAN STATUTES

habebit, ioudicium —] Edge - A = 23, A, 1. 4 = 2 1 , A - B = ???, B = 108, B - A (1. 9) = ?144? 9 [nei esto. quei eorum e]x eo mag(istratu) inperioue abierit, quo min[us de eo ioudicium — fiat, e(ius) h(ace) l(ege) n(ihilum) r(ogatur). vacat de patrono dando. vacat quei ex h(ace)] l(ege) pequniam petet nomenque detuler[it,] quoius eorum ex h(ace) l(ege) ante k(alendas) Sept(embres) petitio erit, sei eis uolet sibei patronos in earn rem darei, pr(aetor) ad quern [nomen detulerit — patronos ceiueis Romanos ingenuos] B (1. 8) - A = ?144?, A, 1. 5 = 28, A - B = ?74 + vacat x 2?, B = 111, B - edge = ??? 10 [gnatos dato, dum] nei quern eorum det sciens d(olo) m(alo) quoiei is, q[uoius nomen detulerit, gener socer uitricus priuignusue 'siet, queiue ei sobrinus siet prop]iusue eum ea cognatione ati(n)gat, queiue [ei]ei sodalis siet, queiue in eodem v conlegio siet, quoiaue in fide is erit maioresue in maiorum fide fueri(n)t, [queiue in fide eius erit, maioresue in maiorum fide fuerint, queiue —] Edge - A = 13, A, 1.6 = 32, A - B = 76, B = 121, B - edge = ??? 11 [—] quaestione(ue) ioudicio(q)ue puplico condemnatu[s siet, quod circa eum in senatum legei non liceat, neiue eum det que]i ex h(ace) l(ege) ioudex in earn rem erit, neiue eum que[i e]x h(ace) l(ege) patronus datus erit. v v v de patrono repudiando. v v v v quei ex h(ace) l(ege) patronus datus erit, sei is mora[m fecerit ei, quei petet, quo minus ioudicium ex h(ace) l(ege) fiat, ei eum repudiare liceto — in] Edge - A = ? ? ? , A, 1. 7 = 39, A - B = 54, B = 116, B - edge = ??? 12 [eius lo]cum pr(aetor), quei ex h(ace) l(ege) quaeret, alium patronum eiei quei i[n earn rem sibei darei postulabit dato. vacat de (quadringentis quinquaginta) uireis in hunc an]num legundis. vv pr(aetor), quei inter peregrinos ious deicet, is // in diebus (decern) proxum(eis), quibus h(ance) l(egem) populus plebesue iouserit, facito utei (quadringentos quinquaginta) uiros legat, quei in hac ceiuit[ate —, dum nei quern eorum legat, quei tr(ibunus) pl(ebis), q(uaestor), Illuir cap(italis), tr(ibunus) mil(itum) l(egionibus) (quattuor) primis aliqua earum,] Edge - A = 6, A, I. 8 = 42, A - B = 50 + vacat, B = 130, B - edge = ??? 13 [III ui]rum a(gris) d(andis) a(dsignandis) siet fueritue, queiue in senatu siet fueri{n}t(u)e, quei[ue mercedem ceperit quaestioneue ioudicioque puplico conde]mnatus siet quod circa eum in senatum legei non liceat, // queiue minor anneis (triginta) maiorue annos (sexaginta) gnatus siet, queiue in urbem Romam propiusue u[rbem Romam p(assus) m(ille) domicilium non habeat, queiue eorum quoius mag(istratuum), queiue eius, quei in senatu siet fueritue, pater frater filiusue siet, queiue trans] Edge - A = 5, A, 1. 9 = 50, A - B = 52, B = 117, B - edge = 118 = 342 14 [mar]e erit; quos legerit, eos, patrem trib{un}um cognomenque, ioudice(s) q[uei ex h(ace) l(ege) in hunc annum sient — quei ex] h(ace) l(ege) (quadringentei quinquaginta) uireifs) in eum annum lectei erunt, ea nomina om//nia in tabula in albo, atramento script(o)s, patrem tribum cognomenque tributimque d(i)scriptos hab[eto, eosque propositos s u o . magistratu — habeto potestatemque scribundi, quei uolet, facito. pr(aetor), quei legerit, is eos] Edge - A = 3 , A, 1. 10 = 53, A - B = ???, B = 123, B edge = ??? 15 [quos e]x h(ace) l(ege) (quadringentos quinquaginta) uiros legerit, facito recitentur in contione, iuratoque sese [eos ex h(ace) l(ege) legise, de quibus sibei consultum utei idonei sient. io]udices exaestumauerit esse, eosque (quadringentos quinquaginta) uiros, quos ex h(ace) l(ege) l//egerit, is pr(aetor) omnis in taboleis puplicis scriptos in perpetuo habeto. v v v v de (quadringentis quinquaginta) uireis quot annis [legundis. vacat pr(aetor), —, is in diebus (decern) proxum(eis), quibus] Edge - A = 5, A, 1.11 = 57, A - B = 52, B = 128, B - edge = ???

1 - LEX REPETVNDARVM

67

16 [quis]que eorum eum mag(istratum) coiperit, facito utei (quadringentos quinquaginta) uiros ita legat, quei ha[c ceiuitate —, d]um ne quern eorum legat, quei tr(ibunus) pl(ebis), q(uaestor), Eluir cap(italis), tr(ibunus) mil(itum) l(egionibus) UU/l primis aliqua earum, trium uir(um) a(gris) d(andis) a(dsignandis) siet fueritue, queiue in senatu siet fueritue, queiue merc[edem ceperit quaestioneue ioudicioque puplico condemnatus siet quod circa eum in senatum legei non liceat, queiue minor anneis (triginta)] Edge - A = 4, A, 1.12 = 54, A - B = ???, B = 122, B - edge = 111 17 [maior a]nnos (sexaginta) gnatus siet queiue in urbe Romae propiusue urbem Roma[m p(assus) m(ille) domicilium non habeat, queiue eorum quoius mag(istratuum),] queiue eius, quei in senatu siet fueritue, pater frater filiusue sie//f queiue trans mare erit; quos legerit, eos, patrem tribum cognomenque, ioudices quei ex h(ace) l(ege) in eu[m annum sient — quei ex h(ace) l(ege) (quadringenti quinquaginta) uirei in eum annum lectei erunt, ea nomina omnia in tabula in albo, atramento scriptos,] Edge - A = 6, A, 1. 13 = 51, A - B = 42, B = 133, B - edge = ??? 18 [patr]em tribu(m) cognomenque tributimque discriptos habeto, eosque propositos suo ma[gistratu — habeto potestate]mque scribundi, quei uolet, facito. pr(aetor) quei legerit, is eos, quos ex h(ace) l(ege) C[DL u]iros legeri{n}t, facito in con[[c]]tione recite(n)tur, iouratoque sese eos ex h(ace) l(ege) legise, de quibus sibei consu[ltum utei idonei sient ioudices exaestumauerit esse, eosque (quadringentos quinquaginta) uiros, quos ex h(ace) l(ege) legerit, is pr(aetor) omnis in taboleis puplicis scriptos in perpetuo habeto] Edge - A = 4, A, 1.14 = 66, A - B = ?38?, B = 141, B - edge = 125 = ?374? 19 [vacaf] w de nomine deferundo iudicibusque legundeis. vvv quei ex h(ace) l(ege) pequniam ab al[tero ante k(alendas) Sept(embres) petet, is eum, ubei (quadringenti quinquaginta) uirei in e]um annum lectei erunt, ad iudicem, in eum annum quei ex h(ace) l(ege) [factus] erit, in ious educito nomenque eius deferto. sei deiurauerit calumniae causa non po[stulare, is iudex nomen recipito — facitoque utei die ??? ex eo die, quo quoiusque quisque nomen detulerit, is quoius nomen] Edge - A = vacat, A, 1.15 = 63, A - B = 38, B = 120, B - edge = ??? 20 [recepe]rit de (quadringentis quinquaginta) uireis, quei in eum annum ex h(ace) l(ege) lectei erunt, aruorsario edat eos om[nes quoi is gener socer uitricus pri]uignusue siet, queiue ei sobrinus siet propiusue eum ea cognat[ione]{m} attingat, queiue ei sodalis siet, queiue in eodem conlegio siet, facitoque coram aru[orsario iouret palam apud se — se non reliquisse nisei quei se earum aliqua necesitudine] Edge - A = 6, A, 1. 16 = 62, A - B = 30, B = 126, B - edge = ??? 21 [quae s(upra) s(cripta) s(ient)] non attigeret, scientem d(olo) m(alo); itaque is edito (i)ouratoque. ubei is ita ediderit, turn in ea[m rem pr(aetor), quei ita nomen alterius ex h(ace) l(ege) detule]rit, facito utei is die uicensumo ex eo die quo quoiusque quisque n[omen] detolerit, (centum) uiros ex eis, quei ex h(ace) l(ege) (quadringenti quinquaginta) uirei in eum annum lectei erunt, quei uiua(n)t, legat efdatque aruorsario — dum nei quern eorum legat,] Edge - A = 7, A, 1.17 = 69, A - B = 36, B = 130, B - edge = ??? 22 [utei ioud]ex siet, quoi is queiue ei, quei petet, gener socer uitricus priuignusue siet, queiue ei sobrinus[ siet propiusue eum ea cognatione atingat, queiue e]i sodalis siet, queiue tr(ibunus) pl(ebis), q(uaestor), Illuir cap(italis), Illuir a(gris) d(andis a(dsignandis), tribun(us) mil(itum) l(egionibus) (quattuor) prim[is aliqu]a{e} earum siet fueritue, queiue {queiue} in senatu siet fueritue, queiue wvvvvvv l(ege) Rubr[ia Eluir col(oniae) ded(ucendae) creatus siet eritue — queiue rei puplicae] Edge - A = 8, A, 1.18 = 76, A - B = 42, B = 137, B - edge = ??? 23 [caussa] aberit queiue trans mare erit, neiue amplius de una fami(l)ia unum.neiue eum [quei condemnatus siet, quod cum eo lege Calpu]rnia aut lege Iunia sacramento

68

ROMAN STATUTES

actum siet aut quod h(ace) l(ege) nomen [delatum sie]t. quos is (centum) uiros ex h(ace) l(ege) ediderit, de eis ita facito iouret palam apud se coram p[opulo — nullum se edidise scientem d(olo) m(alo), quern ob earum causarum aliquam, quae s(upra) s(cripta) s(ient), inter (centum) uiros edere non liceat queiue se] Edge - A = 6, A, 1. 19 = 61, A - B = 37, B = 121, B - edge = ??? 24 [earum qua] necesitudine atingat, quae supra scripta sient. fqf unde petitum erit, quo mi[nus —. ubei is, quei petet, ita (centum)] uiros ediderit iuraritque, turn eis pr(aetor) facito utei is, unde petetur, die L[X ex eo die quo] eius nomen delatum erit, quos (centum) is quei petet ex h(ace) l(ege) ediderit, de eis iudices, q[uos uolet, (quinquaginta) legat edatque — quei ex h(ace) l(ege) nomen detulerit, sei] Edge - A = 8, A, 1. 20 = 61, A - B = ?37?, B = 130, B - edge = ??? 25 [is, quoius nom]en ex h(ace) l(ege) delatum erit, (quinquaginta) iudices ex h(ace) l(ege) non legerit edideritue, seiue [eum, quei se earum qua adfinitate cognation]e sodalitate atingat, queiue in eodem conlegio siet, ex h(ace) l(ege) non e[diderit, quod pe]r eum pr(aetorem) aduorsariumue mora{m} non er[it, quo] minus legat edatufe iudices, quos uolet, (quinquaginta) — e(ius) h(ace) l(ege) n(ihilum) r(ogatur), dum nei quern eorum, quos ex h(ace) l(ege) (centum) uirum legere non liceat,] Edge - A = 11, A, 1. 21 = 54, A - B = 36, B = 113, B - edge = ??? 26 [sciens d(olo) m(alo) ioudic]em legat. quei ita lectei erunt, eis in earn rem ioudices sunto, eorumque eiu[s rei ex h(ace) l(ege) ioudicium esto. vac nomin]a utei scripta in taboleis habeantur. vvv pr(aetor), quei ex h(ace) l(ege) quaeret, fac[ito eos (quinquaginta) uiros, qu]os is quei petet et unde petetur ex h(ace) l(ege) legerint e[diderint e]osque pat[ronos, quei in earn rem dati erunt, utei in taboleis popliceis scriptos habeat —] Edge A = 14, A, 1. 22 = 60, A - B = 26 + vacat, B = 124, B - edge = ??? 27 [— ea nomina, q]uei petiuerit et unde petitum erit, quei eorum uolet, ex taboleis popli[ceis — is pr(aetor) potestatem scribundi facito. ] v v eisdem ioudices unius rei in perpetuom sient. vv quei iudices e[x h(ace) l(ege) lectei erunt], quam in rem eis iudices lectei erunt e[ius rei iudices in perpetuom sunto —] Edge - A = ???, A, 1. 23 = 58, A - B = ???, B = 99, B - edge = ??? 28 [— q]uei pequniam ex [h(ace) l(ege)] capjet, eum ob earn rem, quod pequniam ex h(ace) l(ege) ceper[it, nei quis censor post h(ance) l(egem) rog(atam) tribu mo]ueto neiue equom adimito neiue quid {ei} ei (ob) earn rem fraudei esto. vvvv [— sc]ripta sient. vv pr(aetor), quei ex.h(ace) l(ege) +[— vac de ioudicio] Edge - A = ???, A, 1. 24 = 53, A B = 31, B = ?90?, B - edge = ??? 29 [in eum quei mortuos e]rit aut in exilium abierit. vac cmoium nomen ex h(ace) l(ege) delatum eri[t, sei is ante mortuos erit aut in exiliu]m abierit quam ea res (iu)dicata erit, pr(aetor), ad quern eius nomen d[elatum erit, ea]m rem ab eis item quaerito,[ quei ioudices ex h(ace) l(ege) erunt, quasei sei is, quoius nomen ex h(ace) l(ege) delatum erit, uiueret inue hac ceiuitate esset — vac de ??? faciunda. vac] Edge - A = 17 + vacat, A, 1. 25 = 47 + vacat, A - B = 32, B = 79, B - edge = ??? 30 [pr(aetor), quei ex h(ace) l(ege) quaeret, ei, quo]iu[m] nomen ex hface) Kege) ad se delatum erit, facito utei ioudicium p[alam denuntietur quo die futurum siet, utei q]uod recte factum esse uolet, dum nei quid aduorsus h(ance) l(egem) fiat a[d moram fac]iundam; neiue post h(ance) Q(egem) rogatam —] Edge - A = 22, A, 1. 26 = 47, A - B = 37, B = 73, B - edge = ??? 31 [— iubetoque] conquaeri in terra Italia in oppedeis foreis conciliab[oleis — in oppedeis foreis con]ciliaboleis, ubei ioure deicundo praesse solent; in quibus di[ebus c- 8 prae]tor, quei ex h(ace) l(ege) quaereft, conquaeri iouserit — vac de testibus

1 - LEX REPETVNDARVM vac

69

denuntiando. quei ex h(ace) l(ege) nomen detulerit,] Edge - A = ???, A, 1. 27 = 47, A - B = ?32?, B = 84, B - edge = ??? 32 [pr(aetor), quei ex h(ace) l(ege) quaeret, ubei] audierit quod eius rei quaerundai censeant refere et c[ausam nouerit, testibus dumtaxat (duodequinquaginta) denuntia]re iubeto et, quom e(a) res agetur, quam in rem quisque testis er[it, in earn rem facito o]mnes adsient testimo[niumque deicant, dum nei quern testimonium deicere iubeat, quei — quoiaue in fide is,] Edge - A = 21, A, 1. 28 = 46, A - B = 39, B = 84, B - edge = ??? 33 [unde petetur, siet maioresue in major)um eius fide (fuerint). queiue in fide eius siet maioresu[e in maiorum eius fide fuerint, queiue eius c]ausam deicet, dumtaxat unum, queiue (e)eius parentisue eius l[eibertus leiberta]ue siet. vvvv de t[a]b[oleis —. vac — nomina eorum] Edge - A = 31,A, I. 29 = 45, A - B = 36, B = 77, B - edge = ??? 34 [quos ad testimonium deicendum appellarilt secumue duxerit dumtaxat homines IIL earum refrum causa, de quibus id ioudicium fiet, eaque omni]a, quai ita conquaesiuerit, et sei qua tabulas libros leiterasue popflicas preiuatasue pos]cere proferrequ[e uolet, ad praetorem deferto —] Edge - A = 33,' A, I. 30 = 40, A - B = 40, B = 89, B - edge = ??? 35 [— se]iue de ea re uolet apud prfaetorem\ is praetor ei moram ne facfito quo minus —]rat. w w v v v praetor utei interroget. vvvvvvv pr(aetor), quei ex h(ace) l(ege) q[uaeret — vac ioudices utei iourent antequam considant.] Edge - A = ???, A, I. 31 = 41, A - B = ???, B = 49, B - edge = ??? 36 [vac pr(aetor), quei ex h(ace) l(ege) quaeret, quei in ea]m rem ioudices erunt. antequam primum caussa dfeicetur — apud se iourent facit]o. iudices, quei in earn rem erunt, omnes pro rostreis in forum[ uorsus iouranto —] Edge - A = 25 + vacat, A, 1. 32 = 38, A - B = ???, B = 48, B - edge = ??? 37 [facturumque se, utei quod recte factum esse uo")let utei testium. quei (in) earn rem erunt. uerba audiat [— neque se facturum quo] earn rem minus ioudicet, nisei sei quae causa erit, quae eiei [— quei ita apud se] Edge - A = 38, A, 1. 33 = 40, A - B = ???, B = 48, B - edge = ??? 38 [iourarint, eorum nomina is pr(aetor) facito in contione rjecitentur. proscripta propositaque palam apud forlum. ubei de piano recte legi possitur, habeto, quei ex e]is (centum) ioudicis (quinquaginta) lectei erunt. vvvvvvvv ioudex nei quis dispute//t vv[—] Edge - A = 41, A, I. 34 = 43, A - B = 43, B = 54, B - edge = ??? 39 [— quo minus —]e judicium adesse possit. de ea re praetori, quei ex hac|e lege quaeret, cognoscendi ius esto. vac de profere]ndo. vvvv quam rem pr(aetor) ex h(ace) l(ege) egerit, sei earn rem profe//r//et, quoi[us ex h(ace) l(ege) nomen delatum erit —] Edge - A = ???, A, 1.35 = 44, A - B = 39 + vacat, B = 47, B - edge = ??? 40 [—]re potent, facito quoius deicet nomen referre [—]it, utei (i)s ad sese ueniat aut adferatur, coram eo que//i postulauer[it —] Edge - A = ???, A, 1. 36 = 39, A - B = ???, B = 53, B - edge = ??? 41 [— sei uojlet. quoius ex hface") Ifege) 6ik>minis delatio erit. ei eius rei pertitio esto — de]que ea re hace lege iudicium litisque aestumatio // essto quasei sei eius [—] Edge A = ???, A, 1. 37 = 42, A - B = ???, B = 59, B -edge = ??? 42 [— sei ioudex, q]uei earn rem quaeret. ex hface) Kege) causam non nouerfit. pr(aetor) quei ex h(ace) l(ege) quaeret — c]oram [iudici]bus in contione pro rostris sente//ntia lege condemnatus erit, ab eo quod quisque petet, quoius ex hace lege peti[tio erit, id pr(aetor), quei earn rem quaesierit, eos iudices, quei earn rem iudicauerint, aestumare iubeto — quod ante hance legem rogatam conperietur captum coactum] Edge - E = 2, E, 1.15 = 87 + vacat, E - D = 6 + vacat, D, 1. 6 = 63, D - edge = ??? 59 [ab]latum auorsum conciliatumue esse, ea(s) res omnis simpli, ceteras res omnis quo(d) post hance legem rogatam co[nperiet]ur captum coactum ablatum auorsum conciliatumue esse dupli, idque ad qua[estorem, quantum siet quoiusque nomine ea lis aestumata siet, facito deferatur. vac de pequnia ex aerario soluenda. vac quei iudicei, quei earn rem quaesierit, consilioque eius maiorei parti satis fecerit nomine] Edge - E = 2, E, 1.16 = 87, E - D = 7, D, L 7 = 61, D - edge = 168 + vacat = 325 + vacat 60 [su]o parentisue suei quoiue ipse parensue suos heres siet lei tern aestumatam esse, queiue eiei iudicei consilioque eius maiorei pa[rti ita sa]tis fecerit regis populeiue ceiuisue suei nomine litem aestumatam esse sibei, q[uanta ea pecunia erit -T- quae —] Edge - E = 2, E, 1.17 = 107, E - D = 8, D, 1. 8 = 67, D - edge = ??? 61 [ex] hace lege in aerario posita erit, ob earn rem, quod eo nomine lis aestumata erit, in triduo proxsumo, quo ita satis [factum erit,] ex hace lege soluatur; neiue quis iudex neiue quaestor facito sciens dolo m[alo, quo minus ita satis fiat itaque soluatur — vac de tributo indicendo. vac quanti iudex, quei earn rem quaesierit, leites aestumauerit, sei is] Edge - E = 2, E, 1.18 = 90, E - D = 10, D, 1. 9 = 62, D - edge = ??? 62 [iud]ex ex hace lege pequniam omnem ad quaestorem redigere non potuerit, turn in diebus (decern) proxsumeis, quibus [quanta potue]rit redacta erit, iudex quei earn rem quaesierit, queiue iudex ex hace lege fac[tus erit, turn cum ea pequnia redacta erit tributum indicito — diemque edito, qua is adsiet quoius parentisue quoius eiusue quoi ipse parensue eius heres siet ceiuisue eius leites] Edge - E = 3, E, 1.19 = 84, E - D = 11, D,1.10 = 63, D-edge = ??? 63 [aest]umatae erunt, (aut) quoius regis populeiue nomine lis aestumata erit legatei adessint, dum nei longius (centum) dies edat. [vac de trib]uto seruando vvvvvv ubei ea dies uenerit, quo die iusei erunt adesse, iudex, quei e[um tributum indixerit, quanta pequnia de eius, quei ex h(ace) l(ege) condemnatus erit, bonis redacta erit, tantam pequniam pro portioni tribuito; queique ei iudici consilioque eius maiorei parti litem sibei aestumatam esse] Edge - E = 4, E, I. 20 = 90, E - D = 6 + vacat, D, 1. 11 = 66, D - edge = 176 = 342 + vacat 64 [satis f]ecerit, ei primo quoque die quaestorem soluere iubeto, quaestorque earn pequniam eis sed fr(a)ude sua soluito. vac [reliquom] in aerario siet. vvvvvv quod eorum nomine, quei non ad(e)rit, tributus factus [erit, quaestor in aerario seruato — vac de

ROMAN STATUTES

72 vac

tribute proscribendo. ] Edge - E = 6, E, 1. 21 = 88, E - D = 8 + vacat, D, 1.12 = 61, D -edge = ??? 65 [queiquomq]ue praetor ex hace lege tribuendei caussa prodeixerit, is, uti quod recte factum esse uolet, facito, quo modo prode[ixerit, ea omnia m]aiore parte diei ad earn diem, donee solutum (e)rit, apud forum palam ubei de piano r[ecte legi possitur, proscripta propositaque habeat — praetor, quei eum tributum] Edge - E = 9, E, 1. 22 = 93, E - D = 14, D, 1.13 = 65, D - edge = ??? 66 fecerit, dies[ ??? proxs]umos, ex ea die, qua tributus factus erit, apud forum palam ubci de piano recte legi possitur, proscri[bito. vac pequnia] post quinquenium populei fiet. vvvvv quae pequnia ex hace lege in aerarium posita erit, quod in anneis qufinque proxsumeis ex ea die, qua tributus factus erit, quaestor ex h(ace) l(ege) non soluerit, populei esto. vac de pequnia exigenda. vac quaestor quoi aerarium prouincia obuenerit, quoi ex h(ace) l(ege) praedes datei erunt, queiue deinceps] C, 1. 1 + E, I. 23 = 97 + cardinal numeral, E - D = 11 + vacat, D, 1. 14 = 85, D - edge = 171 + vacat = 364 + cardinal numeral + vacat x 2 67 eandem prouin[ci]am habebit, eis faciunto, utei quod recte factum esse uolet, quod eius is reus non soluerit, ab eis pr[aedibus primo quo]que die pequnia exigatur. wwvvw pequnia in fiscis opsignetur. w v v quaequomque pequnia ex hace lege ad q[uaestorem redacta erit, is quaestor ea pequnia facito in fiscis siet fiscique signo suo opsignentur — singulisque fiscis inscribatur] C, I. 2 + E, I. 24 = 94, E - D = 15, D, 1.15 = 89, D - edge = ??? 68 quis praetor litis ae//stumauerit et unde ea pequnia redacta siet quantumque in eo fisco siet. quaestor, quiquom[que erit, utei quod ] recte factum esse uolet, facito in diebus (quinque) proxumeis quibusquomque eiei aerarium prouincia obuenerit [ — quoi] C, 1. 3 + E, 1. 25 = 92, E - D = 15, D, 1.16 = 87, D - edge = ??? 69 pequniam ex hace lege, // quod sine malo pequlatu(u) fiat, pr(aetor) quei ex hace lege quaeret, darei solui iuserit, id quaestor, [quei aerarium pro]uinciam optinebit, sed fraude sua extra ordinem dato soluitoque. vvvv quaestor moram nei facito. yvvv qu[aestor — vac iudicium nei quis impediat. vac quod] C, 1. 4 + E, 1. 26 = 93, E - D = 15, D, 1. 17 = 86, D - edge = ??? 70 ex hace lege (iu)dic[i]um fie//r//i oportebit, quom ex hace lege fieri oportebit, nei quis magistratus proue magistratu proue [quo inperio inp]ediu[nto quo] minus setiusue fiat iudiceturue, neiue quis eum, quei ex hace lege iudicium exercebit, neiue eum, que[i ex h(ace) l(ege) iudicabit neiue eum quei ex h(ace) l(ege) petet neiue eum unde petetur — ab eo iudicio auocato neiue] C, 1. 5 + E, 1. 27 = 97, E - D = 13, D, 1. 18 = 92, D - edge = ??? 71 auocarier iubeto, neiue ab//ducito neiue abducier iubeto, neiue facito quo quis eorum minus ad id iudicium adesse poss[it, neiue facito quo minus iudic]i uerba audeire, in consilium eire, iudicare liceat, neiue iudicium dimitere iubeto, nisei quom senatu[s iourc uocabitur — aut nisei quom centuriae aut] C, 1. 6 + E, 1. 28 = 97, E - D = 26, D, 1. 19 = 84,D-edge = ??? 72 tribus intro uocabuntur, ex//tra quam sei quid in saturam feretur. vac sei is praetor, quei ex hace lege quaeret, sei[ue is q(uaestor) quoi aerarium uel urbana prouinc]ia obuenerit, (eo magistratu) ioudicioue inperioue abierit abdicauerit mortuosue erit, antequam ea omnia ioudica[ta soluta factaue erunt, quod ex hace lege fieri oportebit, queiquomque praetor ex hace lege quaeret, queiue quaestor aerarium uel urbanam prouinciam habebit, is, utei quod recte factum] C, 1. 7 + E, 1. 29 = 89 + vacat, E - D = 33, D, 1. 20 = 83, D - edge = 153 = 358 + vacat

1 - LEX REPETVNDARVM

73

79 See below for the beginning of the line. [sej j s pra etor, quei ex hace lege quaeret, seiue is q(uaestor), quoi aerarium] uel urbana prouincia obuenerit, eo magistrate iudicioue inperioue abierit abdicaueritu[e mortuosue erit, antequam ea omnia ioudicata soluta factaue erunt, quod ex hace lege fieri oportebit, queiquomque praetor ex hace lege quaeret, queiue quaestor aerarium uel urbanam] C, 1.14 = 33, C - E = 13, E, 1. 36 = 27 + vacat, E - D = 64 + vacat, D, 1. 27 = 76, D - edge = 151 = 364 + vacatx2 73 esse uolet, facito utei ea omnia, // quod ex hace lege factum non erit, faciant fiantque, quae ex hace lege fieri oportere(t), se[i apud eum ea res acta esset, deque ea re eiei] praetori quaestorique omnium rerum, quod ex hace lege factum non erit, siremps lex esto, qua[sei sei apud eum ea res acta esset — vac de rebus ex lege Calpurnia Iuniaue iudicatis. vac de quibus iudicium] C, 1. 8 + E, I. 30 = 97, E - D = 35, D, 1. 21 = 75, D edge = ??? 80 prouinciam habebit, is, utei qu[od recte factum esse ujolet, facito utei ea omnia, [quod ex hace lege factum non erit, faciant fiantque, quae ex hace lege fieri oporteret sei ]apud eum ea res acta esset, deque ea re eiei praetor(i) quaestor(ique) omnium rerum, quod ex [hace lege factum non erit, siremps lex esto, quasei sei apud eum ea res acta esset — vac de rebus ex lege Calpurnia Iuniaue iudicatis. vac de quibus] C, 1. 15 = 25, C - E = 18, E, 1. 37 = 21, E - D = 73, D, I. 28 = 66, D - edge = ??? 74 fuit fueritue ex lege quam L. Cal//purnius L.f. tr(ibunus) pl(ebis) rogauit, exue lege quam M. Iunius D.f. tr(ibunus) pl(ebis) rogauit, quei (e)orum eo [ioudicio condemnatus est eritue, quo] magis de ea re eius nomen vv hace lege de(fe)ratur{um), quoue mag{istratus}is de ea re quom [eo ex hace lege agatur, eius hace lege nihilum rogatur. nRubricn queiquomque aduersus hance legem fecisse deicentur, nisei h(ance) l(egem) populus plebesue iouserit, antequam ea res facta] C, I. 9 + E, I. 31 = 89, E - D = 31, D, 1. 22 = 69, D - edge = 137 + Rubric = 326 + Rubric 81 [iud]icium (f)uit fueritue ex leg[e quam L. Calpurnius L.f.] tribunus plebei roga[uit, exue lege quam M. Iunius D.f. tribunus plebei rogauit, quei eorum eo ioudicio condem]natus est eritue, quo magis de ea re eius nomen hace lege de(f)eratur quoue magis de e[a re quom eo ex hace lege agatur, eius hace lege nihilum rogatur. ^Rubric) queiquomque aduersus hance legem fecisse deicentur, nisei h(ance) l(egem) populus plebesue] Edge - C = 3, C, I. 16 = 22, C - E = 18, E, 1.38 = 18, E - D = 70, D, 1. 29 = 67, D - edge = 118 + Rubric = 316 + Rubric 75 erit, quom eis hace lege actio nei esto. vvv//vac de praeuaricatione. vac praetor, quei ex hace lege quaeret, qua de re ei prae[tori eisque ioudicibus, quei ex hace lege ad earn rem io]udicandam adfuerint, quei uiuent, eorum maiorei parti{s} satis factum erit, nomen, quod ex [hace lege quis detulerit, pracuaricationis causa eum detulisse —] C, 1. 10 + E, 1. 32 = 92 + vacat x 2, E - D = 44, D, I. 23 = 72, D - edge = ??? 82 [iouseri]t, antequam ea res [facta erit, quom eis hace lege a]ctio nei es[to. vac de praeuaricatione. vac pr(aetor), quei ex h(ace) l(ege) quaeret, qua de re ei pr(aetori) eisque ioudicibus, quei ex h(ace) l(ege) ad e]am rem ioudicandam adfueri[n]t, quei uiuent, eorum maiori{sj parti satis ffeceritf e[rit, nomen, quod ex hace lege quis detulerit, praeuaricationis causa eum detulisse — vac de ceiuitate] Edge - C = 7, C, 1.17 = 14, C - E = 25, E, 1. 39 = 9, E - D = 74 + vacat x 2, D, I. 30 = 65, D - edge = ???

ROMAN STATUTES

74 vvvv

vvvvvv

76 de ceiuitate danda. sei quis eor[u]m, quei ceiuis Romanus non erit, ex hace lege alteri nomen [— ad praetor]em, quoius ex hace lege quaestio erit, detolent, et is eo {eo} iudicio hace lege condemnatus erit, tu[m eis, quei eius nomen detolerint, quoius eorum opera maxume is quoius nomen delatum erit condemnatus erit, ipse ceiuis Romanus iustus esto filieique eiei gnatei, quom] C, 1.11 + E, 1. 33 = 83, E - D = ?43?, D, 1. 24 = 79, D - edge = 138 = ?343? 83 [danda. vwwj wwwv sei q[uis eorum, quei ceiuis Romanus non erit, ex hace lege alteri nomen — ad praetorem, quoius e]x hace lege quaestio erit, detuler[it et i]s eo ioudicio hace lege condemnatus erit, turn eis, qu[ei eius nomen detulerint, quoius eorum opera maxume is quoius nomen delatum erit condemnatus erit, ipse ceiuis Romanus iustus esto filieique eiei gnatei, quom ceiuis Romanus ex hace lege fietj Edge - C = 10, C, 1.18 = 11, C - D = ?103?, D, 1. 31 = 75, D - edge = 159 = ?358? 77 ceiuis Romanus ex hace lege fiet, nepotesque [d]um eiei filio gnateis ceiueis Romanei iustei sunto[ inque eius tribum, quei ex h(ace) l(ege) condemnatus erit, sufragiujm ferunto, inque ea(m) tribum censento, militiaeque eis uocatio esto, aera stipendiaque o[mnia eis merita sunto. nei qui magistratus proue magistratu — eius h(ace) l(ege)] C, 1.12 + E, 1. 34 = 81, E - D = 46, D, 1. 25 = 71, D - edge = ??? 84 [nepotesque d]um e[iei filio gnateis ceiueis Romanei iustei sunto, inque eius tribum, quei ex h(ace) l(ege) condemnatus erit, sufragium ferunto, inque earn tribum censento, militiaeque ei]s uocatio esto, aera stipendia[que eis] omnia merita sunt(o). nei qui magis[t]ratus pr[oue magistratu —] Edge - C = 11, C, 1. 19 = 3, C - D = 129, D, 1. 32 = 65, D -edge = ??? 78 nihilum rogato. vvvvvvv de prouocation[e uocation]eque danda. vac sei quis eorum, quei [???c(eiuis) R(omanus) ex h(ace) l(ege) fieri nolet, quei eorum in ceiuitate Latina Iluir consul??? dictator w praetor aedilisue non fuerint, ad praetorem, quoius ex hace lege quaestio eri[t, ex h(ace) l(ege) alteri nomen detolerit et is eo iudicio h(ace) l(ege) condemnatus erit, turn, quei eius nomen detolerit, quoius eorum opera maxume is condemnatus erit, ei prouocatio uocatioque esto uocatioque] C, 1.13 = 33, C - E = 9, E, 1. 35 = 25 + vacat, E - D = ???58???, D, 1. 26 = 69, D - edge = 155 = ???349??? + vacat 85 [— ad praetorem, quoius ex hace lege quaestio erit, ex h(ace) l(ege) alteri nomen detolerit et is eo iudicio h(ace) l(ege) condem]natus erit, turn, quei eiu[s nomen] detolerit, quoius eorum opera ma[xume is condemnatus erit —] D, 1. 33 = 52 79

eius militiae munerisque poplici in su[a quoiusque cei]uitate

faciat pr[opOSita Siet.

vac

]

vac

iudex deinceps

See above for the end of the line.

86 [— s]ei petetur, de ea re eius [optio est]o, utrum uelit uel in sua ceiuitat[e uel Romae —] D, 1.34 = 54 87 [— sed fraude sua inperio inhi]bere liceto. v v w v [ w w v quei cei]uis Romanus ex hace lege alte[rei nomen detolerit —] D, 1.35 = 51 88 [—] vvvv quoi ex h[ace lege militiae uo]catio erit esseue oporte[bit —] D, I. 36 = 49 89 [— praetor quei inter pe]regrinos ious [deicet —] D, 1. 37 = 12 90 [—]atei c[—] D, 1. 38 = 5

1 - LEX REPETVNDARVM

75

APPARATUS CRITICUS 1 [— TR(IBVN???) PL. PLEBEM IOVRE ROGAV??? PLEBESQVE IOVRE SCIVIT IN — A.D. — , TRIBVS — PRINCIPIVM FviT, PRO TRIBV — PREIMVS SCIVIT. — ] , Mommsen (1863); [ M \ ACILIVS? — TR(lBVNl) PL. PLEBEM IOVRE ROGAVERVNT PLEBESQVE IOVRE SCIVIT IN — A.D. — , TRIBVS — PRINCIPIVM FVIT, PRO TRIBV

PREIMVS SCIVIT.

— ] , Mommsen

(1905); [QVOI CEIVEI ROM. SOCIVMVENO]MINISVE, Klenze 1-2

AMICITIAV[E POPVLI ROMANI RES SVAE REPETVNDAE ERVNT — SEI PETET AB EO

. „ , Lintott 2

(QVEIVE) QVOIVS(VE) PATER, Klenze in commentary, Mommsen (1863); (QVEIVE

IPSE VEL) QVOIVS PATER, Mommsen (1905); it is not certain that Chacon saw ampl[—] or

the copyist of Sigonio ampli[—] 3

[— PRO INPERIO PROVE POTESTATE IPSEI REGIVE POPVLOVE IPSIVS PARENTIVE

IPSIVS QVEIVE IN POTESTATE MANU MANCIPIO SVO PARENTISVE SVI SIET FVERIT

QVO]IVE, Mommsen (1905); supp. Lintott; [—]OIVE, Gbttling: the first letter is not now visible; IPSEI PARENTEVE s v o s , VE above the line, aes, corr. Klenze

3-4

For the supplement, see 11. 4 and 6; Klenze and Mommsen restored the

QVEIQVOMQVE IOVDICIVM of 1. 6, but it is probably to be corrected in 1. 6 [— SEI QVIS DEICET PRAETOREM NOMEN EX H.L. ITA NON RECEPISSE VTEI DELATVM ESSET NEQVE IOVDICIVM EX H.L. ITA D A T V ] M ESSE, Mommsen; supp. Lintott,

adapting Mattingly 5

[— EIV]S I V [ D I C — ] or [— QV]OIV[S — ] , Mommsen with apparatus; [— QV]OIV[E

— ] , Lintott in apparatus: s is more probable than o; [— DE QVO EX H.L. IOVDICATVM ERIT, SEI ( 1 9 0 5 , ET 1 8 6 3 ) CONTRA H.L. FECISSE DEICETVR, POSTQVAM EA RES

IOVD]ICATA ERIT, Mommsen: the first letter is not now visible; supp. Crawford, adapting

Lintott 5-6

A[D PR. DENVO DETOLERIT — QVAESTIO EIVS PR. ESTO, IOVDICIVM . . . ] ,

Mommsen; A[D PR. QVEI EX H.L. QVAERET DETOLERIT, PR. QVAESTIO ESTO, IOVDICIVM

. . . ] , Lintott; for the supplement in general, see 11. 4 and 6 6

ENO or LNO is clear, followed by NOMIN: [— ALI]ENO NOMIN[E — ] , Mommsen

(1863); [SEI Qvis ALI]ENO NOMIN[E — EX H.L. PETERE NOMENVE DEFERRE VOLET, DE EA RE EIVS PETITIO NOMINISQVE DELATIO ESTO], Mommsen (1905); [— ALI]ENO NOMIN[E — DE EA RE EIVS PETITIO NOMINISQVE DELATIO ESTO], Lintott IOVDICIVMVE IOVDICATIO, aes; I O V D I C I V M { V E }

IOVDICATIO, Mommsen;

IOVDICIVM, aes

6 - 7 Supp. Lintott, adapting Mommsen, cf. 1. 19 7

[— EIVS PR. SENTENTIA PETITO NOMENQVE EIVS DEFERTO.

NOMEN DEFERETVR,

POST K. SEPT. QVOD

SEI IS QVEI PETET VOLET, IS PR. DE EA RE IOVDICIVM

RECVPERATORIVM DATO. QV]OIVS, Mommsen (1863); [— ITA VTI I.S. E S T RES AGITOR. POST K. SEPT. SEI QVOD NOMEN DEFERETVR, SEI IS QVEI PETET VOLET, IS PR. DE EA RE RECVPERATORES DATO. QVJOIVS, M o m m s e n ( 1 9 0 5 ) ; [— QVORVM NOMINA POST K. SEPT. EX H.L. DELATA ERVNT, SEI VOLET QVIS QVEI PETET, DE EA RE PR. — RECVPERATORES DATO. QV]OIVS, Lintott; DELATVM QVEI, ERIT above the line, aes 7-8

AE[STVMATA ERIT, TANTAM PECVNIAM QVEI EVM CONDEMNAVERIT DATO —

EAQVE PECVNIA QVEI PETIVERI]T EIVS ESTO, Mommsen (1905), adapting Mommsen (1863); AE[STVMATA ERIT, TANTA PEQVNIA EI, QVEI PETET — EAQVE PEQVNIA, QVEI EAM PETEIVERIT, SED FRAVDE SVA] EIVS ESTO, Lintott; supp., after checking the bronze,

Crawford

ROMAN STATUTES

76 8

QfVAERET, FACITO, QVIDQVID EORVM QVOI, QVEI NOMEN POST K. SEPT. EX H.L.

DETVLERIT, OB EAM REM EX H.L. DARI OPORTERE IOVDICAT]VM ERIT, M o m m s e n ( 1 8 6 3 ) ; Q[VAERET, FACITO, QVIDQVID iTA — IOVDICAT]VM ERIT, Mommsen (1905); Q[VAERET, FACITO — QVANTVM iTA IOVDICAT]VM ERIT, Lintott; [—]um erit, Chacon: the first letter

is not now clear 8-9

[... ALIQVA EARVM, DVM MAG. AVT INPERIVM HABEBIT. NEI IN IOVS EDVCITOR

NEIVE EIVS NOMEN PR. QVEI EX H.L. QVAERET RECIPITO. POSTQVAM EORVM QVIS E ] X EO, Mommsen (1863); [... ALIQVA EARVM, DVM MAG. AVT INPERIVM HABEBIT, NEI IN IOVS EDVCITOR — QVEI EORVM E ] X EO, Mommsen (1905) 9

QVO MIN[VS IN IOVS EDVCATVR — EIVSQVE NOMEN PR. QVEI EX H.L. QVAERET

RECIPIAT, E.H.L.N.R. DE PATRONO DANDO. QVEI EX H.]L., M o m m s e n ( 1 8 6 3 ) ; QVO MIN[VS IN IOVS EDVCATVR, E.H.L.N.R. — DE PATRONEIS DANDEIS.

QVEI .EX H.]L., M o m m s e n

(1905); QVO MIN[VS DE EO IOVDICIVM FIAT, E.H.L.N.R.

DE PATRONO DANDO.

—

vac

QVEI EX H . ] L , Lintott

9 - 1 0 Supp. Mommsen, reading however ... INGENVOS EI DATO ... 10

Supp. Mommsen, reading however . . . DELATVM ERIT — GENER . . . ; ATIIGAT, aes;

FVERIT, aes 10-11

Supp. Mommsen; [QVEIVE IN FIDE EIVS, QVOIVS NOMEN DELATVM

ERIT,

MAIORESVE . . . ] , Lintott 11

QVAESTIONEM IOVDICIOOVE, aes\ [— Q ] V A E S T I O N E { M }

[—]

IOVDICIO{O}VE,

Klenze; [—] Q V A E S T I O N E { M } IOVDICIO(Q)VE, Mommsen; A to B lacuna, supp.

Crawford, adapting Klenze, cf. 1. 13 11-12 mora[m fecerit — ] , Chacon in note; thereafter supp. Lintott; mori[etur — ] , Pinelli, Sigonio; MORI[BVS SVSPECTVS ERIT, IS QVOI EX H.L. DATVS ERIT EVM REPVDIATO (1863, REICITO 1905) — T V M QVOS EX H.L. IN EAM REM PATRONOS (1863, QVOS EX H.L. PATRONOS 1905) DARE LICET, EOR]VM, Mommsen, adapting Klenze; the trace of the last

letter before the lacuna is closer to an A than to an i and the apparently clear i in Imagines is a trick of the light; [—]VM, edd.; supp., after checking the bronze, Crawford 12

QVEM [VOLET DATO — ] , Mommsen (1863); QVEI S[IBEI DAREI PETET DATO — ] ,

Mommsen (1905); supp., after checking the bronze, Crawford 12-13

QVEI IN HAC CEIVIT[ATE SESTERTIVM QVADRINGENTORVM MILIVM N ( V M M V M )

PLVRISVE CENSVS SIET — DVM NEI QVEM . . . ] , Mommsen (1863); QVEI IN HAC CIVIT[ATE EQVOM PVBLICVM HABEBIT HABVERIT — DVM NEI QVEM . . . ] , Mommsen (1905); QVEI IN HAC CEIVIT[ATE INGENVI GNATEI ERVNT — DVM NEI QVEM . . . ] , Lintott adapting

Mattingly 13

F V E R I N T E I E QVEI [ — ] , aes,

corr. Klenze; Q V E I V [ E M E R C E D E

CONDVCTVS

DEPVGNAVIT DEPVGNAVERIT ARTEMVE LVDICRAM FECIT FECERIT QVEIVE QVAESTIONE . . . ] , Mommsen (1863); QVEIV[E MERCEDE CONDVCTVS DEPVGNAVIT DEPVGNAVERIT — QVEIVE QVAESTIONE . . . ] , Mommsen (1905); QVEIV[E MERCEDEM OB ARTEM LVDICRAM CAPIET QVEIVE QVAESTIONE . . . ] , Mattingly (1975); supp. Crawford, cf. 1. 11

13-14

Supp. Crawford, adapting Mommsen; [—]NVE ERIT, Gottling, beyond doubt

wrongly 14 TRIBVNVM, IOVDICET, aes: see the Commentary Q[VEI EX H.L. IN HVNC ANNVM QVAERET — IS DIE ??? EX QVO LEGERIT EORVM, QVEI EX] H.L., Mommsen; IOVDICE(S) Q[VEI EX H.L. IN EVM (presumably a mistake for HVNC) ANNVM ERVNT EDITO — PR, QVEI LEGERIT, EORVM QVEI EX] H.L., LintOtt; SCRIPTES, DESCRIPTOS, aes 14-15

HAB[ETO, EOSQVE PROPOSITOS SVO MAGISTRATV

SERVATO.

DESCRIBERE VOLET, IS PR. PERMITTITO POTESTATEMQVE . . . ] , M o m m s e n ;

SEI QVIS HAB[ETO,

1 - LEX REPETVNDARVM

77

EOSQVE PROPOSITOS SVO MAG. HABETO, EORVMQVE, QVEI EX H.L. CDL VIREI IN EVM (presumably a mistake for HVNC) ANNVM LECTEI ERVNT — POTESTATEMQVE . . . ] , Lintott 15 SESE [EOS EX H.L. LEGISE, DE QVIBVS SIBEI CONSVLTVM SIET — OPTVMOS EOS IOVDICES FVTVROS ESSE QVOSQVE OETILES IO]VDICES, M o m m s e n ; SESE [EOS EX H.L. LEGISSE, DE QVIBVS SIBEI CONSVLTVM SIET QVOSQVE DILIGENTES FVTVROS IO]VDICES, Lintott 15-19 Supplements follow those of 11. 12-15 unless otherwise stated 1 5 - 1 6 [LEGVNDIS. PR. QVEI POST H.L. ROGATAM EX H.L. IOVDEX FACTVS ERIT — IS IN DIEBVS . . . ] , Mommsen; [LEGVNDIS. — PR., QVEI POST HVNC ANNVM EX H.L. IOVDEX FACTVS ERIT, IS IN DIEBVS . . . ] , LintOtt 18 TRIBV, aes; s v o MA[GISTRATV], Mommsen: the last letter is not now clear; [—]mque, Chacon: the first letter is not now visible; RECITETVR, aes 19 AB A[LIQVO EORVM PETET — ] , K l e n z e ; AB A[LTERO PETET — IS EVM, VNDE PETET, POSTQVAM CDL VIREI EX H.L. IN E]VM ANNVM, Mommsen (1863); AB A[RVORSARIO PETET — IS EVM, VNDE PETET, POSTQVAM CDLVIREI EX H.L. IN E]VM ANNVM, M o m m s e n ( 1 9 0 5 ) ; AB A[LTERO PETET, QVOIVS EORVM EX H.L. ANTE K. SEPT. PETITIO ERIT, (iS presumably omitted in error) EVM, VNDE PETET . . . ] . . . , Lintott 19-20 NON PO[STVLARE, IS PR. NOMEN RECIPITO ITAQVE FACITO ( 1 8 6 3 , RECIPITO FACITOQVE, 1 9 0 5 ) — VTEI DIE ??? EX EO DIE, QVO QVOIVSQVE QVISQVE NOMEN DETOLERIT, IS QVOIVS NOMEN DELATVM E]RIT, M o m m s e n ; NON PO[STVLARE VTEI IS, VNDE PETET, ADSIET, IS PR. EIVS NOMEN RECIPITO — FACITOQVE VTEI . . . ] . . . , LintOtt 20 The L in LECTEI is that normally used by the engraver for the numeral 50; OM[NES — QVOI IS, QVEIVE EI, QVOIVS NOMEN DELATVM ERIT, GENER SOCER VITRICVS PRI]VIGNVSVE, Mommsen; OM[NES, QVEI VIVANT, IOVDICES, QVOI IS, QVEIVE EI, QVOIVS EX H.L. NOMEN DELATVM ERIT, GENER SOCER VITRICVS PRl]VIGNVSVE, LintOtt; SUpp. Crawford, cf. 1. 22 2 0 - 1 CORAM ARV[ORSARIO IS QVOIVS NOMEN DELATVM ERIT IOVRET, DE CDL VIREIS, QVEI IN EVM ANNVM EX H.L. LECTEI SIENT PRAETEREA NVLLVM ESSE NISEI QVEI SE EARVM ALIQVA NECESITVDINE QVAE S(VPRA) s(CRIPTA) s(lENT)] NON ATTIGERET, Mommsen (1863); CORAM ARV[ORSARIO IS QVEI ITA EDIDERIT IOVRET, IN CDL VIREIS, QVEI IN EVM ANNVM EX H.L. LECTEI SIENT NON RELIQVISSE SE NISEI QVEI SE EARVM ALIQVA NECESITVDINE QVAE S(VPRA) S(CRIPTA) S(lENT)] NON ATTIGERET, M o m m s e n ( 1 9 0 5 ) ; CORAM ARV[ORSARIO APVD SE PALAM IOVRET, QVOS EX H.L. EDERE OPORTEAT, EORVM OMNES SE EDIDISSE / NEQVE IOVDICEM RELIQVISSE NISEI EVM, QVEI SE EARVM ALIQVA NECESITVDINE QVAE s(VPRA) s(CRIPTA) s(lENT)] NON ATTIGERET, LintOtt 2 1 COVRATOQVE, aeS\ IN EA[M QVAESTIONEM QVEI QVOIVSQVE ITA NOMEN DETOLERIT, is (is added 1905) PR. QVOIVS EX H.L. QVAESTIO E]RIT, Mommsen; IN E A [ — PR. EVM, QVEI ITA EX H.L. NOMEN ALTERivs DETOLE]RIT, Lintott; VIREI IN EVM, aes; contra Mommsen (1905); VIVAT, aes 2 1 - 2 E[DATQVE — DVM NET QVIS IOVD]EX SIET, Mommsen; E[DATQVE ARVORSARIO IOVDICES, QVOS VOLET — DVM NEI QVEM EORVM LEGAT, VTEI IOVD]EX SIET, LintOtt 22 EI above the Q of QVEI, aes\ SOBRINVS[...], Mommsen: the last letter is not now visible; SOBRINVS[ SIET PROPIVSVE EVM EA COGNATIONE ATTINGAT — QVEIVE IN EODEM CONLEGIO SIET, QVEIVE E]l SODALIS SIET, M o m m s e n ; SOBRINV[s SIET PROPIVSVE EVM EA COGNATIONE ATTINGAT — QVEIVE IN EODEM CONLEGIO SIET, QVEIVE EI] SODALIS SIET, Lintott; TRiBVNi, aes\ it seems highly unlikely that any of our copyists ever saw any other letters after PRIM

ROMAN STATUTES

78 22-3

L. RVBR[lA IIIVIR COL. DED. CREATVS SIET FVERITVE — QVEIVE AB VRBE ROMA

PLVS ??? PASSVVM] ABERIT, Mommsen; L. RVBR[IA IN AFRICAM MISSVS COLONVSVE SCRIPTVS EST ERIT — QVEIVE AB VRBE ROMA REI PVPLICAE CAVSSA] ABERIT, LintOtt 23

FAMIIIA, aeS\ NEIVE EVM [LEGAT EDATVE QVEI PECVNIAE CAPTAE CONDEMNATVS

EST E R I T AVT QVOD CVM EO LEGE CALPV]RNIA, Mommsen, adapting Klenze; NEIVE EVM [ L E G A T EDATVE QVEI IOVDICIO ALIQVO ALIENO NOMINE EGERIT AVT QVOD AB EO LEGE C A L P V ] R N I A , Venturini, Studi,

1 6 9 - 7 2 ; N E I V E EVM [ Q V E M

? CENSORES

FVRTI

CAPTARVMQVE PEQVNIARVM NOMINE NOTAVERVNT NOTAVERINT, QVOD DE EO LEGE

CALPV]RNIA, Lintott: agere ab or de + person is unknown to TLL 23-4

CORAM A[RVORSARIO . . . ] , Mommsen (1863); CORAM P[OPVLO — . . . Q V A ] ,

Crawford; otherwise supp. Mommsen (1905); CORAM [ARVORSARIO PR., QVOIVS EX H.L. Q V A E S T I O ERIT, EORVM NVLLVM SE EDIDISSE SCIENTEM D.M. — QVEM EX H.L., VTEI s.s.s., I O V D I C A R E NON LICEAT, QVEIVE SE EARVM ALIQVA] NECESITVDINE, Lintott, adapting

Mommsen (1863) 24 See the Commentary; QVOMI[NVS — SEI IS . . . ] , Mommsen (1905): the last letter is not now visible 24-5

Q[VOS VOLET, (QVINQVAGINTA)

LEGAT

. . . ] , Mommsen;

Q[VOS

VOLET,

(QVINQVAGINTA) L E G A T E D A T Q V E . . . ] , Lintott 25 SEIVE [EX CDL VIREIS, QVEI IN EVM ANNVM EX H.L. LECTEI ERVNT, EIVS NOMEN, QVEI SE ALIQVA ADFINITATE COGNATION]E, Lintott, adapting Mommsen; supp. Crawford; E[DIDERIT, TVM EI PE]R, Mommsen; E[DIDERIT, CVI EI PE]R or E[DIDERIT, SI ( E I ) PE]R,

Daube, Forms, 5 5 - 6 ; E[DIDERIT, EI PE]R, Lintott 25-6

EDATV[E QVOS VOLET L DE EIS C, QVOS EX H.L. EDIDERIT — DVM NEI QVEM

EORVM, QVEM EX H.L. DE EA RE IOVDICARE NON LICEAT, SCIENS . . . ] , Mommsen (1863); E D A T V [ E QVOS VOLET L DE EIS C, QVOS EX H.L. EDIDERIT — DVM NEI EORVM, QVOS EX H.L. LEGERE NON LICEAT, QVEM SCIENS . . . ] , Mommsen (1905); EDATV[E QVOS VOLET L DE EIS CDL VIREIS, QVEI IN EVM ANNVM EX H.L. LECTEI ERVNT

DVM NEI QVEM EORVM,

QVOS EX H.L. LEGERE NON LICEAT, SCIENS . . . ] , Lintott; supp. Crawford, adapting Hesky,

2 7 8 - 9 (not refuted by Brassloff, 106 n. 3) 26 Supp. Crawford, adapting Mommsen 26-7

PAT[RONOS, QVOS QVEI PETET EX H.L. ACCEPERIT — IN TABOLEIS POPLICEIS . . . ] ,

M o m m s e n (1905), adapting M o m m s e n (1863); the s u p p l e m e n t of Lintott is grammatically unacceptable 27

Supp. Crawford,

cf.

1. 18; P O P L I [ C E I S

DESCRIBERE

IS PR. P E R M I T T I T O

POTESTATEMQVE SCRIBVNDI FACITO.] M o m m s e n (1863); POPLl[CEIS DESCRIBENDI IS PR.

POTESTATEM FACITO —], Mommsen (1905); lectei erunt[—], Chacon, Pinelli, Ritschl; LECTEI ERVNT E [ — ] , Mommsen (1863); LECTEI E R [ — ] , Mommsen (1905); L E C T E I [ — ] ,

aes: the shape and state of the bronze at this point is such that the reading of Mommsen (1863) may have been possible; [EIS EIVS REI . . . ] , Lintott 28

[—

Q]VEI, Mommsen; [—

IOVDICEM Q]VEI, Lintott; PEQVNIAM CAPIET E V M ,

Mazochi; pequniam ex[—]eum, Pinelli; PEQVNIAM [—]T EVM, aes CEPER[IT, NEI — NEIVE TRIBV MO] VETO, Mommsen; CEPER[IT, NEI QVIS IN IOVS EDVCITO NOMENVE EIVS DEFERTO, NEIVE CENS(OR) AERARIVM RELINQVITO NEIVE T R I B V MO]VETO, Lintott; QVID, then EI above EIVS, then EAM, aes [NEI FALSA NOMINA] SCRIPTA SIENT, Lintott; PR. QVEI EX H.L. IV or N [ — ] , Blume; PR. QVEI EX H.L. V [ — ] , Mommsen with apparatus; PR. QVEI EX H.L. Q[VAERET — ] ,

Lintott: what is visible of the last letter is an upright hasta

1 - LEX REPETVNDARVM 29

79

Supp. Mommsen, postulating a lacuna (SEI IS PRIVS MORTVOS ERIT, 1863); ERI[T,

QVOIVM NOMEN AB EO PR. RECEPTVM ERIT, SEI is . . . ] , Lintott; NDICATA, aes; [—]m rem

ab eis, Chacon: the first letter is no longer visible 29-30

[QVEI IOVDICIVM . . . DE INQVISITIONE F A C I E N D A . PR. DE EO QVO]lv[s] NOMEN,

Mommsen (1905); [QVEIVE HERES EI SIET, QVEIVE PATER FRATER FILIVSVE SIET — PR., QVEI EX H.L. QVAERET, DE EO QVO]lv[M ITA] NOMEN, LintOtt

The Aa fragment preserves iv, read by Hulsen for Mommsen (1905), read by Mommsen (1863) as the initial N of NOMEN EX H. L. AD SE DELATVM ERIT on the Ab

fragment in Mazochi, whence his original [— PR. POSTQVAM] NOMEN; Lintott's calculation that there is space between [QVO]IV[M] and NOMEN for ITA is hazardous 30

VTEI IOVDICIVM P[ERFICIATVR EVMQVE QVEI EX H.L. NOMEN DETOLERIT EIVS IVDICI

CAVSA ADMITTAT, VTEI Q]VOD, Mommsen (1863); VTEI IOVDICIVM P[RIMO QVOQVE DIE FIAT, EIQVE, QVEI EX H.L. NOMEN DETOLERIT, DIES QVOT SIBI VIDEBITVR DET, VTEI Q]VOD, Mommsen

(1905); V T E I I O V D I C I V M P [ R I M Q Q V O Q V E DIE F I A T , E I S Q V E

IOVDICIBVS DIEM PRODEICITO, QVO EIS ROMAM ADESSE OPORTEBIT, VTEI Q]VOD, Lintott; [AD I N Q V I S I T I O N E M F A C ] I V N D A M , M o m m s e n : too long; [ A N T E

HORAM

SEC] VNDAM, Lintott; the bottom of a vertical hasta = i is clear 3 0 - 1 Supp. Mommsen: the interpunct at the end of 1. 30 is clear 31 CONCILIAB[OLEIS, VBEI IOVRE DICVNDO PRAESSE SOLENT, AVT IN PROVINCIS (1863, A V T E X T R A ITALIAM,

1905) IN O P P E D E I S F O R E I S C O N ] C I L I A B O L E I S ,

Mommsen;

CONCILIAB[OLEIS, VBEI IOVRE DICVNDO PRAESSE SOLENT, ITEMQVE — IN OPPEDEIS FOREIS CON]CILIABOLEIS, Lintott; . . . SOLENT.

IN QVIBVS DI[EBVS EVM QVI PETET

PRAE]TOR . . . QVAERE[T CONQVAERERE . . . ] , Mommsen; . . . SOLENT, IN QVIBVS DI[EBVS — PRAE]TOR . . . QVAERE[TCONQVAERI . . . ] , Lintott 31-2

[— POSTQVAM is PR. IOVDICIVMQVE] AVDIERIT, Mommsen (1863); [— TESTIBVS

VT DENVNTIETVR. PR. IOVDICIVMQVE POSTQVAM] AVDIERIT, Mommsen (1905);

[—

VBEI IS PR.] AVDIERIT, Lintott; 32

C[AVSAM PROBAVERIT, QVIBVS IS QVEI PETET DENVNTIAVERIT, EOS HOMINES D.T. IIL

TESTIMONIVM DEIC]ERE, Mommsen, wrongly: there is no trace of the top horizontal hasta of the E where it should be; C[AVSAM PROBAVERIT, TVM EVM QVEI PETET HOMINIBVS DVMTAXAT iiL — TESTVMONIVM DENVNTIA]RE, Lintott; EI RES, aes

3 2 - 3 Supp. Mommsen (1905), very slightly adapting Mommsen (1863) 33 FIDE QVAERAT, Mazochi, whence Chacon, Pinelli, Sigonio; MAIORESV[E IN MAIORVM EIVS (EIVS added 1905) FIDE FVERINT, QVEIVE EIVS QVOIVS EX H.L. NOMEN DELATVM ERIT C]AVSAM, Mommsen; MAIORESV[E IN MAIORVM FIDE FVERINT, NISEI PATRONVM, QVEI EIVS VNDE PETETVR C] AVSAM, Lintott; QVEI EIVS, VE E above the line, aes

de t[—], Chacon; de tabo[—], the copy made for Vettori; DE N O [ — ] , Klenze from Blume; DE INRO[GANDA MVLTA — ] , Mommsen, with apparatus; D E C D [ — ] , Lintott; reading checked by Crawford 33-4

[— DE TESTIBVS TABVLISQVE CVSTODIEND1S.

vac

IS QVEI PETET, SEI QVOS AD

TESTIMONIVM DEICENDVM EVOCARI]T, Mommsen; supp. Crawford, adapting Lintott 34

RE[RVM CAVSA, DE QVIBVS ID IOVDICIVM FIET — E]A, Mommsen; RE[RVM CAVSA,

DE QVIBVS ID IOVDICIVM FIET — TESTIMONI]A, Lintott; [... PRODV]CERE, Mommsen;

end, supp. Lintott 35 The traces at the bottom of the Aa fragment may be of FA (Lintott), AC (Crawford), or ci (Hulsen) 36 Supp. Mommsen 37 Supp. Mommsen (1905), adapting Mommsen (1863); QVEI EAM REM ERVNT, Mazochi; QVAE EIE[I EX H.L. QVO EAM REM MINVS IOVDICET PERMITTET — ] , Mommsen

ROMAN STATUTES

80

38 Supp. Mommsen, reading however . . . QVEIQVOMQVE . . . ; [— VBEI EORVM NOMINA IS PRAETOR FECERIT VTEI IN CONTIONE R]ECITENTVR, LintOtt; APVD FOR[VM HABETO — NEIVE QVEMQVAM IOVDICARE SINITO, NISEI QVEI ITA IOVRARIT EORVM QVEI EX E]lS, Mommsen (1863); APVD FOR[VM H A B E T O — NEVE NISEI ITA IOVRARIT DE EA RE CONSIDERE SINITO QVEMQVAM EORVM QVEI EX E]IS, Mommsen (1905); APVD FOR[VM, VBEI DE PLANO RECTE LEGI POSSITVR, HABETO POTESTATEMQVE SCRIBVNDI FACITO EIS, QVEI EX E]is, Lintott 39

[DE — EXCVSANDO.

SEI — ACCIDISSE SIBI DEICET QVID, QVOMINVS AD ID]

TOVDICIVM, Mommsen (1863); — SEI — CAVSAM SIBI ESSE DEICET, QVOMINVS AD ID]

IOVDICIVM, Mommsen (1905) QVEI EX HAC[E L. QVAERET COGNOSCERE (1905, STATVERE 1863) — ivs ESTO. DE IVDICIO PROFERENDO VEL REFERE]NDO, Mommsen: too long; QVEI EX HAC[ LEGE QVAERET — DE PROFERE]NDO, LintOtt QVOl[vS INTERERIT EAM REM NON PROFERRI EVM PR. ADITO — ] , M o m m s e n

(1863, supplement abandoned 1905) 40 [— SEI REFER]RE POTERIT, Mommsen; [—]IT VT EIVS, aes 41 [— VO]LET, Mommsen; [— QVEI VO]LET, Lintott; HOMINIS, Mazochi; PE[QVNIAEVE

PETITIO ESTO — ] , Lintott: but in the Este Fragment the phrase occurs in a private law context 42

[— SEI IOVDEX, Q]VEI, Mommsen; [— SEI PRAETOR, Q]VEI, Lintott; NOVER[IT — is

PRAETOR C]ORAM, M o m m s e n ; NOVER[lT, QVAM OB REM IS, QVEI PETET, NON ADFVERIT

— is PRAETOR C]ORAM, Lintott; [—]bus in contione, Chacon: the first letter is not now visible; SENTENTIA, aes 42-3

F E C [ I S S E VIDERI — SEI D E EA R E ] IVDICIVM, Mommsen (1905), adapting

Mommsen (1863); FEC[ISSE NON VIDERI —] IVDICIVM, Lintott 43

TER[TIO DIE FACITO IVDICIVM FIAT — SEI IOVDEX, QVEI EAM REJM QVAERET,

Mommsen (1905), with apparatus, adapting Mommsen (1863); TER[TIO DIE — QVOM EAM RE]M QVAERET,.LintOtt

4 3 - 4 Supp. Mommsen (1905), adapting Mommsen (1863), except for [—]QVEM IAM s[—], which is only in Peiresc and was unknown to Mommsen; FACIT IVRENT, Mazochi 45

I V D I C E [ — ] , Mazochi; [ — ] E I MVLTAM SVPREMA D E I C A [ — ] , Peiresc; MVLTAM

SVPREMA D E I [ — ] , Dupuy, Scaliger; multam suprema delea[—], Chacon 4 5 - 6 [— AD AERARIVM — EXCVJSATIONE, Mommsen (1863, supplement partly abandoned 1905); [—]OQVE DIE DEFERATVR ISQVE QVAESTOR[—], Peiresc: the first and

last letters not in Dupuy, Scaliger, the first not in Chacon; Mazochi records the top of the o in Peiresc 46 Supp. Mommsen (1905); IV[DICABIT — ] , Mommsen (1863); IV[DICES IN CONSILIVM VOCARIT — ] , Lintott

47 [ — ] V R [ — ] , Mazochi; Peiresc saw traces of two letters before RE DEIXERIT ... (DEIXERIT ... also in Dupuy, Scaliger, re deixerit... also in Chacon); he gives them as the bottom of a round letter and as the horizontal and right-hand hasta of an H; we take them as CA; our supplement owes much to those of Mommsen, Mattingly and Lintott, though these are superseded by the establishing of the relationship between the A and E fragments (see Figs, m , 2; IV, 1); QVEI om. Dupuy, Scaliger, Chacon; PRONON[TIATO — EORV]M, Mommsen (1863); PRONON[TIATO, ET AD REM DENVO AGENDAM ALIVM DIEM DATO — EOQVE DIE EORVM IVDICV]M, Mommsen (1905); PRONON[TIATO, AMPLIVS — ] ,

Lintott; end, supp. Mommsen 48

[— IVDICES MAIOR PARS EORVM SEI ITA NOLVERIT DE EA RE IV]DICARE, M o m m s e n

( 1 8 6 3 ) ; [— AD QVEM PRAETOREM ITA RELATVM ERIT IVDICVM PLVS TERTIAM PARTEM

1 - LEX REPETVNDARVM N E G A R E I V ] D I C A R E , Mommsen (1905); [—

81

EIS IVDICIBVS, QVEI ITA N E G A R I N T

Iv] DICARE, Lintott; [—] DICARE, Dupuy, Chacon; [—]DEICARE,

Scaliger; [—]CARE,

Peiresc IN VNO I V [ D I C I O IVDICARE NEGARINT — SINGVLIS QVEI IUDICARE NEGARINT

MVLTAM DICITO. TV]M, Mommsen (1905), abandoning Mommsen (1863): the objections of Mattingly (1975), 258-60, depend on hypotheses about the preceding lacunae; IN VNO ivp[—], Peiresc; IN VNO I V [ — ] , Dupuy, Scaliger, Chacon (the last letter is barely visible in Chacon); QVANTVM PEQV[NIAE DIXERIT, PVBLICE PROSCRIBITO — ] , Mommsen (1905),

adapting

Mommsen

(1863); QVANTVM

PEQV[NIAE MVLTAM

DIXERIT,

PROSCRIBITO — ] , Lintott

49 Supp. in essentials Lintott, adapting Mommsen; vacat in Peiresc, Chacon; r of ader[unt] only in Chacon 50 [ — ] M REM AGITO ... NEI E [ — ] , Peiresc (the first and last letters not in Dupuy, Scaliger, the first and last two letters not in Chacon), ruling out Mommsen's supplement at the end; supp. Crawford, adapting Mommsen; CONIECIANT[ ADPONI FACITO — ] , Mommsen; CONIECIANT[ ANTE TRIBVNAL SVVM PONI IVBETO — ] , Lintott 51

[—]io EIQVE IVDICIS, Peiresc ( [ — ] D EIQVE IVDICIS, Dupuy, Scaliger,

[—]eique

iudicis, Chacon) ruling out Mommsen's supplements; mi L A [ — ] , Peiresc, Chacon; m i C A [ — ] , Dupuy, Scaliger; thereafter, supp. in essentials Mattingly (1969), 134, adapting Mommsen: there is no room for Mattingly's VTRIMQVE before SCRI]PTAM or for his LEITERA before A; end, supp. Mommsen; AL[TERAMQVE, VTRAM VELIT, LEITERAM EVM IVDICEM DELERE EAMQVE SORTEM PALAM IN EAM SITELLAM CONICERE IVBETO — ] ,

Mattingly (1969), 134, comparing the Florence Fragment B, Law 6,1. 9: for the rarity of delere in this sense, see TLL V, 4 3 5 - 6 , while there seems no reason to limit inducere to wax tablets 5 1 - 2 Supp. Mommsen (1905) 52 LITIERAM, Peiresc, Dupuy, Scaliger; literam, Chacon; thereafter, supp. Crawford, adapting Mattingly (1969); end, IV[DICES VERSVS OSTENDITO, ITAQVE IN EAM SITELLAM

CONIECITO — ] , Mommsen (1905), adapting Mommsen (1863); IV[DICES IS PRAETOR FACITO — ] , Mattingly (1969) 52-3

[... QVEI IVDEX PRONVNTIATIONIS FACI]VNDAI CAVSA, Mommsen; [—]OLVNDAI

CAVSA, Peiresc, E corrected to i; [—]undai causa, Chacon; [—]CVNDA CAVSA, Dupuy; [—]CVNDA CAVSSA, Scaliger; supp. Lintott in commentary 53 DEMITITO, Peiresc, Dupuy, Chacon; DEMITTITO, Scaliger; ITEAM, Dupuy, Scaliger; ET EAM, Peiresc; eam, Chacon POPVL[O OSTENDITO — ] , Mommsen; POPVL[O PALAM OSTENDITO], Lintott;

thereafter, supp. in essentials Mattingly (1969); the L of L[ATEAT] is clear, checked by Crawford SENTENTIA[M EA SORS HAB]VERIT, IS E [ — ] , Mommsen (1905) with apparatus

(is E N [ — ] , Mommsen (1863) with apparatus, is EI[—], Ritschl), supp. Crawford 5 3 - 4 Supp. Mommsen 54 PROXVMO, Peiresc, Dupuy; PROXSVMO, Scaliger, Chacon; supp. Crawford, adapting Mattingly (1969) and Lintott; DE R[—] is clear in 1. 2 of D; [—]reo ap[—], Chacon, as the last line of Be (printed by Orsini and by Gottling from Orsini): there is now no trace of these letters, but it is perfecdy credible that a small sliver of bronze should have been lost, see the Introduction 5 4 - 5 Supp. Lintott, adapting Mommsen

ROMAN STATUTES

82

55 CAVSA, Dupuy, Chac6n; CAVSSA, Scaliger; APSOLVTVS, Peiresc, Dupuy, Chacon; ABSOLVTVS, Scaliger; vacat in Peiresc, Chacon; thereafter, supp. Crawford, adapting Mattingly (1969) 55-6

[

DE EADEM RE NE BIS AGATVR. QVEI EX H.L. CONDEMNATVS] AVT APSOLVTVS,

Mommsen 56 Peiresc suggests that the A of the first AVT was not visible, contra Dupuy, Scaliger, Chacon; H.L., Peiresc, clearly rightly; CAVSA, Dupuy; CAVSSA, Scaliger; CAVSA corrected to CAVSSA, Chacon

5 6 - 7 Rubric, supp. Mommsen (1905), adapting Mommsen (1863); thereafter, [— IVDEX, QVEI EAM REM QVAESIERIT, EARVM RER]VM, M o m m s e n ; [— PR., QVEI EX H.L. QVAERET,

E]VM, Lintott: see Hoffmann, Umgangsprachey Scaliger; [—]um quei, Chacon 57-8

114; [ — ] M QVEI, Peiresc, Dupuy,

CONQ[VAERANTVR VENEANT. QVANTAE PECVNIAE EA BONA VENIERINT, TANTAM

PEQVNIAM IVDEX, QVEI EAM REM QVAESIERIT, AB EMPTORE EXIGITO — QVAESTORIQVE EAM PEQVNIAM ET QVANTA FVERIT] SCRIPTVM, Mommsen (1905), adapting Mommsen

(1863) 58

vacat

in Peiresc, Chacdn; DE LEITIBVS A E S T V M A N D I S , Peiresc; DE L I T I B V S

A E S T V M A N D E I S , Dupuy; D E LEITIBVS A E S T V M A N D E I S , Scaliger, Chacon; vacat

in

Peiresc, Chacon; [—]HACI, aes 58-9

PETl[TIO ERIT, ID PRAETOR, QVEI EAM REM QVAESIERIT, EOS IVDICES, QVEI EAM

REM IVDICAVERINT, AESTVMARE IVBETO

QVOD ANTE H.L. ROGATAM CONSILIO

PROBABITVR CAPTVM COACTVM AB]LATVM, Mommsen (1905), adapting Mommsen (1863); PETI[TIO ERIT — AESTVMANTO, ITA VTEI AESTVMENT, QVOD ANTE H.L. ROGATAM CONPERIETVR CAPTVM COACTVM AB]LATVM, Lintott 59

E A RES, QVOS, Dupuy, Scaliger, Chacon; CO[NSILIO PROBABIT]VR, Mommsen,

probably too long 5 9 - 6 0 Supp. M o m m s e n (1905), see also the Commentary on 11. 5 9 - 6 1 ; AD QVA[ESTOREM, QVEI AERARIVM PROVINCIAM OPTINEBIT. DEFERVNTO — QVEI EIEI IOVDICEI, CONSILIOQVE . . . ] , Lintott

60 Initial o, Dupuy, Scaliger only; EIEI IVDICEI, Dupuy, Chacon; EI IVDICEI, Scaliger; MAiOREi [—], Dupuy, Scaliger; MAIORI P A [ — ] , Peiresc; maiorei pa[—], Chacon; PA[RTI EORVM SA]TIS, Mommsen, probably too long Q[VANTA EA PEQVNIA ERIT, IS IVDEX FACITO — SEI DE EA RE PRAEDES DATI

60-1

E R V N T SEIVE QVANTAE PEQVNIAE EAE LITES AESTVMATAE ERVNT, TANTA PEQVNIA EX] H A C E LEGE, Mommsen; Q [ — IVDEX, QVEI EAM REM QVAESIERIT, QVEIVE IVDEX HACE LEGE FACTVS ERIT, IS FACITO VTEI EIEI, QVOI ITA LIS AESTVMATA ERIT, SEI TANTA PEQVNIA QVANTA SATIS ERIT EX] HACE LEGE, LintOtt

61

PROXVMO, Dupuy; PROXSVMO, Scaliger; proxumo corrected to proxsumo,

Chacon;

thereafter, supp. Mommsen; DOLO M[ALO, QVO MINVS IN TRIDVO PROXSVMO, QVO ITA SATIS FECERIT, SOLVATVR — ] , K l e n z e ; DOLO [MALO, .QVO MINVS EA PEQVNIA ITA SOLVATVR — ] , Lintott 61-2

Supp. Mommsen; [— SEI IVDEX QVEI EAM REM QVAESIERIT, QVEIVE IVDEX HACE

LEGE FACTVS ERIT, QVANTEI IS REVS CONDEMNATVS ERIT, E]x, LintOtt 62

PROXVMEIS, Dupuy; PROXSVMEIS, Scaliger; proximis,

Chacon; [QVAE POTVE]RIT,

Mommsen; [QVANTA POTVE]RIT, Lintott 62-3

Supp. Crawford, adapting Mommsen; FAC[TVS ERIT, TVM CVM PECVNIA ILLA

REDACTA ERIT, TRIBVTVM INDICITO — DIEMQVE EDITO, QVA IS QVOIVS PARENTISVE QVOIVS EIVSVE QVOI IPSE PARENSVE SVOS HERES SIET, ITA LITES]

Mommsen (1905), adapting Mommsen (1863); [... AEST]VMATAE, CIL I 2

AESTVMATAE,

1 - LEX REPETVNDARVM

83

63 Dupuy, Scaliger and Peiresc preserve the right-hand hasta of the v of [—JVMATAE, Peiresc clearly as that of a v; Chac6n has aestumatae, evidently by tacit restoration; AVT, om. aes\ POPVLOVE, Dupuy; POPVLOVE corrected to POPVLEIVE, Scaliger;

populiue

corrected to populeiue, Chacon; LEGATI, Dupuy, Scaliger; LEGATEI, Peiresc, Chacon; ADDESSINT, Dupuy, Scaliger; ADESSENT, Peiresc, Chacon 6 3 - 4 Supp. Crawford, adapting Mommsen (1905), adapting Mommsen (1863) 64 SED FRVDE, Dupuy, Scaliger; sedfraude, Chacon; supp. Mommsen; vacat in Peiresc; ADFRIT, aes\ supp. Mommsen 6 4 - 5 Supp. Mommsen, [QVEI] replaced here by [QVEIQVOMQJVE, in the gap between the E and C fragments; [—]VERO, followed by a caret mark to indicate that the bronze was illegible, followed by R EX HACE LEGE, Dupuy, Scaliger; [—] p{rae)tor ex hace lege, Chacon, correcting exH.L.\

[—]VE PRAETOR EX . . . , Peiresc; [— VBEI DIEM IS QVAESTOR

IS]VE PRAETOR EX HAC LEGE, Lintott (whose account of the sources for this line is elliptical) 65 PRODVXERIT, Scaliger, in error; VTI, Dupuy; VTEI, Scaliger, Chac6n;. supp. Mommsen; PRODE[IXERIT, VTEI TABVLA MA]IORE, Lintott; FRIT, aes, contra Lintott

6 5 - 6 Supp. Mommsen 6 6 - 7 QVOD IN ANNEIS QV[lNQVE PROXSVMEIS EX EA DIE, QVA TRIBVTVS FACTVS ERIT, EIVS PEQVNIAE QVAESTOR EX H.L. NON SOLVERIT, POPVLEI ESTO. DE PEQVNIA A PRAEDIBVS EXIGENDA. QVAESTOR QVOI AERARIVM PROVINCIA OBVENERIT, QVOI QVAESTOREI EX H.L. PRAEDES DATEI ERVNT, QVEIVE QVAESTOR DEINCEPS,] M o m m s e n

(1905), adapting Mommsen (1863) 6 7 - 8 Supp. Mommsen 68 Q V I Q V O M [ — ] , P e i r e s c , Chacon; Q V E I Q V O M [ — ] , Dupuy, Scaliger; [ F I S C I RESIGNENTVR, ET SEI EA PEQVNIA, QVAM IN EO FISCO ESSE INSCRIPTVM ERIT, IBEI INVENTA ERIT, DENVO OPSIGNENTVR — ] , M o m m s e n 68-9

[— QVAESTOR VTEI SOLVAT. QVOl] PEQVNIAM, M o m m s e n

69 PEQVLATVM, Dupuy, Scaliger, Chacon; QVEI, Dupuy, Scaliger; qui, Chacon; SOLVI IVS ERiT, Dupuy, Chacon; SOLVEI IVSERIT, Scaliger 6 9 - 7 0 Supp. Mommsen 70 NDIC[.]VM, aes\ PROVE [QVO INPERIO POTESTATEVE ]ERIT[ FACITO, QVO]MINVS, M o m m s e n (1905) with apparatus, whence CIL I 2 ; PROVE [INPERIO I N P E ] D I [ T O

QVO] MINVS, Lintott; reading checked by Crawford: the supplements between the E and D fragments in the preceding two lines are of 15 letters each 7 0 - 1 Supp. Mommsen (1905), adapting Mommsen (1863), in turn adapting Klenze 71 ADDVCIER, Scaliger, in error; POSS[IT QVOVE QVOI EORVM MINVS IN E O IVDICI]O VERBA, Mommsen, too long; POSS[IT QVOVE QVOI MINVS ]VERBA, Lintott, too short

7 1 - 2 Supp. Mommsen (1905), adapting Mommsen (1863) 7 2 - 8 6 See the Commentary: unless otherwise stated, we follow the text of Mommsen (1905), indicating any changes, except for those of punctuation, resolution of abbreviations and spelling of supplements; we also see no need to postulate a lacuna in 1. 72, two lacunae in 1. 73, two lacunae in 1. 74; and we abandon the text of Mommsen in 11. 7 8 - 9 , for reasons explained in the Commentary 72 vacat in Peiresc, Chacon; EO MAGISTRATV omitted on aes\ the elimination by Bannier of the quaestor from the supplements in 1. 72 is refuted by his presence in 1. 7 3 ; [... FACTAVE ERVNT, QVAE EVM PRAETOREM EVMVE QVAESTOREM EX H.L. IVDICARI IVBERE SOLVERE FACERE OPORTET; QVEIQVOMQVE DEINCEPS PRAETOR EX H.L. QVAERET . . . ] ,

Mommsen (1905)

ROMAN STATUTES

84

73 O P O R T E R E S [ — ] , Dupuy, Scaliger; S E [ — ] , Peiresc, recording only the last two letters; oportere sei[—], Chacon; [... QVIBVSQVOM IOVDICIVM], Mommsen (1905) 74

FORVM,

Dupuy,

MAGISTRATVS

Scaliger,

Peiresc, corr.

