Roman Statutes, Volume II 0900587695, 0900587687, 9780900587696

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 II

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 n 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 List or riates List of Figures Leges and rogationes attested in literary sources Xn Tabulae 40 Lex Aquilia 41 42 Lex Sulpicia Leges de aquis 43 44 Lex Plaetoria Lex Papiria 45 Lex Silia 46 Lex Cincia 47 Lex Atinia 48 49 Lex Cornelia de proscriptione Lex Cornelia de sicariis et ueneficiis 50 Lex Fabia de plagio 51 Rogatio Seruilia agraria 52 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 Rogatio VIII tribunorum 57 Lex lulia de sacerdotiis 58 Lex Falcidia 59 Lex lulia de adulteriis 60 Lex lulia iudiciorum priuatorum 61 62 Lex lulia de ui 63 Lex Quinctia 64 Lex lulia de ordinibus maritandis; 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

Vll

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 I, 1

Lex repetundanim: join between the B and D fragments

I, 2

Clusium Fragments: Bassetti drawing

II

Florence Fragment A

III

Florence Fragment B

IV, 1

Lex Osca Tabulae Bantinae: Rosini Fragment

IV, 2

Falerio Fragment II

V, 1

Guardia Vomano Fragment

V, 2

Venafro Fragment

VI, 1

Veleia Fragment I

VI, 2

Veleia Fragment III

VII

Veleia Fragment II

VIE

Susa Fragments

IX, 1

Fiesole Fragment

IX, 2

Uffizi Fragment

X

Riccardi Fragment

XI, 1 - XH, 1 Lex Fonteia XQ, 2

Lex for Drusus Caesar: Rome Fragment (d)

XIII, 1

Lex for Drusus Caesar: Rome Fragment (f)

XIII, 2

Lex for Drusus Caesar: Tabula Hicitana

LIST OF FIGURES I II HI, 1 III, 2 IV, 1 IV, 2 V, 1 V, 2 VI VII VIII IX, 1 IX, 2 X XI XII Xm XIV

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

Thefiguresfor this edition have been drawn by David Williams MAAIS

40 - TWELVE TABLES BIBLIOGRAPHY A. Turnebus, Adversariorum libri triginta (Paris, 1580); J. Cujas, Observationum et emendationum Libri XXVIII (Cologne, 1598); H. Dirksen, Versuche zur Kritik und Auslegung der Quellen des römischen Rechts (Leipzig, 1823), 234-358, 'Uebersicht der bisherigen Versuche zur Kritik und Herstellung des Textes der Ueberbleibsel von den Gesetzen der römischen Könige'; H. Dirksen, Uebersicht der bisherigen Versuche zur Kritik und Herstellung des Textes der Zwölf-Tafel-Fragmente (Leipzig, 1824); R. Schoell, Legis Duodecim Tabularum Reliquiae (Leipzig, 1866); J. Wordsworth, Fragments and Specimens of Early Latin (Oxford, 1874); M. Voigt, Die XII Tafeln. Geschichte und System I—II (Leipzig, 1883); G. Goetz, Ad legem XII tabularum adnotationes glossematicae, in Index scholarum aestivarum ... in Universitate Litterarum Ienensi ... A. MDCCCLXXXIX habendarum (Jena, 1889); F.P. Bremer, Iurisprudentiae Antehadrianae quae supersunt I—II (Leipzig, 1896-1901); CG. Bruns, Fontes Iuris Romani Antiqui1 (Tübingen, 1909), pp. 15-44. A. Berger, in RE IVA, 1 (1932), 1900-49, Tabulae duodecim'; A. Berger, in Studi S. Riccobono I (Palermo, 1936), 585-640, 'Vi sono nei Digesti citazioni interpolate delle Dodici Tavole?'; E.H. Warmington, Remains of Old Latin III (Loeb Classical Library, 1938), pp. 424-515; S. Riccobono, Fontes Iuris Romani Antejustiniani I (Florence, 1941), pp. 21-75; D. Daube, Cambridge Law Journal 1, 1939,23-54= Collected Studies in Roman Law (Frankfurt am Main, 1991), 71-102, 'Nocere and noxa'\ D. Daube, in Studi S. Solazzi (Naples, 1948), 93-156 = Collected Studies, 279-340, 'On the use of the term damnum'; P. Noailles, Fas et ius (Paris, 1948); M. Käser, Das altrömische Ius (Göttingen, 1949); M. Käser, Eigentum und Besitz im älteren römischen Recht (Weimar, 1943; 2nd ed., Cologne & Graz, 1956); F. Wieacker, RIDA, 3e serie, 3, 1956, 459-91, 'Zwölftafelprobleme'. H. Levy-Bruhl, Recherches sur les actions de la loi (Paris, 1960); Th. Mayer-Maly, ZSS 77, 1960, 16-51, 'Studien zur Frühgeschichte der Usucapio. I'; ZSS 78, 1961, 221-76, 'Studien zur Frühgeschichte der Usucapio. II'; D. Daube, Jewish Journal of Sociology 3, 1, 1961, 3-28, 'Texts and interpretations in Roman and Jewish law'; K.F. Thormann, Der doppelte Ursprung der Mancipatio (corr.ed., Munich, 1969); O. Behrends, Der Zwölftafelprozess (Göttingen, 1974); A. Watson, Rome of the XII Tables (Princeton, 1975); L.D. Reynolds (ed.), Texts and Transmission (Oxford, 1983); A. Völkl, Die Verfolgung der Körperverletzung im frühen römischen Recht (Vienna etc., 1984); F. Wieacker, Römische Rechtsgeschichte (Munich, 1988); O. Diliberto, Materiali per la palingenesi delle XII Tavole I (Cagliari, 1992); F. D'Ippolito, Questioni decemvirali (Naples, 1993).

555

556

ROMAN STATUTES INTRODUCTION nam longa aetas uerba atque mores ueteres oblitterauit, quibus uerbis moribusque sententia legum comprehensa est (Gellius XX, 1, 6) antiqua uerba quae maxime adfectabo? quae non adeo sunt abolita, ut sunt in xii tabulis et saliari carmine (Fortunatianus, Ars Rhet. III, 6 = 124 Helm) 1 - Establishing the text

Two long processes of transmission lie between the Twelve Tables and ourselves: from the text promulgated in 451 and 450 BC to our sources (see Voigt I, 74-81, not always aware, however, of the problems posed by the textual tradition); and from those sources to our manuscript witnesses. In consequence, we attach the highest importance to beginning our analysis of each clause with a discussion of the sources: to presenting them in their context; to indicating, where necessary by the use of obeli, where their witness is so corrupt as to require discussion here; to revealing the difficulties in establishing exactly what they said. We take for granted any part of a text which may be regarded as representing the modern critical vulgate, though we have sometimes silently adapted the punctuation. We have also sometimes silently adapted the orthography where the word in question does not form part of the Twelve Tables. And we have adopted a uniform convention of quotation marks to represent citations of the Twelve Tables, whatever the conventions in the editions we have used. For reasons of space, we do not translate the testimonia, except where a particular translation is crucial to our argument. The testimonia are printed as far as possible in chronological order; but a source that gives an overview is printed first where this seems helpful; and two texts closely associated in content are printed together even when this breaks the chronological order. We would emphasise that our argument will not be intelligible unless the testimonia have first been read. We do not doubt that our sources on the whole record the clauses of the Twelve Tables, as they were known in the Middle and Late Republic. It is indeed striking that the language and content of what we have are echoed by the Lex Osca Tabulae Bantinae, Law 13, which probably preserves part of the charter of a Latin colony of about 300 BC. That fact is among those which encourage us to believe that a reconstruction of at any rate a large part of the Twelve Tables is a reasonable enterprise. The main reason for this belief, however, is the fact that our knowledge of the Twelve Tables derives from many different kinds of sources, which are not in serious conflict with each other. The variants are precisely those which one would expect in a dense written tradition. The fact that Pliny makes a mistake about the language of the Twelve Tables (Schoell, 11-12), should not be a matter for surprise. The fact that Gaius twice and the Tituli Ulpiani once attribute minor adjustments of the later law to the Twelve Tables (Schoell, 12-13), is not of major significance. (In the context of the Twelve Tables, note that in cases of discord it cannot be a question of counting the number of sources for one wording or another: the juristic sources are frequently tralatician and further citations do not add to the authority of the earliest.) It is naturally possible to hypothesise that whatever was promulgated in 451-450 BC was very different from what our sources represent as the Twelve Tables. But we do not see how an internally consistent argument could ever be mounted for this view, let alone for a view such as that of J.M. Nap, Die römische Republik um das J.225 v.Chr. (Leiden, 1925), who persuaded himself that the Twelve Tables were invented in 225 BC.

40 - TWELVE TABLES

557

Similarly, the claim that any reconstruction of the Twelve Tables is of a 'carattere puramente congetturale' (A. Guarino, Index 19, 1991, 225-32, 'Una palingenesi delle XII Tavole?'), in our view seriously mis-states the position. A further preliminary point is worth making: the law of the Twelve Tables is recognisably the same law as that known to Ulpian. But it is important to be cautious about reading back into the Twelve Tables the later content of the law. In periods in which the documentation is good, it is clear that there was change and development; and a rule of the Twelve Tables is not necessarily to be interpreted in the light of the classical law. Finally, the early history of Rome is notoriously a field where there are as many theories as scholars; we have tried as far as possible to avoid adopting a particular view of early Roman society. Scholars have also adopted the most divergent views about the most basic aspects of the Twelve Tables: we have sought to give prominence to the comparative evidence provided by other early Latin texts. 2 - Presenting the text There is one important difference between our presentation of the Twelve Tables and that of the other statutes known from literary sources: for the former, testimonia are quoted, not just cited, even when they do not claim to report the ipsissima uerba of the statute. The original form of these is of course irrecoverable: the beginning of Tabula I may originally have looked something like seieniousuokateitod\ and in all our sources the process of rhotacism is complete, so that the language they record cannot be earlier than Ap. Claudius Caecus. In consequence, we have avoided trying to 'improve' the orthography of our sources. (See also below, '8 - The language of the collection'.) We have also sought to remain faithful to the principles championed, for instance, by F. Jacoby and L. Edelstein: we include only those provisions for which there is direct testimony that they formed part of the Twelve Tables. We reject therefore the approach of Voigt, who included provisions which are attested in the later law and which possibly go back to the Twelve Tables; and words and phrases with a legal flavour attested in our evidence for archaic Latin. On the other hand, we have come to the conclusion that it would be unsatisfactory, for instance, to be able to index the word noxia (noxa) in Tabula XII, 2, but not in the other cases where it certainly occurred. We have therefore not only used the conventions described in the General Introduction, Ch. XX, notably [...] and (...). We have also adopted the expedient of offering a text between < « . . . » > where we believe that a text can be reconstructed with reasonable plausibility, but no source claims to report it. We hope the unwary will not be misled. Where we believe that a clause which has in the past been supposed to exist does not in fact do so, we have placed the heading between square brackets, thus: [Tabula XII, 5]. Our commentary has the strictly limited aim of indicating difficulties in the interpretation of the Twelve Tables and major areas of controversy; and of giving essential bibliography. For ease of reference, we also print immediately after this Introduction, in the order which we adopt, a bare text, where the conventions used to indicate areas of uncertainty are again those mentioned above; and a facing translation. Where our order diverges, we also indicate the traditional numbering.