IS DE EA RE, aes\

QVOM

Chacon;

DEIVRATVRVM

[EO LEGE CALPVRNIA

AVT LEGE

QVOVE IVNIA

SACRAMENTO AGATVR . . . ] , Meyer (1978): but we know of no parallel for the formula e.h.l.n.r relating to the effect of a statute other than the one in which it occurs (cf. G. Sacconi, Studi sulla litis coritestatio (Naples, 1982), 13 n. 20); for the end, cf. 1. 12: NISEI LEX ROGATA ERIT, Mommsen (1905) 76

Cf. the Tarentum Fragment, Law 8, 11. 2 - 3 , [... QVOIVS EORVM OPERA MAXIME

VNIVS EVM CONDEMNATVM ESSE CONSTITERIT — SEI VOLET IPSE FILIEIQVE, QVEI EIEI GNATEI ERVNT, QVOM . . . ] , Mommsen (1905)

77 [ — ] M EIEI, Dupuy, Scaliger, Chacon; [—]VM EIEI, Peiresc; CEIVIS, Scaliger, in error; EA TRIBVM, aes 78

si QVEIS, Peiresc, by inadvertence; QVEI [NOMINIS LATINI SVNT — QVEI EORVM IN

SVA Q V I S Q V E CIVITATE D I C T A ] T O R , M o m m s e n (1905); [—]tor, Chacon, Pighius,

Mommsen; [—]EOR, Ritschl, certainly wrongly: there is only a top horizontal hasta; the subsequent vacat is perhaps the result of an erasure. 7 8 - 9 See the Commentary 79

[—] AT ATE

vac

IVDEX, Dupuy; [ — ] A T A T E IVDEX, Scaliger; [—] utilitate

iudex,

Chacon; [—]IITATE, Peiresc; Peiresc ignores the vacat, present in Dupuy and Chacon, because he takes for granted the edition of Orsini deriving from Chacon 80 PRAETOR QVAESTOR OMNIVM, aes 81 EVIT, DEEERATVR, aes

82 Text of E from Peiresc 84 MERITA SVNT, aes

86 87 88 90

[—]i PETETVR, Mommsen, [—]TI or [—]si in apparatus Supp. Mattingly (1969), 141; [— HA]BERE, Mommsen Supp. Lintott in commentary; [— PROVO]CATIO, Mommsen [—iATEioy[—], Lintott

1 - LEX REPETVNDARVM

85

TRANSLATION Although nomen deferre means literally 'to register the name (of someone)', we translate the phrase as 'to prosecute', because that is what is meant; and we translate cognate phrases along the same lines. 11. 1-3 [— from whomever of the allies] or of the Latin name or of the foreign nations, or from whomever within the discretion, sway, power or friendship [of the Roman people — by that person who] shall have been [dictator, consul, praetor, master of horse, censor, aedile, tribune of the plebs, Illvir capitalis, fflvir for the granting and assigning of lands, tribune of the soldiers] for any one of the first four legions, or whoever shall be the son of any one of these, provided that his father be a senator, in any one year whatever money may be more than [??? sestertii — whatever from him or his parent or his son,] or from the person to whom he or his parent or his son may be heir, may have been taken, seized, extorted, procured or diverted, he is to have suit and right of prosecution concerning that matter, [the praetor is to have power of investigation, whoever shall be jurors according to this statute, they are to have trial, right of judgment and assessment of damages according to this statute —] I. 4 [— if anyone shall have satisfied the praetor that he] has been [deputed by a king, people or his fellow-citizen] to sue, he is to have suit and right of prosecution concerning that matter, the praetor is to have power of investigation, whoever [shall be] jurors [according to this statute, they are to have] trial, right of judgment and assessment of damages [according to this statute —] II. 5-6 [—]???[— whoever of them, after that matter] shall have been [judged, shall have acted against this statute,] or (a person) who shall have been prosecuted by way of collusion, or (a person) whose name shall have been removed from the defendants according to this statute, if anyone [shall have] prosecuted him [anew before the praetor, who shall investigate according to this statute, the praetor is to have power of investigation, whoever shall be jurors according to this statute, they are to have trial, right of judgment and assessment of damages according to this statute.] I. 6 [— shall sue] on another's behalf, [—] that praetor is to have power of investigation, and whoever shall be jurors according to this statute, they are to have trial, right of judgment and assessment of damages according to this statute. He is to [bring] the person whom he shall sue to a pre-trial before [the praetor, who shall have power of investigation in that year according to this statute, before the Kalends of September in that year and is to prosecute him; —] II. 7-8 [—] and concerning that man [—] whoever of them shall have been prosecuted in this way according to this statute after the Kalends of September in that year, whoever of them shall have been condemned in that trial, at however much damages for that matter [shall have been assessed, so much money — and that money] is to belong to the person [who shall have sued.] The praetor, who [shall investigate] according to this statute [is to see — however much] shall have been [assessed in this way], that it is paid privately, to whomever [of them] shall sue. 11. 8-9 A trial shall not take place concerning these men, while they shall hold a magistracy or imperium. [Whoever shall be] dictator, consul, praetor, master of horse, [censor, aedile, tribune of the plebs, quaestor, fflvir capitalis, fflvir for the granting and assigning of lands, tribune of the soldiers for any one of the first four legions, while he shall hold a magistracy or imperium, a trial is not to take place —]

86

ROMAN STATUTES

I. 9 [— Whoever of them] shall have departed from that magistracy or imperium, to the effect that [a trial — may] not [take place concerning him, nothing of that is proposed by this statute.] II. 9-11 [Concerning the appointing of a patron. Whoever according to this] statute shall sue for money and shall have prosecuted, whoever of them shall have suit before the Kalends of September according to this statute, if he shall wish patrons to be appointed for him for that matter, the praetor before whom [he shall have prosecuted — is to appoint as patrons free-born Roman citizens, provided that] he (the praetor) do not appoint knowingly with wrongful deceit any of those persons to whom the person [whom he (the claimant) shall have prosecuted may be related as son-in-law, father-in-law, stepfather or stepson, or who may be a cousin to him] or may be a closer blood-relative to him than that or who may be a sodalis to him or who may be in the same collegium, or in whose fides he shall be or in whose ancestors' fides his ancestors shall have been [or who shall be in his fides or whose ancestors shall have been in his ancestors' fides, or who —] or [may have been] condemned in a quaestio and iudicium publicum [in relation to which it may not be lawful for him to be enrolled in the senate; and that he do not appoint a man who] shall be a juror for that matter according to this statute or a man who shall (already) have been appointed as a patron according to this statute. 11. 11-12 Concerning the repudiation of a patron. Whoever shall have been appointed as a patron according to this statute, if he [shall have caused] delay [to the person who shall sue, to the effect that a trial may not take place according to this statute, it is to be lawful for him to repudiate him — in his] place the praetor who shall investigate according to this statute [is to appoint] another patron for the person who [shall ask for (one) to be appointed for him for that matter.] 11. 12-15 [Concerning] the selection of [450 men for the current year.] The praetor, who shall have jurisdiction in relation to foreigners, within the ten days next after the people or plebs shall have passed this statute, is to see that he choose 450 men, who in this state [— provided that he do not choose any of those, who] may be or may have been [tribune of the plebs, quaestor, Illvir capitalis, tribune of the soldiers for any one of the first four legions, Illvir] for the granting and assigning of lands, or who may be or may have been in the senate, [or] who [may have received a payment or] may have been condemned [in a quaestio and iudicium publicum,] in relation to (either of) which it may not be lawful for him to be enrolled in the senate, or who may be younger than 30 or older than 60 years, or who [may not have his domicile] in the city of Rome or nearer [the city of Rome than one mile, or who may be the father, brother or son of any of those magistrates, or of a man who may be or may have been in the senate, or who] shall be[overseas]. Whomever he shall have chosen, [?he is to declare?] them, along with (the indication of) their father, tribe and cognomen, [as those who may be] jurors [for the current year according to this statute; ?and of those? who according to] this statute shall have been chosen as the 450 men for that year (the year just mentioned = the current year), [he is to] have all the names on a tablet on a white background, written in black, along with (the indication of) their father, tribe and cognomen, and classified by tribe [and he is to have them published during his magistracy — and he is to grant the power of writing (them) down to whoever shall wish. The praetor, who shall have chosen (them),] is to see that [those whom] he shall have chosen as the 450 men according to this statute are read out in a contio, and he is to swear that he [has chosen those men according to this statute, about whom] he shall have considered that it is [clear to him that they be suitable]

1 - LEX REPETVNDARVM

87

jurors, and that praetor is to have all those 450 men whom he shall have chosen according to this statute written down in the public records to the end. 11. 15-18 Concerning [the selection of] 450 men every year. [The praetor, —, within the ten days next after each] of them shall have begun that magistracy, [he] is to see that he choose 450 men in that way, who in this [state —,] provided that he do not choose any of those, who may be or may have been tribune of the plebs, quaestor, lHvir capitalis, tribune of the soldiers for any one of the first four legions, Illvir for the granting and assigning of lands, or who may be or may have been in the senate, or who [may have received] a payment [or may have been condemned in a quaestio and iudicium publicum, in relation to (either of) which it may not be lawful for him to be enrolled in the senate, or who] may be [younger than 30 or older than] 60 years, or who [may not have his domicile] in the city, at Rome, or nearer the city of Rome [than one mile,] or who may be the father, brother or son [of any of those magistrates,] or of a man who may be or may have been in the senate, or who shall be overseas. Whomever he shall have chosen, [?he is to declare?] them, along with (the indication of) their father, tribe and cognomen, as those who [may be] jurors for that [year] according to this statute; [?and of those? who according to this statute shall have been chosen as the 450 men for that year,] he is to have [all the names on a tablet on a white background, written in black, along with (the indication of) their father,] tribe and cognomen, and classified by tribe and [he is to have] them published during his magistracy [—] and he is to grant [the power] of writing (them) down to whoever shall wish. The praetor, who shall have chosen (them), he is to see that those whom he shall have chosen as the [450] men according to this statute are read out in a contio, and he is to swear that he has chosen those men according to this statute, about whom [he shall have considered that it is] clear to him [that they be suitable jurors, and that praetor is to have all those 450 men whom he shall have chosen according to this statute written down in the public records to the end.] 11. 19-24 Concerning prosecution and the choosing of jurors. Whoever according to this statute [shall sue for] money from [another before the Kalends of September, he] is to bring [him] to a pre-trial before the judge (the president of the court) who shall have been [chosen] for that year according to this statute, [after the 450 men] shall have been chosen [for] that year, and is to prosecute him. If he shall have sworn that he is not demanding (a trial) by way of a false charge, [that judge (the president of the court) is to allow the prosecution — and is to see that on the ??? day from that day, on which anyone shall have prosecuted anyone, the man whose prosecution he shall have allowed] declare to his adversary, out of the 450 men, who shall have been chosen for that year according to this statute, all those [to whom he] may be [related as father-in-law, son-in-law, stepfather,] or stepson, or who may be a cousin to him, or may be a closer blood-relative to him than that, or who may be a sodalis to him, or who may be in the same collegium, and he is to see [that he swear openly before him] in the presence of his adversary [— that he has not left (as a juror anyone) except whoever] is not linked [to him by any relationship of those which are written down above,] knowingly with wrongful deceit; and he is to declare and swear in this way. When he shall have declared in this way, then for that [matter, whoever shall have prosecuted another in this way according to this statute, the praetor] is to see that he, on the twentieth day from that day on which anyone shall have prosecuted anyone, choose 100 men from those who shall have been chosen as the 450 men for that year according to this statute, provided that they be alive, [and declare them to his adversary — provided that he do not choose] to be [a juror any of those persons,] to whom the man

88

ROMAN STATUTES

who shall sue may be related, or who may be related to the man who shall sue, as fatherin-law, son-in-law, stepfather, or stepson, or who [may be] a cousin to him, [or may be a closer blood-relative to him than that, or who] may be a sodalis [to him,] or who may be or may have been tribune of the plebs, quaestor, Hlvir capitalis, EQvir for the granting and assigning of lands, tribune of the soldiers [for any one] of the first four legions, or who may be or may have been in the senate, or who under the Lex Rubria [may have or shall have been elected a Illvir for the founding of a colony — or who] shall be absent [on public business] or who shall be overseas; nor more than one from one family nor a man [who may have been condemned, because] there has been an action with a sacramentum [against him under the Lex Calpurnia] or the Lex Iunia or because he has been prosecuted under this statute. Whichever 100 men he shall have declared according to this statute, he (the praetor) is to see that concerning them he swear openly before him in the presence of the people just [as — that he has declared no-one knowingly with wrongful deceit, whom it might not be lawful to declare among the 100 men, because of any of those reasons which are written down above, or who] may be linked [to him by any] relationship [of those] which are written down above. ?The person?, who shall have been sued, to the effect that [—] not [—. When the person, who shall sue,] shall have declared [100] men [in this way] and shall have sworn, then that praetor is to see that the person who shall be sued, [on the sixtieth] day [from that day on which] he was prosecuted, [choose and declare 50 whom he shall want] as jurors, from those 100 whom the person who shall sue shall have declared according to this statute [—] 11. 24-6 [— whoever shall have prosecuted according to this statute, if the person] who shall have been prosecuted according to this statute shall not have chosen or declared 50 jurors according to this statute, or if [he shall] not [have declared a man who] may be linked [to him by any of those marriage or blood relationships] or by a sodalitas, or who may be in the same collegium, [insofar as] the delay shall not occur because, of that praetor or the adversary, [to the effect that] he (the prosecutor) may not choose or declare 50 whom he shall want as jurors — nothing of that is proposed by this statute, provided that he do not knowingly with wrongful deceit] choose [as a juror any of those whom according to this statute it may not be lawful to choose as belonging to the 100 men.] Whoever shall have been chosen in this way, they are to be jurors for that matter and they [are to have trial] in that [matter according to this statute.] 11. 26-7 That [the names] should be held written down in the records. The praetor, who shall investigate according to this statute, is to see [that he have written down in the public records those 50 men whom] the person who shall sue and the person who shall be sued shall have chosen [and declared] according to this statute and those patrons [who shall have been appointed for that matter —] to the person who shall have sued and the person who shall have been sued, whoever of them shall wish, [that praetor is to grant the power of writing down those names —] from the public records. 1. 27 That the same men should be jurors of one matter to the end. Whoever [shall have been chosen] as jurors [according to this statute,] for whatever matter they shall have been chosen as jurors, [they are to be jurors of that matter to the end —] 1. 28 [—] whoever shall receive money according to [this statute, no censor after the (successful) proposal of this statute,] on account of that matter, namely that he shall have received money according to this statute, is to remove him [from his tribe] nor is he to take away his horse nor is anything to be a matter of liability to him on account of that matter. [?That the names] should be written down. The praetor, who according to this statute [—]

1 - LEX REPETVNDARVM

89

11. 28-9 [Concerning the trial of a person who shall have died] or shall have gone into exile. Whoever shall have been prosecuted according to mis statute, [if he shall have died or] shall have gone [into exile before] that matter shall have been judged, the praetor, before whom he [shall have been] prosecuted, is to investigate [that] matter in the same way with those [who shall be jurors according to this statute, as if the person, who shall have been prosecuted according to this statute, were alive,or were in this state —] 11. 29-31 [Concerning the ?serving of notice?. The praetor, who shall investigate according to this statute,] is to see that (notice of) the trial [be served openly on the person, who] shall have been prosecuted before him according to this statute, [on which day it is to be, as] he shall deem it proper, provided that nothing be done contrary to this statute, [to cause delay;] nor after [the (successful) proposal of] this [statute —] [— and he is to order] search to be made in the land of Italy in the towns, fora and conciliabula, [?except? in those towns, fora] and conciliabula, where there are accustomed to be men in charge of jurisdiction. In those [???] days, in which [the praetor,] who shall investigate according to this statute, [shall have ordered search to be made for them —] 11. 31-3 [Concerning the serving of notice on witnesses. Whoever shall have prosecuted according to this statute, the praetor who shall investigate according to this statute, when] he shall have heard what those involved may consider it a matter of concern to investigate of that matter and [shall have accepted that there is a case,] is to order [(them) to serve notice on up to 48 witnesses,] and when that matter shall be dealt with, for which matter anyone shall be a witness, [he is to see] that all of them be present [for that matter and give] evidence, [provided that he not order anyone to give evidence, who — or in whose fides the person who shall be sued may be, or if his (the defendant's) ancestors] (may have been) [in] the fides of his (the witness's) [ancestors,] or whoever may be in his fides, or whose ancestors [may have been in the fides of his ancestors, or whoever] shall plead [his] case, up to one, or whoever may be [the freedman or the freedwoman] of him or his parent. 11. 33-5 Concerning [—] records. [— he is to register before the praetor the names of those whom he shall have summoned to give evidence] or shall have brought with him, up to 48 men, [for the sake of] those [matters, about which that trial shall take place, and all those things,] which he shall have sought in that way, and if [he shall wish to demand] or present any records, books or public [or private] letters [—] [— or if] concerning that matter he shall wish (to ???) before the praetor, that praetor is not to cause him delay, [to the effect that — not —.] That the praetor should question. The praetor, who [shall investigate] according to this statute, [—] 11. 35-8 [That the jurors should swear before they take their seats. The praetor, who shall investigate according to this statute, whoever] shall be jurors [for that] matter, before [the pleading] of the case [shall begin, — he is to see that they swear before him.] Whoever shall be jurors for that matter, all of them [are to swear] before the rostra, [facing] the forum, [— and that he will act as he shall deem it proper,] in such a way that he listen to the words of the witnesses, who shall be (witnesses) (for) that matter, [— and that he will not act to the effect that] he may not judge that matter, except if there shall be some reason, which for him [— whoever shall have sworn before him in this way, that praetor is to see that their names] be recited [in a contio and he is to have them displayed and published openly in the forum, [where they may be properly read from level ground, whoever out of those] 100 shall have been chosen as the 50 jurors. That no juror may argue. [—]

90

ROMAN STATUTES

I. 39 [— to the effect that] he may [not] be able to be present at the trial, concerning that matter [the right of deciding is to belong] to the praetor, who [shall investigate] according to this [statute.] II. 39-41 [Concerning postponement.] Whatever matter the praetor shall have handled according to this statute, if he shall postpone that matter, whoever [shall have been prosecuted according to this statute —] [—] shall be able, he (the praetor) is to see that, whomever according to him (the representative) it concerns, [?that he may have been prosecuted? —,] that person should come or be brought to him, in the presence of the person who shall have demanded (it) [—] [— if he shall wish,] whoever shall have the right to prosecute according to this statute, he [is to have suit] over that matter [—] and there is to be trial and assessment of damages [concerning] that matter according to this statute, as if of him (?of that?) [—] 1. 42 [— if the juror,] who shall investigate that matter, shall not have accepted that there is a case according to this statute [the praetor who shall investigate according to this statute —] in the presence [of the jurors] in a contio before the rostra, he is to declare his opinion thus: ['that (he) seems ?not? to have done (it)' —] I. 43 [— if] it shall be appropriate for the trial to take place, [on the third day — if the juror, who] shall investigate [that matter,] shall not have accepted that there is a case according to this statute, the praetor who [shall investigate] according to this statute [—] II. 43-5 [That the jurors should swear before they enter upon their deliberation. The praetor who shall investigate according to this statute] is to see that [whoever shall be jurors for that matter according to this statute,] before they enter upon [their deliberation,] each swear that he, whoever now [to him — and that he will not,] to the effect that anyone else may learn of his opinion, insofar as [it may happen because of wrongful deceit —] and that he will [?express his opinion in this way?] 1. 45 That the maximum fine may be imposed on a juror. [— if the juror, who] shall investigate [that matter,] shall not have accepted that there is good cause, whichever juror of them [—] I. 46 [— without] demur may be delivered on the first possible day, and that quaestor [._.] II. 46-8 How [the jurors] should enter [upon] their deliberation. The praetor, who according to this statute, [shall direct the trial — if more than a third of the jurors, who shall be present,] shall have said [that they cannot] judge, the praetor (who) shall investigate according to this statute, [is to] declare thus: ['amplius' — of those jurors,] whoever shall be present, [he is to order] to judge [—] he [is to impose a fine on those jurors, who shall have said more than twice that they cannot] judge, of ten thousand sesterces, whenever [they shall have said that they cannot judge] more than twice in one trial [— then] why and how much money [he shall have imposed as a fine —] 11. 49-52 How judgment should be delivered [concerning] the defendants. When two thirds of the jurors, who shall be present, [shall have said that it is clear to them — then the praetor, who shall investigate according to this statute, is to see that those jurors,] who shall have said that they cannot judge, be removed [—] he is to deal with that matter. Then the praetor, with his messengers and attendants [is to see] that they do not [go out and he is to order to be placed on the platform an urn — ??? fingers high and] ?20? [fingers wide,] in which the jurors may place their ballots [—] and that praetor is to give that juror openly in his hand one boxwood ballot 4 fingers long and [??? fingers] wide, marked in black, [on one side, A, on the other] side, C, [and he is to order that juror to cancel one letter of the two, whichever he may wish — the juror is thus to cancel] and he

1 - LEX REPETVNDARVM

91

is to place that ballot visible according to this statute and with his arm uncovered, the letter covered with his fingers, openly [in that urn and he is to descend from the platform;] and likewise for those other jurors, one by one, [—] 11. 52-4 [How opinions should be declared. Whichever juror] shall come to the urn by lot for the sake of taking out [a ballot,] he is to put his hand down into that urn and [he is to show openly] to the people the ballot which has been taken out, so that nothing [may lie hidden, and whatever] opinion [that ballot shall have had for that] trial, he from [that ballot — is to declare openly, where the letter A shall be marked: 'I acquit'; where the letter C shall be marked:] 'I condemn'; where nothing shall be marked: 'without vote'. As he shall have declared from each ballot, [he is to hand over] that ballot to the nearest juror [and he] then is to hand on [that ballot to the praetor.] 11. 54-5 Concerning the acquittal of the defendant. [Whoever shall have been prosecuted according to this statute, unless the largest number of opinions concerning him shall be, 'I condemn',] except for any case which shall have been brought by way of collusion, he is to be acquitted in that matter according to this statute. 1.55 Concerning the condemnation of the defendant. [If concerning that defendant] the largest number of opinions shall be: 'I condemn', the praetor, who [shall investigate according to this statute, is to declare that that defendant seems to have done (it) [—] 11. 55-6 [— if he] shall have been [according to this statute condemned] or acquitted, there is to be no action against him under this statute, except in respect of what he shall have done thereafter or in respect of any case which shall have been brought by way of collusion or [over] the assessment [of damages] or over the sanction of this statute. 11. 56-8 [— Concerning the giving of guarantors or the seizure of goods. The praetor, who shall have investigated that matter,] is to see that whoever shall have been condemned according to this statute give guarantors [for those matters] to the quaestor, according to the opinion of the majority of the jury, for as much as they may have decided. [If] guarantors shall not have been given [in this way,] he is to see that his goods be publicly seized [and sought out —] he is to hand it on written down [to the quaestor,] the quaestor is to accept it and is to have it written down in the public records. 11. 58-9 Concerning the assessment of damages. [Whoever] shall have been condemned [according to] this statute, [the praetor, who shall have investigated that matter, is to order those jurors, who shall have judged that matter, to assess the amount,] whatever each person shall seek from him, who [shall have] suit according to this statute, [— whatever shall be found to have been seized, extorted,] taken, diverted or procured [before the proposal of this statute,] all those things at the same value, all other things, whatever [shall be found] to have been seized, extorted, taken, diverted or procured after the (successful) proposal of this statute, at double the value, and [he is to see] that it [be registered] with the quaestor, [how much it be and in whose name those damages may have been assessed.] 11. 59-61 [Concerning the payment of the money from the treasury. Whichever judge (the president of the court), who shall have investigated that matter, along with the majority of his jury, shall have been satisfied by anyone] that damages have been assessed [in his name] or that of his parent or that of anyone to whom he or his parent be heir, or whoever shall have satisfied that judge (the president of the court) [in this way], along with the majority of his jury, that damages have been estimated for him in the name of a king or a people or his fellow-citizen, [however much that money shall be — (he is to see that what)] shall have been placed in the treasury [according to] this statute, be paid out according to this statute, within the next three days after he [shall have been] satisfied in this way, on that account, namely that damages shall have been assessed in that name;

92

ROMAN STATUTES

and no judge (the president of the court) or quaestor is to act knowingly with wrongful deceit, [to the effect that he may not be satisfied in this way or that payment may not be made in this way —] 11. 61-4 [Concerning the imposition of a distribution. At however much the judge (the president of the court), who shall have investigated that matter, shall have assessed damages, if that] judge (the president of the court) shall not have been able according to this statute to deposit in the hands of the quaestor all the money, then in the next ten days after [as much as he shall have been able (to collect)] shall have been collected, the judge (the president of the court), who shall have investigated that matter or whoever [shall have been appointed] the judge (the president of the court) according to this statute, [when that money shall have been collected, then he is to impose a distribution [— and he is to declare a day, on which any person may be present whose damages] shall have been assessed, [or whose parent's or anyone's to whom he or his parent be heir or his fellowcitizen's,] (or) on which the ambassadors of a king or people, in whose name damages shall have been assessed, may be present, provided that he do not declare more than 100 days ahead. [Concerning] the observance of the distribution. When that day shall have come, on which day they shall have been ordered to be present, the judge (the president of the court), who [shall have imposed that distribution, as much money as shall have been collected from the goods of the person who shall have been condemned according to this statute, he is to distribute so much money in proportion; and whoever] shall have [satisfied that judge (the president of the court), along with the majority of his jury, that damages have been assessed for him,] he is to order the quaestor to pay out to each of them on the first possible day and the quaestor is to pay out that money to them without personal liability. 11. 64-6 That [the remainder] should be in the treasury. Insofar as a distribution [shall have] been made, in the name of anyone, who shall not be present, [the quaestor is to keep in the treasury —] [Concerning the displaying of the distribution. Whichever] praetor shall have made an announcement according to this statute for the sake of making a distribution, he is to see, as he shall deem it proper, that as he [shall have] announced, [so he is to have everything displayed and published] for the greater part of the day, up to the day on which payment shall have been made, openly in the forum, where it [may be properly read] from level ground [— the praetor, who] shall have made [that distribution, is to] display (it) for the [???] days next after that day on which the distribution shall have been made, openly in the forum, where it may be properly read from level ground. 11. 66-7 [The money] shall belong to the people after five years. Whatever money shall have been placed in the treasury according to this statute, whatever in the five years [next after that day on which the distribution shall have been made the quaestor shall not have paid out according to this statute, is to belong to the people.] [Concerning the exaction of the money. The quaestor, to whom the treasury shall have fallen as his province, to whom guarantors shall have been given according to this statute, or whoever thereafter] shall have the same province, they are to see, as they shall deem it proper, that whatever of it (the money) that defendant shall not have paid, the money be exacted from those [guarantors on the first] possible day. 11. 67-9 That the money should be sealed in baskets. Whatever money according to this statute [shall have been deposited] in the hands of [the quaestor, that quaestor is to see that that money be in baskets and that the baskets be sealed with his seal — and that there be inscribed on each basket] which praetor has assessed the damages and whence that

1 - LEX REPETVNDARVM

93

money has been collected and how much be in that basket. The quaestor, whoever [he shall be, as] he shall deem [it] proper, is to see that in the five days next after the treasury shall have fallen to him as his province [— to whomever] the praetor, who shall investigate according to this statute, shall have ordered money to be given or paid according to this statute, insofar as it be done without wrongful enrichment, the quaestor, [who] shall hold [the treasury] as his province, is to give and pay it outside the normal procedure, without personal liability. 11. 69-72 The quaestor is not to cause delay. The quaestor [— That no-one may hinder the trial. Whatever] trial it shall be appropriate to hold according to this statute, when it shall be appropriate to hold (it) according to this statute, no magistrate or promagistrate or holder [of imperium] is to hinder it, to the effect that it may not be, or be improperly, held or judged, nor is anyone [to summon away from that trial] the person who shall direct the trial according to this statute, or the person who [shall judge according to this statute, or the person who shall sue according to this statute, or the person who shall be sued — nor] is he to order him to be called away, nor is he to lead him away, nor is he to order him to be led away, nor is he to act to the effect that any of them should not be able to be present for that trial, [nor is he to act to the effect that it be not] possible [for a juror] to hear the speeches, enter upon his deliberation, or judge, nor is he to order (anyone) to suspend the trial, except when the senate [shall be lawfully summoned — or when the centuries or] tribes shall be summoned in (to vote), except if anything shall be carried in saturam. 11. 72-3 If that praetor, who shall investigate according to this statute, [or] if [that quaestor, to whom the treasury or the urban province] shall have fallen, shall have departed or abdicated from (that magistracy) or trial or imperium, or shall have died, before all those things [shall have been] judged, [paid or done, whatever it shall be appropriate to do according to this statute, whatever praetor shall investigate according to this statute, or whatever quaestor shall hold the treasury or the urban province, he, as] he shall deem [it proper,] is to see that, insofar as anything shall not have been done according to this statute, the people concerned do all those things and that all those things are done, which it would be appropriate to do according to this statute, if [that matter had been transacted before him, and concerning that matter] statute is to apply to [that] praetor and quaestor in all matters, insofar as anything shall not have been done according to this statute, exactly as if [that matter had been transacted before him.] 11. 73-5 [Concerning matters judged according to the Lex Calpurnia and the Lex Iunia. Concerning whomever a trial] has taken place or shall have taken place according to the statute which L. Calpurnius L.f., tribune of the plebs, proposed, or according to the statute which M. Iunius D.f., tribune of the plebs, proposed, whoever of them in that [trial has been or shall have been condemned, to the effect that] he should be prosecuted concerning that matter according to this statute, or that [there should be an action] concerning that matter against [him according to this statute, nothing of that is proposed by this statute. ?Rubric? Whoever shall be said to have acted against this statute, unless the people or plebs shall have passed this statute, before that thing] shall [have been done,] there is to be no action against them under this statute. 1. 75 Concerning collusion. The praetor, who shall investigate according to this statute, concerning whatever matter that praetor [and] the majority of those [jurors, who] shall have been present [according to this statute for] judging [that matter,] those of them who shall be alive, shall be satisfied [that anyone who shall have] prosecuted anyone according to [this statute prosecuted him by way of collusion —]

94

ROMAN STATUTES

11. 76-8 Concerning the granting of citizenship. If any of those who shall not be a Roman citizen shall have prosecuted someone else according to this statute [— before the praetor,] who shall have power of investigation according to this statute, and if the other person shall have been condemned in that trial under this statute, then [the persons who shall have prosecuted him, by the agency of whichever of them the person who shall have been prosecuted shall have been chiefly condemned, he (the claimant) is to be a lawful Roman citizen and the sons born to him, when] he shall become a Roman citizen according to this statute, and his grandsons provided they are born to that son, are to be lawful Roman citizens, [and] are to cast [their vote in the tribe of the person, who shall have been condemned according to this statute,] and they are to register (them) in that tribe, and they are to have exemption from military service, and their periods of military service and campaigns [are all to be credited to them. No magistrate or pro-magistrate —] nothing [of that] is proposed [by this statute.] 11. 78-9 Concerning the granting of prouocatio and [exemption.] If any of those, who [???shall not wish to become a Roman citizen according to this statute, whoever of them in a Latin state???] shall not have been [???Hvir, consul, dictator???,] praetor or aedile, [shall have prosecuted someone else according to this statute] before the praetor, who shall have power of investigation according to this statute, [and if the other person shall have been condemned in that trial under this statute, then whoever shall have prosecuted him, by the agency of whichever of them he shall have been chiefly condemned, he (the claimant) is to have prouocatio and exemption and] the judge (the president of the court) is then to see that his [exemption] from military service and public compulsory service [be published] in his [own] community. We do not translate 11 79-85, which repeat 11 72-9. 1. 86 [—] if there shall be a suit, he [is to have the option] concerning that matter, whether he wish either in his community [or at Rome —] 1. 87 [— without personal liability] it is to be lawful [to restrain by his imperium. Whichever] Roman [citizen shall have prosecuted] someone else according to this statute [---] 1. 88 [—] whoever according to [this statute] shall have exemption [from military service] or for whomever it [shall be] appropriate to have (it) [—] 1. 89 [— the praetor who shall have] jurisdiction [in relation to] foreigners [—] 1.90 [—]???[—]

1 - LEX REPETVNDARVM

95

COMMENTARY 1. 1 Given that there are no good grounds for supposing that a normal prescript was engraved for our text (see the Introduction), the beginning may have run: Lex ??? de pecuniis repetundis. (First rubric) quoi nomen deferre liceat. There is room for 70-80 letters and spaces. Klenze and Rudorff, followed by Venturini, Studi, 82-91, Meyer (1980), and Brunt, Fall, 526-31, argued that citizens could recover on their own behalf under a lex de repetundis, whereas Mommsen held that they could not. The question cannot be resolved with absolute certainty on the evidence available, since one can hardly argue that citizens never recovered on their own behalf under a lex de repetundis on the basis of Cicero, div. in Caec. 17-18: quasi uero dubium sit quin tota lex de pecuniis repetundis sociorum causa constituta sit? nam ciuibus cum sunt ereptae pecuniae, ciuili fere actione (with what is for all practical purposes a civil action) et priuato iure repetuntur. The fact that we do not hear of citizens recovering on their own behalf under a lex de repetundis is not a strong argument from silence (contra Venturini, 84 n. 71, Cicero, Clu. 116, proves nothing for our text). On the other hand, the words of Cicero would perhaps have sounded odd, if the very first words of the lex de pecuniis repetundis which underlay all later legislation had been quoi ceiuei ... We therefore doubt the supplement: the prosecutions by citizens implied in our text, 11. 21-2, 76 = 83 and 87, may well be on behalf of foreign communities (see on 1. 6). The fact that citizens in this capacity do not appear in 1. 60 is neither here nor there, since by this point damages have been assessed in the name of the injured party. See also on 11. 30-1. exterarumue nationum, like nominisue Latini, form a subset of the socii of Rome, while the rest of the clause covers the rest of those within the orbit of Rome: see Lintott, 111, for full discussion. For the language, compare Cicero, div. in Caec. 66: ah exteris nationibus, quae in amicitiam populi Romani dicionemque essent, iniurias propulsare; for in + accusative in this construction, characteristic of Roman statutes, see the General Introduction, Ch. XII. 1.2 It may well be that the list of magistrates at this point was engraved with substantial spaces between them, as in the Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae, Law 7,1. 15. In the text as it stands, quoius pater senator siet will go closely with queiue filius eorum quoius erit: sons of one of the magistrates listed are liable, only if the magistrate concerned has already reached the senate (see Venturini, Studi, 91-100). Both Klenze and Mommsen, as the latter makes clear in his Apparatus Criticus, altered the text to create a further criterion for liability, in addition to having been one of the magistrates listed or being the son of one of the magistrates listed, namely being a senator or a son of a senator. But such an alteration is excluded by the change of mood from erit to siet. (It is of course theoretically posible, but unlikely, that quel senator fuerit stood before quel dictator).) For the list of magistrates, largely restored and necessarily uncertain, compare the Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae, I.e.; the Rome Fragment A, Law 20; the Guardia Vomano Fragment, Law 21; Cicero, Clu. 148; Rab.Post. 14. Perhaps quod siet amp_l[ius ... ablatum captum coactum conciliatum auersumue fuerit, quodipsei...] 1. 4 Mommsen's supplement is implausible, since a praetor would hardly hear a case about his own misconduct. For the formulae of the supplement adopted, see 11. 60 and 62-3; given that a king and a people are treated separately from a fellow-citizen in 11.

96

ROMAN STATUTES

62-3, one might also think of: [sei quis priaetori) satis fecerit se a rege populoue legatum esse sibiue a ceiue suo mandatu]m esse. 11. 5-6 Given that one of the circumstances envisaged by this clause is praeuaricatio, it must be a list of circumstances in which a second nominis delatio is possible. Of the four possibilities in 11. 55-6, those arising out of litis aestimatio and the sanctio of the statute are second-level matters. We should restore here by comparison with 11. 55-6 a reference to a further offence after the conclusion of the case. A nomen ex h. I. ex reis exemptum is then presumably removed in such a way as to remain eligible for delatio when the circumstances are appropriate. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that we have a reference forward to 11. 8-9. The context in the Florence Fragment A, Law 5, 1. 7, is too fragmentary to be helpful; for nomen eximere, in the first case permanently, see the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Ch. XCI, 1. 6; Asconius 49 St = 60 C: postero die, cum P. Cassius adsedisset et citati accusatores non adessent, exemptum nomen est de reis Corneli. For praeuaricatio see also 11. 54-5, 55-6, 75 = 82; the Lex agraria, Law 2, 1. 38; the Lex de prouinciis praetoriis, Law 12, Cnidos Copy, Column V, 1. 38; Cicero, part.or. 124-6; E. Levy, ZSS 53, 1933, 151-233 = Gesammelte Schriften E (Cologne and Graz, 1963), 379-432, 'Von den romischen Anklagervergehen', at 177-211 = 395-417. Mommsen's supplement, de quo ex h.l ioudicatum erit, sits ill as the beginning of the whole clause: perhaps [quoius nomen ex h. 1. denuo delatum erit, quei eorumpostea ...] 1. 6 Given that 11. 5-6 form a kind of appendix to 11. 1-4, a reference to prosecution alieno nomine - there is no practical alternative - is at first sight surprising. One also feels a need for an antecedent to eius pr. Since we have had claimants in their own name and in that of another in 11. 1-4, we need something like: [seiue quis suo seiue ali]eno nominee petet — ad quern pr. quei ex h. I. quaeret nomen ex h. I. delatum eritt] quaestio eius pr. esto ... Compare also the Cyrene Edict V, 1. 98. Such a supplement has the merit also of providing an antecedent for is at the beginning of the next sentence and of leading into 11. 6-8, where enough survives to show that they distinguish between claims lodged before 1 September, where it is reasonable to expect the same praetor to hear the case in the normal way (note that empanelling the jury probably took 60 days), and claims lodged after 1 September, where it is not and where a different procedure is provided. The end of the clause under discussion rather obsessively repeats what has presumably already been said in 11. 3-4 and in 1. 4. For the correction ioudic(es), Lintott rightly observes that 'it seems awkward to state that ioudicium should belong to those who are the ioudicium. In the rest of the text, ioudicium is used for "trial" and ioudices for "jurypanel'". But there is a larger problem. Mommsen held that the right of prosecution according to this statute belonged to the injured parties and that there could be more than one prosecutor. His view has remained standard. But Mantovani has now argued that this statute had already adopted, along with prosecution by the injured parties, the system familiar from the age of Cicero and generally held to have been introduced by Glaucia, in which prosecution was open to any citizen qui uolet, from whom at the end of the day a single prosecutor emerged. The arguments are not convincing: (1) the suggestion, that Cicero, Brut. 164, reveals the existence before 106 BC of a group of habitual prosecutors (71-8), depends on a mistaken view of the meaning of the word /actio; (2) it is not the case that 11. 55-6 prescribe the extinction of all prior offences once a trial has occurred

1 - LEX REPETVNDARVM

97

(81-5); (3) singular relative clauses in Latin of the type, is quei petet, do not imply that there was only a single prosecutor (85-7). That is, however, not the end of the matter. As Mantovani observes, 97, in the cases of which we hear between C. Gracchus and the Lex Servilia Glauciae, the prosecutors were citizens. Now the phrase alieno nomine in 1. 6, wrongly doubted by Mantovani, 98-9, finds a sufficient explanation in the supplement proposed by Lintott for 11. 3-4; but the phrase is compatible with a further clause allowing provincials to entrust the prosecution to.a Roman citizen, rather than prosecuting themselves and seeking patroni, and there is room for such a clause in 11. 3-4 or 4-5. If such a clause existed, that might explain both the pattern of prosecution in the period between Gracchus and Glaucia and the developments of the Lex Servilia Glauciae. 11. 6-8 As we have seen, the statute distinguishes between claims lodged before 1 September, where it is reasonable to expect the same praetor to hear the case in the normal way, and claims lodged after 1 September, where it is not and where a different procedure is provided. For other evidence for this division in the judicial year, see O. Behrends, Die romische Geschworenverfassung (Gottingen, 1970), 173-5. The clause beginning is eum unde petet... will probably have continued ... deferto; isque pr. nomen recipito ... It is also likely that [—] deque eo homine de[—] still forms part of the same clause. We cannot know whether a rubric marked the beginning of the procedure in the case of nominis delatio after 1 September; but since the eo anno in 1. 7, like the eo anno restored in 1. 6, will refer to the moment at which is acts in the clause which begins is eum unde petet..., perhaps not. (For unde in 1. 6, compare Terence, Eun. 11; Cato, ORF 8, LVIII, 206; de Meo, Lingue, 95.) Enough survives of 1. 7 to make it clear that provision is made for an alternative procedure in the case of nominis delatio after 1 September, ending with payment in 1. 8, and it has been plausibly supposed since Mommsen that this procedure was recuperatorial, as in 171 BC: perhaps de[inde ioudicium esto. quoius nomen post k(alendas) Sept(embres) delatum erit, ispr(aetor) de ea re recuperatores dato. qu]oius ... There is no reason to suppose with Serrao, Tatroni', 490 = 252 n. 48, that any such recuperatores had to be drawn from the panel for the quaestio, 11. 12-19. For recuperatores, see on the Lex agraria, Law 2, 11. 29-31, 36-9: the procedure was rapid and the magistrate played a role in the enforcement of the judgment, as in 1. 8 here. There is no reason to suppose with Lintott that the praetor who enforces the judgment is different from the praetor who has heard the case. It may be that the trial recorded by Asconius 65-6 St = 84 C involved a procedure similar to that described here: it is a prosecution of C. Antonius by a group of Greeks, see Buckland, 43. On the question of timing, note that Milo begins a prosecution of Clodius before 3 November 57 BC, but the case would not have been heard before 56 (P.A. Brunt, LCM 1981, 227-31, 'Iudicia sublata9). The supplements of Mommsen or Lintott will give the general sense of what is lost in the lacuna between 11. 7 and 8. priuato: the payment is perhaps to be made directly, not by way of a quaestor, as in 11. 56-69 below, despite the doubts of Buckland, 42-3. 11. 8-9 Given ioudicium in the rubric, it is likely that the word figured in both parts of this clause; it is possible that in both parts the full phrase ioudicium ioudicatio leitisque aestumatio figured. We follow Mommsen in supposing that the full list of magistrates, as

98

ROMAN STATUTES

it must have stood in 1. 2, ending with the military tribunes, also stood here, against Lintott, 114. 11. 9-11 The statute gives those suing before 1 September and proceeding in the normal way a right, even after the selection of jurors, to have patrons appointed (in the plural: it may be that the rubric was also in the plural, but see 1. 11); see 11. 26-7 for their later appearance; and note their absence from the section on rewards (see in general Serrao, 'Patroni'). The requirement of free citizen birth seems certain: for the formula, compare the Lex de prouinciis praetoriis, Law 12, Delphi Copy, Block C, 1. 23. The statute may also have imposed a minimum age for patroni: see Hesky, 272-3. Our supplement in 1. 10 is on the long side, but possible with some crowding. cognatio: a relationship between free persons, ascendants, descendants or collaterals, by way of legitimate descent, biological or adoptive, in the male or the female line, see C. Castello, Studi sul diritto familiare e gentilizio romano (Milan, 1942). sodalis: see Cicero, Cael. 26, suggesting that the statute may perhaps have meant, not 'members of the same dining club', but the Luperci, the Arvales or the Titii, just as conlegium perhaps refers to one of the four great priesthoods, contra David, Patronat, 204 n. 121, with bibliography; for the gentile basis of the Titii sodales, see St. Weinstock, RE VIA, 2 (1937),-1538-40. Given the reading of the bronze, one should perhaps not read [queiue —] quaestione{m] ioudicio{o}ue, but [queiue —] quaestione{ue) ioudicio{q)ue puplico. The final provision probably excludes those who were already serving as patroni in another case, rather than those who had already served as patroni at some time. 11. 11-12 Lintott argues rightly, against Pinelli and Sigonio, that a patronus who is dead can no longer be repudiated; against Klenze and Mommsen, that we would not expect a patronus who was moribus suspectus to have been appointed in the first place and that if he had been appointed a foreigner would have found it hard to challenge him. For obstructive patroni, see Livy XLHI, 2, 8-11 (171 BC); for moram facere see 11. 35 and 69. Note that repudiare, here used in relation to patroni, is later used in relation to wouldbe prosecutors (Cicero, div.in Caec. 63). 11. 12-15 Here and in 11. 15-17, the construction facito utei CDL uiros (ita) legat, where the subject of the two verbs is the same, is odd: why not legitol Or facito utei CDL uirei leganturl Whoever drafted our text, in 11. 17-19, began a similar construction and then changed horses midstream: eos ...facito ... recitentur. (We preserve the anomaly in the supplement in 11. 14-15.) One wonders whether the text was not drafted from a form of shorthand: ... utei CDL uir. leg., which might stand for ... utei CDL uiros legat or ... utei CDL uirei leganturl The requirement of free citizen birth, as argued by Mattingly and Lintott, comparing 11. 9-11 and Pliny, NH XXXIII, 32, on the equester ordo, may have been taken for granted by our legislator, given the requirement which was certainly in the text: equestrian status (cf. Cicero, Plane. 32). Any supplement will depend on the way in which one thinks this status was defined: Mommsen's alternative supplements set the parameters. For a lucid discussion of the problem, see T.P. Wiseman, Hist 19, 1970, 67-83 = Roman Studies (Liverpool, 1987), 57-73, with 375-6; also Brunt, Fall, 515-16. A requirement of freeborn citizen parents is a theoretical possibility. (The suggestion of Mommsen, St. in, 531 n. 1 = DP VI, 2, 135 n. 1, that equestrian status was defined in our text by reference to a general statute of C. Gracchus on equestrian jurors, is implausible, apart from the uncertainty whether such a statute existed: for such a reference would not have needed to begin in hace ceiuitate.

1 - LEX REPETVNDARVM

99

Mattingly's combination of the equestrian census and military service as an eques, as joint requirements (1975), is implausible: why should a legislator have wished to exclude men who had served as pedites, but possessed - or acquired - the equestrian census?) Note that the plebiscitum reddendorum equorum of 129 BC, which apparently separated the equestrian and senatorial orders, did not prevent our legislator explicitly listing junior magistracies and present or former membership of the senate as disqualifications; for the plebiscitum reddendorum equorum presumably only operated at the moment of entry to the senate. Our legislator will presumably also have been aware of the fact that it was technically possible to enter the senate without having held one of the junior magistracies listed; and he will also have wished to exclude former senators, who might revert to simple equestrian status. Contra Lintott, the text is neutral as to whether tribunes already acceded to the senate under the Lex Atinia (Gellius XIV, 8, 2), since this may have permitted, rather than ordered, that ex-tribunes should be enrolled in the senate: our legislator will have wished to cover the period between the holding of the tribunate and the next census. The arguments of Nicolet, L'Ordre equestre I, 497-511, against any supplement in 1. 13 along the lines suggested by Mommsen, seem to us overwhelming. But neither his own supplement nor that of Carcopino, there discussed, carry conviction either. We suggest quei[ue mercedem ceperit quaestioneue ...] and take the clause quod circa ... non liceat both with [... mercedem ceperit and with quaestione ... conde]mnatus siet: note that the regulations drawn up for the senate of Halaesa in 95 BC, certainly drawing on Roman models, imposed a minimum age of 30 years, which also appears here, and excluded men who had engaged in certain forms of quaestus (Cicero, // in Verr. 2, 122). Thet implication would be that our text is appealing to the practice of senatorial recruitment in general and not just to specific clauses in particular statutes imposing exclusion from the senate, such as the Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae, Law 7,11. 1-6. Compare the much longer and more systematic list of disqualifications for municipal office in the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24,11. 89-107. (As for ceperit, on the analogy of the previous clauses and according to the rules of Latin grammar, we would expect a perfect subjunctive and a future perfect indicative; in the third person singular, however, the forms are identical.) The case of C. Cato, condemned de repetundis in 113 BC, probably shows that at that date condemnation in a quaestio did not have as a necessary consequence immediate exclusion from the senate. Minimum age: see Stroux & Wenger, Augustus-Inschrift, 98-101; maximum age: see Nonius XII, 523 (Mercerus) = 842 (Lindsay); the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Ch.

cxvm. We hold that the 450 men had to be domiciled at Rome; for Rome including the area a mile from the city see Gaius IV, 104: legitima sunt iudicia, quae in urbe Roma uel intra primum urbis Romae miliarium ... accipiuntur, and the limitation of prouocatio to the same area, Livy HI, 20, 7; compare also the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24, 1. 20. Lintott argues that the 450 men had to be domiciled, say, within 20 miles from Rome, comparing the Cyrene Edict V, 11. 107-12: see Stroux & Wenger, I.e., 123. But that is perhaps unlikely for the late second century BC. For domicilium, see the Lex Tarentina, Law 15, Col. 1,1. 43 - Col. H, 1. 1; and the Index, s.v. 1. 14 Lintott observes that here and in 1. 17 Mommsen invented a rubric, although the bronze has no trace of a vacat in any of the four places in which one would expect one; and that it is an easier correction to print ioudice{s) here and keep ioudices in 1. 17. But

100

ROMAN STATUTES

his own text will not do: it is very hard to believe that any draftsman could have written 'he is to declare them, their father, their tribe and their cognomen as jurors' (it does not help to make patrem ... cognomenque accusatives of respect); and in any case the 450 men do not necessarily become jurors, whose selection is provided for only from 1. 19 onwards. One would expect a public declaration of the 450 men chosen before their recording in writing; a possible supplement is ioudices q[uei ex h. I. in hunc annum stent — edito eorumque, quei ex] h. I. ... It is necessary to take patrem ... cognomenque as a parenthesis and to take ioudices as part of the quei clause. Compare the Lex Flavia, Ch. 86, 11. 22-3; perhaps here: ... suo magistratu maiore parte diet habeto potestatemque ... (compare 11. 27, 65 below; and the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24, 11. 13-16). For having someone propositum, compare Asconius, 35 St = 34 C; Cicero // in Verr. 2, 34. For the copying of legal texts, see the General Introduction, Ch. XVIII; for recitation in contione, the Tarentum Fragment, Law 8,11. 13-14, and the SC de Bacchanalibus, ILLRP 511,11.22-3. 1.15 The supplements of Mommsen and Lintott for the A - B lacuna are surprising: the right word is idoneus. Our supplement is on the long side, but possible with some crowding. For the construction, see Cicero, // in Cat. 26. For the recording of (actual) jurors in the archives, see Cicero, Phil. V, 15. 11. 15-18 See on 11. 12-15. The presiding magistrate, who later appears as praetor quei ex h. 1. quaeret or praetor quoius ex h. I. quaestio erit, appears already in 1. 19 as the judge, in eum annum quei ex h. I. /actus erit: in 11. 15-16, therefore, perhaps something along the lines of pr., quoi post h. I. rogatam quot annis quaestio ex h. I. sorti obuenerit, is in diebus ... In 1. 16, ita suggests that the draftsman originally thought of prescribing the choice of the 450 men as being ita utei supra scriptum est and then changed his mind. 1. 17 See on 1. 14. For reasons of space, we suppose asyndeton of maior in our restoration here, compare uiros legat, quei in hac, 1. 12, uiros ita legat, quei ha[c]y 1. 16; in urbem Romam, 1. 13, in urbe Romae, 1. 17. I. 18 The supplement will be suo ma[gistratu maiore parte diet habeto potestate]mque II. 19-26 in ius educere here is the concrete manifestation of petitio in 1. 6 (see Venturini, Studi, 137-9). The iudex is here the praetor: compare 11. 59-63 and 79. There are no grounds for restoring someone who alieno nomine petet in the preceding lacuna, contra Hesky, 274. For calumniae causa postulare, see on the Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae, Law 7, 11. 1-6; compare also the Guardia Vomano Fragment, Law 21; the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24, 11. 119-20; BGU 611 = Bruns 53 = FIRA I, 44, Col. IE, 11. 4-9 (Claudius); and see Mommsen, Str. 386 n. 2 = DPen H, 58 n. 1; E. Levy, ZSS 53, 1933, 151-233 = Gesammelte Schriften II (Cologne and Graz, 1963), 379-432, 'Von den rbmischen Anklagervergehen', at 153-77 = 380-95. For nomen recipere, compare Valerius Maximus DI, 7, 9. For the restoration of a time limit for the declaration by the defendant, compare immediately below. For the disqualifying relationships, compare the Lex de ambitu in force in 116 BC (Plutarch, Mar. 4-5, with Brunt, Fall, 416-17); the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Ch. XCV; the Lex Iulia de ui, Law 62; and the Lex Cornelia de ui, Dig. XLVII, 10, 5pr. (Ulpian). In the following lacuna, the restoration of iudices is inappropriate, since the men concerned are still simply CDL uirei\ the subjunctive is anomalous in quae supra

1 - LEX REPETVNDARVM

101

scripta sient, 1. 24, on the basis of which these words are restored here, since the words belong to what the legislator says, not to what the defendant swears. For sodalis and in eodem conlegio in 1. 20, see on 11. 9-11 above; for the beginning of the supplement which follows, compare 1. 23. In 1. 21, we take it that in ea[m quaestionem —] goes with legat e[datque — ] . In 1. 22, queiue ei is redundant (and is not included in our supplement in 1. 20). Given the consistent order of sodalis and in eodem conlegio in 11. 10 and 20, cf. 1. 25, the most likely view is that the engraver has here omitted queiue in eodem conlegio siet (so Mattingly (1969), 130). Our supplement in 1. 22 is on the long side, but possible with some crowding. 11. 22-3 The gap before liege) Rubria was perhaps designed to give prominence to another piece of Gracchan legislation, presumably the Lex Rubria to found Carthage, see the Lex agraria, Law 2, Introduction. The view of Mommsen of what followed is surely more plausible than that of Lintott (adapting a suggestion of M. Gelzer, Gnomon 5, 1929, 655-6, reviewing Carcopino): surveyors and colonists would have been covered by queiue trans mare erit, whereas it is reasonable to suppose that our legislator might have wished to emphasise that Gracchan magistrates were being treated no differently from any others. There may have followed a clause excluding relatives of magistrates and senators. If this is so, the legislator will have been giving the plaintiff the chance to control the fides of the praetor who selected the 450 men, in relation to the principal criteria he should have operated. There then follow provisions which are relevant at the moment of the passage from 450 men to 100 men. It may be that these included a brief clause excluding those already chosen as jurors: see Hesky, 275. For absence rei publicae causa, see on the Lex Flavia, Ch. 86,1. 7. For 1. 23, we return in essence to Mommsen's supplement: against Venturini, it is incomprehensible that our legislator should have wished to debar past prosecutors; against Lintott, it is disturbing that he rejects the explicit testimony of Cicero, Clu. 120: quapropter in omnibus legibus, quibus exceptum est, de quibus causis aut magistratum capere non liceat aut iudicem legi aut alterum accusare, haec ignominiae causa (infliction of a nota by the censors) praetermissa est. The point is not that the text of our statute would not have been known to the jurors, but that the text of our legislator would probably not have been different from that of any other statute. It is intelligible that our legislator should have wished explicitly to debar anyone convicted of extortion; furthermore, because of the procedure involved, those convicted under the Lex Calpurnia or the Lex Iunia would perhaps not have been excluded by the clause queiue quaestione ioudicioque publico condemnatus siet; and although condemnation either under the Lex Calpurnia or Lex Iunia or under this statute would only have been possible for magistrates or sons of magistrates, such men would not necessarily have been magistrates or senators or relatives of either, at the moment at which the praetor was selecting the 450 men or to which this clause applied. The Leges Calpurnia (of 149 BC) and Iunia reappear at 11. 73-5 = 80-2; cf. 11. 58-9; the latter is only attested by our statute; for both, it is our statute that reveals the procedure involved; see also Crawford, 'Sistema provinciale', 100-1. The suggestion of Jones and Rankov, that the Lex Iunia is an early version of the legislation of C. Gracchus, takes no account of the fact that its procedure, like that of the Lex Calpurnia, is the legis actio sacramento: the procedure is problematic enough in 149 BC. (The entire hypothesis of Jones to explain this clause is complex and unnecessary.) Crawford, RRC, no. 220,

102

ROMAN STATUTES

suggested identifying the legislator with the moneyer, M. Iunius (Silanus); the jurist M. Iunius Brutus, praetor perhaps in 140 BC, is also possible. 11. 23-4 The supplement of Mommsen (1905) is preferable, since it does not involve a reference to judging: the text continues to talk in terms of legere and edere down to 1. 27. 1. 24 It is highly implausible that our text should at this point talk of seeking information from a quaestor, for two reasons: it would be careless drafting at this point in the statute suddenly to use petere with a completely different sense; and quo minus recalls first and foremost those clauses which end with eius hac lege nihilum rogatur. The most attractive solution is still that of Mommsen (1863), that Q is a mistake of the engraver for (IS), implying that some right is being reserved to the defendant: perhaps quo mi[nus quern eiuret, e.h.l.n.r. Both here and in 11. 25-6, e.h.ln.r., if correctly restored, implies the existence already of rules for jury selection. For a limit of 60 days, compare the Lex de prouinciis praetoriis, Law 12, Cnidos Copy, Column IV, 11. 19-20; the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24, 11. 143-5 and 151; the Lex Iulia de adulteriis, Law 60; Cicero, Arch. 7. I. 25 adfines are the cognati of a spouse, see Ph. Moreau, in J. Andreau & H. Bruhns (edd.), Parente et strategies familiales dans I'antiquite romaine (Rome, 1990), 3-26, 'Adfinitas'. For cognati and sodales, see on 11. 9-11. [pe]r eumpr.'. the reference is to 1. 24. II. 25-6 Daube, Forms, 55-6, was manifestly right to argue that Mommsen's non erit is wholly unacceptable as an alternative to nei esto. We supplement h. I., not ex h. /., in the lacuna in 1. 26, compare 1. 6. 11. 26-7 The recording of those involved in a trial in any capacity eventually lies behind the information which Asconius is able to give us for the cases in which Cicero was involved, see also Cicero, // in Verr. 1, 157-8; Clu, 62, 86; adfam. VIE, 8 = 84 SB, 3; Phil. V, 15; compare also 11. 14-15, 17-19 above. The construction facito utei habeat is in effect an instruction to a scribe. I. 27 The rest of the A-B gap may have been filled with maiore parte diei (cf. 11. 14-15, 65). (Lintott restores praetor quaestorue as the subject of facito; but this depends on retaining q(uaestor) in 1. 24, in our view mistakenly.) The jury, unlike the praetor involved (11. 72-3 = 79-80), could not be replaced; our legislator admitted the possibility that their numbers might diminish during the trial, see II. 49, 75 = 82. After Sulla, jurors were replaced if necessary, Jones, Courts, 68-9. 11. 27-9 There are over 100 letters missing between sunto in 1. 27 and [q]uei in 1. 28 and we cannot be sure that 11. 28-9 are still concerned with iudices. Mommsen argued that those who received money 'according to this statute' were informers against a iudex: we know enough of the procedure of the statute to know that there is no room for informers against the accused. But a clause such as Mommsen supposed would sit very oddly here. Lintott, 122-3, reviews a variety of other suggestions, none of which can be said to carry much conviction either. His own suggestion is that a juror might receive some 'grant or compensation in respect of his duties'. But such a clause would be alien to everything we know of how the res publica worked. We regard it as just conceivable that a juror obliged to serve in perpetuom might suffer an actual loss, for instance in a law-suit, and that he might be compensated for this. (Henderson, 74 n. 24, and Nicolet, 511-12, take ex hac lege here to mean not 'according to this statute', but 'as defined in this law', 'dans une

1 - LEX REPETVNDARVM

103

cause definie par cette loi': it is unlikely that any Roman draftsman would have sown confusion in this way.) The most likely rubric at the end of 1. 28 is then [nomina utei sc]ripta sient. 11. 29-30 For iudicium in eum, compare the Lex agraria, Law 2,1. 30. In the language of Republican statutes, normal usage involves a magistrate who quaerit de various malefactors; for Lintott's understanding of ab eis item quaerito as 'he is to seek from the heirs of malefactors' to be plausible, some parallel would need to be cited. There is a further objection: item would be odd, if the magistrate was about to pursue someone quite different. Our statute is Gracchan, and the unanimous view of our sources that the clause quo ea pecunia peruenerit was an innovation of Glaucia would be rather surprising, if there had already existed a clause pursuing heirs. The phrase ab eis in rel­ ation to jurors remains anomalous, since normal usage would be cum eis; but the slip is an easy one to understand in the light of the common phrase quaerere ab = 'to enquire of. The lacuna in 11. 29-30 may have contained a reference to a request by the plaintiff as a necessary condition for the continuation of the case; and it probably contained a provision that the trial could only proceed if it had reached a certain stage: it is unlikely that a case could have been continued if the defendant had died or gone into exile without exercising his rights over the selection of jurors. (The story, that C. Licinius Macer saved his property by suicide (Val.Max. IX, 12, 7), is odd in the light of the clause quo ea pecunia peruenerit, which certainly existed in all statutes after Glaucia; the story perhaps shows that recovery from those to whom property had passed was only partial and did not in any case involve confiscation of property.) 11. 30-1 Lintott's view of these lines depends on supplementing [ante horam sec]undam in 1. 30. But [—]IVNDAM is clear and the [—] secundam of Pinelli, Sigonio and Chacon looks like a classic humanist guess, on the basis of [—]undam, with the Verrines in mind. Overall, 11. 30-1 begin with a reference to the praetor doing something to set the trial in motion and end with a reference to investigations. Mommsen's restoration is unsatisfactory, quite apart from one supplement which is certainly too long. Our supplement is offered in the knowledge that C. Gracchus approved of the giving of proper notice of trial, see Plutarch, C.Gr. 3, 7, with D. Mantovani, Ath 82 (n.s. 72), 1994, 13-29, 'Gaio Gracco e i SiKomod di Plut. C.Gr. 3.7'. A possible rubric is de denuntiatione facienda: the fact that denuntiatio is first attested in Cicero is not significant, given the nature of our evidence. The clause neiue post h. [I. r. —] may have continued along the lines of 'is anyone to prevent this being done'. It seems that conquisitores were ad hoc delegates of the praetor, see Plautus, Merc. 664-5, post adpraetorem ibo, orabo ut conquistores det mihi in uicis omnibus; compare Amph. 64-85. In the central lacuna in 1. 31, perhaps: conciliab[oleis, nisei in eis oppedeis ... The implication would be that where there were magistrates with jurisdiction they were required to assist. The understood subject of so lent in 1. 31 is in any case 'whatever judicial authorities there may be', Brunt, Fall, 513. There is no objection to supposing that witnesses to affairs outside Roman territory might be found within it. For inquisitio in general, see, e.g., Cicero, Flac. 13; Jones, Courts, 65-6, wrongly claiming that inquisitio existed for maiestas and ambitus. For terra Italia, see on the Lex agraria, Law 2,11. 1-2. In the latter part of 1. 31, perhaps: in quibus di[ebus ?XXX? eis isprae]tor ... 11. 31-2 Mommsen (1905) was surely right to restore a rubric, though the form is perhaps not the obvious one; a subject is then needed for censeant: for the shift from singular to plural, see the General Introduction, Ch. XH.

104

ROMAN STATUTES

For the summoning of witnesses, compare the Lex de prouinciis praetoriis, Law 12, Cnidos Copy, Block V, 11. 28-9; perhaps the Falerio Fragment II, Law 18, 1. 4; Jones, Courts, 65-6, 114; Frier, Jurists, 202-3. For our supplement, see the Lex Iulia agraria, Law 54, Ch. V. 11, 32-3 Lintott's idea that 'one of the defendant's advocates may be called as a prosecution witness' is surprising: the purpose of the qualification dumtaxat unum is.to prevent the defendant from neutralising large numbers of witnesses, who could otherwise be compelled to give evidence, by having them as his advocates (so rightly Sherwin White (1982), 26). For the immunity of advocates from witnessing, see Cicero, // in Verr. 2, 24; for the immunity of those for whom witnessing would be a breach of fides, the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Ch. XCV; the Lex Iulia de ui, Law 62; Jones, Courts, 114; compare 11. 19-26. A list of relatives will have stood in the lacuna between 11. 32 and 33. 11. 33-5 The rubric in 1. 33 will have related to the material in 1. 34, which seems to be about the recording of witnesses and documentation; the subject of the sentence will have been the claimant. Compare perhaps the Falerio II Fragment, Law 18,1. 4, for appellant; the Florence Fragment A, Law 5, 1. 6, for tabulas etc. Mommsen suggested in his commentary that the procedure under the Lex Cornelia may already have been in place and have stood in the lacuna between 11. 34 and 35: Cicero, Flac. 21, (litteras) triduo lex ad praetorem deferri, iudicum signis obsignari iubet. sei qua: neuter plural to cover the list which follows; producere is only used with people: forposcere, see Cicero, Rosc.Com. 3; // in Verr. 4, 36. I. 35 We seem at the beginning of the line to have reached a new clause, perhaps relating to sworn depositions by witnesses: perhaps therefore [— quominus defe]rat, see on 11. 33-5. The nature of the interrogation by the praetor is uncertain, whether of witnesses (Rudorff, 463-4, with sources; Sherwin White (1982), 26); or of defendants (Mommsen, Str. 387-8 = DPen II, 59-60, with sources). II. 36-9 The oath of a juror includes an undertaking to judge unless legitimately prevented; for the excuses permitted, see the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Ch. XCV. Since in 1. 39 someone is clearly unable to be present, the rubric ioudex nei quis disputet perhaps refers to an obligation on a juror to accept the decision of the praetor on whether he is legitimately absent, rather than to an obligation on a juror to avoid disputation in general, contra Th. Mommsen, Zeitschrift fur die Altertumswissenschaft 2, 1844, 457-72, reviewing J.H.A. Escher, De testium ratione (Zurich, 1842) = GS m, 500-12, at 469 = 509-10. Furthermore, in 11. 39-41, we have only got as far as reasons for postponement of trial. The general sense of Mommsen's supplements at the end of 1. 37 and the beginning of 1. 39 must be right. 11. 39-41 It is easiest to take these lines as dealing with the consequences of a postponement by the praetor, if the defendant cannot be present: at a certain point the trial resumes. The uncontroversial postponement of various forms of public business of the Lex Flavia, Ch. K (compare the Tarentum Fragment, Law 8, 11. 24-5), is probably different. referre is perhaps the infinitive of the impersonal refert, 'it is a matter of concern'; perhaps therefore something along the lines of: quam rem pr(aetor) ex h. I. egerit, sei earn rem proferet, quoi[us ex h. L nomen delatum erit, quei in ious adire non poterit — quei pro eo in ious adi]re poterit, facito quoius deicet nomen referre [quod delatum siet — ubeipoter]it, utei is ..., 'Whatever matter the praetor shall have handled according to this

1 - LEX REPETVNDARVM

105

statute, if he shall postpone that matter, whoever [shall have been prosecuted according to this statute, whoever shall not be able to go for a pre-trial — whoever] shall be able [to go for a pre-trial for him,] he (the praetor) is to see that, whomever he (the representative) shall say it concerns [that] he [may have been prosecuted —, when he shall be able to be present in court,] that person ...' If a defendant finally fails to appear, the trial resumes (1. 41). For adferatur, compare the Twelve Tables, Law 40, Tabula I, 3. 11. 42-3 Mommsen held that these lines dealt with a juror who was in some way delinquent, about whom either the praetor passed sentence or there was a trial. But ex h.l. causam non nouer[it] looks like perfectly proper behaviour. Lintott supposed that 1. 42 dealt with a prosecutor who failed to appear without good cause and supplemented accordingly. But ex h.l. causam non nouer[it] looks like a technical and self-contained phrase. Note that the praetor declares in contione; it may be that we have in 1. 42 the resolution {perhaps by one of the jurors chosen by lot) of a dispute {perhaps over obstruction) arising out of the rule in 11. 39-41. For causam noscere = 'to accept that there is a case', compare Cicero, de leg. I, 11. (The usage in Terence, Phorm. 278-80; Tacitus, Ann. VI, 9, 4; Gellius Xffl, 12, 9, is different.) There is very little more that one can do with the second half of 1. 43, since it largely repeats words which have already occurred. But one does wonder whether this time it should not read causam nouerit: the mistake is an easy one to have made. In this case, fec[isse uideri —] will be right in 1. 42. Alternatively, 11. 42-3 may deal in turn with two different kinds of misbehaviour. 11. 44-5 [—\aturum esse is fairly clearly the end of the oath sworn by the jurors: perhaps [— sententiamque ita l\aturum esse. For the revealing of votes, see Cicero, div. in Caec. 24; I in Verr. 40. In the centre of 1. 44, perhaps quern iam s[ibei e r.p.f.s.u. apsoluere out condemnare ...] 11. 45-6 The clause deals with the liability of the jurors to a multa suprema, presumably for not swearing as they should, and its payment to the aerarium; for the view of our sources of the multa suprema in the early period, see Crawford, Coinage and Money, 19-20. It may in this period be an amount less than half a man's property, compare the Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae, Law 7, 1. 12, with the Commentary. Perhaps multa suprema deica[tur. quod aliter atque s.s.e. factum erit...; for causam non nouerit, see on 11. 42-3; the clause may then have gone on to specify that a juror was punished if he was to blame. For the supplement in 1. 46, see Cicero /// in Cat. 5, ... sine recusatione ac sine ulla mora ... 11. 46-8 It is evident from 11. 49-52 that two thirds of the jurors had to be prepared to vote before voting could commence; these lines provide that if more than a third of the jurors declared themselves unable to vote, the magistrate adjourned the proceedings. If a juror declared himself unable to vote, he said (or used a ballot saying) non liquet (Cicero, Clu. 76: deinde homines sapientes ... non liquere dixerunt\ Ps-Asconius 193 St); this fact rules out the supplements of Mommsen (1863) and Mattingly (1970), 159-60, for the middle of 1. 48: compare Venturini, Studi, 38. For the middle of 1. 47, compare 1. 42; for what follows, the supplement of Mommsen (1905) gives the right sense (for amplius pronuntiari see Cicero, /7 in Verr. 1, 26 and 74; Brutus 86). Any juror who was tempted to say non liquet, amplius bis, 'more than twice', was to be deterred by a heavy fine. And any juror who persisted in attempting to help the defendant by continuing to say non liquet was likely to find himself excluded from the process of voting (Sherwin White

106

ROMAN STATUTES

(1982), 23). Our legislator evidently recognised, however, in 11. 53-4, that he could not in the end prevent a juror from casting a blank ballot. At the end of the clause, in tabulas referto is as possible a supplement as proscribito. 11. 49-52 Perhaps u[imineam ...]: if the urn was 50 fingers high and only 20 fingers wide, we would have 32 letters in the lacuna. We would expect 28, given 26 in the shorter gap in the line below; but, with crowding, 32 would be possible. For the supplement at the end of 1. 50, compare the Florence Fragment B, Law 6,1. 8; more distantly, the Lex Valeria Aurelia, Law 37, Tabula Hebana, 11. 18-19. For representations of ballots with A and C, see the denarius of Q. Cassius, Crawford, RRC, no. 428/1. In the latter part'of 1. 52, in the place of Mommsen's supplement, which is excluded by the F fragment, we have perhaps the beginning of an injunction that all the jurors are to cast their ballots in the same way; Mattingly's supplement will be on the right lines. 11. 54-5 It is clear from 1. 55 that a tie between condemnations and acquittals meant an acquittal and Mattingly's view that a majority of ballots with 'absoluo' was necessary must be rejected. For the principle, see Jones, Courts, 72-3; Lintott, 136. It is also clear, against Mommsen, that in contrast to 1. 56 the qualification quodpostea nonfecerit is not here appropriate. For praeuaricatio, see on 11. 5-6. I. 55 Venturini, Studi, 203-5, emphasises rightly that plurumae implies that more ballots with 'condemno' than with either of the other two possibilities meant a condemnation; in other words, this was secured by a majority of those expressing a positive opinion. II. 55-6 The surviving words of this clause appear to imply that once a defendant had been either acquitted or condemned under this statute, he could not be tried under it for any other offence covered by it and committed before the date of the trial in question. This interpretation has been urged by Meyer (1978) and Alexander (1982), with the consequence that the rubric suggested by Mommsen would be wholly inappropriate. But such an implication would be very surprising; and it is perfectly possible to offer a supplement which chimes with what common sense would suggest: [... quoius nomen qua de re ex h. I. delatum erit, de ea re, sei is ex h.l. condemnatus a]ut apsolutus erit, quom eoh. I ... actio ne es[to. The implication would be that an offence was what a man did to a particular claimant or group of claimants; if his act damaged others who had not yet sued, this clause does not prevent them from suing; for their claim was a different res, even if only one act lay behind it; compare the very tight drafting of the Lex de prouinciis praetoriis, Law 12, Cnidos Copy, Col. V, 11. 33-8; and unius rei in 1. 27. Daube, Forms, 106 n. 3, suggests de rebus ex hac lege iudicatis as a rubric for this clause. The rule, 'bis de eadem re ne sit actio' (Quintilian VII, 6, 4; cf. Decl. 266; Cicero, dom. 78), perhaps relates properly to private law and is in any case problematic there: see E. Levy, Die Konkurrenz der Aktionen und Personen I (Berlin, 1918), 49-53; M. Marrone, Annali Sem.Giur.Palermo 42, 1992, 207-55, 'Agere lege, formulae e preclusione processuale'. For actions under the Lex Calpurnia and the Lex Iunia, see 11. 73-5 = 80-2. For praeuaricatio, see on 11. 5-6. Venturini, Studi, 215-17, argues that litis aestimatio is cited here, to allow for the re­ opening of the case if there had been irregularities in the litis aestimatio', it seems more likely that it is cited in order to make it clear that it cannot be refused on the grounds that it is a second action.

1 - LEX REPETVNDARVM

107

For the sanctio of a statute, see the General Introduction, Ch. XV; all details are lost here. 11. 56-8 For the taking of security or the seizure of property from a condemned man, compare Cicero, Rab.Post. 37; the Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae, Law 7, 11. 10-11; the Clusium Fragments, Law 9, Fragment (a), 1. 3, with the Commentary. The amount of security is subject to a simple majority decision, as with litis aestimatio. Mommsen's supplement for the end of 1. 56 must give the right sense; there may have been also an indication of the quantity of goods to be seized. The procedure of taking security makes it clear that a condemned man was expected to remain a citizen (Sherwin White (1952), 45). Contra Sherwin White (1982), 26, this clause is not misplaced: it would have been urgent to secure the wherewithal to meet a claim immediately on condemnation. There is no reference in the text as preserved to selling of praedes, nor is one likely, contra Lintott, 146. 11. 58-9 For litis aestimatio subject to a simple majority decision, as emerges from 11. 59-60 here, compare Cicero, ad fam. VIE, 8 = 84 SB, 3, under the Lex Iulia de repetundis, Law 55. It is a reasonable inference from this clause that the Lex Calpurnia and the Lex Iunia imposed only simple restitution; for actions under them, see on 11. 73-5 = 80-2. This clause makes it clear that if an offence had not been pursued under either the Lex Calpurnia or the Lex Iunia, it could be pursued under this statute; 11. 73-5 = 80-2 probably make explicit what one would expect anyway, that any offence which was newly established in our text could not be pursued if it had occurred before the passage of the statute. But this for the most part did not create new offences, but simply changed the procedure for their prosecution. See in general Mommsen, Str. 726-8 = DP en HE, 26-8; Strachan-Davidson II, 5-6; Sherwin White (1949), 6. The quaestor here is probably receiving a report, not any money; it may be that he was defined as the urban quaestor in the lacuna: a similar supplement would be possible in 11. 46 and 57, but certainly does not occur in 11. 62 and 64. The full description appears certainly for the first time in 1. 68. 11. 59-61 The text as preserved at this point contains no reference to the collection of money from the culprit or from his praedes or the raising of money from sale of goods. But 11. 66-7 make it clear that resort was only had to the praedes if the culprit did not pay up. The alternative sequences of events were therefore: (a) giving of security, followed by payment by the culprit and resort to the praedes only if he failed to pay up; (b) seizure of property if the culprit did not - or could not - give security. Mommsen (1863) hypothesised a reference to receipt of security and raising of money from sale of goods at the end of the clause on litis aestimatio in 11. 58-9; but there is not room and he abandoned the supplement in 1905. Lintott hypothesised a reference to receipt of security and raising of money from sale of goods in 11. 63-4; but there is not room. Mommsen's supplement for 11. 60-1 is unsatisfactory, since it is not the case that giving of security makes money available. One might think along the lines of: q[uanta ea pequnia erit — is iudex facito utei ei, ex ea pequnia quae a reo exue boneis eius uendundeis ex] hace lege in aerario posita erit, ... The procedure in the Clusium Fragments, Law 9, Fragment (a), 1. 3, with its simultaneous reference to sale of goods and praedes, seems to be different. The iudex in this clause is the praetor, contra Venturini, Studi, 196-8: it may be that this is a tralatician clause from earlier legislation.

108

ROMAN STATUTES

11. 61-3 These lines deal with the case where it has not been possible to collect sufficient money: see also on 11. 59-61. The word tributus first survives in 1. 66. For the archaic form, compare Plautus, Epid. 221 \ Cato, Origines, Inc. 6 Chassignet = 125 P; Gellius Xm, 21, 19; for tributum in the sense of a proportional distribution, compare Digest XIV, 1, 1, 20 (Ulpian) and the following titles, De lege Rodia de iactu (XIV, 2) and De tributoria actione (XTV, 4). LI. 67-8 precisely show that our text talks of the magistrate in the context of litis aestimatio as shorthand for 'magistrate + consilium'; and, along with the whole sequence of text beginning with 11. 6-7, that the sum to be collected emerges as a result of litis aestimatio, not condemnation: Mommsen's supplement is much superior to Lintott's. The phrase queiue iudex hace lege fac[tus erit — ] , looks forward to 11. 72-3 = 79-80; there is no particular call to restore it at the beginning of the clause. For the supplement in the lacuna between 11. 62 and 63, compare 11. 59-60: it is probably right to insert ceiuisue eius, compare 11. 59-61. For the shift from some part of qui to some part of is, compare in particular the Lex de Gallia Cisalpina, Law 28, Col. II, 11. 25-7, etc. The second clause might begin with quoius in asyndeton in 1. 63: but we prefer with Mommsen to postulate an omitted (aut) (1905) or quoius(ue) (1863). quoius regis populeiue = regis populeiue quoius. (Lintott's long and complicated supplement, with its double reference to king and people, is to be rejected.) 11. 63-4 The statute continues by prescribing that the tributus be observed; and that any unclaimed residue be kept in the aerarium, for five years, as emerges in 1. 66. For the plural followed by the singular, see the General Introduction, Ch. XH. 11. 64-6 The praetor is required to display a record during and after the tributus. Contra Lintott, what is prodictum is not a day, but the details of the tributus, as is clear from quomodo prode[ixerit]\ and there is no need for either a quaestor at the beginning of the line or a reference to a tabula in the middle of the line. With habeat, compare 11. 26 and 38; with [m]aiore parte, 11. 14-15 above. I. 66 One would expect... populeifiat in the rubric, but compare 1. 8; note that quinque is spelt out. II. 66-7, 67-8 It is best to take these two clauses as amplifying elements of the procedure described in 11. 56-66, first in connection with raising money from praedes, second in connection with sealing it in bags. The fact that the clauses appear here in no way implies that they are only relevant when everything in 11. 56-66 has taken place; and there is no need for the hypotheses of Mommsen and, in an even more complicated form, Lintott, that the populus Romanus now owns and owes to the injured parties any uncollected sums. For the plural followed by the singular, see the General Introduction, Ch.XE. Moneys from different suits, obviously, and different sources, presumably, are to be kept separate, identified also by the praetor who presided: compare Cicero, // in Verr. 1, 96. (Lintott's supplement does not mean what he wants it to mean, whereas Mommsen's does.) Mommsen's supplement will give the right sense for the latter part of 1. 68. 11. 68-9 It is galling that a clause, so much of which is preserved, should be so mysterious. Mommsen understood the clause as a general enabling clause for the praetor to instruct the quaestor. But it is not clear that this is necessary after 11. 59-61; and extra ordinem suggests that something else is involved. (Cicero, Font. 4, is of little assistance.) Lintott suggests that the clause gives claimants, who have not collected their money

1 - LEX REPETVNDARVM

109

immediately or whose money has become available late, the right to apply for immediate payment, outside the occasions of 11. 59-61 and 61-64. But the word pequlatus implies that it is the money of the res publica that is at stake and it may be that it is the payments of 11. 28-9 that are here involved. For malus pequlatus, compare the Lex Cornelia, Law 14, Col. 1,1. 5; also the Lex Tarentina, Law 15, Col. 1,11. 3-4. I. 69

One would expect quaestor moram nefaciat as the rubric.

II. 69-72 nei quis magistratus ...: compare 1. 77 = 1. 84; and see on the Lex agraria, Law 2, 1. 87; the Lex Osca Tabula Bantinae, Law 13, 11. 13-14; the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Ch. XCIQ; the Lex de Gallia Cisalpina, Law 28, Col. 1,11. 50-2; and for the whole phrase, the Lex de prouinciis praetoriis, Law 12, Delphi Copy, Block C, 11. 24-5. The clause as a whole prevents any magistrate, including tribunes, from interfering with the trial. A clause similar to the Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae, Law 7,11. 7-9, will have formed the sanctio proper of this statute: see on 11. 55-6. The clause also defines those public occasions which took precedence over the trial: meetings of the senate and assemblies of the centuries and the tribes. It is in the highest degree unlikely that contiones figured in the lacuna between 11. 71 and 72; but it is likely that in a piece of tribunician legislation meetings of the concilium plebis appeared before assemblies of the people and therefore figured in the lacuna. For auocare in general, see on the Lex Osca Tabulae Bantinae, Law 13, 11. 3-8. For intro uocare, see Mommsen, St. HI, 399 n. 1 = DP VI, 1, 459 n. 3. It must follow from the fact, that an assembly sei quid in saturam feretur is excluded, that legislation per saturam was already illegal before the Lex Caecilia Didia of 98 BC. 11. 72-9, 79-86 No treatment of these lines is likely to be free from problems; but we remain persuaded by Mommsen's arguments in 1863 and 1905 that for reasons which must remain mysterious the engraver inscribed the same block of text twice. At no point in our preserved text is there any difference between the two blocks, except in spelling and use of abbreviations, that cannot be explained as the result of human error; and the layout of the two blocks on the bronze is exactly what one would expect, after making allowance for normal variability in spacing of letters and some crowding towards the bottom of the bronze. Of Lintott's critique of Mommsen, we retain only one point. There was no need for Mommsen to postulate that in 1. 79" the engraver broke off suddenly in the middle of a clause with the word [cei]uitate\ and that the words which follow, iudex deinceps faciat pr[—], formed the rubric which began the second block of text, a rubric which had been omitted in 1. 72. (The argument of Mattingly (1969), 138-9, is based on unacceptable alteration of the engraved text.) Rather, the first block of text begins without a rubric in 1. 72 with the words, sei is praetor ...; and ends in 1. 79 with the words, [... cei]uitate iudex deinceps faciat pr[—], which form the end of the clause which begins in 1. 78 with the words, de prouocation[e uocationjeque danda. The second block of text begins in the lacuna and will have ended in 1. 85. The next clause is represented by what survives of 1. 86. Before we turn to illustrate the two claims about the content and layout of the two blocks of text just made, let us observe that our engraver is getting tired: in 1. 74 he engraved the manifest nonsense deiuraturum quoue magistratus is instead of deferatur quoue magis. Let us also observe that our engraver is erratic in his use of abbreviations, note only the titulature of the tribunes in 11. 74 and 81. As far as differences between the two blocks of text are concerned, there are only two: in 1. 72, as Mommsen observed, eo magistratu must in any case be restored and its absence regarded as an engraver's error, because of the -ue of ioudicioue which follows;

110

ROMAN STATUTES

and in 1. 82, satis fecerit is a trivial error, arising from a mistaken resolution of an abbreviation, for satis factum. As far as the layout of the blocks of text is concerned, the second block begins 30 letters to the right of the point at which the first block begins; we would expect each successive line of the second block to begin at roughly the same point across the bronze as the corresponding line of the first block; and this is approximately what happens, after making allowance for normal variability in spacing of letters and some crowding. The first letter of the first block of text in 1. 72 corresponds to the 31st letter of the second block of text in 1. 79. The first letter of 1. 73 corresponds to the 39th letter of 1. 80. The first letter of 1. 74 corresponds to the 9th letter of 1. 81. The first letter of 1. 75 probably corresponds to about the 27th letter of 1. 82. The 7th letter of 1. 76 corresponds to the first letter of 1. 83. The 28th letter of 1. 77 probably corresponds to the first letter of 1. 84. In 11. 78 and 85 the text is too fragmentary to permit any calculation. Note that our reconstruction involves a plausible, if erratic, rate of increase in the size of the gap between the E and D fragments: 1. 71, where the D fragment loses a sizeable piece on the left, 26 letters; 1. 72 - 33 letters; 1. 73 - 35 letters; 1. 74 - 31 letters; 1. 75 - 44 letters; 1. 76 - ?43? letters; 1. 77 - 46 letters; 1. 78 - ?58? letters; 1. 79 - 63 letters + vacat. 11. 72-3 The absence of a rubric may be explained by the fact that this clause, like the two preceding clauses, deals with a procedural matter, namely the replacement if necessary of a praetor or a quaestor. 11. 73-5 Mommsen's restoration of this clause remains in essentials convincing. Our legislator presumably wanted to make it explicit that his statute was not retrospective in relation to any offences which had not already been defined by the Lex Calpurnia or the Lex Iunia: compare 11. 58-9. The words fuit fueritue find a sufficient explanation in the possibility that there were cases pending while this statute was being passed. But it is manifest on any showing that the passage of the Lex Iunia did not exclude actions under the Lex Calpurnia and there is no reason to suppose that the passage of this statute excluded actions under the Lex Calpurnia or the Lex Iunia. The clause as a whole probably implies that prosecutions under the Lex Calpurnia or the Lex Iunia would continue to be possible. Note that a saeua lex of a Calpurnius Piso appears in Lucilius' account of the trial of Q. Scaeuola in 119 BC (573-4 M = 607-8 W = 574-5 K). See also on 11. 58-9. The text says nothing in either sense about men who have been acquitted: our legislator will obviously have taken for granted a general presumption that they could not be prosecuted again for the same offence. I. 75 We cannot know exactly what was being prescribed here with reference to praeuaricatio; see in general on 11. 5-6. II. 76-8 Compare in general the Tarentum Fragment, Law 8; the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24,1. 93; the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Ch. LXVI; David, Patronat, 286-9. There is no warrant for the view of Sherwin White (1982), 29-31, that the benefits of this clause only in fact applied to Latins and Italians. 1. 76 The lacuna is perhaps to be filled with [seiue suo seiue alieno nomine detolerit, ad praetor]em. 1. 77 turn in nepotesque [t]um eieifilio gnateis could not possibly mean 'subsequently', but would have to mean 'at that moment'. But it is more likely that [d]um should be

1 - LEX REPETVNDARVM

111

restored, as observed by J.A. Crook in discussion. 'That son' is of course 'that son' already born when the primary beneficiary receives citizenship; and the sons of 'that son' acquire citizenship. Any sons born later to a beneficiary in the context of a iustum matrimonium would of course be citizens; any other sons would not. (Lintott is wrong to suppose that changing Mommsen's quom ceiuis ... to quei ceiuis ... makes any difference to the meaning.) censento: perhaps a deponent form, wrongly used as a passive, Pascucci, 36-7. The lacuna at the end of 1. 77 is perhaps to be filled in part with something like: nei qui magistratus proue magistratu — neiue ducito. quo minus tumultus Gallici Italiciue causa ducat, e.h.l.n.r., compare the Tarentum Fragment, Law 8,11. 10-12. (rogato in 1. 78 will be an error for rogatum or rogatur, see the General Introduction, Ch. IX.) 11. 78-9 This is the most problematic clause of this section of the statute: contrary to our normal practice, we print our supplement for the lacuna in 1. 78, flanked by heavy question-marks, in order to make it clear how we suppose the clause to run. We suggest that the draftsman has forgotten to convert the faciat at the end of the clause from the subjunctive of the rogatio into the imperative of the lex. The phenomenon is amply attested: see the General Introduction, Ch. EX. eius at the beginning of 1. 79, problematic on any view of this clause, we take to mean 'his'. There is no problem about a probable length for 1. 78 of 349 letters + vacat. The role attributed to the iudex (quaestionis) here is in character with his role overall, see Sherwin White (1982). We regard the clause as having the limited object of conferring a right to prouocatio and uacatio from military service and munera publica on those who did not want Roman citizenship and who had not already acquired the benefits concerned by holding a Latin magistracy: (1) given that there is no restriction in 1. 76 on those to whom Roman citizenship is offered, there seems no reason to suppose that there is any restriction on the offer of prouocatio and vacation (2) it is very hard either to restore anything except [dictator or to suppose that there were dictators outside Latin communities (for whom see M. Cebeillac Gervasoni, in Epigrafia Juridica Romana (Pamplona, 1989), 103—14, 'Pour une relecture du s.c. de Lanuvium'). The list could have related to all Italian communities, but it seems more probable that the privilege before 123 BC of acquiring prouocatio and uacatio by holding a magistracy was limited to Latin communities; and if the list related to all Italian communities, it should surely have been a longer list. We opt very hesitantly indeed for in ceiuitate Latina: cf. Nepos, Cato 3, 3; quei eorum nominis Latini ... would be an alternative. Note in any case that there must have been some indication in the lacuna of where the magistracies were to be held; and that junior magistracies, such as quaestorships and tribunates, for which see on the Lex Osca Tabulae Bantinae, Law 13,11. 27-9, are excluded. There is no objection to supposing that the list began with the Ilvir and continued with the more idiosyncratic titles. Note that prouocatio presumably applied outside Rome in order to be of any use; munera publica will be corvee labour, rather than elite liturgies. Nothing in the clause suggests that Latins who had held a local magistracy had in this period a right to Roman citizenship, as was probably the case after the Social War: see D.W. Bradeen, CJ 54, 1958-9, 221-8, 'Roman citizenship per magistratum' (unduly sceptical on the testimony of Asconius 12 St = 2-3 C for the period after the Social War; D.J. Piper, Latomus 47, 1988, 59-68, 'The ius adipiscendae ciuitatis Romanae per magistratum and its effect on Roman-Latin relations', does not consider the possibility that tenure of a local magistracy conferred prouocatio and uacatio).

ROMAN STATUTES

112

1. 86 I. 87

Compare the Tarentum Fragment, Law 8,11. 5-6, with the Commentary. Compare the Tarentum Fragment, Law 8,1. 7.