558

ROMAN STATUTES

3 - The ancient sources We here offer what is essentially a bibliography, with occasional resumes and comments. We take for granted the appropriate chapters in Texts and Transmission. Gaius: As we shall see, Gaius' commentary is critical to the problems posed by the reconstruction of the Twelve Tables; and Gaius' Institutes provide us with much of our information about their content. The citations from the former in the Digest pose no particular text-critical problems; and the Oxyrhynchus and Florence papyri of the latter have confirmed the essential reliability of the Verona palimpsest: see in general the prefaces of Huschke, Seckel and Kubier to the sequence of Teubner editions culminating in that of 1935, which we prefer to those of M. David. F. D'Ippolito {Index 20, 1992, 279-89 = Questioni, 158-63, 'II commento gaiano'; 163-8, 'Le tracce eliane') observes that Gaius offers definitions of words which cannot have stood in the Twelve Tables and suggests that he found them in the commentators, in particular Sex. Aelius Paetus, consul in 198 BC, and that his knowledge of the text of the Twelve Tables derives from Paetus. But Gaius commented also on uota pro salute principis and clearly cast his net very wide; it is just as likely that it is he who decided which words not in the Twelve Tables to include; and any claim about Paetus and the Twelve Tables, such as the claim that their order as we have it is due to him (A. Guarino, Index 19, 1991, 225-32, 'Una palingenesi delle XII Tavole?'), is inevitably hypothetical, given the meagreness of the evidence. For the argument that Lydus, de mag. I, 34, on the establishment of the Xviri, derives from Gaius' commentary on the Twelve Tables, see on [Tabula IX, 4]. See in general S. Morgese, in // modello di Gaio nella formazione del giurista (Milan, 1981), 109-27, 'Appunti su Gaio "ad legem XII Tabularum"'; J.-H. Michel, RIDA, 3e serie, 38, 1991, 175-217, 'Du neufsur Gaius?'. The Tituli Ulpianv. See in general T. Honore, Ulpian (Oxford, 1982), 106-7; F. Mercogliano, Index 18, 1990, 185-207, 'Una ipotesi sulla formazione dei "Tituli ex corpore Ulpiani"' (survey). Collatio legum Mosaicarum et Romanarum: See in general E. Volterra, MAL, ser. VI, 3, 1, 1930 = Scritti giuridici IV (Naples, 1993), 19-139, 'Collatio legum mosaicarum et Romanarum'; F. Schulz, in Symbolae J.C. van Oven (Leiden, 1946), 313-32, 'The manuscripts of the Collatio'; E.J.H. Schräge, in Melanges F. Wubbe (Fribourg, 1993), 401-17, 'La date de la "Collatio Legum Mosaicarum et Romanarum", etudiee d'apres les citations bibliques' (after AD 426). Valerius Probus: See in general P.F. Girard, in Aus römischem und bürgerlichem Recht, E.I. Bekker überreicht (Weimar, 1907), 21-56, 'Un document sur l'edit anterieure ä Julien'; Nouv.Rev.Historique de Droit 34, 1910, 479-520, 'Un second manuscrit ... de Probus (Paris latin 4841)'; E. Weiss, in Studi S. Riccobono I (Palermo, 1936), 33-8, 'Das Noten werk des Probus'. Aulus Gellius: See in general H.E. Dirksen, Abh.Akad.Wiss.Berlin, Phil.-hist.Kl., 1851, 29-77 = F.D. Sanio (ed.), H.E. Dirksen's hinterlassene Schriften I (Leipzig, 1871), 21-63, 'Die Auszüge aus den Schriften der römischen Rechts gel ehrten in den Noctes Atticae des A.

40 - TWELVE TABLES

559

Gellius'; F. Casavola, Giuristi adrianei (Naples, 1980); L. Holford-Strevens, Aulas Gellius (London, 1988); Diliberto, Materially 119-329. Festus: As is well known, the lexicon of Festus contains much material deriving from Varro and the Augustan lexicographer M. Verrius Flaccus; and is itself known from a resume made by Paul the Deacon in the eighth century and from one incomplete, and corrupt, MS, the Codex Farnesianus. For the sources of M. Verrius Flaccus, see L. Strzelecki, Eos 56, 1966, 108-14, 'De legum xii tabularum memoria apud Festum servata'. Note that the Lex Silia, Law 46, contains archaic constructions otherwise found only in our early epigraphic texts. It emerges from F. Bona, Opusculum Festinum (Privately printed, Pavia, 1982), that fragments of the Twelve Tables in Festus do not for the most part come from juristic sources. See in general H.E. Dirksen, Abh.Akad.Wiss.Berlin, Phil.-hist.Kl., 1852, 133-84 = F.D. Sanio (ed.), op.cit., 64-108, 'Die römisch-rechtliche Quellen der Grammatiker Verrius Flaccus und Festus Pompeius'. The Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum: See in general Goetz, Adnotationes. Cicero: See in general P.R. Coleman-Norton, CJ 46, 1950-1, 5 1 - 6 0 , 127-34, 'Cicero's contribution to the text of the Twelve Tables'. G. Crifb suggests that the material in the Topica derives from Trebatius: Studi C. Esposito II (Padua, 1972), 1103-24, "'Ex iure ducere exempla": Gaio Trebazio Testa ed i "Topica" di Cicerone': see on Tabula VI, 3.

4 - The nature of the collection Gellius, quoted under Tabula I, 1 and 2 - 3 , makes it clear: (1) that in the usage with which he was familiar each provision was known as a lex: compare Cicero, de re p. II, 54; de leg. n , 9 and 58-64; III, 44; etc. The usage of Festus, quoted under Tabula II, 2, in secunda tabula secunda lege, is consistent with this practice. (The evidence of Festus would be eliminated by the radical re-writing of the text proposed by Tumebus and accepted by Schoell, 67-8.) A similar approach to that of the Twelve Tables appears in the Lex Osca Tabulae Bantinae, Law 13: see the Introduction; (2) that key words of a provision were used informally as a title: compare Cicero, de leg. II, 9, quoted under Tabula I, 1 (the text is corrupt), and de or. I, 246. It follows: (1) that the whole is a collection of leges, organised in tabulae, leges duodecim tabularum; (2) that, as Mommsen observed {Melanges G. Boissier (Paris, 1903), 1-3 = GS II, 141-3), lex duodecim tabularum, to represent the whole, is an improper usage of the second century AD and after (the discussion in Schoell, 67-70, ignores the distinction). In the formulae recorded by Gaius II, 104 and III, 173-4, then, secundum legem publicam is in both cases to be taken as referring to the procedure per aes et libram; and it will mean 'according to the relevant public legal provision' (for 'a' or 'the lex publica', compare Cato, Origines IV, 15 Chassignet = 90 Peter, quoted under '5 - The leges regiae'; the inscriptions cited in the commentary on the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Ch. LXXIX; Valerius Probus, Eins. 34). (We do not believe that Gaius used lex

560

ROMAN STATUTES

publica to mean a public declaration by a private individual, despite the arguments of P. Stein, in Studi E. Volterra II (Milan, 1971), 313-19, 'The meaning of "lex publica'".) In Cicero, de or. I, 195, capita = 'origins', not 'chapters': bibliothecas mehercule omnium philosophorum unus mihi uidetur xii tabularum libellus, si quis legum fontis et capita uiderit, ... superare. This is not the place to engage in a lengthy discussion of the well-known stories of the 'codification' in our literary sources. In particular, their accounts of Tabulae XI-XII and the activity of the second college of Xviri do not inspire confidence: Cicero, quoted under Tabula XI, 1; Livy III, 34, 7 - 38, 1; Florus I, 17 (I, 24); de vir.ili 21, 1; Dion.Hal. X, 58-60; Diodorus XII, 24-6; Zonaras VII, 18; Lydus, de mag. I, 34; Dig. I, 2, 2, 4 and 24 (Pomponius). Cicero is manifestly wrong in suggesting that Tabulae XI-XII consisted entirely of iniquae leges; and Pomponius differs from the others in having only one college of Xviri legislating twice, Diodorus in attributing Tabulae XI-XII to the consuls of 449 BC. But it is important to observe that it is clear on internal grounds that Tabulae XI-XH form a series of supplements to Tabulae I-X as a whole. Nor need any historian feel obliged to accept the traditional account of the first college as legislating in response to plebeian and popular pressure. The Twelve Tables may as readily be the result of self-regulation by a patrician elite. Either way, much of the importance of the process will have lain in the fact that the provisions were now fixed. In any case, our sources provide us with no useful information on how the Twelve Tables were compiled. Common sense would suggest that the Xviri did not begin from scratch, but made use of material, oral or written, in the hands or minds of men who had long experience of jurisdiction. We should perhaps envisage the Twelve Tables as not dissimilar in approach to the Praetor's Edict, despite the obvious differences, with related material partially grouped in the process of combining provisions from different sources. There has been much argument on whether our sources are reliable in recording that Rome sent to Athens or elsewhere to collect material for the Twelve Tables; or that she made use of Hermodorus of Ephesus (the sources are collected by F. Boesch, De XII Tabularum Lege a Graecis Petita (Diss. Göttingen, 1893); add Prosper of Tyre, MGH, Auctores Ant., IX, p. 397). The careful discussion by Boesch offers an unacceptable argument from silence, namely that the story is a late invention, since it does not occur in L. Aelius Stilo. (P. Siewert, Chiron 8, 1978, 331-44, 'Die angebliche. Übernahme solonischer Gesetze in die Zwölftafeln', similarly argues from the silences of Cicero, but does not come to terms with the text of the Twelve Tables.) In contrast, Fr. Wieacker, in Studi E. Volterra III (Milan, 1971), 757-84, 'Solon und die XH Tafeln', has suggested a Greek origin, not so much for particular provisions, but rather for the idea of codification, the organisation of the different clauses and the overall social and economic approach, while remaining sceptical about any embassy from Rome to Athens and attributing influence to Roman participation in a Hellenised cultural koine. But such arguments are inevitably rather impressionistic. There are on the other hand some quite precise parallels between certain specific provisions of the Twelve Tables and some Athenian legislation (see Tabula III (?); Tabula VII, 2-5, 8 and 9; Tabula VIII, 13 (?) and 14-15; Tabula X; and '10 Candidates for inclusion', (2) and (3)). The parallels to Tabula IV, 4, and Tabula IX, 1, and to fixed and proportional fines, adduced by J. Delz, MH 23, 1966, 69-83, 'Der griechische Einfluss auf die Zwölftafelgesetzgebung', are less revealing; see also E. Pais, Ricerche sulla storia e sul diritto pubblico di Roma I (Rome, 1915), 144-79, though his argument is marred by his use of evidence of Greek influence to down-date the Twelve