II. 89-90 In 1. 90, we perhaps have [— sen]atei c[onsultum — ] ; compare the Tarentum Fragment, Law 8,11. 12 and 15-16: the general run of the clauses will be similar, though not all the wording, see the Introduction. (AWL, HBM,) MHC

2 - LEX AGRARIA TEXT We do not divide the text into numbered clauses, for three reasons: there are none in the original; although down to 1. 28 this uses a vacat with interpuncts to indicate a new clause, it does not do so consistently (see on 1. 9); and already in the first seven lines, the text is insufficiently well preserved for us to be sure how many clauses there are. 1 [?Sp. Thorius? ???.f. tr(ibunus) pl(ebis) plebem ioure rogauit plebesque ioure sciuit in foro — a(nte) d(iem) —, tribus 111 princi]pium fuit, pro tribu Q. Fabius Q.f. primus sciuit. quei ager poplicus populi Romanei in terram Maliam P. Muucio L. Calpur[nio co(n)s(ulibus) fuit, extra eum agrum, quei ager ex lege plebeiue scito, quod C. Sempronius Ti.f. tr(ibunus) pl(ebis) rogauit, exceptum cauitumue est, nei diuideretur —] Edge - B = ???, B = 95, B - edge = ??? 2 [— quern quisque de eo agro loco ex lege plebeiue scito sibei a]grum locum sumpsit reliquitue, quod non modus maior siet, quam quantum unum hominem e//x lege plebeiue sc(ito) sibei sumer[e relinquereue licuit —; quei ager publicus populi Romanei in terra Italia P. Muucio L. Calpurnio co(n)s(ulibus) fuit, extra eum agrum,] Edge - B = ???, B = 95, B - edge = ??? 3 [quei ager ex lege plebeiue scito, quod C. Sempronius Ti.f. tr(ibunus) pl(ebis) rogauit, exceptum Gauitumue est nei diuideretur — quern agrum locum] quoieique de eo agro loco ex lege plebeiue sc(ito) IHuir sortito ceiui Romano dedit adsignauit, quod non i//n eo agro loco est, quod ulrr[a —; quei ager publicus populi Romanei in terra Italia P. Muucio L. Calpurnio co(n)s(ulibus) fuit, extra eum agrum, quei ager ex lege plebeiue sc(ito),] Edge - B = ???, B = 106, B - edge = ??? 4 [quod C. Sempronius Ti.f. tr(ibunus) pl(ebis) rogauit, exceptum cauitumue est nei diuideretur, quei ager locus de eo agro loco — a Illuiro — re]dditus est; yvvv quei ager publicus populi Romanei in terra Italia P. M(u)ucio L. Calpurnio co(n)s(ulibus) fuit, ex[t]ra eum agrum, quei ager ex lege [plebeiue scito, quod C. Sempronius Ti.f. tr(ibunus) pl(ebis) rogauit, exceptum cauitumue est nei diuideretur, —] Edge - B = ???, B = 106, B - edge = ??? 5 [— quodque quomq]ue agri locei publicei in terra Italia, quod eius extra urbem Roma(m) est, quod eius in urbe(m) oppido uico est, quo//d eius IDuir dedit adsignauit, quod [--] Edge - B = ???, B = 118, B - edge = ??? 6 [—; quei ager publicus populi Romanei in terra Italia P. Muucio L. Calpurnio co(n)s(ulibus) fuit, extra eum agrum, quei ager ex] lege plebiue scito, v quod C. Sempronius Ti.f. tr(ibunus) pl(ebis) rog(auit), exceptum cauitumue est nei diuideretur, quod quoieiqu//e de eo agro loco agri locei aedific[iei — q]uibu[s —] Edge - B = ???, B = 117, B - A = ???, A, 1.1 = 4, A - edge = ??? 7 [— i]n terra Italia muir dedit adsignauit reliquit inue formas tabulasue retulit referiue iusit; vvvv ager locus a//edificium omnis quei supra scriptu[s est, extra eum agrum, quei ager ex lege plebeiue sc(ito), quod C. Sempronius Ti.f. tr(ibunus) pl(ebis)

113

114

ROMAN STATUTES

rog(auit), exceptjum cauitum[ue est nei diuideretur, priuatus esto —] Edge - B = ???, B = 124, B - A = 72, A, 1. 2 = 9, A - edge = ??? 8 [— eiusque locei agri aedificiei possessi]o ita, utei ceterorum locorum agrorum aedificiorum priuatorum est, esto, censorque, queiquomque erit, fa[c]ito utei is ager locus aedificium quei e[x hac lege priuatus factus est eritue in censum referatur, deque eo agro loco aed]ificio eum quoium [is ager locus aedificium erit, —] Edge - B = ???, B = 120, B - A = 66, A, 1. 3 = 15, A - edge = ??? 9 [—] est; neiue quis facito quo, quoius eum agrum locum aedificium possesionem ex lege plebeiue scit[o ess]e oportet oportebitue, eum agrum l[ocum aedificium possesionem is minus oetatur fruatur habeat possideatque] neiue quis de ea re ad sen[atum referto —] Edge - B = ???, B = 111, B - A = 64, A, 1. 4 = 20, A - edge = ??? 10 [— neiue quis in senatu iudi]cioue sententia(m) deicito neiue ferto, quo quis eorum, quoium eum agrum locum aedificium posse[sio]nem ex lege plebeiue scito esse oport[et oporte.bitue, eum agrum locum aedificium possesionem minus habeat possid]eatque, quoue possesio inuito mor[tuoue eo heredibus eius] Edge - B = ???, B = 111, B - A = 64,A,1.5 = 28,A-edge = 20 11 [inuiteis auferatur — quei ager publicus populi Romanei in terra Italia P. Muucio L. Calpurnio co(n)s(ulibus) fuit, quod eius agri — uiasiei]s uicaneis, quei in terra Italia sunt, dederunt adsignauerunt reliquerunt, nei quis facito quo rn//inus ei oetantur fruantur habeant po[ssideantque — quei eum agrum locum aedifici]um non abalienauerit, extra eum {eum} a[grum —] Edge - B = ???, B = 110, B - A = ???, A, 1. 6 = 30, A - edge = ??? 12 [— extra]que eum agrum, quern ex h(ac) l(ege) uenire dari reddiue oportebit. vv quei ager locus aedificium ei, quern in [ui]asieis uicanisue ex s(enatus) c(onsulto) esse oportet oportebitue, [datus adsignatus relictusue est eritue — quo magis is ag]er locus aedificium priuatus siet, quoue mag[is eius agri locei] Edge - B = ???, B = 121, B - A = ???, A, 1. 7 = 37, A - edge = 15 13 [aedificiei — aliter atque u]tei est, siet, ex h(ac) l(ege) n(ihilum) r(ogatur). vvv quei ager locus publicus populi Romanei in terra Italia P. Muucio L. Calpurnio // co(n)s(ulibus) fuit, extra eum agrum, quei ager ex lege pl[eb]iue sc(ito), q[uod C. Sempronius Ti.f. tr(ibunus) pl(ebis) rog(auit), exceptum cauitumue est, nei diuideretur, e]xtraque eum agrum, quern uetus possesor ex lege plebeiue [scito —] Edge - B = ???, B = i27, B - A = 59, A, 1. 8 = 46, A - edge = ??? 14 [— sei quis post hanc legem rogatam agri colendi cau]sa in eum agrum agri iugra non amplius (triginta) possidebit habebitue, (i)s ager priuatus esto. vvvv quei in ag//r//um compascuom pequdes maiores non plus (decern) pascet quae [que ex eis minus annum gnatae erunt pequdesque minores non plus ???] pascet quaeque ex eis minus annum gnatae erunt, postea qua[m —] Edge - B = ???, B = 127, B - A = 53 + cardinal numeral, A, 1. 9 = 48, A - edge = ?3 + vacatl 15 [— nei debeto neiu]e dato neiue soluito. vvv ager publicus populi Romanei, quei in Italia P. Mucib L. Calpurnio co(n)s(ulibus) fuit, eius ag//r//i Illuir a(gris) d(andis) a(dsignandis) ex lege plebeiue scito sortito quoi ceiui Roma[no quod dedit adsignauit, quod eius agri neque is — abalie]nauit abalienaueritue neque heres eius abalienauit abalienau[eritue,] Edge - B = ???, B = 136, B - A = ???, A, 1.10 = 54, A - edge = 6 16 [neque is quoi hereditati obuenit obueneritue, quei eorum de ea re ante eidus Martias primas in ious adierit ad eum, quern ex h(ac) l(ege) de eo agro ius deicere oportebit, is de ea re ius deicito d]ec(e)rnitoque utei possesionem secund(um) eum heredemue eius det, quoi sorti is ager datus adsignatusue // merit, quod eius agri non abalienatum erit ita utei s(upra) s(criptum) est; w[quodque eius agri Illuir a(gris) d(andis)

2 - LEX AGRARIA

115

a(dsignandis) ex lege plebeiue sc(ito) ueterem proue ue]tere possesionem dedit adsignauit reddidit; quodque eius agri EI[uir a(gris) d(andis) a(dsignandis)] Edge - B = 148, B = 134, B - A = 54, A, 1.11 = 56, A - edge = 6 = 398 + vacat 17 [— eiu]s, queiue ab eorum qu(o) emit, quei eorum de ea re ante eidus Martias primas in ious adierit ad eum, que//m// ex h(ac) l(ege) de eo agro ius deicere oportebit, is de ea re ita ius deicito d[ecernitoque utei possesionem secundum eum heredemue eius det,] quoi is ager uetere proue uetere possesore datus adsignatusue (fuerit); queiue a [Eluiro] Edge - B = ???, B = 134, B - A = 53, A, 1.12 = 60, A - edge = 7 18 [a(gris) d(andis) a(dsignandis) —. sei quis eorum, quorum age]r s(upra) s(criptus) est, ex possesione ui eiectus est, quod eius is quei eiectus est possederit, quod neque ui neque clam // neque precario possederit ab eo quei eum ea possesione{m} ui ciec[it, quei ex h(ac) l(ege) ious deicet, sei is ad eum de ea re in ious adierit ante eidus Mar]tias, quae post h(anc) l(egem) rog(atam) primae erunt, facito utei is, quei ita ui eiectus e[st, in earn] Edge - B = ???, B = 137, B - A = 61, A, 1.13 = 57, A - edge = 7 19 [possesionem, unde ui eiectus est, restituatur. quei ager publicus populi Romanei in Italia P. Mucio L. Calpurnio co(n)s(ulibus) fuit, quod eius agri ex lege plebeiue sci]to exue h(ac) l(ege) priuatum factum est eritue, pro eo agro loco aedificio proque scriptura pecoris, quod in //e//o agro pascitur, postquam uectigalia constiterint, quae post h(anc) l(egem) [rog(atam) primum constiterint, nei quis facito quo quis populo aut p]ublicano pequnia(m) scripturam uec(t)igalue det dareue debeat neiue quis f[acito quo] Edge - B = 127, B = 135, B - A = 51, A, 1.14 = 60, A - edge = 8 = 381 20 [—] quoue quid ob earn rem populo aut publicano detur exsigaturue, neiue quis quid postea quam [uect]igalia consistent, quae post h(anc) l(egem) rog(atam) primum constiterint, ob eos ag[ros locos aedificia obue scripturam pecoris, quod in eis ag]reis pascetur, populo aut publicano dare debeat. vvv ager locus publicus popul[i Romanei,] Edge - B = ???, B = 132, B - A = 49, A, 1.15 = 65, A - edge = 8 21 [quei — extra eum agrum, quern — ex s(enatus) ]c(onsulto) a(nte) d(iem) ((undecimam)) k(alendas) Octobris oina quom agro, quei trans Curione est, locauerunt, quei in eo agro loc[o ceiuis] Romanus sociumue nominisue Latini, quibus ex formula togatorum [milites in terra Italia inperare solent, agrum lo]cum publicum populi Romanei de sua possesione uetus possesor proue uetere posseso[re dedit,] Edge - B = ??'?, B = 131, B - A = 41, A, 1.16 = 70, A - edge = 7 22 [— quo in agro loco oppidum coloniaue ex lege plebeiue scito constitueretur deduceretur conlocaretur, quo in agro loco IHuir a(gris) d(andis) a(dsignandis) i]d oppidum coloniamue ex lege plebeiue sc(ito) constituit deduxitue conlocauitue, quern agrum [locum]ue pro eo agro loc(o)ue de eo agro loco, quei publicus populi Roman[ei in Italia P. Mucio L. Calpurnio co(n)s(ulibus) fuit, extra eum a]grum locum, quei ager locus ex lege plebeiue sc(ito), quod C. Semproni(us) Ti.f. tr(ibunus) pl(ebis) rog(auit), exscep[tum vac] Edge - B = ???, B = 132, B - A = 42, A, 1. 17 = 67, A - edge = 3 + vacat 23 [cauitumue est nei diuideretur, —] quoiue ab eo herediue eius is ager locus testamento hereditati deditioniue obuenit obueneritue [(queiue ab eo) emit e]meritue, queiue ab emptore eius emit emeritue, is ager priuatus esto, que[m Uluir a(gris) d(andis) a(dsignandis) ita utei s(upra) s(criptum) est pro eo agro loco, qu]o coloniam deduxsit ita utei s(upra) s(criptum) est, agrum locum aedificium dedit reddidit adsignauit; quei [—] Edge - B = ???, B = 146, B - A = 37, A, 1.18 = 76, A - edge = ?11? 24 [— is de ea re ius deicito decernitoque, utei possesionem secundum eum] heredemue eius det, quoi IHuir eum agrum locum pro eo agro loco, quo coloniam deduxit, deddit r[eddidi]t adsignauitue; facitoque is pr(aetor) consolue, quo de ea re in

116

ROMAN STATUTES

ious aditu(m) erit, [utei — ager locus quei sup]ra screiptus est, quod eius agrei locei post (h)(anc) l(egem) rog(atam) publicum populei Romanei erit, extra eum ag[rum locum,] Edge - B = ?131?, B = 141, B - A = ???, A, 1.19 = 78, A - edge = 8 25 [quei —] neiue is ager compascuos esto, neiue quis in eo agro agrum o(q)upatum habeto neiue defendito quo mi[nus quei u]elit compascere liceat; sei quis faxsit, quotiens faxit, in agri iugra singula qu[inquaginta (sestertios) (nummos) — dar]e debeto ei, queiquomque id publicum fruendum redemptu(m) co(n)ductu(m)ue habebit. vvv boues equ[os —] Edge - B = ???, B = 154, B - A = ?44?, A, 1. 20 = 76, A - edge = ??? 26 [— in eo agro loco, quei post h(anc) l(egem) rog(atam) publicus populi Romanei erit, quei uolet, pascere ad eum numerum pecudum qu]ei numerus pecudum in h(ac) l(ege) scriptus est, liceto, neiue quid quoi ob earn rem uectigal neiue scri[pturam da]re debeto. vvv quod quisque pecudes in calleis uiasue publicas iteneris causa indu[xerit pastum inpulerit, pro eo pecore, quod eius in calli]bus uiei(su)e publiceis pastum inpulsum itineris causa erit, nei quid populo (n)eiue publicano d[are debeto.] Edge - B = ???, B = 152, B - A = 46, A, 1. 21 = 78, A - edge = 9 27 [quei ager publicus populi Romanei in terra Italia P. Mucio L. Calpurnio co(n)s(ulibus) fuit, de eo agro loco, quern agrum locum quis mag(istratus) ex publico in priuatum c]ommutauit, quo pro agro loco ex priuato in publicum tantum modum agri locei commutau[it, is ager locus do]mneis priuatus ita, utei quoi optuma lege priuatus est, esto. vvv quei ager ex priua[to in publicum commutatus est, pro quo tantus ager ex p]ublico im priuatum commutatus est, de eo agro siremps lex esto quansei is ager P. Miicio L. C[alpurnio co(n)s(ulibus)] Edge - B = 118, B = 152, B - A = 44, A, 1. 22 = 72, A - edge = 11 = 397 28 [publicus fuisset. quei ager publicus populei Romanei in terra Italia P. Mucio L. Calpurnio co(n)s(ulibus) fuit, quanti quis pro patrito L. Caecilio Cn. Dom]itio cens(oribus) redemptum habe[a]t, censoribus, queiquomque posthac facteis erunt, ei faciunto [ut]ei [quei eorum] uolent, tantidem pro patrito redemptum habeant, p(raedia) supsignent. vv Iluirum qu[ei — quae uiae publicae p]er terram Italiam P. Mucio L. Calpurnio co(n)s(ulibus) (f)uerint, eas (f)aciunto pateant uacuaeque sien[t —] Edge - B = 115, B = 149, B - A = ???, A, I. 23 = 72, A - edge = ??? 29 [— quod ex h(ac) l(ege), i]ta utei s(upra) s(criptum) est, in agreis qu[ei in Ita]lia sunt, quei P. Mucio L. Calpurnio co(n)s(ulibus) publiceis populi Ro[manei fuerunt, c(eivei)] Romano facere licebit, item Latino peregrinoque, quibus M. Liuio L. Calpurnio [co(n)s(ulibus) in eis agreis quei s(upra) s(criptei) sunt id facere ex lege pleb]eiue sc(ito) exue (f)oedere licuit, sed (f)raude sua (f)acere liceto. vv quod ex h(ac) l(ege) ita, utei s(upra) s(criptum) est, in agreis, que[i in terra Italia] Edge - B = ???, B = 151, B - A = 42, A, 1. 24 = 80, A - edge = 14 30 [sunt, quei P. Mucio L. Calpurnio co(n)s(ulibus) publiceis populi Romanei fuerunt, quoiquomque Latino peregrinoque facere licuerit, quod eoru]m quis, qu[od eum ex h(ac) l(ege) f]acere oportuerit, non fecerit, quodue quis eorum ex h(ac) l(ege)[ damnum fecerit, mag(istratus)] proue mag(istratu), quo d(e) ea re in ious aditum erit, quod ex h(ac) l(ege) petetur, item iudicium iudi[cem recuperatoresue ex h(ac) l(ege) ei et in eum dato ita utei ei] et in eum iudicium iudicem recuperatoresue ex h(ac) l(ege) dare oporteret, sei quis de ea re iudiciu[m postularet, quei] Edge - B = 107, B = 140, B - A = 44, A, 1. 25 = 74, A edge = 15 = 380 31 [ceiuis Romanus esset queiue a ceiue Romano peteret — quibus colonieis seiue moi]nicipieis, seiue quae pro moinicipieis colo[nieisue, ceiuium Rom(anorum)] nominisue Latini, poplice deue senati sententia ager fruendus datus [est, quo agro eae coloniae eaue moinicipia seiue qua]e pro colonia moinicipioue proue moinicipieis

2 - LEX AGRARIA

117

fruentur, quei in trientabule[is est, quod eius agri] Edge - B = ???, B = 112, B - A = 43, A, I. 26 = 65, A - edge = 17 32 [— ob]uenit obueneritue, quibus ante h(anc) [l(egem) rog(atam) agrum locum con]ductum habere frui possidere defendere licuit, extra eum agrum locu[m —]mue oportebit, id, utei quicquid quoieique ante h(anc) l(egem) r(ogatam) licuit, ita ei habere [frui possidere defendere] Edge - B = ???, B = 101, B - A = ???, A, 1.27 = 59, A - edge = 22 33 [post h(anc) l(egem) rog(atam) liceto —] quei ager locus publicus pop[uli Romanei in te]rra Italia P. Mucio L. Calpurnio co(n)s(ulibus) fuit, quod eius agri loci ex l[eg]e [plebeiue scito exue h(ac) l(ege) priuatum — factum est erit, sei qu]id de eo agro loco ambigetur, co(n)s(ulis) pr(aetoris), queiquomque erit. de ea re iuris [dictio iudici iudicis vac ] Edge - B = ???, B = 92, B - A = ???, A, 1. 28 = 54, A - edge = 19 + vacat 34 [recuperatorum datio esto i(ta) u(tei) e(i) e r(e) p(ublica) f(ideque) s(ua) u(idebitur) e(sse) — neiue quis mag(istratus) proue mag(istratu) post h(anc) l(egem) rog(atam) de eo agro loco ious deicito neiue dec]ernito neiue iudicium n[eiue iudicem neiue rjecuperatores dato, nisei co(n)s(ul) pr(aetor)ue. quod uadimonium eius rei c[ausa promissum non erit, quo minus co(n)s(ul) pr(aetor) eius r]ei causa decernant, eius h(ac) l(ege) n(ihilum) r(ogatur). quod iudicium judex recuperato[res datei erunt, quoi co(n)s(uli) id e r(e) p(ublica)] Edge - B = ???, B = 87, B - A = 38, A, I. 29 = 51, A edge = 25 35 [non esse uidebitur, quo minus is inpediat uel intercedat, e(ius) h(ac) l(ege) n(ihilum) r(ogatur). — quod agri locei post h(anc) l(egem) rog(atam) publicum p(opulei) R(omanei) erit, sei quid de eo agro loco ambigetur,] co(n)s(ulis) pr(aetoris) cens(oris), queiquom[que erit, de ea re iu]ris dictio iudici iudicis recuperatorum datio esto i(ta) u(tei) e(i) e r(e) p(ublica) f(ideque) s(ua) u(idebitur) [e(sse), — neiue quis mag(istratus) proue mag(istratu) post h(anc) l(egem) rog(atam) de e]o agro loco ious deicito neiue decemito vac neiue iudi[cium neiue iudicem neiue vac] Edge - B = ???, B = 85, B - A = ???, A, 1. 30 = 43 + vacat, A - edge = 21 + vacat 36 [recuperatores dato, nisei co(n)s(ul) pr(aetor) cens(or)ue. quod uadimonium eius rei causa promissum non erit, quo minus co(n)s(ul) pr(aetor) cens(or) eius rei causa decernant, eius h(ac) l(ege) n(ihilum) r(ogatur). quod iudicium iudex recuperatores datei erunt, quoi co(n)s(uli) id e r(e) p(ublica)] non esse uidebitur, quo [minus is inpediat ue]l intercedat, e(ius) h(ac) l(ege) n(ihilum) r(ogatur). quoi publicano e(x) h(ac) l(ege) pequnia debebitur, [nei quis mag(istratus) proue mag(istratu) — aduersus hanc leg]em facito quo quis pro agro minus aliterue scripturam ufectigalue det, atque utei ex h(ac) l(ege)] Edge - B = 173, B = 84, B - A = ???, A, 1. 31 = 46, A - edge = 25 37 [dare debet debebitue — sei quid publicanus eius rei causa a quo eorum sibi deberi] dariue oportere de[icet, eis co(n)s(ul) proue co(n)]s(ule) pr(aetor) proue pr(aetore), quo in ious adierint, in diebus (decern) proxsumeis, qu[ibus de ea re in ious adierint — recuperatores ex ci]uibus |Lt> quei classis primae sient. (undecim) dato. inde alternos du[mtaxat quaternos (?) is quei petet et is] Edge - B-= ???, B = 81, B - A = ???, A, 1. 32 = 48, A-edge = 30 38 [unde petetur, quos uolent, reiciant facito deque ea re iudicare iubeto —] cmae res soluta no[n siet inue iudici]o non siet iudicataue non siet, quod eius praeuaricationus [causa —]mue factum non siet. sei maior pars eorum recuperatoru[m —] Edge - B = ???, B = 79, B - A = ???, A, I. 33 = 45, A - edge = ??? 39 [—]m id sententia [pronontiato quod eius] rei ioudicandae maxsume uerum esse commperrit, facitoqu[e — quod ita ioudicatum e]rit, se dulo mal[o] utei is. quei iudicatus

118

ROMAN STATUTES

erit dare oport(e)[re, soluat —] Edge - B = ???, B = 79, B - A = ???, A, 1. 34 = 46, A edge = ??? 40 [— quas in leges pl(ebei)ue sc(ita) de ea re quis non iurauerit, quod ei, quei agrum publicum p(opuli) R(omani) ita habebit possidebit fruetur, utei ex h(ac) l(ege) licebit, earum q]uae ag[rum, quern ex h(ac) l(ege) habebit, h]abere possidere frui{e} uetet, quasue in leges pl(ebei)ue sc(ita) de ea r[e non iurauerit, quod ei, quei agrum publicum p(opuli) R(omani) alium habebit p]ossidebit flr)uetur. quam ex hfac^ l(ego) licebit. eum agrum, quern [aduersus h(anc) l(egem) habebit, habere possidere frui] Edge - B = ???, B = 72, B - A = 52, A, 1. 35 = 43, A - edge = 36 41 [permittat, ei sed fraude sua esto — neiue ei postea ob earn rem magistratum inperiumue q]uem minus petere capere gerere habereque liceto, neiue q[uis censor eum postea ob earn rem in senatum minus legito. vac]vac si quae lex plebeMue scfituirO est, quae nWg^istranmV), quern ex hfac^ Kege) [—] Edge - B = ???, B = 47, B - A = 46 + vacat, A, I. 36 = 36 + vacat, A - edge = ??? 42 [— ea omnia ei sed f]raude sua facere liceto, inque eas leges pl(ebei) sc(ita) de ea re, quod ex h(ac) [l(ege) aliter, atque utei in eis legibus plebeiue scitis scriptum est —] decernere oportebit. sed fraude sua nei iurato neiue [quid ei ob earn rem fraudei esto —] Edge - B = ???, B = 50, B - A = ???, A, 1. 37 = 44, A - edge = ??? 43 [—](t)us est, dedit adsignauitue, quemue agrum locum de eo agro lo[co — ex lege] plfebeiue) scfito). quod M. Baebius trfibunus) plfebis) Illuir colonize deducendfae rogauit —] Edge - B = ???, B = 49, B - A = ???, A, 1. 38 = 41, A - edge = ??? 44 [— datu]m adsignatum esse fuiseue ioudicauerit, utei in h(ac) l(ege) sc(riptum) est, quei lfocus —] extra eum agrum locum quei ager locus in ea cen[turia supsiciuoue quo —] Edge - B = ???, B = 52, B - A = ???, A, 1. 39 = 38, A - edge = ??? 45 [— extraque ]eum agrum locum, quern ex h(ac) l(ege) colonei, eiue quei in colonei numero [scriptei sunt, — oportet] oportebitue. quod eius agri locei quoieique emptum est. [--] Edge - B = ???, B = 51, B - A = ???, A, 1. 40 = 46, A - edge = ??? 46 [— m]anceps praeuides praediaque soluti sunto, eaque nomina mancugfis praeuidumque — quaestor,] quei aerarium prouinciam optinebit. in tableis [publiceis —] Edge - B = ???, B = 53, B - A = ???, A, 1. 41 = 40, A - edge = ??? 47 [— qui d]e mag(istratu) Romano emit, is pro eo agro loco pequnia(m) neiue praeuides nei[ue praedia dato — neiue de ea re quis ob earn] rem, quod praes factus est, populo obligatus estfo —] Edge - B = ???, B = 53, B - A = ???, A, 1. 42 = 39, A - edge = ??? 48 [— quei ob eu]m agrum locum manceps praesue factus est quodque [prjaedium ob [earn rem populo obligatum est — q]uei ager locus in Africa est, quei Romae publice [—] Edge - B = ???, B = 51, B - A = ???, A, 1. 43 = 39, A - edge = ??? 49 [— ei herede]iu[e] eius esto isque ager locus priuatus uectigalisque e[sto —]tus erit, quod eius agri locei extra terra Italia est [—] Edge - B = ???, B = 47, B - A = ???, A, 1. 44 = 43, A - edge = ??? 50 [— socium nominisue Latini, quibus ex formula t]ogatorum milites in terra Italia inperare solent, eis po[st h(anc) l(egem) r(ogatam) — eumlue agrum locum queiquomque habebit possidebit [fruetur —] Edge - B = ???, B = 47, B - A = ???, A, 1. 45 = 40, A edge = ??? 51 [— eiusu]e rei procurandae causa erit, in eum agrum locum in [— facito se dolo m]alo, v quei ag//er locus in Africa est, quod eius agri [—] Edge - B = ???, B = 41, B E = ???, E, 1.1 + A, 1.46 = 40, A - edge = ??? 52 [— habeat posjsideat fruaturque item, utei sei is ager locus publi[ce uenisset — Iluir qui ex h(ac) l(ege) factus creatusue eri]t, in bid(uo) proxsumo, quo // factus

2 - LEX AGRARIA

119

creatusue erit. e(dMcirto —] Edge - B = ???, B = 43, B - E = ???, E, 1. 2 + A, 1. 47 = 42, A - e d g e = ??? 53 [— in diebus] (uigintiquinque) proxsumeis, quibus id edictum erit, pr(aetor) u[tei — datu]m adsignatum siet, idque quomp//r//ofitebitur, cognito[r —] E d g e - B = ???,B = 35, B - E = ???, E, 1.3 + A, I. 48 = 43, A - edge = ??? 54 [—]mum emptor siet ab eo, quoius homin[is priuati uenditio fuerit — quae uenditio ante k(alendas) Ian(uarias) P. Cornelio L.] Calpurni(o) co(n)s(ulibus) facta siet, quod eius post[e]a n//(e)que ipse nfeque heres eius abalienauit abalienauerit —] Edge - B = ???, B = 28, B - E = ???, E, I. 4 + A, 1. 49 = 44, A - edge = ??? 55 [— p]raefectus milesue in prouinciam er[it — quei ager locus in Africa est, quei ex lege Rubria, quae fuit, colono eiue, quei in colonei nu]mero script(us) est, datus adsignatusue est, quodue eius // ag[ri --] Edge - B = ???, B = 30, B - E = ???, E, 1. 5 + A, 1. 50 = 47, A - edge = ??? 56 [— u]tei curator eius profiteatur, item ute[i —]o edicito utei is, quei ab bonorum emptore magistro curator[eue emerit —] Edge - B = ???, B = 32, B - E = ???, E, I. 6 = 49, E - edge = ??? 57 [—]t, quod edicto Huir(ei) profesus ex h(ac) l(ege) n[on erit — ei eum agrum lo]cum neiue emptum neiue adsignatum esse neiue fuisse iudicato. mc q[—] Edge - B = ???, B = 29, B - E = ???, E, 1. 7 = 53 + vacat, E - edge = ??? 58 [— pro eo ag]ro ei ceiui Romano tantundem modu[m agri —]nei ex[— ]quei ager publice non ueniet, dare reddere cornmutareque liceto. vac Huir, q[uei ex h(ac) l(ege) factus creatusue erit] Edge - B = ???, B = 28, B - F = ?32?, F, 1. 1 = 5, F - E = ?34?, E, 1. 8 = 59 + vacat, E - edge = 26 59 [— de] eis agreis ita rationem init{i}o itaque hfabeto — uni] homini [—]et, neiue unius hominis nomine, quoi ex lege Rubria, quae fuit, colono eiue quei in [colonei numero scriptus] Edge - B = ???, B = 33, B - F = ?34?, F, 1. 2 = 6, F - E = ?27?, E, 1. 9 = 65, E - edge = 21 60 [est, agrum, quei in Africa est, dari oportuit licuitue — amplius iug(era) ??? in singulos pedites data adsign]ata fuise iudicato, neiue unius hominus [nomine, quoi ex lege Rubria, quae fuit,] colono [eiue, quei in colonei nu]mero scriptus est, agrum, quei in Africa est, dari oport(u)it licuitue, amplius iug(era) (ducenta) in [singulos equites] Edge B = ???, B = 33, B - F = 30, F, 1. 3 = 6, F - E = 19, E, 1.10 = 70, E - edge = 15 61 [data adsignata fuise iudicato — neiue maiorem numerum in Africa hominum in coloniam coloniasue deductum esse fu]iseue iudicato quam quantum numeru[m ex lege Rubria, seiue pl(ebei) scit]o, quae (f)[uit, ab Illuiro col(oniae) dedu]cendae in Africa hominum in coloniam coloniasue deduci oportuit licuitue. vac Iluir, quei [ex h(ac) l(ege) factus] Edge - B = ???, B = 30, B - F = 24, F, 1. 4 = 6, F - E = 19, E, 1.11 = 72 + vacat, E - edge = 10 62 [creatusue erit —]+++[— eius] agri q[uei d]atus adsfignatus est fueritue, quod] eius non [uenieit, quod eiu]s agri ex h(ac) l(ege) adiudicari licebit, quod ita comperietur, id ei heredeiue eius adsignat(um) esse iudicato. vac [ vac ] Edge - B = ???, B = 3 + lacuna + 5, B - D = 4, D, 1.1 = 7, D - F = 22, F, 1. 5 = 7, F - E = 14, E, 1.12 = 82 + vacat, E - edge = vacat 63 [— sei quis quod quand]oque eius agri locei ante kalCendas) I[anfuarias) P. Cor(nelio) L. Calpu]rnio co(n)[s(ulibus) quoique emptum] est ab eo, quoius eius agri locei hominis priuati uenditio fuit, turn quom is eum agrum locum emit, que[i] Edge - D = ???, D, 1. 2 = 25, D - F = 12, F, 1. 6 = 6, F - E = 14, E, 1.13 = 81, E - edge = 1 64 [—Jit, planum faciet feceritue emptum esse, q[uod] eius ne[que is postea] neque heres eius neque quoi is heres erit abalienauerit, quod eius agri locei ita planum factum

120

ROMAN STATUTES

erit, Huir ita +[---] Edge - D = ???, D, 1. 3 = 34, D - F = 3, F, 1. 7 = 6, F - E = 11, E, 1. 14 = 91, E - edge = ??? 65 [— dato re]ddito, quod is emptum habuerit, quod eius publice non uenier[it. Iluir, sei is] ager locus quei ei emptus fuerit publice uenieit, tantundem modum agri locei de eo agro loco, quei ager lo[cus in] Edge - D = ???, D, 1. 4 = 49, D - E = 12, E, 1. 15 = 86, E - edge = 5 66 [Africa est, quod eius publice non uenierit, ei dato reddito. — queique ager locus ita ex h(ac) l(ege) datus redditus erit, ei, quoius ex h(ac) l(ege) f]actus erit, (sestertio) n(ummo) (uno) emptus esto, isque ager locus priuatus uectigalisque, ita [utei supra] scriptum est, esto. vac quoi colono eiue, quei in colonei numero scriptus est, ager locus in ea centuria supsiciuoufe quo] Edge - D = ???, D, 1. 5 = 61, D - E = 9, E, 1.16 = 90 + vacat, E - edge = 4 67 [— tantundem modum agri locei pro eo agro loco de eo a]gro loco, quei ager locus in Africa est, quod eius publice non uenieit, ei he_r[edeiue ei]us Iluir, quei ex h(ac) l(ege) factus creatusue erit, reddito. vac quoi colono eiue, quei in colonei numero scriptus est fuitue, [--] Edge - D = ???, D, 1. 6 = 61, D - E = 8, E, 1. 17 = 91 + vacat, E - edge = ??? 68 [— ei tantundem modum agri quantus eius esse fui]seue comperietur, heredeiue eius de 'agro, quei ager in Africa est, pro eo agro I[Iuir reddi]to, quoieique ita reddiderit, ei adsignatum fuisse iudicato. vac quoi agrum de eo agro, quei ager in Africa est, quei colono e[iue] Edge - D = ???, D, I. 7 = 63, D - E = 9, E, 1.18 = 97 + vacat, E - edge = 3 69 [quei in colonei numero scriptus est, datus adsignatus est, — minu]s adiudicauerit, turn tantundem modum agri ei, quoi ita emptum esse comperiet[ur, tutoreue ei]us procuratoreue eius herediue quoius eorum de eo agro, quei ager in Africa est, pro eo agro Huir reddito; quoi ita reddiderit, Edge - D = ???, D, 1. 8 = 63, D - E = 12, E, 1.19 = 103 70 [— quod eius p]equniae adsignatum discriptum adsignatumue in tabuleis publiceis est eritu[e, tantam pequ]niam populo ex eid(ibus) Mart(iis), qu(a)e, postea quam uectigalia consistent, quae post h(anc) l(egem) r(ogatam) primum consistent, primae erunt, in Edge - D = ???, D, 1. 9 = 66, D. - E = 11, E, 1. 20 = 92 71 [diebus ??? dare debeto — neiue quis, quei eo nomine ab populo mercassitur, ob earn rem pequniam propiore die exigito, atque] uteique in h(ac) l(ege) s(criptum) e(st), rieiue quod pequniae ob earn rem propiore{m} die exactum er[it atque uteiq]ue in h(ac) l(ege) s(criptum) e(st), is, quei pequn[i]am populo dare debebit, ei, quei eo nom[i]ne ab populo mercassitur, ob earn rem pequniam ei nei Edge - D = ???, D, 1. 10 = 59, D - E = 12, E, 1. 21 = 93 72 [propiore die soluito —pla]num fiat, neiue quis mag(istratus) neiue pro mag(istratu) facito neiue quis senator decernito q[uo ea pequnia,] quae pro agreis loceis aedificieis quei s(upra) s(criptei) s(unt), populo debetur debebiturue, aliter exsigatur atque uteique in h(ac) l(ege) s(criptum) est. Edge - D = ???, D, 1.11 = 62, D - E = 11, E, 1. 22 = 96 73 [— quod eius publice non Juenierit, populo soluta non erit, is pro eo agro loco in diebus (centum uiginti) proxsumeis ea[rum eiduum], quae s(upra) s(criptae) s(unt), arb(itratu) pr(aetoris), quei inte[r] ceiues turn Romae ious deicet, satis supsignato. vac pr(aetor), quei inter ceiues Romae ious dei[cet] Edge - D = ???, D, 1.12 = 65, D - E = 9, E, 1. 23 = 89 + vacat, E - edge = 3 74 [post dies (centum uiginti) proxsumos — nisei ]praedium ante ea ob eum agrum locum in publico obliga(t)um erit in publicu[mue datum ita u(tei) s(upra) s(criptum)] e(st), agrum locum, quo pro agro loco satis ex h(ac) l(ege) arb(itratu) pr(aetoris) supsignatum non erit, pequnia praesenti uendito. vac que[i] Edge - D = ???, D, 1. 13 = 60, D - E = 14, E, 1. 24 = 83 + vacat, E - edge = 1

2 - LEX AGRARIA

121

75 [— que]i ager locus in Africa est, quei Romae publice ueniei(t) uenieritue, quod eius agr[i locei, quei popul]eis libereis in Africa sunt, quei (e)orum (in) ameicitiam populei Romanei bello Poinicio proxsumo manserunt, queiue a[d vac] Edge - D = ???, D, 1.14 = 65, D - E = 15, E, 1. 25 = 93, E - edge = 1 + vacat 76 [imperatorem populi Romanei bello Poinicio proxsumo perfugerunt, eis datum adsignatum est — pro eo agro loco Iluir in diebus ??? proxsumeis, qujibus Iluir [ex h(ac) l(ege) factus c]reatusue erit, facito, quantum agri loci quoiusque in populi leiberei inue eo agr[o loco, quei ager l]ocus perfugeis datus adsignatusue est, ceiuis Romanei ex h(ac) l(ege) factum erit, quo pro agro loco ager loc[us ceiuei Ro]mano ex h(ac) l(ege) Edge - D = ???, D, 1.15 = 87, D - E = 14, E, I. 26 = 81, E - C = 10, C, 1.1 = 8 77 [commutatus redditusue non erit, tantusdem modus agri locei quoieique populo leibero perfugeisue detur adsignetur — II]uir, quei ex h(ac) l(ege) factus creatusue erit, is in diebus (centum quinquaginta) proxsumeis, quibus factus creatusue erit, facito, quan[tum Xuirei, quei ex] lege Liuia factei createiue sunt fueruntue, eis hominibus agrum in Africa dederunt adsignaueru[ntu]e, quos stipendium Edge - D = ???, D, 1. 16 = 87, D - E = 15, E, 1. 27 = 81, E - C = 3, C, I. 2 = 15 78 [pro eo agro populo Romano pendere oportet, — uteique — tantundem modum agri de eo agro, quei ager in Africa est, quantum stipendiariorum populeji Romanei esse oportet oportebitue, is stipendiariei(s) det adsignetue idque in formas publicas facito ute[i referat i(ta) u(tei) e r(e) p(ublica) f(ide)]q(ue) e(ius) e(sse) u(idebitur). vac Iluir, quei ex h(ac) l(ege) factus creatusue erit, is facito in diebus (ducentis quinquaginta) proxsumeis, quibus h(anc) [l(egem)] populus plebesue iuserit, Edge - D = ?157?, D, 1. 17 = 88, D - E = 14, E, 1. 28 = 72 + vacat, E - C = 1, C, I. 3 = 22 = ?354? + vacat 79 [extra eum agrum locum, quei ex lege Rubria, quae fuit, colono eiue, quei in colonei numero scriptus est, datus adsignatus est, — quo pro agro loco ager locus com]mutatus redditusue non erit, extraque eum agrum, quei ager intra finis populorum leiber(o)rum Vticensium H[adrumetinorum T]arhpsitanorum Leptitanorum Aqui(l)litanorum Vsalitanorum Teu(d)alensium, quom in ameicitiam p//opulei Romanei proxumum Edge - D = ???, D, 1.18 = 88, D - E = 14, E, 1. 29 + C, 1.4 = 100 80 [uenerunt, fuit, — extraque eum agrum locum, quei ager locus eis hominibus, quei ad imperatorem populi Romanei bello Poinicio proxsumo perfugerunt, datus adsignatus est,] ex(t)ra(que) eum agrum, quei ager ex h(ac) l(ege) priuatus factus erit, quo pro agro loco ager locus redditus commutatusue [non erit, extr]aque eum agrum locum, quern Iluir ex h(ac) l(ege) stipendiarieis dederit adsignaueritue, quod eius ex h(ac) l(ege) in (f)o//rmam publicam rellatum Edge - D = ???, D, I. 19 = 86, D - E = 11, E, 1. 30 + C, 1. 5 = 101 81 [erit, — extraque eum agrum quern P. Cornelius imperator leib]ereis regis Massinissae dedit habereue fruiue iusi(t), extraque eum agrum locum, ubei oppodum Charth[ago] fuit qu[ondam, extraqu]e eum agrum locum, quern Xuirei, quei ex {h} l(ege) Liuia factei createiue fuerunt, Vticensibus relique//r//unt adsignauerunt, ce[t]erum Edge D = ???, D, 1. 20 = 92, D - E = 12, E, 1. 31 + C, 1. 6 = 101 82 [agrum omnem quei in Africa est, utei — queiquomque uectigal decumas pro eo agro loco scripturamue pr]o pecore ex lege Sempronia dare non solitei sunt, quei ager eis ex h(ac) l(ege) datus redditus commutatus eri[t, quei eorum e]u[m agrum habebit] possidebit frueturue, pro eo agro loco (n)eiue uectigal neiue decumas nei(ue) scripturam, quod post // h(anc) l(egem) r(ogatam) fruetur, dare debeto. vvvvv Edge - D = ???, D, 1. 21 = 93, D - E = 13, E, 1. 32 + C, 1. 7 = 103 83 [— is pro eo agro loco uectigal decumas] scripturam populo aut publicano item dare debeto, utei pro eo agro loco, quern agrum locum populus [Romanus ex h(ac) l(ege)

122

ROMAN STATUTES

uenire iubebit, que]m agrum locum ceiuis Romanus ex h(ac) l(ege) possidebit, dare oportebit. pr(aetor), quoius arb(itratu) pro agro loco, // quei Romae publice uenierit, e(x) h(ac) l(ege) Edge - D = ???, D, I. 22 = 80, D - E = 27, E, I. 33 + C, 1. 8 = 100 84 [satis supsignari oportebit —]ris ter tanti fiiiuitof eo quei dabit accipito facitoque, quei ex h(ac) l(ege) praedia dederit, utei ei satis supsig[netur, neiue quis quid fax]sit quo minus ex h(ac) l(ege) praedium, queiquomque uelit, supsignet pequniamue soluat praesque, que//iquomque ex h(ac) l(ege) fieri uolet, fiat. Edge - D = ???, D, 1. 23 = 85, D - E = 21,E,1.34 + C,1.9 = 101 85 [quantum uectigal decumas scripturamue pro pecore eum quei agrum locum aedificium in Africa possedit — quei ager] locus populorum leiberorum perfugarum non fuerit, pro eo agro aedi(f)icio locoque ex l(ege) dicta [quam L. Caecilius Cn. Domitius cen]s(ores) agri aedifici loci uectigalibusue publiceis fruendeis locandeis uendundeis legem deix//erunt, publicano dare oportuit vvyv Edge - D = ???, D, 1. 24 = 76, D - E = 27, E, 1. 35 + C, 1.10 = 107 86 [tantundem post h(anc) l(egem) rogatam, quei agrum locum aedificium in Africa possidebit — publicano uectigal decumas scriptura]mque pecoris dare vvvv debeto, neiue amplius ea aliubeiue aliterue dare debe(t)o, pequsque ne[i aliubei aliterue aliisue legibus] in eo agro pascito. vac quae uectigalia in Africa publica populi Romani sunt, qua//e L. Caecilius Cn. Domiti(us) cens(ores) fruenda Edge - D = ???, D, I. 25 = 75, D - E = 30, E, 1. 36 + C, 1.11 = 93 87 [locauerunt uendideruntue, ea quo minus ea lege sient pareantque, quam legem L. Caecilius Cn. Domiti(us) cens(ores) eis uectigalibus fruendeis locandeis uendundeis deixerunt, quoue quis ampli]us populo dare debeat vvv soluatque, e(ius) v h(ac) l(ege) v n(ihilum) r(ogatur). vvvv mag(istratus) proue mag(istratu) queiue pro eo inperio iudicio [potestateue erit, sei is, quaequomque] publica populi Romani in Africa sunt eruntue uectigalia, fruenda locabit uendetue, q//uom ea uectigalia fruenda locabit uendetue, Edge - D = 151, D, 1. 26 = 77, D - E = 31, E, 1. 37 + C, 1.12 = 108 = 367 88 [nei eis uectigalibus legem deicito, quo inuiteis eis quei — quid aliter locetur uendatur atqu]e ex lege dicta, quam L. vv Caeci(lius) Cn. Dom(itius) cens(ores), quom eorum agrorum uectigalia fruenda locauerunt[ uendideruntue, eis agreis locandis uendundis](ue) deixer(u)nt, neiue, quod in eis agreis pequs (pas)cetur, scripturae pecoris lege(m) de[i]cito quo inuiteis eis quei eum agrum posidebunt, Edge - D = ???, D, 1. 27 = 76, D - E = 39, E, I. 38 = 66, E - C = 1, C, 1.13 = 40 89 [quid aliter locetur uendatur atque ex lege dicta, quam L. Caeci(lius) Cn. Dom(itius) cens(ores) deixerunt ita utei s(upra) s(criptum) e(st). quae uectigalia publica populi Romani in Africa sunt, quae Cn. Paperius co(n)s(ul) fruenda locauit uendiditue, qu]o minus ea lege sient pareantque, quam legem Cn. Paperius co(n)s(ul) eis uendundeis (locandeisue deixit quoue quis amplius populo dare debeat soluatque), e(ius) h(ac) (l(ege)) n(ihilum) r(ogatur). vvv quei [ager in Africa est, quae uiae publicae itineraue publica in eo] agro, antequam Cartago capta est, fuerunt, eae // omnes publicae sunto limitesque inter centuria V I T O EO QVEI DABIT ACCIPITO, Mommsen; [SATIS SVPSIGNARI OPORTEBIT — PRAEDIA — ] R I S TER TANTI, I(N)VITO EO QVEI DABIT, ACCIPITO, LintOtt SVPSIG[NATVM]

S I T , Rudorff;

SVPSIG[NETVR N E I V E QVIS QVID F A X ] S I T ,

Mommsen 85

[QVAE VECTIGALIA, QVAS DECVMAS QVASVE SCRIPTVRAS PECORIS EVM,

QVEIQVOMQVE AGRVM LOCVM AEDIFICIVM IN AFRICA POSSEDERIT, QVEI AGER LOCVS A E D I F I C I V M R O M A E P V B L I C E V E N I E I T , QVEI AGER]

L O C V S , Rudorff;

[QVANTVM

VECTIGAL DECVMAS SCRIPTVRAMVE PECORIS EVM, QVEI AGRVM LOCVM AEDIFICIVM IN AFRICA POSSIDEBIT — QVEI AGER] LOCVS, Mommsen; [QVANTVM VECTIGAL DECVMAS SCRIPTVRAM PECORIS EVM, QVEI AGRVM AEDIFICIVM LOCVM IN AFRICA POSSIDEBIT QVEI AGER LOCVS COLONEI EIVSVE, QVEI IN COLONEI NVMERO SCRIPTVS EST, NON F V E R I T , Q V E I V E AGER] L O C V S , Johannsen; [ Q V E M Q V O M Q V E VECTIGAL

DECVMAS

SCRIPTVRAMVE PRO PECORE — QVEI AGER] LOCVS, LintOtt AEDIEICIO, aes\ DICTA Q[VAM L. CAECILIVS CN. DOMITIVS CEN]S, Mommsen; the Q is not now visible; DICTA Q[VAM CN. PAPERIVS COS. QVAMVE L. CAECILIVS CN. DOMITIVS CEN]S, Johannsen, impossibly long 86

[IDEM IS, QVEI EVM AGRVM AEDIFICIVM LOCVMQVE QVEI AGER LOCVS AEDIFICIVM

IN AFRICA EST, QVEI ROMAE PVBLICE VENIEIT, QVEI AGER LOCVS POPVLORVM LEIBERORVM PERFVGARVM NON FVERIT, EX H.L. POSSIDEBIT, PVBLICANO VECTIGAL DECVMAS SCRIPTVRA]MQVE, Rudorff; [TANTVNDEM POST H.L. ROGATAM, QVEI AGRVM LOCVM AEDIFICIVM IN AFRICA POSSIDET POSSIDEBIT

PVBLICANO VECTIGAL

DECVMAS SCRIPTVRA]MQVE, Mommsen; [— is POST H.L. ROG. TANTVNDEM PVBLICANO VECTIGAL DECVMAS SCRIPTVRA]MQVE, LintOtt ALITERVE DARE DEBEO, aes\ NE[CVBEI NISEI], Rudorff;

NE[I QVOD ALIVD],

Huschke, 615, both much too short; NE[I ALITER ALIEISVE LEGIBVS], Mommsen; vacat in Scaliger, Peiresc, Chacon; quae uectigalia,

Dupuy, Chacon, confirmed by Peiresc; QVE

VECTIGALIA, Scaliger 87

[LOCAVERVNT VENDIDERVNTVE, QVEIQVOMQVE

EA V E C T I G A L I A

FRVENDA

CONDVCTA REDEMPTAVE HABEBIT, QVOD OB EA VECTIGALIA FRVENDA POPVLO DARE DEBEBIT, VBEIVE EAM PEQVNIAM SOLVERE DEBEBIT, ID IBEIVE QVOMINVS] IS POPVLO, Rudorff;

[LOCAVERVNT VENDIDERVNTVE, QVEIQVOMQVE MAGISTRATVS POST HANCE

LEGEM ROGATAM EA VECTIGALIA LOCABIT VENDETVE, QVOMINVS PVBLICANO EAM LEGEM DICAT QVO PL]VS POPVLO, M o m m s e n ; [LOCAVERVNT VENDIDERVNTVE,

QVO

MINVS IS PVBLICANVS EA LEGE SIET PAREATQVE, QVAM LEGEM . . . DEIXERVNT, QVOVE AMPLI]VS POPVLO, Lintott IVDICIO [ s v o QVAE] QVEIQVOMQVE

QVAE]

P V B L I C A , Rudorff;

PVBLICA,

Mommsen

IVDICIO [CVRATIONEVE

(1863);

[POTESTATEVE

ERIT

ERIT, [—]

QVEIQVOMQVE QVAE] PVBLICA, Mommsen (1905); V E N D E T V E [ — ] , Scaliger, Dupuy, Chacon; VENDETVE O [ — ] , Peiresc; the tail of the Q of QVOM is visible on C; the middle E in the last VENDETVE is very sketchy 88

[— NEIVE ALIA LEGE EA VECTIGALIA FRVENDA LOCATO NEIVE VENDITO ATQV]E,

Rudorff; [NEI EIS VECTIGALIBVS LEGEM DEICITO, QVO INVITIEIS IEIS, QVEI EVM AGRVM POSSIDEBVNT, PVBLICANO QVID FACERE LICEAT [—] QVOD El NON LICVIT FACER]E, M o m m s e n ; the E is still partly visible and was recorded by Pighius; [ N E I E I S VECTIGALIBVS LEGEM DEICITO, QVO — ] E , LintOtt ( 1 9 0 5 ) [ — ] M DEIXERINT NEIVE QVOI IN EIS AGREIS, Scaliger, correcting the initial M into w; quod in eis agreis, Chacon; ///////////// (indicating illegibility) EIS AGREIS, Peiresc: in the conventional restoration, LOCAVERVNT [VENDIDERVNTVE — EIS AGRIS LEGE]M, [—

2 - LEX AGRARIA

139

LEGE]M is strictly redundant, though paralleled in 1. 85; INWCETVR, Scaliger; AVCETVR, Peiresc; corn Chacon in note; LEGE D E [ — ] , Scaliger, Dupuy, Chacon, Peiresc 89

[PRO EO PECORE, OBVE ID, QVOD IN EO AGRO PEQVS PASCETVR, SCRIPTVRAE NOMINE

PLVS

EXIGATVR, ATQVE EX LEGE DICTA QVAM L. CAECI. C N . DOM. CENS. LEGEM

DEIXERVNT.

QVAE VECTIGALIA IN AFRICA SVNT, QVAE CN. PAPERIVS COS. VENDIDIT

LOCAVITVE, EA QV]OMINVS, R u d o i f f ;

[ALITER PASCATVR, QVAM PASTVM EST EX LEGE

DICTA, QVAM L. CAECILIVS CN. DOMITIVS CENS., QVOM EORVM AGRORVM VECTIGALIA F R V E N D A LOCAVERVNT V E N D I D E R V N T V E , LEGEM D E I X E R V N T —

QVAE VECTIGALIA

F R V E N D A IN AFRICA CN. PAPERIVS COS. VENDIDIT LOCAVITVE, Q V ] O M I N V S , M o m m s e n

( 1 9 0 5 ) , adapting M o m m s e n (1863); [ A L I V B E I A L I T E R V E P A S C A T V R , QVAM . . . QV]OMINVS, Lintott V E N D V N D E I S E.H.N.R., CLeS', V E N D V N D E I S

(LOCANDEIS

DEIXIT)

E.H.(L.)N.R.,

Mommsen; QVEI [AGER IN AFRICA EST, QVAE VIAE IN EO] AGRO, Rudorff; CENTVRIA, aes

90 [ITINERI PVBLICO iNSERvivNTO — ] , Rudorff; [—]grum in eo numero, Chacon: the first letter is not now visible; the preceding supplement is a slight adaptation by Lintott and Crawford of that of Mommsen; [QVOI AGER IN AFRICA EST, QVEM is A]GRVM . . . ADSIGNA[TVS EST, PROFESSVS ERIT, PROFITERI NON OPORTVIT, EVM AGRVM EI IIVIR NEI

DATO] NEIVE, Rudorff; EAM REM [ITA ESSE] INDICIO, Rudorff, too long; EAM REM [ITA] INDICIO, Mommsen; EAM REM [ITA (ESSE)] INDICIO, Johannsen; perhaps EAM REM [I(TA) E(SSE)] INDICIO: eam rem as an accusative of respect is very harsh; INDIGIO EIVS, aes 91

[IN EO NVMERO AGRI, QVO IN NVMERO AGRI PROFITERI OPORTVIT, PROFESSVS NON

ESSE CONVICTVS ERIT, PARTEM — DATO ADSIGNATO ESSE IVDICATO — QVIBVSCVM T R A N ] S A C T V M EST, R u d o r f f ; [IN EO NVMERO AGRI, QVO IN N V M E R O AGRI PROFITERI EVM N O N OPORTVIT, PROFESSVS ESSE CONVICTVS FVERIT, Q V A N T A E PEQVNIAE SIT, INDE DECIMAM PARTEM DARE D A M N A S ESTO, DEQVE EA RE IIVIRI, QVEI EX H.L. FACTVS C R E A T V S V E ERIT, I V R I S D I C T I O R E C I P E R A T O R V M Q V E

D A T I O A D D I C T I O ESTO — ] ,

Huschke, 616-17; [QVEI EAM REM ITA INDICAVERIT, IN E O NVMERO AGRI, QVO NON OPORTVIT, PROFESSVS ESSE IVDICATVS ERIT — PARTEM — MAGISTRATVS, QVI DE EA RE IVDICAVERIT, DATO ADSIGNATO.

QVIBVSCVM TRANS]ACTVM E S T , Mommsen (1905);

[—] FACTVM, Pighius, perhaps guessing HABERENT

[POSSIDERENT

FRVERENTVRVE,

QVEIQVOMQVE],

Rudorff;

HABERENT [POSSIDERENT FRVERENTVR, EIS — Q V A N T V S ] , M o m m s e n ; AGREI, S c a l i g e r ,

AGRI, Peiresc, Chacon 92

[AGRI LOCI DE EO AGRO LOCO QVEI AGER LOCVS PVBLICE NON VENIEIT VENIERITVE,

IIVIR REDDITO; QVOI ITA REDDIDERIT, EI ADSIGNATVM FVISSE IOVDICATO. QVEM QVIS IN AFRICA

AGRVM

POSSESSIONEM

Q V O I V S V E AGRI P O S S E S S I O N S V E

SVPERFICIVM

POSSIDE]T, Rudorff; [AGRI DE EO AGRO, QVEI PVBLICVS POPVLI ROMANI IN AFRICA EST, QVEI AGER PVBLICE NON VENIEIT — MAGISTRATVS COMMVTATO.

QVEI IN AFRICA

A G R V M POSSESIONEMVE A G R I V E POSSESIONISVE SVPERFICIVM HABET P O S S I D E T V ] E ,

Mommsen (1905); [—]3 EVM AGRVM, Scaliger; supp. Chac6n; PV[BLICE IN AGRO MANV C A P T O INVE BONIS SECTIONEVE QVOIVS VENDIDIT, O ] B EVM AGRVM, Huschke, 617 (!!!); SCRIPIVRAM, aes 93

[ S O L V I T O — ] , Rudorff;

[ V E C T I G A L S O L V I T O — ] , M o m m s e n ; LX S.C,

aes;

H[OMINVM SVNTO, FACITOQVE IS PR. PROVE PR., QVO DE] EA RE, Rudorff; H[OMINVM — DVM MAGISTRATVS, QVO D E ] EA RE, M o m m s e n ; H[OMINVM SVNTO — MAGISTRATVS,

QVO DE E]A RE, Lintott; [ — ] A RE, Scaliger, Peiresc; [— NEIVE ALITER ATQVE] VTEI, Rudorff; [ITA DE EA RE IVDICIVM DE]T VTEI, Mommsen; see Fig. V, 2; IN II L S, aes 94

[IIVIR, QVEI EX H.L. FACTVS CREATVSVE ERIT, IS IN DIEBVS — PROXSVMEIS, QVIBVS

FACTVS

CREATVSVE

ERIT,

FACITO

VTEI

HORREA

CERTIS

LOCIS

IN A F R I C A

ROMAN STATUTES

140

CONSTITVANTVR, QVO FRVCTVS s ] v o s , Rudorff; [—]vos, Mommsen in apparatus; ADSIGNATVS [RELICTVSVE ERIT, QVIBVSVE AGRVM LOCVM EX H.L.] DARI REDDI ADSIGNARI [OPORTEBIT. QVEI AGER LOCVS — E]VM AGRVM LOCVM CEIVIS R[OMANVS — ] , Rudorff; ADSIGNATVS [EST — AGRVM LOCVM EX H.L.] DARI REDDI ADSIGNAR[I — E]VM AGRVM LOCVM CEIVIS R[OMANVS — ] , Mommsen 96 Supp. Rudorff; DRIT, aes; CORINTHIORVM [FVIT, QVOD EIVS AGRI LOCEI PVBLICVM POPVLEI ROMANEI FACTVM EST, E]XTRA, R u d o r f f 9 7 [— EXTRAQVE EVM AGRVM LOCVM] QVEM, Rudorff; [— AGRVM LOCVM] QVEM,

Mommsen; ME[TIVN]DVM, Rudorff; STATVI[—], aes, but the final hasta is at the very edge, hence probably the vertical hasta of an E; [— EV]M A[GRVM — ] , Mommsen (1905); reading checked by Crawford 98

V[BEI CONF]ECTVM, Rudorff; V[BEI PERF]ECTVM, Mommsen; V[BEI INF]ECTVM,

Lintott 99 [—]Ry[—], aes (the tops of the two letters are preserved); [ — ] C R V M [ — ] , Pighius: the letters are ignored by Rudorff and Mommsen; even if Pighius correctly read CRVM, rather than GRVM, C regularly occurs for G, compare ACRVM in 1. 94; [QVEI AGER LOCVS AEDIFICIVM CORINTHIORVM FVIT, Q V O D EIVS AGRI LOCEI AEDIFICIEI EX H.L. VENIRE OPORTEBIT, QVOD EIVS] AGRI LOCI, Rudorff, inventively; [— QVOD EIVS] AGRI LOCI, Mommsen; QVOIEIQVE [EMPTVM] ERIT, Rudorff; PEQVNIAE Q[VAM OB EOS AGROS LOCA A E D I F I C I A P O P V L O DARE D E B E B I T , P R A E D I A P R A E V I D E S Q V E D A T O — ] , Rudorff,

inventively 100

[— MANCEPS PRAEDIA PRAE]VIDESQVE, Rudorff, Mommsen (1863); [— MANCEPS

PRAE]VIDESQVE, Mommsen (1905); SVN[TO EAQVE], Rudorff, Mommsen: the N is not now visible; MANCVPVI, aes; M A N C V P V [ M PRAEVIDVM IS QVAESTOR, QVEI AERARIVM PROVINCIAM OPTINEBIT, IN T A B V L E I S PVBLICEIS SCRIPTA HABETO — ] , Mommsen

(1905), adapting Rudorff 101 [— AB IPSIS HERE]DIBVSQVE, Mommsen, adapting Rudorff; PERSEQVTIO H[AC LEGE ESTO.

QVEI], Rudorff;

PERSEQVTIO E[STO.

QVEI] AGER, Mommsen; E D I F [ — ] , aes;

EDIFI[—], Pighius 102 [— POPVLO] DARE, Mommsen; the R of PR is mis-shapen, but nonetheless an R; PR. [PROVE PR. QVO DE EA] RE IN IOVS ADI[TVM ERIT — ] , Mommsen

103 Reading checked by Crawford 104 Reading checked by Crawford 105 [— QV]OI I[S — ] , Lintott in apparatus

2 - LEX AGRAR1A

141

TRANSLATION 11. 1-2 [?Sp. Thorius? son of ??? as tribune of the plebs lawfully proposed to the plebs and the plebs lawfully voted, in the forum — on — the tribe ???] was the first to vote, Q. Fabius, son of Quintus, voted first for the tribe. Whatever public land of the Roman people [there was] in the land of Italy (in the consulship of] P. Mucius and L. Calpur[nius, apart from that land, whose division was excluded or forbidden according to the statute or plebiscite which C. Sempronius, son of Tiberius, tribune of the plebs, proposed — whatever] land or piece of land [of that land or piece of land anyone according to statute or plebiscite] took or kept [for himself,] provided that its size be not greater than what [it was lawful] for one man to take [or keep] for himself according to statute or plebiscite [--;] (11. 2-3) [whatever public land of the Roman people there was in the land of Italy in the consulship of P. Mucius and L. Calpurnius, apart from that land, whose division was excluded or forbidden according to the statute or plebiscite which C. Sempronius, son of Tiberius, tribune of the plebs, proposed — whatever land or piece of land] a Illvir according to statute or plebiscite granted or assigned from that land or piece of land to any a Roman citizen by lot, which is not in that land or piece of land, which [is] beyond [-;] (11. 3-4) [whatever public land of the Roman people there was in the land of Italy in the consulship of P. Mucius and L. Calpurnius, apart from that land, whose division was excluded or forbidden according to the statute or plebiscite which C. Sempronius, son of Tiberius, tribune of the plebs, proposed, whatever land or piece of land from that land or piece of land —] was [—] restored [by a Elvir]; 01. 4-5) whatever public land of the Roman people there was in the land of Italy in the consulship of P. Mucius and L. Calpurnius, apart from that land, whose [division was excluded or forbidden] according to the statute [or plebiscite which C. Sempronius, son of Tiberius, tribune of the plebs, proposed — and whatever] of public land or pieces of land in the land of Italy, whatever of it is outside the city of Rome, whatever of it is in a city, town or village, whatever of it a IHvir has granted or assigned, whatever [—] (11. 6-7) [—; whatever public land of the Roman people there was in the land of Italy in the consulship of P. Mucius and L. Calpurnius, apart from that land, whose] division was excluded or forbidden [according to] the statute or plebiscite which C. Sempronius, son of Tiberius, tribune of the plebs, proposed, whatever of land, piece of land or building from that land or piece of land to anyone [—] to whom [—] in the land of Italy a Illvir has granted, assigned or left or entered on maps or in records or ordered to be entered; (11. 7-11) all land, pieces of land or buildings, which [are] written down above, [apart from that land, whose division was excluded or] forbidden [according to the statute or plebiscite which C. Sempronius, son of Tiberius, tribune of the plebs, proposed, is to be private — and] there is to be [possession of that land, piece of land or building] just as there is of the other private pieces of land, lands or buildings, and the censor, whoever he shall be, is to see that that land, piece of land or building which [has been or shall have been made private according to this statute be entered in the census, and concerning that land, piece of land] or building, the person, whose [land, piece of land or building it shall be —] is; nor is anyone to act to the effect that [the person,] whose land, piece of land, building or possession it is or shall be appropriate for it [to be] according to statute or plebiscite, [should not use, exploit, have or possess] that land, [piece of land, building or possession,] nor is anyone [to raise] that matter in the senate [— nor is anyone in the senate] or a iudicium to speak or deliver his opinion to the effect that any of those

142

ROMAN STATUTES

persons, whose land, piece of land, building or possession it is [or shall be] appropriate for it to be according to statute or plebiscite, [should not have or possess that land, piece of land, building or possession,] or to the effect that possession [should be removed] against his will [or in the case of his death against the will of his heirs —] 11. 11-12 [Whatever public land of the Roman people there was in the land of Italy in the consulship of P. Mucius and L. Calpurnius, whatever of that land —] granted, assigned or left [to the road-people or] lane-people, who are in the land of Italy, no one is to act to the effect that they should not use, exploit, have [or possess it — whoever] shall not have alienated [that land, piece of land or building,] apart from that [land —] and [apart from] that land for which it shall be appropriate for it to be 'sold', granted or restored according to this statute. 11. 12-13 Whatever land, piece of land or building [has been or shall have been granted, assigned or left] to a person, for whom it is or shall be appropriate to be among the roadpeople or lane-people according to a decree of the senate [— to the effect that that] land, piece of land or building may be private, or to the effect that there may be [— of that land, piece of land or building — otherwise than] it is, nothing is enacted according to this statute. 11. 13-14 Whatever public land or piece of land of the Roman people there was in the land of Italy in the consulship of P. Mucius and L. Calpurnius, apart from that land, whose [division was excluded or forbidden] according to the statute or plebiscite [which C. Sempronius, son of Tiberius, tribune of the plebs, proposed,] and apart from that land, which a prior possessor according to statute or plebiscite [— if anyone after the (successful) proposal of this statute for the purpose of agriculture] shall possess or have not more than 30 iugera of land in that land, that land is to be private. 11. 14-15 Whoever shall graze on shared pasture-land not more than 10 larger animals [and] whatever [offspring from them shall be less than a year old and] shall graze [not more than ??? smaller animals] and whatever offspring of them shall be less than a year old, after [— he is not to owe or] give or pay. 11. 15—16 The public land of the Roman people, whatever there was in the land of Italy in the consulship of P. Mucius and L. Calpurnius, [whatever] of that land a nivir for the granting and assigning of land [granted or assigned] by lot to any Roman citizen according to statute or plebiscite, [whatever of that land neither he —] has or shall have alienated nor his heir has or shall have alienated [nor the person to whom it has or shall have passed by inheritance, whoever of them shall have gone for a pre-trial concerning that matter before the next Ides of March, before the person for whom it shall be appropriate to have jurisdiction concerning that land according to this statute, that person is to have jurisdiction concerning that matter] and is to decree so as to grant possession in favour of the person or his heir, to whom that land has been granted or assigned by lot, whatever of that land shall not have been alienated as is written down above; 11. 16-18 [and whatever of that land a Illvir for the granting and assigning of land] granted, assigned or restored [as prior or as equivalent to prior] possession according to statute or plebiscite;] and whatever of that land a HI[vir for the granting and assigning of land ?granted or assigned just as it is written down above, whoever has received (it) or his heir, or to whomever it has passed from him? — or his heir,] or whoever has bought from any of them, whoever of them shall have gone for a pre-trial concerning that matter before the next Ides of March, before the person for whom it shall be appropriate to have jurisdiction concerning that land according to this statute, he is in such a way to have jurisdiction concerning that matter [and decree, as to grant possession in favour of that person or his heir,] to whom as a prior possessor or as equivalent to a prior possessor that

2 - LEX AGRARIA

143

land (shall have been) granted or assigned; or whoever from [a Illvir for the granting and assigning of land —] 11. 18-19 [If any of those, whose land] is written down above, has been ejected from possession by violence, whatever of it (the land) the person who was ejected may have possessed, and whatever he may have possessed neither by violence nor by stealth nor as a favour from the person who ejected him from that possession by violence, [whoever shall have jurisdiction according to this statute, if he shall have gone for a pre-trial, before him, concerning that matter before the Ides of March,] which shall be next after the (successful) proposal of this statute, he is to see that the person who [has] been ejected by violence in this way [be restored to that possession from which he has been ejected by violence.] 11. 19-20 [Whatever public land of the Roman people there was in Italy in the consulship of P. Mucius and L. Calpurnius, whatever of that land according to statute or plebiscite] or according to this statute has been or shall have been made private, for that land, piece of land or building or for scriptura on livestock, which is grazed on that land, after the uectigalia shall have been settled, which [shall be those to have been settled next] after [the (successful) proposal] of this statute, [no-one is to act to the effect that anyone] should pay or be obliged to pay [to the people or] apublicanus money, scriptura or uectigal, nor is anyone [to act to the effect that —] or to the effect that anything be given to or exacted by the people or a publicanus on that account, nor is anyone (to be) obliged to pay anything to the people or a publicanus, after the uectigalia shall be settled, which shall be those to have been settled next after the (successful) proposal of this statute, on account of those [lands, pieces of land and buildings or on account of scriptura on livestock, which] shall be grazed [on those lands.] 11. 20-3 [Whatever] public land and pieces of land of the [Roman] people [?there shall be? — apart from that land which — so-and-so] contracted out [according to] a decree [of the senate] on 20 September, together with the land which is beyond the Curio, [whichever] Roman [citizen] or ally or member of the Latin name, from whom [they are accustomed to demand troops in the land of Italy] according to the list of togati, in that land or piece of land as a prior possessor or as equivalent to a prior possessor [granted] public [land] or a piece of land of the Roman people from his possession [— to the effect that a town or colony might be constituted, founded or settled in that land or piece of land according to statute or plebiscite, in whatever land or piece of land a Illvir for the granting and assigning of land] constituted, founded or settled the town or colony in question according to statute or plebiscite, whatever land or [piece of land ?he shall have received?] in return for the land or piece of land in question from the land or pieces of land which were the public property of the Roman people [in Italy in the consulship of P. Mucius and L. Calpurnius, apart from that] land or piece of land, whose [division] was excluded [or forbidden] according to the statute or plebiscite which C. Sempronius, son of Tiberius, tribune of the plebs, proposed [— ?for him?] or for the person, to whom that land or piece of land has or shall have passed from him or his heir by testament, inheritance or surrender, [(or who) has] or shall have bought [(from him,)] or who has or shall have bought from the purchaser from him, that land is to be private, which [a Dlvir for the granting and assigning of land] granted, restored or assigned, whether land, piece of land or building, [just as it is written down above, in return for that land or piece of land, where] he founded a colony, just as it is written down above; 11. 23-5 whoever [— he is to have jurisdiction concerning that matter and is to decree so as to] grant [possession in favour of that person] or his heir, to whom a Illvir granted, [restored] or assigned that land or piece of land in return for that land or piece of land,

144

ROMAN STATUTES

where he founded a colony; and that praetor or consul, before whom anyone shall have gone for a pre-trial concerning that matter, is to see [that — the land or piece of land which] is written down [above,] whatever of that land or piece of land shall be the public property of the Roman people after the (successful) proposal of this statute, apart from that [land or piece of land, which —] nor is that land to be shared pasture-land, nor is anyone in that land to have fenced off or to enclose land, to the effect that it may [not] be possible for [whoever] may wish to pasture. If anyone shall have done so, as often as he shall have done so, he is to be obliged [to pay] for each iugerum of land [50 sesterces —] to the person, whoever shall have leased or rented the exploitation of that public property. 11. 25-6 (As for) oxen, horses [—] it is to be lawful [for anyone who shall wish to pasture in that land or piece of land, which shall be the public property of the Roman people after the (successful) proposal of this statute, up to that number of animals which] number of animals is written down in this statute, nor is he to be obliged [to pay] anything as uectigal or scriptura to anyone on account of that matter. 1. 26 Insofar as anyone [shall have] led animals onto public drove-roads and public roads for transit [or shall have driven (them there) for pasture he is] not [to be obliged to pay] anything to the people or to a publicanus [for that livestock, whatever of it] shall have been driven on the public [drove-roads] or public roads for pasture or for transit. I. 27 [Whatever public land of the Roman people there was in the land of Italy in the consulship of P. Mucius and L. Calpurnius, concerning that land or piece of land, which land or piece of land any magistrate] has converted [from public into private,] in return for which land or piece of land he has converted as much land or (as large a) piece of land from private into public, [that land or piece of land] is to be private to its owners, just as (land or a piece of land) is private to anyone with the fullest rights. II. 27-8 Whatever land [has been converted] from private [into public, in return for which as much land] has been converted [from] public into private, concerning that land the conditions are to be exactly as if that land [had been public in the consulship] of P. Mucius and L. Calpurnius. 1. 28 [Whatever public land of the Roman people there was in the land of Italy in the consulship of P. Mucius and L. Calpurnius, for however much anyone] may have it leased [pro patrito] in the censorship [of L. Caecilius and Cn.Dom]itius (115-114 BC), with the censors, whoever shall be appointed hereafter, they (the censors) are to see that [whoever of them] shall wish may have it leased pro patrito for as much, and that they register security in property. 1. 28 Whoever of the Ilviri [— whatever public roads] there may have been in the land of Italy in the consulship of P. Mucius and L. Calpurnius, they are to see that they lie open and be free (from obstruction) [—] I. 29 [— whatever according to this statute,] just as it is written down above, in the lands which are [in] Italy, which [were] the public property of the Roman people in the consulship of P. Mucius and L. Calpurnius, it shall be lawful for a Roman [citizen] to do, it is likewise to be lawful for a Latin and a foreigner to do without personal liability, for whom it was lawful [to do it in the consulship] of M. Livius and L. Calpurnius (112 BC) [in those lands which are written down above, according to statute] or plebiscite or treaty. II. 29-31 Whatever, according to this statute, just as it is written down above, in the lands which [are in the land of Italy, which were the public property of the Roman people in the consulship of P. Mucius and L. Calpurnius, it shall have been lawful for any Latin and foreigner to do, whatever of those things] anyone shall not have done, which it shall have been appropriate [for him] to do [according to this statute,] or whatever [loss] anyone of them [shall have suffered] provided for according to this statute, [the

2 - LEX AGRARIA

145

magistrate] or pro-magistrate, before whom anyone shall have gone for a pre-trial concerning that matter, whatever suit there shall be according to this statute, he is likewise [to grant] trial and [appoint] a judge [or recuperatores according to this statute to the person in question and against the person in question, just as] it were appropriate to grant trial and appoint a judge or recuperatores according to this statute [to the person in question] and against the person in question, if anyone [were demanding] trial concerning that matter, [who was a Roman citizen or who was suing from a Roman citizen —] I. 31 [— to whichever colonies or] municipia, [or] any equivalents of municipia or colonies [(there may be), of Roman citizens] or of the Latin name, land [has been] granted by the people or by a decree of the senate to exploit, [which land those colonies or those municipia or any] equivalent of a colony or municipium or of municipia (there may be) shall exploit, which [is] in the trientabula, [whatever of that land —] II. 32-3 [—] has or shall have passed, for whomever before [the proposal of] this [statute] it was lawful to have rented, to exploit, possess or defend [land or a piece of land,] apart from that land or piece of land [—] or it shall be appropriate [— it is to be lawful] for him to have, [exploit, possess and defend] it [after the (successful) proposal of this statute] just as anything was lawful to anyone before the proposal of this statute [—] 11. 33-6 Whatever public land or piece of land of the [Roman] people there was [in the land] of Italy in the consulship of P. Mucius and L. Calpurnius, whatever of that land or piece of land according to statute [or plebiscite or according to this statute has or shall have been made — private, if] there shall be [any] dispute about that land or piece of land, the consul or praetor, whoever he shall be, [is to have] jurisdiction concerning that matter [and the right to grant trial and appoint a judge or recuperatores, just as shall seem to him to be according to the public interest and his own good faith — nor is any magistrate or promagistrate after the (successful) proposal of this statute to have jurisdiction concerning that land or piece of land nor] is he to issue a decree nor is he to grant trial or appoint [a judge or] recuperatores, unless he be a consul or praetor. If a uadimonium [shall not have been promised for] that case, [to the effect that a consul or praetor may not] issue a decree for [that case,] nothing of that is proposed by this statute. If a trial [shall have been granted] or a judge or recuperatores [shall have been appointed, to whatever consul it shall seem not to be according to the public interest, to the effect that he may not block or intercede, nothing of that is proposed by this statute — whatever land or piece of land shall be the public property of the Roman people after the (successful) proposal of this statute, if there shall be any dispute about that land or piece of land,] the consul, praetor or censor, whoever [he shall be,] is to have jurisdiction [concerning that matter] and the right to grant trial and appoint a judge or recuperatores, just as shall seem to him [to be] according to the public interest and his own good faith [— nor is any magistrate or promagistrate after the (successful) proposal of this statute] to have jurisdiction [concerning] that land or piece of land nor is he to issue a decree nor [is he to grant] trial [or appoint a judge or recuperatores, unless he be a consul, praetor or censor. If a uadimonium shall not have been promised for that case, to the effect that a consul, praetor or censor may not issue a decree for that case, nothing of that is proposed by this statute. If a trial shall have been granted or a judge or recuperatores shall have been appointed, to whatever consul it] shall seem not to be [according to the public interest,] to the effect that [he may not block or] intercede, nothing of that is proposed by this statute. 11. 36-9 To whatever publicanus money shall be owed according to this statute, [no magistrate or pro-magistrate —] is to act [contrary to this statute] to the effect that anyone should not [pay] scriptura [or uectigal] for land or [should pay] otherwise [than he is or

146

ROMAN STATUTES

will be obliged to pay according to this statute — If a publicanus shall say that anything is owed] or ought to be paid [to him on account of that matter by any of the persons in question, [the consul or proconsul,] praetor or propraetor, before whom they shall have gone for a pre-trial, within the ten days next after [they shall have gone for a pre-trial concerning that matter,] is to appoint [for them —] eleven [recuperatores from among] ???Roman??? citizens, provided that they be of the first class, from them [he is to see that he who shall sue and he who shall be sued reject] in turn [up to four each (?), whom they shall wish, and he is to order them to judge concerning that matter —] whatever [be] not paid [or] be not [subject to trial] or be not judged, in respect of any such case which be not brought [by way of] collusion or [—] If the majority of those recuperatores [— he is to declare] in his opinion [what] he has established to be most true for the judgement [of .that] matter, and he is to see [— whatever shall have been judged in this way,] that the person, who shall have been judged so that it is appropriate for him to pay, [pay] without wrongful deceit [—] 11. 40-1 [— whatever statutes or plebiscites concerning that matter anyone shall not have sworn to obey, because] any [of them] may forbid [that person, who shall have, possess or exploit public land of the Roman people, just as shall be lawful according to this statute,] to have, possess or exploit land [which he shall have according to this statute;] or whatever statutes or plebiscites concerning that matter [he shall not have sworn to obey, because (such a statute) may permit that person, who shall have,] possess or exploit [other public land of the Roman people] than shall be lawful according to this statute, [to have, possess or exploit] that land which [he shall have contrary to this statute; it is to be for him without personal liability — nor] is it any the less to be lawful [for him thereafter] to stand for, accept, hold or have any [magistracy or imperium on account of that matter] nor [is any censor thereafter on account of that matter any the less to enrol him in the senate.] 11. 41-2 If there is any statute or plebiscite, which [—] a magistrate, whom according to this statute [—] it is to be lawful [for him] to do [all those things without] personal liability, and without personal liability he is not to swear to obey those statutes and plebiscites concerning that matter, namely insofar as it shall be appropriate to issue a decree according to this [statute otherwise than is written down in those statutes or plebiscites —] nor [is anything to be a matter of liability for him on account of that matter -] 1. 43 [— so-and-so —] granted or assigned, or whatever land or piece of land from that land or piece of land [— according to the statute] or plebiscite, which M. Baebius, tribune of the plebs, ITIvir for the foundation of a colony, [proposed —] 1. 44 [—] shall have judged to be or to have been [granted] or assigned, as is written down in this statute, whichever [piece of land —] apart from that land or piece of land, which land or piece of land in that centuria [or subsecivum where —] 1. 45 [— and apart from] that land or piece of land, which according to this statute colonists or those who [are written down] in the category of colonist [?shall have received? — it is] or shall be appropriate, whatever of that land or piece of land has been bought by anyone [—] 1. 46 [—] the manceps, guarantors and security in property are to be free of obligation, and those names of the manceps [and guarantors — the quaestor,] who shall hold the treasury as his province, in the [public] records [—] 1. 47 [— whoever] has bought [from] a Roman magistrate, he [is] not [to give] money or guarantors or [security in property] for that land or piece of land [— nor is anyone

2 - LEX AGRARIA

147

concerning that matter on account of that] fact, namely that he has been made a guarantor, to be bound over to the people [—] 1. 48 [— whoever on account of that] land or piece of land has been made a manceps or guarantor and whatever security in property on account of [that matter has been bound over to the people —] whatever land or piece of land is in Africa, which publicly at Rome [-] 1. 49 [—] is to belong [to him or to] his [heir] and that land or piece of land [is to be] private- and subject to uectigal [—] shall be, whatever of that land or piece of land is outside the land.of Italy [—] 1. 50 [— of the allies or members of the Latin name, from whom according to the list] of togati they are accustomed to demand soldiers in the land of Italy, for them [after the (successful) proposal of this statute —] or whoever shall have, possess [or exploit that] land or piece of land — 1. 51 [— or] shall be for the sake of managing [that] matter, into that land or piece of land in [— he is to see without] wrongful [deceit,] whatever land or piece of land is in Africa, whatever of that land [—] 1. 52 [— should have,] possess and exploit, just as if that land or piece of land [had been] publicly [leased out — the Ilvir, who shall have been appointed or elected according to this statute,] in the two days next after he shall have been appointed or elected, is to issue an edict [—] 1. 53 [— in] the 25 [days] next after this edict shall have been issued, the praetor [—] may have been [granted] or assigned, and when he shall make that declaration, his cognitor [—] 1. 54 [—] should be a buyer from that person, [sale] by whom [as a private] individual [it shall have been — which sale] should have been completed [before 1 January] in the consulship of [P. Cornelius and L.] Calpurnius (111 BC), whatever of it thereafter neither he himself [nor his heir has or shall have alienated —] 1. 55 [—] as a prefect or soldier shall be in the province [— whatever land or piece of land is in Africa, which] has been granted or assigned [according to the Lex Rubria, which has been repealed, to a colonist or to a person, who] is written down [in] the category [of colonist,] or whatever of that land [—] 1. 56 [—] that his curator make a declaration, just as [—] he is to issue an edict, that the person, who [shall have bought] from the purchaser of the estate, or his magister or curator [—] 1. 57 [—] what he [shall not] have declared under the edict of the Ilvir according to this statute [—] he is not to judge that [that land] or piece of land is or has been purchased by or assigned [to him —] I. 58 [— in return for that] land for that Roman citizen as large a measure [of land —] ??? [—] whatever land shall not be publicly leased out, it is to be lawful to grant, restore and exchange. II. 58-61 The Ilvir, [who shall have been appointed or elected according to this statute —] is in this way to undertake and in this way [to observe] a computation [concerning] those lands [— to one] individual [—] nor on account of one individual, to whom, according to the Lex Rubria, which has been repealed, as a colonist or a person who [is written down] in [the category of colonist, it was appropriate or lawful for land which is in Africa to be granted —] is he to judge [that more than ??? iugera] have been [granted or] assigned [for each infantry-man;] nor [on account] of one individual, [to whom, according to the Lex Rubria, which has been repealed,] as a colonist [or a person who] is written down [in] the category [of colonist,] it was appropriate or lawful for land which is

148

ROMAN STATUTES

in Africa to be granted, [is he to judge] that more than 200 iugera [have been granted or assigned] for [each cavalry-man — nor] is he to judge [that a greater number of individuals is] or has been [settled in a colony or colonies in Africa] than whatever number of individuals it was appropriate or lawful to settle in a colony or colonies in Africa [according to the Lex Rubria, or plebiscite,] which [has been repealed, by a Elvir] for the founding [of a colony.] 11. 61-2 The Ilvir, who [shall have appointed or elected according to this statute — of that] land, which [has or shall have been] granted [or assigned, whatever] of it has not [been (privately) sold, whatever of that] land it shall be lawful to adjudge according to this statute, whatever shall be established in this way, he is to judge that it has been assigned to him or his heir. 11. 63-5 [— if anyone, whatever] of that land or piece of land has been [bought by anyone at any time] before 1 [January] in the consulship of [P. Cornelius and L. Calpu]rnius (111 BC) from that person, sale by whom as a private individual it was of that land or piece of land, at the time when he bought that land or piece of land, which [—] shall make or shall have made it evident that it was bought, [whatever] of it neither [he thereafter] nor his heir nor that person to whom he shall be heir, shall have alienated, whatever of that land or piece of land shall have been made evident in this way, the Ilvir in this way [— is to grant] or restore, whatever he shall have had bought, whatever of it shall not have been publicly leased out. 11. 65-6 [The Ilvir, if that] land or piece of land, which shall have been bought by him, has been publicly leased out, [is to grant or restore to him] as large a measure of land or of a piece of land from that land or piece of land, which land or piece of land [is in Africa, whatever of it shall not have been publicly leased out] I. 66 [— and whatever land or piece of land in this way according to this statute shall have been granted or restored,] it is to be bought for one sestertius [by the man, whose (land or piece of land)] it shall have been made [according to this statute,] and that land or piece of land is to be private and subject to uectigal, just [as] is written down [above.] II. 66-67 To whatever colonist or to whatever person who is written down in the category of colonist, land or piece of land [?has been granted?] in that centuria or subseciuum [where —] the Ilvir, who shall have been appointed or elected according to this statute, is to restore to him [or] to his heir [as large a measure of land or of a piece of land in return for that land or piece of land from that] land or piece of land, which land or piece of land is in Africa, whatever of it has not been publicly leased out. 11. 67-8 To whatever colonist or to whatever person who is or has been written down in the category of colonist [— the Ilvir is to restore to him as large a measure of land, as] it shall be established [is] or was [his,] or to his heir, from the land, which land is in Africa, in return for that land; and to whomever he shall have restored (it) in this way, he is to judge it to have been assigned to him. 11. 68-9 To whomever he shall [not] have adjudged land from that land, which land is in Africa, which [was granted or assigned] to a colonist [or to a person who is written down in the category of colonist —] then the Ilvir is to restore as large a measure of land to the person, who shall be established to have been the purchaser in this way, [or to his guardian,] or to his procurator, or to the heir of any one of these, from that land, which land is in Africa, in return for that land; to whomever he shall have restored (it) in this way [—] 11. 70-72 [— whatever of that] money is or shall have been assigned, apportioned or assigned in the public records, [he is to be obliged to pay so much money] to the people within [??? days] from the Ides of March which shall be first after the uectigalia shall be

2 - LEX AGRARIA

149

settled, which shall be those to be settled next after the (successful) proposal of this statute [— nor is anyone, who contracts from the people on that account, to demand money on account of that matter on any earlier day than] is written down in this statute; nor, in respect of any money which shall have been demanded on account of that matter on any earlier day [than] is written down in this statute, is that person, who shall be obliged to pay money to the people, [to pay on any earlier day] the money on account of that matter to the person, who contracts from the people on that account [—] may be made evident, nor is any magistrate or promagistrate to act nor is any senator to vote for a decree, [to the effect that that money,] which is or shall be owed to the people for the lands, pieces of land or buildings which are written down above, should be demanded in any way otherwise than as is written down in this statute. I. 73 [— whatever of it] shall [not] have been [publicly] leased out, (the money) shall not have been paid to the people, he is to register sufficient (security) for that land or piece of land in the 120 days next after [those Ides] which are written down above, according to the decision of the praetor, who shall then have jurisdiction in relation to citizens at Rome. II. 73-4 The praetor who [shall have] jurisdiction in relation to citizens at Rome [after the next 120 days — unless] before then on account of that land or piece of land a property shall have been bound over to the public domain [or given] into the public domain [just as] is [written down above,] he is to sell for ready cash the land or piece of land, for which land or piece of land sufficient (security) shall not have been registered according to this statute and according to the decision of the praetor. 11. 74-7 Whoever [—] whichever land or piece of land is in Africa, which has (?not?) been or shall (?not?) have been publicly leased out at Rome, whatever of that land [or piece of land has been granted or assigned to those, who] are free [peoples] in Africa, whoever of them remained in the friendship of the Roman people in the last Punic War, or whoever [deserted to a commander of the Roman people in the last Punic War — in return for that land or piece of land the Ilvir, within the ??? days next after] he shall have been [appointed] or elected Ilvir [according to this statute,] is to see that, however much land or however large a piece of land, in (the land or piece of land) of any free people or in that land [or piece of land, which land] or piece of land has been granted or assigned to deserters, shall have been made (to be that) of a Roman citizen according to this statute, in return for which land or piece of land, land or a piece of land [shall not have been given in exchange or restored] to a Roman [citizen] according to this statute, [as large a measure of land or of a piece of land be granted or assigned to each free people or to- the deserters —] 11. 77-8 [The II]vir, who shall have been appointed or elected according to this statute, he, within the 150 days next after he shall have been appointed or elected, is to see that, however much land in Africa [the Xviri, who] are or have been appointed or elected [according to] the Lex Livia, have granted or assigned to those men, for whom [it is appropriate to pay] stipendium [to the Roman people for that land — and that —] he grant or assign [as large a measure of land from that land which land is in Africa, as] is or shall be appropriate to be [(that) of the stipendiarii] of the Roman [people,] to the stipendiarii; and he is to see that [he enter] it in the public maps, [just as] shall seem to be [according to the public interest and] his [good faith.] 11. 78-82 The Ilvir, who shall have been appointed or elected according to this statute, he is to see that, in the 250 days next after the people or plebs shall have passed this [statute, apart from that land or piece of land, which has been granted or assigned according to the Lex Rubria, which has been repealed, to a colonist or to a person who is

150

ROMAN STATUTES

written down in the category of colonist — in return for which land or piece of land, land or a piece of land] shall not have been given in exchange or restored, and apart from that land, which land [was] within the boundaries of the free peoples of Utica, [Hadrumetum,] Thapsus, Leptis (Minor), Acholla, Usalis and Teudalis, when they last [came] into the friendship of the Roman people. [— and apart from that land or piece of land, which land or piece of land was granted or assigned to those persons who deserted to a commander of the Roman people in the last Punic War,] and apart from that land, which land shall have been made private according to this statute, in return for which land or piece of land, land or a piece of land [shall not have been] restored or given in exchange, and [apart from] that land or piece of land which a llvir shall have granted or assigned to the stipendiarii according to this statute, whatever of it [shall have been] entered in a public map according to this statute [— and apart from that land which the commander P. Cornelius] granted to the children of King Massinissa or ordered them to have or exploit, and apart from that land or piece of land, where the town of Carthage [once] was, [and apart from] that land or piece of land, which the Xviri, who were appointed or elected according to the Lex Livia left or assigned to the people of Utica, (he is to see) [that all] the rest [of the land, which is in Africa —] 1. 82 [— whoever] were not accustomed to pay [uectigal or tithes for that land or piece of land or scriptura] on livestock according to the Lex Sempronia, whatever land shall have been granted or restored or given in exchange to them according to this statute, [whoever of them shall have,] possess or exploit [that land,] is not to be obliged to pay uectigal or tithes or scriptura for that land or piece of land, insofar as he shall exploit it after the (successful) proposal of this statute. I. 83 [— he] is to be obliged to pay [for that land or piece of land uectigal, tithes] or scriptura to the people or a publicanus, just as it shall be appropriate to pay for that land or piece of land, which land or piece of land the [Roman] people [shall order to be leased out according to this statute, which] land or piece of land a Roman citizen shall possess according to this statute. II. 83-4 The praetor, according to whose decision [it shall be appropriate for sufficient (security) to be registered] according to this statute for land or a piece of land, which shall have been publicly leased out at Rome [—] is to accept three times as much ??? the person who shall give, and he is to see that, whoever shall have given security (in property) according to this statute, sufficient (security) be registered for him, [and that no one do anything] to the effect that whoever may wish may not register a property (as security) according to this statute or pay the money, and that whoever shall wish to become (a guarantor) according to this statute may not become a guarantor. 11. 85-6 [However much uectigal, tithes or scriptura on livestock] it was appropriate [for the person who possessed land, a piece of land or building in Africa] to pay to the publicanus[ — which land] or piece of land shall not have been (that) of free peoples or deserters, for that land, building and piece of land, according to the declared conditions [which the censors L. Caecilius and Cn. Domitius (115-114 BC)] declared as conditions for land, a building or a piece of land and for the contracting out and leasing out of the public uectigalia to be exploited, he is to be obliged to pay [to the publicanus as much uectigal, tithes] and [scriptura] on livestock [after the (successful) proposal of this statute, whoever shall possess land, a piece of land or a building in Africa;] nor is he to be obliged to pay more than that or elsewhere or otherwise, and he is not to pasture livestock on that land [elsewhere or otherwise or on other conditions.] 11. 86-7 Whatever public uectigalia of the Roman people there are in Africa, which the censors L. Caecilius and Cn. Domitius [contracted out or leased out] to be exploited, [to

2 - LEX AGRARIA

151

the effect that they should not be under those conditions and should not obey them, which conditions the censors L. Caecilius and Cn. Domitius declared for the contracting out and leasing out of those uectigalia to be exploited, or that anyone] should be obliged to pay and should discharge [more] to the people, nothing of that is enacted by this statute. 11. 87-9 The magistrate or pro-magistrate or whoever [shall be] possessed of ?any? imperium, right of judgment [or power, if he] shall contract out or lease out to be exploited [whatever] public uectigalia of the Roman people there are or shall be in Africa, when he shall contract out or lease out those uectigalia to be exploited, [he is not to declare conditions for those uectigalia, to the effect that against the will of whoever — anything be contracted out or leased out other than] according to the declared conditions, which the censors L. Caecilius and Cn. Domitius, when they contracted out [or leased out] the uectigalia to be exploited on those lands, declared [for those lands to be contracted out] (or) [leased out;] nor, whatever livestock shall be grazed on those lands, is he to declare conditions for scriptura on livestock, to the effect that against the will of whoever shall possess that land, [anything be contracted out or leased out otherwise than according to the declared conditions, which the censors L. Caecilius and Cn. Domitius declared as is written down above.] 11. 89 [Whatever public uectigalia of the Roman people there are in Africa, which the consul Cn. Papirius (113 BC) contracted out or leased out to be exploited, to the effect that] they should not be under those conditions and should obey them, which conditions the consul Cn. Papirius (declared for their) leasing out or (contracting out, or that anyone should be obliged to pay and should discharge more to the people,) nothing of that is enacted by this (statute). 11. 89-90 Whatever [land is in Africa, whatever public roads and public ways] there were [in that] land, before Carthage was captured, all those are to be public and the boundary-roads between the centuries [—] 11. 90-91 [— the Ilvir who shall have been appointed or elected according to this statute, if a person, to whom land in Africa has been assigned,] shall have declared [before him] land in that category of land, in which category [it shall not have been appropriate to declare] that land, which the person to whom it [was] assigned [shall have declared, he is not to grant] or restore or adjudge [that land to him.] Whoever shall have laid information concerning that matter [in this way, he is to grant and assign] to him, of that land, insofar as he [shall have laid] information on that [matter, as large a measure as -] 11. 91-2 [— for whom] it has been ?ensured?, that they should have, [possess, use and exploit] the property which they had had and the land which had been publicly assigned to them, [he is to see that he grant or assign to them — however large] a measure of land from that land, which was publicly [granted or assigned] to them, has been publicly leased out, as large a measure [of land from that land, which —] 1. 92 [— whoever has or possesses] or [uses] or exploits [land or possession or building on land or possession,] which land or possession or building on land or possession a quaestor or praetor [shall have leased out publicly —] on account of that land, piece of land, possession [or building on land] he is not to pay scriptura on livestock nor [--] 1. 93 [— to whomever] that land has been granted or assigned according to a decree of the senate, those lands which are written down above and possessions, all those things [are to belong] to those [men —] 1. 93 [— the magistrate, before whom] (anyone) shall have gone for a pre-trial [concerning that] matter, [is to grant a trial concerning that matter, just] as is written down concerning that matter in (this) statute, nor [—]

152

ROMAN STATUTES

11. 94-5 [—] whatever [?crops?] they may gather, to whom land or a piece of land [has been] granted, restored, given in exchange or assigned according to this statute [— for land or a piece of land] to be granted, restored or assigned [according to this statute —] that land or piece of land of a [Roman] citizen [—] 1. 95 [—] and whatever wine or oil shall be produced in that land or piece of land, which harvest or vintage [shall take place in the consulship] of P. Cornelius and L. C[alpurnius (111 BC) or thereafter [— those] crops [—] whoever that land then [—] 1. 96 [— whoever shall have been appointed or elected Ilvir according to this statute, he in the ??? days next] after he shall have been appointed or elected Ilvir according to this statute, the land or piece of land, which [belonged] to the Corinthians [—] apart from that land [—] 1. 97 [— he shall see that the land,] which it shall be appropriate to lease out according to this statute, is all measured and that boundary-stones are erected [—] ??? [—] 1. 98 [—] and he is to contract out [that work] and is to declare a day for the work, [when] it should be [complete,] and he is to see [—] 1. 99 [—] land, [whatever of that] land, piece of land or building shall have been [bought (?rented?)] by anyone, he of that money [which —] 1. 100 [—] and the guarantors are not therefore to be discharged, [and those] names of the mancipes [—] 1. 101 [— and there is to be] claim against them for the guarantors. [Whatever] land, piece of land or building [—] 1. 102 [—] he is to be condemned to pay [to the Roman people.] [And] the praetor, [before whom (anyone) shall have gone] for a pre-trial [concerning that] matter [—] 1. 103 [— which] shall have been leased out [—] to whom [in this way —] 1. 104 [—] possession [—] 1. 105 [—] to whom in this way [—]

2 - LEX AGRARIA

153

COMMENTARY 1. 1 For the prescript, see the General Introduction, Ch. XI. There is no reason with Johannsen to add de s(enatus) s{ententia). We can infer from pro tribu that the statute was passed by a tribal assembly. There is no internal evidence that it was a plebiscite; but for the identification of its author with the tribune Sp. Thorius, see the Introduction.