40 - TWELVE TABLES

561

Tables. And we draw attention also to the linguistic material collected by Norden, Priesterbüchern, 254-8; and by Wieacker, 'Zwölftafelprobleme', 47Q-1 (though we do not believe that the quaestores parricidii figured in the Twelve Tables). On the other hand, the attempt of R. Yaron, in Daube Noster (Edinburgh and London, 1974), 343-57, 'Semitic influence in early Rome', to trace Semitic influence on the Twelve Tables, is unconvincing: common formulae in international treaties are neither here nor there in the present context; and the appearance in Rome of the term iudex meaning magistrate and of impero as transitive and intransitive verb is trivial. There has also been much discussion of what the Twelve Tables contained. On one issue, it will be clear from what has been said already that we find plausible the view, that they contained what was perceived as being needed at that particular moment, in the light of experience: 'Ancient codes give regulations only in those matters where the law is doubtful, or where a reform is at once needed and practicable' (Daube, 'Noxa\ 80; see also M. Kaser, in Studi G. Donatuti II (Milan, 1973, 523-46 = Ausgewählte Schriften I (Camerino, 1976), 179-205, 'Die Beziehung von "lex" und "ius" und die XII Tafeln'). Such regulations in our case may readily be a combination of ancient measures, which for some reason need re-stating, and innovations, whether indigetes or nouensides. But we would not wish to follow Behrends, Zwölflafelprozess, in identifying any particular element, such as a 'Neuregelung' of stipulatio as contract of loan, as the centrepiece of the activity of the Xviri. We also find the repeated assertions of Guarino, that the Twelve Tables contained only private law, not cogent. Obviously, little weight can be placed on Ausonius, Griphus (Opuscula XXVI, 2 Schenkl) 61-2: ius triplex, tabulae quod ter sanxere quaternae, sacrum, priuatum, populi commune quod usquam est. But anyone who wants to believe that the Twelve Tables contained no public law, in the sense of law which regulated the relationship of the individual to the community, will have to explain away not only Tabula VIII, 14-15, and Tabula IX, 1-2 and 6, but also the whole of Tabula X, perhaps the regulations relating to roads (Tabula VII, 6-7), and a reference to the census (see '9 - The unattributed fragments', (3)). It hardly seems worth the effort. And there is another point. The Lex Osca Tabulae Bantinae, Law 13, which we believe to represent part of the charter of a Latin colony of about 300 BC, is a mixture of private and public law, cheek by jowl. We regard it as a good guide to what was possible in Rome in the fifth century BC. As far as sacred law is concerned, we suggest below in discussing the leges regiae that certain provisions which were already in existence may have been incorporated in the Twelve Tables; a few others were also included. 5 - The leges regiae Any account of the Twelve Tables would be incomplete without an attempt to come to grips with the fact that some of its provisions are attributed by some sources to the Twelve Tables, by other sources to one or another lex regia. The so-called leges regiae in our manuals form a menagerie composed of very different kinds of animals. We describe briefly our view of them. (We ignore one corrupt reference to Numa: see on Tabula II, 2.) The 'legislation' of Tarquinius Priscus and Tarquinius Superbus need not detain us. Nor do we propose to try to make sense of the fact that Cicero attributes the institution of

562

ROMAN STATUTES

the fetiales to Tullus Hostilius, Livy to Ancus Marcius; or of the fact that Cicero appears to attribute the lex horrendi carminis on perduellio to Tarquinius Superbus (Rab.perd. 13), Livy to Tullus Hostilius. All this is late Republican speculation. We disbelieve the tradition that Romulus invented a calendar (Macrobius, Sat. I, 12, 38); we incline to believe the tradition that Servius Tullius instituted in some form the census. We are left with bodies of legislation attributed to Romulus by Dionysius and Plutarch, to Tullus Hostilius by Dionysius, to Servius Tullius by Dionysius. We share the view of Gabba, that these are fragments of constitutions invented in the course of the struggles of the Late Republic and fathered on one or another king. As for the provisions of Tabula IV, 1-2, dealing with aspects of patria potestas, and Tabula VIII, 10, dealing with clientela, we regard it as most likely that the source of Dionysius attributed them to Romulus because they were central Roman institutions, not because they were to be found in the Twelve Tables. It follows that we see a literary, and not a juristic, tradition behind the attribution by Papinian of the power of life and death of a father over a son to an unspecified lex regia {Coll. IV, 8). The case of a range of religious provisions is rather different. A garbled and corrupt lemma of Festus attributes in part to Romulus and Titus Tätius, in part to Servius Tullius, measures surrendering those guilty of certain heinous crimes against parents to divine vengeance (Festus, 260 L): plorare flere {inclamare} nunc significat, et cum praepositione inplorare, id est inuocare; at apud antiquos plane inclamare. in regis Romuli et Tatii legibus: 'si nurus, sacra diuis parentum estod'; in Serui Tulli haec est: 'si parentem puer uerberit, ast olle plorassit {paren+-H-}, puer diuis parentum sacer esto' ... (for the diui parentum see Mommsen, St. //, 42 n. 2 = DP ///, 47 n. 2, with CIL I*, 1596 = DLRRP 938 (Capua?)) Although the passage is a tangle as it stands, which it is fortunately not our task to unravel, the form uerberit suggests that we are dealing either with a text that has preserved an archaic form (M. Voigt, Abh.Sachs.Ak.Wiss. 17, Phil.-hist.Cl. 7, 1876, 553-826, 'Über die Leges regiae', at 813-15; O. Szemerenyi, in Festschrift F. Altheim I (Berlin, 1969), 173-91 = Scripta Minora II (Innsbruck, 1987), 892-910, 'Si parentem puer verberit, ast olle plorassit': perfect subjunctive of *uerbo) or at the very least with a text that has corrupted an archaic form which was no longer understood. This should incline us not to be surprised to find texts which may belong to the Middle Republic attributed to Numa. There is a group of such texts which seem to us perfectly credible as elements of such a collection of sacred regulations: paelex aram Iunonis ne tangito ... (Festus, Pauli Exc. 248 L; Gellius IV, 3, 3; compare Macrobius, Sat. Ill, 11,5; Dig. L, 16, 144 (Paul)); si hominem fulm(en louis) occisit, ne supra genua tollito ... (Festus, 190 L); cuius auspicio classe procincta opima spolia capiuntur ... (Festus, 204 L; compare Servius on Virgil, Aen. VI, 859; Plutarch, Marc. 8, 9-10); and the unrevealing si quisquam aliutafaxit, ipsos Ioui sacer esto (Festus, Pauli Exc. 5 L). (For the elucidation of ne supra genua tollito, see K. Latte, Phil 87, 1932, 265-71 = Kleine Schriften (Munich, 1968), 903-8, at 270-1 = 907-8; Ps-Quintilian, Decl. 274.) There are of course many other similar measures attributed to Numa without direct quotation; and note also Digest XI, 8, 2 (Marcellus): negat lex regia mulierem, quae praegnas mortua sit, humari, antequam partus ei excidatur. It is presumably from this kind of material that Sex. (?) Papirius assembled his ius ciuile Papirianum (Bremer, 132-3, attempting to unravel the confused testimonia of Pomponius, Dig. I, 2, 2, 1-3 and 36), and Granius Flaccus his liber de iure Papiriano,

40 - TWELVE TABLES

563

cited in Dig. L, 16, 144 (Paul), elucidating the word paelex (Bremer, 261-2). Some of the regulations of Numa were already known to Cassius Hemina (fir. 12-13 Peter; cf. Cicero, Rab.perd. 15; de re p. II, 26; V, 3); on the other hand, the ius ciuile Papirianum is unknown to Varro or Cicero, and is in particular missing from the latter's letter to L. Papirius Paetus, ad Jam. IX, 21 = 188 SB: it and the work of Granius Flaccus will postdate the Republic (Mommsen, St. II, 41-4 = DP III, 46-50; O. Hirschfeld, Sb.Akad.Wiss.Berl. 1903, 1-12, 'Die Monumenta des Manilius und das Ius Papirianum' in part = Kleine Schriften (Berlin, 1913), 239-45, Tus Papirianum', not refuted by E. Pais, Ricerche sulla storia e sul diritto pubblico di Roma I (Rome, 1915), 241-70). It seems to us conceivable that Numa or some other king should have occupied himself with such matters as the Vestal Virgins, the religious aspects of homicide, the sprinkling of wine on a funeral pyre, and so on; and that elements of such rules should have flowed into the Twelve Tables (Tabulae V, 1; VIE, 13; X, 6; cf. IX, 1-2 and 6, Source (j); PX, 4], Source (d)). The overall context in which they found themselves there was of course a very different one. (We remain agnostic on the reliability of Tacitus, Ann. XII, 8, 1, on an alleged religious regulation of Tullus Hostilius.) In general, there is little in the way of regulation with a religious content in the Twelve Tables. Apart from the provisions just mentioned, where in any case the interest of the Twelve Tables in the Vestal Virgins and in the sprinkling of wine is not primarily religious, there is little to point to apart from the punishment in the case of theft, burning or excantare of corn, which can perhaps be seen as a form of atonement. One may also note that a form of will presumably known to the Twelve Tables is that made in the comitia calata (see on Tabula V, 3): this assembly was also used for the inauguration of the rex sacrorum and the flamines. Note also that Cato could talk of duo exules lege publica execrari (Origines IV,. 15 Chassignet = 90 Peter). If it is the case that some regulations which may belong to the kings flowed into the Twelve Tables, this may suggest a parallel for a phenomenon that deserves a brief discussion. Much excitement has been generated by the observation that lavish grave goods disappear in Rome and Latium from the second quarter of the sixth century BC, never to reappear. And this has been seen as the result of something similar to the sumptuary measures of Tabula X. The sumptuary measures of Tabula X, however, would be for the most part quite invisible archaeologically, apart from the ban on burial within the city and the ban on the burial of gold. One certainly does not want to argue that funerary luxury reappeared with the fall of the monarchy and had to be repressed again by the Twelve Tables, since the grave goods which disappear, and in so doing furnish an argument for the repression of funerary luxury, do not reappear. But place and manner of burial can be seen as matters of public concern; and it is not impossible that regulations which came into force in the second quarter of the sixth century BC in due course suggested faintly similar regulations to the Xviri. As far as the particular case of the sprinkling of wine on a funeral pyre is concerned, we may remain agnostic as to whether it was banned by Numa or later. In any case, the Ciceronian view of the prohibition of funerary luxury, that it placed the rich on the same footing as the poor, is deeply unconvincing. The prohibition - or abandonment of funerary luxury looks more like a piece of self-regulation by the elite than a measure to assimilate it to the poor or, for that matter, a measure imposed by the monarchy. (See in general, with bibliography, C. Ampolo, AWN. Archeologia e storia antica 6, 1984, 71-102, 'II lusso funerario e la cittä arcaica'; La Grande Roma dei Tarquinii (Rome, 1990), 249-69; and for Greek parallels, M. Toner, in Greek Studies in Honour of George Cawkwell (London, 1991), 159-75, 'Greek funerary legislation'.)

564

ROMAN STATUTES 6 - The order of the collection

It is clear from its citation by Cicero that what is printed as Tabula I is indeed thefirstof the Twelve Tables and that these therefore begin, as does the Praetor's Edict, with the law of procedure. The further links postulated by M. Lauria are however highly questionable (Ius Romanum I, 1 (Naples, 1963), 21-51; Atti Acc.Napoli 81, 1970, 1-104, 'Iura, leges. I': see O. Diliberto, Index 18, 1990, 403-34 = (much expanded) Material^ 49-117, 11 commento di Gaio alle XII Tavole', at 416-19 = 87-106). And the re-ordering of Tabulae I—II by Behrends, Zwölfiafelprozess, 58-9, is based entirely on a priori modern notions of what is appropriate. Attempts to collect the provisions of the Twelve Tables go back to Ay mar du Rivail and then Alessandro d'Alessandro (1522) and Johannnes Tacuinus (1525), though the first serious discussion of their arrangement is that of J. de Godefroy (1616, 1653); there has been little variation in the order adopted by different scholars since Heinrich Dirksen (1824), who also still had to devote much space to eliminating spuria. There are essentially three arguments that can be adopted: from the direct attribution of a provision to a particular tablet in the sources; from the order in which certain provisions are discussed in Gaius, Ad legem duodecim tabularum libri W, and other sources; and, more hazardously, from the likelihood that certain provisions were grouped. We should say at once that, in our view, the conventional arrangement is wrong. Despite the inconvenience this may cause, we have decided to move the provisions relating to iniuria and furtum from Tabula VTII to Tabula I and to make a number of other adjustments. The best-known attribution to a particular tablet is that of Cicero, quoted under Tabula X, 2-3, when he characterises the content of Tabula X. The number of other provisions specifically attributed to a particular tablet is unfortunately not large. We are told by Dionysius of Halicarnassus that the provision relating to triple 'sale* of a son was in Tabula IV. And part of Tabula II, 2, is uniquely assigned not only to a particular tablet, but also to the second place within it. As far as Tabulae XI-XII are concerned, the prohibition of conubium between patricians and plebeians of course belongs there: see on Tabula XI, 1. (The view that the Twelve Tables contained a provision on intercalation or the Roman calendar is improbable: see on [Tabula XI, 2], [Tabula XI, 3].) Before we turn to our other explicit evidence, it is important to observe: (1) That we are reasonably entitled to suppose that the Twelve Tables observed a certain order. For it is clear from Cicero's exposition of his sumptuary measures that similar material formed part of a continuous exposition in the Twelve Tables. (2) That no source explicitly states that the Tables were organised either in such a way that each contained roughly the same amount of material or in such a way that each contained material of a similar character. But the evidence of Cicero just cited suggests that the latter view isright.A likely consequence would be that one Table might be very different in length from another. (It is unlikely, contra Schoell, 67-70, that a tabula of the Twelve Tables was like what modern scholars call a tabula of, e.g., the Lex Cornelia de xx quaestoribus, Law 14, with clauses running onfromone tablet to the next.)

The bulk of our information on the relative order of some provisions comes from Gaius, whose ad legem duodecim tabularum libri vi presumably in principle followed the original order, but may have devoted a very variable amount of space to different topics. (It is obvious that the six books were not mechanically assigned one each to two Tables.)

40 - TWELVE TABLES

565

The Digest, with one unimportant exception, provides us with the book numbers; and in five cases the order of the fragments within a single title provides further information. The exiguous fragments may be tabulated as follows: we give them in the order of Lenel (with minor changes that respect the book numbers and the order within a single title and that have no effect on the argument that follows), along with the book number, a few words to indicate the content of the relevant provision, the Digest reference and the conventional modern numbering in the Twelve Tables: Preface ... in ius uocari ... si caluitur ... ... qui fideiussorem dedit... ... die tertio ... 'telum' ... ... qui arbores ... ceciderint... Book? ... arboris numero ... Book II ... hostes ... 'locuples* ... ... 'uiuere' ... Book III in traditionibus ... ... repudium ... Jerri' ... Jabros tignarios' ... Book IV ...finiumregundorum ... qui uenenum dicit... 'glandis' appellatione ... qui aedes ... sodales ... BookV duobus negatiuis uerbis ... Book VI 'plebs' ... ' detestatum' .... 'pignus' ... l noxiaey ... an ... infructus ... condemnatur ... in sacrum dedicare ...

1,2, 1 n,4, 18;20;22pr.-l L, 16, 233pr. n, 11,6 L, 16,233,1 L, 16,233,2 XLVII, 7, 2

-

XLVn, 7, 4

VIII, 11

L, 16,234pr. L, 16,234, 1 L, 16,234,2

m, i-6 m, i-6

H, 14, 48 XLVm, 5, 44 L, 16,235pr. L, 16, 235, 1

IV, 2 IV, 3 VII, 6-7 VI, 8

X, 1, 13 L, 16,236pr. L, 16, 236, 1 XLVII, 9, 9 XLVII, 22, 4

VII, 2 VIII, 8

vm,7 vin, io vni,27

L, 16,237

IX, 1

L, 16,238pr. L, 16,238, 1 L, 16,238,2 L, 16, 238, 3 XXH, 1, 19pr.-l Xn,3 XLIV, 6, 3

XI, 1 7 XII, 1

1,1 1,2 1,10 11,1 VIII, 13

vm, li

H,2

xn,2 XII, 4

It is at once apparent that the fragments of Gaius discussing the word telum and the provision qui arbores ceciderint sit ill with the conventional order in which they are placed. For there is no doubt that Gaius discussed the meaning of telum early in his work, not only because of the book number attached to the fragment, but also because of the point at which the fragment occurs in Book L, 16, of the Digest. And other evidence strongly suggests that Gaius discussed the meaning of telum in the context of furtum:

566

ROMAN STATUTES

Gaius, libro tertio decimo ad edictum prouinciale {Digest XLVII, 2, 55 (54), 2, quoted under Tabula I, 17-18, Source (o)), discusses the meaning of telum in the context of furtum; and a late juristic fragment deriving from Javolenus does so also (PSI 1348). Gaius could in the ad legem duodecim tabularum libri vi have discussed the meaning of telum in some other context; but the balance of probability is that he did so in the context offurtum and that the provisions relating to furtum stood early in the Twelve Tables. Scholars have seen three difficulties with placing a provision relating to furtum near the beginning of the Twelve Tables: (1) We know that M. Antistius Labeo discussed furtum in the second book of his ad xii tabulas libri; and if he did so at the same point in his work as Gaius discussed the meaning of telum in his work, then his commentary must have been longer than that of Gaius. Since almost nothing has survived, we cannot know whether this is the case or not. (2) Gellius XVI, 10, 7-8, discussed below, suggests very strongly that iniuria stood close to furtum in the Twelve Tables. If both stood near the beginning, we must certainly suppose either that the Tables were very different in bulk or that the lacunae in our knowledge of the later Tables are massive. We have already seen that there is no objection to the former hypothesis. (3) Certain delicts appear without doubt relatively late in the Twelve Tables. To segregate {iniuria and) furtum implies accepting that the material in the Twelve Tables was only partially grouped. This is perfectly plausible.

* ** A decision on the basis of Gaius* ad legem duodecim tabularum libri vi alone would perhaps be incautious, though we think that in his use of the work Godefroy was closer to the mark than Dirksen, when the latter claimed that the argument only showed 'dass in der zweiten Tafel ... gelegentlich des Furtums gedacht worden, keineswegs aber das dieser Gegenstand ebendaselbst ex professo abgehandelt sei' (116-17; cf. 119-20 on iniuria'. the reasoning is wholly a priori). But the evidence of the order in which Gellius mentions certain provisions of the Twelve Tables is in our view significant. This evidence is very fully discussed by O. Diliberto, Index 20, 1992, 229-77, 'Contribute alia palingenesi delle XII Tavole. Le "sequenze" nei testi gelliani'; Materiali, 333-83, though not all of his conclusions are equally cogent: in particular, the sequence alleged in XX, 1, 7, does not seem to us to exist. Nor are we convinced by Diliberto's suggestion that the provisions dealing with clientela and witnesses followed immediately on from Tabula III, 1-7: the link by way of the concept of fides postulated by Diliberto {Materially 387-96) is much more likely to have been generated by the argument of Gellius at XX, 1, 25-53 (cf. 10-19), and XV, 13, 11, than by the structure of the Twelve Tables. Nor do we think that what unites Tabula VIII, leaving out iniuria and furtum, is 'agriculture' {Materially 383-6): the principle does not work, as Diliberto admits, because of Tabula VIE, 14-15. The critical evidence comes from an overview of part of the content of the Twelve Tables, not obviously thematic in arrangement and therefore presumably roughly in order, in Gellius XVI, 10, 7-8 (following on from the passage quoted under Tabula I, 4): 'ego uero' inquit ille 'dicere atque interpreted hoc deberem, si ius Faunorum et Aboriginum didicissem. sed enim cum "proletarii" et "adsidui" et "sanates" et "uades" et "subuades" et "uiginti quinque asses" et "taliones" furtorumque quaestio "cum lance et licio" euanuerint omnisque ilia duodecim tabularum

40 - TWELVE TABLES

567

antiquitas nisi in legis actionibus centumuiralium causarum lege Aebutia lata consopita sit, Studium scientiamque ego praestare debeo iuris et legum uocumque earum, quibus utimur.' If iniuria and furtum were to be found relatively late in the Twelve Tables, we should have to suppose either that there were no oddities in the intervening stretch of text or that for some reason Gellius jumped in his search for oddities. Taking the other evidence also into consideration, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Twelve Tables placed two of the most important actions, on iniuria and furtum, immediately after the initial section on procedure in general. (It is obviously trivial if Gellius is found occasionally to have reversed the order of proximate words, as with proletarius and adsiduus\ or if he returns to an earlier theme, after mentioning a different provision in between; or if different sources - or indeed the same source - do not always discuss the different components of a single delict such as furtum in the same order.) We offer an argument below for the content of Tabula II, 1-2; it then follows from the order of the fragments of Gaius in Book L, 16, of the Digest that iniuria and furtum stood in Tabula I.