*** LI. 1-11 deal with species of a type of land in Italy which are declared private by this statute; the type of land is that which was public in 133 BC. The description of the type of land at the end of 1. 1 and thereafter was restored by Mommsen on the basis of 11. 4, 6 and 13. The species are declared private in 1. 7 and conseqential measures follow in 11. 9-11. It is likely from 1. 19 that some land had been declared private before, at an unknown date; and it is likely from 11. 15-17 that some land had been specifically designated as inalienable, presumably in the agrarian statute(s) of Ti. (and C.) Gracchus. The species are as follows: 11. 1-2 11. 2-3 11. 3-4 1.4 11. 5-6 11. 6-7

Land which someone [sibei] sumpsit reliquitue Land which a ITIvir granted sortito ceiui Romano Land which was [re]dditus ??? Land which a Illvir granted in urbe oppido uico Land which a Illvir granted or registered (if this is a single clause)

The description of the type of land certainly occurs in whole or in part in 11. 1-2, 4 and 5-6 (compare 22); and it has been assumed since Rudorff and Mommsen that it occurred in 11. 2-3 and 3-4 also. This is likely, though of course not certain.

*** Nor is the significance of the six clauses clear. The reference to a legal limit makes it clear that 11. 1-2 refer to land possessed by an individual (see on 11. 1-2); but it is not at all certain that we should actually restore the phrase uetus possessor (proue uetere possessore), in other words the description of a status as well as of the act which is usually held to have generated it.

* ** In order to understand 11. 1-2, it is necessary to face the problem of what a uetus possessor was in the context of ager publicus, in 11. 13-14, 17 and 21. Mommsen, (1905), 96-7, held that it was anyone who had taken possession of ager publicus lawfully at a time in the past when this was possible. But Cicero, de leg.ag. II, 57, contrasting uetustate possessions and iure, does not support this view. And, in any case, Cicero is both talking about Sicily and being less than honest in his whole argument at this point (de off. I, 21, and de leg. I, 55 (a metaphorical usage), are unrevealing): qui agrum Recentoricum possident, uetustate possessionis se, non iure, misericordia senatus, non agri condicione defendunt.

154

ROMAN STATUTES

Mommsen also held: (1) that a pre? uetere possessore, in 11. 17 and 21, was someone who could not prove that he or the person from whom his claim derived had possessed ager publicus lawfully, but whose claim was of great antiquity; (2) that the term uetus possessor itself, as well as 11. 24-5, show that taking possession of ager publicus lawfully had been forbidden before the passage of this statute; (3) that, in the light of 11. 13-14, this had been done by Ti. Gracchus. The second claim manifestly requires qualification, since the term uetus possessor is a living one for Valerius Probus and the Agrimensores (see below). And in fact we take a view of 11. 13-14 and 24-5 different from that of Mommsen. Furthermore, 'antiquity' of possession is of no interest under the Roman law of property in general, once the two years necessary to usucape private land have passed. And the only texts of the Agrimensores which are explicit on the subject suggest very strongly that for them a uetus possessor was someone who had possessed ager publicus and whose claim to possession, whether to the original piece of land or to one received in substitution for it, had been endorsed by a judicial process (see below). Likewise, for both Ulpian (Dig. XLIII, 16, 1, 28) and Julian (XLI, 2, 47pr.), a uetus possessor is a previous (legally recognised) possessor. (The inscription on a cippus from Rocca San Felice, fiundus) p(ossessoris) uet(eris) (CIL I 2 , 645), is of no help.) We take a uetus possessor to be a legal category and to mean a 'prior (to the relevant moment) (legally recognised) possessor'. A pro uetere possessore will then be someone who has acquired the rights of a uetus possessor to a piece of land: compare a pro magistratu. In the present state of our knowledge, it is a matter of guesswork how this might have happened (see Burdese, 76-7). It is then very likely that sibi sumere did not in itself create the status of uetus possessor, and that the term uetus possessor is an inappropriate supplement here. (One may wonder whether should not supplement ex lege plebeiue scito exue senatus consulto: the reference would in any case be quite general, contra Burdese, 76 n. 13.) A further problem is that sibei taken with reliquitue as well as with sumpsit is surprising Latin; and Burdese was right to question this, 74-6, though his proposal (following Saumagne) to separate the two verbs and to take the second to refer to land left as a legacy is improbable in view of the unambiguous terminology used a few lines later for the position of a heres. It is an additional complication that Cicero uses in relictis possessionibus to refer to land which has been surrendered (de leg.ag. I, 3; cf. II, 70). Where sibi relinquere occurs in the sense of 'to leave for oneself, it is in the context of an explicit contrast with something else which has been surrendered: the clearest parallels are Caesar, BG VE, 34, 2; BC I, 41, 1, cf. 39, 2; Cicero, Clu. 68; // in Verr. 4, 104; Phil. V,.33. It should follow that our text contains an implicit reference to land which has been surrendered. In any case, the phrase quod non modus maior siet... refers to the limit on possession of ager publicus, whether of the Lex Licinia Sextia or of the early second century BC, reasserted by Ti. Gracchus. And it is perfectly intelligible that our text should wish to distinguish between those who had only ever possessed land within the legal limit and 'took' it and those who had possessed land over the legal limit and 'kept' what they were allowed to keep. Hinrichs and Johannsen inserted in the lacuna between 11. 2 and 3 a limiting relative clause referring to assignation by a nivir a.d.a. as a necessary condition for eligibility of land possessed in the past. This is unlikely, since the initiative in these lines clearly belongs to the possessor, and in any case the limiting relative clause does not achieve the result they intended: see on 11. 15-18.

2 - LEX AGRARIA

155

We should note the importance of quod non modus maior siet ... Contrary to the impression given by Appian (BC I, 122), not all holdings of possessed land were recognised and legitimised when the activities of the land-commission ceased, but only those within the limits of the Leges Semproniae, i.e. 500 iugera for each man with an additional 250 in respect of each child (Appian, BC I, 37): see E. Badian, ANRW I, 1 (1972), 668-731, 'Tiberius Gracchus and the beginning of the Roman revolution', at 702-3. Badian rejects any inference from the Livian report of 1,000 iugera as the upper limit (Per. 58; de vir. ill. 64, 3) that only two children were allowed to count in claims to land; but it may be that the same figure of 1,000 also stood in Siculus Flaccus (Mommsen (1905), 96). Holdings above the limit remained ager publicus with no protection against resumption by the Roman people or perhaps possession by another private citizen who did not possess ager publicus to excess.

*** The next clause, 11. 2-3, is taken by Mommsen, followed by Kaser, 'Typen', 11-12, as referring to land granted in a colony, because of sortito, the use of the lot being characteristic of colonies; but Cicero, adfam. XI, 20 = 401 SB, 3, proposes the use of the lot for viritane assignations and there is no particular reason to doubt the possibility earlier (see Saumagne, 67-72; Levi (1929), 236-9 = 49-51; Larsen, 279; Hinrichs, 260-2. The references to the lot in 11. 15 and 16 provide no explicit testimony to supplement the information given here.) The clause is taken by Johannsen, 212-15, and Lintott as referring to land granted under the legislation of the Gracchi. But it is not certain that the clause is as general as supposed by either Mommsen or Johannsen and Lintott. There is first the limitation where the preserved part of the clause ends, whatever this may limitation be. The supplement ult[ra modum] is unlikely to be correct: in all the technical writings of the Agrimensores the phrase only occurs twice, in both cases referring to a river going beyond its bounds (Hyginus 125, 11-14 L = 88, 11-13 Thulin; Siculus Flaccus 157, 27 - 158, 2 L = 122, 10-12 Thulin). Some kind of geographical limitation seems the most likely. But it is necessary also to consider the next clause, 11. 3-4. There is no reason to limit the clause to the context of a uetus possessor proue uetere possessore giving land for a colony, as in 11. 20-3. And the words [re]dditus est, all that survives, take us in the direction of certain phrases in the Agrimensores: Hyginus 118, 2-3 L = 81, 4-5 Thulin; 119, 9-10 L = 82, 13-14 Thulin; Siculus Flaccus, 155, 15-22 L = 119, 20-7 Thulin; 157, 22-3 = 122, 4-5 Thulin; 161, 19-21 L = 126, 8-10 Thulin; Hyginus Gromaticus 178, 6-9 L = 142, 16-19 Thulin; 197, 15-16 L = 160, 16-18 Thulin; 202, 11-15 L = 165, 10-14 Thulin. These passages serve to associate reddere with ueteres possessores\ and reddere and commutare tend to form a pair: it may be that we are entitled to restore here [... commutatus re]dditus est. (Compare also the nota in Valerius Probus, §3, 15: V.P.R., ueteri possessori redditum.) There is one passage in which reddere is in addition associated with ueteranis aliisue personis ... dare; but it is an exception: diuisi et adsignati agri sunt qui ueteranis aliisue personis per centurias certo modo adscripto aut dati sunt aut redditi quiue ueteribus possessoribus redditi commutatique pro suis sunt. (Hyginus 117, 12-15 L = 80, 14-17 Thulin) (We should be cautious about restoring here either datus, with Mommsen, or datus adsignatus, with Lintott, on the basis of 11. 16-7, since our text is not always consistent

156

ROMAN STATUTES

and systematic. The provisions in 11. 20-3 and 27 are in any case separate; and the context in 1. 58, on Africa, is too fragmentary to be of any help. The supplement of Zancaii, 71-2, is fanciful.) The upshot is that 11. 3-4 may relate like 11. 1-2 to public land, a possessory right to which is recognised; and that the difference from 11. 1-2 is that land in 11. 3-4 has undergone one process which conferred on the man who held it the status of uetus possessor and another process involving exchange (so Zumpt I, 210-11) or temporary surrender, followed by recovery. If the reasoning so far is correct, it would be very odd if the first clause dealt with land legally possessed (whether or not the person concerned had held land over the limit as well), the second clause with grants in general, the third clause once again with land legally possessed. Rather, the first clause dealt with land legally possessed according to the limit reasserted by Ti. Gracchus, the third clause with land legally possessed where exchange or recovery was involved, and the second clause with grants of land from land which had been surrendered: there is room for a reference to this in 11. 2-3; we argue below that a clause on inalienability applies only to the species in 11. 2-3, of all the species in 11. 1-9. The statute may then be supposed to go on to deal with grants of land in inhabited centres and grants of land or registration of grants of land elsewhere.

* ** It has been traditional to take 11. 4-6 as a single clause. But it is curious that the preserved text in 1. 5 appears to begin with a repetition of part of the definition of the subject matter of the legislation as it occurs at the beginning of 11. 4-6. It is better to suppose that a new clause begins just before the beginning of the preserved text in 1. 5; and that the exception clause, extra eum agrum ..., is not here present because the exception in question had never as it happened dealt with urban land, which is the subject matter of 1. 5-6. We cannot know what stood before the preserved text in 11. 5-6. Rudorff supposed a single clause, but his supplement in any case fails: one would expect [quod]ue eius agri ... There are also problems with the supplement [— quod eius quisq]ue in 1. 5: it is better to be neutral about the eventual subject of the clause. One may explain the fact that the first quod clause in 1. 5 deals with Rome by the supposition that the legislator knew he was going to deal with inhabited centres and felt that Rome was the most urgent exclusion.

*** Finally, it is possible that 11. 6-7 deal with ager publicus which did not need to be resumed; it is land which a nivir granted or assigned or left and it may be that the case of land which was left is to be explained by the hypothesis that a man who possessed it in a small way was incorporated in the grants and assignations in the area: relinquere is in any case an act of the same status as dare or adsignare.

*** 11. 1-2 See above. We find terra Italia, except in 11. 15 and 29, but simply Africa, see 1. 48 and thereafter. The term terra Italia was used by Cato to indicate a geographical entity: ORF 8, XLVm, 187 (151 BC); and it was probably already so used during the Second Punic War: see Livy XXV, 7, 4, for the disabilities imposed on the survivors of Cannae donee hostis in terra Italia esset; also Phlegon, FGH 257, fr. 36, IE, 7. It is

2 - LEX AGRARIA

157

unlikely either that Italia by itself in 111 BC had a political sense as that part of Italy which was neither Roman nor Latin or that the intention in using terra Italia was to exclude the city of Rome, as Lintott suggests; but it may be that Italia had sometimes been used to mean that part of Italy inhabited by Romans, see Galsterer, Herrschaft, 37-41, and that terra Italia is used here for the geographical entity. (The move of the frontier of Italy from the Aesis to the Rubicon (Strabo V, 1, 11 (217)) is presupposed by the restored Gracchan cippus from near Fanum Fortunae (ILLRP 474) and probably by the milestone of P. Popillius Laenas of 132 BC (ILLRP 453, with G. Radke, RE, Supp. X m (1973), 1582); but it is also presupposed by Polybius XXXIV, 11, 8 (at EI, 86, 2, Italy is a purely geographical concept, cf. 61, 11); and Polybius' information probably derives from before 146 BC.) The exception clause, extra eum agrum ..., has been generally interpreted since Mommsen (1905), 108-9, as a reference to the Ager Campanus, confiscated during the Hannibalic War and, except insofar as otherwise disposed of, thereafter in theory rented out, see Frederiksen, Campania, ch. 12. In particular, Mommsen cited Cicero, de leg.ag. H, 81: qua de causa nee duo Gracchi, qui de plebis Romanae commodis plurimum cogitauerunt, nee L. Sulla, qui omnia sine ulla religione, quibus uoluit, est dilargitus, agrum Campanum attingere ausus est. and I, 21: ... qui ager ipse per sese et Sullanae dominationi et Gracchorum largitioni restitisset. This is not the place to discuss at length the difficulties caused by the Gracchan cippi from S. Angelo in Formis (the temple of Diana Tifatina) or nearby, and from Arienzo, Suessula; or by the evidence for Sullan colonisation in Campania. Suffice it to say that the first cippus comes from the very edge of the Ager Campanus, the second perhaps from outside it; and, like all the other cippi, they may represent adjudication without settlement, see on 1. 7; and that the evidence for Sullan colonisation is tenuous in the extreme, see A. Krawczuk, Kolonizacja Sullariska (Wroclaw and Krakow, 1960), 58-60, 70. (Alleged Gracchan centuriation grids in Campania are unsure and undated. We do not accept the argument, which goes back to G. Bloch & J. Carcopino, that Ti. Gracchus planned to redistribute the Ager Campanus, but that his brother deliberately excluded it from his own statute, because he planned to found a colony there (Plutarch, C.Gr. 8, 3; de vir.ill. 65, 3): see Hinrichs, 255 n. 5.) The form of the exception clause in any case suggests that the original legislation of Ti. Gracchus also began with a reference to the ager publicus populi Romani - the propaganda effect is obvious - and then proceeded to a series of exclusions. The exception clause referred to here is that of C. Gracchus; and the implication is that he produced a different - perhaps longer - series which superseded that of Ti. Gracchus. The effect will have been to exclude a whole range of categories: ager censorius and quaestorius (Burdese, 92-3), including the Ager Campanus (Johannsen, 187-200), ager compascuus, land ceded to colonies and municipia (Lintott, ad loc), ager in trientabulis, mountain pasture (Burdese, I.e.), perhaps land ceded to Latins and Italians (Hinrichs, 254-8, implausibly limiting the exception to these categories), etc., etc. (The claim of J. Granet, Pallas 36, 1990, 141-54, 'La loi agraire et l'elevage', that after 111 BC ager publicus was 'entierement livre au grand elevage transhumant', is unfounded.)

ROMAN STATUTES

158

In the case of the uiasiei or uicanei of 11. 11-13, there is no need for a general exception clause, since land is not being distributed among them in any normal sense, see below. The exception does not occur in 11. 15, 16, 29 and 33, which relate to jurisdiction and rights on the land, not to the status of the land; contra Hinrichs, 257 n. 12, it may well be restored in 11. 20-3. 11. 2-3 See above. In 1. 3, quod seems in both cases to be a neuter relative referring generically to ager locus, see the General Introduction, Ch. XII: there is no need to emend to quei with Johannsen, 217 n. 123. 11. 3-4 I. 4

See above.

See above.

II. 5-6 See above. The suggestion of Lintott, that 'cities, towns and villages might be in part or whole comprised within the 'ager publicus populi Romani', goes beyond the evidence. This only supports the notion, in any case plausible, that there might be pieces of ager locus publicus populi Romani in towns. 11. 6-7 See above. This may be the first occasion that the assignment of buildings is mentioned in the statute. Johannsen postulated a resumptive clause which extended the previous definitions by the inclusion of buildings. However, it is possible that, whereas the previous clause dealt with land without buildings in towns, this was concerned with built-up areas in towns. I. 7 reliquit: see above. inue forrnas tabulasue: cf. 11. 78 and 80; and for maps and records of land holdings, Dilke, Land Surveyors, ch. 8; Siculus Flaccus, 154 L = 118 Thulin; and for an Imperial example, P. Saez Fernandez, Habis 21, 1990, 205-27; 22, 1991, 437, 'Estudios sobre una inscripcion catastral colimante con Lacimurga'. Note that a Illvir may apparently sometimes simply record grants made by others, see also the bibliography cited above on Campania. II. 7-11 It is certain that the statute is declaring the various categories of land listed previously to be private, as editors since Rudorff have realised, because in 1. 8 we find ita, utei ceterorum locorum agrorum aedificiorum priuatorum est, esto\ a different procedure in 11. 13-14 also makes up to 30 iugera of public land private; 11. 19-20 presumably refer back to both provisions; 1. 19 also suggests that there had been other legislation which made public land private. Compare 11. 15-16 and 11. 16-17 for the contrast between land whose possession would only be endorsed for the assignee or his heir and land whose possession would also be endorsed for a purchaser. Kaser argued that, of the categories of land listed in 11. 1-7, some were public,and some were private before the passage of this statute (Typen', 9-14); that land could be either public or private, but not hybrid; and that private land might be subject to limitations in public law (such as the payment of a tax or a ban on alienation). The search for system under-emphasises the oddity of private land which could not be sold. For the land of possessors, see above. The supplement [emptio uenditi]o in 1. 8 seems pointless, since it would follow anyway from the land's being private. Contra Lintott, there is no objection to possessio, a central concept of the Roman private law, without a definition of who was to have it; the following lines return again and again to its defence, probably 1. 9, certainly 1. 10 (twice), 11. 15-16,11. 16-17,1. 18. Hinrichs' suggestion is also possible.

2 - LEX AGRARIA

159

The likelihood that land is to be registered with the censor implies that 11. 1-10 deal with land held by Roman citizens; but it is not certain that they deal only with land held by Roman citizens. For it is a habit of these texts to assume the general qualification, 'where appropriate', see the General Introduction, Ch. XII. I. 8 As for the central lacuna, it is uncertain whether the land, whose registration in the census the statute here requires, had been declared private by this statute or by any statute or by either. Hinrichs and Johannsen cite 11. 19-20 in support of the third possibility, but it seems more likely that 11. 7-9 deal rather (and only) with the land declared private just before, in contrast to the more general purport of 11. 19-20. Lintott's in censum dedicetur is inappropriate, since dedicare is used where the action is seen from the point of view of the citizen, not the censor. II. 8-9 Rudorff restored a reference to the censor demanding tributum, which is not mentioned elsewhere in the Italian section of the statute and, although Roman citizens were in theory still liable, was not currentiy being exacted. Note that... deque eo agro ... in our text is the result of our acceptance of the gist of Mommsen's supplement. (Hinrichs, 267-8, restored a reference to security of possession, which anticipates what follows in 11. 9-10 and therefore seems redundant.) I. 9 Note that there appears to be a fairly major break in sense without a vacat, compare II. 24, 25. For the traditional supplement in the central lacuna see 1. 11. For ager locus aedificium possession compare Cicero, de leg.ag. m, 7: agri, aedificia, lacus, stagna, loca, possessiones; for utifrui habere possidere, compare the Lex Antonia, Law 19, Col. I, 11. 17-18. The formula covers ownership or possession, in the latter case of public or private land, see Kaser,Typen\ 22-5. Hinrichs and Johannsen inserted a reference to legislation in the gap between the B and A fragments; it is very doubtful if that is appropriate. I. 10 For the beginning, compare the Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae, Law 7, 1. 2. Our supplement in the middle of the line omits oetatur fruatur. compare 1. 92. Mommsen's supplement for 11. 10-11 only requires one to understand ei\ Lintott's is too literary. II. 11-13 Mommsen's view that the land of the uiasiei or uicanei remained public still seems to be fundamentally correct. It is hard to see why, if any such land was private, it was not included in 11. 1-10. Furthermore, 11. 12-13 as plausibly restored contain a ban on certain land given to the uiasiei or uicanei becoming private. Against this Hinrichs, 268-70, and Johannsen, 237, argued that the land of the uiasiei or uicani in 11. 11-12 is private because the draftsman in excluding its past alienation apparently envisaged that it might have been alienated. But both here and in 11. 15-16, 16-18, 20-3, q.v., the habits of Roman draftsmen make it more plausible to suppose that what has happened is that the legislator has taken over in its totality the description of a certain category of land from the original legislation referring to it; and that in both cases the category of land was in that legislation inalienable and therefore not private. In our view, if a uiasius or uicanus had alienated his holding, it would have been illegal. (Johannsen's argument, that the legislator is awarding different statuses to land assigned by the commission to uiasiei or uicanei and to land held by them now and in the future on the senate's authority, is insecure for reasons which will become apparent.) Note that land of uiasiei or uicani seems not to pass to heirs, since there is no reference in 1. 11 to an heir not alienating, at the point at which there is a reference to the assignee not alienating. (Mommsen (1905), 106-7, did not explain why he thought the land could pass to heirs and be sold.)

160

ROMAN STATUTES

Not enough survives of the two clauses to determine whether they contain different regulations for two kinds of uiasiei or uicanei or successive regulations for one kind. It has been normal to suppose the former, but in our current state of ignorance we cannot exclude a supplement in 1. 11 such as [...magistratus proue magistratu ex s.c. uiasiei]s uicaneis. No other source mentions the uiasiei or uicanei (the refusal of Th. Pekary, Untersuchungen zu den romischen Reichsstrassen (Bonn, 1968), 117-19, to restore [ui]asieis in 1. 12 is perverse, since there is no other remotely possible Latin word): they have normally been regarded as one entity, 'villagers by the roads', who possessed land on condition that they maintained them. (It is not clear that the provision of wood and salt to Maecenas, Vergil and Horace at the Pons Campanus, Horace, Sat. I, 5, 45-6, results from a legal obligation on the providers.) The problem is that our numerous sources, from the Twelve Tables onwards, Law 40, Tabula VII, 6-7, otherwise talk of the obligation to maintain roads falling on adjacent possessors or owners. The obligation on aediles in the Lex Flavia, Ch. 19, among their other duties to oversee uias uicos might suggest that what we have here are 'road-people, lane-people', in open country and urban areas on ager publicus. Their duties were presumably to match the obligations of proprietors fronting on roads. (The similarity between the proposed lex uiaria of Curio and the rogatio agraria of Rullus (Caelius, in Cicero, adfam. VHI, 6 = 88 SB, 5), presumably lies in the sweeping powers intended for their authors, rather than in any link between the specific proposals of the two measures.) 11. 11-12 The two exclusions, extra ... [extra], at the end of the clause, falling after a reference to an avoidance of alienation by someone, are mysterious; certainly quei ager ... exceptum cauitumue est nei divideretur would be very curious here. And quei ex h.l. uenire dari reddiue oportebit has no obvious explanation. (The formula in 11. 32-3 probably relates to 11. 31-2; and Mommsen's suggestion, (1905), 104, that these lines have something to do with a supposed reference to Sipontum in 1. 43, is desperate.) The future sale or leasing of public land in Italy cannot be discerned elsewhere in what survives of the Italian part of the statute, though we hear of contracts for exploitation pro patrito in 11. 27-8, something which perhaps might have been described as uenire, 'to be leased out'. 11. 12-13 It has been common ground since Mommsen that there was a formula excluding registration by the censors here, compare 1. 8; and he, Hinrichs and Lintott offer a variety of additional formulae. But it is hard to suppose that any Roman could ever have written what any of them proposes. It is better to suppose a ban on changing the way in which the rights granted in 11. 11-12 operate: quoue mag[is eius agri locei aedificiei, quei —, usus fructus possessio ?aliter? atque u]tei*est siet For the grammatical structure, compare Cato, agr. CDC, 100, ... amurca ita uti est cruda prius colluito ...; _ 11. 13-14 Johannsen argued, 241, that all the categories of land in the countryside already listed and declared private must have been excluded from possession and conversion into private property under the provisions of this clause. But there is no ground for restoring the special category of the land of the uiasiei and uicanei, since this was not declared private (see on 11. 11-13) and might revert to general public use.

2 - LEX AGRARIA

161

Indeed, given the length of the gap between the B and A fragments, the first specific category to be mentioned will be that of the uetus possessor. We have seen that these are probably not men who happened to have possessed public land for a long time, but those whose possession had been in some way officially endorsed; the gap between 11. 13 and 14 is therefore not to be restored by inserting the' formulae of 11. 1-2. Thereafter, the run of the text requires a perfectly general formula, presumably including everything in 11. 2-7. Perhaps: [— e]xtraque eum agrum quern uetus possesor ex lege plebeiue [scito exue hac lege (from ???) ?accepit? extraque eum agrum quern ITEuir a.d.a. dedit adsignauit Although the detail of the latter part of the supplement proposed by Rudorff is open to question, its general sense must be correct: contrast 11. 14-15 and compare the Sententia Minuciorum (CIL I 2 584 = ILLRP 517, 11. 30-1, dum ne alium intromitat ... colendi causa). Mommsen's turn cum ... rogabitur is impossible in the text of a statute after the rogatio has been passed. His view that this clause related to possession between 133 and 111 BC, in a restricted form imposed by Ti. Gracchus, was a consequence of his belief that the possession of public land after this statute was forbidden in 11. 24-5. But that clause is too fragmentary for such an inference. One would, however, expect some chronological point of reference here, presumably post hanc legem rogatam in view of the futures of possidebit habebitue. If this is correct, it will follow that the statute assumed that there still existed vacant public land suitable for agriculture. Some of this may well have been public land still possessed in excess of the legal limit. There is no way of knowing whether the right granted in this clause was limited to Roman citizens; or whether the limit of 30 iugera bore any relation to the amount of land assigned by the Gracchan commissioners. 11. 14-15 The essential feature of ager compascuus is that it is land which a specific group owns or has rights over, whether a community, as in the Sententia Minuciorum (CIL I 2 584 = ILLRP 517, 11. 32-5) or a group of individuals, as in Dig. Vffl, 5, 20, 1 (Scaevola), or the Agrimensores (see M. Voigt, Abh.Sdchs.Ges.Wiss. 23, Phil.-hist.CI. 10, 1887, 221-72, 'Uber die staatsrechtliche Possessio und den Ager compascuus der romischen Republik'; K.F. Thormann, ZSS 71, 1954, 71-110, 'De hire compascendi'; TLL, s.v.). It is indeed striking that in 11. 24-5 ager compascuus is mentioned in the same breath as possessed land. The contrast is with public pasture land of the Roman people. Huschke (590, following Rudorff, cf. Mommsen (1905), 107-8) held that ager compascuus here is pasture assigned to a specified number of neighbours by a Roman official; and it seems an inevitable consequence of the likely supplement in the lacuna in 11. 14-15 that it was ultimately the Roman state which collected the revenue on the ager compascuus which is here at issue. (Huschke went on to invent a supplement to assimilate rights over this to those over private ager compascuus.) It may be that the beginning of the lacuna should be restored: postea qua[m ea vac (1. 15) uectigalia constiterint ...] (compare 11. 19-20). There is a variety of possible supplements for the later part of the lacuna; note that the immediate recipient of the revenue may have been defined as in 11. 24-5, q.v., queiquomque id compascuom fruendum redemptum conductumue habebit, or as in 11. 19-20.

162

ROMAN STATUTES

It may be that one should follow Rudorff and restore 50 as the limit for small animals, in the light of the ratio of 100 to 500 between large and small animals in the lex de modo agrorum of Appian, BC I, 33. 11. 15-18 Two clauses, separated by a vacat of at least two letters in 1. 16, of which enough survives for us to be sure that they are in some measure parallel, followed by a third clause in 11. 16-17, provide for a special procedure for judicial confirmation, within less than a year, of land assignations: compare 11. 23-4. The procedure is not certainly, as in 11. 33-6, set in motion by a dispute: Mommsen envisaged an obligation on everyone whose position had been affected by the statute to declare it and receive what would be in effect an administrative confirmation of it. But Serrao's arguments that the procedure would in fact have been set in motion by a dispute are powerful; the procedure would on this view be a particularly convenient one. Note that it is the magistrate who acts utei possesionem ... det, who awards possession, and that this is not done either by the statute or by a index. (See also 1. 70 for the Ides of March following new tax regulations: the Ides of March were the beginning of the censorial financial year, Mommsen, St. n, 347 = DP IV, 20-1. To allow a reasonable time for knowledge of the statute to circulate, we must assume that the date was chosen at some distance in the future. Hence it is unlikely that our statute was passed before 15 March in the year 111 BC. The time-limit in question here is, therefore, 15 March 110 BC.) Enough also survives for us to be reasonably sure that the clauses pick up the categories of 11. 1-7. Two principles should be applied in restoration: unless there are good reasons, all the categories of 11. 1-7 should appear; and there must have been a difference in practice in order to justify the existence of more than one clause (see Fig. VI). To take the second principle first. In the text as preserved, reference to sale only occurs in 11. 16-18 and is not to be restored in 11. 15-16, so rightly Lintott against Mommsen. It is furthermore apparent that 1. 16 in the first clause protects only the assignee and his heir and subsequent heirs, who appear also as a privileged group in the list in 1. 23. Not only is there no reason to restore a reference to a buyer, there is no reason to restore a reference to the other forms of transfer which occur in 1. 23, contra Mommsen and Lintott. (There is no need to restore a reference to a heres in the lacuna in 1. 15, since he only becomes relevant when his avoidance of alienation and his protection are at issue.) But in the text as preserved also, the exclusion of whatever land has been or shall have been alienated only occurs in the first clause and there is no reason to restore it in 11. 16-18. It is certain in the second and third clauses that we have two categories of land and that the text continues after the lacuna in 11. 16-17 with a category of persons and whoever has bought from them. To insert into the lacuna an exclusion of whatever land has been or shall have been alienated is misguided. To turn to the first principle. The persons protected begin with the ciuis Romanus of 11. 2 - 3 ; it follows that no special procedure is provided for the possessores of 11. 1-2, any more than it is for those of 11. 13-14. And that is perfectly intelligible. Hinrichs and Johannsen inserted in 11. 1-2 a clause referring to assignation by a fflvir a.d.a. as a necessary condition for eligibility of land possessed in the past; but it would not bring the men concerned into the category described in 11. 15-16, because of the word sortito. There is in fact no room in 11. 15-16 for any other category than the ciuis Romanus of 11. 2 - 3 ; the exclusion of whatever land has been or shall have been alienated then figures here because this clause repeats a clause in the original legislation for the land which is

2 - LEX AGRARIA

163

mentioned in 11. 2-3. It may be that we should restore here ita utei s.s.e. to refer back to the details of 11. 2-3. For the relationship of this clause to the legislation of Appian BC I, 121-5, see the Introduction. For inalienability of land in later Roman legislation, see Cicero, de leg.ag. II, 78; Appian, BCTR, 5; in the Greek world, D. Asheri, Distribuzioni di terre nelVantica Grecia (Turin, 1966), 16-21; 68-9; and, e.g., IG V, 2, 344 = Staatsvertrage m, 499 (Orchomenos); Miletl, 3, p. 177, no. 33 e. As far as 11. 16-18 are concerned, there is no reason to exclude any of the categories of 11. 3-7: reddidit picks up [re]dditus est\ we should then suppose something like: quodque eius agri III[uir a.d.a. dedit adsignauit ita utei s.s.e., quei accepit heresue eius, quoiue ab eo — obuenit heresue eiu]s, queiue ... emit: the perfect tenses would serve to exclude sales between legislation and jurisdiction. 11. 15-16 The end of the clause in 11. 15-16, like the end of the succeeding clause, will presumably have contained a reference to the original act which created the category or categories in question. 1. 15 To take quoi with Mommsen as a deferred relative pronoun, 'to whatever Roman citizen', is difficult given the position of sortito. Our text is just possible; but it is also possible that quod has dropped out of the text before eius agri, rather than having stood in the lacuna, agerpublicus ... quei = quei agerpublicus. For Italia without terra, compare 1. 29. I. 16 fuerit is interesting here and, presumably, in 1. 17: it perhaps does no more than describe what will have happened at the moment of the decision, without implying that distribution of land will continue after the passage of the statute. There is no need, with Mommsen, comparing 1. 16, to restore adsignatusue {redditusue fuerit) in 1. 17: our text does not always use groups of verbs consistently and systematically; and -ue twice would be surprising. For decernere, compare the Lex de Gallia Cisalpina, Law 28, Col. I, 1. 2; Col. II, 11. 11-12; for [quodque eius agri . . . ] , compare the end of the line. In both cases the reference will be to the type at the beginning of the preserved portion of 1. 15, not to the species dealt with in 11. 15-16 as a whole: it is readily intelligible that in rules relating to jurisdiction the categories of land involved should be described in a more summary fashion than in 11. 1-7. II. 16-18 Lemosse observes that since these lines talk in terms of possessio, not ownership, they are in principle applicable to Latins and allies; but since they provide for jurisdiction in relation to the rules in 11. 3-7, the point is irrelevant, for the land in 11. 3-7 is probably to be registered in the census, 11. 7-11; it is therefore of citizens only. proue uetere: see above. The uiasiei or uicanei cannot have appeared in this clause, either in 1. 16 or in 17, if their land remained public, contra Johannsen, see on 11. 11-13. The end of the clause in 11. 16-18, like the end of the preceding clause, will presumably have contained a reference to the original act which created the category or categories in question. A reference to a buyer of the land in question (Rudorff, followed by Lintott in apparatus and commentary) is not therefore to be expected. We may hypothesise something like: a [Hluiro a.d.a. eum agrum ita utei s.s.e. accepit — ] . (Hinrichs' supplement is excluded if we accept that this line contained a phrase which picked up quodque eius agri III[uir a.d.a. —] in 1. 16.)

164

ROMAN STATUTES

11. 18-19 This clause deals with the special case where possession had been disturbed by violence. Contra Johannsen (248-9), who confuses the statutory remedy provided here with the remedy provided by a praetorian interdict, there is no reason to confine the clause to possessors, excluding owners, who would have been covered as being also possessors. The clause provides a remedy similar to that provided by the interdict unde ui, for which see Kaser, ZPR, 320-2; RPR I, 399; Frier, Jurists, 53-5, 178-9. (There is no reason to suppose with Lintott that the interdict uti possidetis is earlier than the interdict unde ui or that our statute played a part in the evolution of the latter.) With the language of our text compare Cicero, de leg.ag. IE, 11. Both occurrences of possederit are in the subjunctive. For precario, see A. Steinwenter, REXXH, 2 (1954), 1814-27, 'Precarium': the essential aspect of possession precario is its revocability. For Italia alone, compare 1. 15. 11. 19-20 Mommsen correctly restored this clause on the basis that it forbade thenceforward uectigal or scriptura on public land made private by this or other statutes. (Saumagne's contrary argument is demolished by Levi (1929), observing in particular that the presence of a terminus post quern in these lines indicates that some change was to be made regarding taxation; Zancan, 60-2, 78-9, doubts Levi's arguments, but returns like him to the essentials of Mommsen's position.) Lintott argued that 11. 19-20 are too repetitive to form a single clause and printed a supplement making the second half of the clause confer exemption from taxation on the uiasii and uicani. But 11. 19-20 make perfect sense as a single clause (compare the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24,11. 89-107). 1. 19 The final -to of scito makes it clear that the reference is to any other statute and this statute, not to the statute of C. Gracchus and this statute, contra Zancan, 69-70: contrast the formula in 1. 1, etc. Immediately before, the text may have read quod eius agri loci aedificii... In the case of public land made private by other statutes, this statute may simply have endorsed an exemption from uectigal conferred by them: it does not follow, contra Kaser, 'Typen', 15, that uectigal had ever been levied on private land in Italy. I. 20 For ob, compare 1. 92. neiue quis quid ... debeat is problematic: Saumagne, followed by Lintott, argued that the subjunctive must depend on an anterior imperative + quo; we hold rather that it is a case of a subjunctive of the rogatio which the draftsman has forgotten to convert into the imperative of the lex: see the General Introduction, Ch! EX. Note that the choice of tenses in the clause as a whole is erratic. II. 20-3 ager ... quel = quel ager ... For locatio ex s.c, by consuls, praetors, aediles or quaestors, see Mommsen, St. II, 426-7 = DP IV, 126-9. The phrase must form part of an exception clause, since land rented out could obviously not be given in exchange to ueteres possessores. The clause as a whole is presumably separate from the provisions in 11. 3-4 and 16-17 because it relates to land given in exchange for land surrendered specifically for a colony or other urban settlement, in a context which is wholly unknown to us; and because Latins and allies are also here beneficiaries, presumably by virtue of the importance attached by Rome to colonies. The verb governing quern agrum [locum]ue in 1. 22 will have appeared in 1. 23. We cannot know what else stood in the lacuna in 11. 22-3, but if a list of persons is to be restored, it is a mistake to follow Lintott in restoring only Romans and Latins.

2 - LEX AGRARIA

165

The location of the Curio, presumably a river, is unknown; since the statute as a whole in this section deals with Italian land, it perhaps indicates land beyond the boundary of Italy. Compare 1. 50; Mommsen, St. m, 673-4 = DP VI, 2, 301-3; for Italians as togati, see Sallust, BJ 21, 2 and 26, 1. For constituere, see the Lex Iulia agraria, Law 54, Ch. HI. For Italia alone in 1. 22, compare 1. 15. For the repetition at the end of a clause of the description of the basic category to which it relates, compare 11. 11-13. 11. 23-4 The clause deals with jurisdiction in relation to the landfiguringin 11. 20-3; for a break in sense without a vacat, see on 1. 9. Here, as perhaps in 11. 15-18 and certainly in 11. 33-4, jurisdiction falls only to a consul or praetor; we cannot be certain whether jurisdiction was ex hac lege and limited in duration, as in Mommsen's and Lintott's supplements, compare 11. 15-16 and 16-18; or general and unlimited. But the former is more probable. For although the preceding clause involves a grant of private status to land of the appropriate category held by a man or his heres or anyone to whom it had passed testamento hereditati deditioniue or anyone who had bought it, this clause only secures possession to a man or his heres. It was evidently assumed that derivative claims had to be made according to normal procedure. This procedure was presumably therefore special. It is in fact probably easiest to suppose that in the lacuna between 11. 23 and 24 there stood the whole formula from 11. 15-16 and 16-18: quel [eorum ... oportebit, is de ea re ...], 11 letters in 1. 23 and 131 letters in 1. 24. The latter part of our clause will then assume that the magistrate with jurisdiction is a consul or praetor. For the procedure, see on 11. 15-18. 11. 24-5 Despite TLL, there is no evidence in use that compose ere ever had the narrow meaning 'to take part in the exploitation of ager compascuus' (for which see on 11. 14-15) rather than simply 'to pasture', as clearly in Varro, RR I, 53, 1; II, pr. 5. There is therefore no problem about a sentence which runs 'nor is that land to be compascuus ... to the effect that it may not be lawful for whoever may wish to pasture ...'. Problems remain. In the first place, there seems no obvious way of deciding whether the category of land dealt with in this clause is all Roman public land or just the public land of 11. 20-3, though the apparently general nature of the two clauses in 11. 25-6 may favour the former view. In the second place, it is on either hypothesis unclear what the relationship might be between the exception or exceptions which begin at the end of 1. 24 and the sequence of negative imperatives in 1. 25: no supplement so far proposed makes very good sense in combination with these negatives and it is better to accept ignorance. It is in any case unsafe to argue with Mommsen (1905), 103-4, that this clause excludes future possession of public land. Quite apart from the fact that the circumstances in which this was possible may have formed the exceptions in 11. 24-5, it is evident that oqupatum haheto is limited in meaning and effect. The prohibition has nothing whatever to do with a generalised possession of ager publicus\ the prohibition is that no-one may have land fenced off or may enclose it, to the effect that etc., etc.: compare the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24,11. 71-2. (CI. Moatti, Cahiers du Centre G. Glotz 3, 1992, 57-73, 'Etude sur l'occupation des terres publiques a la fin de la Republique Romaine', has not understood the text.) For defenders compare the Sententia Minuciorum, CIL I 2 584 = ILLRP 517, 1. 41; Varro, RR I, 30, 1: it seems to be a technical term in the context of enclosing pastures, a fact which serves to link the two prohibitions.

166

ROMAN STATUTES

In the lacuna in 1. 25 there may have stood something along the lines of qu[inquaginta (or qu[ingentos) HS niummos) populo dare debeto tantundemque dar]e: compare the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Ch. LXXXII. 11. 25-6 This clause grants to pasturers, probably on ager publicus as opposed to ager compascuus, the same immunity from uectigal or scriptura on small numbers of animals as was conferred for ager compascuus in 11. 14-15. For calles and transhumance, see M. Pasquinucci, in E. Gabba and M. Pasquinucci, Strutture agrarie e allevamento transumante nell'Italia romana (Pisa, 1979), 75-182. Johannsen, 266-7, observes that there is in our text no reference to the overall limit on the number of animals that could be pastured on public land under the lex de modo agrorum of Appian, BC I, 33; but it does not follow that the limit had been or was being abolished. 11. 27-8 This clause deals with the acquisition of public, in exchange for private, land, in contrast to 11. 3-4 (perhaps) and 20-3, which deal with exchange of possession within public land. Since both occurrences of the word commutauit have the same subject, quis mag. is perhaps preferable to either the populus of Mommsen or the Illuir of Lintott: of course the state or its representative was necessarily one party. It is hard to define optima lege, 'with the fullest rights'. Kaser, 'Typen', 25-6; RPR I, 405, was on uncertain ground in contrasting such land with the ager priuatus uectigalisque of 11. 49 and 66, since this is only attested in the provinces. Cicero, de leg.ag. EH, 7-9, underneath the exaggeration and irony, shows that land which was private optimo iure might for instance in private law be free of servitudes, not pledged as security, and free of any payment for water rights: see the lucid account by B. Kubler, RE XVm, 1 (1930), 798-804, 'Optimo iure'. In public law, such land might be free of tax. There is no call in 1. 27 to emend quoi to quei: the subject of priuatus est is an understood 'it'. 1. 28 patritum seems to be a hereditary contract, 'Erbpacht' (Liebenam, Stddteverwaltung, 315, with bibliography; Piganiol, 340-1; L. Bove, Ricerche sugli 'agri vectigales' (Naples, 1960), 65-70; Hinrichs, 301-7 (fundamental)); for the rent of public land, compare CIL IV Supp., 3340, pp. 382-3, Tab. 138 = Bruns 157, pp. 360-1 = FIRA HI, 131a, a receipt on behalf of the colony of Pompeii for 776 sestertii outstanding ob auitum [et] patritum fundi Audiani (see J. Andreau, Les affaires de Monsieur Jucundus (Rome, 1974), 62-7); Gaius m , 145; and the inscription from Ferentinum discussed by H. Solin, in Supplementa Italica I (Rome, 1981), no. 5. Now if not earlier it evidently carries with it the right to the same rent in perpetuity. Our supplement adapts that of Hinrichs; that of Johannsen attempts to avoid the anacoluthon of an ablative absolute, censoribus ..., followed by ei for these very censors; but consuls or praetors acting for censors would be a constitutional oddity; and there are worse anacolutha in our texts. Observe that our text provides no evidence for an entity known as ager patritus. (Lintott, 231-2, collects evidence for similar leases with similar terminology in the Hellenistic world, but thinks that there is not only ager patritus, but even also ager pro patrito.) p.p. is surely for pp., an idiosyncratic, but intelligible, abbreviation for the plural of praedium, so already Chacon: compare the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Ch. XCV, 1. 35. Compare also 11. 46, 73, 74, 83-4, 100 below; ILLRP 518 (Puteoli), I, 7; m, 14-15; Cicero, de leg.ag. HI, 9; Flac. 80 with Schol.Bob. 106 St; the Lex de prouinciis praetoriis, Law 12, Cnidos Copy, Column IV, 11. 35-6; the Lex Tarentina, Law 15, 1. 9; the Uffizi Fragment, Law 33; the Lex Flavia, chs. 63-5; A. Biscardi, in Studi C. Sanfilippo IV

2 - LEX AGRARIA

167

(Milan, 1983), 135-50, 'Subsignatio praediorunV; La dottrina romana comparing Livy XXXVI, 36, 2, inconsulto senatu, or incons[ultu], comparing Plautus, Trin. 167, inconsultu meo, are hardly possible; despite the absence of interpunct, in cons[ilio] or in consilium] seems preferable (see the General Introduction, Ch.XXI). 1. 6 Perhaps [a]lterum [tantum]. MHC

5 - FLORENCE FRAGMENT A BIBLIOGRAPHY G. Lami, Novelle letterarie fiorent. 18, 1757, 778-81, from the notes accompanying a letter of L.A. Paolozzi from Radicofani of 12 November 1757 (Florence, Bibl.Riccardiana, MS 3745, ff. 180-1); G.L. Marini, Gli atti e monumenti de' fratelli arvali I (Rome, 1795), 32 with n. 44 (pp. 39-40), from a text supplied by L. Lanzi, explicitly publishing the side not published by Maffei (Florence Fragment B: Florence, Bibl.Laurenziana, MS Ashburnham 1756 = 1835, Envelope 6, f. 105, shows that Maffei also had an (imperfect) copy of Florence Fragment A, although he did not publish it); C.A.C. Klenze, Fragmenta legis Serviliae Repetundarum (Berlin, 1825), iv; A.F. Rudorff, Abh.Akad.Wiss.Berlin, phil.-hist.KL, 1861, 411-553, 'Ad Legem Aciliam de pecuniis repetundis', at 534-5; CIL I 1 (1863), 207; CIL XI, 1 (1888), 2090; CIL I 2 (1918), 595; H.B. Mattingly, Hermes 107, 1979, 478-88, The character of the Lex Acilia Glabrionis', at 479 (guessing that our text is identical with the Lex repetundarum, Law 1, and is that of the Lex Servilia Glauciae); CIL I 2 (1986), p. 917. Facsimile: Ritschl, m, B. Photograph: PI. II. Fragment of a bronze tablet, broken on all sides, 0.085 m high x 0.075 m wide x 0.002 m thick, letters 0.003-0.004 m, first attested in 1749 in the collection of P. Bucelli at Montepulciano in the territory of Clusium, later in the Museo Mediceo = Galleria Nazionale degli Uffizi, now in the Museo Nazionale del Bargello, Inv. 1515 =M10, seen by MJI. Crawford. Florence Fragment B on the other side is laid out on the same alignment as this text. INTRODUCTION The text perhaps begins with a reference to the declaration of a vote; 11. 2-3 are not informative; 11. 4-5 appear to refer to extortion or to benefiting from extortion; 1. 6 refers to depositions of witnesses; 11. 7-8 appear to refer to a condemnation; the outcome of a successful prosecution may occupy 11. 9-11; 11. 12 and 14 perhaps recall the end of the Lex repetundarum, Law 1, though it is in the highest degree unlikely that the two texts are the same. For the date, see the General Introduction, Ch. EI. TEXT

4

[— p]ronontiato[ —] [— quae supra jscripta sunt an[—] [—] eorum quosue is m[—] [— p]equniam ceperit cap[iet —]

185

186

8

12

ROMAN STATUTES — Jceperit quoiue eius qu[—] —]a erit literaiue testium[ —] — ejxemptus erit quei ab eo[ —] — damn]as esto eiusque pequniafe — ] —] quam ex h(ac) l(ege) sibei deica[t darei oportere —] —] facito utei is earn pequ[niam —] — ut]ei ex h(ac) l(ege) oportebit, quod +[—] —] pr(???) h(ac) l(ege) agetur non sit + [ - - ] —]t eum unde petetur e[—] — p]etiuerit condemnetu[r —] — i]n iudiciu[m —]

APPARATUS CRITICUS 3 is p[—], CIL I 1 , hesitantly; is N [ - - ] , CIL I 2 , XI

4 Of the last letter, an upright hasta is visible, rather than the base of a B, D, E or L 7 [— SEI QVIS EX EIS E]XEMPTVS, CIL I

11 The last letter seems to be a c, G, o or Q, rather than an E, as Rudorff, or an L 12 The last letter seems to be a c, G, o or Q, rather than an A or an M 13 [— E]T, CIL I, XI

COMMENTARY 1. 1 The word is only attested in comparable documents for a declaration in a trial or election, in the Lex repetundanim, Law 1, 11. 4 2 - 5 5 ; the Lex agraria, Law 2, 1. 39; the Lex Valeria Aurelia, Law 37, Tabula Hebana, 1. 24; the Lex Flavia, Ch. 57; see also the Florence Fragment B, Law 6,11. 6 - 7 . 1. 2

Perhaps an [tequam].

1. 3

Perhaps m[agistratus\.

1. 5 Perhaps [quei pequniam] ceperit quoiue eius qu[id peruenerit]: see on the Lex Iulia de pecuniis repetundis, Law 55. 1. 6

For depositions of witnesses, see the Lex repetundanim, Law 1,11. 3 3 - 5 .

1. 7 Perhaps [nisei qui ... e]xemptus ...; for defendants being exempti, see the Lex repetundanim, Law 1, 1. 5; but note that there and in the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Ch. XCI, 1. 6, it is a nomen which is exemptum. The terminology for the exemption of witnesses seems to be different, Dig. XXII, 5, 4 (Paul) and 5 (Gaius). 1. 8 Perhaps a reference to an action for the benefit of the populus, for which see the General Introduction, Ch. XIV. 1. 9

For dare oportere, see on the Nicotera Fragment B, Law 4,1. 3.

1. 12 Perhaps something along the lines of [... quodue actum apud quern] piiaetorem) h(ac) l(ege) agetur non sit ...: compare the Lex repetundanim, Law 1, 11. 7 2 - 3 = 11. 79-80. 1. 13 Perhaps [— is

quipete]t...

5 - FLORENCE FRAGMENT A

187

1. 14 It is very hard not to make the subjects of the two verbs the same; we perhaps have a reference to a prosecution calumniae or praeuaricationis causa: see on the Lex repetundarum, Law 1,1. 75 = 1. 82; the Tarentum Fragment, Law 8,11. 17-19. MHC

6 - FLORENCE FRAGMENT B BIBLIOGRAPHY F.S. Maffei, Museum Veronense (Verona, 1749), p. 365, no. 4; G. Lami, Novelle letterarie fiorent 18, 1757, 778-81 (see on the Florence Fragment A); C.A.C. Klenze, Fragmenta legis Serviliae Repetundarum (Berlin, 1825), iv; A.F. Rudorff, Abh.Akad.Wiss.Berlin, phil.-hist.Kl., 1861, 411-553, 'Ad Legem Aciliam de pecuniis repetundis', at 485-7; CIL I 1 (1863), 208; CIL XI, 1 (1888), 2090; CIL I 2 (1918), 596; H.B. Mattingly, Hermes 107, 1979, 478-88, 'The character of the Lex Acilia Glabrionis', at 479 (guessing that our text is that of the Lex Cornelia repetundarum); CIL I 2 (1986), p. 917. Facsimile: Ritschl, m, A. Photograph: PI. m . Translations: ROL, 310-15; ARS, 76. Fragment of a bronze tablet, letters 0.003-0.004 m; for its dimensions, history and present disposition, see on the Florence Fragment A, Law 5. Florence Fragment A on the other side is laid out on the same alignment as this text. INTRODUCTION Mommsen in 1863 suggested that the fragment related to the selection by lot of a jury. There is the attractive parallel of Asconius 36 St = 39 C: (The Lex Pompeia iudiciaria of 55 BC) iubebat ut, prius quam causa ageretur, testes per triduum audirentur, dicta eorum iudices consignment, quarta die adesse omnes [in diem posterum] iuberentur ac coram accusatore ac reo pilae, in quibus nomina iudicum inscripta essent, aequarentur; dein rursus postera die sortitio iudicum fieret unius et LXXX: qui numerus cum sorte obtigisset, ipsi protinus sessum irent; turn ad dicendum accusator duas horas, reus tres haberet, resque eodem die illo iudicaretur; prius autem quam sententiae ferrentur, quinos ex singulis ordinibus accusator, totidem reus reiceret, ita ut numerus iudicum relinqueretur, qui sententias ferrent, quinquaginta et unus. But there are also difficulties, revealed by the embarrassment of his commentary on 11. 8-9, 11 and 13. We may in fact rather have an elaborate procedure for the selection by lot of an order for the jurors' votes and the actual votes; the bulk of the text would then be equivalent to the Lex repetundarum, Law 1,11. 49-55. We clearly begin with the preparation of the lots (11. 2-3), the drawing of the lots (11. 4-5), the announcement of the names (1. 6); 1. 7 is obscure, but we may then have the vote of the juror whose lot has been drawn (1. 8), the cancellation of A or C (1. 9), the

189

190

ROMAN STATUTES

application of the procedure to all jurors (11. 10-11), the recording of the result (1. 12). There may then be a reference to neutral votes (1. 13), and perhaps a reference to the destruction or preservation of used pilae (11. 14-15); the last two lines are hopeless. For the date, see the General Introduction, Ch. m .

TEXT [—]is omnis iud[ices —] [—] est easque pilas om[nes —] [— praepare]ntur aequenturqu[e —] [—] v pr(aetor) facito ubei pilae o[mnes —] [—] sorticolis singolis sing[illatim —] [— ib]ei scriptum erit eius nom[en recitato —] [— ex h(ac)] l(ege) pronontiatum erit eu[m —] [—]amque quae in eo tribun[ali —] [— ]aliter ea nei deleto neiu[e —] [— iud]ices omnis item sortiri iu[beto —] [— sentent]iam tolerint, quom omni[—] [—]mat, in earn tabolam qu[—] [— li]terae duae aut nulla au[t —] [— ]e[r]unt, in quibus pileis li[terae —] [— iu]dicis siet, h(ac) l(ege) eas pilas om[nis —] [—]++ +++++++ oportebit tum[ —] [— con] sole p[raetore —]

4

8

12

16

APPARATUS CRTTICUS 1 [— IVDIC]IS OMNIS IVR[ARE IVBETO — ] , Rudorff: the D at the end is clear 2 [—]ESI,C7LI2 3 [— SCRIBA]NTVR, CIL 4 vacat omitted in CIL I 2 ; O[MNES SCRIPTAE AEQVATAEQVE ERVNT — ] , CIL 5 SINC[lLLATIM EDVCTIS — ] , CIL 6

[— QVOIVS IVDICIS NOMEN IBEJI SCRIPTVM ERIT EIVS NOM[EN PRONONTIATO — ] ,

CIL 7 [ QVOIVS NOMEN EX H.]L., R u d o r f f 8 [— T A B O L ] A M Q V E , R u d o r f f 11 OMNl[s IVDICES ADFUERINT — ] , R u d o r f f

14 Li taken as 51 by Klenze; but the L is not that used for the numeral 50 in the period to which this text belongs 17 [—]OIFR[—], CIL I 1 ; [—]OIFP[—], CIL I 2 ; the first letter is c, G or s, the second letter is o, the third letter is i followed by a space or, more probably, L, and the fourth letter is E

6 - FLORENCE FRAGMENT B

191

COMMENTARY I. 2 -esi is deeply unconvincing as the end of a Latin word, which might be suitable here, and est is virtually certain: perhaps [ita utei s.s.] est. II. 2-3 For pilae, balls, as lots in a judicial context, see the passage of Asconius cited above; the Cyrene Edicts, 1,11. 24-5, xoxe OTjKCO^eiocbv TCOV G9aipcbv m i emypacpevTCOv amaiq TOW dvoficVccov; also Propertius IV, 11, 19-20. It is hard to envisage pilae as the subject of [scribd\ntur aequenturqu[e] and the text printed seems preferable. For the equalising of the pilae, see Asconius, I.e.; 56 St = 71 C; the Cyrene Edicts, I.e. For the use of the lot in an electoral context, see the Lex Valeria Aurelia, Law 37, Tabula Hebana, 11. 21-32. The pilae seem to become the sorticolae of 1. 5. 11. 6-7 Compare the Lex repetundarum, Law 1,11. 15, 18 and 38: the restoration of 1. 6 should not be governed by that of 1. 7. For a declaration, unfortunately uncertain in nature, falling between the selection of the jury and the voting, see the Lex repetundarum, 11. 42-3, with the Commentary; and compare the Florence Fragment, Law 5,1. 1. 11. 8-9 Mommsen suggested that 'it was perhaps provided that the names of the jurors written on the balls drawn by lot should not be deleted before the names had been published at the tribunal'; but the appropriate preposition is apud, compare the Lex Flavia, Ch. 86, or ad, as used by Mommsen in his own prose, not in. One needs to think of something which stands on the tribunal and the urn springs to mind: perhaps restore [sitell\amque quae in eo tribun[aliposita erit]. 1. 9 For the process of voting in a trial by the obliteration of one or other of the letters on the tablet, A (= absoluo) or C = (condemno), see the Lex repetundarum, Law 1,1. 51. For delere, see Cicero, Clu. 41: in the parallel passage of the Lex repetundarum, Mommsen, whom we follow, restored inducere; the Lex Flavia, Ch. D, uses perducere. 1. 11 Mommsen referred this line to an unknown exceptio; it seems much more plausible to refer it to the process of voting. Perhaps restore [dum ita sentent]iam ... 1.12 The tabola is perhaps that on which the result of the voting was recorded, compare the Lex Valeria Aurelia, Law 37, Tabula Hebana, 11. 38-40; the Lex Flavia, Ch. 57 (in an electoral context). At the beginning of the line, someone is perhaps instructed to see that someone collects the votes: [—facito utei ??? easpilas omnes sibei su]mat... 1. 13 Mommsen referred this line to names which had been accidentally obliterated from the balls. But it looks much more like a reference to a vote which was an abstention or a spoilt ballot, because A and C had both been left or had both been removed; it is in any case improbable that the text refers to the whole gamut of two letters or one letter or no letter. Perhaps restore: [sorticolae in quibus li]terae duae aut nulla au[t quae legi non poterit], or au[tpartim ablata erit], or perhaps best au[t confusae], for illegible votes, see Plutarch, Cic. 29, 6; Caes. 10, 11: cruyKexuiievoic, xoiq yp&ujiaai. MHC

7 - LEX LATINA TABVLAE BANTINAE BIBLIOGRAPHY The Naples fragments: G.L. Marini, Gli atti e monumenti de' fratelli arvali U (Rome, 1795), 570 (publishing the large fragment); [C.M. Rosini,] Dissertationis isagogicae ad Herculanensium voluminum explanationem pars prima (Naples: Reale Accademia Ercolanese di Archeologia, 1797), PI. VI (publishing all except: the fragment containing beginnings of 11. 4-12; the Avellino fragment; and the Adamesteanu fragment); F.M. Avellino, Bull.Arch.Nap. 4, 1845-6, 27-9, 'Notizie di due novelli frammenti appartenenti alia iscrizione opistografa in bronzo conosciuta sotto il nome di tavola lucana, o bantina'; C.A.C. Klenze, RhMus 2, 1828, 28-49, 'Das altrbmische Gesetz auf der Bantinischen Tafel' = Philologische Abhandlungen (Berlin, 1839), 1-24 (the statute identified with the Lex Acilia repetundarum and dated between the Lex Servilia Glauciae and the Lex Plautia iudiciaria); G. Puchta, RhMus 4, 1830, 387-90 = Kleine civilistische Schriften (Leipzig, 1851), 269-72, 'Ueber den in der bantinischen Tafel angeblich [by Klenze] vorgeschriebenen doppelten Eid'; C.W. Gottling, Funfzehn rbmische Urkunden auf Erz und Stein nach den Originalen neu verglichen und herausgegeben (Halle, 1845), 44-9 (the statute identified with the Lex Plautia iudiciaria); Th. Mommsen, Die unteritalischen Dialekte (Leipzig, 1850), 145-68, at 148-50 (with references to earlier antiquarian literature); A. Kirchhoff, Das Stadtrecht von Bantia (Berlin, 1853), 90-7. CIL I 1 (1863), 197; CIL DC (1883), 416, add. p. 660; M.P. Nilsson, in A. Kock (ed.), Fran Filologiska Foreningen i Lund (Sprakliga Uppsatser 3, Lund, 1906), 223-4, Tn legem Bantinam'; R. Maschke, Zur Theorie and Geschichte der romischen Agrargesetze (Tubingen, 1906) (the statute identified with the Lex Appuleia agraria); J.C. Naber, Verslagen en Mededeelingen Kon.Akad.Wet., AfdLetterkunde (Amsterdam), Vierde reeks, 10, 1908-10 (1911), 104-33, 'Over de Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae' (the statute identified with the Lex repetundarum, Law 1). CIL I 2 (1918), 582; H. Stuart Jones, JRS 16, 1926, 170-2, 'A Roman law concerning piracy' (the statute identified with the Lex Appuleia maiestatis); J. Carcopino, Autour des Gracques (Paris, 1928), 205-10; (Paris, 1967), 212-18 (the statute dated to the period of Saturninus and Glaucia). CIL I 2 (1931), pp. 723 and 739; (1943), p. 832; G. Tibiletti, Ath 41, 1953, 5-100, 'Le leggi de iudiciis repetundarum fino alia Guerra Sociale', at 57-73 (the statute identified with the Lex Servilia Glauciae); E. Schonbauer, RIDAy 3e ser., 2, 1955, 311-63, 'Das Problem der beiden Inschriften von Bantia' (the statute dated to the period of Cinna); E.J. Yarnold, AJP 78, 1957, 163-72, 'The Latin law of Bantia' (the statute identified with the lex lne iniussu populi...')\ CI. Nicolet, L'ordre equestre I (Paris, 1966), 557-8 (the statute identified with the Lex Servilia Glauciae).

193

194

ROMAN STATUTES

The Adamesteanu fragment: D. Adamesteanu & M. Torelli, Arch.Class. 21, 1969, 1-17, 'II nuovo framrnento della Tabula Bantina'. The two groups: H.B. Mattingly, JRS 59, 1969, 129-43, The two Republican laws of the Tabula Bembina'; F.T. Hinrichs, Hermes 98, 1970, 471-502, 'Die lateinische Tafel von Bantia und die "Lex de Piratis'" (the statute identified with the Lex Appuleia agraria); H.B .Mattingly, JRS 60, 1970, 154-68, The extortion law of the Tabula Bembina'; U. Hall, Studi E. Volterra I (Milan, 1969), 199-206, The "Elvir a.d.a." of the "lex Bantina"'; A.W. Lintott, Hermes 106, 1978, 125-38, The quaestiones de sicariis et veneficiis and the Latin lex Bantina' (the statute identified with a lex de sicariis et veneficiis and dated between 129 and 111); J-L. Ferrary, MEFRA 91, 1979, 83-134, 'Recherches sur la legislation de Saturninus et Glaucia. II', at 106-7 (the statute not to be identified with a lex repetundarum). CIL I 2 (1986), pp. 907-8; P.A. Brunt, The Fall of the Roman Republic (Oxford, 1988), 139-43 (resume of problems). Facsimiles (Naples fragments): Klenze; Ritschl, XIX; XCVII, Q. Photographs (Naples fragments): Simulacra, V; Imagines, 279; (Adamesteanu fragment): Adamesteanu & Torelli; D. Adamesteanu, La Basilicata antica (Cava dei Tirreni, 1974), 218; CIL I 2 (1986), tab. 18, fig. 2. Translations: ROL, 294-303; ARS, 59-60. One large and five smaller fragments (the Naples fragments) of a bronze tablet, forming a single piece, now 0.28 m high x 0.37 m wide, 0.003 m thick, letters 0.005-0.007 m, found in 1790 at Oppido Lucano; the large fragment and three of the smaller fragments seem to have gone at once to the Museo Regio in Naples; one small fragment is said to have gone to a dealer in Bari, another small fragment to a certain Major La Rocca; it is not clear whether these are the same as a fragment which later materialised in the Museo Regio, forming the ends of 11. 4-12, and a fragment which was recorded by Avellino before disappearing from view. Of the three small fragments which went at once to the Museo Regio, one was. recorded only by Rosini before disappearing from view (Mommsen (1850); further evidence is recorded in CIL IX for the process whereby the Naples fragments were acquired by the Museo Regio in 1791 and for the negotiations whereby a fragment was acquired by Major La Rocca in 1823). The surviving fragments are now in the Museo Nazionale di Napoli, Inv. 2554, 4045, 4047, 8419, seen by J.S. Richardson and M.H. Crawford. There is a nail-hole at the end of 1. 20. Small fragment (the Adamesteanu fragment), not joining any surviving fragment, 0.12 m high x 0.155 m wide, 0.003-0.005 m thick, letters 0.005-0.006 m, originally filled with white lead, acquired by the Soprintendenza Archeologica di Potenza in 1967, found near Oppido Lucano, now in the Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Venosa (M. Salvatore (ed.), // Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Venosa (Matera, 1991), pp. 138-9), seen by J.S. Richardson and M.H. Crawford. For the nail-hole see below. The Lex Osca Tabulae Bantinae, Law 13, on the other side is laid out on the same alignment as this text; inspection of the Naples fragments makes it clear that if the

7 - LEX LATINA TABVLAE BANTINAE

195

Avellino fragment follows on in 1. 25, seese I quominus, on the Latin side, then it follows on in 1. 30, is tacusi I izic, on the Oscan side (see Fig. VIE). INTRODUCTION The right-hand edge of the large fragment, on the Latin side, is the edge of the whole tablet, but the other three sides are broken. The recently discovered Adamesteanu fragment preserves part of the bottom edge, and it is clear that the Latin text ended in such a way as to leave a margin between the last line of the inscription and the edge of the bronze, in which there is a nail-hole. Given that the restoration of much of the Latin text is reasonably certain, it is possible to calculate that a line normally contained about 110-115 letters, though the list of magistrates in 1. 15 is widely spaced and contained far fewer (see below). The line-length of the Latin text, then, can be estimated fairly accurately and that of the Oscan text is known; if one assumes that the tablet bore the whole width of each of its columns of text and that there was no significant variation in column width within each text, it is possible to calculate that the whole tablet was approximately three times the width of the large fragment, and that the Latin side contained two columns of text, the Oscan side three (Adamesteanu & Torelli, 8-13, against Mommsen (1850), who held that the Latin side contained one column, the Oscan side two). As we have seen, the righthand edge of the large fragment, on the Latin side, is the edge of the whole tablet; the Latin text is also clearly very close to the end of the statute. The Adamesteanu fragment preserves the right-hand edge of a column on the Oscan side and may in theory be assigned to any one of the three columns of the Oscan text; but since it also preserves the last two lines of the Latin text, it can in fact only be placed immediately underneath the large fragment (see Fig. VII). In 1. 10 a letter has been omitted; and in 1. 14 there is a one or two letter gap for no apparent reason. On the Latin side, the vacat at the end of 11. 6, 13 and 22, shows that each chapter begins on a new line. In 1. 14, the equivalent of about 30 normal letters are missing as far as the normal left-hand edge of the text, which would occupy about 13 cm; cos pr aid tr pi q Illuir cap, with the spacing implied by the list of magistrates in 1. 15, but without the error, would occupy about 13 cm; cos pr aid tr pi q Illuir cap Illuir ada would occupy about 19 cm, which would imply that the line was substantially outspaced; cos pr aid q Illuir cap Illuir ada would occupy about 16 cm, which would imply that the line was slightly outspaced. It is evidently possible that Mommsen was right to restore Illuiri a.d.a. in 1. 14 and that they were therefore in office in the year in which the statute was passed; or that tr.pl. were present in 1. 14; but hardly both (see the Commentary on the last preserved line of the statute, for the reasons for excluding tribunes of the plebs here). The date of the statute The relative dating of the two sides appears to have been settled by the discovery of the Adamesteanu fragment, in which the fixing-hole is below the Latin text, but is surrounded by the Oscan text. This suggests that the hole was already in the bronze before the Oscan text was cut, and that this is therefore later than the Latin text (Adamesteanu & Torelli, 2). This by itself is not conclusive, as some bronzes seem to have been engraved after the fixing-holes were made (for instance the SC de Bacchanalibus (ILLRP 511), 1. 19); but

196

ROMAN STATUTES

taken with the letters QVEIM, which cannot belong to an Oscan word and which appear casually inscribed as a 'trial-run' to the right of what was going to be 1. 7 of the Oscan side of the Adamesteanu fragment, the argument is strong. In addition, the surface on the Oscan side is much less well prepared. Two arguments which have been used to provide a date for the statute fail to do so: 1) Yarnold argued (167) that the phrase in 1. 2, in sena[tu seiu]e in poplico ioudicio ne sen[tentiam rogato], implies that the individual who is being penalized by the clause could be both a member of the senate and a juror on a quaestio simultaneously; and that therefore the statute must date from a period in which senators served on quaestiones. In fact the clause does not require such an interpretation, since a prohibition on offenders being asked to express an opinion or cast a vote in either the senate or a publicum iudicium does not imply that any particular offender should be at the moment in question a member of both. 2) Mommsen argued in 1863 that the inclusion of the Illvir a.d.a. in the list of magistrates who in future years would be required to swear to uphold the statute within five days of entering office (1. 15, see the Commentary) indicated that the listing was parallel to that found in the Lex repetundarum, Law 1,11. 2, 8, 13, 16 and 22, and that the Illvir a.d.a. here should be identified with the IHvir a.d.a. of the Lex repetundarum as one of the commissioners appointed under one of the Gracchan leges agrariae. On the basis of Appian's dating of the effective period of the agrarian legislation to fifteen years (BC I, 124), he argued that our text belonged to the years 133 to 118 BC (see, however, the Lex repetundarum, Lex agraria, Laws 1-2, Introduction). There are difficulties with this suggestion. (a) Carcopino argued that the mention of a Illvir a.d.a. in 1. 15 does not prove that any such magistrate was in office, any more than the similar mention of a dictator and a magister equitum proves that these magistracies were filled in the later second century BC; but one should be more cautious than Carcopino in comparing Illvir a.d.a. with dictator and magister equitum. (b) If the reference is indeed to a Gracchan commissioner, it certainly provides a terminus post quern. But there is a difficulty in the form of the reference in the Lex repetundarum and here: lHviri a.d.a. The Gracchan commissioners when in office are referred to as mviri a.i.a. (ILLRP 469-74; CIL I 2 (1986), 2932-5; G. Colucci Pescatori, in La romanisation du Samnium (Naples, 1991), 85-122, 'Evidenze archeologiche in Irpinia', at 90). It would be surprising for jurisdiction to be omitted in the Lex repetundarum because it had been removed in 129 BC; it seems more likely that the Illvir a.d.a in the Lex repetundarum and in our text are there because they belong in a tralatician list of magistrates. Ajid even if the reference is to Gracchan commissioners in the Lex repetundarum, it is impossible to be certain that a similar designation was not later given to other similar commissioners. In fact, even if we are right in restoring Illviri a.d.a. in 1. 14, who were therefore in office in the year in which the statute was passed, it may still be dated at almost any point in the years after 133 BC. Such a conclusion may be supported by the Lex agraria, Law 2, 1. 15, where the reference to a Illvir a.d.a. is perfectly general. Two other arguments point in different directions: 1) Hall's variation of Mommsen's argument is very attractive: such evidence as we have for agrarian commissioners from 103 BC onwards is for boards larger than three, so that that year seems to form a terminus ante quern for our text. 2) The most striking feature of the surviving fragments is the imposition on magistrates (presumably) currently in office, on those who would in future enter office, and on

7 - LEX LATINA TABVLAE BANTINAE

197

members of the senate, of the obligation not to impede in any way the operation of the statute (11. 14-25). The obvious parallels to this are the oaths imposed on magistrates by the Lex de prouinciis praetoriis, Law 12, Delphi Copy, Block C, 11. 8-22, and presumably also on magistrates by the Tarentum Fragment, Law 8, 11. 20-3; and, in the literary tradition, the oaths imposed on both magistrates and senators by the Lex Appuleia agraria in 100 BC (Appian, BC I, 130-40; Plutarch, Mar. 29, 2; Cat.Min. 32, 5; Livy, Per. 69; Florus 1H, 16, 2; see also the General Introduction, Ch. XIV). For this reason, many scholars have associated this statute with the legislation of L. Appuleius Saturninus and his political ally C. Servilius Glaucia. It has been pointed out (for instance by Lintott, 129-31 and Ferrary, 110) that there may well have been other legislators who included such oaths and even that a clause in the Lex agraria, Law 2, 11. 40-41, may grant exemption from the requirements of such an oath. This passage, however, is not conclusive evidence for the regular attachment of such oaths in legem to earlier statutes (see the Commentary). The major point remains, however, that the use of an oath in legem does not necessarily imply that the statute in question was proposed by Saturninus or Glaucia. One consideration does suggest, however, that a date at the very end of the second century BC may well be correct. The Lex Appuleia agraria imposed an oath not merely on magistrates but also on senators, and this is not found elsewhere than in our text (assuming that the interpretation of 11. 23-5 followed in the Text and in the Commentary is correct; it has been followed at least since Klenze (1828), 48-9). The identity of the statute As we have seen, the oath clauses have led most scholars to assume that the statute belongs to the period of Saturninus and Glaucia, and therefore to their identification of it with one of their measures. Tibiletti, 65, pointed out that the variety of formulation of the clauses in this statute, in the Tarentum Fragment, Law 8, in the Lex de prouinciis praetoriis, Law 12, and in Appian's account of the Lex Appuleia agraria indicates that they are not tralatician, but were composed and adapted specifically by each legislator. This fact recalls the importance attached to the oath by Saturninus according to Appian; and although, as in the case of the date, it is by no means conclusive, it has strengthened the suggestion that the Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae is part of his or Glaucia's legislation. (Schonbauer, 349-50, argued from the omission of tribuni militum from the list of magistrates in 1. 15 that the text could not be a statute of Saturninus, since as an associate of Marius he would have had a special interest in the army: it is hard to take this argument seriously, but see on 11. 14-22.) The most obvious candidate for the identity of our statute is the lex agraria itself, and this was suggested by Maschke, 75-113. There are two objections to this view: firstly, the statute states that the magistrates should swear at the temple of Castor within five days, the senators to the quaestor at the aerarium within ten (11. 14, 17, 24); Appian describes both magistrates and senators as swearing at the temple of Saturn in the presence of the quaestor within five days (Appian, BC I, 131; 137); secondly, although the ioudex on the inscription is described as ex h(ace) l(ege) plebiue scito [factus], the nivir a.d.a., whom Maschke identifies with a commissioner appointed as a result of Saturninus' statute, is not so designated. (Hinrichs, 482-6, suggested that IHuir a.d.a. ioudex was the title of a commissioner under Saturninus' statute, but this is improbable: see on 1. 15.)

198

ROMAN STATUTES

The presence of the ioudex ex h(ace) l(ege) among those who must swear in the future strongly suggests that this statute established a quaestio, and his appearance among the magistrates indicates that he is probably the president of such a quaestio. It is unlikely that our text is a lex repetundarum, as both Carcopino, 205-10, and Tibiletti, 66-73, argued, suggesting that it is the Lex Servilia Glauciae. The president of the quaestio de repetundis seems always to have been a praetor (Ferrary, 107); and the apparent absence of a clause giving rewards to accusers may also make such an identification improbable, according to Lintott, 136. But not too much weight should be attached to this latter argument in view of our ignorance of the structure of the clauses in this statute, and of Roman statutes of this period in general; for instance, if the infamia clauses affect not the person who offends against the statute, but the person who impedes its execution, a clause giving rewards to successful prosecutors under the main provisions of the statute may have figured earlier in the text: see on 11. 1-6. Lintott, 125-38, suggests that the text is a lex de sicariis et ueneficiis and dates it between 129 and 111 BC. The main reason for the identification is the similarity between the provision in 11. 7-13, for a magistrate to apply to an assembly of the people for a fine upon those who impede the operation of the statute, and a clause which probably occurred in the Sullan Lex Cornelia de sicariis et ueneficiis (cf. Cicero, Clu. 89-96; Law 50). Lintott argues that Sulla probably took the clause from an earlier statute on the same topic. However this does not prove that the Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae is that statute, as the clause in question does not relate specifically to the offences which the Lex Cornelia was designed to punish, but to the protection of the functioning of the statute. Similar provisions might be found in a wide variety of statutes. Lintott also implicitly argues that the infamia which is imposed by 11. 1-6 actually is the infamia to which the Lex repetundarum, Law 1 alludes; but we know too little of legislation before and after the Lex repetundarum for this to have any weight. The only statute proposed by Saturninus which is known to have involved a quaestio is his lex de maiestate, and the suggestion, first made by Stuart Jones, 170-2, that the Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae is a copy of this statute, has received considerable support (for instance, Sherwin White, Roman Citizenship1, 130 and 171). The lex de maiestate is usually dated to 103 BC, on the grounds that Norbanus was later tried under this statute for his activity in that year (so Broughton, Magistrates I, 565 n. 4; Schonbauer, 344-8; R.A. Bauman, The Crimen Maiestatis in the Roman Republic and Augustan Principate (Johannesburg, 1967), 55-6), and this has been held to cast doubts on the identification with the Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae, on the grounds that the oath for senators suggests that the latter belongs to 100 BC. The argument is not cogent, as the passage in Cicero which states that no statute is retroactive specifically exempts any matter quae sua sponte tarn scelerata et nefaria est ut, etiamsi lex non esset, magnopere vitanda fuerit (Cic, // in Verr. 1, 108), and maiestas certainly falls into such a category. And it may be that the activity of Norbanus is in any case to be dated to 105 BC (so Ferrary). Lintott, 135-6, has raised two further objections, that a maiestas statute would be expected to provide for rewards to accusers, and especially to socii\ and that 11. 1-6 appear to impose infamia on an offender, which is unknown as a penalty for maiestas. Neither argument is conclusive: once again, for instance, if the infamia clauses affect not the person who offends against the statute, but the person who impedes its execution, a possibility not considered by Brunt, a clause giving rewards may have figured earlier in the text: see on 11. 1-6. Indeed if the infamia described here attaches, as will be suggested, to someone guilty of calumnia or praevaricatio in the course of a trial under the statute, then the unusual extent of the penalty (cf. the similar but much lighter forms

7 - LEX LATINA TABVLAE BANTINAE

199

in 11. 19 and 20, and in the Tarentum Fragment, Law 8, 1. 21) might indicate that the crime dealt with by this statute was of unusual significance, at least in the eyes of the legislator, and this would accord with the identification of the statute as a lex maiestatis. To summarise: the Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae would appear to be a statute setting up a quaestio under a iudex, from the last decades of the second century BC. There are strong, but not decisive arguments for associating it with the legislation of Saturninus and Glaucia, and particularly with the Lex Appuleia de maiestate, but such an identification must be uncertain. In this case, as often, it must be remembered that there is no reason to expect that the chance survival of an epigraphic text has preserved a statute known also through the almost equally fortuitous process of mention in the literary tradition. In the case of this inscription, much ingenuity has been expended in trying to envisage for what purposes such a statute might have been inscribed at the end of the second or beginning of the first century BC in an allied community such as Bantia, or more likely in the Latin colony of Venusia. Such speculations, though interesting, must remain guesswork, until much more is known of the structures and attitudes of the states of Italy at this time. If the Lex Osca Tabulae Bantinae, Law 13, and the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24, had happened not to survive, the particular nature of the interest in Roman institutions which they reveal would not have been reconstructed by such speculations.