*** Something like a list of contents to parts 'of the Twelve Tables appears in Cicero, Topica 26-7: deflnitionum autem duo sunt genera prima, unum earum rerum quae sunt, alterum earum quae intelleguntur. (27) esse ea dico quae cerni tangiue possunt, ut fundum, aedes, parietem, stillicidium, mancipium, pecudem, suppellectilem, penus, et cetera; quo ex genere quaedam interdum uobis definienda sunt, non esse rursus ea dico quae tangi demonstrariue non possunt, cerni tarnen animo atque intellegi possunt, ut si ususcapionem, si tutelam, si gentem, si agnationem definias... Cicero here starts with fundus, which appears in a clause that is conventionally placed at Tabula VI, 3, and goes on with aedes, paries, stillicidium, which take us into the same area of the law as the provisions conventionally grouped at the end of Tabula VI or in Tabula VII. We then have mancipium, conventionally placed at Tabula VI, 1; the three words which follow are perhaps illustrations of what afamilia might contain, drawn from the commentators on the Twelve Tables, in particular Tabula V, 3. The abstract examples begin with ususcapio, the process which underlies Tabula VI, 3, and then move to three concepts which all appear in clauses that are conventionally placed in Tabula V. The whole is from a very narrow band of the modern order. A similar list appears in Cicero, de or. I, 173: ... iactare se in causis centumuiralibus, in quibus usucapionum, tutelarum, gentilitatum, agnationum, adluuionum, circumluuionum, nexorum, mancipiorum, parietum, luminum, stillicidiorum, testamentorum ruptorum aut ratorum, ceterarumque rerum innumerabilium iura vcrscntur ... Once again, the whole is from a very narrow band of the modem order, the law of succession in Tabula V, nexum, mancipium and usucapio, from Tabula VI, 1 and 3; the end of Tabula VI and Tabula VII. Cicero separates adluuiones and circumluuiones from other aspects of property; but it seems likely that he has the Twelve Tables in mind, since it was precisely in the centumviral court, we are told by Gellius, that the law of the Twelve Tables continued to be relevant: compare Gaius IV, 31.

***

568

ROMAN STATUTES

It is reasonable to suppose that, where Festus cites two provisions of the Twelve Tables in a single entry, as at 158 L, containing parts of what are traditionally Tabula V, 7, and Tabula VIII, 16, he does so in sequence: see L. Amirante, Index 20, 1992, 205-10, 'Un'ipotesi di lavoro: le "sequenze" e l'ordine delle norme decemvirali'. We place what is traditionally Tabula VIII, 16, as Tabula I, 21; if we are right, there are additional grounds for following Guarino and detaching ast ei custos nee escit from Tabula V, 7: see below, '9 - The unattributed fragments', (1). Amirante also suggests that Tabula V, 7, si furiosus escit ..., should be placed before Tabula V, 3, uti legassit ..., because it appears first in the sequences in the ad Herennium and the de inventione: the argument is weak, since the order in the two authors is determined by the fact that the whole point of the case revolves round the madness of the principal in the drama.

*** Some further points: (1) Tabula VI, 6a and 7 (FIRA), are inseparable from Tabula II, 1 (FIRA); and we place all the material in question together. The provision also appears to us to belong with Tabula I, 1-10, rather than after iniuria and furtum; and we place it as our Tabula I, 11. (2) The placing of Tabula II, 2, is certain; Ch. XCV of the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, is composed of provisions that reflect Tabula n, 3 (FIRA) and Tabula II, 2, in that order. No-one drafting Ch. XCV of the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae from scratch would have produced the text we have and we think it results from following an existing order. The evidence is circumstantial, but it in our view justifies placing Tabula II, 3 (FIRA) as Tabula H, 1. (3) The material of Tabula IV, 4, relates rather to that of Tabula V; but since the conventional modern order does not tear apart related material, we leave it undisturbed. (4) As Lenel observed, the fragment of Gaius normally related to Tabula IV, 2, may belong rather to Tabula VI, 1-2 or 1-2 (a). (5) The problems which have been presented to scholars by Tabula VII, 12 (FIRA), seem to us to become tractable if the provision is associated with Tabula VI, 1-2; we therefore place it as Tabula VI, 1-2 (a). (6) We place the clause aduersus hostem ... not at the end of Tabula III, with Schoell and Bruns, but at Tabula VI, 4, with FIRA. (7) We renumber the clauses of Tabula VI, to take account of the transposition of 6a and 7 (FIRA) to Tabula I, 11, and of 6b (FIRA) (see below, '9 - The unattributed fragments', (4)); and the clauses of Tabula VIII to take account of the transposition of iniuria and furtum, to Tabula I, and of the fact that the testimonia for Tabula VIII, 5 (FIRA) and 25 (FIRA) do not in our view form independent clauses of the Twelve Tables (see below, '9 - The unattributed fragments, (7); Tabula VIII, 1, Source (p)). (8) The order in Gaius shows that, in FIRA, Tabula VI, 8, Tabula VU, 2, and Tabula VII, 6-7, are misplaced. In addition, Tabula VI, 8-9, are unrelated to the rest of Tabula VI; but since the conventional modern order does not tear apart related material, we leave it undisturbed. (9) The problems which have been presented to scholars by Tabula VII, 10 (FIRA), seem to us to become tractable if the provision is associated with Tabula VHI, 7 (FIRA); we therefore place the two provisions as our Tabula VEQ, 3. (10) New evidence in our view confirms the conventional placing of Tabula VIII, 26-7 (FIRA), next to each other; they form our Tabula VIII, 14-15.

40 - TWELVE TABLES

569

(11) We leave at the ends of Tabulae IX, XI and XII testimonia which do not in our view form clauses of the Twelve Tables. (12) We are well aware that many provisions of the Twelve Tablesfigurewhere they do in every collection, including our own, because scholars since the sixteenth century have placed fragments for which there is no external evidence close to fragments with related content. But leaving these cases aside, it seems to us that if one respects the external evidence, one ends up with an order for the content of the Twelve Tables which is interestingly coherent: procedure in general, iniuria, furtum, supplementary rules relating to procedure, debt, family, succession, mancipium and nexum, 'owners and neighbours', further rules relating to delicts, individual and community (sumptuary measures included), finally Tabulae XI and XH. 7 - The survival of the collection Two well known passages of Cicero attest both the prestige of the Twelve Tables in the earlyfirstcentury BC and their diminished importance at the end of his life: bibliothecas mehercule omnium philosophorum unus mihi uidetur xii tabularum libellus ... superare. (Cicero, de or. I, 195) a paruis enim, Quinte, didicimus 'si in ius uocat' atque alia eius modi leges nominare. (Cicero, de leg. n, 9; compare I, 17; II, 59) Thereafter, the Twelve Tables became the province of the antiquarians of the High Empire and of those jurists with a taste for antiquity. Horace, Epist. II, 1, 23-7, does not in our view show that 'fin dall'epoca di Orazio si conservassero tavole bronzee contenenti il testo presunto delle XII tavole' (contra G. Nenci, RFIC 109, 1981, 304-8, 'Una testimonianza sulle XII tavole in scoli ad Orazio del DC secolo'). Outside antiquarian and juristic circles, the Twelve Tables attract no more than generic references, attesting respect, not knowledge (Ps.-Acro, on Horace, Epist. II, 1,18; Lactantius, Div.Inst. Ill, 9; Macrobius, Sat. D3, 17, 8; ILS 8987; Cassiodorus, Variae IX, 19, 2, Athalaric to the Senate, AD 533: ... necessaria quaedam Romanae quieti edictäli programmate duodecim capitibus, sicut ius ciuile legitur institutum, in aeuum seruanda conscripsimus, quae custodita residuum ius non debilitare sedpotius corroborare uideantur.) It is wishful thinking to suppose that the Twelve Tables were visible in late Roman Carthage: {After various troubles) forum fortasse uideatur immune, quod ab iniuriis lacessentibus liberum nullis malorum contactibus polluatur. illuc aciem tuam flecte: plura illic quae detesteris inuenies, magis oculos tuos inde deuertes. incisae sint leges duodecim tabulis et publice (publico, M. Simonetti) aere praefixo iura proscripta sint: inter leges ipsas delinquitur, inter iura peccatur ... (Cyprian, ad Donatum 10) (In Roman Carthage) interfici enim indemnatum quemcumque hominem etiam duodecim tabularum decreta uetuerunt. (Salvian, de gub. dei VIII, 5, 24) The forum in thefirstpassage, read in context, is a perfectly generic concept, despite illuc ... flecte, contra Schoell, 15-16: see E. Lambert, in Melanges Ch. Appleton (Lyon & Paris, 1903), 501-26, 'L'histoire traditionelle des XII Tables', at 537-42. And in the