200

ROMAN STATUTES TEXT

Naples fragments [— c.55 —]sque pro+[— c.50 —] [— c.50 — 1+ in sena[tu seiu]e in poplico ioudicio ne sen[tentiam rogato — c.25 —] [— c.25 — neiue is poplice testumonlium deicito neiue quis mag(istratus) testumonium poplice ei de[nontiato neiue d]e[n]ontiari 4 [sinito neiue eum iudicem neiue arbitrum neiue recupe]ratorem dato; neiue is in poplico luuci praetextam neiue soleas habeto neiue quis [mag(istratus) — c.35 — sini]to; mag(istratus) qu[e]iquomque comitia conciliumue habebit eum sufragium ferre nei sinito; [mag(istratus) queiquomque censum habebit eum aerarium] relinquito. vacat [sei — c.30 + outspacing — ioudex] quei ex hace lege plebeiue scito factus erit senatorue fecerit gesseritue quo ex hace lege 8 [quae fieri oportebit minus fiant quaeue e]x h(ace) l(ege) facere oportuerit oportebitue non fecerit sciens d(olo) m(alo) seiue aduorsus hance legem fecerit [sc(iens) d(olo) m(alo), (sestertium) n(ummum) ??? multae esto, quei uolet petito,] earn pequniam quei uolet magistratus exsigito. sei postulabit quei petet pr(aetor) recuperatores [quos quotque — c.15 — dari opor]teat dato iubetoque eum sei ita pariat condumnari popul(o) facitoque ioudicetur. sei condemnatus [erit, pr(aetor) quanti erit praedes praediaqu]e ad q(uaestorem) urb(anum) det aut bona eius poplice possideantur facito. sei quis mag(istratus) multam inrogare uolet, 12 [ei quantam inrogare uolet, dum minoris] partus familias taxsat, liceto; eiq(ue) omnium rerum siremps lexs esto quasei is haace lege [pequniam, quae s(upra) s(cripta) est, exigeret. vacat] vacat [co(n)s(ul), pr(aetor), aid(ilis), q(uaestor), IQuir cap(italis), ? muir a(greis) d(andeis) a(dsignandeis) ?, qu]ei nunc est, is in diebus (quinque) proxsumeis quibus v queique eorum sciet h(ance) l(egem) popolum plebemue [iusisse iourato, ita utei i(nfra) s(criptum) est. item] dic(tator), co(n)s(ul), pr(aetor), mag(ister) eq(uitum), cen(sor), aid(ilis), tr(ibunus) pl(ebis), q(uaestor), lHuir cap(italis), muir a(greis) d(andeis) a(dsignandeis), ioudex ex h(ace) l(ege) plebiue scito 16 [factus — c.5 — queiquomque eorum p]osthac factus erit, eis in diebus (quinque) proxsumeis quibus quisque eorum mag(istratum) inperiumue inierit iouranto, [ita utei i(nfra) s(criptum) est. eis — c.5 — pro ae]de Castorus palam luci in forum uorsus et ei(s)dem in diebus (quinque) apud q(uaestorem) iouranto per Iouem deosque [Penateis, seese quae ex h(ace) l(ege) oport]ebit facturum neque sese aduorsum h(ance) l(egem) facturum scientem d(olo) m(alo) neque seese facturum neque intercesurum . [esse q(uo) h(aece) l(ex) minus setiusue fiat. qu]ei ex h(ace) l(ege) non iourauerit is magistratum inperiumue nei petito neiue gerito neiue habeto neiue in senatu 20 [posthac sententiam deicito ne]iue quis sinito neiue eum censor in senatum legito. quei ex h(ace) l(ege) (iourauerit), is facito apud q(uaestorem) urb(anum) [utei nomen in taboleis pobliceis sc]riptum siet; quaestorque ea nomina accipito et eos, quei ex h(ace) l(ege) apud sed iourarint, facito in taboleis [pobliceis utei scriptos habeat. vacat] vacat [quei senator est erit queiue in senatu sententi]am deixerit post hance legem rogatam, eis in diebus (decern) proxsumeis quibus quisque [eorum sciet]

7 - LEX LATINA TABVLAE BANTINAE

201

24 [hance legem populum plebemue iusisse i]ouranto apud quaestorem ad aerarium palam luci per Iouem deosque Penat[eis, seese quae ex hace] [lege oportebit facturum esse neque see]se aduorsum hance legem facturum esse neque seese quo minus se(t)[iusue h(aec) l(ex) fiat facturum esse] [— ]se hoice leegei +[....]+[—] a(pud se) ifolurauerfit —] r

28

r

32

"I vacat

[—]e quis magistratus p++++[—] ] vacat

[— u]ti in taboleis poplficeis —] [— tr]inum nondinfum —] f—lis erit \i\i\—1

Adamesteanu fragment [—]dem facito ute[i —] r

4

I vacat

[—]+ factum esto. idcirco hae[ce lex —] sei sacro sanctum est quod no]n ious siet rogare, ex hace lege n[ihilum rogatur.

vacan

[— quo ]magis in hance legem in eo magistratu e+[—] r

"I vacat

ROMAN STATUTES

202

APPARATUS CRTTICUS Naples fragments Words underlined in 11. 2 - 4 form the fragment recorded by Rosini; those in 11. 2 4 - 3 2 the fragment recorded by Avellino. 1 [— N]EQVE PROV[INCIAM — ] , CIL; but the first letter is s, not E, the last uncertain 2

[... ROGATO TABELLAMVE NEI DATO — ] , CTL\ [... ROGATO NEIVE DEICERE NEIVE

FERRE SINITO SC(IENS) D.M. — ] , Lintott, 132 n. 42

4 The top halves only of the letters REM are on the Rosini fragment; H[ABET]O, CIL 6

[

NEIVE EVM CENSOR IN SENATVM LEGITO NEIVE IN SENATV], CIL

1 [— IOVDEX], see the Commentary

9 See the Commentary 10 POPVL, aes 11 [ — ] E AD Q, Hiilsen, in CIL2, righdy; [— QVANTI CONDEMNATVS ERIT, PRAEDES] AD Q,

CIL

12 [— QVEI VOLET, DVM MINORIS] PARTVS, CIL

14 [cos PR AID TR PL Q inviR CAP niviR ADA QV]EI, CIL; see the Introduction 15 Q has been inserted as an afterthought in the space between TR PL and IIIVIR CAP 17 EIDEM, aes

19 For the supplement, cf. the Tarentum Fragment, Law 8,1. 20 20 For the supplement, cf. the Tarentum Fragment, 1. 2 1 ; at the beginning of the preserved text here, iv are clearly separate letters (not N), E, though heavily corroded, is reasonably clear; [—]VE, Hiilsen in CIL2; IOVDICAVERIT, aes; IOVRAVERIT, H. Fuchs, Hermes 68, 1933, 3 4 7 - 9 , 'Latina', at 3 4 7 - 8 , surely correctly: cf. the Tarentum Fragment, 11. 2 1 - 3 21 Cf. Fuchs, and the Tarentum Fragment, 1. 22. The right-hand edge of the bronze is broken at this point, but there seem not to be any letters after TABOLEIS. There is in any case not enough room in this line for POBLICEIS, which comparison with the Tarentum Fragment, 1. 22, suggests; the break may be due to a nail-hole, like that at the bottom of the Adamesteanu fragment 22 Cf. the Lex repetundarum, Law 1,1. 15 23

[QVEI SENATOR E S T ERITVE INVE SENATV SENTENTI]AM, CIL; but cf. the Lex

Tarentina, Law 15,1. 26; we assume that the line is outspaced 25 Cf. the Tarentum Fragment, 1. 20; quo minus sei, Avellino 26 Traces of F or E after LEEGEI, then [ . . . . ] B , P or R: perhaps LEEGEI F A C [ — ] , Mommsen

in apparatus; anodnL.uraver,

Avellino: see Fig. IX, 1

28 [— N]E or [— NEIV]E

Adamesteanu fragment 1 What is visible of the first letter consists of a horizontal hasta joined at each end to a vertical hasta by something very close to a right angle: a misshapen B, D, G, O or s; the nearest parallel is the G in the last word of 1. 12, but we know no parallel for the phrase ... legem facito ... and [— EI]DEM is perhaps right; it would then be possible to suppose that the letters uu seen by Avellino were the tops of the letters at the beginning of the word eidem: see Fig. LX, 2 5 What is visible of the last letter consists of an upright hasta

7 - LEX LATINA TABVLAE BANTINAE

203

TRANSLATION Naples fragments 11. 1-6 [—] and ??? [— either] in the senate [or] in a iudicium publicum [he is] not [to ask] for his opinion [— nor is he publicly] to give evidence nor is any magistrate publicly to serve notice of evidence on him [nor is he to allow notice to be served nor] is he to appoint him as a [judge or arbiter or] recuperator, nor is he to wear in public, in the light of day, the (toga) praetexta or the sandals, nor is any [magistrate to allow — ] ; whichever magistrate shall hold an assembly or concilium is not to allow him to cast a vote; [whichever magistrate shall hold the census] is to leave [him as an aerarius]. 11. 7-13 [If — a judge] who shall have been chosen according to this statute or plebiscite or a senator shall have acted or behaved to the effect that [whatever shall be appropriate to be done] according to this statute [should not be done or] knowingly with wrongful deceit shall not have done [whatever] it shall have been or shall be appropriate for him to do according to this statute or [knowingly with wrongful deceit] shall have acted contrary to this statute, [there is to be a fine of ??? sesterces, whoever shall wish is to sue,] whatever magistrate shall be willing is to exact that sum. If whoever shall sue shall demand (it), the praetor is to appoint [such and so many] recuperatores [as may be appropriate to be appointed —] and is to order him, if it so appear, to be condemned in the interest of the people, and is to see that the case be judged. If he [shall be] condemned, [the praetor] is to see that he give [guarantors and security] to the urban quaestor [for however much the amount shall be] or that his goods be publicly seized. If any magistrate shall wish to propose a fine, it is to lawful [for him to propose however large (a fine) he shall wish, up to] half his property; and statute is to apply to him in all matters exactly as if he [were exacting the sum which is written down above] according to this statute. 11. 14-22 [Whatever consul, praetor, aedile, quaestor, triumvir capitalis, triumvir for the granting and assigning of land,] is now in office, within the five days next after any of them shall know that the people or the plebs [have passed] this statute, he [is to swear, just as is written down below. Likewise, whatever] dictator, consul, praetor, magister equitum, censor, aedile, tribune of the plebs, quaestor, triumvir capitalis, triumvir for the granting and assigning of land, judge [chosen] according to this statute or plebiscite [—, whoever of them] shall be chosen hereafter, within the five days next after any of them shall have entered upon his magistracy or imperium, they are to swear, [just as is written down below. They — in front of] the temple of Castor, openly, before the light of day, facing the forum, and they are to swear within the same five days, in the presence of the quaestor, by Jupiter and the [ancestral] gods, [that he] will do [what shall be appropriate according to this statute,] and that he will not act contrary to this statute knowingly with wrongful deceit and that he will not act or intercede [to the effect that this statute may not be, or be improperly, observed.] Whoever shall not have sworn according to this statute, is not to stand for or hold or have any magistracy or imperium, nor [is he hereafter to speak his opinion] in the senate [nor] is anyone to allow (him) nor is a censor to enrol him in the senate. Whoever shall have (sworn) according to this statute, he is to see that [his name] be written down [in the public records] in the presence of the urban quaestor; and the quaestor is to receive those names and is to see [that he keep] those who have sworn in his presence according to this statute [written down] in the [public] records. 11. 23-7 [Whoever is or shall be a senator or whoever] shall have spoken [his opinion in the senate] after the (successful) proposal of this statute, in the ten days next after any [of

204

ROMAN STATUTES

them shall know that the people or plebs have passed this statute,] they are to swear in the presence of the quaestor at the treasury, openly, before the light of day, by Jupiter and the ancestral gods, [that he will do what shall be appropriate according to this statute, and that he will not] act contrary to this statute and that he [will not act] to the effect that [this statute may] not [be, or be improperly, observed —] this statute [—] 11. 26-32 [—] he shall have sworn (in his presence) [—] any magistrate [— that] in the public records [—] third market day [—] shall be [—] Adamesteanu fragment [— the same person] is to see that [—] it is to have been done. For that reason this [statute —. If there is something prescribed by what is sacred such that] it be not right to propose, [nothing is proposed] according to this statute. [— to the effect that] in support of this statute in that magistracy [—]

7 - LEX LATINA TABVLAE BANTINAE

205

COMMENTARY Naples fragments 11. 1-6 This clause prohibits someone, presumably an offender, from further participation in the public life of the state: the senate, the quaestiones, the courts as witness or iudex, the magistracies, even the assemblies; Mommsen pointed out in 1863 that the reference to soleae (1. 4) must be to specifically magisterial dress, as is that to the toga praetexta, and thus to the special shoes worn by curule magistrates (Festus, 128 L; Isidore XIX, 34, 10-11). Such bans comprise part of the somewhat loosely delimited collection of penalties known as infamia (Mommsen, Str., 993-8 = DPin in, 345-50; M. Kaser, ZSS 73, 1956, 220-78, 'Infamia und ignominia in den rbmischen Rechtsquellen', at 254-64). It appears from the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24,11. 117-19, that by the late Republic condemnation in certain iudicia publica brought with it such punishment (Kaser, I.e., 235-45; see especially Cicero, Clu. 120, quapropter in omnibus legibus quibus exceptum est de quibus causis aut magistratum capere non liceat aut iudicem legi aut alterum accusare ...); and the same must already have been true in the 80s of the' quaestio de repetundis {ad Her. I, 11, 20, lex uetat eum qui de pecuniis repetundis damnatus sit in contione orationem habere; for the Lex Iulia de pecuniis repetundis, Law 55, see Kaser, I.e. 255-6). Although we cannot be sure, it looks as if the Lex Cassia of 104 BC, ut quern populus damnasset cuiue imperium abrogasset in senatu ne esset (Asconius 61 St = 78 C), was the first time that exclusion from the senate had become a consequence of condemnation in any assembly trial. The Lex repetundarum, Law 1, 1. 11, already excludes people condemned in a iudicium publicum, with the result that they cannot be senators, from the possibility of acting as patroni, and probably they are also prohibited from being iudices (compare 11. 13, 16, 23, with the Commentary); there is, however, no sign in the Lex repetundarum that the statute imposed infamia on those condemned under its own provisions; and the career of C. Cato, consul in 114 BC, who held office after his condemnation in 113 BC, probably shows that it did not. The uncertainty arises from the fact that a statute might impose exclusion at once or exclusion at the next census. Although our clause may be a penalty imposed on those who are condemned under the statute for whatever offence the statute is designed to punish, it is possible that it deals with those who in some way attempt to impede the process of the statute, as does the following clause. The position of the clause, apparently towards the end of the inscription, might indeed suggest that it relates to second-level matters. The most obvious such purpose is the punishment of those who abuse their position as accusers under the statute, either to bring an improper and malicious prosecution, calumnia, or to ensure by collusion with the defendant that a guilty person is acquitted, praeuaricatio (Mommsen, Str., 491-8, 501-3 = DPin H, 180-8, 192-4; the Lex repetundarum, Law 1, 11. 5-6). It is clear that by the end of the Republic, infamia attached to those found guilty on either of these counts (Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24, 1. 120). More importantly, it appears that this was the only general penalty for these offences, both before and after the passing of the Lex Remmia, which dealt with calumnia and perhaps also with praevaricatio, and was in force in 80 BC (Cicero, Rosc.Amer. 55; see on the Lex repetundarum, Law 1, 11. 19-26). Under such circumstances, and especially if the Lex Remmia had not yet been passed, a clause such as ours might well have been included in individual statutes, giving in detail the results of such misuse of the process of law; and this might particularly be the case in, for example, a lex maiestatis, where the necessary

206

ROMAN STATUTES

imprecision of the charge and its great political significance would be likely to aggravate the danger of malicious accusation or of collusion between accuser and defendant. Brunt, 142, notes that 'some of the rights withheld are exclusively senatorial, and all' (are) 'those which senators could exercise, at least if they were not already as such debarred from judication. Let us assume, though this is obviously uncertain, that the culprits ... can only be senators or aspirants to senatorial status'; but this is to mistake the nature of lists such as these in Roman statutes, where items are regularly included which are only applicable in some of the cases involved, see the General Introduction, Ch. XII. 1. 5 Elections by people and plebs are both covered. I. 6 The occurrence of the word relinquere in Roman institutional vocabulary is characteristically in the phrase aerarium relinquere, an insight we owe to CI. Nicolet (Cicero, Clu. 122-6; Livy XXIX, 37, 12-15; cf. Cicero, de off I, 40); and it seems that a censor was obliged to impose this penalty also on the offender. A return to regulations relating to the senate, as in the conventional supplement, would not be appropriate. II. 7-13 This clause provides for penalties against persons not fulfilling the requirements of the statute or deliberately frustrating it. Mommsen argued in 1863 that those who might be penalised under this clause were the same people as those dealt with in the previous clause, but there seems to be no compelling reason for such an assumption. He also restored 1. 7 by inserting the titles of those magistrates who might not yet have become members of the senate, 'sei tr. pi., q., IHuir cap., Illuir a.d.a., ioudex', on the pattern of the exclusion clauses in the instructions for the selection of iudices in the Lex repetundarum, Law 1, 11. 16 and 22, but including only those junior magistrates listed in 1. 15 below. This rests on the assumption that all other magistrates would be covered by the mention of a senator. It may be, however, that all magistrates and holders of imperium were referred to directly by some phrase such as sei quis magistratus proue mag(istratu) ioudexue (so Lintott, 126 n. 8), as this clause does not formulate an exclusion, but defines an offence; and it might be expected that there would be some reference to the capacity in which those who might be accused had committed their offence. This is supported by the similarity of the language in 11. 7-8 to that of the oath administered to magistrates below (1. 18), and also to senators (1. 25). It is certain, however, that there is not sufficient room for the explicit listing of magistrates which occurs atl. 15. The clause provides for two kinds of procedure. One kind is initiated by an individual: he may demand a fixed fine, which may go to trial and which may be exacted by a magistrate; as a version of this sequence, he may demand a trial before recuperatores, which may lead to a condemnation for a variable amount; this is exacted by the taking of security or the seizure of goods. For recuperate res, see on the Lex agraria, Law 2,1. 34; for actions for the benefit of the populus, see the General Introduction, Ch. XIV; compare also the Falerio fragment IB, Law 16, 11. 19-20. The second kind of procedure is initiated by a magistrate, who may propose a fine of up to half the property belonging to the culprit. 1. 8 oportuerit is logically redundant in the first relative clause. I. 9 Mommsen in 1863 restored [... multa tanta esto iis ??? nummum et], in the belief that our text was a translation of the Lex Osca, 11. 11-12, cf. Str., 1017 n. 2 = DPen IE, 372 n. 3. Neither this nor the supplements recorded by Bruns, p. 54 with n. 1, provide a point of reference for quel petet later in the line. II. 10-11

Compare the Lex repetundarum, Law 1,11. 56-8.

7 - LEX LATINA TABVLAE BANTINAE

207

1. 11 On the right of a magistrate to propose a fine, see Mommsen, Str., 158-60 = DP I, 182-4; the General Introduction, Ch. XIV. I. 12 For the limit, compare the Lex Gabinia Calpurnia, Law 22, 1. 32, with the Commentary; the Lex Silia, Law 46. II. 14-22 On the oath imposed by this clause on both present and future magistrates, see the General Introduction, Ch. XTV. As noted by Tibiletti, 62-3, the oath, at least as far as it applies to future magistrates, is technically redundant as the statute would be included in the statutes, all of which a magistrate had to swear to uphold on entry to office. This, and the very explicit details given of the way in which the oath is to be taken perhaps emphasize the importance which the legislator attached to the public acknowledgement by magistrates and, in the next clause, senators of their duty of obedience to the statute. Hence the requirement that the oath-takers should stand in front of (presumably on the steps of) the temple of Castor facing towards the forum, and thus in perhaps the most public place in Rome. The list of magistrates required to swear differs from the list of magistrates in the Lex repetundarum, Law 1, 11. 2 and 8, in that this statute omits the military tribunes of the first four legions, who, unlike the other military tribunes, were elected. Mommsen suggested in 1863 that the omission might have been the result of the carelessness of the engraver. However the context of the two lists is quite different. Whereas the military tribunes^ might be expected to appear in a schedule of elected officers who might illegally seize the pecunia of the allies of the Roman people, they had less opportunity to interfere with legal processes in Rome. The same might be said of the nivir agris dandis assignandis who does appear in 1. 15 of this statute, but these officials were at least sometimes in Rome. I. 14 queique = quique, we suppose, anomalously for quisque: contrast 11. 16 and 23. 1. 15 Since no parallel can be found, there is no warrant for the view of Hinrichs, 482-3, that 'Illuir a.d.a. ioudex' is a single office. 1. 16 For the transition from singular to plural, see the General Introduction, Ch. XII. 1. 17 Compare Caesar, EC I, 18, 5, where eo triduo means 'in the first three days'. I. 19 petere, gerere presumably apply to magistracies, habere to imperium; compare in general terms the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24,11. 90, 95, 137. II. 23-6 On the oath imposed on senators by this clause, see above. The circumstances of the taking of the oath for senators are different from those for magistrates, but the reasons for this are not clear. 11. 24-5 The line-length determines the absence of abbreviations. I. 26 Perhaps [— neque fraudem see]se hoice leegei f[actu]r[um esse ... II. 26-7

These two lines may perhaps form another sentence, parallel to 11. 21-3.

11. 28-9 These two lines appear to form another clause, but too little survives to be sure what it is about. 11. 30-2 The mention of tabulae publicae (1. 30) and of the interval of three market days, trinum nondinum, in 1. 31 suggest that this clause related to publication of some sort, perhaps of the names of those who have sworn or failed to swear the prescribed oath; or of an adjournment of proceedings (cf. the Tarentum Fragment, Law 8,11. 22-5).

ROMAN STATUTES

208

Adamesteanu fragment 1. 3 It seems that the only helpful parallels are the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Ch. LXXXII, and CIL VI, 10298 = Bruns 178, 1. 9, idcirco nihilominus deiemtio esto: this might suggest something along these lines of [... iur]e factum esto; idcirco hae[ce lex nihilominus rata esto.] 1. 4

For the sanctio, see the General Introduction, Ch. XIV.

1. 5 It is very hard to see how the end of the line can be restored other than as [— quo] magis in hance legem in eo magistratu ei[ ex hace lege iourent e.h.l.n.r.]\ given that we probably know independently that tribunes of the plebs were in the late Republic not bound by the legislation of their colleagues (see on the Lex de prouinciis praetoriis, Law 12, Delphi Copy, Block C, 11. 10-11), Mattingly (1970), 155-6, and Lintott, 133, 137, must be right to restore the beginning of the line as [tr.pl. quei nunc sunt...] This would imply that tr.pl. did not figure in 1. 14. For tribunes as magistrates, see the Naples fragments, 11. 15-16. Since the beginning of est in 1. 4 will have lain above the beginning of magis in 1. 5, the restoration is on the long side; but the formula in 1. 4 may well have begun [si quid sacro sanctum est...]: see the General Introduction, I.e. JSR

8 - TARENTUM FRAGMENT BIBLIOGRAPHY R. Bartoccini, Epigraphica 9, 1947, 3-31, 'Frammento di legge romana rinvenuto a Taranto'; additional note, ibid. 10, 1948, 158; A. Piganiol, CRAI 1951, 58-63 = Scripta Varia II (Collection Latomus 132, Brussels, 1973), 367-73, 'Sur la nouvelle table de bronze de Tarente' (the statute identified with the Lex Servilia Glauciae); G.I. Luzzatto, Archivio storico pugliese 4, iii-iv, 1951, 28-41 = Scritti minori (Bologna, 1984), 153-68, 'Sul nuovo frammento di legge romana rinvenuto a Taranto' (the statute identified with the Lex Servilia Glauciae); G. Tibiletti, Ath 41, 1953, 5-100, 'Le leggi de iudiciis repetundarum fino alia guerra sociale', esp. 38-66, 73-5 (the statute identified with the Lex Servilia Caepionis); G.I. Luzzatto, Archeion Idiotikou Dikaiou 16, 1953 = Dora F. Pringsheim, 86-93 = Scritti minori, 255-64, 'Appunti sulla pubblicazione delle leggi nell'impero romano: a proposito della lex Tarentina recentemente pubblicata'; G.I. Luzzatto, Scritti in onore di U. Borsi (Padua, 1955), 23-47 = Scritti minori, 283-309, 'Sul iusiurandum in legem dei magistrati e senatori romani'; E. Schonbauer, Iura 7, 1956, 92-117, 'Das Gesetzes-Fragment aus Tarent in neuer Schau' (the statute identified with the Lex Appuleia de maiestate); id., Anz.Oest.Akad.Wiss., Phil.-hist.KL, 93, 1956, 13-40, 'Die romische Repetundengesetzgebung und das neue Gesetzes-Fragment aus Tarent'; CI. Nicolet, L'ordre equestre I (Paris, 1966), 555-8 (the statute identified with the Lex Acilia); H.B. Mattingly, JRS 59, 1969, 129-43, 'The two Republican laws of the Tabula Bembina'; id., JRS 60, 1970, 154-68, 'The extortion law of the Tabula Bembina' (the statute identified with the Lex repetundarum, Law 1); A.N. Sherwin White, JRS 62, 1972, 83-99, 'The date of the Lex Repetundarum and its consequences' (contra Mattingly); J.L. Ferrary, MEFRA 91, 1979, 83-134, 'Recherches sur la legislation de Satuminus et Glaucia. II', at 108-11 (the statute identified with either the Lex repetundarum, Law 1, or the Lex Acilia); A.W. Lintott, ZPE 45, 1982, 127-38, 'The Roman judiciary law from Tarentum' (the statute identified with the Lex Servilia Glauciae); CIL I 2 (1986), 2924. Facsimile: Bartoccini; CIL I 2 (1986), p. 912. Photographs: Bartoccini; Imagines, 297. Bottom right-hand corner of a bronze tablet, with the traces of a clip on the right edge, discovered during building work in Taranto in 1909, beneath a Roman mosaic pavement, 0.197 m high x 0.226 m wide x 0.005 m thick, bottom and right-hand edges intact, lower margin 0.035 m wide, right-hand margin between 0.008 m (at 1. 10 and 1. 23) and 0.052 m (at 1. 9 and 1. 26), letters 0.005 m, now in the Museo Nazionale di Taranto, seen by J.S. Richardson and M.H. Crawford. A mark incised on the lower margin of the fragment has been taken to be the Greek letter gamma, and to indicate that this is the third in a series of tablets (Bartoccini, 3-4); it is not to be excluded that it is the Latin letter F, and hence that this is the sixth tablet

209

210

ROMAN STATUTES

(compare the use of letters to number dies in the Roman Republican coinage, Crawford, RRC, pp. 584-9). The mark is in any case lightly scratched and may be accidental. INTRODUCTION The original height of the tablet cannot be estimated from what remains, but a comparison between 11. 20-1 and the Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae, Law 7, 11. 19-20, first made by Piganiol, reveals a line length of 143 letters in 1. 21. The tablet may have been wider, but there is no positive reason to suppose this, contra Lintott; for although 1. 2 is no doubt to be restored along the lines of the beginning of the corresponding clause in the Lex repetundarum, Law 1, 1. 76 = 1. 83), there is no reason to suppose that the wording is identical; to reconstruct the line length of the Tarentum fragment on the basis of that of the Lex repetundarum is in any case to proceed ab incerto ad incertius; and 1. 8 may be quite adequately restored with 145 letters, 1. 14 with 140,1. 20 with 154. We regard it as likely that 1. 20, which introduces a completely new subject, was outspaced. The identity of the statute The statute partially preserved on this fragment, consisting of a series of clauses dealing with rewards and a series of clauses dealing with enforcement, is not immediately identifiable. The rewards promised to those chiefly responsible, presumably for achieving the condemnation of a guilty party, suggest that the procedure involved the reporting of the accused's name to the appropriate magistrate (nominis delatio); and thus that it was based on a quaestio procedure similar to that found in the Lex repetundarum, Law 1, usually identified with C. Gracchus' Lex repetundarum of 123 BC (compare 11. 76-9 = 83-6 and 11. 2-9 below). Nominis delatio is actually mentioned in 1. 18 below, though this may not be in connection with the working of the court set up under the statute, but with consequential provisions, perhaps against malicious accusation (see below). The nature of the procedure, combined with the provisions on the tablet for the publication of a whole range of material (11. 12-19), has led to the identification of the statute as a Lex repetundarum, in the same tradition as the Lex repetundarum, Law 1, which applies on any showing to any outsider who has a case against a Roman state official, 11. 1-4. The only alternative view which has been presented is that of Schonbauer, who argued that it would not be necessary to publicise so fully a Lex repetundarum subsequent to that of C. Gracchus, as the main provisions for allies and other peregrini seem to have remained essentially the same. This argument is unsustainable, quite apart from the fact that 11. 12-19 do not relate to the publication of the text of the statute. On the basis of the mention of an oath (11. 20-2), Schonbauer, along with many other scholars, wished to date the statute to the last years of the second century BC, a period to which other inscribed statutes with similar oath clauses seem to belong, Laws 7 and 12, and for which the literary sources describe such an oath as being attached by L. Appuleius Saturninus to his Lex agraria of 100 BC (see Law 7, Introduction). He therefore identified this fragment with the Lex Appuleia de maiestate, on the grounds that this was the first such statute, and would therefore merit great publicity. He is followed in this opinion by R.A. Bauman, The Crimen Maiestatis in the Roman Republic and Augustan Principate (Johannesburg, 1967), 55-8. Although it is not possible to be certain because of the nature of the surviving text, which contains not the substantive part

8 - TARENTUM FRAGMENT

211

of the statute, but only certain consequential regulations, Schbnbauer's identification is difficult. The charge under Saturninus' statute seems to have been that the accused had diminished the maiestas of the Roman people, the same charge which recurs in subsequent leges maiestatis (Cicero, de orat. n, 107; part.or. 105; cf. Dig. XLVIE, 4, 1, 1 (Ulpian); Bauman, I.e., 50-5). It is most unlikely that Saturninus deliberately intended such a charge to be brought against a Roman citizen by someone who was not a member of the Roman people and thus of the body whose maiestas had been injured. In this case the rewards promised to non-citizens (11. 2-7) would be quite inappropriate. If our text is to be identified with a lex repetundarum mentioned in the literary sources, a possible candidate is the Lex Servilia, passed by Saturninus* associate C. Servilius Glaucia, perhaps during his tribunate in 101 BC (see Broughton, Magistrates I, 571-2). Various provisions of this statute are known (Ferrary, 111-31): it provided for a process ofdiuinatio where it was necessary to select one accuser from a number of possibilities; it transferred the membership of the quaestio back to the equites (this had been the case under C. Gracchus' statute, but the composition had been altered by the Lex Servilia f Caepionis); it provided for a compulsory adjournment between the opening presentation! of the case against and for the accused and the second session, a process known as comperendinatio; it increased the penalties for those who were condemned; it perhaps' prescribed rewards of citizenship to non-citizen accusers in the case of a successful prosecution, at least to Latins {Cicero, Balb. 54, though this may be a reference to the Lex Servilia Caepionis: see M.T. Griffin, CQy n.s., 23, 1973, 108-26, 'The "leges iudiciariae" of the prje-Sullan era', atT23F6, with earlier bibliography. H.B. Mattingly, Hermes 111, T983, 300-10, ' Acerbissima lex Servilia', devoted to proving that the Lex repetundarum, Law 1, is the Lex Servilia Glauciae, depends on emendation of Cicero, // in Verr. 1, 26; Plane. 41); and it allowed for the recovery of money from a third party to whom it had been transferred by anyone condemned under the statute. (This last provision is perhaps attested on the Florence Fragment A, Law 5.) One substantial problem has been raised by Ferrary, namely that if 11. 17-19 deal with the resolution of a dispute as to the person whose agency has been chiefly responsible for the condemnation of the culprit, they sit very oddly in a statute like the Lex Servilia Glauciae which provided for a process of diuinatio\ Lintott has not perceived the force of this argument. But it may be that 11. 17-19 have a quite different purpose: see the Commentary. There is also the problem that the Lex Servilia Glauciae probably accelerated the cursus honorum of successful citizen prosecutors (see David, Patronat, 513-4: one of the cases, which he cites, that of L. Fufius, is irrelevant): such a provision cannot be fitted into 11. 7-12. It should of course be remembered that Cicero, Balb. 54, suggests that rewards of citizenship were offered by a variety of statutes. But it would perhaps be odd for any statute other than a Lex repetundarum or a statute against usurpation of citizenship to place rewards for non-citizens before rewards for citizens. (Mattingly argued that our text is that of the Lex repetundarum, Law 1, but his arguments do not stand up, see the Lex repetundarum and the Lex agraria, Introduction; also Sherwin White, Ferrary and Lintott.)

ROMAN STATUTES

212

TEXT [— coe]rcento attine[nto.] [— quoiu]s eorum opera maxume i(s) [condemnatus erit — in sua ceiuita]te omnium rerum 4 [immunitas — uocatio militiae mu]nerisue esto atque aera militaria stipendiaque [eis omnia merita sunto — in] ioudicium, Romae certet, sei Romae uelet, ad quern [mag(istratum) — isque ma]g(istratus) ad quern de ea re aditum erit facito nei in eius [causa — s]ed fraude sua inperio inhiber(e) liceto. quei cei(u)is 8 [Romanus ex h(ac) l(ege) alterei nomen detolerit, sei is condemnatus erit, quoius eorum opera maxume is condemnatus erit, ipsei libe]risque eius nepotibusque eo filio gnatis, quei eorum [uolent, —, uocatio militiae munerisue esto atque aera] militaria stipendiaque eis omnia merita sunto. [— quo —] munus faciat neiue inperato neiue aduorsum prouocationem [— neiue d]ucito neiue facito quo inuitus eat nisei tumultus Galici 12 [Italiciue causa. — pr(aetor) quei Romae inter peregrinos] ius deicat, is facito utei socium nominisque Latini omnium [quei — nomina — in] contione et apud senatum in sex mensibus prioribus et in sex [mensibus posterioribus quot annis posthac recitentur atque inscribantur in tabulam aheneam Uteris inc]isis fictamque apud forum unde de piano recte legi possitur; [utique — q]uei id consoluerit quique ad id scribundum aderit queique 16 [id in tabulas publicas referendum curabit —; utique — in soc]io populo ceiuitate regnoue, tota scripta apud forum siet et [—; utique — queiquom]que ex h(ac) l(ege) condemnatus erit. quei ioudices in earn rem fuerint [— in earn] rem, de ei{u}s quei eius nomen detolerint, palam ioudicei in singulos [—]narit, in tabula ahenea incisum sub rostris facito fixsum siet. 20 [quei mag(istratus) posthac erit, is in diebus (quinque) proximis quibus factus erit apud q(uaestorem) urb(anum) iourato per Iouem deosque Penates se neque facturum] neque intercesurum esse q(uo) h(aec) l(ex) minus setiusue fiat. q(u)ei ex h(ac) l(ege) [non iourarit, is magistratum inperiumue nei petito neiue gerito neiue habeto neiue in senatu posthac sententi]am deicito n(e)iue quis sinito neiue eum cens(or) in senatum legito. [quei ex h(ac) l(ege) iourarit, is facito apud q(uaestorem) urb(anum) — utei nomen in tabulis publicis scriptum siet; q(uaestor)que ea nomina acci]pito et eos, quei ex h(ac) l(ege) apud se iourarint, facito in tabulis [publicis utei scriptos habeat. — ex (hac)] l(ege) trinum nundinum contenuo palam prodixerit nondinisq(ue) 24 [terms — prosc]ripta propositaque apud forum fuerit. quom res prolatae [erunt —] facito utei tota citetur. hoic legei fraudem nei quis [facito —]emque teneto. s(ei) s(acro) s(anctum) e(st) q(uod) n(on) i(ous) s(iet) r(ogare) e(ius) h(ac) l(ege) n(ihilum) r(ogatur). vacat tr(ibuni) pl(ebis) vacat r

] vacat

8 - TARENTUM FRAGMENT

213

APPARATUS CRITICUS We make no attempt to record all suggested supplements. 1 See the Commentary; [—]R ENP AT IN[—], Lintott, from an early reading by Crawford 2 s in is incomplete 7 INHIBERI, aes\ v in CEIVIS incomplete

17 The tail of the initial Q is clearly visible 19 [— CONDEM]NARIT, Bartoccini, Tibiletti; [— PRAEMIO — OR]NARIT, Lintott 20 v in QVEI incomplete 21

NIVE, aes

26 [— IT]EMQVE, Bartoccini, Tibiletti; [— QV]EMQVE, Lintott

214

ROMAN STATUTES TRANSLATION

11. 1-7 [—] ?they are to restrain and hold back? [—] by the agency of [whichever] of them he [shall have been] chiefly [condemned — within his state immunity] in all respects [—] there is to be [exemption from military service and compulsory service] and their periods of military service and campaigns [are all to be credited to them — to] trial, he may contend at Rome, if he may wish (to contend) at Rome, before whichever [magistrate — and that] magistrate to whom approach shall have been made concerning that matter is to see that in his [case] there be not [—] it is to be lawful without personal liability to prevent [—] by means of his imperium. 11. 7-9 Whichever [Roman] citizen [shall have prosecuted another person according to this statute, if he shall have been condemned, by the agency of whichever of them he shall have been chiefly condemned, for him and] for his children and for his grandchildren born from that son, whichever of them [shall wish — there is to be exemption from military service and compulsory service and their periods] of military service and campaigns are all to be credited to them. 11. 10-12 [— to the effect that —] he perform compulsory service nor is he to order him nor against the right of appeal [— nor] is he to lead him nor is he to see that he go against his will, except [in the case of] an insurrection in Gaul [or Italy.] 11. 12-19 [— the praetor who] may have jurisdiction [in respect of foreigners at Rome,] he is to see that of all allies and those of the Latin name [who — the names — be read out hereafter each year in] a contio and in the senate in the first six months and in the [last] six [months and that they be inscribed on a bronze tablet, with engraved letters] and fixed in the forum where it may be properly read from level ground; [and that —] whoever shall have raised the matter (in the senate) and whoever shall be present at the writing up of the decree and whoever [shall see that it is entered in the public records —; and that ?the list? — in an allied] people, state, or kingdom, be in writing as a whole in the forum and [—; and that —] whoever shall have been condemned according to this statute. Whoever shall have been the jurors for this case [— for this] case, concerning those who shall have prosecuted him, for each openly before the judge [—] he shall have ???, he is to see that it be fixed below the rostra, inscribed on a bronze tablet. I. 20 [Whoever hereafter shall be a magistrate, within the five days next after he shall have been chosen he is to swear in the presence of the urban quaestor by Jupiter and the divine Penates that he will neither act] nor intercede to the effect that this statute may not be, or be improperly, observed. II. 20-7 Whoever [shall not have sworn] according to this statute, [he is not to stand for or hold or have a magistracy or imperium nor] is he [hereafter] to speak [his opinion in the senate] nor is anyone to allow him (to speak) nor is a censor to enrol him in the senate. [Whoever shall have sworn according to this statute, he is to see that his name is entered in the public records in the presence of the urban quaestor —; and the quaestor is to receive those names] and is to see [that he keep] those who shall have sworn in his presence according to this statute [written down] in the [public] records. [— ?when?] he shall have [according to this] statute announced openly for three successive market days and on the [third] market day [—] shall have been displayed and published in the forum. When business [shall] have been postponed [—] he is to see that it is cited as a whole. No-one [is to compass] evasion of this statute [—] ??? is to bind. If there is something prescribed by what is sacred such that it be not right to propose, nothing of that is proposed by this statute. vacat The tribunes of the plebs vacat [—] vacat

8 - TARENTUM FRAGMENT

215

COMMENTARY I. 1 Given that the end of 1. 2 corresponds to the middle of 1. 8 in the next clause, the end of 1. 1 will probably belong to a preceding clause. The content of 1. 1 is therefore not necessarily related to what follows. But it may be that we have the end of a clause relating to a non-citizen who accepts citizenship, to be followed by a clause relating to a non-citizen who refuses citizenship and a clause relating to a citizen. Of the first word, after much inspection of the bronze, a photograph and a cast, we are reasonably certain of what we print; of the second word, A is certain, T virtually certain, although the horizontal hasta is not visible; for I is probably excluded by the spacing, F or P by the likelihood that decisive clues would have been visible; the next two letters are damaged; at the end, N is certain and E preferable to L. For attinere = 'to restrain', see TLL II, cols. 1142-3 (Plautus, Sallust and Tacitus); esp. Plautus, True. 837, testis uinctos attines. II. 2-7 These lines form a clause, which can be identified and supplemented from similar clauses in the Lex repetundarum, Law 1,11. 76-9 = 83-6, with the Commentary, and which gives rewards of immunity from military service and from compulsory munera, and the right to have cases heard at Rome, to those who have been chiefly responsible for a successful prosecution. The recipient of these rewards must be a noncitizen, as otherwise the choice as to whether to have his case tried in Rome and by a Roman magistrate would be superfluous. (Piganiol believed that the recipient would hold dual citizenship of Rome and of his original state, 59; but he is refuted by Tibiletti, 41 n. 4.) I. 3 We print the supplement [in sua ceiuita]te\ the Lex repetundarum, 1. 79 = 1. 86, must probably be restored in su[a quoiusque ceiu]itate\ but quoiusque is not a necessary supplement here. The earlier part of the line no doubt contained a list of the descendants of the primary beneficiary and perhaps a reference to the wish of the beneficiaries not to exercise a right to Roman citizenship; precise supplement would be speculative. II. 5-6 The grammatical structure is perhaps: [uteique, sei quis eorum uocabitur in] iudicium, Romae certet, sei Romae uelet, ad quern [mag(istratum) aderit, is facito ...]; Tibiletti suggested [— sei quis eorum alterum uocabit seiue ab altero uocabitur in] iudicium, perhaps rightly: compare the SC de Asclepiade, Sherk, RGDE, 22, 11. 7-8. A related formula is in Valerius Probus, Eins. §21: R.R.E.P., Romae recte experiri possit. 1. 5 uelet = uelit, compare 1. 23, contenuo. I. 7 Any supplement would be speculative, imperium inhibere = 'to exercise imperium'', imperio inhibere = 'to restrain by imperium'; the second seems to be the later of the two usages; but emendation of imperio to imperium would be incautious. II. 7-9 If the clause in 11. 2-7 refers to non-citizen accusers, it is probable that the clause which begins quei ceiuis gives rewards to citizens. The same order occurs in the Lex repetundarum, where the words [sei quis cei]uis Romanus ex hac lege alte[rei nomen detolerit ...] (1. 86) follow the clauses discussed above. The nature of the rewards to citizens is not clear, though they include exemption from military service. It appears from the Lex repetundarum, 1. 77 = 84, that, under that statute, those who gained Roman citizenship as a result of successful prosecution did not receive exemption from compulsory munera, unlike those who preferred to retain their original citizenship and to receive only prouocatio, see 1. 79 = 85. That exemption from compulsory munera, as well as military service, should nonetheless appear in 1. 9 here is suggested very strongly

216

ROMAN STATUTES

by the beginning of the preserved portion of 1. 10; it is hard to make 11. 10-12 refer solely to the privileges in 11. 2-7. Lintott also inserts the right to move from the beneficiary's tribe to that of the condemned man. The parallel available in the Lex repetundarum relates to those who acquire citizenship through successful prosecution, who therefore did not previously have any tribal affiliation; but it is hard to see what 11. 8-9 could read, other than quel eorum I [uoleni]; or to imagine over what choice could be exercised other than change of tribe. Precise supplement would be speculative. I. 8 The privileges are granted to the man and to his sons: to those in existence at the moment of the grant, not to any who might be born in the future. So 'born from that son' means born from one of those in existence. II. 10-12 If the interpretation of the first two clauses on the tablet is correct, the next provides the necessary safeguards for the privileges offered to citizens, or to both noncitizens and citizens. The prohibitory clause will be ne quis mag(istratus) facito, with or without proue mag(istratu). Precise supplement would be speculative. For the limitation on military immunity in cases of insurrection in Cisalpine Gaul and (probably) in Italy, compare the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Ch. LXII. 11. 12-17 Some elements in these lines must and others may relate to various processes of publication. (Whatever else may be happening, it is clear that what is being published in 1. 16 is not the text of the statute, contra Luzzatto, passim.) When Rome demanded publication of documents in foreign communities, she either specified the place used by the community concerned, which of course varied, or (probably) allowed freedom of choice, provided that publicity was achieved: see the Lex de prouinciis praetoriis, Law 12, Delphi Copy, Block B, 11. 24-6. The forum here and in 1. 16 is surely the Roman forum, contra, e.g., Brunt, Fall, 116. The word omnium at the end of 1. 12 is surely the end of a list (of two), compare the Lex agraria, Law 2, 1. 7; the Lex Cornelia, Law 14, Col. I, 1. 32; if this is right, the procedure for (Italian) allies and Latins occupies 11. 12-16, that for other foreigners 11. 16-17. The latter is markedly less elaborate than the former. In both cases, we probably have to do with lists of names of beneficiaries under the statute, compare in general terms the Lex repetundarum, Law 1,1. 79. Publication by announcement occurs also in the SC de Astypalaeis, where we take it to refer to Rome (see the Appendix); see also Gaius n, 101, for the holding of (calata) comitia bis in anno for the purpose of making wills; for announcements of lists of names in condone, see also the Lex repetundarum, Law 1,11. 15, 18, 38. The Roman institutional vocabulary used in 1. 15 is only attested in relation to the business of the senate and the supplement at the beginning of 1. 16 is obvious. Presumably, in order to announce a list of names in condone, the magistrate of 1. 12 simply summoned a condo; in order to announce them in the senate, it was presumably necessary to follow normal senatorial procedure; we suppose that our legislator required that a record be kept in the form of a decree of the senate; note that the tenses are correct for the moment of formulation of the decree, future perfect for consoluerit, future for aderit (and the restored curabit). 1. 12 The title of the magistrate who is to undertake publication is lost in the lacuna at the beginning. He is clearly in charge of a court, in which he ius deicat, and the use of the pronoun is suggests that he is described in a relatively lengthy fashion. The peregrine

8 - TARENTUM FRAGMENT

217

praetor is the best candidate, though it might be the urban praetor, or even the judge appointed to preside over the court set up by this statute. I. 14 It seems \hdXfictam is a variant for fixsam, and we assume this in our translation; see also the General Introduction, Ch. XVI. II. 16-17 Perhaps [uteique formula eorum omnium, qui eo iure erunt quod s(upra) s(criptum) e(st) in soc]io populo ... et [in tabulis publicis scripta siet]. We suppose that there follows finally a provision for the publication or recording of the name of the culprit. 11. 17-19 It is usually held that we have here a clause dealing with the resolution of any dispute as to the person whose agency had been chiefly responsible for the condemnation of the culprit; an allusion to the existence of the dispute will have stood at the beginning of 1. 18; the beginnning of 1. 19 will have read something like [per tabellam sententiam ferunto] (partly following Lintott). I. 18 For palam ioudicei compare the Lex Latina Tabula Bantinae, Law 7,11. 17 and 24. II. 20-3 These lines can be seen from comparison with the Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae, Law 7, 11. 14-20, and the Lex de prouinciis praetoriis, Law 12, Delphi Copy, Block C, 11. 8-23, to refer to an oath and to the penalties for failure to swear such an oath; but the space occupied here is much less than in either other case. (In the case of the Lex de prouinciis praetoriis, failure to swear is treated along with other offences.) The supplement at the beginning of 1. 20 fulfils what seem to be four essential conditions: that those obliged to swear at least include magistrates (note intercesurum, appropriate to a magistrate), that there be a time limit (without which the whole procedure was surely meaningless), that before whom and the gods by whom the oath is sworn be recorded. For the supplement in 1. 21, compare the Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae, 11. 19-20, and see the Introduction. I. 22 Perhaps ad aerarium: compare, e.g., Cicero, // in Verr. 57. II. 23-5 There may have been a similar clause in the Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae, which preserves the words [tr]inum nondin[um] at 1. 31, but this is of little assistance, because of the highly fragmentary state of the end of that tablet. Piganiol, 61, suggests a procedure whereby non-swearing magistrates might be prosecuted; Lintott restores a clause in which the peregrine praetor imposes a time-limit within which the oath must be taken. This is rendered difficult by the parallel of the Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae, which has already made provision for this at 11. 14, 16 and 23; and it is rendered unnecessary by the supplement suggested for the beginning of 1. 20. Piganiol is surely right: note the similarity between the Roman institutional vocabulary used here and that used in Cicero, dom.t 45, and compare the Lex Osca Tabulae Bantinae, Law 13, 11. 13-15, with the Commentary. Following Piganiol, we suggest accusatio as the subject of \prosc\ripta propositaque. 1. 24 quom res prolatae: the reference is presumably to the uncontroversial postponement of various forms of public business, see the Lex Flavia, Ch. K, with the commentary; the procedure of the Lex repetundarum, Law 1, 11. 39-42, is probably different. It is probable, though not certain, that quom begins a new sentence. 1. 25 The subject of citetur is a feminine singular noun; it must therefore be a thing, not a person; following Piganiol, we suggest accusatio. Although TLL cites no parallel for cito with the meaning of recito, that must be its significance here, since the notion of summoning is hardly appropriate, as in Gellius XVI, 4, 3; the Lex Valeria Aurelia, Law

218

ROMAN STATUTES

37, Tabula Hebana, 1. 28. Compare, perhaps, Livy XXVm, 29, 10: {chare) nomina damnatorum, prior to execution. 11. 25-6 The remainder of the inscription, from hoic legeifraudem nei quis ... onwards, contains a prohibition on anyone acting improperly to the detriment of the law; for fraus legi compare the Lex de prouinciis praetoriis, Law 12, Delphi Copy, Block C, 1. 15; the Lex Tarentina, Law 15, 1. 30; Dig. I, 3, 29 (Paul), 30 (Ulpian); G. Rotondi, Gli atti in frode alia legge (Turin, 1911); id., BIDR 25, 1913, 221-35 = Scritti giuridici TR (Milan, 1922), 9-24, 'Ancora sulla genesi della teoria della "Fraus legi'"; H. Kriiger & M. Kaser, ZSS 63, 1943, 117-74, 'Fraus'; H. Honsell, in Festschrift M. Kaser (Munich, 1976), 111-26, 'In fraudem legis agere'; for teneto, compare the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24, 1.161. For the sanctio of 1. 26, see General Introduction, Ch. XIV. Its syntactical relationship to the words immediately preceding it, or to the letters tr pi which follow it, is not absolutely certain, but it is best to treat it as an independent sentence, contra Bartoccini, Tibiletti and L. Fascione, Studi Biscardi VI (Milan, 1987), 51-72, 'Per lo studio della siglaS.S.S.E.Q.N.I.S.R.E.H.L.N.R.'. The letters tr pi have led scholars to believe that another clause, in some way defining the position of the tribunes of the plebs, followed the sanctio, either on the bottom of this tablet, in a further line, not long enough to reach the left-hand edge of the fragment (so Mattingly (1970), 155-6; Lintott); or on a subsequent tablet (Tibiletti, 55-6). This second suggestion seems improbable, unless, contrary to appearances, there was a great deal to follow, as there is a substantial margin left below 1. 26. But there may well have been a clause continuing after tr pi on the line below, despite the fact that the engraver could easily have fitted another ten letters into 1. 26 before beginning the next line; for it is clear from the Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae, the Lex Gabinia Calpurnia, Law 22, and the Lex Valeria Aurelia, Law 37, Todi Fragment, that the various elements which concluded the text of a statute were often spaced idiosyncratically, presumably for reasons of emphasis. For the content of such a clause relating to the tribunes of the plebs, see on the Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae, Law 7, Adamesteanu fragment, 1. 5. This is in any case preferable to seeing the letters as some sort of signature (as Bartoccini, 13 n. 5; and Mattingly (1969), 139 n. 67, but retracted at (1970), 155 n. 17). JSR

8 - TARENTUM FRAGMENT

219

Appendix The standard text of the SC de Astypalaeis (Sherk, RDGE, 16), 11. 9-15, reads: ... δτι... ... θυσίαν τε εν Καπετωλίω, εάν τ>έλη, ποιήσ[αι αύτφ έξη και κατά] 12 τον νόμον [τόν τε] 'Ρόβριον και τον Άκίλιον [άπόγραφον άναΐΜναι εν] [τ]όπωι δημοσίω [και έπιφανεΐ] προκέιμεν[ον ου αν πλείστοι πάρα-] [σ]τείχωσιν [των πολιτών] και κατ'ένιαυτον [εν τη έκκλησί-] [α] άναγορεύ(ε)στ>αι... Little of this is certain or even probable. Our only source, the copy by J.B.G. d'Ansse de Villoison, Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, MS Supp.Graec. 930, f. 78, actually reads προκειμένου in 1. 13; the ink stain which immediately precedes is that of an annotator and probably covers letters which were an erroneous reading of προ- and which had already been deleted by de Villoison; the lacuna is therefore very short. The lacuna in the middle of 1. 14 is also unlikely to be of more than 6-8 letters. Tibiletti, 7-18, followed the communis opinio in holding that the clause related to publication in Astypalaea and tried to establish whether it was one statute or two that was cited. He opted, more cautiously than his successors, for two; but Dio LVI, 10, 3, Ο τε Πάπιος και ό Ποππαΐος νόμος, which he cites, shows that no certainty is attainable. Moreover, the entire context of the clause in the SC de Astypalaeis relates to events at Rome. Frederiksen, 'Municipal laws', 185, supplemented πίνακα instead of άπόγραφον, a step in the right direction. We hesitantly suggest, comparing the SC de Asclepiade, Sherk, RDGE, 22, and the Epistula et SC de Mytilenaeis, Sherk, RDGE, 26: ... ότι... ... ϋυσίαν τε έν Καπετωλίφ, έάν ϋέλη, ποιήσ[αι αύτω εξη και κατά] 12 τον νόμον [τόν τε] 'Ρόβριον και τον Χκίλιον [πίναξ χαλκούς φιλίας έν] [τ]όπωι δημοσίω[ι η] προκείμενο(ς) [ου αν πλείστοι των πολιτών πάρα-] [σ]τείχωσιν [ωσαύτως] και κατ'ένιαυτον [δίς δέη —] άναγορεύ(ε)σϋαι It seems best to leave open the question of where the announcement was to take place; and it may even be that the statute of 1. 12 regulates what goes before, not what comes after. MHC

9 - CLUSIUM FRAGMENTS BIBLIOGRAPHY Fragment (a) Biblioteca degli Uffizi, Schede Bassetti (eighteenth century), vol. 26, f. 42 = 'Marmi greci del Canonico Bassetti', f. 5, 'H sotto scritto contorno e la grandezza e figura della lamina, in cio solo differente che le lettere di ciascun verso terminano nella frattura di essa, come med ha di voce esposta chi l'ha veduta', followed by drawing (see PI. I, 2); A.F. Gori, Inscriptiones antiquae Graecae et Romanae in Etruriae urbibus exstantes II (Florence, 1734), p. 412 no. 16, whence CIL I 1 (1863), 209; G.F. Gamurrini, in A. Fabretti (ed.), Corpus Inscriptionum Italicarum. Appendice (Florence, 1880), p. 36 no. 400, from Schede Bassetti; W. Deecke, Etruskische Forschungen und Studien. V. Die etruskischen Bilinguen (Stuttgart, 1883), p. 121 no. 28 (holding that the list of names in Etruscan on the other side is an album iudicum)\ CIL XI (1888), 2091; C. Pauli (ed.), CIE I (Rome, 1893), 3230; CIL I 2 (1918), 597; CIL I 2 (1986), p. 917. Fragment (b) P. Matranga, in Bulllnst. 1853, 35, 'Adunanza de' 14 gennaro 1853'; R. Garrucci (ed.), Sylloge inscriptionum Latinarum aevi Romanae reipublicae (Turin, 1875), 2329; G.F. Gamurrini, I.e., p. 87 no. 954, from Garrucci, with some tacit changes; W. Deecke, I.e., p. 126 no. 29; CIL XL (1888), 2091; C. Pauli (ed.), I.e.; CIL I 2 (1918), 597. Fragment (c) R. Garrucci (ed.), I.e.; A. Fabretti (ed.), Corpus Inscriptionum Italicarum (Florence, 1867), p. LXXXVII no. 801 bis, from 'ectypum stanneum'; W. Deecke, I.e., p. 127 no. 30; CIL XI (1888), 2091, from 'ectypum stanneum', formerly in the Deutsches Archaologisches Institut; C. Pauli (ed.), I.e.; CIL I 2 (1918), 597. Fragment (d) G.F. Gamurrini, NSc 1892, 304-12, 'Nuove scoperte neH'antico territorio chiusino', at 304-5; C. Pauli (ed.), I.e.; CIL I 2 (1918), 597; CIL XI (1926), p. 1279; CIL I 2 (1931), p. 724. Fragment (e) W.B. Clarke, in E. Braun, in Bulllnst. 1843,75-7, 'Adunanza de' 17 marzo 1843', at 75. Fragment (f) G.F. Gamurrini, I.e. Facsimiles: Fragment (a), Schede Bassetti; Fragment (b), Garrucci; Ritschl, II, G, b, from paper rubbing and tin impression; Fragment (c), Garrucci; Fabretti, pi. XXXH.

221

222

ROMAN STATUTES

Six fragments, apparently of the same bronze tablet, with a list of names in Etruscan on the other side, on the same alignment, found at various times at or near Chiusi: Fragment (a) formerly in Chiusi; Fragment (b) formerly in Rome in the possession of P. Matranga; Fragment (c) acquired from Canonico Mazzetti by Gamurrini and given to the then Museo Municipale in Chiusi, but missing by 1880; Fragments (d) and (f) formerly in the Museo Archeologico Mecenate di Arezzo; Fragment (d) seen by Bormann Fragment (e) formerly in Rome in the possession of W.B. Clarke. Fragment (a), broken on all sides and without right-hand margin, contra CIL and CIE, see the quotation above, 0.08 m high x 0.08 m wide, letters 0.005 m; Fragment (b), broken on all sides, 0.04 m high x 0.04 m wide; Fragment (c), broken on all sides, 0.035 m high x 0.035 m wide; Fragment (d), broken on all sides. No record is preserved of the texts on Fragments (e) and (f). A seventh fragment, with a list of Etruscan names on one side and nothing on the other side, CIE I, 3231, may be of the same bronze tablet. INTRODUCTION It seems a possible inference that Fragment (a), 11. 3-4, deal with the acquisition of the money for the penalty of a man convicted in a criminal case; 1. 5 clearly relates to rewards for successful prosecutors; 11. 6-9 are too fragmentary to allow us to say with certainty that the rewards were pecuniary in nature; Fragments (b) and (c) may relate to voting procedure, whether on a substantive or on a subsidiary issue; Fragment (d) to some form of penalty, if the conjecture advanced in the Commentary is accepted. There are no decisive grounds for printing the fragments other than in the order in which they emerged; but if Fragments (b) and (c) relate to the vote of the jury on the substantive issue they will have come before Fragments (a) and (d). For the date, see the General Introduction, Ch. m.

9 - CLUSIUM FRAGMENTS TEXT Fragment (a) [— ]quei stipulatum eius[ —] [— facit]oque utei ea fiant primo [quoque die —] [— bo]neis praedibusue eius ex [h(ac)T(ege) uendundeis —] 4 [—]t quodque uxorei matr[imonii causa —] [— quoius eorum o]pera maxume eum reum[ condemnatum esse constiterit —] [—]t eique earn pequniam p[—] [— q]uoius h(ac) l(ege) quaestio erit co[—] 8 [— quoi]ue ipse parens sit quoue [natus sit —] [— p]equnia quae de ea re ex (h(ac)> [l(ege) —] [—] vacat Fragment (b)

4

[— ]binae b[—] [---]+iuic+[--] [—]am coi(e)ce[rit —] [— ap]ereitoque s[—] [—]quam e[—]

Fragment (c)

4

[— qu]oiam [—] [—]quai sen[—] [—]ptaames[—] [—]+ iudi[c—] [-]iu[-]

Fragment (d)

4

[-]IVI[-] [—]quere +[—] [— ]ex leg[e plebeiue scito —] [-]?[--]'

223

ROMAN STATUTES

224

APPARATUS CRTTICUS Fragment (a) 1

[— ]VVEISIIPVLAIVM, Schede Bassetti; [—] QVEIS M.VLAIVM, Gori; [— LI]QVET,

Mommsen, reported in CIL XI 2 FIANT, Schede Bassetti; FIM/ F, Gori. 3 Broken N at the beginning, Schede Bassetti, clearly; N at the beginning, Gori; supp. Mommsen, 'Stadtrechte', 3 6 5 - 7 4 QVOQVE, MATI, Gori, wrongly; MATR[EI — ] , CIL

5 Broken p at the beginning, Schede Bassetti, clearly; p at the beginning, Gori 6 P[ERSOLVITO—], CZLI1

7 [—]oivs, Schede Bassetti; [—]IOIVS, Gori; CO[NDEMNATO — ] , CIL I 1 8 [—]VR, Schede Bassetti; [—]VE, Gori 9 [—]ECVNIA, Schede Bassetti; [—]EQVNIA, Gori; EX [—], Schede Bassetti; EX.N[—],

Gori 10 We have no idea whence Gori derived the IFDD which he prints in his last line Fragment (b) 1 [—]OINAE, Deecke, wrongly 2 [—]+ivpic+[--],Ritschl 3 COIFCE[—],Ritschl

4 Supp. Mattingly, in discussion Fragment (c) 1 [—]OIAM and interpunct [—], Fabretti, Bormann in CIL XI in app.; [—]n N A [ — ] , Garrucci, Bormann in CIL XI (1888) in text 3 [—]+TA A SAE+[—], Garrucci: the first letter is probably p, the last probably s; [ — ] T A N S A C [ — ] , Fabretti in facsimile; [—]STAA S A C [ — ] , Fabretti in text; [— C.VIBIV]S

P A N S A C S [ — ] , Deecke in apparatus (!!!); [~]TAA M E [ — ] , Bormann 4 - 5 So Bormann Fragment (d) 1-2, 4 So Bormann 3 irc[—], Gamurrini; i and the top half of E or F, Bormann in CIL XI (1926)

9 - CLUSIUM FRAGMENTS

225

COMMENTARY Fragment (a) 1. 1 It is remarkable to find in a criminal statute a reference to a stipulation: stipulatum accipere seems not to be attested, so perhaps quei stipulatum eius [rei causa se esse deixerit: compare Cicero, Rosc.com. 13; for stipulation, see the Twelve Tables, Law 40, Tabula I, 12. I. 3 Compare in general terms the Lex repetundarum, Law 1, 11. 56-8, 66-7; the Lex agraria, Law 2,11. 46, 100; for the selling (up) of goods and guarantors, see Cicero, Phil. II, 78; II in Verr. 1, 140-5; Mommsen, 'Stadtrechte', 365-7, citing the latter text; the Lex Flavia, Chs. 63-5, with the commentary. This line, like 1. 4, may deal with the relationship between the rights or liabilities of a third party and the rights of the state. 1. 4 What shall have been given to a wife may be being either included in or excluded from the bona of 1. 3: compare Dig. XXm, 3, 43pr. (Ulpian), for the phrase matrimonii causa; and perhaps the celebrated case of the dowry of Licinia (Dig. XXIV, 3, 66pr. (Javolenus)). 1. 5 Compare the Lex repetundarum, Law 1,11. 76-8 = 83-5, with the Commentary. 1. 6 Compare perhaps the Lex repetundarum, Law 1,1. 69. 1. 7 Compare the Lex repetundarum, Law 1,11. 6, 76 = 83, 78 = 85. 1. 8 Compare the Lex repetundarum, Law 1,1. 60. 1. 9 Compare perhaps the Lex repetundarum, Law 1,1. 69. Fragment (b) 1. 1 Perhaps a reference to two ballots for each judge, [sorticolae \binae b[uxeae\. compare in general the Lex repetundarum, Law 1,1. 51. 1. 3 Perhaps [sorticol\am coiece[rit]: compare the Lex repetundarum, Law 1,11. 49-52. 1. 4 Perhaps s[itellam]. Fragment (c) 1. 2 Perhaps \reli\quai sen[tentiae]. 1. 3 It is very hard to think of anything except a mes[sis tempore]', the reference would be to res prolatae: see the Commentary on the Lex repetundarum, Law 1,11. 39-41. Fragment (d) 1. 2 Perhaps [aerarium relin]quere, compare the Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae, Law 7,1. 6. MHC

10 - FALERIO FRAGMENT I A BIBLIOGRAPHY F. Barnabei, RAL 1922, 133-6 (brief notice); V. Scialoja, Studi in onore di P. Bonfante I (Milano, 1930), 1-10 = Studi giuridici U (Roma, 1934), 298-302, Trammenti inediti di legge romana del I secolo a.Christo'; CIL I 2 (1943), 2677. Photograph: Scialoja. Two joining fragments of a bronze, tablet, broken on all sides, 0.19 m high x 0.12 m wide x 0.005 m thick, letters 0.01 m, from Falerio, read from the photograph for CIL I 2 by Nesselhauf and Stroux; now in the Museo Nazionale di Ancona, a gift from B. Mussolini, Inv. 1480, seen by M.H. Crawford. The letters are lighdy and unevenly cut; the surface was also hammered before the other side was used and is heavily corroded. The Falerio Fragment I B on the reverse, Law 17, is laid out on the same alignment as this text. INTRODUCTION What can be read is not very revealing; the two subjunctives of 11. 7 and 13 are presumably in dependent clauses. One might guess that our text attempts to prevent its own abrogation or obrogation, see the General Introduction, Ch. VDI. For the date, see the General Introduction, Ch. IE. TEXT

4

8

12

[—]+++[-] [-]+++[-] [-]+++[-] [-]+++[-] [—]qu[e] earn ++[—] [—] in numer[o —] [—] oporteat ei [—] [—] vacat [—]+ quid n[e] ei de[—] [—]ria si [ ] abroga[uerit —] [—]ium +++am+++[—] [—]d iei quom r(ei) p(ublicae) [causa —] [— pa]lam recitetur[ —] [—]t obro[gauerit —]

227

228

ROMAN STATUTES APPARATUS CRITICUS

1-8 Nine lines according to Stroux 9 [—]— D E [ — ] > Nesselhauf; [—]+++ QVIQ++BIDE[—], Stroux 10 [—]— A B R O G A [ — ] , Nesselhauf; [—]-M-»-SIVST+++ABROGA[—], Stroux

11 [ — ] + i v — A M + [ — ] , Nesselhauf; [—]IVD+-H-M-BO++M[—], Stroux 12 [—]G-—IQVIS — [ — ] , Nesselhauf; [—]OIIIQVISM+R++I[—], Stroux

13 [— PA]LAMRECITETVR[—], Nesselhauf and Stroux: the interpunct is clear 14 [ — ] T O D R O [ — ] , Nesselhauf; [—]TOBRO[—], Stroux

COMMENTARY 1. 9 1. 10

The grammatical structure is perhaps: [si] quid, ne eide[...

(verb), (verb)].

Perhaps [iniu]ria si [quis ea ...]

1. 12 The grammatical structure is perhaps: [si qui]d iei, quom r.p. [causa ... (verb), (verb)].

MHC

11 - BAUER FRAGMENT A BIBLIOGRAPHY CIL I 2 (1986), 2925 (b); P. Weiss, ZPE 11, 1989, 145-9, 'Zu einem neuen Fragment einer Tabula Legis (CIL I 2 , 2, 2925)'. Photograph: CIL I 2 (1986), tab. 19 fig. 4. Fragment of a bronze tablet, broken on all sides, 0.035 m high x 0.03 m wide x 0.003 m thick, letters 0.005 m, bought in Rome in 1952, formerly in the Bauer collection in Cologne. The Bauer Fragment B on the other side, Law 23, is laid out upside down in relation to this text.

INTRODUCTION The parallels available for 11. 1 and 3 suffice to attribute the fragment to a Roman statute. Compare in general the four occasions in the Lex repetundarum, Law 1,11. 2 0 - 1 , 23-4, 3 6 - 8 , 44, where oaths are taken; we may have an indication of those excluded from service as jurors and then of the oath they must take. For the date, see the General Introduction, Ch. HI.

TEXT

4

[—]ator pa[—] [—]s quei t[—] [— per] Iouem d[eosque Penates —] [—]ue lat[—]

APPARATUS CRTTICUS 1

[—

SEN]ATOR or [—

RECVPER]ATOR, CIL\

PA[RS — ] , CIL;

[-'--

M]AIOR PA[RS — ] ,

Weiss (see the Commentary)

COMMENTARY 1. 1 Perhaps [cuiue sen]ator pa[ter fuerit], compare the terms of the Plebiscitum Claudium, as reported by Livy XXI, 63, 3: Q. Claudius ... tulerat, ne quis senator cuiue senator pater fuisset, maritimam nauem ... haberet. There are arguments of form and content against the supplement of Weiss: the gap between the A and the O is very wide for an I; and we would presumably on his view have a case of a quorum taking an oath;

229

230

ROMAN STATUTES

but a quorum of a half is a relatively low one, see the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Introduction, whereas a major issue is implied by the oath. 1. 3 For the form of the oath, see on the Lex Latina Tabula Bantinae, Law 7,11. 23-6. 1. 4 Perhaps [nominis]ue Lat[ini\ but the connection with what precedes is not obvious. MHC

12 - LEX DE PROVINCIIS PRAETORIIS BIBLIOGRAPHY T. Homolle, BCH 21, 1897, 623 (brief mention of the Delphi text); Anon, CRAI 1904, 532-3 (record of a lecture by A. Jarde); P. Foucart, JS 1906, 569 (brief mention in the course of a discussion of the campaigns against the pirates in 74-71 BC); A. Wilhelm, JOAI 17, 1914, 98 (brief mention in the course of a discussion of demands for military assistance by Rome). H. Pomtow, Klio 17, 1921, 170-4 ('Delphische Neufunde', V, no. 156: edpr. of the Delphi text), whence SEG I, 1923, 161; E. Cuq, CRAI 1923, 129-50, 'La loi Gabinia contre la piraterie de Tan 67 av. J.-C. d'apres une inscription de Delphes'; J. Colin, RA 18, 1923, 289-94, 'La pretendue "loi Gabinia contre la piraterie" trouvee a Delphes'. G. Colin, BCH 48, 1924, 58-96, 'Traduction grecque d'une loi romaine (de la fin de 101 av. J.-C.) (projets de politique orientale des democrates et de Marius?)' (full publication of the Delphi text), whence SEG m, 1929, 378; E. Cuq, CRAI 1924, 284-94, 'Note complementaire sur la loi romaine contre la piraterie'; RA 19, 1924, 208-14, 'La loi contre la piraterie d'apres une inscription de Delphes'; M. Cary, CR 38, 1924, 60, 'Is it the lex Gabinia?'; id., CR 38, 1924, 162-4, 'The lex Gabinia once more'; H.A. Ormerod, Piracy in the Ancient World (Liverpool, 1924), 242 (critique of the identification of the text with the Lex Gabinia of 67 BC); M.A. Levi, RFIC 2, 1924, 80-6 = // tribunato della plebe (Milan, 1978), 87-92, 'Una legge romana contro la pirateria' (arguing for a date of 99-96 BC); J. Dobias, Listy Fil 1924, 13-20; 94-104, 'The law against the pirates on the Delphic monument of L. Aemilius Paullus'; 1925, 65-75, 'Once again on the Roman law from Delphi' (in Czech, arguing for a date of 99-96 BC; we should like to repeat our thanks to Dr M. Teich for his help); J. Colin, RA 21, 1925, 342-51, 'Reponse a M. Cuq'; E. Cuq, RA 21, 1925, 366, 'Encore la loi contre la piraterie'; id., RHD, 4eme serie, 4, 1925, 541-65, 'Un fragment de loi romaine d'apres une inscription de Delphes'; H.A. Ormerod, CR 39, 1925, 15-16, 'The so-called lex Gabinia'; M.A. Levi, Atti R.Acc.Sc.Torino 60, 1925, 354-62 = // tribunato della plebe, 92-7, 'Di una legge romana contro i pirati, II'; H. Stuart Jones, JRS 16, 1926, 155-73, 'A Roman law concerning piracy'; G. de Sanctis, RFIC, n.s. 5, 1927, 557-8 = Scritti minori VI (Rome, 1972), 759-60, 'H. Stuart Jones sulla legge romana contro la pirateria'; J. Carcopino, REG 42, 1929, 326-7, 'H. Stuart Jones. A Roman law concerning piracy'. G. Colin, in Fouilles de Delphes m, 4 (Paris, 1930), 37; J. Carcopino, in Melanges G. Glotz I (Paris, 1932), 117-32, 'Sur la loi romaine du monument de Paul-Emile a Delphes'; F.T. Hinrichs, Hermes 98, 1970, 471-502, 'Die lateinische Tafel von Bantia und die "Lex de Piratis"'; I. Love, AJA 76, 1972, 61-76. 'A preliminary report of the excavations at Knidos, 1970', at 64-5 (brief mention of the Cnidos text). M. Hassall, M.H. Crawford, J.M. Reynolds, JRS 64, 1974, 195-220, 'Rome and the eastern provinces at the end of the second century BC {edpr. of the Cnidos text, cited as HCR); A.W. Lintott, ZPE 20, 1976, 65-82, 'Notes on the Roman law inscribed at Delphi and Cnidos'; A.N. Sherwin White, JRS 66, 1976, 1-14, 'Rome, Pamphylia and Cilicia';

231

232

ROMAN STATUTES

J.-L. Ferrary, MEFRA 89, 1977, 619-60, 'Recherches sur la legislation de Saturninus et de Glaucia, I'; G.V. Sumner, GRBS 19, 1978, 211-25, The "Piracy Law" from Delphi and the law of the Cnidos inscription'; J.H. Oliver, ZPE 32, 1978, 279-80, 'Epigraphical notes', at 279, '1. The Roman law at Cnidos'; A. Giovannini, E. Grzybek, MH 35, 1978, 33-47, 'La lex de piratis persequendis'; T.R. Martin & E. Badian, ZPE 35, 1979, 153-67, 'Two notes on the Roman law from Cnidos'; F.W. Walbank, in Althistorische Studien: H Bengtson zum 70. Geburtstag dargebracht (Wiesbaden, 1983), 131-47 = Selected papers (Cambridge, 1985), 193-209,. 'Via ilia nostra militaris: some thoughts on the Via Egnatia'; P. Freeman, in P. Freeman and D. Kennedy (edd.), The Defence of the Roman and Byzantine East (Oxford: BAR, 1986), 253-75, 'The province of Cilicia and its origins' (supposing that 'Cilicia is not mentioned as a province' in the text); E. Badian, MH45, 1988,203-18, 'E.H.L.N.R.'. W. Bliimel, Die Inschriften von Knidos (Cologne, 1992), 31; H. Pohl, Die romische Politik und die Piraterie (Berlin, 1993), 217-56. Photographs: Fouilles de Delphes, pi. VI, 2 (Delphi Copy, Block A); JRS 64, 1974, pi. XH (Cnidos Copy, Column II); JRS 64, 1974, pi. XEI (Cnidos Copy, Column IE); Fouilles de Delphes, pis. VII, 1 (Delphi Copy, Block B, except for Inv. 3457); VII bis (Block B, bottom left-hand corner, Inv. 3586); VI, 1 (Block B, centre right-hand edge, Inv. 3457); AJA 76, 1972, pi. 15, fig. 6; JRS 64, 1974, pis. XHI-XTV (Cnidos Copy, Column IV); Fouilles de Delphes, pi. VII, 2 (Delphi Copy, Block C); JRS 64, 1974, pi. XIV (Cnidos Copy, Column V). Translations into Latin: J.C. Naber, in SEG m , 378 (Delphi Copy, Block C); S. Riccobono, in FIRA I (Delphi Copy, Blocks B and C); Lintott (Cnidos Copy, Column V). Translations into English: ARS 60-1 (part of Delphi Copy); Sherk, Greek East, 59-66. Delphi: parts of three blocks forming three courses of the monument of L. Aemilius Paullus, found between 1893 and 1896 (see Fig. X), now in the Museum of Delphi, Inv. 434 (Block A), 3571, 3586, 700, 3588, 3457, 3439 (Block B), 890 (Block C), 3571 missing in 1974, 3571 and 700 missing in 1982; Block A, 0.050 m high x 0.045 m wide, Block B, 0.46 m high x 1.18 m wide, Block C, 0.49 m high x 1.19 m wide, letters 0.006-0.009 m. Cnidos: three blocks re-used in a Byzantine plunge-bath, found in 1970, still in situ (HCR, 195; see Fig. XI), Block 1, 0.85 m high x 1.52 m wide x 0.30 m thick, bearing Columns I, II, HI and the left-hand edge of Column IV (only isolated letters survive of Column I and they can have nothing to do with our text: see HCR, 195), Block 2, 0.85 m high x 1.15 m wide x 0.34 m thick, bearing the right-hand part of Column IV and the lefthand part of Column V, Block 3, 0.82 m high x 1.26 m wide x 0.33 m thick, bearing the right-hand edge of Column V (HCR, 195-6: see further below), letters 0.010-0.015 m (HCR, 196-7). M.H. Crawford and J. M. Reynolds have checked the Cnidos copy four times, the Delphi copy twice; the former in particular is extremely difficult to read; we have also benefited from the checks of the Cnidos copy and of the Delphi squeezes of Pomtow carried out by Dr W. Bliimel, to whom we owe a very great deal. His text and our text are largely the same and are the result of our collaboration with each other. Although numerous improvements in our readings have been possible over the years, the Cnidos copy has

12 - LEX DE PROVINCIIS PRAETORIIS

233

greatly, the Delphi copy somewhat, deteriorated from exposure to the elements. In particular, the readings of the tops of the Cnidos Copy, Columns II, HI and V, depend in part on our latex squeezes, which are close to the end of their working life. New clauses are indicated in the Delphi copy by a vacat or a space-bar or an interpunct, except in Block C, 1. 8, in the Cnidos copy by outspacing.

234

ROMAN STATUTES INTRODUCTION

The Delphi Copy has a long history in the classical scholarship of this century, under some such name as the 'Lex de piratis persequendis* or the 'Piracy law'; but the Cnidos copy makes it clear that the title is inappropriate and we have adopted that suggested by Ferrary. The relationship of the two copies is discussed by HCR, 197-200; so far no attempt has been made to refute the view then maintained that they represent different translations of a single statute. The two texts deal differently with the Latin phrase (sciens) dolo malo, see on the Cnidos Copy, Column II, 1. 6; the order of the clauses in the two translations is sometimes different, see, for instance, on the Delphi Copy, Block B, 1. 3; the Delphi text occasionally abbreviates slightly in translating, compare, for instance, the Cnidos Copy, Column HI, 11. 23-5, with the Delphi Copy, Block B, 1. 4; the Cnidos text displays special knowledge of the conditions obtaining in Cyprus, see on Column EI, 11. 38-41. Both translations are very inelegant and both were probably therefore made by Latin speakers (not all of the strictures in Colin (1930), 160-1, are justified): note the random use of the definite article, comparing, for instance, the Cnidos Copy, Column n, 1. 1, with Column EQ, 11. 30-1; the uncertainty over Greek syntax, comparing, for instance, the Delphi Copy, Block B, 1. 11 with 1. 23; the misrepresentation of-we, in, for instance, the Cnidos Copy, Column HI, 1. 22; the occurrence of Latinisms, as in the Cnidos Copy, Column IV, 11. 13-17; the Delphi Copy, Block B, 11. 20 and 26-7; Block C, 11. 23-4; the misuse of ov in the Delphi Copy, Block C, 1. 10; the consistently erratic use of dv. (We have not set out to supply ocv wherever it is missing.) This evidence now seems to us to outweigh the misunderstandings which led HCR and Ferrary (cited in the Commentary on the Cnidos Copy, Column IV, 11. 32-3) to argue for Greek speakers; we nonetheless suppose that both copies were made locally, by different Latin speakers. We doubt whether Sumner can be right in supposing that the Delphi Copy was engraved in 74-72/1 BC, for the vast bulk of the statute was by that stage quite irrelevant. There is also the problem of the text below the Delphi Copy, dated to 91-68 BC, and naturally taken as inscribed later than it. On Sumner's hypothesis, its presence may be invoked to explain the absence of material in the Delphi Copy, which appears in the Cnidos Copy, if such exists (see below); but there was in any case plenty of space on either side of the Delphi Copy, Block C, which could have been, but was not used (see Fig. X).

* ** The first point at which a direct comparison can be made between the line lengths at Delphi and Cnidos is between the Delphi Copy, Block B, and the Cnidos Copy, Column IV, where 6 lines of Block B, 11. 27-32, correspond to 24 lines of Column IV, 11. 2-25, a ratio of 1 to 4; it follows that some 70 lines at the top of Column IV are missing, corresponding to 17 lines of Block B, 11. 10-26. (The estimate in HCR of some 60 missing lines in all columns did not do justice to the complexity of the situation.) Absolute precision is impossible; but on the Delphi Copy, Block B has lines of about 120 letters, Block C lines of about 110 letters; on the Cnidos Copy, Column II has lines of getting on for 30 letters, Column HI lines of getting on for 35 letters, Column IV, in its upper half, lines of getting on for 35 letters, in its lower half, lines of getting on for 45 letters, Column V lines of 45-50 letters. (It is now clear, as it was not to HCR, that the ends of all the lines of Column V overflowed onto Block 3.)

12 - LEX DE PROVINCIIS PRAETORIIS

235

A further problem is caused by the fact that the number of lines per column at Cnidos also increases towards the end. Column II has 31 and could have had two more if it had been preserved to the same height as Column IE; Column III has 41; Column IV has 42; Column V has 46. In addition, whereas Column II is fairly evenly spaced, the top 18 lines of Column EH occupy the same space as the bottom 23; Column IV is again fairly evenly spaced, as is Column V. On this basis, it seems reasonable to hypothesise that the upper portion of Column II had about 45 lines; of Column HE, about 60; of Column IV, about 60; of Column V, about 70. Let us now consider the position of the Delphi Copy, Block A (see Fig. XII). (We apologise for the obscurity of the presentation in HCR, 195-6, 215 n. 16.) Block A was originally 0.481 m high, Block B 0.462 m high, Block C 0.493 m high (A. Jacquemin and D. Laroche, BCH 106, 1982, 191-218, 'Notes sur trois piliers delphiques'). Block C originally contained 31 lines, but Block B 33 lines; Block A may well have contained up to 35 lines and will have had the same number of letters per line as Block B. The end of the Delphi Copy, Block A, will have fallen approximately at the end of the Cnidos Copy, Column EI, 1. 10. Working backwards, 35 lines of Block A will have corresponded to almost the whole of the available space on the rest of Column HI and on Column II: 35 lines of 120 letters each on Block A = 140 lines of about 30 letters each at Cnidos, which will have been disposed as follows, 39 in the missing portion of Column II, 31 in the preserved portion of Column II, 60 in the missing portion of Column IE, 10 in the preserved portion of Column IE. Perhaps 8 lines remain unaccounted for at the top of Column E. There is naturally some uncertainty in these calculations; but the end of the preserved portion of the Delphi Copy, Block A, will probably have fallen just before or just after the beginning of the preserved portion of the Cnidos Copy, Column E. This is of some importance; for the Delphi Copy, Block A, 11. 9-11, is clearly near the end of a clause, as is the Cnidos Copy, Column E, 11. 1-4. It is also probable that there will have been space in the Cnidos Copy, Column E, for a full version of the prescript of the statute. In contrast, the Delphi Copy, Block A, seems to pass from an introductory letter to the text of the statute either without a prescript or with only an abbreviated version. If we turn to the position of the Delphi Copy, Block C, 2 lines of Block C, 11. 3-4, correspond to 6 lines of the Cnidos Copy, Column IV, 11. 37-42, a ratio of 1 to 3; the remaining 27 lines of Block C, 11. 5-31, would therefore require some 81 lines of the length of those of Column IV. But the preserved portion of Column V both has lines that are longer than those of Column IV and has 46 lines to the 42 lines of Column IV. //"the greater length and closer spacing were replicated in the missing portion, a text corresponding to that of the Delphi Copy, Block C, 11. 5-31, might have ended above the preserved portion of the Cnidos Copy, Column V.

*** We have already seen that at Delphi, although there was ample space, no more was inscribed after the text which falls at the end of Block C: indeed the Delphi engraver left uncut some of the letters of 1. 29. The internal evidence, in the form of the parallels with the Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae, Law 7, and the Tarentum fragment, Law 8, suggests that the text at the end of Block C is close to the end of a statute. There seems to be no formal basis for distinguishing between two possibilities: either (1) the Delphi text is incomplete, ending with an allusion in 11. 30-1 to a refusal to pay what is due after the trial of 11. 28-30, an allusion which is picked up in the Cnidos Copy, Column V, 11. 9-10;

236

ROMAN STATUTES

a further trial then follows; or (2) the preserved portion of the Cnidos Copy, Column V, contains the text of a different statute. There is nothing inherently unhkely in the use of a recuperatorial procedure to recover fines and we prefer on balance the first possibility. It has been observed since G. Colin (1924), 91, that there is a close parallelism between much of the Delphi Copy, Block C, and the Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae, Law 7, 11. 7-25. In our text, we have the obligation on the existing governors of Asia and Macedonia to swear to the statute, to which there is naturally no equivalent in the Lex Latina; in both texts there is the imposition of an oath on existing magistrates, the imposition of an oath on future magistrates, the form of the oath. The Delphi text continues with a generic statement that the statute, including the provisions for the oaths, is to be obeyed, while the Lex Latina continues with the penalties for those who do not swear, the recording of those who do, the imposition of an oath on existing and future senators. After a few lines whose content cannot be recovered, the Naples fragments of the Lex Latina break off; there is then the Adamesteanu fragment, which contains part of the sanctio at the end of the statute. The Delphi text continues with the penalty for disobedience to the statute and the procedure for its exaction. The Lex Latina contains a reference to a penalty for disobedience to the statute and the procedure for its exaction; but both penalty and procedure occur before the oaths. (We withdraw our original comparison between the Delphi and Cnidos text and a Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae, wantonly transposed, kindly ignored by scholars since; our calculations, 216-17, were in any case unreasonably precise. We also now take a rather different, and we hope better, view of the Tarentum fragment.) As far as the date of the statute is concerned, we opted for late 101 BC; we rejected 100 BC on grounds which we now recognise as mistaken (see the Commentary on the Delphi Copy, Block C, 1. 11); we also accept that the anticipatory use of the names of the consuls of 100 BC would be odd, whereas we see no objection to the use of the names of the consuls of 100 BC in that year: compare the reference to the consuls of 63 in the Rogatio Seruilia agraria, Law 52. Note also the argument of Carcopino (1932) that it is unlikely that the victories of T. Didius became known in Rome before 100 BC. It is important to observe (as Pohl does not) that at no point is anyone who has to take action in the future named, even when his identity may be known: see the Delphi Copy, Block C, 1. 8, for two cases; the reason is presumably that the person concerned might drop dead one minute after the passage of the statute and be replaced. It follows, contra Lintott and Sumner, that no inference may be based on the Delphi Copy, Block B, 11. 20-1, where the text as inscribed is in any case in need of correction; or on 1. 5 = the Cnidos Copy, Column HI, 1. 28, where we now accept that the point of reference is not the moment of passage of the statute. The aorist e*yEveTO in the Delphi Copy, Block B, 11. 20-1, is to be taken as the equivalent of a future perfect in Latin: compare the Cnidos Copy, Column IV, 1. 32; the Delphi Copy, Block C, 1. 3; the Cnidos Copy, Column IV, 1. 41 = the Delphi Copy, Block C, 1. 4; the Cnidos Copy, Column V, 11. 27 and 41; the arguments of Giovannini and Grzybek thus fail, and we endorse the arguments of Ferrary for early February 100 BC. The statute will have followed the Lex Appuleia agraria and the failed attempt to expel Metellus from the senate; it will also have been intended to affect the assignation of praetorian provinces precisely for 100 BC and will thus have preceded the prosecution of Metellus by Saturninus. (Note that the Cnidos Copy, Column m, 11. 5-6, does not provide a terminus post quern within the year for the promulgation of the statute, see the Commentary.) This date is compatible both with the considerations as to the status of Cyprus advanced by HCR, 198 with n. 4 (see on the Cnidos Copy, Column m , 11. 38-41), and with the observations of Walbank, 142-2 = 204-6; and the

12 - LEX DE PROVINCES PRAETORIIS

237

aorist (= future perfect) eyEvexo in the Delphi Copy, Block B, 11. 20-1, will refer to an event to take place in the course of 100 BC. As far as the scope of the statute is concerned, the text as preserved is explicit in assigning the province of Cilicia and the province of Macedonia; and Ferrary has argued that it is responsible for assigning the province of Asia and perhaps also others. Cilicia evidently had no governor at the moment of passage of the statute, while Asia and Macedonia did. With Ferrary, we regard the statute as formally a lex de prouinciis praetoriis and as assigning, early in 100 BC, all the praetorian provinces overseas; and we share his view of the role of the senate in the statute. It remains true that the statute covers a considerable range of topics; we suggested in 1974 that it smacked of satura, a suggestion endorsed by Lintott with more enthusiasm than we think wise. Ferrary and Lintott hold that the statute was popularis, Pohl, with Giovannini & Grzybek, that it was optimate; we continue to believe that it was a responsible piece of popularis legislation and, above all, that it forms part of a pattern of interest in the East at the turn of the second and first centuries BC, popularis and optimate. (For the insecurity of the northern frontier of the province of Macedonia, see now Walbank, 132-5 = 193-7. There is no reason to place L. Valerius Flaccus as governor of Asia in 99 BC, see E. Badian, Klio 66, 1984, 298, against F. Coarelli, Epigrafia e ordine senatorio II = Tituli 4, 1982, 435-51 'Su alcuni proconsoli d'Asia', at 437-40.) Note, finally, that the Cnidos Copy, Columns II and HI, both apparently begin with positive enactments, unfortunately incomplete, and then continue in both cases with negative points which seem to arise out of the positive enactments.