570

ROMAN STATUTES

second passage there is not the slightest suggestion that a text of the Twelve Tables was available (see also on Tabula IX, 1). A literary conceit similar to that of Cyprian occurs in Sidonius Apollinaris XXIII (To Consentius), 447-9, which flatter the eloquence of Leo of Narbonne by imagining him overshadowing the achievement of Ap. Claudius in the establishment of the Twelve Tables. There remain three tantalising references to the Twelve Tables in the Middle Ages (see also the General Introduction, p. 4). The latest is the least important. N. Antonio, Bibliotheca Hispana vetus VI, 14, 350 (= I (Madrid, 1788), p. 518), records: reliquisse hunc Petrum (de Granon, tenth century AD) in eo monasterio (S. Aemiliani) nuntiatum nobis fuit volumina duo, Leges Gothorum et Regum inscripta, quorum prius LXIII, posterius vero LXVII capitibus absolvitur. In principio elogium posuit auctor legum XII Tabularum, quas omnes carmine latino comprehendit... The manuscript does not seem to have reached the Real Academia de la Historia: see C. Perez Pastor, BRAH 53, 1908, 469-512; 54, 1909, 5-19. More interesting is F. Balduinus, who in the second edition, but not in the first edition (Paris, 1554), of his work on the Twelve Tables writes as follows (Commentarii de legibus XII tabularum (Basle, 1557), 19): audio ante annos octingentos scriptum abs quodam episcopo Massaliensi librum fuisse, in quo cum probare vult Romanos a Graecis et Graecos a Iudaeis suas leges repetisse, magnam XII Tabularum partem describit, ac recitat. Sed eum quoque librum qui habet, supprimit. One might dismiss this as fantasy were it not for the Scholia on Horace, Epist. II, 1, 23, perhaps by Heiric of Auxerre (ninth century AD), preserved in Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, MSS Lat. 17897, f. 82v, and Lat. 8223, f. 110r: nota quod dicit tabulas et cetera. Graeci tabulas quae prohibent peccare primitus inuenerunt et scripserunt; uel fortasse legem Moysi dicit eos prius scripsisse; quo audito a Romanis, miserunt decemuiros in Graeciam qui illas tabulas transmutarent in Latinum, ubi uideres saepe nominatiuum pro accusatiuo et genetiuum pro datiuo (= H.J. Botschuyver (ed.), Scholia in Horatium IV (Amsterdam, 1942), 418, with impossible punctuation; cited by Nenci, I.e.) The comment about the morphology of the Latin of the Twelve Tables is puzzling and may be not so much an erudite comment about the nature of legal Latin based on autopsy, as a generic reflection of a patristic tradition of interest in the consequences of translating from the Greek: in eodem {the sixty-seventh psalm): 'uiderunt ingressus tui, Deus'; pro quo in Graeco scriptum sit: 'uisi sunt ingressus tui, Deus'. In Hebraeo ... Ergo a nobis ita legendum est: 'uiderunt ingressus tuos, Deus': et scriptoris uitium relinquendum, qui nominatiuum posuit pro accusatiuo ... (Jerome, Epist. 106, 41) (In it there is: 'uiderunt ingressus tui, Deus'; for which let us accept that there stands written in the Greek: 'uisi sunt ingressus tui, Deus'. In Hebrew ... So we should read: 'uiderunt ingressus tuos, Deus': and we should abandon the mistake of the writer who used the nominative for the accusative ... ) inspexi etiam ... codices Graecos, utrum datiuus casus esset, quod dictum est 'filiis', an genetiuus, quo ilia lingua utitur pro ablatiuo ... (Augustine, Epist. 149, 5)

40 - TWELVE TABLES

571

But the links between the notice of Balduinus and the information in the Scholia are very striking; is it possible that alongside the Autun version of Gaius a commentary on the Twelve Tables also survived into the Middle Ages in Southern Gaul? 8 - The language of the collection The epigrammatic, not to say elliptical, style of the Twelve Tables is well known. And we have already seen that all our sources quote the Twelve Tables in a modernised form. It is perhaps less well known that there is a multiplicity of layers of modernisation. This is most evident in the verbs of subordinate clauses (see R.G. Coleman, 'Conditional clauses in the Twelve Tables' (forthcoming)). In later statutes, the normal practice is to use the future or future perfect indicative in relative or conditional clauses, the future imperative in main clauses. In the text of the Twelve Tables as we have it, the future imperative is standard in main clauses (we regard the present indicative in Tabula VIII, 13, Source (b), as a paraphrase). On the other hand, the tenses and moods in subordinate clauses are very diverse, even allowing for the fact that many of the forms attested are ambiguous. The present is common with a future sense in early forms of Indo-European languages and it is theoretically possible that our sources have preserved this usage correctly where they use a present indicative. But we accept Coleman's argument that it is more likely that the usage of the Twelve Tables was some form of the subjunctive, at a stage at which no distinction was made between real and unreal conditions. Present indicatives or perfect indicatives will be the result of the adaptation of forms no longer understood. Where the future or future perfect indicative occurs, it is likely to be the result of assimilation to late Republican usage. (There are also two isolated cases of classical present subjunctives: fariatur (Tabula Vin, 1 \\ facial (Tabula X, 5)). An earlier phase of the language is, however, represented by subjunctives in -i-: duit (Tabula IV, 2), duitur (Tabula X, 7: compare Festus, Pauli Exc. 58 L); and by subjunctives in -s-: cond{issit), delapidassinU excantassit, faxit (faxsit), incantassit, legassit, nuncupassit, occentassit, occisit (occesit: compare Festus, Pauli Exc. 53 L). In the light of the former, it is possible that forms such as fuit or nocuit or rupit are in fact optatives or subjunctives, fuit, nocuit, rupit. We also think it possible, in the light of the testimonia, that escit, where it occurs, is a modernisation of essit: compare adessint in the Lex repetundarum, Law 1,1. 63. Cujas, Obs. VII, 18, urged the systematic printing of escit. We have printed what the manuscript tradition in each case suggests, since there can be no certainty as to which is right. We have emended only the impossible condidisset in Tabula VIII, 1. We repeat, we have avoided trying to 'improve' the orthography of our sources: where consistency is not to be found, it is not to be had by emendation.

ROMAN STATUTES

572

9 - The unattributed fragments We here list testimonia unattributed to a particular Table,firstone long phrase, then two single words in alphabetical order, then four citations or groups of citations each of which may relate to one or more existing clauses,finallya pair of general testimonia. (1) Festus, 158 L: nee coniunctionem grammatici fere dicunt esse disiunctiuam, ut nee legit nee scribit, cum, si diligentius inspiciatur, ut fecit Sinnius Capito, intelligi possit earn positam esse ab antiquis pro non, ut et in xii est: *ast ei custos nee escit', item: 'si adorat furto, quod nee manifestum erit'. We follow A. Guarino, SDHI 10, 1944, 374-81 = Le origini quiritarie (Naples, 1973), 258-65, 'Ast ei custos nee escit' (not refuted by O. Diliberto, Studi sulle origini della 'cura furiosi' (Naples, 1984), 12-18); Labeo 35, 1989, 79-91, 'Variazioni sul tema di Malleolo', in placing the phrase among the unattributed fragments (see also p. 568 above). Does it belong to Tabula I, 19? (2) Dig. L, 16,238, 1: Gaius Iibro sexto ad legem duodecim tabularum: 'detestatum' est testatione denuntiatum. It may be that the word derives from a clause complementing Tabula Vm, 11; the provision in question is perhaps to be regarded as belonging before Tabula XII, 1. (3) Goetz, Adnotationes, §111; CGLII, 56, 4: duicensus 8vraß (= xii tab.)femepoväno{yE)ypa.\i\i£VO(; The word occurs without attribution in Festus, Pauli Exc. 58 L; see also J. Klein, RhMus 24, 1869, 288-302, 'Zu den Glossen des Philoxenus', at 300-1; M. Cohn, ZSS 2, 1881, 111-15. (4) Frag. Vat. 50 (Paul): in mancipatione uel in iure cessione an deduci possit uel ex tempore uel ad tempus uel ex condicione uel ad condicionem, dubium est ... ego didici et deduci ad tempus posse (...) quia et maneipationem et in iure cessionem lex xii tabularum confirmat... As Berger observes, 'Citazioni', 601-5, a statement that it was not possible to impose condiciones or termini must have dropped out; for otherwise quia would not be intelligible. Note that in Tabula V, 3, Source (i), the text cited does not say what it is supposed to 'confirm': and it may be that uti lingua nuncupassit... (Tabula VI, 1) could have been held to 'confirm' one understanding of in iure cessio. There are no good grounds for supposing that in iure cessio figured independently in the Twelve Tables, contra Käser, Das altrömische Ius, 104-10: the commentary of Boethius on Cicero, Topica 28 (Tabula VI, 1, Source (k)), gives no clear lead. The clause is conventionally and without clear reason placed as Tabula VI, 6b (FIRA). The functioning of in iure cessio is described by Gaius II, 24.

40 - TWELVE TABLES

573

(5) Gaius I, 122: ideo autem aes et libra adhibetur quia olim aereis tantum nummis utebantur, et erant asses, dupondii, semisses et quadrantes, nee ullus aureus uel argenteus nummus in usu erat, sicut ex lege xii tabularum intellegere possumus. The remark may be explained by such clauses as Tabula I, 11 and 14-16. (6) Justinian, Inst. II, 1, 40-1: per traditionem quoque iure naturali res nobis adquiruntur ... (41) ... uenditae uero et traditae non aliter emptori adquiruntur, quam si is uenditori pretium soluerit uel alio modo ei satisfecerit, ueluti expromissore aut pignore dato, quod cauetur quidem etiam lege duodecim tabularum; tarnen recte dicitur et iure gentium, id est iure naturali, id effici. sed si is qui uendidit fidem emptoris secutus fuerit, dicendum est statim rem emptoris fieri. The rule, that in the case of a sale by traditio of a res nee mancipi it was necessary either for the price to be paid or for an arrangement to be made for surety, is attested also in Dig. XVin, 1,19 (Pomponius); 53 (Gaius), and elsewhere. It is hard to believe that this rule existed at the time of the Twelve Tables. (1) One suggestion, for which see Berger, 'Citazioni interpolate*, 605-6, and Kaser, RPR I, 46, 418, is that quod cauetur quidem etiam lege duodecim tabularum, in the text (of Gaius) from which our text presumably derives, referred to mancipatio, which was omitted by the Justinianic compilers: formal mancipium, mancipium nummo uno, will have developed by the time of the Twelve Tables; and the Twelve Tables will have specified that the institution was dependent on the payment or promise of a real price. The hypothesis is complex and an alternative is to be sought. (2) A possibility is to regard the rule as post-classical and as interpolated in classical texts and as wrongly attributed to the Twelve Tables, as does Fr. Pringsheim, Der Kauf mit fremdem Geld (Leipzig, 1916), 50-89, paradoxically allowing that the rule may in fact have stood in the Twelve Tables and related to normal mancipium, 69-70. (3) Or the phrase tarnen recte dicitur et iure gentium, id est iure naturali, id effici may suggest rather that quod cauetur quidem etiam lege duodecim tabularum refers not to the specific rule described by Justinian, but to the institution of uenditio as a whole, or rather to uenum dare, in the language of the period. (4) Or the citation of the Twelve Tables might simply be the result of an inference from thefirstrule in Tabula XII, 1. On the second, third or fourth view, there is no clause with a separate existence. For mancipium, see Tabula VI, 1; for uenum dare see Tabula HI, 1-7; Tabula IV, 2. (7)

(a)

Festus, 430 L:

'sarcito' in xii Ser. Sulpicius ait significare 'damnum soluito, praestato'. (b) Festus, Pauli Exc. 431 L: sarcito, damnum soluito. Note that damnum is part of the explanation, and terminology, of Ser. Sulpicius Rufus, not of the Twelve Tables. Yet this word has been the only basis for associating these sources with those for rupitia(s) (see on Tabula I, 13). Tabula VIII, 5 (Bruns, FIRA), is in fact a completely fictional construct, contra A. Völkl, RIDA, 3e serie, 24, 1977, 461-86, 'Quanti ea res erit in diebus triginta proximis. Zum dritten Kapitel der lex Aquilia\ at 469-74; and there is no evidence that the Twelve Tables contained any general statement

574

ROMAN STATUTES

on reparation for damages. These texts provide no evidence for a clause of the Twelve Tables other than Tabula I, 19, or Tabula VIII, 2 (?) or 6. (Goetz, Adnotationes, §1, may be right to guess that the original text of Festus read 'sarcito: (reficito, restituito, praestato, hinc noxiam sarcito) in xii ...; cf. CGL VI, s.v. noxam sarcito.) (8) Many of the words in Cicero, Topica 26-1, and de or. I, 173, are attested as occurring in the Twelve Tables; some of the others may have occurred there also. For fragments unattributed in earlier editions, see the Concordance. 10 - Candidates for inclusion (1) Plautus, Capt., 484-95, reveals that conspiracy against the annona was illegal; if this is a reference to Rome, it may be that the rule goes back to the Twelve Tables. (2) The provisions de aquis, Law 43, may derive from earlier legislation; Plato, Laws Vin, 845d-e, also displays a concern for the conservation and purity of the water supply; and it may be that there was a rule in the Twelve Tables drawing on Greek models: compare Tabula VII, 2. (3) The prohibition in relation to bee-hives in the Riccardi Fragment, Law 34, has no certain Roman parallel known to us; but it is disconcertingly reminiscent of a provision of the nomoi of Solon (62 Ruschenbusch): Kai JIEAAÖGCÖV GUX|VT| KadtOT&uxvov &7ue%eiv Tcov txp'eTEpoi)TCpoxepovi5p\>u£VCüv nobac, TpiaKoaiotx;; and it may be that there was a rule in the Twelve Tables drawing on Greek models: compare Tabula VQ, 2. (4) Voigt I, 69-71, lists many words from Festus and the Glossaries, which may well come from the Twelve Tables or the Commentaries thereon; but there is no explicit testimony. (5) 'amterminus': see Goetz, Adnotationes, §VI; CGL II, 16, 35; if the word occurred in the Twelve Tables, it will have been in Tabulae VI-VII. (6) 'penus': see Quintilian VII, 3, 13 (see on Tabula XII, 1); the word was perhaps rather discussed by the commentators on the Twelve Tables: see Bremer, 15-16 (Sex. Aelius Paetus); Th. Mommsen, in Symbolae Bethmanno Hollwegio (Berlin, 1868), 83-99 = GS II, 76-89, 'Ad capita duo Gelliana\ at 83-97 = 76-87. 11 - Candidates for exclusion (1) Augustine, City of God XXI, 11 = Isidore V, 27, 4 (Schoell 7 = FIRA 7): octo genera poenarum in legibus esse scribit Tullius: damnum, uincula, uerbera, talionem, ignominiam, exilium, mortem, seruitutem. Augustine does not claim that his list occurs in the Twelve Tables; it is in any case an expanded version of that in Cicero, de or. I, 193-5 (cf. de off. Ill, 23), which is not attributed to the Twelve Tables either. (2) Pliny, NH VII, 212 (Schoell 8 = Bruns 7): see on Tabula I, 6-9.

40 - TWELVE TABLES

575

(3) Sidonius Apollinaris, Ep. VIII, 6 (Schoell 12 = Bruns 11 = FIRA 11), per ipsumfere tempus, ut decemuiraliter loquar, lex de praescriptione tricenni fuerat proquiritata, only means that proquiritata has a solemn and archaic ring. (4) Since no attested fragment of the Twelve Tables has S for R (see above), we do not accept the suggestion of G. Radke, Archäisches Latein (Darmstadt, 1981), 126, that one should include unattributed words from lexicographical sources with S for R.

576

ROMAN STATUTES 12 - Concordance Tabulae I-XH

Schoell I, 1-10 U, 1

n,2 n,3

Bruns I, 1-10

n, i n,2

FIRA I, 1-10 n, la n, lb

n,2 n, 3

ni, 6

11,3 III, 1-4 m , 5 (part) m, 6 + 5 (part)

m, 7

m,7

rv,2

IV, 2 IV, 3-4 V, 1-8 V,9 V, 10 VI, 1-3 VI, 4 VI, 5a VI, 5b VI, 6 VI, 7-9

m, i - 4 m, 5 (part) m, 6 + 5 (part) VI, 4 IV, 1 IV, 2a IV, 2b IV, 3-4 V, 1-8 V,9 V, 10 VI, 1-3 VI, 5 VI, 6a VI, 6b VI, 7 VI, 8-9

vn, i-9 vn, 10 vn, li vn, 12 vm, l vm, 2-4 vin,5 vm,6-9

vn, i-9 vn, io

vn, i-9 vn, io

m, i - 4

m,5 IV, 1 IV, 3-4 V, 1-8 V,9 V, 10 VI, 1-3 VI, 4 VI, 5 (VI, 5) VI, 6 VI, 7-9

Vm, 2 + 9 (parts)

vm, io vm, n - 1 7

Vm, 18-24 vm,25 vm,26 Vm, 27-8 IX, 1-2 IX, 3 IX, 4 X, 1-7 X,8-9 X,10-11 XI, 1-2 XII, 1 XII, 2-5 XU, 6

IV, 1

v n , li v n , 12 vm, l v m , 2-4 vm,6 vm,7-io vm,5 v m , li Vm, 12-17 Vm, 18-24 IX, 6 + 4 v m , i + 25 Vin, 26-7 EX, 1-2 IX, 3 IX, 5 X, 1-7 X,8 X,9-10 XI, 3 + 2 XI, 1 XII, 1-4 XII, 5

VII, 11

vm, 12 vm, l vm, 2-4 vm, 6 vm, 7-io vm, 5 vm, 11

Vm, 12-17 Vm, 18-24 IX, 6 + 4 VIU, 1 + 25 Vin, 26-7 IX, 1-2 IX, 3 IX, 5 X, 1-7 X, 8 X,9-10 XI, 3 + 2 XI, 1 XII, 1-4 XII, 5

This ed. I, 1-10 I, 11 I, 12 U,2

n, i

in, i-4 111,5 in, 6-7 VI, 4

rv, l

Lex regia IV, 2 IV, 3-4 V, 1-8 V,9-10 V,9-10 VI, 1-3 VI, 5 I, 11 §9, (4) above I, 11 VI, 6-7 VII, 1-9

vm, 3

§9,(6) above VI, 1-2 (a)

vm, i

I, 13-15

vm,2

VUI, 3-6 I, 13; §9, (7) above 1,16 I, 17-22 Vm,7-13 IX, 1-2,4,6

vm, i

Vm, 14-15 IX, 1-2,4,6 IX, 3 [IX, 5] X, 1-7 X,8 X,9-10 [XI, 3 + 2] XI, 1 XII, 1-4 [xn, 5]

40 - TWELVE TABLES

577

The unattributed fragments Festus, 166 L (Schoell 1 = Bruns 1 = FIRA 1): see Tabula XII, 1. Festus, 310 L (Schoell 2 = Bruns 2 = FIRA 2): see Tabula VI, 9. Festus, 402 L, 480 L (Schoell 3 = Bruns 3 = FIRA 3): see Tabula I, 19 and 18. Donatus, on Terence, Eun. IE, 3, 9 = 515 (Schoell 4 = Bruns 4 = FIRA 4): see Tabula

vm,9. Cicero, de rep. II, 54 (Schoell 5 = Bruns 5 = FIRA 5): see Tabula IX, 1-2,4, 6. Cicero, de off.III.111(Schoell 6 = Bruns 6 = FIRA 6): see Tabula IX, 3. Augustine, City of God XXI, 11 (Schoell 7 = FIRA 7): see '11 - Candidates for exclusion', (1). Pliny, NH VII, 212 (Schoell 8 = Bruns 7): see '11 - Candidates for exclusion', (2). Gaius I, 122 (Schoell 9 = Bruns 8 = FIRA 8): see '9 - The unattributedfragments',(5). Dig. L, 16, 237 (Schoell 10 = Bruns 9 = FIRA 9): see Tabula IX, 1-2, 4, 6. Dig. L, 16, 238, 1 (Schoell 11 = Bruns 10 = FIRA 10): see (9 - The unattributed fragments', (2). Sidonius Apollinaris, Ep. VIII, 6 (Schoell 12 = Bruns 11 = FIRA 11): see '11 Candidates for exclusion', (3). duicensus (FIRA 12): see '9 - The unattributed fragments', (3).

578

ROMAN STATUTES Text

I, 1 si in ius uocat, ?ito;? ni it, antestamino; igitur (im) capito. I, 2 si caluitur pedemue struit, manum endo iacito. I, 3 si morbus aeuitasue escit, iumentum dato; si nolet, arceram ne sternito. I, 4 adsiduo uindex adsiduus esto. proletario ?ciui? quis uolet uindex esto. I, 5 nex[us (?) —] for(c)ti sanatiq[ue —] I, 6 ubi pacunt, orato. I, 7 ni pacunt, in comitio aut in foro ante meridiem causam conici(un)to. *comperoranto ambo praesentes. I, 8 post meridiem praesenti litem addicito. I, 9 si ambo praesentes, sol occasus suprema tempestas esto. 1,10 ... uades ... subuades ... I, 11 (Ü, la; VI, 6a, 7) ... ?in diem tertium? ... ?in perendinum? ... si in iure manu conserunt, < « s i mille plus est, sacramentum quingentorum esto; si minus, quinquaginta esto. si adserit, quinquaginta esto.»> I, 12 (II, lb) < « s i ex sponsione petit, iudicem arbitrumue postulato.»> I, 13 (Vin, 2) si membrum rupit, ni cum eo pacit, talio esto. I, 14 (VIU, 3) si os fregit libero, CCC, (si) seruo, CL poena(e) su(n)to. I, 15 (VIU, 4) si iniuriam ?alteri? faxsit, uigintiquinque poenae sunto. I, 16 (VIU, 11) < « s i arborem felicem succiderit, XXV poenae sunto.»> I, 17 (Vili, 12) si nox furtum fa(x)it, (ast) im occisit, iure caesus esto. I, 18 (VIU, 13) si luci (furtum faxit, ast) se telo défendit, ... endoque plorato. I, 19 (VIII, 14) < « s i furtum manifestum est, ni pacit, uerberato>» transque dato. < « s i seruus, uerberato deque saxo deicito. si impubes, uerberato noxiamque sarcito.»> I, 20 (Vili, 15) (si) cum lance licioque I, 21 (Vili, 16) si adorât furt(i) quod nee manifestum erit, I, 22 (Vili, 17) < « r e i subruptae aeterna auctoritas esto.»>

II, 1 (II, 3) cui testimonium defuerit, is tertiis diebus ob portum obuagulatum ito. II, 2 ... morbu(s) sonticu(s) ... aut status ?condictus? dies cum hoste ... quid (e)orum fuit, iudici arbitroue reoue (is) die(s) diff(is)sus esto. Ili, 1 aeris confessi (iudicatique) ?xxx? dies iusti sunto. Ili, 2 post deinde manus iniectio esto. Ili, 3 in ius ducito. ni iudicatum facit aut quis endo eo in iure uindicit, secum ducito. uincito aut neruo aut compedibus. quindecim pondo ne (maiore) aut si uolet (minore) uincito.