238

ROMAN STATUTES TEXT

Delphi Copy, Block A [—] κοινόν vac [— προ]ς τον δή[μον —]α ϊνα έγνω4 [κέναι ημάς ειδήτε ? —] του δήμου γν[ώμ??? —] τούτων αύτφ [—] Παμφυλία και Λυ[κ??? ]αι είτε [α]ΰτον κατά 8 [— σ]τρατηγον διαδε[χόμενον ? —] νόμος έστω ώσπερ [—]σαν δ άν αύτ[ ] [— ? ώ έλ]ασσον [ ] 12 [—]π[ ] ' Cnidos Copy, Column Π [—] τώι δήμωι 'Ρωμαί­ ων κατά τούτον τον νόμον, όπως των ε[ϋν]ων μη τ[ι]σιν άδικα πράματα μήτε 4 [— c 10 —] πρά[γ]ματα γενηται, ει ++[—] κατεδίδοτο πράγματα, κατά δύναμιν ποιεΐν άνευ δόλου πονηρού, οι τε π ο λΐται 'Ρωμαίων οι τε σύμμαχοι, όνόμα8 τος Λατίνου, ομοίως τε των εθνών οϊτινες εν φιλίαι του δήμου 'Ρωμαίων είσίν, δπως μετ' ά[σ]φ[α]λείας πλοίζεσϋαι δύνωνται και τώ[ν] δ[ι]καίων τυνχάνωσιν. vac ύπατοι αρχο[ν]τες, ους στρατιφτας κατά νό[μ]ον ή ψήφισμα προς τον στρατηγον [ή ά]ντι[σ]τράτηγον ή άνθύπατον τον την Μ[ακε]δονίας έπαρχείαν διακατέχοντα 16 δπ[ως] άποκατασταθώσιν τούτωι τε ϊν[α] παραδ[ο]ύνώσιν ποιήσαι φροντίσαι δει ή δεήσει, οΰτοι οί ύπατοι τούτους τους στρατιώτας εις την Μακεδονίαν εις 20 την έπαρχείαν μη άποστελλέτωσαν μήτε άποκομισι3ήναι μήτε παραδοϋήναι φροντισάτωσαν τούτο τε αύτοΐς άνευ έλασσώματος ιδίου ποιήσαι έξέστω. πε24 ρί τε ων (τους) αυτούς υπάτους έπι την σύνκλητον κατά τον νόμον ή ψήφισμα έπανενεγκεΐν δει ή δεήσει, δ τούτοις τοις στρατιώταις τοις εν Μακεδονίαι ο ύ 28 σιν σίτου δούήσεται, δσον ή σύνκλητος δί­ καιον ήγήσεται μισθώσαι, δπως μισϋωθή, τούτο οί ύπατοι έπι την σύγκλητον μη άναφερέτωσαν μήτε μισϋωσάνvacat

12 - LEX DE PROVINCES PRAETORHS Cnidos Copy, Column ΙΠ [των —] [— c. 5 —]+είας βασιλέως έϋνών τε δόγμα [έστ]ω εις τε έκαστον πράγμα γνώμη έ σ [τ]ω. μήτε τις τούτοις τοις πράγμασιν ύ π ε ν α ν 4 τίως τοις εν τώι νόμωι δν Μάαρκος Πόρκιος Κάτων στρατηγός έκύρωσε προ ήμερων γ' τ ­ ων Φη ρ αλί ων έκτος της έπαρχείας έ κ τ α σ σέτω μήτε άγέτω τις νν μήτε πορευέσ8 ϋω τις δι' α εκάσ[τοτε] επάξει είδως δόλωι πονηρώι μήτε τις άρχων μήτ' άντάρχων έκτος της έπαρχείας, (έφ') ή ς αύτον έπαρχείας κα­ τά τούτον τον νόμο ν είναι δει ή δεήσει, 12 ει μη άπο συγκλήτου γνώμης, πορευέσϋ(ω) μήτε προαγέτω, ει μη διαπορείας ένε­ κεν ή δημοσίων χάριν πραγμάτων, τους τε ε­ αυτού κωλυέτω {ειδως} άνευ δόλου πονηρού, οϊτινες δήμοι ά τε έϋνη δταν τούτον τον ν ό μον ό δήμος κυρώσηι βασιλεΐ βασιλεύσιν δήμοις τε προς οΰς φιλία συμμαχία τώι δημωι 'Ρωμαίων έστιν φόρους προσόδους 20 τε στρατιώτας τε (τελούσιν, ώι έλασσον) τελώσιν, έν τοΰτωι τώι νόμωι ουκ ήρώτηται. vac στρατηγός άνύ^ύπατός τε ό{ς} την Άσίαν έπαρχείαν διακατέχων, ούτος ώι έλασσον Λυ24 καονίαν διακατέχηι ώι τε έλασσον τούτου ή επαρχεία Λυκαονία (ήι), κατ>ώς και προ τού τού­ τον τον νόμον κυρωϋήναι ύπήρχεν, έν τούτωι τώι νόμωι ουκ ήρώτηται. vac ύπατος ό πρώτος γενόμενος γράμματα προς τους δήμους πολιτείας τε προς ους αν αύτώι φαίνηται άποστελλέτω τον δήμον τον 'Ρωμαίων έν έπιμελείαι (—), ώστε τους 32 πολίτας 'Ρωμαίων και τους συμμάχους Λα­ τίνους τε τών τε έκτος έύνών, οϊτινες έν τήι φιλίαι τού δήμου 'Ρωμαίων εισίν, μετ' α σ ­ φαλείας πλοΞίζεσϋαι δύνωνται ν τήν τε Κιλι36 κίαν δια τούτο το πράγμα κατά τούτον τον ν ό ­ μον έπαρχείαν στρατηγικην πεποιηκέναι. ομοίως τε προς τον βασιλέα τον έν Κύπρωι διακατέχοντα και βασιλέα τον έν Άλεξανδρεί40 αι και Αιγύπτωι βασιλεύοντα και προς βασιλέ­ α τον έπι Κυρήνηι βασιλεύοντα κάί προς βασιvacat Cnidos Copy, Column IV [λεΐς-]

239

240

ROMAN STATUTES

Delphi Copy, Block Β [— ή δημ]οσίων χάρ[ιν πραγμάτων —] [— συμμαχία κ]αι φιλία έστιν τώι [δήμωι τώι 'Ρωμαίων —] [— εν τούτω]ι τφ νόμωι ούύέν ή[ρώτηται —] 4 [— δια]κατεχει, ώι έλασσον αύτώι έ[παρχεία Λ]υκαονίας έσται, καϋ[ως —] [— ΰ]πατος, δς αν πρώτος γένητ[αι, γράμμ]ατα προς τους δήμους π[ολιτείας τε — δτι —] [— φροντί]σει όπως πολϊται 'Ρωμαίων σύ[μμαχοί] τε εκ της Ιταλίας, Λατίνοι, τά τε [έκτος έϋνη] [— κατά μάλασσαν ασφαλώς πλεΐν δύνω[νται,] την τε Κιλικίαν δια ταύτας τάς αίτιας έ[παρχείαν] 8 [— ομοίως τ]ε και προς τον βασιλέα τον εν τ[η ν]ήσφ Κύπρωι βασιλεύοντα και προς τον βασιλ[έα τον εν Χλε-] ξανδρείαι και Αίγύπ[τωι βασιλεύοντα και προς τον βασιλέα τον έπι Κυ]ρήνη βασιλεύοντα και προς τους βασιλείς τους εν Συρίαι βασιλεύοντας, προς ους] φιλία και συμμαχία έ[στι τώι δήμωι τώι 'Ρωμαίων, γράμματα άποστελλέ]τω και δτι δίκαιον έστ[ιν αύ]τούς φροντίσαι, μη εκ της βασιλείας αύτ[ών μήτε] τη [ς] χώρας ή ορίων πειρατή [ς μηδεις ορμή ση μηδέ οί άρχοντες ή φρούραρχοι ους κ]αταστήσουσιν του [ς] πειρατάς ύποδέχωνται, και φροντίσαι, δσον [εν δυνα]τοΐς έσ[ται] 12 τούτο, ό δήμος ό 'Ρωμαίω[ν ΐν' εις την απάντων σωτηρίαν συνεργούς έχή. τ α ύ τ α τε τα] γράμματα προ[ς] τους βασιλείς κατά τον νόμον τούτον άποστελ[λόμ]ενα τοις ά[πο] ' Ροδίων πρεσβευταις [δότω —]ου[.. δπω]ς ό περί τούτων έχων την έπιμελείαν φροντίση [τή]ς άσφαλεία[ς αύ-] [τών τοις νόμοις και δι]καίοις [ακολούθως, space-bar ε{ 5έ άλλοι τινές πρεσβευται καΐτασταϋήσονται και δεήσει, ως αν προαιρώνται, προς τή[ν] σύνκλητον ώ[σαύ[τως άν]αφερέτω και ή σύγκλητο[ς καϋώς αν φαίνηται εκ τών δημοσίων πραγμάτων] πίστεως τε Ιδίας βουλευέσϋω. δσα τε υπέρ τούτου [τ]ού πράγματος ή [σύγ-] 16 κλητος [δ]ογματίση, άρχων ή άντά[ρχων δστις νυν έστιν φροντισάτω έκ του καλώς δοκοΰντ]ος είναι, δπως ούτως γένηται. space-bar υ π α τ 0 ς , ωι αν γένηται δς άν τ' έ[πιστα-] τη, δπως ούτος ταΐς πρεσβε[ίαις σύγκλητον διδώι, τοις πρεσβευταΐς τοις άπο του δή]μου του 'Ροδίων, οΐτινες &(ν) έν 'Ρώμηι ωσιν, σύγκλητο(ν) έκτο[ς της ^ συντάξεως δότω. τούτους [τε τους πρεσβευτάς — έκτ]ος της συν[τ]άξεως εις την σύγκλητον εισαγετω [τ]ής τε συγκλήτου] δόγμα φροντισάτω ϊνα γένητ[αι, έπειδάν αυτούς κατά τούτον τον νόμον, είτε νό](μ)ος έστιν είτε δήμου γνώμη εστίν, είσαγειοχώς f\ τού[τ]ό τε άζ[ημίω αύτω] 20 έξέστω ποιήσαι. space-bar στρατη[γος άνύ^ύπατός τε, — ε]ίς λσίαν έπαρχείαν, (ώι) Γαίωι Μαρίωι και Λευκίωι Ούαλερίωι ύ[πάτοις] έπα[ρχ]εία έ[γέ-] νετο, γράμματα προς τους δήμο[υς πολιτείας τε άποστειλάτω και προς] τους βασιλείς τους επάνω γεγραμμένους, όμοίω[ς δέ προς ους] και ό ύπατος κατ[ά ^ τούτον τον νόμον γράφειν, κα[ϋώς αν αύτώι δοκη καλώς έχειν, αξιώσει, και τούτου του] νόμου άντίγραφον άποστειλάτω προς τε τάς πόλει[ς και πολ]ιτείας προς ους κατά

12 - LEX DE PROVINCnS PRAETORHS

241

τούτον τον νόμον άποστέλλε[ιν δει γράμματα και φροντισάτω, δσον αν έ]ν δυνατώ ή, {δπως} δσ' αν γράμματα κατά τούτον το[ν νό]μον προς ους αν άποστελεΐ, ό24 πως άποδοϋή κατά τον νόμον τ[ούτον, και ακολούθως τοις αυτών έπιτηδ]εΰμασιν, προς ους αν κατά τούτον τον νόμον γράμ[ματα άπ]εσταλμενα ή, εις δ(έλ)τον χαλκην γράμματα ένκεχαραγμέ[να, ει δε μη ή εν λίϋω μαρμαρίνφ ή κ]αι εν λευκώματι, δπως εν ταΐς πόλεσι έκκέ[ηται εν ίερφ] ή άγοράι φανερώς, οϋεν δυνήσονται έστακότες άναγινώσ[κειν όρΦώς. και ούτος μη άλλ]ως ή οΰτως γραψάτω ϊνα ταύτα πα[ντα]χού [γένηται, οι τε άλλ]οι οις άν άρχωσιν ταύτα ποη[σά-] τωσαν. δσοι άν κατά τούτον τόν [νόμον την έπιμελείαν έχωσιν, δπως ούτως γέν]ηται φροντισάτωσαν. w στρ[ατηγος αντιστράτηγος ή άν6υ]πατος, οϊτινες κατά τούτο [ν] 28 τον νόμον, είτε δήμου γνώμη εΐη ε[ϊτε νόμος, ή κατά συγκλήτου δόγμα εν Μα]κεδονίαι έπαρχείαν έ'ξει έχε[ι, εύϋυς εις Χερσόνησον και Και]νικήν, ής Τίτος Δείδιος ηγούμενο [ς] έκράτησεν, πορευϋήτω. τού τε έπαρ[χεία — έσ]τω ταύτη ν τε την έπαρχε[ίαν — ποιεί]τω τε, καϋώς άν αύτώι δοκή κα­ λώς έχειν, δπως τάς δημοσίας προ[σόδους αϊ άν εν έκείνηι τη έπαρχε]ίαι ωσιν καρπεύωντα[ι — δ]εήσει. ούτος τε έκαστου ένιαυτού μη έλασσον ήμερων έξ[ήκοντα — τόποι]ς, προ τού άλ[λον — δσ]ον άν δυνα[τος ή,] δπως αύτοΓι] 32 [πρ]ος ους άν τώι δήμωι τώ[ι 'Ρωμαίων — δπω]ς ούτος [ό] [στρα]τη[γος—] Cnidos Copy, Column IV ϋαι[—] τε[— c. 7 —] κατά τούτον τον νόμον την επιμε­ λείας δια]κατέχωσιν, ίνα ούτος ό νόμος ούτως γεν4 ητα[ι κύρι]ος φροντιζέτωσαν. vacat στρατη[γος] αν[τι]στράτηγος άνι^υπατός τε, δς ά[ν] κατά [τούτ]ον [τ]ον νόμον ή ψήφισμα ή συνκλήτου δό­ γμα [την] Μακεδονίαν έπαρχείαν διακατέχηι διακαϋέ8 ξε[ι, ε]υ[^ύ]ς εις Χερσόνησον Καινεικήν τε ην Τί­ τος Δ[είδιο]ς πολέμων δορίκτητον έλαβεν π ο ρ[ευέ]σϋω. ού τε επαρχεία Χερσόνησος τε (και) Καινεική [έστι]ν, ταύτην {τε} την έπαρχείαν άμα 12 με[τ]ά της Μακεδονίας διακατεχέτω ποιείτω τε δπως αύτώι άν κάλλιστα δοκηι γεγονέναι ί ­ να ταΐς δημοσίαις προσόδοις ταΐς έν έκείνηι τηι έπα[ρ]χείαι ούσαις κατά τον νόμον καρπίζων16 ται ους άν ποτέ ταύταις ταΐς δημοσίαις προσόδοις κα[ρ]πίζεσϋαι δεήσει ούτος τε καϋ'έκαστον ένιαυτον μη έλάσσω έν έκείνοις τοις τόποις προ το[ύ] αύτώι έτερον διαδέξασϋαι ήμερων έξή20 κοντά έστω έργασίαν τε δότω ως άν δυνα­ τός ήι ποιεΐν, {ώστε} προς ους προς τον δήμον τον 'Ρωμαίων φιλία συμμαχία τε έστιν, δπως

ROMAN STATUTES

242

των ορίων μη έξωύώνται μήτε τις αύτοΐς έτι πόλεμος μήτε αδικήματα γίνηται ϊνα τε ούτος ό στρατηγός ή ανθύπατος {τε} ό {τε} την της Μακεδο­ νίας έπαρχείαν διακατέχων προ του εκ της έπαρχείας έκχωρεΐν κατά το της συνκλήτου δόγμα 28 το έπ' αύτον γενόμενον Ορια της Χερσονήσου της προσόδο[υ] στήση οΰτως καύώς αν αύτώι δόκη κάλλισ­ τα γεγ[ο]νέναι ως τάχιστα. vacat εάν ούτ[ο]ς ό στρατηγός ωι της Ασίας Μακεδονίας τε 32 έπαρ[χ]εία έγενετο της αρχής αύτον άπείπηι ή άπείπηται, φς εν έπιταγήι εξουσία πάντων πραγμά- vac των ε[π]ιστροφήν τε ποιεΐσϋαι κολάζειν δικαιοδοτεΐν κρείνει[ν κ]ριτάς ξενοκρίτας διδόναι ανάδοχων κτημά36 των ΤΕ[.]ΓΑΡΟΔΟΣΕΙΣ απελευθερώσεις ωσαύτως κα­ τά την δικαιοδοσίαν έστω καύώς εν τήι άρχήι ύπήρχεν ού[τ]ός τε ό άνύύπατος έως τούτου έως αν εις πόλ[ι]ν 'Ρώμην έπανέλύηι έστω. vacat εάν ούτος ό ταμίας ή άντιταμίας ώ(ι) της Ασίας Μακεδο­ νίας τε [τα]μεία έγενετο της αρχής αύτον άπείπη ή άπεί[π]ηται ομοίως των χρημάτων των δ η vacat 24

Cnidos Copy, Column V [μοσίων φροντιζέτω —] Delphi Copy, Block C [-] [—]ειν άναφέρει[ν κατά δι-] [καιοδο]σίαν κα[ϋώς — έως εις] 'Ρώμην εισήλύεν. [ταμίας ή] 4 [άντιτ]αμίας, φ ή Ασία Μακεδο[νία τε ταμιεία έγενετο, εάν — άπείπηται, ομοίως] φροντιζέτω των δημοσ[ίων] [χρημ]άτων κάί ζημιούτω παρά 'Ρ[ωμαίων —]εγκ[— ώς έν ταμι]είαι δτε ήρχεν ούτος τε άνυίπεύύυ-] [νος] έστω έως αν εις 'Ρώμην εβσέλϋη. όσα —]ν συ[— κ]ατά τούτον τον νόμον δει πο[ι-] [εΐν] ποείτω, μήτε τις άρχων μ[ήτε τις άντάρχων αύτο]ν κα[τακωλυέτω, φ, ωσαύτως καϋώς τα]ύτα κατά τον νόμον τού8 [τον] δει γείνεσύαι, έλασ(σ>ον ό έστι [τεταγμένον γένητ]αι. στρατ[ηγος ή ανθύπατος φ] ή Ασία ή Μακεδονία επαρχεία εστίν, [όδ'] έν ήμέραις δέκα ταΐς έγγιστα, αίς αν γν[ωρίστ| τούτον τ]ον νόμον τ[ώι δήμωι κεκυρώσύαι έ]ν τήι έκκλησίαι, όμνυέτω ότι όσ' ν [α]ν έν τούτωι τώι νόμωι κελεύει ποιεΐν πάντα (ποιήσει) ούτε ύπεναν[τίον τι ποιήσει άνευ] δόλου πονηρού. w άρχοντες, οϊτινες [ν]ύν εισίν, έκτος των δημάρχων και έπαρχων, ούτοι έν ήμέραις πέντε τ[αΐς έγγιστα αίς άν] ό δήμος τούτον τον νόμον κύρωση, όσοι μετά 12 [ταύ]τα αρχήν έξουσι έκτος έπαρχων, ούτοι έν ήμέραις πέντε ταΐς έγγιστα [αΐς έκαστος αύτώ]ν εις την αρχήν εϊσεται, οϊτινές τε αυτών έν 'Ρώμ[η]

12 - LEX DE PROVINCnS PRAETORIIS

243

[είσίν,] όμοσάτω τον Δία και τους θεούς τους πατρώιους {ποιήσειν} δσα εν τούτωι τώι νόμωι κατακεχώρισται πάντα ποιήσειν και φροντίσαι δπως γε[νητα]ι, μήτε ύπεναντίον τούτωι τώι νόμωι ποιήσειν, μήτε ποιήσειν ώι τις άλλος ποιήση, μήτε άλλως ποιήσειν ή εν τούτω τώι νόμωι εστίν όπως γένη[ται.] space-bar ύπεναντίον τούτω τω νόμφ μή τις ποείτω άνευ δόλου πονηρού δσα τε τινας κατά τούτον τον νόμον δει ποεΐν ποείτ(ω). μήτε τις ποείτω ω ο [υ-] 16 τος ό νόμος κατά παρεύρεσιν άκυρωθή άνευ δόλου πονηρού, μήτε τις ποείτω μήτε έπικρινάτω ώι έ'λασσον δσα δει κατά τούτον τον νόμον γενηται. και ους {δει} ποιεΐν, όμνύειν δει, ποιείτωσαν και όμνυέτωσαν ή ώι έλασσον ή άλλως (μή) τι γενηται {άλλως} ή εν τούτωι τώι νόμω γεγραμμένον εστίν, τώι τε ύ ­ πεναντίον τούτωι τώι νόμωι ποιούντι ή έπικρίναντι δσα τε κατά τούτον τον νόμον μή ποήση ή μή κατά τούτον τον νόμον όμόση, δπως αύτώι [ά]ζημίωι μή έξη είναι μήτε έλασσον (δς αν) αύτον κρΐναι βούληται έξέστω. space-bar £ α ν ^ ς ύπεναντίον τώι νόμωι τούτωι τι ποιήση, είτε τι ούς δει κατ[ά] 20 τούτον τον νόμον {τι} ποιήσαι (ή όμόσαι) μή ποιήση ή μή όμόση, εάν τε τις τούτωι τώι νόμωι έλασσον ποιήση ή άλλως ύπενα[ν]τί[ο]ν ποιήση, ή εν τούτωι τφ ν[ό][μ]ωι γεγραμμένον εστίν, {ποιήση} ή έπικρίνη ή παρανομήση δόλωι πονηρώι, ούτος νόμωύς — ] , Colin; [—]NIKHN, Pomtow; [Θρα]ικήν, Colin; [Καινε]ικήν, HCR 29 ΕΠΑΝ[—], lapis, according to earlier edd. 31 δυνα[τός ... ], Pomtow Cnidos Copy, Column IV For HCR only incoherent traces were legible of the beginning of 1-3; and 1 was printed in error as 1-2 4 [κύρι]ον φροντίζειν έστω, HCR 5 δς τε, HCR: corr. Badian & Martin 6-7 δό/[τμα Μακεδονί]αν, HCR 7-8 διακα#ε/ξ[ηι], HCR: corr. Ferrary, 628 n. 40 10 καί, omitted on lapis 11 [έστ]ω,Η0ΊΙ 12 με[τάτης],HCR 15 τηι [χ]ώραι, HCR 15-16 καρπίζον/ται όν ποτέ, HCR; an omega is very lightiy engraved over the omicron of καρπίζονται 23-4 έv/πoδώς,HCR 25 HCR twice printed a redundant τε: corr. Badian & Martin 25-6 Μακηδο/νίας, HCR 28 The nu of έπ'αυτόν has been checked and is secure 29 Καινε[ι]κής ή{ι}, HCR (!!!); στήση, Badian & Martin, from photograph 32 ή, omitted by HCR: corr. Badian & Martin 36 [ ]ΕΑΡΟΔΟΣΕΙΣ, HCR; τε[.]ΓΑΡΟΔΟΣΕΙΣ, Bliimel 40 ΩΣ, lapis 40-1 Μακεδ[ο]/νίας τε [ταμι]εία, HCR

ROMAN STATUTES

248

Delphi Copy, Block C 2-3 άναφέρει[ν] / [τον ταμ]ίαν, Colin 3-4 So Pomtow; είσηλθε[ν] / [τ]αμίας, Colin 5 ΠΑΡ[—], Colin; [—]AI, Colin; HPXEI, Colin (1924), ήρχε(ν), Colin (1930); the last visible letter of the line has been read as a sigma (Reynolds) or a tau (Pomtow, Colin, Blu'mel, from a squeeze of Pomtow) 6 [—]ΝΣ[—], Colin 7 κα[τακωλυέτω, δπως, εν οΐς τα]ύτα, Colin, too short; κα[τακωλυέτω, ω, εφ' ου τα]ΰτα, HCR, too short: compare the Cnidos Copy, Column ΤΠ, 11. 20 and 23-4 8 ΕΛΑΣΟΝ, lapis 9-10 δς / [μέ]ν, Pomtow; όσ' / [ά]ν, Colin, HCR 10 ποιείτω, lapis; ύπεναν[τίον τούτφ τφ νόμφ], Pomtow; ύπενα[ντίον τι τούτοις], Colin 12 ό[μνυέτω δτα]ν, Pomtow; [όμοσάτω αίς ά]ν, Colin 15 ποεΐτε, lapis 17 See the Commentary; μή, omitted on lapis] τώι νόμωι, Pomtow 19 δς άν, omitted on lapis] (εάν τις), Colin, HCR; τώι νόμωι τούτωι ποίηση, Pomtow 20 ή όμόσοα, omitted on lapis 21 νόμωι σηστερτίωι, lapis 22 See the Commentary; ζημιούσϋω, omitted on lapis; και εάν άλλως, Pomtow; και δ άν ά[λλ]ως, Cohn; ή, omitted on lapis 24 έναιτήσει, lapis 29 προσαχϋη [πρ]ος κριτήριον, Pomtow; προσαχϋη, [κριτην ή] κριτηρίον, Naber in SEG ΠΙ, Colin, HCR; οΰ[τως δό]τω, Colin, HCR; the engraver left uncut the letters after όσον άν: όσον άν [αύτωφαίνηται, τού]τον, Colin; ...[... τοσού]τον, SEGΠΙ 30 δ[ιαλύσειν άμελλήτω]ς, Colin (1924); δ[ούναι άνυπερϋετω]ς, Naber in SEG ΠΙ; δ[ιαλύσειν άπροφασίστω]ς, Colin (1930), HCR; [—]ΥΟΤΟ πράσσ[η]τ[αι], Pomtow; [—]ΟΤΟΠΡΑ[—], Colin, HCR Cnidos Copy, Column V Further study has so much improved our readings that we see no merit in other than a very selective Apparatus Criticus 20 28 32 33 37 45

άν, om. lapis The last letter before the lacuna is gamma or pi Supp. MHC, JMR, JLF, PM in discussion λέγει, lapis Supp. JLF and PM in discussion άποδόϋητα[ι], HCR: corr. Badian & Martin

12 - LEX DE PROVINCIIS PRAETORHS

249

LATIN TRANSLATION Delphi Copy, Block A [—] commune [—] populo [—] uti [? sciatis nobis ?] uisum esse [—] plebi [scit??? —] eorum ei [—] Pamphylia et Ly[c??? —] siue eum ex [? hac lege ? —] praetorem qui [successerit ? — ? siremps] lex esto atque uti [—] si quid [— ? quo] minus [—]?[—] Cnidos Copy, Column II 11. 1-11 [— ? it has seemed good ?] populo Romano ex hac lege, ne quibus (exterarum) nationum iniuria [contumelia]ue fiat, si [cui] ? cura data erit ?, quod eius rei fieri poterit, (eum) facere sine dolo malo, ciues Romani, socii, nominis Latini, itemque (exterarum) nationum quae in amicitia populi Romani sunt, uti tuto nauigare possint iuraque sua obtineant. 11. 12-31 consules qui nunc sunt, quos milites ex lege plebiue scito praetori proue praetore proue consule qui Macedoniam prouinciam obtinuerit uti reddantur eique uti tradantur facere curare oportet oportebit, ei consules eos milites in Macedoniam prouinciam ne remittunto neue uti reportentur tradanturue curanto idque eis sine fraude sua facere liceto. quibusque de rebus eosdem consules ad senatum ex lege plebiue scito referre oportet oportebit, quod eis militibus qui in Macedonia erunt frumenti dabitur, quantum senatus aequum censebit locare, uti locetur, de ea re consules ad senatum ne referunto neue locanto [—] Cnidos Copy, Column in 11. 1-15 [— de —]+ia rege nationibusque senatus consultum [esto] deque singulis rebus sententia esto. neue quis aduersus ea quae sunt in lege quam M. Porcius Cato praetor tulit a(nte) d(iem) (tertium) Feralia extra prouinciam (exercitum) instruito neue quis ducito neue quis iter facito quarumcumque rerum causa quotienscumque accedet sciens dolo malo neue quis magistratus proue magistratu extra prouinciam cui prouinciae eum ex hac lege praeesse oportet oportebit, nisi ex senatus consulto, iter facito neue procedito nisi transitus ergo reiue publicae causa suosque contineto sine dolo malo. 11. 16-21 quae gentes quaeque (exterae) nationes cum hanc legem populus iusserit regi regibus gentibusque quibus amicitia societas cum populo Romano est tributa uectigaliaque militesque (debent, quo minus) debeant, eius hace lege nihilum rogatur. 11. 22-7 praetor proue consule qui Asiam prouinciam obtinebit, is quo minus Lycaoniam obtineat quoue minus eius prouincia Lycaonia sit ita uti ante hanc legem rogatam fuit, eius hac lege nihilum rogatur. 11. 28-41 consul qui prior factus erit litteras ad gentes ciuitatesque ad quas ei uidebitur mittito, populum Romanum curam (daturum) uti ciues Romani, socii, nominis Latini, exterarumque nationum quae in amicitia populi Romani sunt tuto nauigare possint Ciliciamque ob hanc causam ex hac lege prouinciam praetoriam fecisse. itemque ad regem qui in Cypro regnat adque regem qui Alexandriae et in Aegypto regnat adque regem qui Cyrenis regnat adque reges [—] Delphi Copy, Block B, 11. 8-27 11. 8-14 [— itemque] ad regem qui in insula Cypro regnat adque regem [qui] Alexandriae et in Aegypto [regnat adque regem qui] Cyrenis regnat adque reges qui in Syria regnant, [quibus] amicitia societas [cum populo Romano est, litteras mittito,]

250

ROMAN STATUTES

iustum esse [eos] curare ne ex regno ipsorum [neue] agro finibusue pirata [quis (nauem) soluat neue magistratus praefectiue quos] constituerint piratas accipiant curareque, quod eius rei [fieri potent,] populus Romanus [uti ad omnium salutem adiutores habeat. easque] litteras quae ad reges ex hac lege mittentur Rhodiorum legatis [dato — uti] qui earum rerum curam habebit curet uti tuti sint [secundum leges] et iura. 11. 14-20 [— si qui alii legati] uenerint oportebitque, uti uolent, ad senatum [ita] referto senatumque [ita uti e re publica] fideque sua [uidebitur esse] consulito. quaecumque de ea re senatus decreuerit, magistratus proue magistratu [qui nunc est curato, uti quod recte] fieri [uolet,] uti ita fiat, consul, cuius id negotium erit - quiue cumque [senatum habebit] - uti is legationibus [senatum det, legatis] populi Rhodiorum, qui Romae erunt, senatum extra ordinem dato. eos [que legatos —] extra ordinem in senatum introducito senatusque consultum curato uti fiat [cum eos ex hac lege, siue] lex siue plebi scitum est, introduxerit idque [ei] sine fraude sua facere liceto. 11. 20-7 praetor [proue consule —] in Asiam prouinciam, (cui) C. Mario L. Valerio [consulibus] prouincia obuenerit, litteras ad gentes [ciuitatesque mittito adque] eos reges qui supra scripti sunt item[que ad quos] consul ex hac lege scribendum, [uti quod recte factum esse uolet, censebit. huiusque] legis exemplum mittito ad urbes ciuitatesque ad quas ex hac lege [litteras] mitti [oportet curatoque, quod eius rei] fieri poterit, quas litteras ex hac lege ad quoscumque mittet uti ex [hac] lege reddantur, [atque, uti eis consuetudo erit,] ad quos litterae ex hac lege missae erunt, in tabula ahenea litterae incisae, [siue minus uel in lapide marmoreo uel etiam] in tabula dealbata, uti in urbibus pro[ponantur siue in templo] siue in foro palam, unde de piano [recte] legi possint. [isque ne aliter] scribito uti ea ubique [fiant, ceterique] quibus imperabunt ea faciunto. qui ex hac [lege curam habebunt, uti ita fiat] curanto. Cnidos Copy, Column IV, 11. 5-42 11. 5-30 praetor proue praetore proue consule, qui ex hac lege plebiue scito exue senatus consulto Macedoniam prouinciam obtinuerit obtinebit, statim ad Chersonesum Caenicenque, quam T. Didius bello cepit, iter facito. cuiusque prouincia Chersonesus Caeniceque erit, earn prouinciam simul cum Macedonia obtineto facitoque uti quod recte factum esse uolet quo publicis uectigalibus quae in ea prouincia erunt ex lege (locationis) fruantur quoscumque eis publicis uectigalibus frui oportebit; isque quotannis ne minus in eis locis antequam ei succedetur diebus sexaginta esto operamque dato, quod eius rei fieri poterit, cum quibus populo Romano amicitia societas erit, ei ne finibus extrudantur neue quid eis bellum neue quae iniuria posthac fiat; utique is praetor proue consule qui Macedoniam prouinciam obtinuerit, antequam de prouincia decedet ex senatus consulto quod de eo factum erit, fines uectigalium Chersonesi statuat uti quod recte factum esse uolet quam celerrime. 11. 31-9 si is praetor, cui Asia Macedoniaue prouincia obuenerit, a magistratu sc abdicauerit, uti in mandatis omnium rerum potestas, animaduertere coercere ius dicere iudicare, iudices recuperatores dare, praedium praediorum (subsignationes,) manumissiones, ita e iurisdictione, uti (ei) in magistratu erat, esto isque ??? usque eo quoad in urbem Romam redierit esto. 11. 40-2 si is quaestor proue quaes tore cui Asia Macedoniaue quaestura obuenerit a magistratu se abdicauerit, ita pecuniam publicam [curato —]

12 - LEX DE PROVINCIIS PRAETORIIS

251

Delphi Copy, Block C, 11. 4-30 11. 4-8 [— ita] pecuniam publicam curato multamque dicito R[omanis — uti in quaestura] cum magistrates erat, isque ??? quoad Romam [redierit] esto. [quae —] ex hac lege [facere] oportebit facito, neue quis magistrates [proue magistrate eum] prohibeto quo minus [ita uti] ea ex hac lege fieri oportebit quod iussum erit [flat.] 11. 8-10 praetor [proue consule cui] Asia Macedoniaue prouincia est, [is] in diebus decern proximis quibus [sciet hanc] legem [populum] in comitio [iussisse], iurato se quaecumque (populus) hac lege facere iubeat omnia (facturum esse) neque [quid] setius [facturum esse scientem] dolo malo. 11. 10-15 magistrates qui nunc sunt praeter tribunos eosque qui prouinciis praesunt, ei in diebus quinque [proximis quibus] populus hanc legem iusserit, qui post[hac] magistratum habebunt praeter eos qui prouinciis praerunt, ei in diebus quinque proximis [quibus quisque eorum] magistratum inierit, quicumque eorum Romae [erunt,] iurato per Iouem deosque Penates quae hac lege comprehensa sunt se omnia facturum esse curaturumque uti (ita) fiat neque (quid) aduersus hanc legem facturum neque facturum quo quis alius faciat neque aliter facturum atque uti in hac lege (scriptum) est uti fiat. 11. 15-19 aduersus hanc legem ne quis facito sciens dolo malo, quaeque quemque ex hac lege facere oportebit facito. neue quis facito, quo huic legi fraus facta sit, sciens dolo malo neue quis facito neue intercedito quo minus quod oportebit ex hac lege fiat, quosque facere iurare oportebit, faciunto iuranto quo (ne)ue minus neue aliter quid fiat atque uti in hac lege scriptum est. quique aduersus hanc legem fecerit intercesseritue quaeue ex hac lege non fecerit isue ex hac lege non iurauerit, ne ei impune esse liceat neue minus (ei qui) uolet ab eo petere liceto. 11. 19-24 si quis aduersus hanc legem quid fecerit, siue quos quid ex hac lege facere (iurare) oportebit non fecerint non iurarint, siue quis huic legi fraudem fecerit alioue quo modo aduersus ea quae in hac lege scripta sunt fecerit intercesserit commiserit dolo malo, is ducenta milia nummum sestertium in res singulas quotienscumque commiserit (dare damnas esto). quodque non fecerit aduersus ea quae in hac lege scripta sunt quodque aliter fecerit quam in hac lege comprehensum est, earn pecuniam populo dare debeto. eiusque pecuniae qui uolet, qui in hac ciuitate liber natus erit, quibus ex hac lege multam irrogare petereue licebit, agito petito nomen deferto apud eum cuius de ea re iurisdictio erit. 11. 24-30 neue quis magistratus proue magistratu facito quo minus iudicetur neue prohibeto quo minus ea pecunia in litem ueniat repetaturque iudiciumque flat pecuniaque exigatur. qui aduersus ea quid fecerit prohibueritue intercesseritue, is earn pecuniam in res singulas dare damnas esto, quasi aduersus hanc legem quid fecerit siue quid ex hac lege quod facere debuerit non fecerit, {is earn pecuniam dare damnas esto} ita uti supra scriptum est. quae pecunia ex hac lege petetur, si ea pecunia, cum petetur, unde petetur, non [soluetur, idem] praetor, cui de eis rebus in ius aditum erit, [item] iudicium ita dato, quod [eius rei fieri poterit, uti is] unde petetur [ex hac] lege populo [soluat sine recusatione.] isque [— earn] rem [—] iudicum [—] ? [—] Cnidos Copy, Column V 11. 1-13 [— ex] hac lege [—] ??? [— ? nisi] soluerit pecuniam, e prouincia [? ubi redierit ? — de] ea re [— ex] hac lege secundum prouinciam [—] eum [—] ex ??? [—] quibus [—] rerumque [repetundarum —] uti [—] cum eis qui (in ius) adierint [— dejtulit, uti rerum [—]

252

ROMAN STATUTES

11. 14-33 [—] deque eis quadraginta quinque [— deinceps] uti decreto eius cui de ea re [(in ius) aditum erit] sortiantur itaque legantur facito. [ubique] praesentes [erunt] quadraginta quinque, ei qui petet [primum liceto] reicere, (ita) uti uterque unum reiciat [inuicem, usque eo] quoad quindecim reliqui sint. qui ipse [non potent,] legito pro eo magistratus quern eius loco eorum [qui uolent] (iudicare) iubeat, usque eo quoad quindecim sint [ita de ea] re eis dati. de[que ea re facito] uti ei iudicent iurati ad [???] facitoque uti ea res in diebus quindecim proximis in quibus ei de ea re [(in ius) aditum erit] iudicetur. utique ei maioris partis recuperatorum [de] ea re sententia pronuntiata erit, facito uti [ita] ratum sit. deque ea re cum petetur testibus denuntiandi dumtaxat uiginti potestas esto [inque] eum (the defendant) haud aliter de ea re testes [appellato] uti dicant atque si eius nomen de rebus repetundis delatum sit, [quam in rem eos] ederit, testimoniumque liceat dicere. 11. 33-46 qui hac [lege] absolutus erit, quod praeuaricationis [causa] factum [non] sit, de ea re, de qua [ita absolutus] erit, ex hac lege reus ne esto [litisque] de ea re ex hac lege [aestimatio] ne esto. qui ex hac lege condemnatus [erit, cuius] pecuniae quis eorum unde petitum erit ex hac lege condemnatus erit, earn pecuniam [qui magistratus] id iudicium audiuit (? exercuit ?) ex eius [familia] redigito exigique facito. quod [is] ita rediget exiget, dimidiam partem [eius pecuniae] in publicum apud quaestorem [statim] condito dimidiamque partem ei seruandam dato dariue facito. [deque ea] pecunia eo iudicio ex hac [lege petita —]

12 - LEX DE PROVINCIIS PRAETORIIS

253

ENGLISH TRANSLATION The English translation is in principle a translation of the Greek texts; but it is inevitable that it should take account of the meaning of the Latin original which we understand to lie behind them. Delphi Copy, Block A [—] league [— to] the people [—] in order that [? you may know that we ?] have decided [— ? decision] of the plebs [—] of these to him [—] Pamphylia and Ly[c??? —] whether [? it shall be appropriate ?] for him according to [? this statute ? —] praetor [succeeding ? —] the statute is to be [exactly ?] as if [—] whatever [— to the effect that —] not [-]?[-] Cnidos Copy, Column II 11. 1-11 [— ? it has seemd good ?] to the Roman people according to this statute, so that to none of the nations may there befall injury or [insult], for [who]ever ? shall have received a charge ?, insofar as it shall be possible, to act without wrongful deceit, so that the citizens of Rome and the allies and the Latins, likewise those of the nations who are friends of the Roman people may sail in safety and obtain their rights. 11. 12-31 The consuls in office, for whom it is or shall be appropriate according to statute or plebiscite to act so that and see that soldiers be returned to the praetor, propraetor or proconsul governing the province of Macedonia and be handed over to him, those consuls are not to send those soldiers to the province of Macedonia or see to their being transported or handed over; and it is to be lawful for them to do this without personal liability. And concerning those matters which it is or shall be appropriate for the same consuls to report to the senate according to statute or plebiscite, in respect of what corn shall be given to those soldiers when they shall be in Macedonia, in respect of how much the senate shall think it right to contract for, in order that it may be contracted for, the consuls are not to report that matter to the senate or contract [—] Cnidos Copy, Column HI 11. 1-15 [— there is to be] a decree of the senate [concerning any --,] king and peoples and there is to be an opinion (= vote) concerning each matter. No-one, in contravention of those measures which are in the statute which M. Porcius Cato as praetor passed three days before the Feralia, is knowingly with wrongful deceit to draw up (an army) or march or travel outside his province, for whatever reason or whenever he shall arrive, nor is any magistrate or promagistrate to travel or proceed outside the province in command of which province it is or shall be appropriate for him to be according to this statute, except according to a decree of the senate, except for purposes of transit or for reasons of state, and he is without wrongful deceit to restrain his staff. 11. 16-21 Nothing is enacted in this statute (to the effect that) the peoples and nations, which, when the people pass this statute, (contribute) taxes or revenues or soldiers to any king or kings or peoples who have a relationship of friendship or alliance with the Roman people, should (not) so contribute. 11. 22-7 Nothing is enacted in this statute to the effect that the praetor or proconsul holding the province of Asia should not hold Lycaonia or that the province of Lycaonia should not be his, just as it was before the passage of this statute.

254

ROMAN STATUTES

11. 28-41 The senior consul is to send letters to the peoples and states to whom he may think fit, to say that the Roman people (will have) care, that the citizens of Rome and the allies and the Latins, and those of the foreign nations who are in a relationship of friendship with the Roman people, may sail in safety, and that on account of this matter and according to this statute they have made Cilicia a praetorian province. And likewise to the king holding sway in Cyprus and the king ruling at Alexandria and in Egypt and the king ruling at Cyrene and the king[s —] Delphi Copy, Block B, 11. 8-27 11. 8-14 [— And likewise] to the king ruling in the island of Cyprus and to the king [ruling at] Alexandria and in Egypt [and to the king] ruling at Cyrene and to the kings ruling in Syria [who have] a relationship of friendship and alliance [with the Roman people, he is to send letters] to the effect that it is right for them both to see that [no] pirate [use as a base of operations] their kingdom [or] land or territories [and that no officials or garrison commanders whom] they shall appoint harbour the pirates and to see that, insofar as [it shall be possible,] the Roman people [have (them as) contributors to the safety of all. And these] letters being sent to the kings according to this statute [he is to give] to the Rhodian ambassadors [? and he is to see ? — that] whoever has a charge in these matters see to [their] safety [according to the (relevant) statutes and] the law. 11. 14-20 [Aiid if any other ambassadors] shall be presented and it shall be appropriate, as they choose, [in like manner] he is to report the business to the senate and the senate is to be consulted, [just as shall seem to him to be according to the public interest] and his own good faith. Whatever the senate decree concerning this matter, the magistrates and promagistrates [now in office, each of them is to see, as he shall deem it proper,] that it be put into effect. The consul, whose business it shall be - or whoever else [shall convene the senate] - that he [grant] to the embassies [access to the senate, to the ambassadors from the] Rhodian people who may be in Rome he is to grant access to the senate extra ordinem. Aiid he is to bring in these [ambassadors —] into the senate extra ordinem and he is to see that a decree of the senate be passed [when] he has brought them in [according to this statute, whether] it is a statute or a plebiscite; and it is to be lawful for him to do this without personal liability. 11. 20-7 The praetor [or the proconsul ? designated ?] to the province of Asia, (to whom) the province shall have fallen [in the consulship] of Gaius Marius and Lucius Valerius [is to send] letters to the peoples [and states and to] the kings written down above [and] likewise [to those to whom] the consul [shall think it proper] to write, [as he shall deem it proper,] according to this statute. [And] he is to send a copy [of this] statute to the cities and states, to whom [it is appropriate] to send [letters] according to this statute. [And he is to see, insofar as] it be possible, that whatever letters he send according to this statute, to whomever he send them, that they be delivered according to [this] statute, [and that, according to the customs of those] to whom letters may be sent according to this statute, the letters, engraved on a bronze tablet, [or if not either on a marble slab or even] on a whitened board, be openly [published] in the cities. [in a sanctuary] or agora, in such a way that people shall be able to read (them) [properly] from ground level. [And] he is to write in this way [and in no other way] in order that this [may happen] everywhere, [and the others] over whom they may have command are to do this (also). And whoever [may have a charge] according to this statute, is to see that [this be done.]

12 - LEX DE PROVINCIIS PRAETORIIS

255

Cnidos Copy, Column IV, 11. 5-42 11. 5-30 The praetor, propraetor or proconsul who may hold or shall hold the province of Macedonia according to this statute or plebiscite or according to a decree of the senate, is to travel at once to the Chersonese and the Caenice which Titus Didius took by force in war. And he who has the Chersonese and the Caenice as his province is to hold this province along with Macedonia and is to act as he shall deem it proper in order that, for whomever it shall be appropriate to collect those public revenues, he may collect the public revenues in that province according to the lex (locationis)\ and he is to be in those places each year for not less than sixty days before anyone else takes over from him and he is to devote effort, insofar as it shall be possible, so that those who have a relationship of friendship or alliance with the Roman people may not be expelled from their territories and so that no war or wrong may hereafter affect them; and that praetor or proconsul who holds the province of Macedonia, before he leaves the province, according to the decree of the senate passed in relation to him, should establish the boundaries of the uectigal of the Chersonese, as he shall deem it proper, as quickly as possible. 11. 31-9 If the praetor or proconsul to whom the province of Asia or Macedonia shall have fallen abdicate from his magistracy, as described in his mandata, he is to have power in all matters according to his jurisdiction just as it existed in his magistracy, to punish, to coerce, to administer justice, to judge, to appoint iudices and recuperatores, (registrations) of guarantors and securities, emancipations, and he is to be (immune from prosecution) until he return to the city of Rome. 11. 40-2 If the quaestor or proquaestor to whom the quaestorship of Asia or Macedonia shall have fallen abdicate from his magistracy, for the public moneys so [is he to take thought —] Delphi Copy, Block C, 11. 4-30 11. 4-8 [— so] is he to take thought for the public moneys and is to levy fines from R[omans — just as in his quaestorship] when he was a magistrate, and he is to be immune from prosecution until he return to Rome. [Whatever] it is appropriate [—] to do according to this statute, he is to do, and no magistrate [or promagistrate is to hinder him to the effect that] what is [laid down] do not [take place just as] it is appropriate for these things to take place according to this statute. 11. 8-10 The praetor [or proconsul who] has either Asia or Macedonia as his province, within the ten days next after he [learn that this] statute [has been passed by the people] in the assembly, is to swear (to do) whatever (the people) order (him) to do in this statute and not [to do anything] otherwise [knowingly] with wrongful deceit. 11. 10-15 The magistrates now in office, except for tribunes and governors, within the five days [next after] the people pass this statute, and whoever shall hereafter hold a magistracy, except for governors, whoever of them [shall be] in Rome, within the five days next [after each of them] shall take up his magistracy; they are to swear by Jupiter and the ancestral gods to do all the things that have been laid down in this statute and to see to it that they are put into effect and not to do anything contrary to this statute nor to act so that anyone else do so nor to act otherwise than as is (written down) in this statute in order that it may be put into effect. 11. 15-19 No-one is to do anything contrary to this statute knowingly with wrongful deceit, and whatever it is appropriate for anyone to do according to this statute he is to do it. No-one is to act, to the effect that evasion of this statute be compassed, knowingly with wrongful deceit, and no-one is to act or intercede to the effect that what is

256

ROMAN STATUTES

appropriate according to this statute be not done. Those for whom it is appropriate to act or swear are to act and swear to the effect that (nothing) be not observed or be observed otherwise than is written down in this statute. And whoever acts or intercedes contrary to this statute, and whatever he fails to do according to this statute or if he do not swear according to this statute, it should not be possible for him to go unpunished nor is it any the less to be lawful (for whoever) may wish to sue him. 11. 19-24 If anyone should do anything contrary to this statute, and if anyone for whom it is in any respect appropriate to act (or to swear) according to this statute should fail to act or swear, or if anyone should compass evasion of this statute or should act in any other way otherwise than is written down in this statute or intercede, or offend, with wrongful deceit, he is to be fined 200,000 sesterces for each offence which he may commit. And if anyone fail to do something except as is written down in this statute or do something otherwise than is prescribed in this statute, he is to be obliged to pay this sum to the people. As for this sum, whoever wishes, who is a freeborn member of this state, for whom it is lawful to propose a fine and to sue according to this statute, he is to have action and suit and he is to prosecute before the person responsible for these matters. 11. 24-30 And no magistrate or promagistrate is to act so that the matter be not judged nor is he to block this sum being at issue and being sued for and the trial taking place and the sum being exacted. Whoever contrary to this should act or block or intercede, likewise for each offence he is to be condemned to pay, as if he had acted contrary to this statute or as if he was required to do something according to this statute and had failed to do it, {likewise he is to be condemned to pay} as is written down above. Whatever sum be sued for according to this statute, if this sum, whenever it be sued for, from whomever it be sued for, be not [paid, the same] praetor, before whom anyone may have gone for a pre-trial, [likewise] is in such a way to appoint a court, insofar [as it shall be possible, that the person] from whom (the sum) may be sued for [according to this] statute [pay] the people [without demur.] And he [— this] matter [—] judges [—] ? [—] Cnidos Copy, Column V 11. 1-13 [— according to] this statute [—] ??? [— ? unless] he has paid the money, from the prouincia [— concerning] this matter [— according to] this statute, according to the prouincia [—] him [—] from ??? [—] to whomever [—] and of things [to be recovered —] so that [—] with those who have gone (for a pre-trial) [—] prosecuted, so that of things [—] 11. 14-33 [—] and he is to see that from these forty-five [— thereafter,] according to the decree of the person, before whom [anyone may have gone (for a pre-trial)] concerning this matter, be drawn by lot and so selected. [And when there are] present forty-five, the plaintiff [is to have the first right] to reject, (provided) that they each reject one [in turn] until there be fifteen left. Whoever himself [may not be able (to judge),] the magistrate is to choose for him .(= in his stead) whomever of those [who are willing] he may order (to judge) instead of him, until there be fifteen appointed for them [in this manner concerning this] matter. [And] concerning [it he is to see] that they judge, having sworn at the [???] and he is to see that this matter be judged in the fifteen days next after that on which [anyone may have gone] before him (for a pre-trial) concerning that matter. And as the majority of the recuperatores have expressed their opinion to him [concerning] that matter, he is to see that [so] it be binding. And in relation to this matter, when it be sued for, the power is to be granted to summon up to twenty witnesses [and he (the plaintiff) is to call] witnesses [against] him (the defendant) in relation to this matter, so as to bear

12 - LEX DE PROVINCIIS PRAETORIIS

257

(witness), exactly as if he had been prosecuted concerning moneys to be recovered, [concerning which matter] he has declared [them], and it be lawful to bear witness. 11. 33-46 Whoever according to this [statute] shall be acquitted, provided that [nothing] has been done [by way of] praeuaricatio, concerning that matter in relation to which he shall have been [acquitted in this way], he is not to be a defendant under this statute [and] he is not to be [liable in relation to those moneys] concerning that matter according to this statute. Whoever according to this statute [shall be] condemned, [in relation to whatever] moneys each of them who has been sued shall be condemned according to this statute, [whoever as magistrate] has heard this trial is to collect such moneys from [the property] which belongs [to him] and see that he exact it. However much [he] collect or exact in this way, he is to deliver half of [that sum] to the treasury to the quaestor [immediately] and he is to give half of it to him to keep and see that it be given (to him). [And from these] moneys [sued for] in this trial according to this [statute —]

ROMAN STATUTES

258

COMMENTARY Delphi Copy, Block A 11. 1-12 The A in 1. 3 may be interpreted as the termination of a nominative or accusative plural neuter noun, such as γράμματα, or of a first person singular aorist or perfect verb. If the latter is right, our text may begin with the sender giving an account of a letter he has written, perhaps to the people of Delphi or to the koinon of the Amphiktyones (compare the Delphi dossier, Sherk, RDGE, 1, B, 1. 1): their relationship with the Roman people is perhaps mentioned in 1. 2. The imperative of 1. 9 shows that the statute has begun by this point; we cannot know what punctuation mark or space stood between the introductory matter and the statute. Nor can we know whether some part of the prescript was engraved: the whole prescript could have occupied up to 300 letters (compare the Lex Gabinia Calpurnia, Law 22). 11. 4-5 Contrast the Delphi Copy, Block B, 11. 19 and 28; given the popularis aspect of our text, see the Introduction, it would not be surprising to find a reference to a decision of the plebs here. 1. 6 Pamphylia, appearing here, throws some light on the mention by Posidonius (FGH 87, fr. 36 = fr. 253 Edelstein and Kidd) of Q. Oppius as strategos of Pamphylia. It may be that Lycaonia, not Lycia, should be restored here; for Lycaonia was under Roman rule by the time of the statute: see the Cnidos Copy, Column ΙΠ, 11. 22-7; the Delphi Copy, Block B, 1. 4. Certainly the indiscriminate ravages of C. Verres cannot be taken as evidence that Lycia was under Roman rule, contra S. Jameson, RE Supp. ΧΙΠ, 277; Sherwin White, 10, whose argument is refuted by its internal contradictions. Ferrary, 631 n. 51, advances other arguments for continuing to restore Lycia: non liquet. 1. 9

See the General introduction, Ch. ΧΠ.

I. 11 Some part of a verb is a less likely supplement; for the supplement printed, naturally uncertain, see on the Cnidos Copy, Column ΙΠ, 11. 16-21, cf. 11. 26-7. Cnidos Copy, Column Π II. 1-11 The Cnidos Copy, Column ΙΠ, 11. 28-35, instructs a consul to send letters to announce that the Roman people is taking steps to ensure the freedom of the seas; that clause is clearly cognate with 11. 6-11 here. We were wrong in 1974 to suggest that 11. 1-5 were concerned with the annexation of the area of Cilicia recently conquered by M. Antonius; we may now suppose that we have a statement that it has seemed good to the Roman people, for whoever ... (see the Translation). The Latin original may have had placuit... uti... 11. 3-4 Compare Cicero, // in Verr. 3, 64, for our suggested Latin version. The Greek text may have read μήτε / [μην πονηρά]. 11. 4-5 We now suggest ει τι[νι]; the imperfect seems to represent a future perfect: compare the Cnidos Copy, Column V, 11. 32-3. 1. 6 The discussion in the ed.pr. of the translation at Delphi and Cnidos of terms containing the Latin phrase dolus malus was compressed and misleading (so Sumner, 214 n. 14, not really clarifying the issue; Badian & Martin, 161). It is not in dispute that in the Delphi Copy, Block C, 11. 10, 15 and 16, sciens dolo malo has been translated as if it was sine dolo malo and that in the Cnidos Copy, Column ΙΠ, 1. 15, the Greek version is nonsense. Our improved text makes it possible to see that sine dolo malo here has been

12 - LEX DE PROVINCIIS PRAETORIIS

259

correctly translated, as have dolo malo in the Delphi Copy, Block C, 1. 21 (we were wrong to say that sciens had been omitted) and sciens dolo malo in the Cnidos Copy, Column ΙΠ, 11. 8-9. 11. 6-8 We now think that these lines represent the phrase dues Romani, socii, nominis Latini, with partial asyndeton: compare the Cnidos Copy, Column ΠΙ, 11. 31-3, where the Latins are distinguished from the allies by the addition of τε; and the Delphi Copy, Block B, 1. 6, where" an explanatory gloss has been added after socii. See also the material collected by Stuart Jones, 168-9; M. Wegner, Untersuchungen zu den lateinischen Begriffen socius und societas (Hypomnemata 21, Gottingen, 1969), 95-104, 'Socii ac nomen Latinum'; and the Lex repetundarum, Law 1,1. 1. I. 11 For the phrase, compare the SC de Stratonicensibus, Sherk, RDGE, 18,11. 64, 120. II. 12-31 The subject is now Macedonian affairs. It appears that the consuls in office had been required in accordance with a statute or statutes, 11. 13 and 25, whether general or particular is not clear, to send soldiers to Macedonia; these are presumably forces voted before the Thracian victory of T. Didius (see the Cnidos Copy, Column IV, 11. 9-10), and perhaps meanwhile diverted for another campaign such as the Cimbric War or the war against the slaves in Sicily (Ferrary, 631-2; on legions in this period, see Brunt, Italian Manpower, 430-1). The consuls had also been required to initiate debate in the senate on the amount of food to be provided for them and to let the contract for its provision; the censors of 102 BC will have left office in mid-101 BC. Our text abolishes the whole procedure. 11. 12-18 The translator has rendered milites with an accusative, although his eventual construction requires a nominative: compare also the Cnidos Copy, Column IV, 11. 21-4. 11. 12-13 See the General Introduction, Preface; also on the Delphi Copy, Block B, 1. 19. 11. 13-15 Translations of gubernatorial titulature are erratic: the full formula should doubtless be as here: compare the Delphi Copy, Block B, 1. 27 = the Cnidos Copy, Column IV, 1. 5, though it is here used unthinkingly, since there was presumably only one governor actually in office; but στρατηγός ή άνϋύπατος vel sim. also occurs, in the Cnidos Copy, Column ΙΠ, 1. 22; the Delphi Copy, Block B, 1. 20 (restored); the Cnidos Copy, Column IV, 1. 25; the Delphi Copy, Block C, 1. 8 (restored: HCR were wrong to suppose anything had been omitted by the engraver here); and στρατηγός occurs alone in the Cnidos Copy, Column IV, 1. 31, and perhaps in the Delphi Copy, Block A, 1. 8. 11. 22-3

The Latin equivalent is sinefraude sua.

I. 25 See the General Introduction, Preface; also on the Delphi Copy, Block B, 1. 19. II. 26-8

The Latin equivalent is quod frumenti... quantum ...

11. 28-31 For the letting of contracts for military supplies, see Nicolet, Ordre equestre, 320. The translator will have wished to avoid μισΦωσάτωσαν for reasons of euphony. For the role attributed to the senate, compare the Cnidos Copy, Column ΠΙ, 1. 12; the Delphi Copy, Block B, 11. 16-20, 27-8; the Cnidos Copy, Column IV, 11. 6-7, 27-8. Cnidos Copy, Column ΙΠ 11. 1-3 We cannot make sense of these lines except on the assumption that they form a separate sentence from that of 11. 3-15. But since the latter do not form a separate paragraph, these lines will probably have made a general statement about what could or could not be done to a kingdom (?), king or nation.

260

ROMAN STATUTES

11. 4-5 It is clear from the improved text that we have a reference to a statute passed by a M. Porcius Cato. In 1974 we were deterred from seeing a reference to a statute by the use of the verb κυρούν, on the grounds that the normal verb when the proposer was the subject was έρωτάν: contrast 11. 17 and 26 below; but for κυρούν used of the proposer of a statute see Plutarch, Mar. 4; Appian, BC Π, 41; the Lex portorii Asiae, 1. 92. έκυρωσε might translate tulit (Lintott, 61) or confirmauit (Asconius 78-9 C = 61 St) or sanxit (Giovannini and Grzybek, 39 n. 15: Livy ΙΠ, 55, 4; Festus, 270 L; etc.); but we suspect that our translator has used it for rogauit. We have in fact a reference to the Lex Porcia of the Lex Antonia de Termessibus, Law 19, Col. Π, 1. 16, one of the plurimae leges ueteres of Cicero, in Pis. 50, which forbade among other things exire de prouincia, educere exercitum even before the Lex Cornelia; see also // in Verr. I, 72-3; adfam. XV, 1 = 104 SB, 1; the SC de Cn. Pisone, 11. 48-9; Dig. I, 18, 15 (Marcian); for a governor's powers on his way back to Rome, see on the Cnidos Copy, Column IV, 11. 31-9. 11. 5-6 The date is 19 February, a dies comiiialis. With the reading five - not three days before the Feralia, the date would be 17 February, itself the Quirinalia; for the Feralia, see lnscr.lt. ΧΙΠ, 2, pp. 412-13. The form of the date can be explained on the assumption that in the year of the legislation of Cato an intercalary month beginning after 23 February had been decided: see J.-L. Ferrary, in Melanges a la memoire de A. Magdelain (forthcoming), 'Chapitres tralatices et references a des lois anterieures dans les lois romaines'; Ferrary also demonstrates that the presence of the date does not show that the Lex Porcia and our statute belong in the same year (see also the General Introduction, Ch. XI). For M. Porcius Cato, the most likely possibility is perhaps the consul of 118 BC, praetor in or before 121 BC (so Ferrary in discussion). I. 8 There appears to be a clumsy attempt to translate quarumcumque rerum causa quotienscumque. II. 10-11 The Latin equivalent is cui prouinciae eum ex hac lege praeesse oportet oportebit. I. 15 Compare Cicero, de leg. ΙΠ, 9: se et suos continento; the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Ch. ΧΟΠ; the Lex Flavia, Ch. 26, where a magistrate swears se ... quosque prohibere possit prohibiturum; Bruns 178, where a magister collegii swears se ... suosque prohibuisse. It is easy to assume that the Greek for sciens has been wrongly inserted beside the Greek for sine dolo malo (Badian & Martin, 161; the complicated hypothesis of Sumner, 214 n. 14, is unnecessary). II. 16-21 For the possibility of an area owing allegiance to more than one king, compare the reference to the kings of Syria in the Delphi Copy, Block B, 1. 9; in 1974 we did not notice the need to postulate the missing phrase in 1. 20, for which see Badian, 213-17. The context of the provision is obscure. 11. 21 and 27 ήρώτηται suggests that the Latin equivalent is rogatur, not rogatum est: see Ph. Moreau, Ath 11 (n.s. 67), 1989, 151-78, 'La rogatio des huit tribuns de 58 av. I C.\ with the General Introduction, Ch. ΧΠ. 11. 22-7 That Lycaonia was held by Rome by the time of this statute was not previously known; it was given, along with Cilicia, to the sons of Ariarathes V of Cappadocia as a reward for his giving his life in the war against Aristonicus (Justin XXXVII, 1, 2: A.N. Sherwin White, JRS 67, 1977, 62-75, 'Roman involvement in Anatolia, 167-88 B C , at 68 n. 44, holds that Cilicia is a mistake for Pisidia). It was perhaps removed by Rome

12 - LEX DE PROVINCIIS PRAETORIIS

261

when the last surviving son (Ariarathes VI - the other five were murdered by their mother) was murdered by Mithridates VI. Lycaonia is not otherwise attested as held by Rome until 57 BC (Magie, Roman Rule, 376 and 383-4); but its control by Rome is probably presupposed by the campaigns of P. Servilius Isauricus, who set out to recover the area (Sherwin White, 11; note also Sallust, Hist. V, 14 M). It is not immediately clear whether we are to take 11. 22-3 as referring to the holding of the province Asia or to the holding of Asia as a province; and 11. 24-5 as referring to the destination of the province Lycaonia or to the assignation of Lycaonia as a province. Just enough survives of the Delphi copy to suggest that the first option is correct in the case of Lycaonia; it is presumably also correct in the case of Asia. (We wonder whether έπαρχείαν should be restored before the first mention of Lycaonia, as it occurs with Asia and the second mention of Lycaonia.) In the case of Lycaonia, επαρχεία is used on two levels: to describe something which is the prouincia of a magistrate along with something else which is his prouincia-, but also to describe something which was palpably an area and which had certainly never been by itself the prouincia of a magistrate (compare the Cnidos Copy, Column IV, 11. 5-30; the second level is denied by Badian, 213-17.) The clause seems to reflect the ambiguity which has emerged in Latin by this date between the original sense of prouincia as a sphere of activity and the later territorial sense. The term dioecesis was later often used to describe an area which was a part of a prouincia in the territorial sense, as in Cicero, ad Att. V, 15 = 108 SB, 3. (We do not accept the argument of J.-M. Bertrand, JS 1989, 191-215, Ά propos du mot provincia\) The present indicative of the relative clause in the Delphi copy makes it clear that the lines relate to the current governor of Asia. The two subordinate clauses of 11. 23-5 are represented by a single subordinate clause in the Delphi Copy, Block B, 1. 4. 1.27

See on 1.21.

11. 28-41 Here begin the instructions to the senior consul, the consul prior, the consul elected first (not the consul holding the fasces, as argued by A. Drummond, Ath 66 (n.s. 56), 1978, 80-108, 'Some observations on the order of the consuls' names', at 81 n. 7: see Ferrary, 647-53, also for the nature of the task assigned to him). He is chosen for the job in question because of his position and the fact that he is not named must not be taken to show that his name is not known when the statute is passed: compare Cicero, de leg.ag. Π, 28, qui primus sit praetor factus; see also the Introduction above. The phrase consul prior turns out to be a technical term at Livy XXIX, 22, 5; Cicero, in Pis. 3, contra Drummond, 82 η. 11. I. 31 Perhaps εν έπιμελείαι (έ'ξειν): the Delphi Copy, Block B, 1. 6, begins with a future; Blumel's understanding of the syntax seems to us to be excluded by τε in 1. 35. II. 31-5 'The translator apparendy began to render agere (or a similar verb) ut as a consecutive clause and therefore put the following nouns in the accusative case. After realising that the Latin clause with ut was final rather than consecutive, he correctly used a finite verb in the subjunctive without bothering to correct his earlier mistake', Badian & Martin, 159. For the form of the list, see on the Cnidos Copy, Column Π, 11. 6-8; for the whole context, on 11. 1-11. 11. 35-7 We should now hold that these lines mean no more than that Cilicia is being made a praetorian province for the coming year (so Lintott; Ferrary, 637-45: the latter's arguments are decisive and refute Sherwin White's suggestion that στρατηγικός here means military, not praetorian; id., Roman Foreign Policy in the East (London, 1988), 99

ROMAN STATUTES

262

η. 21, misrepresents the content of the text); in 1974, we played with the idea that the lines referred to an annexation of Cilicia and distorted the interpretation of the Cnidos Copy, Column Π, 11. 1-11, and Column ΙΠ, 11. 3-8, as a result. It remains curious that so much fuss is made of a decision which had already been made once when Cilicia was assigned to M. Antonius in 102 BC; but he was back in Rome by 101 BC (Ferrary, 624-7); and the fact that no oath is imposed on a governor of Cilicia shows that there was none at the moment of the statute, which is making an important statement of good-will. 11. 38-41 The list of kings is the same as far as it goes in the Delphi Copy, Block B, 11. 8-9; unless the Delphi translator ignored a distinction made in the Latin text, the Cnidos translator possesses special knowledge of conditions in Cyprus: the control of Cyprus by Ptolemy ΊΧ Soter Π was apparently uncertain until 100/99 BC (HCR, 198 n. 4; E. Van't Dack et al., The Judaean-Syrian Egyptian Conflict of 103-101 BC (Brussels, 1989), 22-4, 124); he is nonetheless mentioned first as the elder brother. See Strabo XTV, 5, 2 (669), for kings of Cyprus and Egypt helping the pirates. Delphi Copy, Block Β 1. 3 A slight variation in order between the Delphi and Cnidos copies must be supposed; in the Delphi copy, the phrase όταν τούτον τον νόμον ό δήμος κυρώσηι, or its equivalent, doubtless falls in, and helps to fill the gap before, the preserved text. I. 4

See on the Cnidos Copy, Column ΠΙ, 11. 22-7.

II. 5-16 These lines provide instructions to the senior consul, followed in 11. 16-21 by instructions to either consul; the letters sent at the discretion of the (senior) consul according to this statute in 11. 21-2 have been mentioned at the Cnidos Copy, Column ΙΠ, 11. 28-30. Compare the letters concerning Cicero's recall sent by the senate to exterae nationes, socii, provincial governors and their staff (Cicero, Sest. 128). I. 6 For the form of the list, see on the Cnidos Copy, Column Π, 11. 6-8. II. 10-12 The construction και δτι δίκαιον έστιν ... φροντίσαι ... και φροντίσαι is slightly awkward. For adiutor ad + noun, compare Cicero, Rosc.Am. 6; Caesar, BG V, 38, 4: noun and gerundive is more normal. 11. 12-22 Note that the text as preserved contains no certain reference to any ambassadors except from the Rhodians. We think likely Colin's suggestion that the Rhodians are being used as messengers, compare J. and L. Robert, Inscriptions de Claros I (Paris, 1989), 65, the Menippos dossier, Column ΙΠ, 11. 7-8; if they were receiving copies of the consular letters to the kings for their own information, we would expect αντίγραφα. We suppose that using the Rhodians as messengers was thought to recommend the message. LI. 13-14 have hitherto been taken as a separate clause; but the subjunctive jars in the middle of a sequence of imperatives and the lines should be restored as a final clause depending on [— δπω]ς. 1. 13 The person or persons concerned are presumably the same as in 1. 27 below; it is unclear whether they are Roman officials or not. 1. 14 We suspect that the translator has been less successful with legati uenerint than the translator of the SC de Asclepiade, Sherk, RDGE 22, 1. 14 = 1. 27; compare in general terms Cyrene Edict V, 11. 99-103, esp. 100. The clause ώς αν προαιρώνται looks forward.

12 - LEX DE PROVINCIIS PRAETORIIS

263

I. 15 We suspect that the translator has turned the Latin text with a passive: compare the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Ch. XCVI, 1. 8. II. 16-17 The word-order at the end of 1. 16 is anomalous: contrast the more elegant formulation of Cyrene Edict V, 11. 100-1. We suspect that the translator has turned quiue cumque by δς τε; and that the parallel ωι αν - δς άν has generated the temptation to treat δς άν as a single unit. 11. 17-19 The consul is to grant an audience in the senate to any future Rhodian ambassadors, note οϊτινες άν with the subjunctive, extra ordinem and admit them extra ordinem; the double formulation is extraordinarily emphatic. The reference is simply to the order in which the senate heard embassies which were present, not to a system which reserved the month of February for embassies, against the view we took in 1974, 218 n. 27; see M. Bonnefond, in CI. Nicolet (ed.), Des ordres a Rome (Paris, 1984), 61-99, 'La Lex Gabinia sur les ambassades', at 67-73; Senat, 333-47. Compare έκτος του στίχου in the SC de Stratonicensibus, Sherk, RDGE, 18, 11. 65-6; εκ του στίχου in the SC de Aphrodisiensibus, Reynolds, Aphrodisias and Rome, Doc. 8, 1. 81 = Doc. 9, 11. 13-14; and the ordering of embassies attested for 111 BC by Schol.Bob., 158 St. I. 19 Contrast the optative in 1. 28 below; and ψήφισμα in the Cnidos Copy, Column Π, II. 13 and 25; IV, 1. 6. 11. 20-1 A difficulty is posed by the presence of [— ε]ίς Χσίαν έπαρχείαν and έπα[ρχ]εία: contrast the Delphi Copy, Block C, 1. 8. We discussed a variety of solutions in 1974, but are no longer attracted by the one which we adopted. The supplement by Bliimel creates an odd impression of Roman institutions. Perhaps supply ώι and read [— αποδεδειγμένος ε]ις Χσίαν έπαρχείαν, (ώι) Γαίωι κτλ, following an idea of Carcopino (1932), 129: see also Ferrary, 646-7. Also possible are: αποστελλόμενος, compare the Edictum Pauli Fabii Maximi, Sherk, RDGE, 65, D, 1. 45, or πορευόμενος, compare the SC Popillianum, Sherk, RDGE, 11, 11. 7 and 17; the SC de Stratonicensibus, 18,1. 61, or διαβαίνων, J. and L. Robert, Inscriptions de Claws J (Paris, 1989), 13, the Polemaios dossier, Column Π, 1. 50, or παραγιγνόμενος, ibid., 63, the Menippos dossier, Column I, 11. 15-16. 1. 20 See on the Cnidos Copy, Column Π, 11. 13-15; in 1974 we restored the full range of possible governors. 1.21

See on 11. 5-16 above.

I. 23 For relative + άν + future indicative, compare the Cnidos Copy, Column IV, 11. 7-8, 1. 17; the Delphi Copy, Block C, 11. 9-10 (present indicative); the Cnidos Copy, Column V, 11. 38-40; Ferrary, 628 n. 40. II. 24-6 For the provisions for publication, compare the General Introduction, Ch. ΧΙΠ; we take 11. 24-6 as depending on φροντισάτω in 1. 23. The supplement by Bliimel, ...[... έν τ]ή άγοράι, is too short. Our supplement translates ita ut de piano recte legi possit: ισόπεδοι οί βουλόμενοι in that of Colin is both curious and unnecessary. We were wrong to claim in 1974 that the statute only envisaged publication in Asia. 11. 26-7 Our supplement in 1974 was completely ungrammatical: the final clause after 'ίνα must be completed before the main clause with the imperative ποη[σά]/τωσαν begins. Our present supplement starts from this principle; plural instead of singular is typical of the style of such texts, see the General Introduction, Ch. ΧΠ; the dative after άρχειν is presumably the result of confusion with quibus imperabunt.

ROMAN STATUTES

264

11. 27-9 That part of the Cnidos text which corresponds to these lines now shows that Macedonia is not being removed from the normal senatorial allotment of provinces, contra Carcopino (1932), 125-6. 1. 27 See on 1. 13 above; the plural represents the singular qui. For the list of possible governors, see on the Cnidos Copy, Column Π, 11. 13-15. 1. 28

Contrast the indicative in 1. 19.

I. 29

πορευύήτω is a slightly and του is a very surprising form.

Cnidos Copy, Column IV II. 1-2 These lines must correspond to the Delphi Copy, Block B, 11. 26-7; perhaps γένεσ/(1)ϋαι [ή, οι τε άλλοι οίς αν άρχωσιν ταύτα ποιησάτωσαν. δσοι] / (2) τε [αν c 5 ] ... The problem is that this produces lines of 45, 35 and 39 letters. 11. 5-30 The text moves on to Macedonian affairs and specifically the newly annexed Thracian conquests of T. Didius; δορίκτητος is originally a literary word, but a technical term in the Hellenistic period: Pol. XVHI, 51,4; Diod. XIX, 105, 4. Contrast the much less ornate Delphi translation; the following sentence is also differently turned. To the sources for T. Didius in Broughton, Magistrates I, 571, add the striking formulation in Jordanes, De summa temporum, 219 {MGH, Auctores antiqui V, 1, 28), cited by F.W. Walbank, 143 = 204 n. 83: ad postremum a Marco (sic) Didio et ipsi (Thraces) subacti, et loca eorum in prouinciam redacta, iugum excepit Romanum. The parallel with our text is interesting. In 1974, we opted for an entity called the Caenic Chersonese and identified it with the peninsula running down to the Bosporus; Walbank, 143-5 = 205-6, identified it as an extension of the Thracian Chersonese; but F. Papazoglou, ANRW Π, 7 (1979), 302-69, 'Quelques aspects de l'histoire de la province de Macedoine', at 316, suggested, and L.D. Loukopoulou, in M.B. Hatzopoulos and L.D. Loukopoulou, Two Studies in Ancient Macedonian Topography (Athens, 1987), 74-8, showed that there were two entities, the (Thracian) Chersonese and the Cainice at its head; they appear also in 11. 11-12. HCR and the three authors cited discuss the military threat to the Attalids and then Rome represented by the Caeni; it was only their territory, not also the (Thracian) Chersonese, that T. Didius captured: see Ferrary, 634 n. 58, partly misreading HCR. In the 50s BC eastern Thrace was part of the province of Macedonia, contra U. Kahrstedt, Beitrage zur Geschichte der thrakischen Chersones (Baden Baden, 1954), 47-50: see Cicero, in Pis. 86; de prov.cons. 3-4; Walbank, I.e.; and the Commentary on the Cnidos Copy, Column ΠΙ, 11. 22-7. 11. 5-7 Note that the governor of Macedonia is envisaged as holding his position in virtue of this statute or in virtue of a SC (see the Introduction; Ferrary, 628-9). The first item in the catalogue of the governor's tasks is to organise the proper taxation of the newly annexed territory, an interesting indication of Roman priorities, for which there are obvious parallels. The governor is also instructed to spend not less than 60 days in the newly annexed territory, a piece of legislative interference with his apportionment of his time; to protect the friends and allies of Rome; and to deal with boundaries. I. 6

See the General Introduction, Preface; also on the Delphi Copy, Block B, 1. 19.

II. 7-8 11. 10-12 22-7.

See on the Delphi Copy, Block B, 1. 23. For the usage of the term επαρχεία, see on the Cnidos Copy, Column ΙΠ, 11.

12 - LEX DE PROVINCIIS PRAETORIIS

265

I. 13 The translator has rendered uti as if it began a final clause. II. 13-17 There is perhaps a suggestion that publicani are to be entrusted with the collection of the taxes, compare καρπίζεσϋαι in the SC de Amphiarao, Sherk, RDGE, 23,11. 28, 34 and 67; the dative after καρπίζεσϋοα is presumably the result of confusion with uectigalibus frui. The Delphi text may have placed κατά τον νσμον - which we take as a reference to the lex locationis - after καρπεύωνται and abbreviated the following clause. The taxes are to be collected and properly. 11. 19-20

For 60 days, compare the Lex repetundarum, Law 1,1. 24.

11. 21-4 The translator has begun a consecutive clause with ώστε and the infinitive and switched to a final clause with δπως and the subjunctive: compare the Cnidos Copy, Col. Π.11. 12-18. The association of this clause with the preceding recalls the notion of protection as the justification of taxation in Cicero, ad Q.fr. I, 1 = 1 SB, 34. 11. 22-4 Loukopoulou, I.e. on 11. 5-30, suggests that the area referred to here is Macedonia and the area of Thrace under Mostis. 11. 24-30 The Greek represents a clause with ut and the subjunctive in the Latin original, where this has failed to convert the form of a rogatio to that of a statute, compare the Delphi Copy, Block C, 11. 18-19; see also the General Introduction, Ch. EX. Nonsense would ensue if one took the clause as parallel to that beginning with δπως in 1. 22. 11. 27-8 In 1974, we took the SC to relate to what precedes; but given the parallel with 1. 19, we now think that this was perverse and take the SC to relate to what follows; we suppose it to be similar to the mandata of 1. 33. I. 29 The governor is to establish the boundaries of the uectigal of the Chersonese; for the act, compare the SC de Magnetum et Prienensium litibus, Sherk, RDGE, 7,1. 55; and in general the Lex Flavia, Ch. 76; the area is presumably that known in the 60s BC as the Attalici agn, Cicero, de leg.ag. Π, 50: see on 11. 5-30 above. For ϊστημι = statuo, compare Cyrene Edict IV, 1. 5, with the commentary of Stroux and Wenger; OGIS 665 (Edict of Cn. Vergilius Capito), 1. 27; the Edict of Ti. Iulius Alexander, 11. 31, 38, 61; Josephus, AJ XIV, 202. II. 31-9 The case of Ap. Claudius, Cicero, adfam. I, 9 = 20 SB, 25, makes it clear that a provincial governor possessed imperium from his departure till his return. These lines confer the same rights on a governor of Asia or Macedonia between the moment of his abdication and his arrival back in Rome as are possessed by one who is succeeded in the normal way: εξουσία πάντων πραγμάτων, criminal as well as civil jurisdiction. The list which follows is the nearest which has been preserved from the Republican period to a formal· definition of the powers of a provincial governor. For activity in transit in normal circumstances, compare Cicero, // in Verr. 1, 44, where Cicero describes Verres' animadversio in Achaea on his way to serve as legate in Cilicia as improbum, sed non inauditum (compare ibid., 70, a hypothetical case at Lampsacus; 88, Dolabella at Miletus); Suetonius, Aug. 3, where C. Octavius is assigned military activity on his way to his province of Macedonia; Crawford, 'Sistema provinciate', at 115 n. 110. A Republican governor in such a position possessed powers of a quite different order from those eventually possessed by a governor in a similar position in the regulated world of the Empire, who had iurisdictio non contentiosa, sed uoluntaria: the right to preside over manumissions, emancipations and adoptions (Dig. I, 7, 36 (Paul); 16, 2pr.

266

ROMAN STATUTES

(Martian); XL, 2, 17 (Paul: see Mommsen, St: I, 190 n. 2 = DP I, 219 n. 2, arguing that where ems now stands, making nonsense of the passage, Augusti prouinciae once stood); Pliny, Ep. VII, 16, 3-4; 32, 1), deal with tutela {Dig. I, 18, 17 (Celsus), by implication; compare XXVI, 1, 6, 2 (Ulpian); the Lex Flavia, Ch. 29), and so on (compare Dig. Π, 1, 4 (Ulpian)). For the general principle under the Empire, see also Dig. I, 18, 3 (Paul), and note Π, 1, 20 (Paul): extra territorium ius dicenti impune non paretur, for the retention of imperium after resignation by a legatus Caesans see Dig. I, 18, 20 (Papinian): legatus Caesaris ... abdicando se non amittit imperium; possession of imperium doubtless means for Papinian retention of the fasces and uoluntaria iurisdictio: compare Dio LIE, 13, 4, with Mommsen, St. Π, 257 = DP ΙΠ, 295-6. For abdication in general, see Mommsen, St. I, 626-8 = DP Π, 299-301. I. 31 For the gubernatorial titulature, see on the Cnidos Copy, Column Π, 11. 13-15. II. 32 and 41 We take it that έγΕνετο is an inaccurate translation oifuerit and that the import of the two clauses is perfectly general. 11. 32-3 '... traduction maladroite du latin magistratu se abdicauerit (compare Cic, de leg. Π, 31), rendu une premiere fois de fa$on litterale par αύτον άπειπεΐν accompagne du genitif, et une seconde fois, de facon moins barbare, par un moyen. C'est le signe, croyons nous, de rembarras du traducteur devant une construction latine qui a du lui paraitre aberrante', Ferrary, 634-5: but see the Introduction above. I. 33 Presumably mandata, compare J. and L. Robert, Inscriptions de Claws I (Paris, 1989), 13, the Polemaios dossier, Column Π, 11. 44-51 (έπίταγμα); the SC Popillianum, Sherk, RDGE, 11,1. 6 (έντολαί); Cic, de or. Π, 49, 'quid? si, quod saepe summis uiris accidit, mandata sint exponenda aut in senatu ab imperatore aut ad imperatorem aut ad regem aut ad populum aliquem a senatu ...'; de leg. ΙΠ, 18, 'sed quaero quid reapse sit turpius, quam sine procuratione senator legatus, sine mandatis, sine ullo rei publicae munere?'; note that the term does not recur in the case of the quaestor, 1. 42 below. Naturally, the resonances of the term in the imperial age are not to be read back into our text. II. 33-4

Did the original contain the phrase siremps omnium rerum ...?

11. 34-5 The clause as a whole conserves the rights of magistrates: the relevant Latin equivalents are animaduertere, coercere, ius dicere, iudicare\ for the first, compare CGL Π, 18, 2; for the first two, Pol. XXI, 34, 7; the SC de Stratonicensibus, Sherk, RDGE, 18, 1. 62; for the third, in a provincial context, Cicero, ad Att. V, 15 = 108 SB, 1; 21 = 114 SB, 6; VI, 1 = 115 SB, 15; the Cyme dossier, Sherk, RDGE, 61,1. 21; Josephus, AJ XVI, 172; δικαιοδοσία in 1. 37 below; for the fourth, Cicero, adfam. ΙΠ, 6 = 69 SB, 4. I. 35 In 1974 we supposed that ξενοκρίται were foreign judges; we are now certain that they are recuperatores, as in P.Oxy. 3016 (second century AD); the Jewish papyri there discussed (second century AD) are now P.Yadin 28-30; κρνταί are iudices\ our text provides for the appointment of Roman citizens as either type of judge, when the issue is to be settled according to Roman law: see, for the provinces, Greenidge, Legal Procedure, 124-5; 128-32; Cicero, Flac. 10-11; 45-9; and for recuperatores in general, the Cnidos Copy, Column V below. II. 35-6 The accent of ανάδοχων will be different depending on whether one supposes it to be the genitive plural of ανάδοχος or (elided) of άναδοχεύς; it is hard to avoid the conclusion that we have praedes praedia, compare the Lex portorii Asiae, 11. 110 and 124

12 - LEX DE PROVINCIIS PRAETORIIS

267

with 102. In the Delphi Copy, Block C, 1. 2, we perhaps have [ποι]εΐν άναφέρει[ν], the equivalent of facere, in tabulas referre and governing απελευθερώσεις. 1. 36 Perhaps κτημάτων τ'έ[γ]γα(ι)οδόσεις or έ[γ]γ(υ)οδόσεις: neither word seems to be attested elsewhere. But hapax legomena in this kind of document are not surprising: compare the appearance of διικανοδοτεΐν in the Lex portorii Asiae, 11. 102 and 124, for satis dare, beside the more orthodox άσφαλίζεσϋαι. The Latin will have been subsignationes: compare the Lex agraria, Law 2,1. 28. 1. 38 Comparison with the Delphi Copy, Block C, 11. 5-6, suggests that the translator or engraver has here substituted ό ανθύπατος for άνυπεύϋυνος, which is the most likely reading there. There is no corresponding Latin word and we suppose that the translator had before him something like eiusque nomen deferre ne liceto. Delphi Copy, Block C 1. 2 See on the Cnidos Copy, Column IV, 11. 35-6. 1. 3 The anomalous aorist indicative here, compared with the aorist subjunctive both in the Cnidos Copy, Column IV, 1. 39, and (presumably) in 1. 6 below, suggests an underlying future perfect in the Latin text. 1. 4

See on the Cnidos Copy, Column IV, 11. 32 and 41.

I. 5 The context in which fines are extracted is unclear: speculatively, παρά 'Ρ[ωμαίων συμμάχων τε κάί εισεν]εγκ[άτω τους φόρους — ] . II. 5-6

See on the Cnidos Copy, Column IV, 1. 38.

11. 6-7 Although it would be possible, it is hard to see that we want to restore a reference to σ[υμβόλαια] (Colin) or to the senate in the middle of 1. 6: speculatively, όσα 'Ρωμαίο]ν σύ[μμαχόν τε — ] . 1. 8 For the gubernatorial titulature, see on the Cnidos Copy, Column Π, 11. 13-15. I. 9 Compare the Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae, Law 7,11. 13-14. II. 9-10 There are four separate grammatical difficulties. (1) With όμνυέτω ότι, 'let him swear that', contrast the constructions with όμνύναι below; we continue to accept the suggestion of Naber in SEG ΙΠ, p. 82 n., that the people is to be understood as the subject of κελεύει; the Greek is more of a paraphrase than a translation; όσα looks forward to πάντα. (2) For relative + αν + present indicative, compare the Delphi Copy, Block B, 1. 23; Pomtow's [μέ]ν lacks a following δε. (3) ποιείτω is not merely odd, as we remarked in 1974; it is impossible. (4) For [άνευ] δόλου πονηρού, see on the Cnidos Copy, Column Π, 1. 6. f Note that the governors of Asia and Macedonia, presumably because outside Rome, are not instructed to swear specifically by Zeus and the dei Penates. 11. 10-30

See the Introduction.

1. 11 In 1974, we argued hesitantly, following Stuart Jones, 172-3, that the exemption of the tribunes perhaps reflected the fact that all the tribunes of the year were in favour of the statute; we now think that, even if this had been the case, the legislator would not have gambled on everyone remaining of the same opinion. We now explain the exemption by the rule that a tribune (perhaps any magistrate) was not bound by a statute passed by another member of the same college (Mommsen, St. I, 291 n. 3 = DP I, 333 n. 3: the rule was denied by G. Rotondi, Riv.It.Sc.Giur. 64, 1920, 147-80 = Scritti giuridici

268

ROMAN STATUTES

I (Milan, 1922), 370-402, Troblemi di diritto pubblico romano', on the basis of a supplement in the Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae); caution remains in order, for the eight tribunes of 58 ΒC who attempted to recall Cicero were evidently unsure of the validity of the rule. έπαρχοι presumably here = 'governors', in view of επαρχεία = prouincia: so Colin (1924), 91; (1930), p. 45; Stuart Jones, 171-2 (misunderstood by Carcopino (1932), 123). There is no reason why the equivalence of έπαρχος and praefectus, later standard, should have been established by this date, contra G. Tibiletti, RIL 86, 1953, 64-100, 'Governatori romani in citta provinciali', at 83-8; Mason, 138-40; note that έπαρχος is used of the Athenian 'governor' of Delos in the SC de Sarapeo Deli insulae, Sherk, RDGE, 5, 1. 28 (for other Hellenistic evidence, see Tibiletti); and that the term certainly means 'governor' in IGRR ΙΠ, 714 (near Myra); and that this meaning resolves the problems of IG Π2, 1092. The suggestion of Sherwin White, 6 n. 21, that the men are (unspecified) 'junior magistrates at Rome associated with the tribunes', is hardly satisfactory without comparative evidence. Latin possessed no word for 'governor' in the Republican period, compare the Lex Antonia de Termessibus, Law 19, Column Π, 1. 6, and we assume that in the Latin text there stood here something like (magistratus) qui prouinciis praesunt, rather than (with Colin) the normal sequence of gubernatorial titles, praetor proue praetore proue consule, of which the first element is ambiguous. If we are right, existing governors are exempt from the oath, because the only ones who might be affected by the statute are those of Asia and Macedonia and they have already been specifically required to swear; future governors are exempt, because they will already have been required to swear as ordinary magistrates in Rome. 1. 12 οϊτινές τε will be a poor translation of quicumque; οϊτινές (γ)ε, so Cronert, would be a possible correction. I. 13 For singular not plural, see the General Introduction, Ch. ΧΠ. II. 15, 16 See on the Cnidos Copy, Column Π, 1. 6. I. 16 The first half of this line forbids evasion of the statute, not its abrogation, contra Cuq, (1923), 146; for fraus legi, see on the Tarentum Fragment, Law 8,1. 25. For the sense of έπικρίνειν, compare the Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae, Law 7,1. 18. II. 17-19 τώι τε ... όπως ... έξη είναι: the Latin text must have been faciunto iuranto quo neue minus neue setius quid fiat...; it is not altogether surprising that the translator has made a pig's ear of his job; and there is no need with Naber, here and below, to postulate the loss of a whole phrase. 11. 17-18 The clause picks up with great precision the prohibitions and injunctions of 11. 16-17, μήτε τις ποείτω ... γεγραμμένον εστίν. 11. 18-19

See on the Cnidos Copy, Column IV, 24-30.

I. 19 For neue minus compare the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Ch. LXXXH; κρΐναι is presumably an attempt to render petere, compare 11. 23-4 below. For the action for the benefit of thepopulus, see the General Introduction, Ch. XTV. II. 19-21 The clause picks up with some relatively minor variations of content and some changes of order the prohibitions and injunctions of 11. 15-17. We now take a slightly different view from Bliimel of which words have to be excluded in order to make sense of the sentence. For committere, see Frontinus, de aq. 127, for quotienscumque, see the Lex Iulia agraria, Law 54, Ch. ΠΠ.

12 - LEX DE PROVINCIIS PRAETORIIS

269

I. 22 The Latin text will have been dare damnas esto, rather than dare debeto as in 1. 23: compare 11. 26 and 27 below for our supplement. The translator indeed perhaps omitted the abbreviation (p.R.)d.d.e. here, because it was unintelligible. II. 23-4 Lintott, 78-80, suggested that we have in the Cnidos Copy, Column V, the detailed procedure which is merely resumed here. We know of no parallel for this. For our view of the material preserved in the Cnidos Copy, Column V, see below. In 1974, we mounted an elaborate argument: while δστις referred to the potential prosecutor, δσοις referred to the potential defendants (216 n. 21; in 1. 7, for 'imperative', read 'subjunctive'). But we are no longer convinced by our argument. Unless we are to suppose that the translator has gone completely astray, δστις and δσοις must refer to the same category. It would appear that the magistrate is to verify the capacity of the prosecutor, rather than there being a process of diuinatio: compare the Lex Flavia, Chs. 26, etc. The Greek word έναιτήσειν evidently represents irrogare, but is not otherwise attested (nor do we know of another case where irrogare is used of a private individual: at Plautus, Copt. 491-5, Ergasilus is clearly pretending to be a magistrate); we now think that petere is represented by the middle κρίνεσϋαι. What is surprising is the mixture of the terminology of the action for the benefit of the populus, on which see the General Introduction, Ch. XIV, and the quaestio: multam irrogare and nomen deferre. (Mantovani, Accusa, 124 n. 20, has not identified the problems of these lines.) I. 25 Note that a promagistrate could prevent men from witnessing, as Cicero found in Sicily. II. 26-8 We suspect that the translator has in part repeated himself. The two parallel clauses in 11. 26-7 have first a subjunctive and then an indicative + a subjunctive. 11. 28-30 The principal action appears to be followed by the equivalent of an actio iudicati\ the terminology used in these lines makes it clear that the principal action is essentially civil. 1. 29

For the Latin text, compare the Tarentum Fragment, Law 8,1. 6.

I. 30

Compare the Lex repetundarum, Law 1,1. 46.

Cnidos Copy, Column V At the point at which the text begins to become intelligible in 1. 14, we have a reference to 45 men and then to 15 jurors chosen from among them. As A. Lintott rightly guessed (RHD 68, 1990, 1-11, 'Le proces devant les recuperatores d'apres les donnees epigraphiques jusqu'au regne d'Auguste', at 9-11) and as our reading of 1. 26 independently confirmed, we have a provision for trial before recuperatores, for whom see on the Lex agraria, Law 2, 11. 29-31 and 36-9. It would be natural to suppose that this provision follows on from the Delphi Copy, Block C, 11. 28-30, which envisage the possibility that a man might refuse to pay the fine of 11. 23-4. But it is very hard to see what is going on in 11. 1—13 here. It is, however, probably even harder to suppose that we have the translation of a completely different statute, whose substantive provisions would have to be extraordinarily brief, given the point in the Cnidos Copy, Column V, where the text in the Delphi Copy, Block C, must have ended (see the Introduction above). The two (or three) references to an επαρχεία may be references to the prouinciae of the governors obliged to swear to the statute: see the Delphi Copy, Block C, 11. 8-10. The imperfect in II. 3-4 - a middle - seems to represent a future perfect: compare 11. 32-3 below.

ROMAN STATUTES

270

11. 14-19 Cyrene Edict V, 11. 119-22, cf. 1. 143, provide for a very similar process of sortitio followed by reiectio, in that case of nine reducing to five; for άπολέγω, compare Edict I, 1. 28; Edict V, 1. 122. The linguistic parallels are close and have guided our restoration. We have also been guided by the fullest account of the procedure for alternate reiectio of jurors, in the Lex Flavia, Ch. 87. 11. 19-20 We think that the translator has become confused and rendered eius loco with άνϋ'εαυτού. I. 22 εις εκείνους: plaintiff and defendant. II. 22-3 Compare in general terms the Lex repetundarum, Law 1,11. 36-8.. I. 24 δέκα [και εκατόν ...] is too long. Compare Cicero, Tull. 11, quam primum\ the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Ch. XCV, 20 days; Cyrene Edict V, 11. 132-4, 30 days. II. 26-8 For the verdict, compare the Lex repetundarum, Law 1, 11. 54-5; the Lex agraria, Law 2,11. 38-9. I. 27

αποφαίνομαι = pronuntio: compare Cyrene Edict 1,1. 33; V, 11. 135, 136, 144.

II. 27-8 Compare Cyrene Edict V, 11. 143-4; the Latin for εάν or έάσαι is ratum esse: we think that the translator has been confused by ratum and inserted the gratuitous masculine accusative αυτόν. 11. 28-33 For the power to compel witnesses, compare the Lex repetundarum, Law 1,11. 32-3; and, in the context of recuperatores, the bibliography cited on the Lex agraria, Law 2, 11. 29-31. For the language compare Cyrene Edict I, 11. 22-3; V, 1. 140; for the Latin version, see the Lex repetundarum, I.e. The procedure to be followed in our statute is characterised as that of a Lex de repetundis. I. 32

The Latin equivalent of προσφωνεΐν, with όνομα, is presumably deferre.

II. 32-3 For the imperfect, see on the Cnidos Copy, Column Π, 11. 4-5. The subsequent phrase will be a reference to the general rules governing capacity to testify: compare the Lex Iulia de ui, Law 62. 11. 33-8 Compare the Lex repetundarum, Law 1, 11. 54-5. There is no doubt that our translator has failed at the hurdle of the word praeuaricaho. 11. 38-42

See on the Lex repetundarum, Law 1,11. 54-6.

11. 38-40

See on the Delphi Copy, Block B, 1. 23.

11. 42-6 If &i can be taken as an aberrant translation of ei, the Latin equivalent of 11. 44-5 is presumably dimidiamque partem ei seruandam dato dariuefacito. One thing is in any case clear: the first thing that happens, is that half of the money recovered goes to the aerarium, and we presumably have to do with collection of money due to the Roman state. Half of the money will have been used as a reward and it is presumably this process that the last preserved clause of the statute addresses: see on the Lex Iulia agraria, Law 54, Ch. V. 11. 45-6

See on the Delphi Copy, Block C, 11. 28-30.

MHC, JMR, JLF, PM

13 - LEX OSCA TABVLAE BANTINAE BIBLIOGRAPHY The Naples fragments G.L. Marini, Gli atti e monumenti de' fratelli arvali II (Rome, 1795), 570 (publishing the largefragment);[CM. Rosini,] Dissertationis isagogicae ad Herculanensium voluminum explanationem pars prima (Naples: Reale Accademia Ercolanese di Archeologia, 1797), p. 38 n. 13, pi. V (publishing all except: the fragment containing the ends of 11. 4-12; the Avellino fragment; and the Adamesteanu fragment); F.M. Avellino, Bull.Arch.Nap. 4, 1845-6, 27-9, 'Notizie di due novelli frammenti appartenenti alla iscrizione opistografa in bronzo conosciuta sotto il nome di tavola lucana, o bantina'; C.A.C. Klenze, Philologische Abhandlungen (Berlin, 1839), 25-54, 'Das oskische Gesetz auf der bantinischen Tafel'; CR. Lepsius, Inscriptiones Umbricae et Oscae (Leipzig, 1841), 75-80; Th. Mommsen, Die unteritalischen Dialekte (Leipzig, 1850), 145-68. A. Kirchhoff, Das Stadtrecht von Bantia. Ein Sendschreiben an Herrn Theodor Mommsen (Berlin, 1853); L. Lange, Die oskische Inschrift derTabula Bantina und die römischen Volksgerichte (Göttingen, 1853) = Kleine Schriften I (Göttingen, 1887), 153-226; Ph.E. Huschke, Die oskischen und sabellischen Sprachdenkmäler (Elberfeld, 1856), 59-140; CIL I 1 (1863), p. 46 (without text); (Ph.)E. Huschke, Die Multa und das Sacramentum in ihren verschiedenen Anwendungen (Leipzig, 1874), 61-9, 503-11; F. Bücheier, in Bruns3 (1876), m, n, la, pp. 43-8 and 311. I. Zvetaieff, Sylloge Inscriptionum Oscarum (Leningrad, 1878), no. 142, pp. 75-8; H. Jordan, Beiträge zur Kunde der indogermanischen Sprachen (herausgegeben von Dr A. Bezzenberger) 6, 1881, 195-210, 'Zur oskischen Inschrift der bantinischen Bronze'; M. Bréal, Mém.Soc.Ling.Paris 4, 1881, 138-46, 'Contributions à la connaissance du dialecte osque'; 373-405, 'Épigraphie italique', at 381-400, 404-5, 'La table de Bantia' (J. Flach, RHD (3e sér.) 3, 1879, 317-22, 'Comptes rendus bibliographiques', at 317-18, is only a reference to the underlying lecture); CIL DC (1883), pp. 43 and 660 (brief mention without text); I. Zvetaieff, Inscriptiones Italiae Inferioris dialecticae (Moscow, 1886), no. 231, pp. 68-73; A. Esmein, Mélanges d'histoire du droit et de critique. Droit romain (Paris, 1886), 323-38; Th. Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht TD. (Leipzig, 1887-8), 700-2; C Moratti, ArchGiur 53, 1894, 74-110, 'La legge osca di Banzia' (unorthodox); R. von Planta, Grammatik der oskisch-umbrischen Dialekte II (Strasbourg, 1897), no. 17, pp. 494-7, 599-603; R.S. Conway, The Italic Dialects I (Cambridge, 1897), no. 28, pp. 22-9; C D . Buck, Indogerm.Forschungen 12, 1901, 13-22, 'Critical notes to Oscan inscriptions', at 20-1; id., A Grammar of Oscan and Umbrian (Boston, 1904; reprinted with Addenda, Boston, 1928), no. 2, pp. 230-9; F. Bücheier, RhMus 63, 1908, 316-19 = Kleine Schriften m (Leipzig and Berlin, 1930), 389-91, 'Zum Stadtrecht von Bantia'; id., in Bruns7 m , no. 8, pp. 48-53. CIL I 2 (1918), pp. 440-1 (brief mention without text); M. Zotta, AIV 98, 2 (Cl.sc.mor.lett.), 1938-9, 373-404, 'Sul diritto pubblico e privato .di Bantia' (unorthodox); E. Verter, Handbuch der italischen Dialekte I (Heidelberg, 1953), no. 2, 271

272

ROMAN STATUTES

pp. 13-28; G. Bottiglioni, Manuale dei dialetti italici (Bologna, 1954), no. 79, pp. 243-8; J. Knobloch, in id. (ed.) Ammann Festgabe II (Innsbruck, 1954), 34-40, 'Altitalisches', at 39-40, 'Der vermeintliche Präfekt in der Tabula Bantina'; E. Schönbauer, Anz.Akad.Wien, Phil.-hist.KL 92, 1955, Nr. 10, 131-53, 'Das Rätsel der oskischen und lateinischen Bantia-Inschrift' (survey); id., RIDA, 3e sér., 2, 1955, 311-63, 'Das Problem der beiden Inschriften von Bantia' (attributing the Latin text to Cinna, the Oscan text to Sulla); O. Haas, Lingua Posnaniensis 5, 1955, 89-111, 'Die Tabula Bantina. Ein Ausschnitt aus dem italischen Steuerrecht' (supposing that eituas means 'tax'); J. Untermann, Indogerm.Forschungen 63, 1957-8, 241-52, 'Oskisches'; E. Campanile, Studi e Saggi Linguistici 3, 1963, 81-5, 'Marginalia'; V. Pisani, Le lingue dell'Italia antica oltre il latino (Turin, 1964), no. 9, pp. 53-61. The Adamesteanu fragment D. Adamesteanu & M. Torelli, ArchClass 21, 1969, 1-17, 'Il nuovo frammento della Tabula Bantina'; M.L. Porzio Gernia, RAL 24, 1969, 329-39, 'Contributo all' interpretazione del nuovo frammento della Tavola Bantina scoperto dall'Adamesteanu'; P. Poccetti, Nuovi documenti italici (Pisa, 1979), no. 185, pp. 132-6. The two groups H. Galsterer, Chiron 1, 1971, 191-214, 'Die lex Osca Tabulae Bantinae. Eine Bestandsaufnahme'; L. del Tutto Palma, SE 42, 1974, 397-400, 'Bantia' (survey); J. Untermann, Glotta 57, 1979, 293-324, 'Literaturbericht Italische Sprachen F, at 299-302 (survey); A. Morandi, Epigrafia italica (Rome, 1982), no. 32, pp. 134-9; L. del Tutto Palma, La tavola bantina (sezione osca): proposte di rilettura (Linguistica, Epigrafia, Filologia Italica. Quaderni di Lavoro I, Padova-Urbino, 1983) (with some further purely linguistic bibliography); CIL I 2 (1986), pp. 907-8 (brief mention without text); L. del Tutto Palma, SE 56, 1989-90, 217-51, 'Tavola bantina, 1-8: il contenuto istituzionale alla luce dell'analisi testuale e delle fonti romane'. Facsimiles: (Naples fragments) Lepsius (1841), pi. XXV, omitting the fragment containing the ends of 11. 4-12; Zvetaieff (1878), pi. XIX, omitting the Rosini fragment, whence Zvetaieff (1886), pi. Ill, with corrections; Rosini. Photographs: (Naples fragments) Simulacra, IV (excellent); Bottiglioni; Morandi; (Adamesteanu fragment) Adamesteanu and Torelli; Popoli e civiltà dell'Italia antica VI (Rome, 1978), 890; CIL I 2 (1986), tab. 18 fig. 2. Translations into Latin: Mommsen (1850); Kirchhoff (1853); Lange (1853); Huschke (1856); Bruns3 (1876), whence Zvetaieff (1878, 1886); Bréal (1881), whence Zvetaieff (1886); von Planta (1897); Buck (1904); Vetter (1953); Pisani (1953); Bottiglioni (1954); Haas (1955) (aberrant); Galsterer (1971). Translations into Italian: L. del Tutto Palma, in Popoli e civiltà dell'Italia antica VI (Rome, 1978), 891, whence del Tutto Palma (1983); Morandi (1982). Translations into English: Buck; ARS, 30-1. One large and five smaller fragments of a bronze tablet, once forming a single piece (the Naples fragments, including the Rosini fragment and the Avellino fragment, which are no longer preserved); a further small fragment (the Adamesteanu fragment); letters 0.005-0.007 m (the Naples fragments), 0.006-0.007 m (the Adamesteanu fragment); for details of the dimensions, character, discovery, later history, present disposition and relationship of the fragments, seen where surviving by M.H. Crawford, see on the Lex

13 - LEX OSCA TABVLAE BANTINAE

273

Latina Tabulae Bantinae, Law 7; the last line of the Avellino fragment may well run on from the first line of the Adamesteanu fragment, a join which is also possible in the case of the Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae, q.v. (see Fig. VH). The Oscan text on the Naples fragments consists of a column with a margin to the left and the beginnings of five lines of a second column, opposite 11. 19-23 of Col. I. The text is in the Oscan language and Latin script (on which see del Tutto Palma (1983), 19-20); it is written from left to right. Each chapter is normally separated from the preceding chapter by a space; the engraving is marred by numerous missing and redundant interpuncts (see von Planta and Conway). INTRODUCTION The preserved chapters of our text, after one fragmentary line, cover: I) The procedure in the case of a fine n-m) Trial before the assembly IV) The census and the penalties for non-registration V) Procedures in iure VI) The cursus honorum The general problem of the nature of the whole document is rendered more difficult by the fact that no title is preserved and no chapter headings were used; and also by the fact that the relationship between the model or models on which our text is based and the language used in it can usually only be inferred from the text itself. The text refers to its own provisions by mentioning matters quae his legibus scriptae sunt (Naples fragments, 1. 25). These leges were taken as meaning 'constitution* by Kirchhoff and Mommsen (1887-8); as 'un excerptum di leggi romane' and 'una regolamentazione delle procedure civile e penale' by del Tutto Palma (1983), 40-1, following Zotta and Galsterer. This last sense is clearly too narrow, not least because we have only a fraction of the whole; and note that Cicero, de leg. II, 9 and 58-64; IE, 44; Gellius XX, 1, 25; Festus, 336 L, use leges for the individual provisions of the Twelve Tables, Law 40, q.v. In general, institutions are not so much described in the text, as documented by the procedure for redress in the case of disputes. The whole would have appeared oldfashioned by the time of Sulla, though this is not to be excluded in the case of a small town far from Rome; note also the presence of anquisitio and legis actio procedure, and the elaborate complex of magistracies. These elements may be the result of the influence of the neighbouring Latin colony of Venusia, founded in 291 BC, from which at least the tribunate almost certainly derives: the letter forms of ILLRP 690 (Ritschl, LIX): Q. Ouius Ou(i) f. tr(ibunus) pl(ebis) uiam strauit are certainly earlier than the Social War; and legis actio per manus iniectionem is attested in the likewise neighbouring Latin colony of Luceria, founded in 314 BC (CIL I 2 , 401 = IX, 782 = ILLRP 504, see on the Lex Silia, Law 46). We return to this theme below. The heavy debt of the Lex Osca to Roman practice in general has never been in doubt: see A. Rosenberg, Der Stoat der alten Italiker (Berlin, 1913), 105-8, citing the Roman air of its cursus honorum, legis actio procedure, 'intercession fines, assembly trials; G. Camporeale, Atti Mem.Acc.Toscana 'La Colombaria' 21, 1956, 33-108, 'La terminologia magistratuale nelle lingue osco-umbre', at 65-76; M.L. Porzio Gernia,

274

ROMAN STATUTES

Archivio Glottologico Italiano 55, 1970, 94-144, 'Aspetti dell'influsso latino sul lessico e sulla sintassi osca\ not emphasising sufficiently how far the debt distances the Lex Osca from all other Oscan texts; E. Campanile, in Scritti G. Bonfante I (Brescia, 1976), 109-20, 'La latinizzazione dell'osco', supposing that the Lex Osca was a brand new draft rather than a cento. Furthermore, G. Perl, Phil 115, 1971, 196-233, 'Die Einfuhrung der griechischen Buchstaben "Y" und "Z" in das lateinische Alphabet', has shown that the letter Z in the Lex Osca is not the Z of the Oscan alphabet, but is the Z of the Latin alphabet, itself a recent arrival from Greek. Mommsen (1850) had already observed that the abbreviations, tr.pl, pr., q., and «., are purely Roman; and that Q is not even an Oscan letter. But to assert that tribunes of the plebs can only occur in a document of wholly Roman origin or in a document emanating from a Latin colony was to go too far; and none would now accept that the Lex Latina and the Lex Osca were both a 'lex p.R. de foedere cum populo Bantino faciendo mutandoue'. Mommsen maintained his opinion in CIL EX (1883), but in Romisches Staatsrecht (1887-8) wrote without more ado of 'die Stadtordnung von Bantia'. (The discussion in CIL I 2 is an uneasy and unsatisfactory compromise between that in CIL I 1 and Mommsen's later (and passing) expressions of opinion.) And in fact Klenze (1839) had already shown that the Lex Latina and the Lex Osca are two different texts. We now know in any case that the Latin text is earlier than the Oscan text, see on the Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae, Law 7. And it is as certain as anything can be that the Latin text is part of a statute passed through a Roman assembly, perhaps in the period of Saturninus, whereas the Oscan text, for which the bronze was reused, is a charter of the community of Bantia. There is no reason to judge it on the basis of what has been preserved to be either more or less systematic or complete than the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25.

*** To commit ourselves to a date for the text of the Lex Osca, which may be earlier than the date of its engraving, is not a necessary condition for some understanding of the text, since this represents on any showing a compromise between local practices and Roman models. But the problem of the date must nonetheless be faced. No argument for the date of the Lex Osca is quite decisive; but the difficulties in the way of a date after the Social War are nonetheless immense. (A date during the Social War seems unlikely on practical grounds.) In favour of a date after the grant of citizenship to Italy in 90 BC, there have been cited: 1) the existence at Bantia under the Lex Osca of a cursus honorumy reinforced for Rome by Sulla (Galsterer, 203-6); but the institution existed at Rome in a fairly developed form from the early second century BC (A.E. Astin, The Lex Annalis before Sulla (Collection Latomus 32, Brussels, 1958)). In any case, the ban at Bantia on censors, praetors and quaestors becoming tribunes is quite unlike the Sullan ban on tribunes holding any further office: see the Commentary on the Naples fragments, 11. 27-9, and below; 2) the alleged existence at Bantia of a form of senatorial control of intercessio, analogous to the Sullan limitation of tribunician intercessio (Galsterer, 194-6); but it is very doubtful if there is any real analogy: see the Commentary on the Naples fragments, 11. 2-8; 3) the presence at Bantia of an auguraculum, originally dated on archaeological grounds to 80-60 BC and plausibly to be linked with the'constitutio of Bantia as a municipium,

13 - LEX OSCA TABVLAE BANTINAE

275

with which process the Lex Osca could perhaps be associated ([Adamesteanu and] Torelli (1969), 15-16); but the evidence would be no more than circumstantial, and Torelli, cited immediately below, now holds that the auguraculum is to be dated before the Social War. On the other side, it may be argued that: 1) the use of Oscan is paradoxical after the Social War; 2) if Chs. n - m (see the Commentary) refer to capital jurisdiction at Bantia, it is very hard to place the text after the Social War: no Roman municipium (or colony) is known to have possessed capital jurisdiction, in the form in which it appears here, namely liability of anyone to prosecution and trial by the assembly (see the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et ueneficiis, Law 50, Commentary); 3) there is no reference to Rome in the regulations for the census; contrast the arrangements attested by the Tabula Heracleensis and probably in force by the time of Sulla, see on Law 24,11. 142-57; 4) it is very hard to swallow the notion that after the enfranchisement of Italy it was at Bantia that an incensus was sold up; 5) if ceus Bantins has the same resonances as ciuis Bantinus, the term is surely most unlikely in a municipium after the Social War. A number of factors are not relevant one way or the other: 1) it has been argued by M. Torelli, Sodalitas: scritti in onore di Antonio Guarino m (Naples, 1984), 1397-402, "Tribuni Plebis" municipali?', that no municipium possessed tribunes; but the arguments are very forced; 2) the Lex Osca must now be seen in the light of an inscription, published by M. Torelli, Ath 71 (n.s. 61), 1983, 252-7, 'Una nuova epigrafe di Bantia e la cronologia dello statuto municipale bantino' (discussed by L. del Tutto Palma, SE 53, 1985, 280-4, 'Sulla nuova epigrafe pubblicata da M. Torelli'; we are informed by Professor Torelli that the inscription is now known to be a statue base), which shows a tribune or a group of tribunes, attested in the Lex Osca, in action: Zoues [—] tr.pl. [ - ] It is very likely that the letter forms of this new inscription are earlier than the Social War; and it is possible that the form of Oscan used is earlier than the Social War. It is, however, excessive to claim that the Oscan of the new inscription is 'assolutamente coevo' with that of the Lex Osca on the basis of the letter 'z' and the genitive with the form '-es' (see the commentary on the Adamesteanu fragment, 1. 8); 3) at some point, Bantia acquired a constitution with llviri rather than praetors; but the change is not attested before the end of the Republic at the earliest; 4) the nummi of the Naples fragments, 11. 12 and 26, and the Adamesteanu fragment, 1. 7, are probably not sestertii, but local bronze units, for which see Crawford, Coinage and Money, 14-15; but one cannot exclude the possibility of such survivals after the Social War. (The silver units of the Adamesteanu fragment, 1. 5, will be denarii, compare Vetter, nos. 115-16 (Nola), for the use of silver.) Different views have also been held on where the inscription was engraved: at Rome (Mommsen; Galsterer (1971)) or locally (Frederiksen, 'Municipal laws', 186-7 n. 21; H. Galsterer, RHD 65, 1987, 181-203, 'La loi municipale des Romains: chimere ou realite?'). The latter is the more plausible view, despite the mistakes in language and spelling; for the view that we have a provisional text prepared at Rome does not explain the use of bronze. Furthermore, the archaism of the text, to which we come below, is hard

276

ROMAN STATUTES

to envisage in Rome at the turn of the second and first centuries BC. If one insists on seeking an origin for the Lex Osca outside Bantia, Venusia is no doubt possible: second­ hand bronze tablets with Latin on one side were no doubt available there. But the mixture of Oscan and Latin, in content and vocabulary, language and script, makes a Bantian context for both composition and engraving far more likely.

We suspect that the preparation and engraving of the text was intended to symbolise independence from Rome. Would an elite which wished to demonstrate its loyalty have put up a charter in Oscan? We also suspect that our text is the work of an elite which normally spoke and wrote Latin and which in any case used the Latin script and wrote from left to right, which became desperate to assert an Oscan identity. That elite perhaps did not enquire too closely about the ultimately Roman origin of a text adapted from a model at Venusia, which was after all to join the rebels in the Social War. (Note the observation of Vetter, on the Naples fragments, 1. 11, that the engraver was used to Latin.) If we are right, it follows that no general inferences about the state of the Oscan language may safely be based on our text, a point also made on theoretical grounds by A.L. Prosdocimi, in Atti del Quindicesimo Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia (Naples, 1976), 139-221, 'II conflitto delle lingue', at 192-4. We observe in this context that 1. 6 takes us into the same kind of highly charged political atmosphere as is revealed to us by Cicero for Arpinum in the late second century BC; that the imposition of a cursus honorum also suggests a background of political controversy; and that the ban on holding the tribunate after the praetorship or any other office perhaps takes us into the world created by M. Fulvius Flaccus, consul in 125 BC, tribune in 122 BC (Niccolini, Fasti, 167). One final observation of a different kind: our text conveys the persistent impression that the Latin model (or models) on which Chs. I-V are based was very archaic, see the Naples fragments, 11. 4 {perimere), 1 (perimere twice), 14 (orare), 15 (*praeimere, priuatus), 16 (priuatus, orare), 21 (uincere), 24 (asserere), perhaps 29. (It is no longer certain that urust is a loan-word in Oscan: see O. Szemerenyi, in Festschrift F. Altheim I (Berlin, 1969), 173-91 = Scripta Minora H (Innsbruck, 1987), 892-910, 'Si parentem puer verberit, ast olle plorassit\ at 186-8 = 905-7.) In this context, the Naples fragments, 11. 3-8, which may reflect the political atmosphere of the late second century BC, are not a problem; for they are marked by anacoluthon and it is likely that they represent an incompetent conflation of two separate texts. Anacoluthon may also explain the awkwardness of the Naples fragments, 11. 23-5, where the praefucus has perhaps been clumsily grafted into an existing text; one would perhaps suppose on general grounds that the praefectus is a relatively late feature among the magistrates of the towns of Italy. On balance, we hold that underlying our text there is an adaptation of an earlier text made at Venusia after 122 BC and incorporating Ch. VI, the additions to 11. 3-8, and the praefectus; that our text was perhaps composed and probably engraved in the 90s BC, when a bronze with a now redundant Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae became available. Overall, we believe that the archetype of Chs. I-V of the Lex Osca brings us very close to the charter of a Latin colony at the turn of the fourth and third centuries; and the fact that our text is so often illuminated by the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, (see on 11. 3-4, 5, 9, 11-12, 13-14, 20-3, 24) suggests that many elements of that statute go back to the same period.

13 - LEX OSCA TABVLAE BANTINAE

277

TEXT In order to simplify reference, each chapter and each sentence are numbered. The letters underlined in 11. 2-4 of the Naples fragments form the Rosini fragment, in 11. 30-9 the Avellino fragment. Naples fragments, Col. I [—]onom [f]ust, izic pu[—] [—] (I) (1) suae [..]nus q(uaestor) moltam angitu[st ..."KmVir ++!"—1 [—] deiuast. (2) maimas carneis senateis tanginud. amTpert nei mins pam] 4 XL osins pon ioc egmo comparascuster, suae pis pertemust, pruter pan [—,] deiuatud sipus comenei perum dolom mallom siom ioc comono mais egm[as touti-] cas amnud pan pieisum brateis auti cadeis amnud inim idic siom dat sena[teis] tanginud maimas carneis pertumum. (3) piei ex comono pertemest, izic eizeic zicel[ei] 8 comono ni hipid. vacat (II) (4) pis pocapit post {post} exac comono hafie{i}st meddis dat castrid loufir en eituas factud pous touto deiuatuns tanginom deicans s(i)om dat eiza(i)sc idic tangineis deicum pod ualaemom touticom tadait ezum nep fefacid pod pis dat eizac egmad min[s] deiuaid dolud malud. (5) suae pis contrud exe(ic) fefacust auti comono hipust molto etan12 to estud n(ummum) MM in(im) suae pis ionc fortis meddis moltaum herest ampert minstreis aeteis eituas moltas moltaum licitud. vacat (HI) (6) suae pis pru meddixud altrei castrous auti eituas zicolom dicust izic comono ni hipid ne pon op toutad petirupert urust sipus perum dolom mallom in(im) trutum zico(lom) touto peremust. (7) petiropert neip mais pomtis v com preiuatud actud 16 pruter pam medicatinom didest in(im) pon posmom con preiuatud urust eisucen ziculud zicolom XXX nesimum comono{m} ni hipid. (8) suae pis contrud exeic fefacust ionc suae pis herest meddis moltaum {licitud} ampert mistreis aeteis eituas licitud. vacat (IV) (9) pon censtur (B)ansae t(o)utam censazet pis ceus Bantins fust censamur esuf in(im) eituam poizad ligud 20 iusc censtur censaum angetuzet. (10) aut suae pis censtomen nei cebnust dolud mallud in(im) eizeic uincter esuf comenei lamatir pr(u) meddixud toutad praesentid perum dolum mallom in(im) amiricatud alio famelo in(im) ei(tuo) siuom paei eizeis fust pae ancensto fust toutico estud. vacat (V) (11) pr(aetor) suae praefucus pod post exac Bansae fust suae pis op eizois com 24 a(l)trud ligud agum herest auti pru medicatud manim aserum eizazunc egmazum

ROMAN STATUTES

278

pas exaiscen ligis scriftas set, ne p{h)im pruhipid mais zicolois X nesimois. (12) suae pis contrud exeic pmhipust molto etanto estud, n(ummum) M, in(im) suae pis ionc (fortis) meddis moltaum herest {licitud} [ampert] minstreis aeteis eituas moltas moltaum licitud. vacat (VI) (13) pr(aetor) censtur B ansae 28 [ni pis fu]id nei suae q(uaestor) fust nep censtur fuid nei suae pr(aetor) fust in(im) suae pis pr(aetor) in(im) suae [pis censt]ur [a]uti q(uaestor) [a]u[ti tr]ium nerum fust izic post eizuc tr(ibunus) pl(ebis) ni fuid. (14) suae pis [contrud exeic post exac medd]is (f)acus (f)ust izic amprufid facus estud. (15) idic medicim eizuc[en acunud — pis plocapid Bansafe —] medicim acunum VI nesimum 32 [—]m (tHriulm nerum [—]+um pod [— c]o(n)[tr]ud ex(e)ic fe(f)[acust —] medicim [— ](ni f)ui(d). suae Topi eiz(o)rils [—] [— ampert ](m)istreis a(e)teis (e)[ituas moltas —] 36 [— her]est. licitud. trfibunusV pl(ebis) —] [— ni —]co (hMpid. i(s)uc isT —] [— ]trfibunus) (p)l(ebis) estudf —] [— medica]ti(n)om [— ]

coi. n

4

n[-] a[-] n[-~] e[-] i[-]

Adamesteanu fragment

4

8

[— pruter pa]m medicat[inom —] [—]+lehest dolom m[alom —] [— dol]ud malud sudana+[—] [— inim suae pis fortis i]onc meddis moltaum her[est,] [— moltas] moltaum licitud. vacat pis MCC arage[teis (?) — mai]stram carnom aceneis usurom [— ]n(ummum) II, eh exac ligud allam [—]+ hipust, pantes censas fust [—]+s acenei poizeipid spentud. q(uaestor) [—]s in(im) eisiuss deiu n*H-hole a (j) nSt de(i)uat[ud — ac]eneis perum dolum malom

13 - LEX OSCA TABVLAE BANTTNAE

279

APPARATUS CRITICUS The apparatus criticus has not been easy to construct, since there has been no critical edition of the text since those of Mommsen (1850), von Planta and Conway; we begin with Mommsen and, with Bucheler in Bruns3, ignore 'quae ipse sibi confinxerat Huschke'. It is also unfortunate that Avellino clearly used a dot equally to indicate an interpunct as well as a letter he could not read on the bronze. Naples fragments, Col. I 1 At the beginning, [—]S+NOM[—], Mommsen; [—]9NOM[—], von Planta, rightly; [—]O+NOM[—], Conway, Bruns7; the apparent tail of a Q is clearly a delusion, if one compares it with the other occurrences of the letter: it results from damage to the tablet; at the end, all hesitantly, RV[—], Mommsen, von Planta, Buck (1901); ITV[—], Conway; RO[—], Bruns7; the apparent downstroke of an R is clearly a delusion: it results from damage to the tablet; the LICITV[—] of del Tutto Palma (1983) is impossible: the rising hasta in question is very oblique and clearly that of a z, not an L 2 SVAE is clear; at least [..]NVS is clear, against Mommsen, p. 145, who may however have been right to suggest E[.] or L[.]; [MI]NVS, von Planta, improbably. The apparent NVR of the Rosini fragment is probably a delusion: the N elsewhere is broader and does not have so inclined a left-hand hasta; and the right-hand hasta is rather vestigial on the facsimile (PI. IV, 1); so we have rather the right-hand part of an M, of which the bottom of the centre is visible on the main fragment. If the Rosini fragment is accurately drawn, the letters (M)VR form the end of a word and are followed by a gap and the traces of two letters; in the preceding gap, AM, Mommsen; M, N or v, von Planta; M, Conway; MN, Bruns7; nothing is now visible apart from the bottom of the centre of the M 4 XL osINS PON is clear, despite the doubts of Buck (1901) 5 DEIVATVD is clear; COMONEI, Mommsen 6 AMNVD is clear; SENATE[IS], Mommsen, optimistically

8 HAFIERT has perhaps been corrected to HAFIEST, leaving a redundant upright hasta; LOVFIR, von Planta and later edd.; the R is clear, so also correctly Buck (1901) 9 10 11 14

STOM, EIZASC, aes FEPACID read by earlier edd. DOCVD read by earlier edd.; EXELG, aes COMONONI, aes

18 Com Campanile (1963) 19 sANSAE, TAVTAM, aes

20 ASC, Mommsen, hesitantly; ivsc is clear, hesitantly read by von Planta 24 ATRVD, aes

29 The text printed is clear, despite the doubts of Buck (1901); [—]EI Q [—]IVM NERVM, del Tutto Palma (1983) 30 There can be little doubt that the first recorded line of the Avellino fragment of the Lex Osca belongs here; it is materially impossible to fit its eight letters into the gap in 1. 29 (as first observed by Breal (1881), 397, against Jordan (1881)); and if one assumes that Avellino failed to record a damaged first line of the Lex Osca, we have a ratio of nine lines of Latin to eleven lines of Oscan, close to the ratio of 26 lines of Latin to 33 lines of Oscan on the big fragment (see Fig. VIE) is.tacusU Avellino, [—]..(F)ACVS, Breal (1881), 398; (F)VST, von Planta; [TR.PL. AVTI MEDD]IS (F)ACVS (F)VST, Vetter

ROMAN STATUTES

280 31

ocapid.bansa,

Avellino; [—]MEDICIM [?]SINVM VI NESIMVM, Mommsen: ACVNVM

is clear, so already Conway 32 m.z...m.nerumy Avellino, corr. Vetter 33 om.. udex. iicfeh , Avellino, corr. Jordan 34 mluii.suae..eizs.s.y Avellino, corr. Jordan; EIZ(E)[I]S[—], del Tutto Palma (1983) 35 nistreis.acteis.i, Avellino, corr. Mommsen 36 est.licitud.tr., Avellino, supp. Jordan 37 comipidirucis, Avellino, corr. Jordan 38 trilestudy Avellino, corr. Mommsen 39 timorn, Avellino, corr. del Tutto Palma (1983) Col.E 1 R, edd. 5 i not seen by edd. Adamesteanu fragment 2 VLEIIEST, Torelli; but the v may be an illusion generated by the nature of the break at the edge; H is clear 3 An upright is visible at the end of the line 6 [MIN]STRAM, Torelli; [MAI]STRAM, Untermann (1979) 7 [I]N(IM) II, Torelli, corr. Porzio Gernia (1969) 8 An upright and an interpunct are visible at the beginning of the line 9 An upright is visible at the beginning of the line; there is no trace of the diagonal of an N, contra del Tutto Palma (1983) 10 DEAVAT, aes, corr. Torelli

13 - LEX OSCA TABVLAE BANTINAE

281

LATIN TRANSLATION A choice is often in principle available between the word or construction closest to the Oscan text and the word or construction which is normal in Latin legal language; we have normally opted for the latter, indicating the former in the commentary, since our aim is to represent the Latin legal material which undoubtedly underlies the Lex Osca Tabulae Bantinae; and this in fact slips very easily into the institutional vocabulary of the Roman Republic. We have also attempted to follow the normal rules of Latin grammar, though we have kept the subjunctives used in the Oscan text where an original Latin legal text would have used imperatives. Naples fragments [—] fuerit, is [—] (I) (1) si ??? quaestor multam dixerit ??? [—] iurabit. (2) maximae partis senatus sententia, dumtaxat [ne minus quam] quadraginta adsint cum ea res consulta erit, si quis prohibuerit, antequam [—,] iurato palam luci in comitio sine dolo malo se ea comitia magis rei [publicae] causa quam cuiusquam gratiae aut inimicitiae causa et id se de senatus sententia maximae partis prohibere. (3) cui ita comitia prohibebit, is eo die comitia ne habuerit. (II) (4) quicumque posthac comitia habebit magistratus de capite ??? in pecuniam, facito ut populus iurati sententiam dicant se de iis id sententiae dicere quod optimum publicum censeat esse neue fecerit quo quis de ea re minus iuret dolo malo. (5) si quis aduersus ea fecerit aut comitia habuerit multa tanta esto, nummum duo milia, siue quis eum plus magistratus multare uolet, dumtaxat minoris partis pecuniae multa multare liceto. (HI) (6) si quis pro magistratu alteri capitis aut pecuniae diem dixerit is comitia ne habuerit nisi cum apud populum quater orauerit palam luci sine dolo malo et quartum diem populus acceperit. (7) quater neque magis quinquies cum priuato agito antequam iudicationem dabit et cum postremum cum priuato orauerit ab eo die per dies triginta proximos comitia ne habuerit. (8) si quis aduersus ea fecerit eum si quis uolet magistratus multare dumtaxat minoris partis pecuniae liceto. (IV) (9) cum censores Bantiae populum censebunt qui ciuis Bantinus fuerit censemino ipse et pecunia qua lege ii censores censui censendo dixerint. (10) sed si quis in censum non uenerit dolo malo ast eius uincitur ipse in comitio caedatur pro magistratu populo praesente sine dolo malo et ueneat omnis familia et pecunia omnis quae eius fuerit quae incensa fuerit publica esto. (V) (11) praetor siue praefectus, quod posthac Bantiae fuerit, si quis apud eos cum altero lege agere uolet aut pro iudicato manum inicere earum rerum quae his legibus scriptae sunt, ne quern prohibuerit plus quam dies decern proximos. (12) si quis aduersus ea prohibuerit multa tanta esto, nummum mille, siue quis eum (plus) magistratus multare uolet, [dumtaxat] minoris partis pecuniae multa multare liceto. (VI) (13) praetor censor Bantiae [ne quis fuerit] nisi quaestor fuerit, neue censor fuerit nisi praetor fuerit, siue quis praetor et si [quis censor] aut quaestor aut [trium] uirorum fuerit, is postea tribunus plebis ne fuerit. (14) si quis [aduersus ea posthac magistratus] factus fuerit is improbe factus esto. (15) eum magistratum, eo [anno quo qui]cumque Bantiae [—] magistratum per annos sex proximos 32 [—] muir [—] quod

36

[— ] aduersus ea fecerit [—] magistratum [—] ne fuerit. si [apud] eos [—] [— dumtaxat] minoris partis [pecuniae multa —] [— uol]et, liceto. tr(ibunus) [pl(ebis) —] [— ne —]??? habuerit, ea [—]

ROMAN STATUTES

282

[—] tr(ibunus) pl(ebis) esto [—] [— iudica]tionem [—] Adamesteanu fragment

4

8

[— antequa]m iudicat[ionem —] [---]??? dolum m[alum —] [— dol]o malo ??? [™] [— siue quis plus e]um magistrates multare uol[et,] [— multa] multare liceto. qui MCC argenti [— mai]orem partem anni ??? [— ]n(ummum) II, ex hac lege omnem [—] habuerit, quanti census merit [—] anno quoque promittito. q(uaestor) [—] et iidem iurent. iurat[o — ]anni sine dolo malo

13 - LEX OSCA TABVLAE BANTINAE

283

ENGLISH TRANSLATION Naples fragments [—] shall have been, he [—] (I) (1) If ??? a quaestor shall have pronounced a fine ??? [—] shall swear. (2) If anyone, according to the opinion of the larger part of the senate, provided that [not less than] 40 be present when that matter shall have been raised, shall have prohibited (an assembly), before [—,] he is to swear before the light of day in the comitium without wrongful deceit that he is prohibiting that assembly in the interest of the res [publica] rather than because of anyone's influence or enmity and that he is prohibiting it according to the opinion of the larger part of the senate. (3) For whomsoever he shall thus prohibit an assembly, he may not that day hold (any other) assembly. (II) (4) Whatever magistrate shall hereafter hold an assembly (for trial) concerning a caput or (see the Commentary) property, he is to see that the people should pronounce an opinion under oath that it will pronounce such an opinion concerning them as it may think to represent most the public good nor may he act to the effect that anyone should with wrongful deceit not swear concerning that matter. (5) If anyone shall have acted or held an assembly contrary to these rules, the fine is to be so much, 2,000 nurnmi, and if any magistrate shall wish to fine him more heavily, it is to be lawful to fine, provided that it is with a fine of less than half his property. (HI) (6) If anyone by virtue of his magistracy shall have pronounced to another a day (for trial) concerning a caput or property, he may not hold the assembly (for trial) except when he shall have before the light of day without wrongful deceit pleaded before the people four times and the people shall have accepted the fourth day. (7) Four, and not rather five, times he is to bring action against the defendant before he shall appoint the day of judgment and when he shall have pleaded against the defendant for the last time he may not hold the assembly for the next 30 days from that day. (8) If anyone shall have acted contrary to these rules, it is to be lawful if any magistrate shall wish to fine him, provided that it is less than half his property. (IV) (9) When the censors shall list the people at Bantia, whoever shall have been a citizen of Bantia is to be listed, himself and his property, under whatever condition those censors may have pronounced for the census. (10) But if anyone shall with wrongful deceit not have come to the census and is convicted of that, he himself should be flogged in the comitium, by virtue of the magistracy in the presence of the people, without wrongful deceit (of the magistrate) and the whole of his estate is to be sold and the whole of his property, which shall have been his and which shall not have been listed, is to be (made) public. (V) (11) A praetor or prefect, insofar as there shall be one at Bantia hereafter, if anyone shall wish to bring an action according to statute against another before them or to lay his hand on for a judgment debt in those matters which are written down in these statutes, he may not prevent anyone beyond the next ten days (see the Commentary). (12) If anyone shall have prevented contrary to these rules, the fine is to be so much, 1,000 nummi, and if any magistrate shall wish to fine him (more heavily), it is to be lawful to fine, [provided that] it is with a fine of less than half his property. (VI) (13) [No-one may be] praetor or censor at Bantia unless he shall have been quaestor nor may he be censor unless he shall have been praetor, and if anyone shall have been praetor and if [anyone] shall have been [censor] or quaestor or [m]vir he may not thereafter be tribune of the plebs. (14) If anyone [hereafter] shall have been appointed [a magistrate contrary to these rules] he is not to be validly appointed. (15) In respect of that magistracy, from that [year in which any]one at Bantia [—] magistracy for the next six years

ROMAN STATUTES

284

32

36

[—] Hlvir [—] insofar as [—] shall have acted contrary to these rules [—] magistracy [—] he may not be. If [before] them [—] [— provided that it is with a fine] of less than half [his property —] [— shall wish,] it is to be lawful. A tribune [of the plebs —] [—] he may [not] ??? hold, by that [—] [—] is to be tribune of the plebs [—] [—] the day of judgment [—]

Adamesteanu fragment

4

8

[— before —] the day of judgment [—] [— ]??? [wrongful] deceit [---] [— with] wrongful [deceit] ??? [—] [— and if any] magistrate shall wish to fine him [more heavily,] [— with a fine —], it is to be lawful to fine. Whoever 1,200 of silver [— for the greater] part of the year ??? [— ]two nurnmi, according to this statute all [—] he should have, as much as he shall have been listed for [—] in each year he is to promise. The quaestor [—] and the same men should swear. He is to swear [— ]of the year without wrongful deceit

13 - LEX OSCA TABVLAE BANTINAE

285

COMMENTARY Naples fragments 11. 2-8 There cannot be a space to indicate a new chapter between deiuast in 1. 3 and hipid in 1. 8 (so also del Tutto Palma (1989)); and the most plausible point for a break in the sense before 1. 7 is after deiuast, which is in the future. A tentative reconstruction might be along these lines, Tf ??? a quaestor shall have pronounced a fine, [there is to be present, if it shall be challenged, a person who for him] shall swear'. It is virtually certain that an imperative, -mur, stands at the end of 1. 2. But [..]nus remains mysterious. The merit of such a suggestion is that it provides a framework in which it could be intelligible that someone should prohibit an assembly, which occurs in 11. 4-7. It seems unlikely that the lines have anything to do either with tribunician intercessio (the traditional view, rightly rejected by del Tutto Palma) or with prohibition beforehand by obnuntiatio (del Tutto Palma). Against the first view, it may also be urged thai pis in 1. 4 is perfectly general; against the second view, that there seems no reason to limit the means of prohibition of an assembly to obnuntiatio alone. The closest parallel seems to be provided by Messala, cited in Gellius XIII, 16, 1: consul ab omnibus magistratibus et comitiatum et contionem auocare potest, praetor et comitiatum et contionem usquequaque auocare potest nisi a consule. minores magistrates nusquam nee comitiatum nee contionem auocare possunt. ea re, qui eorum primus uocat ad comitiatum, is recte agit, quia bifariam cum populo agi non potest nee auocare alius alii potest. The underlying principle here also influenced the composition of the Lex Flavia, Ch. E, relating to the decurions. In the case of Bantia, we would envisage that there might be legitimate grounds for prohibiting an assembly after what occurs in 11. 2-3; and that our text imposes safeguards. For the control of fines, in a different and later world, by the decurions rather than by the people, see the Lex Flavia, Ch. 66, with commentary. (Note the slightly different word order in 1. 3 and 11. 6-7.) For 11. 3-4, compare the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Introduction; ILLRP 518 (Puteoli), Col. HI, 11. 7-10: 'hoc opus omne facito arbitratu duouir(um) et duouira[l]ium, qui in consilio esse solent Puteoleis, dum ni minus uiginti adsient, cum ea res consuletur'. The council at Bantia will have consisted of 60 men. The conventional view of the second half of 1. 4, deriving from Breal (1881), 390-1, will not do, since 'if anyone shall have prohibited, before [he shall have prohibited (shall prohibit),] ...'is quite illogical; rather: 'if anyone shall have prohibited, before [they shall have departed,] ...'. Forperimere -prohibere in archaic Latin, see Festus, 236 L. 1. 2 angitust is cognate with Latin aio\ that it translates dixerit, not irrogauerit, is shown by 1. 20. According to Festus, 126-8 L: 'multam Osce dici putant poenam quidam. M. Varro ait poenam esse, sed pecuniariam, de qua subtiliter in lib. i Quaestionum epist. refert'. If the word did originally have the wider meaning in Oscan, it has come in our text to have the restricted meaning of classical Latin, compare 11. 11-13, 18, 26-7, the Adamesteanu fragment, 11. 4-5. 1. 3 maioris partis would be more normal in comparable Latin texts; but note Livy XXVI, 33, 14. am[pert]y in the sense of dumtaxat, is by no means certain, since elsewhere the word is a preposition, 'usque ad': 11. 12, 18, 27, 35 below; Vetter 27, 11. 2 and 3 (ampt)\ compare Vetter 1, Col. n, 1. 7 (pert); and see Campanile (1963). It may be that a

286

ROMAN STATUTES

relative should be restored between amfpert] and [nei]\ compare Latin quatenus, quoad. It would be more normal to omit quam in comparable Latin texts. 11. 4, 6 pan { *pam-de. Note that antequam is standard in Republican texts, see for instance the Lex repetundarum, Law 1, 1. 44; pruter is cognate with Greek rcpoxepov, Latin prius. 11. 4, 7 pertumum: cognate with Latin perimere. I. 5 Neither here nor here in 1. 14 does sipus with the meaning sciens make any sense whatever: given the similarity between sipus and Latin sapere (see also Varro, LL VII, 107; Festus, 238 L; 453 L), it is perhaps best to suppose that sipus is a verbal adjective, which may be active or passive in meaning, here the latter, 'known': see R. Wallace, Indogerm.Forschungen 90, 1985, 123-8, 'Volscian sepulOscdii sipus', with earlier bibliography. For the proposed equivalent in Latin, first in E.S. Bugge, Zeitschrift fur romanische Philologie 2, 1853, 382-7, compare the Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae, Law 7,11. 17, 24; the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Ch. LXXXI. II. 5-7 cadeis: cognate with English 'hate'; one needs to understand pertumum after cadeis amnud, while the same verb falls oddly after idic = id, an anacoluthon noted by Vetter; pertumum = pertemum. We suspect that mais ... siom has been clumsily inserted into the text (see the Introduction); mais ... pan = 'rather than'. For the terms of the oath, compare Demosthenes LVII, 63; the Lex Flavia, Ch. 79; Talbert, Senate, Ch. 7, §18; Dig. V, 1, 15, 1 (Ulpian); XXII, 5, 3pr. (Callistratus); XXH, 5, 21, 3 (Arcadius). I. 8 hipid, perfect subjunctive for future imperative, compare 11. 10> 14, 17, 25, 28, 34, 37. II. 8-13 The crucial question in these lines is the correct translation of dat castrid loufir en eituas, on which our view of jurisdiction at Bantia will depend, en eituas certainly = Latin in pecuniam, loufir is cognate with lubet and is usually taken to mean uel. Roman parallels then suggest de capite for dat castrid, so Lange (1853), Esmein (1886), Mommsen (1887-8), etc.; apart from Buck (1904), linguists have tended to prefer something like de praediis, citing Latin 'castrum' and Umbrian 'castruo'. We prefer the former alternative, with A. Prosdocimi, AION Ling. 7, 1985, 37-88, Tavole Iguvine: Vab7', at 83-8, 'Appendice. Umbro kastruvuf, castruo', sannita (bantino) castrid, castrous', who argues that the meaning of the Umbrian word is also caput and observes that eituas can be quantified and form a fine, whereas castrid is never quantified in the texts we have. For the relevance of the presence of capital jurisdiction at Bantia to the date of our text, see the Introduction. The question remains as to why dat castrid loufir en eituas is used here, while castrous auti eituas is used in 1. 13, and why two different prepositions are used here; furthermore, -en is normally a postposition. It may be that loufir en eituas means 'also in relation to property if requested'; compare the paratactic use of licet in Latin. We should then here have the prescription of a safeguard in any case in which a magistrate presided over an assembly in which a man's caput was at stake, even indirectly (compare Cicero, Quinct. 8, cf. 49; perhaps the case of C. Rabirius; Brunt, Fall, 332), followed by the prescription of a procedure for capitis aut pecuniae diem dicere. 1. 8 pis here = Latin qui, compare the Adamesteanu fragment, 1. 5; pocapit = pocapid. Note that meddix is here any appropriate magistrate, rather than a specific magistrate as elsewhere; the designation even seems to apply to the tribunate in 11. 29-31.

13 - LEX OSCA TABVLAE BANTINAE

287

1. 9 eituas: for the history of the word, see A.L. Prosdocimi, in Popoli e civilta dell'Italia antica VI (Rome, 1978), 825-912, 'L'Osco', at 879-82, 'eitiuva/eitua "denaro"'; for pecunia = 'property', see on the Twelve Tables, Law 40, Tabula V, 3; pous = pus; deiuatuns = deiuatus (Vetter) or *deiuat-on-es (Buck, §244.2, p. 180); for the oscillation between singular and plural, see the General Introduction, Ch. XII. For the oaths of jurors, compare the Lex repetundarum, Law 1,11. 36, 44. The voting at Bantia was presumably oral; although not elsewhere attested, an oath would not be surprising as an element in an archaic assembly trial. For oaths sworn by the senates of municipia and colonies, see the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24, Introduction. I. 10 ualaemom touticom: the oath sworn here forms the core of that in the Lex Flavia, Ch. 26; compare also the Lex de imperio Vespasiani, Law 39,11. 14-15; tadait = tadaid. II. 11-12

etanto estud: compare the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Ch. LXH.

I. 12 For the monetary unit, compare 1. 26 and the Adamesteanu fragment, 1. 7, and see the Introduction. II. 12-13 Compare the Lex Silia, Law 46, with the Commentary; fortis is cognate with Latin fortius. 11. 13-18 The procedure described here is close to the procedure of anquisitio at Rome (Mommsen, Str., 164-6 = DPen I, 189-91); our fullest account is in Cicero, dom.y 45: nam cum tarn moderata iudicia populi sint a maioribus constituta, primum ut ne poena capitis cum pecunia coniungatur, deinde ne improdicta (corr. Mommsen) die quis accusetur, ut ter ante magistratus accuset intermissa die quam multam inroget aut iudicet, quarta sit accusatio trinum nundinum prodicta die, quo die iudicium sit futurum, turn multa etiam ad placandum atque ad misericordiam reis concessa sunt... The elements multam inroget aut iudicet seem to correspond chiastically to the elements poena capitis and pecunia; and they seem to form the quarta accusatio. But since the quarta accusatio is not the same as the vote of the assembly, we have in Cicero two separate procedural elements on the fourth occasion and hence four preliminary hearings; the same figure is attested in Appian, BC I, 74, 342: 'xfi maxumam potestatem habebit, eorum quern ibei in senatum decuriones conscriptos ire, neue in eo numero esse n(e)ue sentemtiam ibei dicere 132 ferreue sinito sc(iens) d(olo) m(alo); neue quis eius rationem comitieis concilioue (habeto neue quis eum, sei comitieis concilioue) creatu(s) e(ri)t, renuntiato; neiue quis, quei ibei mag(istratum) potestatemue habebit, eum cum senatu decurionibus conscript(eis lud)os spectare neiue in conuiuio publico esse sin(i)to sc(iens) d(olo) m(alo). vacat quibus h(ac) l(ege) in municipio colonia praefectura foro conciliabulo in s(e)natu{m} d(e)curionibus conscripteis esse 136 non licebit, n(e) quis eorum in municipio colonia praefectura foro conciliabulo Iluir(atum) miuir(atum) aliamue quam potestatem, ex quo honore in eum ordinem perueniat, petito neue capito; neue quis eorum ludeis, cumue gladiatores ibei pugnabunt, in loco senatorio decurionum conscriptorum sed(e)to neue s(p)ectato neue conuiuium publicum is inito; neiue quis, quei aduersus ea creatu(s) renuntiatu(s) erit, ibei Iluir IHIuir 140 esto, neue ibei mag(istratum) potestatemue habeto. qu(ei) aduersus ea fecerit, is (sestertium) (quinquaginta milia) p(opulo) d(are) d(amnas) esto, eiusque pecuniae quei uolet petitio esto. vacat quae municipia coloniae praefecturae c(iuium) R(omanorum) in Italia sunt erunt, quei in eis municipieis colon(i)eis praefectureis maximum mag(istratum) maxim(a)mue potestatem ibei habebit turn, cum censor aliusue 144 quis mag(istratus) Romae populi censum aget, is diebus (sexaginta) proxumeis, quibus sciet Romae c(e)nsum populi agi, omnium municip{i}um colonorum suorum queique eius praefecturae erunt, q(uei) c(iues) R(omanei) erunt, censum ag(i)to; eorumque nomina praenomina patres aut patronos tribus cognomina et.quot annos quisque eorum habe(bi)t et rationem pecuniae ex formula census, quae Romae ab eo, qui turn censum 148 populi acturus erit, proposita erit, a(b) ieis iurateis accipito; eaque omnia in tabulas publicas sui municipi referunda curato; eosque libros per legatos, quos maior pars decurionum conscriptorum ad earn rem legarei mittei censuerint turn cum ea{s} res consul{er}etur, ad eos quei Romae c(e)nsum agent

24 - TABVLA HERACLEENSIS

369

mittito; curatoque utei, quom amplius dies (sexaginta) reliquei erunt ante quam diem ei, queiquomque Romae 152 censum age(nt), finem populi ce(n)sendi faciant, eos adea(nt) librosque eius municipi coloniae praefecturae edant; isque censor, seiue quis alius mag(istratus) censum populi aget, diebus (quinque) proxumeis, quibus legatei eius municipi coloniae praefecturae adierint, eos libros census, quei ab ieis legateis dabuntur, accipito s(ine) d(olo) m(alo); exque ieis libreis quae ibei scripta erunt in tabulas publicas referunda curato, easque tabulas 156 eodem loco, ubei ceterae tabulae publicae erunt, in quibus census populi perscriptus erit, condenda(s) curato. qui pluribus in municipieis colon(i)eis praefectureis domicilium habebit et is Romae census erit, quo magis in municipio colonia praefectura h(ac) l(ege) censeatur, e(ius) h(ac) l(ege) n(ihilum) r(ogatur). vacat quei lege pl(ebei)ue sc(ito) permissus est (f)uit, utei leges in municipio fundano municipibusue eius municipi daret, 160 sei qui(d) is post h(anc) l(egem) r(ogatam) in eo anno proxumo, quo h(anc) l(egem) populus iuserit, ad eas leges (addiderit commutauerit conrexerit), municipi {ei}s fundanos item teneto, utei oporteret, sei ea(e) res ab eo turn, quom primum leges eis municipibus lege pl(ebei)ue sc(ito) dedit, ad eas leges additae commutatae conrectae essent, neue quis interced(i)to neue quid facito, quo minus ea rata sint quoue minus municipis fundanos tenea(n)t eisque optemperetur. vacat vacat

ROMAN STATUTES

370

APPARATUS CRITICUS 3 OPORTEBIT, aes

4, 5 pupilla signified by /QVE IIVIR(O), CIL

103.4

DIVIDENDORVM, aes; (TV)ENDORVM is also possible

103.7

ANIMAADVERSIO, aes

104.10

DECVMANIQVI, aes

104.15 104.17

EIS, aes T in POSSIT added afterwards

106.31 106.32

DICI, aes NEQVE, aes

(Tablet d) Fr.

1,11. 4 - 5

[— ET is PVPIL]/LVS, D'Ors

Fr.

1,11. 5 - 6

[— AB IIVIR(IS) Q.I.D.P. EIVS COL. POS]/TVLABIT, D'Ors

Fr. 10,1. 2

[—]s EA, Mallon

419

ROMAN STATUTES

420

Fr. 6,1.2 [—]INTERINT, Mallon Fr. 6,1.4 NT in ligature Fr. 6,1.8 [—]s CAVSA, Mallon Fr. 6,1.9 [—] IVDICI E, Mallon Fr. 7,1.1 [—] IT A L + [ — ] , Mallon See the preliminary remarks before Tablet d Fr. 5 Se Fr. 2,1.3 The traces of a further letter at the end seen by Mallon seem not to exist Fr. 2,1.6 [-__]+![„_], Mallon Fr. 3,1. 1 [—]RTA[—], Mallon Fr. 3,1.2 FVRTI A C [ — ] , Mallon Fr. 3,1.6 A vertical hasta is visible of the first letter; the last letter is o or Q Fr. 8,1.1 [.] A S [ - - ] , Mallon Fr. 8,1.2 A vertical hasta is visible of the last letter Fr. 4,1. 1 [—]+vi[—], Mallon Fr. 4,1.3 R E C V S A + [ — ] , Mallon Fr. 4,1.5 EVM +[—], Mallon Fr. 4,1.6 [—]VMD[—], Mallon Fr. 11,1. 1 [—]+vs i+[—], Mallon Fr. 9,1.2 [—]+sv[—], Mallon Fr. 9,1.3 [ — ] V I R + [ — ] , Mallon Fr. 9,1.4 [—]LVMQ[—], Mallon Fr. 9,1.5 [ — ] + E R I [ — ] , Mallon Fr. 9,1.6 [—]+y+[—], Mallon (Tablet e, Col. I) 123.2 IVDICIVM [..]AEVARI/CATION, aes\ the first A is incomplete, the end is clear, contra CIL 123.3

EQITVM, aes

124.5

QVE omitted on aes

125.11

DESIGNATVS, aes

125.13 125.14

io, aes MAGIST-ATVS, aes\ COLONOS, perhaps corr. on aes

125.15

GERIT, aes

125.16

VM in TVM in ligature

125.17

LOCVS, aes\ LOC(O)S, Buecheler

125.18

DER, aes

125.22

SESSVM v c i , aes

125.23

S D M , aes\ E, aes, instead of SIVE

125.24

MALO, CIL

125.25

ATVIFSVS, aes

125.26

PECVNIA[E Q]VI, CIL

125.28 126.29

H ■ L • omitted on aes T in FACIET imperfectly formed

126.32

DISTRIBVITO, aes

126.36 126.39

STATVENDO, aes, corr. CIL NE, aes

126.46

AIVT, PREFVE, aes ace. to CIL

127.4

MAGISTRATO, aes

127.7

DECVRIONEM, aes

127.11

V(OLET) omitted on aes

25 - LEX COLONIAE GENETIVAE 128.12 128.14

421

PRAF, aes V O - R F - I V , aes

128.15

CENSVERIN, aes ace. to CIL; QVEM/QVE, aes

128.16

EAQV[],

128.27 128.29 128.30

QVOTIENSQVE, aes, con. Buecheler Rasura not noted in CIL or Bruns VE omitted on aes

129.32

QVICVMQVERVNT, aes; QVI/CVMQE, aes

129.34

CNMQ, aes

aes

129.35

IACIANT, aes\ ATVER/SVC, aes

129.36

C(OLONIS) omitted on aes

129.37 130.39

IOR, AIVT, aes PEFERTO, aes ace. to CIL

130.44

D D SENTEN[.], aes; FACITO, aes, corr. Fabricius

130.45 130.46 130.47

IMPEEIO, aes ace to. CIL FACIENDVMVI, aes RETTVLIBIT, aes

130.49 EX, evi, aes (Tablet e, Col. m ) 131.3

SINATOR, aes

131.4 131.5 131.13

HOSPITMIS, aes, contra CIL MAIOSIS, aes; FACITO, aes, corr. Fabricius PREFVE, aes

132.18 132.19

CAVSA omitted on aes SC.P.M., aes, s c in very small letters

132.20

QVIT, aes; CONVIVM, aes

132.22

QVO omitted on aes

132.23 132.24

DVM A M [ . . . . ] , Berlanga, restoring DVM AMPLIVS; CONVIVM, aes HABETO, aes

132.32 VE omitted on aes 133.35 VI/RIQVE, aes, corr. L. Lange, RhM 30, 1875, 123-4 = Kleine Schriften H (Gottingen, 1887), 2 0 3 - 4 ; M. Voigt, RhM 30, 1875, 123-4* 134.41 NIVE, aes, twice 134.47 PROVE omitted on aes

TRANSLATION [LXI — Against whomsoever anyone in this way] shall have been commanded to lay on a hand, there is lawfully to be laying on of a hand for what has been judged and it is to be lawful for him to do it without personal liability. The guarantor is to be a man of substance, according to the decision of the Ilvir or whoever shall be in charge of jurisdiction. Unless he (the defendant) shall appoint a guarantor or shall perform what has been judged, he (the plaintiff) is to take him with him into custody. He is to keep him in chains according to the civil law. If anyone shall use force in that case, and if he is convicted of it, he is to be condemned for double the amount and he is to be condemned to pay to the colonists of that colony 20,000 sesterces, and there is to be suit for that sum

422

ROMAN STATUTES

by whoever shall wish and exaction and right of judgment by the Ilvir or whoever shall be in charge of jurisdiction. LXII Whoever shall be Ilviri, there is to be right and power (for) those Ilviri, for each one of them, to have two lictors, one servant, two scribes, two messengers, a clerk, a crier, a haruspex, a flute-player. And whoever shall be aediles in that colony, there is to be right and power for those aediles, for each one of those aediles, to have one scribe, four public slaves with girded apron, a crier, a haruspex, a flute-player. He is to have (them) out of that category, who shall be colonists of that colony. And there is to be right and power for those Ilviri and aediles, while they shall hold that magistracy, to have togae praetextae, wax torches, tapers. Whomsoever each of them in this way shall have as scribes, lictors, servants, messenger, flute-player, haruspex, crier, for all of them in that year, in which year each of them shall serve, there is to be exemption from military service; nor is anyone, in that year in which he shall serve a magistrate, to make him a soldier against his will nor is he to order him to be made (a soldier) nor is he to force him nor is he to administer an oath nor is he to order (an oath) to be administered nor is he to request (his enrolment) by the regular military oath nor is he to order (his enrolment) to be requested, except in the case of an insurrection in Italy or Gaul. And the fee for them, for each one of them, who shall serve the Ilviri, is to be so much: for each scribe 1,200 sesterces, for each servant 700 sesterces, for each lictor 600 sesterces, for each messenger 400 sesterces, for each clerk 300 sesterces, for each haruspex 500 sesterces, for a crier 300 sesterces; (for each one of them) who shall serve the aediles: for each scribe 800 sesterces, for each haruspex 100 sesterces, for each flute-player 300 sesterces, for each crier 300 sesterces; (and) it is to be lawful for them to receive (it) without personal liability. LXm The Ilviri, who shall first hold the magistracy up to the next kalends of January, are to have so many attendants (as) it is lawful for each to have as attendants according to this statute. And the fee for those attendants is to be as much, as it would be appropriate for it to be, on condition that they had served for a quarter of the year, so that, for the length of the part for which they had served, they received the fee for that; and it is to be lawful for them to receive it without personal liability. LXim Whoever shall be Ilviri after the foundation of the colony, they, within the ten days next after that on which they shall have begun to hold that magistracy, are to raise with the decurions, when not less than two-thirds shall be present, which and how many days it may be agreed shall be festivals and which sacrifices shall be publicly performed and who shall perform those sacrifices. And whatever of those matters a majority of the decurions who shall then be present shall have decreed or decided, that is to be legal and binding, and there are to be those sacrifices and those festival days in that colony. LXV Whatever sum shall have been brought into public hands as a penalty on account of the revenues which shall belong to the colonia Genetiva Iulia, no-one is to have the power to pay it out or to give or assign it to anyone, except for those sacrifices which may be performed in the colony or any other place in the name of the colonists, nor is anyone to receive that money in other circumstances without personal liability, nor is anyone to have the right and power to make a proposal concerning that sum to the decurions or to speak his opinion concerning that sum. And the Ilviri without personal liability are to give and assign that money for those sacrifices, which shall be performed in that colony or in any other place in the name of the colonists, and they are to have the right and power to do it. And it is to be lawful for the person to whom that sum shall be given to receive it without personal liability.

25 - LEX COLONIAE GENETIVAE

423

LXVI Whichever pontiffs and whichever augurs C. Caesar, or whoever shall have founded the colony at his command, shall have appointed from the colonia Genetiva, they are to be the pontiffs and they the augurs of the colonia Genetiva lulia, and they are to be the pontiffs and the augurs in the college of pontiffs or augurs in that colony, in the same way as those who are or shall be pontiffs and augurs with the best conditions and the best status in any colony. And for those pontiffs and augurs, who shall be in each of their colleges, and for their children, there is to be exemption from military service and compulsory public service (prescribed) by what is sacred, as for a Roman pontiff, and their periods of military service are all to be credited to them. Concerning auspices and whatever things shall pertain to those matters, jurisdiction and right of judgment are to belong to the augurs. And those pontiffs and augurs at the games, whenever the magistrates shall give them publicly, and when those pontiffs and augurs shall perform the public sacrifices of the colonia Genetiva lulia, are to have the right and power of wearing togae praetextae. And those pontiffs and augurs are to have the right and power to watch games and combats of gladiators among the decurions. LXVII Whoever after the issuing of this statute shall have been chosen or coopted according to this statute as pontiffs and augurs of the colonia Genetiva lulia into the college of pontiffs and (the college) of augurs in the place of a man who has died or been condemned, he is to be pontiff or augur in the colonia lulia in the college as pontiff or augur, in the same way as those who are or shall be pontiffs and augurs with the best conditions in any colony. Nor is anyone to receive or choose in replacement or coopt into the college of pontiffs, except at a time when there shall be less than three pontiffs among those who are of the colonia Genetiva. Nor is anyone to choose in replacement or coopt anyone into the college of augurs, except at a time when there shall be less than three augurs among those who are of the colonia Genetiva lulia. LXVH(I) The Ilviri or prefect is so to hold and proclaim an assembly for pontiffs and augurs, whom it shall be appropriate to appoint according to this statute, in the same way as it shall be appropriate to elect or appoint or appoint in replacement a Ilvir according to this statute. LXIX Whoever shall be the first Ilviri after the foundation of the colony, they during their magistracy, and whoever shall be Ilviri in the colonia lulia, they in the sixty days next following those on which they shall have begun to hold that magistracy are to raise with the decurions, when not less than 20 shall be present, the procedure by which a sum may be assigned and paid, according to the conditions for the letting of the contract, to the contractor or contractors, who shall hold the contract for those things which shall be necessary for sacrifices and religious functions. Nor is anyone to raise any other matter with the decurions or pass any decree of the decurions, before the money be assigned or paid according to the conditions for the letting of the contract to those contractors by decree of the decurions, (?unless?) not less than thirty be present, whenever that matter may be discussed. Whatever they shall have so decreed, those Ilviri are to see that it is assigned and paid to the contractor or contractors, provided that they not pay or assign from that sum, which sum it shall be appropriate to give or assign according to this statute for those sacrifices, which may be publicly performed in the colony or any other place. LXX Whoever shall be Ilviri, they, except for those who shall be first appointed after this statute, they during their magistracy are to organise a show or dramatic spectacle for Jupiter, Juno, Minerva, and the gods and goddesses, during four days, for the greater part of the day, as far as (shall be possible), according to the decision of the decurions, and each one of them is to spend on that spectacle and on that show not less than 2,000 sesterces from his own money, and it is to be lawful to take and spend out of public

424

ROMAN STATUTES

money up to 2,000 sesterces for each Ilvir, and it is to be lawful for them to do so without personal liability, provided that no-one take or make assignment from that sum, which sum it shall be appropriate to give or assign according to this statute for those sacrifices, which shall be publicly performed in the colony or in any other place. LXXI Whoever shall be aediles, during their magistracy they are to organise a show or dramatic spectacle for Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, during three days, for the greater part of the day, as far as shall be possible, and during one day (games) in the circus or (gladiators) in the forum for Venus, and each one of them is to spend on that spectacle and on that show not less than 2,000 sesterces from his own money, and it is to be lawful to take from public funds 1,000 sesterces for each aedile, and a Ilvir or prefect is to see that that sum is given or assigned, and it is to be lawful for them to receive it without personal liability. LXXII Whatever sum shall have been given or brought in to the sacred temples under the character of an offering, whatever of that sum shall be left over from those sacrifices, which sacrifices shall have been performed, as it shall be appropriate for them (to be performed) according to this statute, for that god or goddess, whose temple it shall be, noone is to act or see or intercede to the effect that it may not be spent in that temple, to which temple that sum shall have been given or brought together under the character of an offering, nor is anyone to spend that money for any other purpose nor is anyone to the effect that it rather be spent on any other matter. LXXm No-one is to bring a dead person within the boundaries of a town or of a colony, where (a line) shall have been drawn around by a plough, nor is he to bury him there or burn him or build the tomb of a dead person. If anyone shall have acted contrary to these rules, he is to be condemned to pay to the colonists of the colonia Genetiva Iulia 5,000 sesterces, and there is to be suit and claim for that sum by whoever shall wish (? according to this statute ?). And whatever shall have been built, a Ilvir or aedile is to see to its being demolished. If a dead person shall have been brought in or deposited contrary to these rules, they are to make expiation as shall be appropriate. LXXTV No-one is to prepare a new ustrina, where a dead person shall not (previously) have been burnt, nearer the town than 50Q paces. Whoever shall have acted contrary to these rules, is to be condemned to pay 5,000 sesterces to the colonists of the colonia Genetiva Iulia, and there is to be suit and claim for that sum by whoever shall wish according to this statute. LXXV No-one in the town of the colonia Iulia is to unroof or demolish or dismantle a building, unless he shall have furnished guarantors, according to the decision of the Ilviri, that he is about to rebuild it, or unless the decurions shall have decreed (that he may), provided that not less than fifty be present, whenever that matter may be discussed. If anyone shall have acted contrary to these rules, he is to be condemned to pay to the colonists of the colonia Genetiva Iulia such a sum as shall be the value of that matter, and there is to be suit and claim for that sum by whoever shall wish according to this statute. LXXVT No-one is to have tile works with a capacity of more than 300 tiles or tile-like objects in the town of the colonia Iulia. Whoever shall have had (one), that building and place is to be the public property of the colonia Iulia, and whoever shall be in charge of jurisdiction in the colonia Genetiva Iulia is to pay into public hands that sum (derived) from that building. LXXVII Whatever roads, ditches or drains a Ilvir or aedile shall wish publicly to construct, to introduce, to change, to build or to pave within those boundaries which shall be those of the colonia Iulia, whatever of that shall be done without damage to private individuals, it is to be lawful for them to do that.

25 - LEX COLONIAE GENETIVAE

425

LXXIIX Whatever public roads or public ways there are or have been within those boundaries, which shall have been assigned to the colony, whatever boundaries and whatever roads and whatever ways there are or shall be or have been across those lands, those roads and those boundaries and those ways are to be public. LXXIX Whatever rivers, streams, fountains, pools, waters, ponds or marshes there are within the land, which shall have been divided among the colonists of this colony, there is to be passage for men and animals to those streams, fountains or pools and to those waters, ponds or marshes and access to water for those who shall hold or shall possess that land, in the same way as there was for those held or possessed that land. And the condition and law for passage to water is to exist in the same way for those who hold or possess or shall hold or shall possess that land. LXXX Whatever business shall have been publicly assigned to anyone in the colony according to the opinion of the decurions, the person to whom the business shall have been assigned is to render and present an account of that matter to the decurions, as far as shall be possible, without wrongful deceit, within the 150 days next after (that) on which he shall have completed that business or on which he shall have ceased to undertake that business. LXXXI Whoever shall be Ilviri or aediles of the colonia Iulia, they are to administer an oath to their scribes, who shall record public money and the accounts of the colonists, before they write or handle the public records, in a contio, openly, before the light of day, on a market day, (facing) the forum, by Jupiter and the ancestral gods, that they will guard the public money of that colony and keep true accounts, as they shall deem it proper, without wrongful deceit, and that they will not falsify records knowingly with wrongful deceit. As each scribe shall have sworn in this way, he (the magistrate) is to see that he is entered in the public records. Whoever shall not have sworn in this way, is not to write the public accounts nor is he to receive the attendance money or fee for that matter. Whoever shall not have administered the oath, there is to be a fine of 5,000 sesterces on him, and there is to be suit and claim for that sum by whoever shall wish according to this statute. LXXXII Whatever lands and woods and buildings shall have been assigned or attributed to the colonists of the colonia Genetiva Iulia, in order that they may make public use of them, no-one is to sell those lands or those woods, or lease (them) out for longer than for five years, nor is anyone to raise with the decurions or pass a decree of the decurions, to the effect that those lands or those woods may be sold, or leased in any other way. Nor, if they shall have been sold, are they thereby any the less to belong to the colonia Genetiva Iulia. And whatever shall be the produce of those properties, in respect of whatever he may claim to have bought, he [is to be] condemned to pay 100 sesterces to the colonists of the colonia Genetiva Iulia for every iugerum and for every year, [and there is to be suit and claim for that sum by whoever shall wish according to this statute.] [XCI Whoever] shall [have been appointed or elected decurion, augur or pontiff of the colonia Genetiva Iulia in accordance with this statute, then whatever decurion, augur, or pontiff of this colony shall not have in the five years next preceding a domicile in that colony in the town, or nearer than a mile to that town, whence a pledge which may be sufficient may be taken from him, he is not to be augur, pontifex, or decurion in that colony; and whoever shall be Ilviri in that colony are to see that his name is removed from the public records of decurions and priests, as they shall wish everything to be rightly done, and it is to be lawful for those Ilviri to do that without personal liability. XCII The Ilviri or whoever shall hold a magistracy in that colony, they are to raise with the decurions the public sending of embassies, when the majority of the decurions of that

426

ROMAN STATUTES

colony shall be present, and whatever the majority of those who shall then be present shall have decided concerning these matters, that is to be legal and binding. And whatever embassy it shall have been appropriate (for anyone) to undertake according to this statute or according to a decree of the decurions which shall have been passed according to this statute, if the person who shall have been chosen shall not have undertaken (it), he is to provide a substitute for himself from that order, as it shall be appropriate (for one) to be provided according to this statute or according to (a decree of the decurions). Unless he shall have so provided, for every occasion, as often as he shall have not have acted in this way, he is to be condemned to pay 10,000 sesterces to the colonists of this colony, and there is to be suit and claim for that sum by whoever shall wish. XCin Whoever shall have been appointed or elected Ilvir after the foundation of the colony, or whoever (shall have been appointed) prefect who shall have been left by a Ilvir according to the statute of this colony, he is not to receive or accept a gift or present or fee or anything else in connection with a public place or for a public place, or from a contractor or a manceps or a guarantor, nor is he to act to the effect that anything should come to himself or any of his staff from that matter. Whoever shall have acted contrary to these rules, he is to be condemned to pay 20,000 sesterces to the colonists of the colonia Genetiva Iulia 20,000 sesterces, and there is to be suit and claim for that sum by whoever shall wish. XCim No-one is to administer justice in this colony nor is jurisdiction to belong to anyone in that colony, except to a Ilvir or a prefect whom a Ilvir shall have left or an aedile, as shall be appropriate according to this statute. Nor is anyone by virtue of (any) imperium or power to act to the effect that anyone should administer justice in that colony, except (a person) for whom it shall be appropriate to administer (justice) according to this statute. XCV Whoever shall have been appointed as recuperatores, if they shall not judge on that day on which the order to judge shall have been issued, the Ilvir or prefect, where that affair shall be the subject of an action, is to order those recuperatores and that person whose affair shall be the subject of an action to appear, and is to announce a fixed day, on which day they may appear, until the time when that affair shall have been judged. And he is to see that that affair be judged within the twenty days next after that on which the recuperatores shall have been appointed and ordered to judge, as he shall deem it proper. And he is to see that notice be served publicly on up to twenty men, who shall be colonists or incolae, as witnesses for that affair, whomsoever the person shall wish who shall pursue the affair. And on whomsoever notice shall have been served in this way to witness and whosoever shall have been named in connection with bearing of witness, he is to see that they be present at that trial. And if anyone shall know or shall have heard any evidence relating to those affairs, whichever affair shall then be the subject of an action, he is to see that he speak under oath, as he shall deem it proper, provided that not more than twenty men altogether be compelled to bear witness for each trial. Nor is he to compel anyone to bear witness against his will, who (be) son-in-law or father-in-law to that person, whatever affair shall then be the subject of an action, or step-father or step­ son, or patron or freedman, or cousin, or be closer to him than that cognatio or adfinitas. If a Ilvir or prefect, who shall sue for that matter for the colonists, shall not appear on account of the fact that he shall have a serious illness, an undertaking to appear, a trial, a sacrifice, a funeral in his household, or purificatory rites, to the effect that he be not able to appear, or if he shall not be able to appear on account of a magistracy or potestas of the Roman people, nothing is proposed according to this statute, to the effect that in his absence lots should be drawn for recuperatores or recuperatores rejected or the matter be

25 - LEX COLONIAE GENETIVAE

427

judged in relation to the person against whom he shall institute proceedings. If a private person shall sue and he shall not appear, when it shall be appropriate for the trial to be held concerning that matter, and he shall not be excused according to the decision of the Ilvir or prefect where that affair shall be the subject of an action, on the ground that he has one of these reasons, to the effect that he be not able to appear, serious illness, an undertaking to appear, a trial, a sacrifice, a funeral in his household, or purificatory rites, or that he is not able to appear on account of a magistracy or potestas of the Roman people, thereafter there is not to be action by him in respect of those (matters) in respect of which matters there shall be the pursuit according to this statute. And concerning that matter, statute and practice is to apply exactly as if judges had not been rejected and recuperatores had not been appointed for that matter. XCVI If any decurion of that colony shall demand of a Ilvir or prefect that there be raised with the decurions, by what means it might be appropriate to investigate or judge in relation to public money and in relation to fines and penalties and in relation to public pieces of land, lands, or buildings, then the Ilvir or whoever shall be in charge of jurisdiction, on the first possible day, is to consult the decurions concerning that matter and is to see that a decree of the decurions be passed, when the majority of the decurions be present, when that matter shall be discussed. As the majority of the decurions who shall then be present shall have decided, so is it to be legal and binding. XCVH No Ilvir or anyone with a potestas in that colony is to act, or raise (such matters) with the decurions, or see that a decree of the decurions be passed, to the effect that anyone be or be adopted as patron to the colonists of the colony, except the person, who is the curator for granting or assigning or adjudicating lands according to the Lex Iulia, and the person who shall have founded that colony, their children and descendants, except according to the opinion by ballot of the majority of the decurions (who) shall (then) be (present), when not less than fifty shall be present, when that matter shall be discussed. Whoever shall have acted contrary to these rules, is to be condemned to pay 5,000 sesterces to the colonists of that colony, and there is to be suit for that sum by whoever shall wish of the colonists of that colony. XCVm Whatever construction work the decurions of this colony shall have decreed, if the majority of the decurions shall have been present, when that matter shall be discussed, it is to be lawful for that construction work to take place, provided that they not decree more each year for each adult man than five days' work each and for pairs of draught animals (for) each yoke three days' work each. And the aediles who shall then be (in office) are to be in charge of that construction work according to the decree of the decurions. As the the decurions shall have decided, so they are to see that the construction work is done, provided that work be not exacted unwillingly of that person who shall be less than fourteen years or more than sixty years old. Whoever in that colony or within the boundaries of that colony shall have a domicile or estate and shall not be be a colonist of that colony, he is to be liable to the same construction work as a colonist. XCVnn Whatever public waters shall be brought in, in the town of the colonia Genetiva, the Ilviri who shall then be (in office) are to raise with the decurions, when two-thirds shall be present, through which lands it may be lawful to bring water. Where the majority of the decurions who shall then be present shall have decreed for it to be brought, there is to be right and power to bring water through those lands, provided that water be not brought through that building, which has not been constructed for that purpose; and noone is to act, to the effect that water may not be brought in this way. C If any colonist shall wish to bring overflow water into private hands and he shall have appeared before a EEvir and shall demand that he raise (the matter) with the decurions,

428

ROMAN STATUTES

then that Ilvir, of whom it shall have been so demanded, is to raise (the matter) with the decurions, when not less than forty shall be present. If the decurions, the majority of those who shall then have been present, shall have decided that the overflow water is to be brought into private hands, there is to be right and power for him to use that water in that way, insofar as there be no damage to private individuals. CI Whoever shall hold an assembly for electing or proposing in replacement magistrates, he is not to accept anyone at that assembly (as a choice) from a tribe nor is he to declare nor is he to order to be declared, whoever shall be (characterised by) any of those reasons, whereby it be not appropriate or be not lawful for him according to this statute in the colony to be nominated or elected a decurion or to be among the decurions. CII A Ilvir who shall hold a quaestio and administer a trial according to this statute, insofar as it is not laid down by this statute that the trial is to take place on one day, none of them is to hold the quaestio or administer the trial before the (first) hour or after the eleventh hour. And that Ilvir, for each accuser, is to grant the power of accusing for four hours to the one among them who shall be the principal prosecutor, for two hours to whoever shall be a subsidiary prosecutor. If an accuser shall have made an allowance from his time to another (accuser), he is to grant the power to whomever the allowance shall have been made of speaking for so much longer a time as shall have been allowed to each such (accuser). Whoever shall have made an allowance from his time to another (accuser), he is to grant the power to him of speaking for so much shorter a time as he shall have allowed to each such (accuser). For however many hours in all it shall be appropriate for all the accusers to have the power of speaking in each actio, he is to grant to the defendant or to whoever shall speak for him the power of speaking for as many hours and as much again in each actio. CHI Whoever as Ilvir or prefect shall be in charge of jurisdiction in the colonia Genetiva, he, whenever the decurions shall have decided that he is to lead out the colonists and incolae, and contributi, under arms for the purpose of defending the territories of the colony, insofar as the majority of those who shall then be present shall have decreed (it), it is to be lawful for him to do that without personal liability. And that Ilvir or whomever a Ilvir shall have placed in charge of men under arms is to have the same right and the same power of punishment as a military tribune of the Roman people has in an army of the Roman people, and it is to be lawful for him to do that without personal liability and he is to have right and power, provided that that take place which the majority of the decurions, who shall then be present, shall have decreed. C n n Whatever boundaries and decumani shall have been drawn and made within the territories of the colonia Genetiva, and whatever boundary ditches there shall be on that land, which land shall have been granted or assigned by order of C. Caesar, dictator, imperator, and by the Lex Antonia, and by decrees of the senate and by plebiscites, noone is to have the boundaries and decumani enclosed or have anything built over (them) or enclosed there, nor is he to plough them up, nor is he to block or enclose those ditches, to the effect that the water may not go or flow in its course. If anyone shall have done anything contrary to these rules, he is to be condemned to pay 1,000 sesterces to the colonists of the colonia Genetiva Iulia for each offence, as often as he shall have done (this), and there is to be suit and claim for that sum by anyone who shall wish. CV If anyone shall say that any of the decurions is unworthy of his place or of the order of the decurionate, except on the ground that he shall be a freedman, and it shall be demanded of a Ilvir, that a trial be granted concerning that matter, the Ilvir to whom approach shall have been made for a pre-trial concerning that matter, is to administer justice and grant trials. And that decurion, who shall have been condemned in the trial,

25 - LEX COLONIAE GENETIVAE

429

thereafter is not to be a decurion, nor is he to speak his opinion among the decunons, nor is he to seek a Evirate or an aedileship, nor is any Ilvir in an assembly or a vote to take account of his candidature, nor is he to declare him as Ilvir or aedile, nor is he to allow him to be declared. CVT Whoever shall be a colonist of the colonia Genetiva, which shall have been founded by order of C. Caesar, dictator, [is] not [to —] any gathering or meeting or conspiracy [-] CXXIII [— he is to order [him] who shall be accused to be acquitted by these judges in that trial. Whoever shall have been so acquitted, insofar as the trial may not have taken place by way of collusion, he is to be acquitted in that trial according to this statute. CXXnn If any decurion of the colonia Genetiva shall accuse a decurion of the colonia Genetiva according to this statute of unworthiness (and) shall have brought about the condemnation of the person whom he shall accuse in that trial according to this statute, the person who shall have brought about the condemnation of anyone in that trial according to this statute, if he shall wish, it is to be lawful according to this statute (for him) to speak his opinion in the place of the person who shall have been condemned, and it is to be lawful for him to do that by law, statute and right without personal liability, and that place among the decurions for speaking his opinion or being asked an opinion is to belong to him according to this statute. CXXV Whatever place shall have been granted, assigned, or left for the decurions at the shows, from which place it shall be appropriate for the decurions to watch the shows, noone in that place, except someone, who shall then be a decurion of the colonia Genetiva, or who shall then as a magistrate hold imperium or power by the vote of the colonists or shall have (it) by the order of C. Caesar, dictator, consul, or proconsul, or who shall then be in the colonia Genetiva with some imperium or power, and those for whom it shall be appropriate according to a decree of the decurions of the colonia Genetiva for a place to be granted in the space of the decurions, which the decurions shall have decreed when not less than half of the decurions shall have been present, when that matter shall have been discussed - no-one except those who are written down above is to sit in that place, which place shall have been granted, assigned or left for the decurions, nor is anyone to lead anyone else to sit in those places nor is (anyone) to order (anyone else) to be led to sit knowingly with wrongful deceit. If anyone shall have sat contrary to these rules knowingly with wrongful deceit (or) if anyone shall have led (anyone else) to sit or ordered (anyone else) to be led knowingly with wrongful deceit, he is to be condemned to pay 5,000 sesterces to the colonists of the colonia Genetiva Iulia for each occasion, whenever he shall have done anything in that matter contrary to these rules, and there is to be action, suit and claim for that sum according to (this statute) by whoever of them shall wish in a recuperatorial trial before the Ilvir or prefect and there is to be right and power. CXXVT Whoever as Ilvir, aedile, or prefect shall organise stage shows for the colonia Genetiva Iulia, or if anyone else shall organise stage shows for the colonia Genetiva Iulia, he is so to lead to sit the colonists of (the colonia) Genetiva, incolae, guests and visitors, and he is so to grant, attribute and assign a place, as the decurions shall have decreed and decided concerning that matter, concerning granting and assigning that place, when not less than fifty decurions shall have been present in (the meeting of) the decurions, when that matter shall be discussed. Whatever shall have been so decided and decreed by the decurions concerning granting and assigning the place, it is to be legal and (binding) according to this statute. Nor is the person who shall organise the shows to lead to sit otherwise or in any other way, nor is he to order anyone to be led, nor is he to grant a

430

ROMAN STATUTES

place nor is he to order it to be granted, nor is he to attribute a place nor is he to order it to be attributed, nor is he to assign a place nor is he to order it to be assigned, nor is he to do anything, to the effect that they may sit otherwise or in other way than according to how a place shall have been granted, assigned or attributed, nor is he to do anything knowingly with wrongful deceit, to the effect that anyone may sit in anyone else's place. Whoever shall have acted contrary to these rules, he is to be condemned to pay 5,000 sesterces to the colonists of the colonia Genetiva Iulia for each occasion, whenever he shall have done anything contrary to these rules, and there is to be action, suit and claim for that sum according to this statute by whoever shall wish in a recuperatorial trial before the Ilvir or prefect and there is to be right and power. CXXVII Whatever stage shows shall take place for the colonia Genetiva Iulia, no-one in the orchestra in order to watch the shows, except a magistrate or promagistrate of the Roman people, or whoever shall be in charge of jurisdiction, and whoever is or shall be or shall have been a senator of the Roman people, and whoever is or shall be or shall have been a son of a senator of the Roman people, and whoever shall be a praefectus fabrum of that magistrate or promagistrate who shall hold the further of the Spanish provinces {shall be in charge of Baetica}, and for whomever it is or shall be appropriate to sit according to this statute (by decree) of the decurions in the place of the decurions - except those who are written down above, no-one is to sit in the orchestra in order to watch the shows, nor is any magistrate or promagistrate of the Roman people or whoever shall be in charge of jurisdiction to lead (them) nor is anyone to lead anyone to sit nor is anyone to let anyone sit in that place, as he shall (deem) it proper, without wrongful deceit. CXXVm Whoever shall be Ilvir, aedile or prefect of the colonia Genetiva Iulia, he during his own year, magistracy and imperium is to act and see, as far as shall be possible, as he shall deem (it) proper, without wrongful deceit, that magistri be appointed during his own year for the fana, temples, and shrines, as the decurions shall have decided; and that they, according to the decree of the decurions during his own year see that games in the circus, sacrifices, and preparing of couches for the gods take place, as the decurions shall have decided and decreed anything about those matters, the election of magistri, the celebration of games in the circus, the organisation of sacrifices, and the preparing of couches, that all those things take place. And concerning all those matters which are written down above, whatever the decurions shall have decided and decreed that is to be legal and binding; and all those, to whom that matter shall pertain, whatever it shall be appropriate for any of them to do according to this statute, they are to do without wrongful deceit. If anyone shall have acted contrary to these rules, whenever he shall have done anything contrary to these rules, he is to be condemned to pay 10,000 sesterces to the colonists of the colonia Genetiva Iulia, and there is to be action, suit and claim for that sum according to this statute by whoever of them shall wish in a recuperatorial trial before the Ilvir [[—]] or prefect and there is to be right and power. CXXEX Whoever shall be Ilviri, aediles, or prefect of the colonia Genetiva Iulia, and whoever shall be decurions of the colonia Genetiva Iulia, they are all diligently to obey and observe the decrees of the decurions without wrongful deceit, and they are to see that whatever it shall be appropriate for any of them to undertake or do according to a decree of the decurions, they undertake or do all those things, as they shall deem it proper, without wrongful deceit. If anyone shall not have acted in this way or shall have done anything contrary to these rules knowingly with wrongful deceit, he is to be condemned to pay 10,000 sesterces (to the colonists) of the colonia Genetiva Iulia for each occasion, and there is to be action, suit and claim for that sum according to this statute by whoever

25 - LEX COLONIAE GENETIVAE

431

of them shall wish in a recuperatorial trial before the Ilvir or prefect and there is to be right and power. CXXX No Ilvir, aedile or prefect of the colonia Genetiva Iulia, whoever shall be one, is to raise with the decurions of the colonia Genetiva or discuss with the decurions, or pass a decree of the decurions, or enter in the public records (anything) concerning that matter or order it to be entered, nor is any decurion to speak his opinion among the decurions concerning that matter, with which matter they shall be dealing, nor is he to write down a decree of the decurions, nor is he to enter it in the public records nor is he to see that it is entered, to the effect that any senator, or son of a senator, of the Roman people be adopted, be taken, or become a patron of the colonia Genetiva, unless [the decree] of the decurions be passed according to the opinion of three quarters of the decurions, expressed by ballot, and in relation to a man, concerning whom the matter shall then be raised or discussed, who, when that matter shall be dealt with, shall be in Italy as a private individual without imperium. If anyone contrary to these rules shall have raised (the matter) with the decurions, or shall have passed a decree of the decurions, or shall have seen to its passing, or shall have entered it in the public records, or shall have ordered it to be entered, or if anyone among the decurions shall have spoken his opinion, or shall have [writtten down a decree] of the decurions, or shall have entered it in the public records, or shall have seen to its entering, for each occasion, whenever he shall have done anything contrary to these rules, he is to be condemned to pay 100,000 sesterces to the colonists of the colonia Genetiva Iulia and there is to be action, suit and claim for that sum [according to this statute] by whoever [of them shall wish] in a recuperatorial trial before the Ilvir, interrex or prefect and there is to be [right] and power. CXXXI Nor is any Ilvir, aedile or prefect [of the colonia Genetiva Iulia, whoever] shall be one, to raise with, the decurions of the colonia Genetiva or discuss with the decurions, or pass a decree of the decurions, or enter in the public records (anything) concerning that matter or order it to be entered, nor is any decurion to speak his opinion among the decurions concerning that matter, nor is he to write down a decree of the decurions, nor is he to enter it in the public records or see that it is entered, to the effect that any senator, or a son of a senator, of the Roman people, be adopted as a hospes of the colonia Genetiva Iulia, or that there be hospitium and a tessera hospitalis with any such, unless the decree of the decurions be passed according to the opinion of the majority of the decurions, expressed by ballot, and in relation to a man, concerning whom the matter shall then be raised or discussed, who, when that matter shall be dealt with, shall be in Italy as a private individual without imperium. If anyone contrary to these rules shall have raised (the matter) with the decurions, or shall have passed a decree of the decurions, or shall have seen to its passing, or shall have entered it in the public records, or shall have ordered it to be entered, or if anyone among the decurions shall have spoken his opinion, or shall have writtten down a decree of the decurions, shall have entered it in the public records or shall have seen to its entering, he, for each occasion, whenever he shall have done anything contrary to these rules, is to be condemned to pay 10,000 sesterces to the colonists of the colonia Genetiva Iulia and there is to be action, suit and claim for that sum according to this statute by whoever of them shall wish in a recuperatorial trial before the Ilvir or prefect and there is to be right and power. CXXXII No candidate in the colonia Genetiva after the granting of this statute, whoever shall seek a magistracy in the colonia Genetiva Iulia, with a view to seeking a magistracy in that year, in which year each such person will seek or will be about to seek a magistracy as a candidate, is to offer banquets (with a view to) seeking a magistracy or invite anyone to dinner or hold a banquet, nor is he knowingly with wrongful (deceit) to

432

ROMAN STATUTES

see that anyone hold a banquet with a view to his candidature or invite anyone to dinner, except insofar as the candidate himself in that year (in which) he may seek a magistracy may have invited up to nine men a day and may have held a banquet, if he shall wish, without wrongful deceit. Nor may any candidate give or distribute a gift or present or anything else with a view to his candidature knowingly with wrongful deceit. Nor is anyone with a view to the candidature of another to offer banquets or invite anyone to dinner or hold a banquet, nor is anyone with a view to the candidature of another to give or grant or distribute any gift or present or anything else knowingly with wrongful deceit. If anyone shall have acted contrary to these rules, he is to be condemned to pay 5,000 sesterces to the colonists of the colonia Genetiva lulia and there is to be action, suit and claim for that sum according to this statute by whoever of them shall wish in a recuperatorial trial before the Ilvir (or) prefect and there is to be right and power. CXXXm Whoever are or shall be colonists of Genetiva lulia according to this statute, the wives of them all, who are in the colonia Genetiva lulia according to this statute, those wives are to obey the statutes and (law) of the colonia Genetiva lulia, and they are to have according to this statute in all matters their rights according to this statute, whatever things are written down in this statute, without wrongful deceit. CXXXTV No Ilvir, aedile or prefect of the colonia Genetiva, whoever shall be one, after this statute, is to raise with the decurions of the colonia Genetiva, or discuss with the decurions, or pass a decree of the decurions, or enter (anything) concerning that matter in the public records, or order it to be entered, nor is any decurion, when that matter shall be handled, to speak his opinion among the decurions, or write down a decree of the decurions, or enter it in the public records, or see that it is entered, to the effect that public money [or] anything [else] be given or [granted] to anyone with a view to their holding office or [giving] or promising a show [or for] giving or erecting a statue [—] COMMENTARY Ch.LXI We cannot know whether the by now archaic procedure involving manus iniectio and uindex, and ductio, for which see on the Twelve Tables, Law 40, Tabulae I and m, was generally available at Urso or only for a specific purpose, mentioned earlier in the chapter. Given ductio and imprisonment, our text is most easily read as relating to a judgment for debt. At Luceria, however, manus iniectio iudicati was available, as an alternative to a fine by a magistrate, for breaches of the statute (ILLRP 504: see on the Lex Silia, Law 46): [ceiu]ium quis uolet pro ioudicatod n(umum) ((quinquaginta)) manum iniect[i]o estod. It is possible here that the plaintiff is acting in similar circumstances to those attested at Luceria. If a debt is at issue, the originator of the violence will have been deemed to have seized the defendant from the plaintiff; compare Gaius HI, 199: interdum autem etiam liberorum hominum furtumfit, uelut si... iudicatus uel auctoratus meus subreptus fuerit\ and see A. Exner, ZRG 13, 1876-8, 392-8, 'Zur Stelle iiber die Manus Iniectio'. Alternatively, the uis of 1. 6 will simply have been designed to avoid payment, e.g., to a sacred grove, thus incurring the penalty of double, presumably double the amount due in the first place, and the fine to the community. 1. 6 For eius uincitur, compare Dig. L, 16, 244 (Paul); uincitur may be a relic of the present indicatives that we find in the transmitted texts of the Twelve Tables or a simple error for uincetur, of a type common in this text.

25 - LEX COLONIAE GENETIVAE

433

11. 8-9 For the action, see the General Introduction, Ch. XIV. The order of exactio iudicatioque is surprising: the draftsman perhaps wished to end with a statement of the general power of judgment of the magistrate. See also on the Lex Silia, Law 46. Ch.LXH For attendants of Roman, as well as colonial and municipal, magistrates, see Mommsen, St. I, 331-46 = DP I, 379-96; the Commentary on the Lex Cornelia, Law 14, Col. 1,11. 1-6; the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24, 11. 80-1. For scribes in action, see, e.g., CIL XI, 1421, 11. 58-9 (Pisae); for a librarius, see, e.g., the inscription discussed by S. Panciera, Unfalsario del primo ottocento: Girolamo Asquini (Rome, 1970), 151, reading Sur(a) or Sur(us) as a cognomen, followed by l(ibrarius\ q{uaestof), decu(rio); also M. Swan, Latomus 29, 1970, 140-1, 'Apparitores at Ostia and Urso'. Note that the attendants of the Ilviri are all free and citizens of the colony, see 11. 18-20; compare Fronto, ad amicos II, 7 (189-97 van den Hout). In the Lex Flavia, Ch. 73, the scribe is given separate attention. The omission of the librarius from the list in 11. 23-4 is presumably accidental, compare the omission of the tibicen in 11. 33-7; nor it is safe to infer anything from the fact that accensi are specified as singuli in 1. 12, but not in 1. 23, or the fact that 1. 13 has uiatores binos, but 1. 23 uiatorem: compare the anomalous praeconi in 11. 36-7. A.T. Fear, in J. Gonzalez (ed.), Estudios sobre Urso (Seville, 1989), 69-78, 'La Lex Ursonensis y los apparitores municipales', misreads the text. The aediles have in addition public slaves cum cincto limo in attendance, otherwise known as limo cincti, see the Lex Flavia, Chs. 19-20; Fragmentum Lauriacense EI; CIL V, 3401 (Verona); ILS 7070 (Colonia Agrippinensium); Servius, on Virgil, Aen. XII, 120, limus autem est uestis qua ab umbilico usque ad pedes prope teguntur pudenda poparum\ Tiro, cited in Gellius XH, 3, 3, seems to have assimilated lictors and limo cincti: lictorem uel a limo uel a licio dictum scripsit: 'licio enim transuerso, quod limum appellatur, qui magistratibus' inquit 'praeministrabant, cincti erant.' For public slaves of cities in general, see Liebenam, Stddteverwaltung, 66-7; Buckland, Slavery, 426; and for the parent institution at Rome, W. Eder, Servitus Publica (Wiesbaden, 1980). For the oath of the scribes, see Ch. LXXXI; the scribes are there described as belonging to the Ilviri, whereas in the Lex Flavia they are selected by the decurions. 11. 20-2 For the toga praetexta as an attribute of municipal magistrates, see Demougin, L'Ordre equestre, 781-2, and compare Ch. LXVI; for funalia, cerei, see Mommsen, St. I, 423-4 = DP n, 43-6. 11. 22-32 The provisions on militiae uacatio are clearly lifted from a form of charter appropriate to a community in Italy. For the regular military sacramentum and a ius iurandum in an emergency, see J. Linderski, JRS 74, 1984, 74-80, 'Rome, Aphrodisias and the Res Gestae: the genera militiae and the status of Octavian' (in part speculative). For nisi tumultus Italici Galliciue causa, compare Cicero, Phil. V, 53, where the same formula recurs; Appian, EC II, 627; Plutarch, Cam. 41,7; Marc. 3, 4; and more in general Cicero, Phil. VK, 3, itaque maiores nostri tumultum Italicum quod erat domesticus, tumultum Gallicum quod erat Italiae finitimus, praeterea nullum nominabant. The absence of the exception in Ch. LXVI is not necessarily of any significance, since the privileges there are of an entirely different origin.

434

ROMAN STATUTES

1. 32 - Col. II, 1. 2 The Lex Flavia charges the decurions with fixing the pay of all apparitores, Ch. 73. In our text, where precise sums are laid down, neither list is flawless: there is no reference to the pay of the tibicen of the Ilvir; and C for the pay of the haruspex of the aedile is probably an error, so Mommsen. 1. 33 tanta esto: compare the Lex Osca Tabulae Bantinae, Law 13,11. 11-12. I. 2 (itque): compare Ch. LXHI. Ch.LXm II. 5-8 The meaning is apparently that an apparitor must serve for a minimum of a quarter of a year in order to qualify for a. pro rata payment. Ch.LXmi quicumque shows that the religious calendar of the colony was established anew every year: see J. Scheid, PCPhS 38, 1992, 120-131, 'Myth, cult and reality in Ovid's Fasti\ at 130 n. 12. 11. 12-13 dies festos esse et ... sacra fieri', for dies festi under the Republic, see, e.g., Cicero, cumpopulo gratias egit 3; contrast theferiae of the Lex Flavia. Ch. LXV 11. 18-19 For fines exacted in connection with the raising of uectigalia, see the Lex Flavia, Ch. 67, on accounting. For comparable entrenchment of the rules governing money designed for sacred purposes, see Chs. LXDC, LXX, LXXI, and the Lex Flavia, Chs. 64 and 76, 79-80. The presence of such chapiters in colonial and municipal charters forms part of the wider and well attested phenomenon of Roman oversight of the revenues of subordinate communities. I. 28 For Huiri followed by verbs in the singular, compare Chs. LXVI, 1. 2, LXVII, LXVn(I); LXDC, 11. 38 - (Tablet b, Col. I,) 1. 2; LXXXI, 11. 14-19, 14-16; XCVIin, 11. 1-2; the General Introduction, Ch. XII. Ch. LXVI II. 29-37 See Norden, Priesterbuchern, 12-13, for 'die schbne Periode' which begins the chapter. I. 32 For the role of Caesar in the foundation of the colony, see the Introduction; compare also Cicero, adfam. XQI, 5 = 319 SB, 2, minimeque conuenit ex eo agro qui Caesaris iussu diuidatur eum moueri. For the first holders of office in newly constituted municipia or newly founded colonies, see on the Lex Tarentina, Law 15,11. 7-14. II. 34-5 The Latin is perfectly compatible with the existence of separate colleges for pontiffs and augurs. 11. 35-7 These lines seem to suggest that there were general regulations on priesthoods in Roman colonies, compare Ch. LXVII, 11. 15-16; compare and contrast the phraseology in the Lex Flavia, Ch. 30, the decuriones conscripti are to be utique optimo iure optumaque lege cuiusque munic[i]pi Latini decuriones conscripti sunt. 1. 37 - Col. m, 1. 3 For the package of privileges, exemption from military service and public burdens, together with the attribution of the campaigns necessary to qualify for public office, see the Lex repetundarum, Law 1,11. 78-9; the Tarentum fragment, Law 8,

25 - LEX COLONIAE GENETIVAE

435

11. 2-5; the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24, 11. 100-3; for the position of the priests and their children and the assimilation of that of the priests to that of a pontiff at Rome, see Dion.Hal. E, 21, 3; IV, 62, 5; 74, 4; V, 1, 4; Plutarch, Cam. 41, 7; Wissowa, RuK, 500; J. Scheid, in CI. Nicolet (ed.), Des ordres a Rome (Paris, 1984), 243-80, 'Le pretre et le magistrat', at 258-60, both with further references. A pontiff at Rome was likewise denied exemption in the case of a tumultus Italicus Gallicusue, for which see on Ch.

Lxn. 1. 1 sacro sanctius: an evident mistake for sacro sancta, compare, e.g., Livy XXVH, 38, 3. I. 2 ei: for singular after plural, compare Ch. LXV, 1. 28. II. 3-4 On the augurs' jurisdiction over auspicia, see J. Linderski, ANRW II, 16, 3 (1986), 2146-312, 'The augural law', at 2146-51, 2158-62: the augurs have iuris (auguralis) dictio and (auspiciorum) iudicatio. 11. 4-8 For the right to wear the toga praetexta, compare Ch. LXII; the Lex de flamonio from Narbo, 1. 16, with commentary of CH. Williamson. 11. 8-10 For the seating at games and gladiatorial combats allotted to the decurions, see Ch. CXXV. For the Republican terminology of gladiatores rather than munus, see the Introduction, also Reynolds, Aphrodisias, Docs. 8,11. 75-6; 9,1. 10; Cicero, Phil. EX, 16. It is important to observe that gladiators did not form part of public ludi and that the preceding clause and this clause belong to different contexts, not to different Textschichten', contra Frei-Stolba, 11; the toga praetexta belongs with traditional religious activity, ludi and sacra; whereas the decurions evidently assigned themselves and their social peers privileges at gladiatorial shows. Ch. LXVE 11. 11-12 post hanc legem datam: see the Introduction. For pontifices and augures followed by verbs in the singular, compare Ch. LXV, 1. 28. 11. 12-13 It has seemed difficult that augurs at Urso could apparently be deprived of their office as a result of a condemnation, whereas augurs at Rome could not be removed: see G. Crifo, Latomus 21, 1962, 689-710, 'La c.d. inamovibilita dell'"augur publicus P.R.Q.'", not discussing the problem of the augurates of Sulla and L. Scipio Asiagenus, for which see Crawford, RRC, pp. 373-4, with earlier bibliography; J. Scheid, in Le delit religieux dans la cite antique (Rome, 1981), 117-71, 'Le delit religieux dans la Rome tardo-republicaine', at 168-71. Whatever the significance of the augural symbols on the coinage of Sulla, it seems hard to avoid the conclusion that Sulla or Asiagenus or both were deprived of the augurate. It may be that both originally and also later under the Empire an augur could not be removed; but it seems possible that Caesarian legislation could envisage the possibility, in view of events in the 80s BC. Further to complicate the issue, note that we are not obliged to assume that augurs could be removed at Urso: given the habits of Roman draftsmen, for which see the General Introduction, Ch. XII, it is possible that the presence of damnatiue is sufficiently explained by its applicability in the case of pontiffs. We should then translate: '... in the place of a man who has died or (if this rule applies) been condemned 1. 13 lectus: compare sublegito in 11. 17-18 and 20. For cooptare, see the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24,1. 86.

436

ROMAN STATUTES

11. 14-15 in conlegium: compare such expressions as in terram Italiam, in urbem Romam; one wonders if pontifex augurq(ue) is not a mistake for pontificum augurumque. 11. 15-16 See on Ch. LXVI, 11. 35-7. 11. 16-22 The maximum number of three imposed on the colleges of pontiffs and augurs presumably relates to the size of the community, rather than being thought to be the original figure at Rome, contra Mommsen, 248-9. 1. 17 kapito: the technical term (Wissowa, RuK, 510. Ch. LXVH(I) For Iluiri followed by verbs in the singular, compare Ch. LXV, 1. 28. For the prefect, see also Chs. LXXI, XCIH, XCim, XCV (three occurrences), XCVI, CIH. The reference to elections for pontiffs and augurs, combined with the reference to cooption in the previous chapter, suggests that the position in Urso was similar to that for pontiffs at Rome after 103 BC, when the Lex Domitia prescribed election by a minority of the tribes, followed by cooption, as the means of choosing them; but at Urso the same procedure as for the election of Ilviri was used, rather than the system of 17 out of 35 tribes as at Rome. There is no other trace in our text as preserved of the procedure for the elections of Ilviri. For the assimilation of magisterial and sacerdotal elections, compare Dig. XLVm, 14, 1, 1 (Modestinus). I. 24 prodicito: see on the Lex Osca Tabulae Bantinae, Law 13,11. 13-18. Ch.LXK II. 28-38 dum ne minus xxx atsint in 1. 37 should not qualify decurionum decreto: we would expect a construction similar to that in Ch. CXXV. We think that the phrase qualifies neue ... faciunto: the draftsman should have written nisi, but has presumably forgotten that his main clause is formulated negatively, not positively. There is the further problem that the quorum in 1. 30 is different from that in 1. 37: we wonder if 20 in 1. 30 is not a mistake for 30. The business here is in any case less important than that of Ch. LXHn, since here the first Ilviri have the whole of the rest of the year, future Ilviri 60 days; and although the business must be dealt with before any other business (at the session called for the purpose???), this ban can (we think) be overridden by a quorum of 30; see also the Introduction and the Lex Flavia, Ch. 77. I. 30 We do not know the period covered by the redemption it may be that the imaginary case in Cicero, de inv. II. 96-7, involving a contract to supply sacrificial victims, relates to Rome rather than Sparta, as alleged, -que virtually = -ue. II. 31-2 One wonders if the engraver has not wrongly resolved an abbreviation q. ... o.e., which should have been resolved as quorum ... opus erit. I. 32 On the lex locationis, see Chs. LXXXH, XCIH; the Lex Flavia, Chs. J and 63. II. 33-5 quisquam: for the verb in the plural, compare Ch. LXXI, 11. 27-9; and see the General Introduction, Ch. XII. I. 38 - (Tablet b, Col. I,) 1. 2 For singular after plural, compare Ch. LXV, 1. 28. II. 2-5 The implication of the text as it stands is that the money is additional to any earmarked in Ch. LXV or elsewhere: compare Ch. [L]XX.

25 - LEX COLONIAE GENETIVAE

437

Ch.LXX This and the next chapter happen to be the first explicit attestations of an obligation on Ilviri and aediles to organise shows and pay for them in part out of their own pocket, though the obligation may be implied by the use of the future indicative, rather than a subjunctive, in the Lex Tarentina, Law 15,11. 36-7; but the general regulations laid down for municipia after the Social War certainly controlled the modalities of such shows, and they may already have imposed the obligation: see Crawford, 'Rome and Italy after the Social War' (forthcoming); /15'7210 (Cnossus): [—] dedit. in hoc munere X D sunt, quos e lege coloniae pro ludis dare debuit. Note: (1) that debuit = 'was obliged to', not 'aurait du'; (2) munus here simply = 'spectacle', not specifically 'gladiatorial show', contra Ville, Gladiature, 175-80: see Crawford; and the Introduction above. The inscription, with its indifference as to whether it uses munus or ludi provides a close parallel to the obligation here to pay for munus ludosue scaenicos. I. 7 One wonders if datam has not been omitted in error: compare Ch. LXVII; and see the Introduction above. II. 8-9 deis deabusq(ue): compare Cicero, Rab. perd. 5; also the formula sei deus sei dea, Cato, Agr. 139 (CXLVm); CIL I 2 , 801 = ILLRP 291 (Rome); 1485 = ILLRP 292 (Tibur); 2644 = ILLRP 293 (Spoletium); CIL I 2 (1986), 2954. I. 9 Compare Ch. LXXI, 1. 22; one would expect the accusative. II. 15-19 See on Ch. LXDC, 11. 2-5. Ch.LXXI 1. 20 The absence of anything corresponding to Ch. LXX, 11. 6-7, praeter ... erunU makes it clear that the nominated magistrates of the first year of the colony did not include aediles. 1. 21 For (-ue), compare Ch. LXX, 11. 7-8. I. 23 Note the connection between Venus and the founder of the colony and its name. II. 27-9 The absence of anything corresponding to Ch. LXX, 11. 15-19 may be explained by the fact that the aediles make payment via a Ilvir or prefect; the former is explicitly, the latter is impUcitly covered by Ch. LXX, 11. 15-19. The subordination of the aediles to the Ilviri may also explain the fact that the aediles are not subject to the arbitratus of the decurions, that the phrase dumtaxat ... (implying discretion) is not applied to them, and that they are not empowered consumere in their own right. Us in 1. 28 are not the aediles, who do not themselves receive money, but the implicit objects of eamqiue) pecuniam ... dandam adtribuendam curanto, the men who actually provide the necessary services. Huirpraef.: for the verb in the plural, compare Ch. LXlX» 11. 33-5; and see the General Introduction, Ch. XH. Ch.LXXH 11. 30, 36 stips: see T. Hackens, in Etudes etrusco-italiques (Louvain, 1963), 71-99» 'Favisae'. 11. 31, 37 The difference between inlatum and conlata is presumably trivial. 11. 34-5 The formula derives ultimately from a clause in a Roman statute such as th e Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae., Law 7,11. 17-19.

438

ROMAN STATUTES

Ch.LXXHI For the rules in Chs. LXXIII and LXXTV, compare the Twelve Tables, Law 40, Tabula X, 1, 9-10; the texts from Rome cited in the General Introduction, Ch. XVIII, at p. 30 n. 83; the Riccardi Fragment, Law 34, Col. I; J. Scheid, in Le delit religieux dans la cite antique (Rome, 1981), 117-71, 'Le delit religieux dans la Rome tardo-republicaine', at 135-7. The chapter de sepulchris preserved among the writings of the Agrimensores, 271-2 L, may reflect Triumviral legislation about tombs in territories of colonies. For municipia, see Dig. XLVII, 12, 3, 5 (Ulpian): 'Diuus Hadrianus rescripto poenam statuit quadraginta aureorum in eos qui in ciuitate sepeliunt ... et locum publican iussit et corpus transferri. quid tamen, si lex municipalis permittat in ciuitate sepeliri?' I. 2 oppidi colon(iae)ue\ the phrase looks like an uncorrected transfer from a general statute which only distinguished between colonies and all other communities; contrast Ch. LXXV, 1. 17. II. 2-3 For the foundation rite of a colony, compare the boundary stones from Capua, ILLRP 482, iussu lmp{eratoris) Caesaris qua aratrum ductum est] Varro, LL V, 143; Keppie, Colonisation, SI-97. 11. 7-8 For the action, see the General Introduction, Ch. XT/. The individual citizen certainly did not possess the right of exactio, whatever precisely that may have been: see on the Lex Papiria, Law 45; the engraver has presumably cut the word instead of ex {h)ac {lege): compare Chs. LXXIV, 1. 16; LXXV, 1. 23; LXXXI, 1. 29; LXXXH, 1. 1. This is a better solution than to suppose exactioq(ue) interpolated, with Dessau, 246 n. 1. 11. 8-9 For the verb in the plural, see on Ch. LXEX, 11. 33-5. 11. 9-11 The ground had presumably been made religiosus, a process which had to be reversed by the magistrates of the colony: see S.P.C. Tromp, De Romanorum piaculis (Leiden, 1921), 83-5; Scheid (cited above), 135-7; and compare the Riccardi Fragment, Law 34. Ch. LXXTV See on Ch. LXXIII; and for a similar regulation at Rome in 38 BC, Dio XL VIE, 43, 3. 11. 15-16 For the action, see the General Introduction, Ch. XIV. Ch. LXXV For the substance of the chapter, see the Lex Tarentina, Law 15,11. 32-5. I. 19 re(d)aedificaturum\ compare the Lex Quinctia, Law 63,11. 15-16. II. 20-1 For the quorum, see the Introduction. 11. 22-3 For the action, see the General Introduction, Ch. XIV; for qui, see the General Introduction, Ch. XII. Ch. LXXVI 11. 24-5 The question arises of whether the figlinae teglariae are defined by size of roof or capacity; we cannot imagine ancient potteries (as opposed to kilns) with tiled rooves, and opt for the latter; the intention is clearly to limit production of tiles to a number suitable for private house building. For buildings defined by size of roof, see the Lex Tarentina, Law 15, 11. 26-32. P. Mingazzini, Bull.Mus.Civ.Rom., in BCAR 76, 1956-8,

25 - LEX COLONIAE GENETIVAE

439

77-92, Tre brevi note sui laterizi antichi', at 77-86 = Scritti vari (Rome, 1986), 325-34, in our view almost completely misreads the chapter. tegularium: gen.pl. of tegularia, 'tile-like objects': see F. Kniep, Societas Publicanorum I (Jena, 1896), 459. 11. 26-7 Since the potteries in question were illegal, they could presumably not be sold as such; draftsman or engraver may have omitted eiusque loci in 1. 27. Ch.LXXVH The chapter occurs in almost exactly the same form in the Lex Tarentina, Law 15, 11. 39-42, q.v., especially for sine iniuria priuatorum. I. 32 is = Us.

ch.Lxxnx See in general on Ch. LXXIX. II. 34, 37 Draftsman or engraver may have omitted erunt in 1. 34; fuerunt allows for the reversal of private usurpation. 1. 36 The repetition of uiae and itinera is presumably because here they serve as boundaries: compare Frontinus, 24, 6-7 = 10, 7-8 Th, omnes enim limites secundum legem colonicam itineri publico seruire debent. Ch. LXXIX Right of access on land with tombs is widely documented epigraphically, see e.g., CIL VI, 9404 = ILS 7249 (... haustum aquae ligna sumere)\ 10235 = 8364 (... excipit(ur) itus actus ...); 19949: C. Iulius Epaphroditus fecit sibi ... itum aditum ambitum et ceteris omnibus ex lege plena ut praestentur. For the wider rule here, see Hyginus, 120, 12-18 L = 83, 12-18 Th (compare Siculus Flaccus, 157, 11-17 L = 121, 18-25 Th; also the Lex Quinctia, Law 63,11. 39-43): illud uero obseruandum, quod semper auctores diuisionum sanxerunt, uti quaecumque loca sacra, sepulchra, delubra, aquae publicae ac uicinales, fontes fossaeque publicae uicinalesque essent, item siqua conpascua, quamuis agri diuiderentur, ex omnibus eiusdem condicionis essent cuius ante fuissent. For the importance of water rights in general, compare the Tabula Contrebiensis (CIL I 2 , 2951a, with P. Birks, A. Rodger, J.S. Richardson, JRS 74, 1984, 45-73, 'Further aspects of the Tabula Contrebiensis, at 47-8, and the bibliography there cited); L. Capogrossi Colognesi, Ricerche sulla struttura delle servitu d'acqua (Milan, 1966), 118-21. (Col. IE) 1. 1 Draftsman or engraver may have omitted fluuios; que serves to distinguish the first group of water sources from aquae stagna paludes. Ch. LXXX For the presentation of accounts, compare the Lex Tarentina, Law 15,11. 24-5; the Lex Flavia, Chs. 67-9, very much stricter.

ROMAN STATUTES

440

Ch.LXXXI For the oath of the scribae, see in general the Lex Flavia, Ch. 73. 11. 14-19 ii adigito: for singular after plural, compare Ch. LXV, 1. 28. 11. 14-16 scribis suis, qui... erit: for singular after plural, compare Ch. LXV, 28. 1. 16 Draftsman or engraver may have omitted tractaturus. 1. 17 in condone: compare the Lex Osca Tabulae Bantinae, Law 13,1. 5; the Lex Flavia, Chs. 26, 59. 1. 18 nundinis: compare the SC de Bacchanalibus, ILLRP 511, 11. 22-3; for the oath in general, in particular for the supplement (uerso), compare the Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae, Law 7,11. 17-18. I. 22 fraudemper litteras: compare the Lex Tarentina, Law 15,1. 3. II. 25-6 See on Ch. LXE. 11. 28-9 For the action, see the General Introduction, Ch. XIV. Ch.LXXXH For the general rule compare Frontinus, 17, 1 - 18, 2 L = 7,1-5 Th: de iure territorii controuersia est de his quae ad ipsam urbem pertinent, siue quod intra pomerium eius urbis erit, quod a priuatis operibus optineri non oportebit. eum dico locum quern nee ordo nullo iure a publico poterit amouere. {It does not matter for present purposes whether siue ... amouere is misplaced.) The same rule occurs in Agennius Urbicus, 85, 27 - 86, 2 L = 46, 19-24 Th; Hyginus Gromaticus, 197, 20 - 198,2 L = 160, 21 - 1 6 1 , 3 Th; and it is curious that there seems to be no similar chapter in the Lex Flavia. Ch. 76, de finibus uectigalibus circumeundis recognoscendis ... hardly even implies the rule. I. 32

Draftsman or engraver may have omitted ea aedificia.

II. 33-4 The five-year period is obviously derived from the practice of the censors in Rome; contrast Gaius EH, 145: adeo autem emptio et uenditio et locatio et conductio familiaritatem aliquam inter se habere uidentur, ut in quibusdam causis quaeri soleat, utrum emptio et uenditio contrahatur an locatio et conductio. ueluti si qua res in perpetuum locata sit, quod euenit in praediis municipum, quae ea lege locantur, ut 'quamdiu id uectigal praestetur', neque ipsi conductori neque heredi eius praedium auferatur. sed magis placuit locationem conductionemque esse. 1. 39 iuga: see Varro, RR I, 10, 1, modos quibus metirentur rura alius alios constituit. nam in Hispania ulteriore metiuntur iugis ... Ch. XCI 1. 3 That is, we suppose, five years preceding their appointment, presumably reckoning exclusively; the mysterious last chapter of the Lex Tarentina, Law 15, relates to a sexennium prior to departure, presumably reckoning inclusively. For domicilium, see on the Lex Tarentina, Law 15, Col 1,1. 43 - Col n, 1. 1; the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24,11. 157-8; and the Este Fragment, Law 16, Introduction. The late texts cited by Mommsen, 224, are misleading.

25 - LEX COLONIAE GENETIVAE

441

1. 5 pignus: the principle is similar to that applied to magistrates in the Lex Tarentina, Law 15, Col. 1,11. 7-14; see also Mommsen, St. II, 21 n. 3 = DP m, 23 n. 2.

ch. xcn Compare the Lex Flavia, Chs. F and G, in particular on the establishment of a rota for undertaking embassies. I. 8 quicumque presumably refers to the possibility of a. praefectus in office. II. 14-15

ex eo ordine no doubt refers to the decurions who have been taking decisions.

11. 17-18 For the action, see the General Introduction, Ch. XTV. Draftsman or engraver may have omitted ex hac lege, as in Ch. XCEDL

ch. xcm Compare the Lex Flavia, Ch. J, with commentary, much more complex. Our chapter presumably draws on censorial law at Rome; but 1. 24 surely reflects the clause quo ea pecunia peruenerit of legislation on repetundae, for which see on the Tarentum Fragment, Law 8, Introduction; J.-L. Ferrary, MEFRA 91, 1979, 83-134, 'Recherches sur la legislation de Saturninus et Glaucia. II', at 117-18. Quite apart from the uncertainty as to whether Mommsen, 228, was right to claim that 'repetundarum crimen sociale est', it is normal for a clause from one statute to be transferred to another statute, see the General Introduction, Ch. IV. 1. 22 ab redemptor{e) mancipe: the words are alternatives; for manceps, see on the Lex agraria, Law 2,1. 46. For praes, see on the Lex repetundarum, Law 1,11. 56-8. I. 24 suorum: see the Lex de prouinciis praetoriis, Law 12, Cnidos Copy, Column HI, 11. 14-15. II. 25-6 For the action, see the General Introduction, Ch. XTV. Draftsman or engraver may have omitted ex hac lege, as in Ch. XCII.

ch. xcnn For aedilician jurisdiction, see the Lex Flavia, Ch. 19, with commentary, corrected by A. Rodger, ZPE 84, 1990, 147-61, 'The jurisdiction of local magistrates: chapter 84 of the lex Irnitana'. Ch. XCV The chapter probably deals with the procedure for a trial arising out of a multa, the action for the benefit of the populus: see the General Introduction, Ch. XTV. We do not think it is sensible to ask whether the procedure was public or private: there are elements of both. For recuperatores, see on the Lex agraria, Law 2,1. 29-31. 1. 33 ubi ea res agetur. the chapter is taken over without adaptation from a general statute; note that it takes for granted the procedure for the appointment of recuperatores. 1. 34 The reference is presumably to an accuser or accusers and defendant or defendants: compare the similar formulation in 11. 16-17; 11. 19-28 and 28-36 deal with the failure to appear of two different categories of accusers.

442

ROMAN STATUTES

(Tablet c, Col. II) 1. 3 iussiue: one might expect iussique; compare the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24, 11. 44-5. I. 6 incolae: see on Ch. CHI. II. 6-7 is qui rem quaeret: here exceptionally the accuser; quaerere = 'to pursue', compare 11. 35-6, so rightly M. Wlassak, Der Judikationsbefehl der romischen Prozesse (Vienna, 1921), 55 n. 26; not 'to interrogate (the witnesses)', as Kunkel, Untersuchungen, 54 n. 203. The defendant had to hope that his witnesses would come freely (see Quintilian V, 7, 9); these will be the quique in testimonio dicendo nominati erunt of 11. 8-9, who do not count as part of the maximum of twenty, who can be compelled to bear witness, and to whom there is a second reference in II. 13-15. I. 16 cui = qui: see the General Introduction, Ch. XII. II. 16-17 Compare Dig. XXII, 5, 4 (Paul): 'lege Iulia iudiciorum publicorum cauetur ne inuito denuntietur, ut testimonium litis dicat aduersus socerum generum, uitricum priuignum, sobrinum sobrinam, sobrino sobrina natum, eosue qui priore gradu sint, item ne liberto ipsius, liberorum eius, parentium, uiri uxoris, item patroni patronae; et ut ne patroni patronae aduersus libertos neque liberti aduersus patronum cogantur testimonium dicere' (neque liberti aduersus patronum del. Mommsen)\ the Lex Iulia de ui, Law 62; similar degrees of prohibited relationship are used for different purposes in the Lex repetundarum, Law 1, 11. 9-11, 19-26 (see the Commentary thereon); the Lex Cincia, Law 47. 11. 19-28, 28 - (Tablet c, Col. IE) 2 The excuses are the same for magistrates and priuati. In the former case, presumably, in the latter case, certainly, if there was no excuse, the accusation lapsed. (It is hard to follow Mommsen's suggestion that a phrase has dropped out, which specified that in the case of a magistrate who was absent without excuse the accusation went ahead.) The differences between the two cases are: (1) that a magistrate's word is accepted, whereas zpriuatus must justify himself to a magistrate; (2) that in the case of a magistrate absent with good excuse the process does not begin, whereas in the case of ^priuatus absence becomes critical at the moment of the iudicium. The second point requires expansion. The phrase quo magis ... reciperatores sortiantur reiciantur res iudicetur is a description of the whole procedure and looks like an attempt to make it clear that the whole process is aborted if a magistrate is absent with good excuse. The clause does not look like an attempt to say that the process is aborted at whatever stage it might have reached, for which we would expect a repeated use of -ue. The intention is presumably to allow the magistrate to bring the action again as if nothing had happened. (Johnston suggests that the text presupposes that a Ilvir would prosecute before his colleague and that it wishes to prevent a colleague who is presiding taking over a case in the simultaneous role of prosecutor. But it is hard to think of a parallel for a Roman statute achieving its end in so indirect a fashion. The hypothesis also ignores the fact that the same rules apply to a prefect as to a Ilvir: the Lex Flavia, Chs. 24-5, makes it clear that a prefect could be in office alone and this was probably true earlier. It follows that a prefect could prosecute before a court over which he also presided, so rightly Mommsen, Str. 183-4 = DPen. I, 212-13, cf. St. I, 182-3 = DP I, 186; compare the Lex Osca Tabulae Bantinae, Law 13, 11. 13-14. In any case, the relationship of a magistrate to a panel of recuperatores is much more distant than that of a magistrate to the iudices of a quaestio.)

25 - LEX COLONIAE GENETIVAE

443

The last four lines of the chapter are explicit that an action brought by a priuatus fails if he is absent without excuse; if he is absent with good excuse, he is presumably allowed a postponement. The same plaintiff of course cannot bring the same action again: see Johnston, 17 with n. 21, on the significance of ei in 1. 35; compare the Lex repetundarum, Law 1,11. 55-6. It was particularly important in the case of an action for the benefit of the populus brought by a priuatus that his (probably collusive) failure to appear should not prevent another man from bringing an action. For the list of excuses, see on the Twelve Tables, Law 40, Tabula n, 2. I. 20

earn rem: the matter before the recuperatores, in 11. 32-3 above.

II. 26-7 negotium faces sere: compare Plautus, Rudens 1061; Cicero, // in Verr. 4, 142; Cluent. 158; adfam. m, 10 = 73 SB, 1; Apuleius, Apol. 54; Dig. XLVIH, 2, 4 (Ulpian); m, 6, lpr. (Ulpian) {negotium facere). de eo: the reference is to the defendant, not to the subject of the action, contra Johnston, 18 with n. 24. 1. 28 ex: perhaps an erroneous resolution of the abbreviation e. for eius. The chapter will have been taken over without adaptation from a statute passed through the assembly: see the General Introduction, Ch. II. petet: we should probably suppose that the import of the clause is restricted by coloniis) being understood from 1. 20. I. 35 For this way of indicating the plural, compare Ch. CXXX, 1. 44; the Lex agraria, Law 2,1. 28. (Tablet c, Col. HI) II. 1-2 Compare Cicero, // in Verr. 3, 28, where recuperatores reicere is shorthand for the whole process of selection and appointment. The position is correctly described by Wlassak (cited above), 52 n. 22; but he then rejects the correction re(i)ecti, which actually makes the position as he describes it intelligible. Ch. XCVI The chapter envisages the decurions setting up a court, compare Ch. CH, on the model of a quaestio at Rome; in the middle of the list in 11. 4-6, de multis poenisque must refer to revenue from fines and penalties (see Ch. LXV): the court will have dealt with various forms of malversation. (The sense of the chapter is misunderstood by (Ph.)E. Huschke, Die Multa und das Sacramentum (Leipzig, 1874), 548-53.) In 1. 7, quiue ... praerit is the prefect. 1. 6 queri = quaeri. Ch. XCVH Similar material occurs in Chs. CXXX-CXXXI, q.v. for discussion. 1. 13 It is not clear whether neue quis pro potestate includes an aedile or only a prefect. I. 16 curator: compare the Lex Iulia agraria, Law 54, Ch. V; ex lege Iulia: see the Introduction; est: perhaps an erroneous resolution of the abbreviation e. for erit. II. 18-19 For voting by ballot in municipia, see on the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24,11. 106-7; for the wording compare Chs. CXXX-CXXXI. 1. 19 For the quorum, see the Introduction.

444

ROMAN STATUTES

11. 21-2 For the action, see the General Introduction, Ch. XIV. The form of wording here is unusual: for the likely origin of the chapter, see the Introduction.

ch. xcvm The chapter reappears in the Lex Flavia, Ch. 83, much better drafted and with compensation for incidental damage; for municipal and colonial operae in general, see Cato, de agr. 2 (H), 4; Mommsen, St. m, 229-30 = DP VI, 1, 259-60; Liebenam, Stadteverwaltung, 401-2; 417-30. 11. 24-5 The quorum is larger in the Lex Flavia. 11. 26-9 operae remain the same for men and rise to five for beasts in the Lex Flavia. iumenta plaustraria: there is no reason to suppose the words interpolated, contra Dessau, 246 n. 1: compare Cato, de agr. 11 (XDI), 1: asinos plostrarios. 11. 29-30 Aediles and others in charge of operae in the Lex Flavia have the power of seizing pledges and pronouncing fines. 11. 31-3 The lower limit in the Lex Flavia is 15, the upper limit is 60 (compare the Lex repetundarum, Law 1,11. 12-14; the upper limit is 70 in Dig. L, 2, 2, 8; 6, 4 (3) (Ulpian). For 14 as the age of maturity in males, see Festus, 296 L; Gaius I, 196; Tit.Ulp. 11, 28. 11. 33-6 The formulation in the Lex Flavia explicitly includes municipes and incolae, who live or hold any property in the community; the intention here is presumably to catch others as well as incolae, for whom see on Ch. CIDL

ch. xcvnn For a dispute over a water-course, compare the Tabula Contrebiensis, cited on Ch. LXXIX. In particular, it is here provided that water in transit must not affect any structure not designed for that purpose: compare Frontinus, aq. 127. 1. 37 One would expect in oppidum. 1. 38 For singular after plural, see on Ch. LXV, 1. 28. Note that the prefect does not appear beside the Ilvir here or in the following chapter. Ch.C For aqua caduca see Frontinus, aq. 94-5, 110-11, with commentary of P. Grimal. I. 10 Note that the prefect does not appear beside the Ilvir here or in the preceding chapter. II. 12-13 For the quorum, see the Introduction. 11. 15-16 sine priuati iniuria: compare Ch. LXXVTI. Ch.CI Qualifications for holding a magistracy are specified as being the same as for holding the decurionate, laid down elsewhere in the statute; they will no doubt have been similar to those in the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24, but may well have been taken from an earlier chronological horizon. 1. 18 pro tribu: the term curia, standard in the Imperial period for an electoral division of the people of a subordinate community, see the Lex Flavia, Ch. L, and present already in the Lex Tarentina, Law 15,1. 15, is not used here; this may suggest: either (1) that our

25 - LEX COLONIAE GENETIVAE

445

text derives from an earlier chronological horizon; or (2) that tribus were reserved for Roman colonies, at any rate down to the end of the Republic, so Mommsen, 213. Ch.CE For quaestiones at Urso, see on Ch. XCVI. The language here of accusatores, nominis delatio and subscriptores is taken straight from Rome. The system of an actio prima and an actio secunda on the one hand and of principal and subsidiary accusers on the other hand was put in place by the Lex Seruilia Glauciae and other legislation of the late second century BC, see the Tarentum Fragment, Law 8, Introduction; David, Patronat, 498-505; our chapter will be later than that and may well have been drafted for the first time for the creation of the new municipia after the Social War. 11. 23-4 See on the Twelve Tables, Law 40, Tabula I, 9. 11. 24-6 See on the Lex Plaetoria, Law 44. 11. 26 - (Tablet c, Col. V) 1 For allocation of time to accusers and defendants, compare the Lex Pompeia of 52 BC; perhaps the Nicotera Fragment B, Law 4; and see Cicero, Flac. 82, with commentary of T.B.L. Webster; Jones, Courts, 69-73.

ch.cm For the levy in subordinate communities in the late Republic, see Cicero, Cluent. 195; M.H. Crawford, in CAH X, 'Italy and Rome from Sulla to Augustus' (forthcoming); ILS 6882; and the inscription of the interrex discussed in the Commentary on Ch. CXXX. 11. 2, 5 The draftsman has started to say is ...facito and isque ... idem ius ... habeto and then changed his mind: compare Ch. CXXllll. 1. 3 For incolae, compare Chs. XCV, XCvTO, CXXVI, CXXXDI; and in general the Lex Flavia, Ch. 94; F. Berger, RE IX, 2 (1916), 1249-56, 'Incola'; Liebenam, Stddteverwaltung, 212-13; Spitzl, 40-1. The contributi are probably a different category, in the case of Urso one or more communities of native peoples in the mountains to the south, merged with Urso at its foundation: see Laffl, Adtributio, 128-33. We assume parataxis, though it would be very easy to restore ~{q(ue)) before quocumque. I. 7-8 For the powers of military tribunes, see Giraud (1875); Mommsen, St. n, 185-7, 575-9 = DP m, 213-15; IV, 279-84; Polybius VI, 37, 8, with commentary of F.W. Walbank.

ch.cnn The chapter is taken over from the Lex Iulia agraria, Law 54, Ch. mi, with minor changes, apart from 11. 12-13. II. 12-13 Compare Ch. LXVI, 11. 31-2: the draftsman here has not bothered to allow for the possibility that Caesar might himself found the colony; we think it likely that the sources of authority in chronological order are senatorial decrees and plebiscites of the past, a Lex Antonia, Caesar. If this is right, it follows that the Lex Antonia is not the Lex Antonia agraria of mid-44 BC. The decrees of the senate and plebiscites are presumably earlier measures to whose authority generic reference is made; note that the normal procedure for the foundation of a colony in the middle Republic was a decree of the senate and then sometimes a plebiscite (U. Laffi, DdAy Terza serie, 6, 1988, 2, 23-33, 'La colonizzazione romana tra la guerra latina e l'eta dei Gracchi: aspetti istituzionali'; add Livy XXXV, 40, 5). See also the Introduction.

446

ROMAN STATUTES

1. 19 For the action, see the General Introduction, Ch. XTV. Ch.CV The chapter presupposes the same qualifications as Ch. CI, whose rules are in part repeated in the specific context of this chapter; Ch. CXXMil deals with the situation in which it is another decurion who is the accuser. See Daube, Forms, 36, for the suggestion that this chapter reflects the language of the praetor's edict. I. 20 loci: position within the hierarchical order of decurions, compare Ch. CXXmi; the implication is that someone might have become Iluiralis or aedilicius improperly. For aedilicii, see Cicero, Clu. 79; the Lex parieti faciundo, ILLRP 518; ILLRP 533 (Anagnia), etc. II. 21-2 These lines are strictly ambiguous: it might be that freedmen could form part of the ordo; or it might be that their expulsion was so automatic that no trial was required. But for freedmen as magistrates in Caesarian colonies, see CIL VIE, 977 = 12451 = ILS 5320 (Curubi); CIL X, 6104 = ILS 1945 (Carthage and Clupea, but debarred from office at Formiae); at Corinth, M. Antonius Theophilus and M. Antonius Hipparchus, both freedmen (Plutarch, Ant. 67, 10; 73, 4), were both Ilviri (M. Amandry, Le monnayage des duovirs corinthiens (BCH Supp. 15, Athens, 1988), 42-3, 50); and note the freedman of Augustus, Zoilus, at Aphrodisias, Reynolds, Aphrodisias, Doc. 36; also that CIL XI, 3805 = ILS 6579 (Municipium Augustum Veiens, AD 26) allows a freedman of Augustus to dine with the ordo. In contrast, the Lex Flavia, Ch. 54, imposes free birth. 11. 22-4 iudicium reddere: for the civil associations of the phrase, see on the Lex de Gallia Cisalpina, Law 28, Col. II, 1. 55. These lines make it clear, on the assumption that we here have to do with an action for the benefit of the populus, for which see the General Introduction, Ch. XTV, that the basic form of the procedure is essentially civil, in contrast to iudicia publica in late Republican Rome, contra Mommsen, 234-5. 11. 25-30 The formulation owes much to something like the Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae, Law 7,11. 2-6. Ch.CVI Compare the Lex Flavia, Ch. 74, and note that there it is only coetus, 'illegal gatherings', which are prohibited; our statute assimilates coetus, conuentus and coniuratio; but it may like the Lex Flavia have permitted sodalicia and collegia in themselves. (For coetus in a neutral sense, see Cicero, Phil. II, 63; it is very doubtful if the gathering had been convened by M. Antonius, contra C. Virlouvet, Famines et emeutes a Rome (Rome, 1985), 68-70.) 11. 31-2 See on Ch. Cim, 11. 12-13. 1. 32 que = quern. (Tablet d) Fragment 1 D'Ors' restoration (1953), 241-3, of Ch. CVTII, assuming it on the basis of 11 letters to have been similar to Ch. 28 of the Lex Flavia, should never have been printed; there are no particular grounds for supposing that the order of the chapters was at this point the same in the earlier charter as in the later. Note also the fundamental doubts of Wenger, 251-2.

25 - LEX COLONIAE GENETIVAE

447

The opening of Ch. CVDII can be restored at any rate in outline, following D'Ors, on the basis of Ch. 29 of the Lex Flavia; under no circumstances should any attempt be made to restore the rest of the chapter. F. Schulz, Studi S. Solazzi (Naples, 1948), 451-60, 'Lex Salpensana cap. 29 und Lex Ursonensis cap. 109', and D'Ors, (1953), 415, and (1953), 243-5, supposed that Ch. CVilli of the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae prescribed the same procedure for pupillus and pupilla on the one hand, mulier on the other. This may have been the case, but nothing is less secure; and any attempt on this basis to write an account of the development of the law in this area must be wholly imaginary. The chapter may perfectly well have continued on these lines: 'ei eae qui quae pupillus pupillaue erit tutorem dato dum ... {Condition A), eae quae mulier erit tutorem dato dum ... {Condition B)\ The only certain difference between the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae and the Lex Ravia is that in the former, wards apply themselves, in the latter, application is made in their name. (There are discussions of various fanciful suggestions in Schulz and D'Ors.) It is unlikely that the Lex Iulia et Titia of Gaius I, 185, under which a guardian was granted in a province by a governor, has any relevance here, contra Wenger, 252; Frederiksen, 194-5. For Gaius cannot possibly be taken as showing that the only way in which a guardian could be granted in the provinces was by a governor under the Lex Iulia et Titia. The right was perhaps possessed by magistrates of Italian towns: see F. Grelle, Labeo, 6, 1960, 216-25, '"Datio tutoris" e organi cittadini nel basso impero', and simply incorporated in the charter of the colony. Compare also the Lex Valeria Aurelia, Law 37, Tabula Siarensis, Fragment b, Col. II, 11. 25-6, for the careful maintenance of the separate prerogatives of colonies. It would be possible to restore [... in ulteriore His/]pania ... by supposing heavier abbreviation of what precedes. Fragment 10 Not enough is preserved to allow any certainty about the content of Fragment 10; it may be similar to that of the Lex Flavia, Ch. 66, De multa, quae dicta erit. Fragments 6 and 7 The content of the two fragments appears to correspond roughly to the Lex Flavia, Ch. 86, 11. 43 - (Tablet IXC) 13 and 17-26; detailed restoration is to be eschewed. If the figure XX is correctly engraved, Urso had a lower age limit for iudices than was normal: see the discussion in Wenger, 267-9. In Fr. 6, 1. 6, there is perhaps a ban on selecting a iudex [— qui in colo]n{ia) non erit; but [— cuius in eo albo nome]n non erit is equally possible. In Fr. 7, we have perhaps reached the stage to which the statement, iudi[care iubeto], is appropriate. Fragment 5, Col. I These lines seem to deal with a vadimonium for appearance before the governor, to which there is an allusion in the Lex Flavia, Ch. 84, 11. 20-3. It is clear that the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae devoted much more attention to this element of procedural law than the Lex Flavia and likely that there was a separate chapter on the subject. Too little is preserved to be certain of the connection of thought with deiera[uerit —] and [i]niuriam; but Wenger, 264-7, may be right to see the chapter as dealing with the uadimonium in the actio iniuriarum.

ROMAN STATUTES

448

Fragment 2 It may be that we have in 11. 1-2 someone who accepts trial at Urso, in 11. 3-6 someone who demands uti ea res in con/[uentum reiciatur]; 11. 4-5 perhaps once read ... ex edicto e[ius qui prouinciae praerit], 1. 6 perhaps [— uadimonium pr]omittat fac[ito]. D'Ors and Wenger thought of sibi [non liquere] in 11. 2-3, but this is very hard to link with the word which precedes, whichever case we restore. Fragment 3 These lines contain the same material as the list beginning in the Lex Flavia, Ch. 84,1. 13; perhaps: [a quoquomque in ius] ad[itum erit, qui — in ea] [colon(ia) cu]m seruo furti age[re uolet —] [nisi ad d]ominum it furtum pertineat, [quae res —] [non pluri]s erit quam in ea colon(ia) iuris[dictio —] [erit, eiu]s rei in ea colon(ia) actio esto. q[uibus earum rerum] [in ea colo]n(ia) actio erit, earum rerum alio[—] Wenger, 258-62, drew from these lines, on balance, the conclusion that an actio furti against a slave was possible in the late Republic. Inter alia, he drew attention to the evidence for criminal procedure in Dig. XLVIE, 2, 12, 3-4 (Venuleius Saturninus): 'si seruus reus postulabitur, eadem obsenianda sunt, quae si liber esset, ex senatus consulto Cotta et Messala consulibus (AD 20). omnibus autem legibus serui rei fiunt, excepta lege Iulia de ui priuata {and a number of other cases) ... item Cornelia iniuriarum senium non debere recipi reum Cornelius Sulla auctor fuit; sed durior ei poena extra ordinem imminebit.' (In the great criminal investigations in Italy in the second century BC (sources in Toynbee, Hannibal's Legacy II, 320-1; Brunt, Fall, 224), slaves will no doubt have been proceeded against in their own name, albeit summarily.) A. Rodger (cited on Ch. XCim) argued that in the Lex Flavia (and here) cum seruo agere means not 'to bring an action against a slave', but 'to bring an action in relation to a slave', despite the absence of parallels in lexica or grammars for such a use of cum. This theory cannot be right: see Cicero, Cluent. 163: est hie Ennius egens quidam calumniator, mercennarius Oppianici, qui permultos annos quieuit; deinde aliquando cum seruis Habiti furti egit, nuper ab ipso Habito petere coepit. It is also the implication of the passage of Venuleius just quoted that before Sulla slaves could be sued for iniuria. (It is unclear whether Dig. XLIV, 7, 14 (Ulpian), is a recollection of the early law or a piece of relatively late interpretation.) The clause [nisi ad d\ominum it furtum pertineat alludes to the alternative hypothesis to an action against a slave, namely where the master was implicated: the action was then obviously against the master. For the formulation, compare the Este Fragment, Law 16, 11. 2 - 3 ; and note that nisi, not dum, is to be restored in the lacuna in the Lex Irnitana, Ch. 84, Tablet EX, Col. B, 1. 14.

25 - LEX COLONIAE GENETIVAE

449

Fragment 8 LI. 7-8 appear to deal among other things with the sponsio in probrum attested by the Lex Flavia, Ch. 84,1. 12, followed perhaps by a reciperatorium iudicium. LI. 3-4 perhaps once read [— iurisdic/]tio iu[dicisque dado — ] . Fragment 4 The only real clue is the word recusare: for recusare iudicium, see Wenger, 263-4. Heumann-Seckel also offer actionem, hereditatem, and numerous other more distant possibilities; but the word defendat raises the possibility of the indefensus, who would fit well enough with someone who refuses a iudicium. Fragment 11 There is perhaps a reference to plebiscites as sources of law. Fragment 9 Not enough is preserved to allow any guess about the content of Fragment 9.

ch.cxxm There is no particular reason to suppose that this chapter relates to the same kind of trial as figures in the following chapter, rather than to any trial. What survives of this chapter is reminiscent of the Lex repetundarum, Law 1, 11. 55-6; see also ibid., 11. 5-6, for praeuaricatio.

ch. cxxnn See on Ch. CV; and for a successful prosecutor acquiring the status of a condemned man, the Lex repetundarum, Law 1, 11. 76-7; David, Patronat, 508-25. For the rules governing precedence in a local senate, see the Lex Flavia, Ch. B. 11. 6-8 The draftsman has started to say is ... dicito, and then changed his mind to use liceto with an accusative and infinitive. 1. 7

in locum: one would expect in loco.

Chs. CXXV-CXXVH It is important to see these chapters as a whole: Ch. CXXV deals with shows in general as opposed to plays; it provides for allocating special seats to decurions, magistrates (local and Roman) and those approved by the decurions (see also Ch. LXVI). Ch. CXXVI deals with arrangement of seating in general for plays; it provides for arrangement of seating as approved by the decurions. Ch. CXXVII deals with seats specifically in the orchestra at plays; it grants the right to seats in the orchestra to: (1) Roman and local magistrates; (2) present and former Roman senators and their sons; (3) serving praefecti fabrum of Further Spain; (4) those approved by the decurions, no doubt largely themselves and their friends. (For this provision, a reference back to Ch. CXXV, see on 11. 6-7.) Contrast in general the simplicity of the Lex Flavia,.Ch. 81; and compare, e.g., Sherk, Municipal Decrees, no. 41 (Cumae), with H. Solin, Puteoli 12-13, 1988-9, 76.

ROMAN STATUTES

450

Ch. CXXV 11. 11-13 ludi: shows in general, contra Mommsen, 218, who there held that this chapter deals with ludi circenses, while Chs. CXXVI-CXXVH deal with ludi scaenici. (There is a different view at 253.) Both Chs. LXX-LXXI and the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24,11. 137-8, operate not with two mutually exclusive categories, but with a general category and a particular example of it. For senatorial seats at games, gladiatorial shows, beast hunts or athletic competitions, all at Rome or within a mile of Rome, compare the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24, 11. 137-8; Reynolds, Aphrodisias , Doc. 8, 11. 76-8; Doc. 9, 11. 10-11; Josephus, AJ XIV, 10, 210. For the Amphitheatrum Flavium, see CIL VI, 32098 = ILS 5654; CIL VI, 2059 = 32363 = ILS 5049, with commentaries. Special seats at Rome for senators, to serve as a model for the inclusion in leges of colonies and municipia of rights to seats for Roman and local magistrates and senators, had existed since 194 BC, see J. von Ungern-Sternberg, Chiron 5, 1975, 157-63, 'Die Einftihrung spezieller Sitze fur Senatoren bei den Spielen (194 v.Chr.)'; the rights of decurions are taken for granted by Vitruvius V, 6, 2, discussing how to build municipal theatres: in orchestra ... senatorum (= decurions) sunt sedibus loca designata. 11. 13-16 These lines deal first with normal magistrates and then with the first magistrates of the colony, appointed by Caesar; for the first magistrates of a community, see on the Lex Tarentina, Law 15,11. 7-14. The titulature of Caesar is carefully designed to allow for all eventualities: contrast the approach of Chs. LXVI, CHH and CVI. 1. 14

imperium: compare Ch. CXXVm, 1. 13.

1. 16 pro quo imperio: Ch. XCim suggests that a Roman holder of imperium or power is here envisaged. 1. 26

eorum: the coloni. In Ch. CXXVI, eorum is omitted, presumably by accident.

1. 27 reciperatorio iudicio: see p. 398 above; Johnston, 15 with n. 16, suggests that the implication, here and in Chs. CXXVI, CXXVm, CXXDC, CXXX, CXXXI and CXXXE, that the recuperatorial panel met under the presidency of the magistrate, is erroneous. Yet these chapters are very individually drafted, with the phrase reciperatorium iudicium occurring only here in the texts of Roman statutes; it seems more likely that there is a deliberate reference to a special procedure, in which the magistrate did preside. Compare the formulation of the lex libitinaria from Puteoli, L. Bove, Labeo 13, 1967, 22-48, 'Due iscrizioni da Pozzuoli e Cuma', Col. II, 11. 1-2, deq(ue) ea r{e) magistrates) reciperatorium iudicium e lege colon(iae) cogito, cf. 11. 29-30, Col. IE, 1. 4. For recuperatores, see on Ch. XCV. Ch. CXXVI 1.31 colonos ... incolasque hospites atuentoresque (there is no need to add (que) after hospites): for the list, see G. Paci, in C. Castillo (ed.), Novedades de Epigrafia Juridica Romana (Pamplona, 1989), 125-33, 'Possibili tracce di statuti municipali in alcune iscrizioni d'Italia concernenti un particolare tipo di munificenza privata'. 1. 37

ludi: i.e., the ludi, namely the ludi scaenici.

1. 46

reciperatorio iudicio: see on Ch. CXXV, 1. 27.

25 - LEX COLONIAE GENETIVAE

451

ch. cxxvn See Crawford for the chapter as a whole. 11. 48 - (Tablet e, Col. II) 1. 8 in orchestram: compare Dig. XLVm, 7, lpr. (Marcian), ... neue in eum ordinem sedeat... 1. 1 ludorum: i.e., the ludi, namely the ludi scaenici. I. 2 quiue i.d.p.: not an assistant of the governor, but a Ilvir or prefect, contra Mommsen, 220. II. 2-3 For privileges of former senators, compare Cicero, Cluent. 132. I. 3 The inclusion of sons of Roman senators is readily intelligible against the background of a late Republic that had seen the diffusion of honours for wives and daughters of magistrates (M. Kajava, in H. Solin and id. (edd.), Roman Eastern Policy and Other Studies in Roman History (Helsinki, 1990), 59-124, 'Roman senatorial women in the Greek east'; sons should have been included). II. 3-6 erunt: for the verb in the plural, compare Ch. LXXI, 11. 27-9; and see the General Introduction, Ch. XII. For privileges of praefecti fabrum, compare Cicero, Mur. 73. I. 5 For Baeticae praerit, see the Introduction. II. 6-7 Given the carelessness with which the whole text is engraved and the arbitrariness with which abbreviations are used, it is reasonable to restore (d(ecreto)) decurion(u)m, compare Ch. XCII, 1. 15. oportet: not really appropriate here, compare Ch. CXXV, 1. 18. I. 8 ludorum: i.e., the ludi, namely the ludi scaenici. II. 9-10 These lines are intended to prevent abuse of power, compare Cicero, Mur. 73. For quisque, where one would expect quis, compare the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24,1. 22. Note the asyndeton in 1. 10. A clause enforcing the chapter is missing from the end, compare the Lex Flavia, Ch. 61. What of the external evidence that has sometimes been invoked to argue that Ch. CXXVII, in the form in which we have it, is later than Caesar? It cannot be argued, with Ville, Gladiature, 437, that it presupposes the decree of the senate of Suetonius, Aug. 44: spectandi confusissimum ac solutissimum morem correxit ordinauitque, motus iniuria senatoris, quern Puteolis per celeberrimos ludbs consessu frequenti nemo receperat. facto igitur decreto patrum ut, quotiens quid spectaculi usquam publice ederetur, primus subselliorum ordo uacaret senatoribus, Romae ... Rather, E.D. Rawson was right to argue, PBSR 55, 1987, 83-114 = Roman Culture and Society (Oxford, 1991), 508-45, 'Discrimina ordinum: the Lex Julia Theatralis\ at 88 = 514 n. 24, that Augustus was here imposing a rule on all shows in all towns. The rule had no doubt been widely implemented already; but precisely in Puteoli, most of whose constitution no doubt went back to 194 BC, the rule did not exist. (Rawson's argument, from the absence of the Augustales from Chs. CXXVI-CXXVII, for their early date, is clearly less secure. Dio LV, 9, 4; Tacitus, Ann. Ill, 31, 5, cited by Ville, are of no help.)

ROMAN STATUTES

452

Chs. CXXVIH-CXXXI These chapters impose obligations on the whole body of magistrates; despite the absence of the aediles in Ch. XCVII, it is arbitrary to exclude them as interpolated at any point in these chapters.

ch. cxxvm 11. 12, 15-16, 16 suo quoque anno: compare sui quoiusque anni in the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24,11. 92, 101; Lachmann on Lucretius II, 371. I. 13 imperio: compare Ch. CXXV, 1. 14. II. 14-16 For magistri for fana, templa and delubra, and their functions, see G. Paci, in Settima Miscellanea (Rome, 1980), 479-524, 'Magistermunicipii' (Tolentinum). 11. 14, 18 que = quern. 1. 16 decurionum decreto: this chapter in part implements the general provisions of Ch. LXIV. I. 29

reciperatorio iudicio: see on Ch. CXXV, 1. 27.

II. 29-30 The rasura is that of the word interregem: see on Ch. CXXX; and the Introduction. Ch.CXXIX I. 37

reciperatorio iudicio: see on Ch. CXXV, 1. 27.

Chs. CXXX-CXXXI These chapters do not contradict or supersede Ch. XCVQ, contra Frederiksen, 194-5, except in relation to senators and sons of senators, for whom special rules are prescribed. For all other men, Ch. XCVII presumably applied in the case of intended patrons; and there was presumably no rule in the case of intended ho spites. In a perfect world, the three chapters would no doubt have been harmonised; but it is doubtful if their existence side by side would have caused any difficulty in antiquity. It is also hard to see why Nissen, 108, or Frederiksen, 194-5, thought that Dio LVI, 25, 6 (AD 11) has anything to do with these chapters: the measure of Augustus is clearly designed to prevent governors of provinces collecting honours and testimonials with a view to their defence in any subsequent prosecution; and the terms of the ban - not during their term of office or for 60 days thereafter - are quite different from the terms here only a sine imperio priuatus in Italy. (See also on the Lex Iulia de pecuniis repetundis, Law 55.) For rules governing patrons, compare in general the much more relaxed Lex Flavia, Ch. 61. Ch. CXXX II. 41-2, 48 The same procedure of scribundo adesse as at Rome is evidently assumed at Urso. 11. 43-4 The implication is that the votes of three quarters of all decurions are necessary; for the ballot, see on Ch. XCVII, 11. 18-19. 1. 44 For this way of indicating the plural, see on Ch. XCV, 1. 35.

25 - LEX COLONIAE GENETIVAE

• 453

1. 45 in Italiam: compare the Lex agraria, Law 2,1. 1, etc. I. 50 reciperatorio iudicio: see on Ch. CXXV, 1. 27.. interregem: it was observed by Fabricius, in Gradenwitz (1916), 49-52, that there is towards the end of Ch. CXXVm, not a space, but a deletion, between the Ilvir and the prefect. But the proper inference has not been drawn. It follows from the existence of the deletion that the text from which the engraver of our text worked included the interrex in the lists of magistrates in Chs. CXXV-CXXX1I; that the engraver was instructed to omit the term as no longer relevant; that he forgot twice; and that he corrected his mistake once. It is reasonable to go on to infer that the chapters in question formed part of the original redaction, dating to the foundation of the colony, and that the interrex figured in that redaction. This view is reinforced by two other considerations: it is in the highest degree unlikely that a transfer of the interrex from Roman to colonial practice occurred anywhere after the Caesarian age (Crawford, 'Rome and Italy after the Social War' (forthcoming)); and the date of the only interrex known from Spain is early Imperial, see J. Gonzalez, Actas I Cong.And.Est.Clds. (Jaen, 1982), 223-7, 'Interrex y occisus est ab latronibus' = AE 1982, 511 = id., ZPE 55, 1984, 55-100, Tabula Sinensis', at 85, no. 1 = id., in id. and J. Arce (edd.), Estudios sobre la Tabula Siarensis (Madrid, 1988), 91-126, 'Epigraffa del yacimiento de La Canada', at 96, no. 6, a 'Ilvir, interrex' at Siarum. Ch. CXXXI (Tablet e, Col. IE) II. 2, 10 See on Ch. CXXX, 11. 41-2, 48. 11. 3-4 The phrases hospitium and tessera hospitalis presumably indicate the formality of the status of hospes. 1. 5 The implication is that the votes of half of all decurions are necessary; for the ballot, see on Ch. XCVH, 11. 18-19. 1. 6 I. 12

in Italiam: see on Ch. CXXX, 1. 45. recuperatorio iudicio: see on Ch. CXXV, 1. 27.

Ch. CXXXH 1.14 post h(anc) l(egem) datam: see the Introduction. kandidatus: see Nicolet, Citoyen, 401-18, 'Clienteles et brigue electorate' = Citizen, 297-310, 'Clients and electioneering'; and compare 11. 17, 22. For bribery at Rome, ambitus, see A.W. Lintott, JRS 80, 1990, 1-16, 'Electoral bribery in the Roman Republic' (erratic on the distinction between ambitus and ambitio); also, with caution, L. Fascione, Labeo 34, 1988, 179-88, 'Le norme "de ambitu" della Lex Ursonensis'. II. 18, 19 (ne) conuiuia facito: the chapter first prohibits indiscriminate hospitality, the prandia uulgo data of the SC of 64 BC (Cicero, Mur. 67, cf. 73), compare 1. 27; it then lays down rules for ad cenam uocare, conuiuium habere, phrases which should be taken as two ways of expressing the same concept: they reappear in strict parallelism in 11. 20-1,23-4,27-8. 11. 18, 21 quemue: pleonastic, but to be kept, Lofstedt, Syntactica II, 230 n. 2. 1. 21 For -dum, compare nedum: G.M. Richardson, De 'dum' particulae usu (Leipzig, 1886).

ROMAN STATUTES

454

I. 23 homines nouem: the number that fitted round a normal Roman dinner table. II. 24-6 Our text reproduces a clause of a general rogatio where the author has forgotten after it had become a lex to convert subjunctives into imperatives: see the General Introduction, Ch. IX. The obvious possibility is the Lex Tullia, Law 53, since there is no evidence that the Lex Pompeia of 52 BC dealt with anything but procedure. 1. 32

reciperatorio iudicio: see on Ch. CXXV, 1. 27.

Ch. CXXXIII I. 35 One might expect sunt erunt. II. 35-6 The rule that people are bound by the law of the community to which they belong is presumably enunciated here with respect to wives because many of them were of non-Roman origin, though they must have acquired citizenship or conubium to be described as uxores, contra Mommsen; the phraseology is reminiscent of Asconius on the Lex Licinia Mucia of 95 BC, 68 C = 54 St: necessaria lex uisa est, ut in suae quisque ciuitatis ius redigeretur. Ch. CXXXTV 1.41

One might expect post hanc legem datam.

11. 45-7 The next tablet may well have contained an exception to accommodate Chs. LXX-LXXI. 1. 47 For the political context, see E. Gabba, RSI 98, 1986, 653-63 = Italia romana (Como, 1994), 123-32, 'Le citta italiche del sec. I a.C. e la politica', at 661; also Mommsen, 228. (EG,) MHC

26 - ROME FRAGMENT B BIBLIOGRAPHY 2

CILI (1863), 627; CIL I (1918), 604; CIL I 2 (1986), p. 917; M. Buonocore, Le iscrizioni latine e greche (Città del Vaticano, 1987), 5. Facsimile: Ritschl, IV, Aa. Photograph: Buonocore, fig. 9. Fragment of a bronze tablet, 0.23 m high x 0.17 m wide, 0.007 m thick, letters 0.01 m, broken on all sides, found in Rome, now in the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Inv. 5409. The Rome Fragment A on the other side, Law 20, is laid out on the same alignment as this text. INTRODUCTION Our text is identified as a statute by the future imperative of Col. 1,1. 11; but nothing can be recovered with certainty of its content, except for the reference to usufruct. If the only known Lex Hirtia, the measure mentioned by Cicero, Phil. XIII, 32, dealt with property, our text may also refer to it: 'neminem Pompeianum qui uiuat teneri lege Hirtia dictitatis'. quis, quaeso, iam legis Hirtiae mentionem facit? cuius non minus arbitror latorem ipsum quam eos de quibus lata est paenitere. omnino mea quidem sententia legem illam appellare fas non est; et, ut sit lex, non debemus illam Hirti legem putare. But one possible restoration of Col. 1,1. 3, suggests an agrarian context. There is no evidence that A. Hirtius was ever tribune (see Broughton, Magistrates E, 285 n. 3) and no reason to associate him with the complex of measures voted in favour of Caesar in 48 BC (Dio XLII, 20-1). It is in any case more likely that any legislative activity of A. Hirtius belongs in the year of his praetorship, 46 BC, than in that of his consulship, 43 BC, whether he proposed one measure or two. Our text may have cited a rogatio Hirtia with some qualifying phrase such as si populus plebesue earn iusserit or more probably as a source of law in its own right: see the Lex Valeria Aurelia, Law 37, Todi Fragment; the Lex de imperio Vespasiani, Law 39,11. 25 and 34-6; and the General Introduction, Ch. VII. Very speculatively: [quodque quern ex] rog(atione) Hirtia [— exue lege —, q]uae lex, siue [plebei scitum est, — rogata est, facere oportebi]t, ea lex eaue [rogatio — te]neto ...

455

ROMAN STATUTES

456

If our text is close in time to and consequential on a rogatio Hirtia of 46 BC, the C. Caesar of Col. II, 1. 8, at the beginning of a clause, is Caesar not Octavianus (contrast the Venafro Fragment, Law 27). TEXT (Col. I)

4

8

12

[~]ei [— ]eis [—si]gnetur [—]quae [— utatur ]fruatur [— us]us fructusue [—]r aduersus [— ]rog(???) Hirtia [— q]uae lex, siue [plebei scitum est, —]+ ea lex eaue [—]neto seiue [— ]aduersusue [— ]fecerit [— ]referat [-]re[..]

(Col. H) qua[—] sub[—] non[—] 4 habeb[—] neue h[—] inque[ —] renu[—] quae C. Ca[esar —] ded[—] u[~] APPARATUS CRITICUS (Col. I) 3 [DESI]GNETVR, CIL\ it is very doubtful if there is any trace of an initial i, contra Buonocore 5 Initial upright hasta not in CIL or Buonocore 8 [—] ROG(ATIO) HIRTIA, CIL, Buonocore: the ablative is at least as likely; the second i is not long, contra CIL 9 Initial v not in CIL or Buonocore 10 Initial letter c, s or T, not in CIL or Buonocore 11 [— cA] VETO, CIL, Buonocore

26 - ROME FRAGMENT B

457

12 [— A]DVERSVSVE, CIL, Buonocore

15 [—]o+[—], CIL, Buonocore (Col. H) 4 HABER[—], CIL, Buonocore

6 IN QVE[—], CIL, Buonocore 7 RENV[NTIAT — ] , CIL, Buonocore

9 DEP[—], CIL, Buonocore COMMENTARY Col. I I. 3 Given the financial content of 11. 5-6, [desi\gnetur is not likely: perhaps [obsi]gnetur, compare the Lex repetundarum, Law 1,1. 67; or [subsi\gnetur, compare the Lex agraria, Law 2,1. 28; or [adsi]gnetur. II. 5-6 Compare the Lex agraria, Law 2,1. 11.

Coin 1. 7 If a part of renuntiare is to be restored, with CIL, the context is presumably electoral; a Lex Hirtia, whether that mentioned by Cicero or another, may have dealt with eligibility for office. But note the possibility of renumerare, as in CIL XIV, 2795 = ILS 272 (Gabii): ut... turn omnis summa ... renumeraretur. MHC

27 - VENAFRO FRAGMENT BIBLIOGRAPHY NSc 1892, 118, whence CIL I 2 (1918), 606. Photograph: PL V, 2. Bronze fragment, 0.09 m high x 0.075 m wide, 0.006 m thick, letters 0.006-0.009 m, found at San Pietro in Fine, near Venafro, now in the Museo Nazionale di Napoli, Inv. 120621. INTRODUCTION This fragment, lavishly inscribed and to be dated by its letter forms to the very end of the Republic, with its reference to C. Caesar, presumably Octavianus, and to the penalty of interdiction, may most plausibly be identified with the Lex Pedia dealing with the assassins of Caesar, for which see Broughton, Magistrates II, 337, adding Plutarch, Brut. 27, 4-5. TEXT

4

8

[— cuius] opera re v[ ipsa is condemnatus erit —] [— C. Cae]sar imper(ator) [—] [—]+ uendidit [—] [—]m restitu[tus —] [— aqu]a igni te[cto interdictus —] [—] quem[ —] [—]rum[—] [-]ouH APPARATUS CRTTICUS

1 Of the second letter only an upright hasta is visible; but the absence of a space before and the presence of a very long space after makes it clear that it can only be a p; the interpuncts between OPERA and RE and after RE are clear; [—]OIERARE[—], NSc 2 The interpunct at the end is clear 3 The initial letter is A or M: [— PRAEDI] A or [— AGRV]M, presumably

5 The initial letter is A or M, not read in NSc, in the context clearly A

459

460

ROMAN STATUTES

COMMENTARY I. 1 Compare the Lex repetundarum, Law 1, 11. 76-9 = 83-6; and Cicero, Balb. 53, cognoscite nunc populi Romani iudicium multis rebus interpositum atque in maximis causis re ipsa atque usu comprobatum, dealing with rewards to prosecutors and presumably reflecting the language of a clause in a statute. Given the content of 11. 3-4, one should resist the restoration which might be suggested by Livy, Per. 120, C. Caesar cos. legem tulit de quaestione habenda in eos quorum opera Caesar pater occisus esset. II. 3-4 The reference to a sale suggests that we have here a section dealing with financial rewards from the property of anyone who has been punished; for such a clause in the Lex Pedia, see Dio XLVI, 49, 3. Here, 1. 4 will exclude the property of anyone who has been [in integru]m restitu[tus], compare the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24,11. 117-18. 1. 5 We presumably have here the category of persons whose property has been seized; compare Cicero, dom. 78, idautem ... tecti et aquae et ignis interdictione faciebant, Phil. I, 23. For such a clause in the Lex Pedia, see Velleius II, 69, 5, ... et lege Pedia ... omnibus qui Caesarem patrem interfecerant aqua iqnique damnatis interdictum erat\ Dio XLVI, 48, 4. MHC

28 - LEX DE GALLIA CISALPINA BIBLIOGRAPHY Main tablet: (E. Nasalli Rocca, in Studi B. Biondi m (Milan, 1965), 125-40, 'Il Conte Canonico Antonio Costa e la prima inedita illustrazione della "lex de Gallia Cisalpina"';) G.R. Carli, Delle antichità italiche I (1st ed., Milan, 1788), 137-48; (2nd ed., Milan, 1793), 128-37; G. Hugo, Civilistisches Magazin 2, 1797, 431-96, 'Neuaufgefundene Processordnung für das Cisalpische Gallien'; H.E. Dirksen, Observationes ad selecta legis Galliae Cisalpinae capita (Berlin, 1812); P. de Lama (with L. Bolla and G. Comaschi), Tavola legislativa della Gallia Cisalpina ritrovata in Veleja nell'anno MDCCLX e restituita alla vera sua lezione (Parma, 1820); Ph.E. Huschke, Gaius (Leipzig, 1855), 203-42; Th. Mommsen, Jahrbücher des gemeinen Rechts 2, 1858 319-34 = GS I, 162-74, 'Ueber den Inhalt des rubrischen Gesetzes'; CIL I 1 (1863), 205; F. Ritschl, Kleine philologische Schriften IV (Leipzig, 1878), 34-81; Th. Mommsen, Hermes 16, 1881, 24-41 = GS I, 175-91, 'Ein zweites Bruchstück des rubrischen Gesetzes vom Jahre 705 Roms'; CIL XI (1888), 1146; Th. Mommsen, WS 24, 1902, 2 (Bormannheft), 238-9 = GS I, 192-3, 'Zu CLL. XI, 1146'; M. Besnier, Revue Epigraphique 2, 1914, 309-11, 'Une nouvelle théorie sur la date de la soi-disant Lex Rubria de Gallia Cisalpina' (a résumé of the theories of J.M. Nap); O. Gradenwitz, Versuch einer Decomposition des Rubrischen Fragments (Sb.Heidelberg.Akad.Wiss., phil.-hist.KL, 1915). CIL I 2 (1918), 592; O. Gradenwitz, ZSS 43, 1922, 439-55, 'Nochmals: Die römischen Stadtrechte', at 448; CIL I 2 (1931), p. 724; M. Wlassak, Konfessio in Jure und Defensionsweigerung nach der Lex Rubria de Gallia Cisalpina (Sb.Bayer.Akad.Wiss., phil.-hist.Abt., Heft 8, 1934); E. Betti, SDHI 1, 1935, 430-4 (review of Wlassak); R. Düll, ZSS 55, 1935, 376-80 (review of Wlassak); CIL I 2 (1943), p. 833; M.W. Frederiksen, JRS 54, 1964, 129-34, 'The Lex Rubria: reconsiderations'; id., JRS 55, 1965, 183-98, 'The Republican municipal laws: errors and drafts'; F.J. Bruna, Lex Rubria. Caesars Regelung für die richterlichen Kompetenzen der Munizipalmagistrate in Gallia Cisalpina (Studia Gaiana 5, Leiden, 1972); W. Simshäuser, ZSS 93, 1976, 380-403 (review of Bruna); U. Laffì, Ath 74 (n.s. 64), 1986, 5-44, 'La Lex Rubria de Gallia Cisalpina' (pp. 40-44 = Studi in onore di Edda Bresciani (Pisa, 1985), 271-7); Y. Thomas, in L'aveu. Antiquité et Moyen-àge (Rome, 1986), 89-117, 'Confessus pro iudicato. L'aveu civil et l'aveu penai à Rome'; CIL I 2 (1986), p. 916. Subsidiary fragment: CIL XI (1888), 1144; CIL I 2 (1918), 601; CIL I 2 (1986), p. 917. Facsimiles (main tablet): Legis Rubriae pars superstes, adfidem aeris Parmensis exemplo lithographico exprimendam curavit F. Ritschelius (Berlin, 1851); Ritschl, XXXH =

461

462

ROMAN STATUTES

Tafeln zu F. RitschVs epigraphisch-grammatischen Abhandlungen (Opuscula Philologica, Band IV) (Leipzig, 1878), Ι-Π. Photographs (main tablet): Imagines, 389; Bruna; G. Negri, in Storia di Piacenza I, 1 (Cassa di Risparmio di Piacenza e Vigevano, 1990), 301-3; (subsidiary fragment) PL VI, 1. Translation into German (main tablet): Bruna. Translations into English (main tablet): Hardy, 125-33; ARS, 86-9. Bronze tablet, 0.54 m high χ 0.72 m wide, letters 0.007-0.008 m (Col. I and Col. Π, 11. 38-58), 0.005-0.006 m (Col. Π, 11. 1-37), found at Veleia in 1760, now in the Museo Nazionale di Parma. The text is laid out in two columns. The figure ΠΠ is engraved at the top between the two columns to indicate that this is the fourth tablet. The tablet is engraved in two hands, the first being responsible for Col. I and Col. Π, 11. 38-58, the second for Col. Π, 11. 1-37 (so also, independently, G. Brunazzi, Arch.stor.prov.Parm. 42, 1990 (1991), 451-62); the second engraver is much more skilled and stylish, cutting deeply and confidently, with a tendency to curve the left-hand hastae of A and V and to give a long and ornate tail to Q. In contrast to every other Republican statute engraved at the time of its passage or adoption, the chapters are numbered, below the outspaced first line of each chapter. There are eleven ancient nail-holes, of which nine seem to belong to the first time the tablet was fixed to a wall; two seem to have been added when it was moved or taken down and then replaced. Fragment of a bronze tablet, broken all round, 0.05 m high χ 0.07 m wide, letters 0.005-0.006 m, found at Veleia, now in the Museo Nazionale di Parma. The fragment does not certainly form part of the same text as that on the main tablet; but both form of letters and style of cutting are remarkably similar to those of Col. Π, 11. 1-37. INTRODUCTION The main tablet contains the end of a chapter on opens noui nuntìarìo; chapters on damnum infectum, pecunia certa eredita, and other loans; and the beginning of a chapter defamilia erciscunda diuidunda. Since the last four chapters all begin with a phrase that limits their application to Cisalpine Gaul, our text has always been taken as part of a statute which laid down some of the rules of the Roman civil law for that region and, at least in Chs. ΧΧΙ-ΧΧΠ, related their application systematically to jurisdiction at Rome. The statute is perhaps to be dated after the suppression of the province of Gallia Cisalpina, agreed by Antony and Octavian after the second battle of Philippi in the autumn of 42 BC (Appian, BC V, 12, την τε γαρ Κελτικην την εντός των Άλπεων έδόκει Καίσαρος άξιούντος αύτόνομον άφιέναι γνώμη του προτέρου Καίσαρος; Laffi, 10-22: that part of his argument, which depends on holding that this text and the Este Fragment, Law 16, form part of the same statute, is not cogent, since the relationship of the rules of the Este Fragment to jurisdiction at Rome is quite different from that documented here.) Gradenwitz argued that our text was neither coherent nor correct as it stood, but was the result of a contamination of two texts involving the transfer of the rules of one text to the situation of the other and vice versa. The argument was refuted by Wlassak: see Laffi, 8-9.

28 - LEX DE GALLIA CISALPINA

463

In cases of damnum infectum in Ch. XX, the text prescribes two formulae, if there is a failure to make a promise or give security, respectively, according to a decree which a local magistrate has issued ex lege Rubria seiue idpl.sc. est (Col. 1,11. 29 and 38). It has usually been supposed that the Lex Rubria is the name of the statute represented by our text; and hence that the formulae, intelligibly enough, cite the authority which a different chapter of the statute, not surviving, conferred on a local magistrate to issue decrees. Mommsen, however, became increasingly convinced (1902), that statutes which laid down rules for a particular region or place were leges datae, which he held to be incompatible with passage through an assembly. And he observed perfectly correctly (not refuted by Laffi, 9-10), that the presence of the phrase ex h.l n.r. in our text is not proof that it was passed through an assembly, since the phrase also occurs in the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, which it is impossible to regard as passed through an assembly; one may now add that it occurs also in the Lex Flavia (for an explanation, see the General Introduction, Ch. II). Nonetheless, we do not think that our text looks at all like the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae and think that it is a lex rogata. But just as there is no reason for not identifying this text with the Lex Rubria, so there is also no positive reason in favour of doing so. If this text is the Lex Rubria, it dealt elsewhere with the powers of local magistrates; otherwise, these will have formed part of another statute. A necessary preliminary to any interpretation of Chs. XXI-XXII is a correct understanding of their grammatical structure; unfortunately, however, this cannot be altogether separated from the process of interpretation, in particular because it is clear on any showing that the text as we have it contains errors of engraving. Our understanding of Chs. XXI and XXH is expressed in our arrangement of the translation. In relation to Chs. XXI-XXQ, we anticipate what we say in the Commentary. In the case of pecunia certa credita, below a fixed limit, Ch. XXI, a confessus who does not pay up and an indefensus are both treated as equal to a damnatus and are subject to ductio. In the case of actions, other than for pecunia certa credita, below a fixed limit, Ch. XXII, a confessus who does not give security and an indefensus are treated as if everything had happened at Rome: only the praetor or his replacement can order execution. The essential difference between the two chapters is discussed by Thomas, 92-3, with earlier bibliography: confessio in iure is not admission of guilt, but admission of obligation. Since a judgment necessarily involves a fixed sum of money, only a confessus or indefensus in respect of a fixed sum of money can be treated as a damnatus. In other cases, the defendant may well admit liability to a sum alleged by the claimant; but the rules of procedure cannot assume that he will; and an estimation of the sum of money due may still be necessary. It follows that the magistrate may still have to instruct the judge and the judge may still have to fix the sum, the act to which his function is reduced by the confessio. Since in Ch. XXH there may be missio in bona, jurisdiction at this point depends on Rome. Under Ch. XXH, furthermore, the claimant may indicate that the sum involved is less than 15,000 sestertii; but the authority of the praetor is necessary, since the sum involved may be more than 10,000 sestertii: see Thomas, 92 n. 14. Since ductio is a much less severe sanction than missio in bona, it may be used by local magistrates. Note that pecunia certa credita may have covered large areas of the business of small communities and the statute may have been less restrictive of local powers than appears at first sight. For the two chapters, see also in general Gaius IV, 48-52. (Contra M. Wlassak, RE m, 2 (1899), 1995-2000, 'Cessio bonorum', at 1995-6, one would not expect to find any mention of cessio bonorum in this text: if the institution or

464

ROMAN STATUTES

something like it existed at this date - as it may have done: see on the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24, 11. 113-17 - the reference to Rome in Ch. XXII would have been sufficient to bring it into play.) Col. II, 11. 24 and 28, allude to rules elsewhere in the statute on the limits of local jurisdiction and the circumstances in which they could be exceeded. It has usually been held, before and after Frederiksen (1964), that local magistrates could not order missio in bona, and we have followed the traditional view. The arguments for it in Laffi, 29-31, inevitably depend in large measure on the view that the procedure for damnum infectum in Rome in this period was the same as in the second-third centuries AD. TEXT Main tablet, Col. I: iussum iudicatumue erit, id ratum ne esto; quodque quisque quomq(ue) d(e) e(a) r(e) decernet interd(e)icetue seiue sponsionem fierei iudica(rei)ue iubebit iudiciumue quod d(e) e(a) r(e) dabit, is 4 in id decretum interdictum sponsionem iudicium exceptionem addito addiue iubeto: 'q(ua) d(e) r(e) operis noui nuntiationem Iluir miuir praefectusue eius municipei non remeisserit'. vacat XX qua de re quisque et a quo in Gallia Cisalpeina damnei infectei 8 ex formula restipularei satisue accipere uolet, et ab eo quei ibei i(us) d(eicet) postulauerit, idque non k(alumniae) k(aussa) se facere iurauerit, turn is, quo d(e) e(a) r(e) in ius aditum erit, eum, quei in ius eductus erit, d(e) e(a) r(e) ex formu­ la repromittere et, sei satis darei debebit, satis dare iubeto de12 cernito. quei eorum ita non repromeisserit aut non satis dederit, sei quid interim damni datum factumue ex ea re aut ob e(am) r(em) eoue nomine erit, quam ob rem, utei damnei infectei repromissio satisue datio fiere(t), postulatum erit, turn mag(istratus) proue mag(istratu) Iluir 16 miuir praefec(tus)ue, quoquomque d(e) e(a) r(e) in ius aditum erit, d(e) e(a) r(e) ita ius deicito iudicia dato iudicareque iubeto cogito, proinde atque sei d(e) e(a) r(e), quom ita postulatum esset, damn[ei] infectei ex formula recte repromissum satisue datum esset. d(e) [e(a) r(e)] quod ita iudicium 20 datum iudicareue iussum iudicatumue erit, ius ratumque esto, dum in ea uerba, sei damnei infectei repromissum non erit, iudi­ cium det itaque iudicare iubeat: 'i(udex) e(sto). s(ei), ant(e)quam id iudicium q(ua) d(e) r(e) a(gitur) factum est, Q. Licinius damni infectei eo nomine, q(ua) d(e) 24 r(e) a(gitur), earn stipulationem quam is quei Romae inter peregreinos ius deicet in albo propositam habet, L. Seio reipromeississet: turn quicquid eum Q. Licinium ex ea stipulatione L. Seio d(are) f(acere) oport(e)ret ex f(ide) b(ona) d(um)t(axat) (sestertium) vvv , e(ius) i(udex) Q. Licinium L. Seio, sei ex decreto Iluir(ei) 28 niluir(ei) praefec(tei)ue Mutinensis, quod eius (is) Iluir miuir praefec(tus)ue ex lege Rubria, seiue id pl(ebei){ue} sc(itum) est, decreuerit, Q. Licinius eo

28 - LEX DE GALLIA CISALPINA

465

nomine qua d(e) r(e) a(gitur) L. Seio damnei infectei repromittere noluit, c(ondemnato); s(ei) n(on) p(arret), a(bsoluito)'; aut sei damnei infectei satis datum non erit, 32 in ea uerba iudicium det: 'i(udex) e(sto). s(ei), antequam id iudicium q(ua) d(e) r(e) a(gitur) (f)actum est, Q. Licinius damnei inf(e)ctei eo nomine, q(ua) d(e) r(e) a(gitur), ea stipulatione quam is quei Romae inter peregrinos ius deicet in albo propositam habet, L. Seio satis dedisset: turn q(uic)q(uid) eum 36 Q. Licinium ex ea stipulatione L. Seio d(are) f(acere) oporteret ex f(ide) b(ona) d(um)t(axat) ((sestertium) v a c ), e(ius) i(udex) Q. Liciniu(m) L. Seio, sei ex decreto Iluir(ei) miuir(ei) praef(ectei)ue Mutinensis, quod eius is Iluir Dlluir praefect(us) ex lege Rubria, seiue id pl(ebei){ue} sc(itum) est, decreuerit, Q. Licinius eo nomine q(ua) d(e) r(e) a(gitur) 40 L. Seio damnei infectei satis dare noluit, c(ondemnato); s(ei) n(on) p(arret), a(bsoluito)'; dum Iluir miuir i(ure) d(eicundo) praefec(tus)ue d(e) e(a) r(e) ius ita deicat curetue, utei ea nomina et municipium colonia locus in eo iudicio, quod ex ieis quae proxsume s(cripta) s(unt) accipie{n}tur, includ(a)ntur concipiantur, 44 quae includei concipei s(ine) d(olo) m(alo) oporteret debe(re)tue, ne quid ei quei d(e) e(a) r(e) aget petetue captionei ob e(am) r(em) aut eo nomine esse possit; neiue ea nomina, qua(e) in earum qua formula quae s(upra) s(cripta) (est) s(unt), aut Mutina(m) in eo iudicio includei concipei curet, nise(i) 48 iei, quos inter id iudicium accipietur leisue contestabitur, ieis nominibus fuerint, quae in earum qua formula (quae) s(upra) s(cripta) est