40 - TWELVE TABLES

579

Translation I, 1 If he (i.e., anyone) summons to a pre-trial, ?he (the defendant) is to go;? if he does not go, he (the plaintiff) is to call to witness; then he is to take him. I, 2 If he (the defendant) delays or drags feet, he (the plaintiff) is to lay a hand on. I, 3 If there is illness or age, he (the plaintiff) is to provide a yoked beast of burden; if he shall be unwilling, he is not to prepare a carriage. I, 4 For an assiduus an assiduus is to be guarantor. For a proletarius ?citizen? whoever shall wish is to be guarantor. I, 5 A nex[us (?) —] for forctis and sanas [—] I, 6 He (the plaintiff) is to plead, where they agree. I, 7 If they do not agree, they are to present their case in the Comitium or the Forum before midday. They are tofinishbringing action together, both present. I, 8 After midday he is to confirm the suit to the one present. I, 9 If both are present, sunset is to be the last time. I, 10 ... sureties ... secondary sureties ... I, 11 (H, la; VI, 6a, 7) ... ?for the third day? ... ?for the day after the morrow? ... If they engage by hand at a pre-trial, < « i f it is for more than 1,000, the oath is to be for 500; if less, it is to be for 50. If he claims as free, it is to be for 50.»> I, 12 (II, lb) < « I f he sues on the basis of a sponsio, he is to demand a judge or arbiter. > » I, 13 (Vili, 2) If he has maimed a part (of a body), unless he settles with him, there is to be talion. I, 14 (VIE, 3) If he has broken a bone of a free man, 300, if of a slave, 150 (asses) are to be the penalty. I, 15 (Vm, 4) If he do (any other) injury ?to another?, 25 (asses) are to be the penalty. I, 16 (VIII, 11) < « I f he shall have felled a productive tree, 25 (asses) are to be the penalty . » > I, 17 (VIII, 12) If he commit theft by night (and) he killed him, he is to be lawfully killed. I, 18 (VIII, 13) If (he commit theft) by day (and) he defended himself with a weapon, ... and he is to call out. I, 19 (VIII, 14) < « I f the theft is manifest, unless he settles, he (the magistrate) is to flog (him)»> and he is to hand (him) over. < « I f (he is) a slave, he is to flog (him) and he is to hurl (him) from the rock. If he is below puberty, he is to flog (him) and he (the thief) is to repair the damage.»> I, 20 (VIII, 15) (If) with lanx and licium < « h e shall have sought, and if he shall have found, the theft is to be manifest.»> I, 21 (VIII, 16) ... if he accuses of theft which shall be not manifest, » I, 22 (Vm, 17) < « I n respect of a stolen thing auctoritas is to be everlasting.»> II, 1 (II, 3) Whoever shall have been lacking witness, he is to go every other day to complain at the entrance passage. II, 2 ... a definite disease ... or a day (of trial) - fixed ?and for which notice has been served? - with a foreigner ... whichever of these things there has been, for a judge or arbiter or party (that) day is to be postponed. HI; 1 In respect of an admitted sum (and of a thing judged), there are to be the ?30? lawful days. III, 2 Next afterwards there is to be laying on of a hand. Ill, 3 He (the plaintiff) is to take (him) to a pre-trial. Unless he does what has been judged or anyone acts as a guarantor in respect of him at a pre-trial, he (the plaintiff) is to take (him) with himself. He is to bind (him) with rope or shackles. He is to bind (him) with not (more) thanfifteenpounds or (less) if he shall wish.

580

ROMAN STATUTES

HI, 4 si uolet, suo uiuito. ni suo uiuit, qui eum uinctum habebit, libras farris endo dies dato, si uolet, plus dato. m, 5 HI, 6 < « n i pacit,»> tertiis nundinis partis secanto. si plus minusue secuerunt, se fraude esto. HI, 7 < « s i uolet, trans Tiberini uenum d a t o » IV, 1 < « s i deformis natus est, ast non tollit, se fraude esto.»> IV, 2 si pater terfiliumuenum duit, a pâtrefiliusliber esto. IV, 3 IV, 4 < « s i post decern menses natus est.. . » > V, 1 uirgo Vestalis < « a tutela libera esto.»> V, 2 V, 3 uti legassit super familia ?pecuniaue? tutelaue sua, ita ius esto. V, 4 si intestato moritur, cui suus heres nec essit, agnatus proximus familiam ?pecuniamque? habeto. V, 5 si agnatus nec essit, gentiles familiam ?pecuniamque? h[abento]. V, 6 < « s i tutor nec essit, agnatus proximus tutelam habeto.»> V, 7 si furiosus ?prodigusue? ess(i)t, agnatum gentiliumque in eo (familiaque) ?pecuniaque? eius potestas esto. V, 8 si libertus ... ex ea familia ... in earn familiam ... V, 9-10 VI, 1 cum ?faciet nexum? mancipiumque, uti lingua nuncupassit, ita ius esto. VI, 2 < « n i fariatur, duplum poenae esto.»> VI, 1 - 2 (a) (VII, 12) VI, 3 auctoritas fundi biennium (esto. ?ceterarum rerum? annus esto.) VI, 4 aduersus hostem aeterna auctoritas (esto). VI, 5 < « s i trinoctium in anno abest.. . » > VI, 6 (VI, 8) tignum iunctum aedibus uineaue e concap(edine) ne soluito. VI, 7 (VI, 9) ... quandoc sarpta, donec dempta erunt... VII, 1 ambitus parietis sestertius pes (esto). VII, 2-5 » hortum heredium si iurgant, (arbitros postulanto.) VII, 6-7 uias muniunto. ni sam delapidassint, qua uolet, iumenta agito. VII, 8 si aqua pluuia nocet, » VII, 9 < « s i arbor in alienum imminet, quindecim pedes altius sublucato.»> Vin, 1 qui malum carmen incantasse ... (quiue) occentassit carmen(ue) cond(issit)... Vili, 2 (Vili, 6) si quadrupes pauperiem (faxit), < « n i sarcit, noxae dato.»> Vili, 3 (Vm, 7; VII, 10) «

40 - TWELVE TABLES

581

III, 4 If he (the defendant) shall wish, he is to live off his own. If he does not live off his own, he who shall have him bound is to give him a pound of spelt a day. If he shall wish, he is to give him more. HI, 5 < « O n three successive market-days, he is to produce (him) in the Comitium.»> HI, 6 on the third market-day they are to ??? ??? If they have ??? more or less, it is to be without liability. III, 7 < « I f he (the plaintiff) shall wish, he is to sell (the defendant) beyond the Tiber.»> IV, 1 < « I f he is born deformed, and if he does not pick him up, it is to be without liability . » > IV, 2 If a father thrice sell a son, from the father the son is to be free. IV, 3 < « H e is to send notification of rejections» IV, 4 < « I f he is born after ten months .. . » > V, 1 A Vestal virgin < « i s to be free of tutela.»> V, 2 < « T o a woman her guardian is to be auctor.»> V, 3 As he has disposed by will concerning his familia ?or goods?, or guardianship, so is there to be source of rights. V, 4 If he dies intestate, to whom there be no suus heres, the nearest agnate is to have the familia ?and goods?. V, 5 If there be no agnate, the gentiles are to have the/am//Za.?and goods?. V, 6 < « I f there be no guardian, the nearest agnate is to have guardianships» V, 7 If there be a madman ?or spendthrift?, power in respect of him (and his familia) ?and goods? is to belong to his agnates and gentiles. V, 8 If a freedman ... from that familia ... to that familia ... V, 9-10 » land with a farm < « o r > » a plot of land < « i s to be five f e e t s » If they disagree, (they are to demand arbiters.) VII, 6-7 < « A road is to be eight feet (wide), on a bend it is to be sixteen feet (wide).»> They are to make roads. Unless they have placed stones along their own, he is to drive yoked beasts of burden, where he shall wish. VII, 8 If rain-water damages, < « h e is to contain (it).»> VII, 9 < « I f a tree overhangs onto another's land, he is to cut it back above fifteen feets» VIE, 1 Whoever cast a magic spell ... (or whoever) sing in enmity (or) compose a song Vin, 2 (Vm, 6) If a quadruped (cause) loss, XI, 1 » the plebs. XII, 1 < « I f he shall have taken a pledge for sacred purposes .. . » > XII, 2 If a slave commit theft or cause damage, < « h e is to be given for the damage.»> Xu, 3 If he has brought a false claim, he (the magistrate) is to appoint three arbiters of the suit; by their arbitration he (the defendant) is to settle for a penalty at double. Xu, 4 < « I f he has dedicated (the object) for sacred purposes .. . » >

584

ROMAN STATUTES Tabula I, 1 Sources

(a) Horace, Sat. I, 9, 74-8: ... casu uenit obuius illi aduersarius et 'quo tu, turpissime?' magna inclamat uoce et 'licet antestari?' ego uero oppono auriculam. rapit in ius; clamor utrimque, undique concursus, sic me seruauit Apollo. (b) Porfyrio ad loa: (An unnamed person, referred to as ille, has been making life most unpleasant for Horace, but is haled off to court by his aduersarius and) aduersarius molesti illius Horatium consulit, an permittat se antestari, iniecta manu extracturus (the aduersarius) ad praetorem, quod uadimonio non paruerit. de hoc autem lege duodecim tabularum his uerbis cautum est: 'si in ius tuocationitantestarnlnigitur.t en capito'. (Note that igitiur is only a misprint as the reading of CLM 181 in the edition ofW. Meyer (Leipzig, 1874).) (c) ad Her. H, 13, 19: lege ius est id quod populi iussu sanctum est, quod genus: ut in ius eas cum uoceris. (d) Cicero, de leg. II, 9: a paruis enim, Quinte, didicimus 4si in ius uocat' atque alia eius modi leges nominare. (e)

Gellius XX, 1, 25 (see Tabula I, 2-3, Source (e)): uerba sunt haec de lege 'si in ius uocat' ...

(f)

Festus, Pauli Exc. 67 L: 'eum' antiqui dicebantpro 'eorum', 'en' pro 'eum'; ab eo quod est 'is'.

(g)

Festus, Pauli Exc. 93 L: 'igitur' nunc quidem pro conpletionis significatione ualet, quae est 'ergo', sed apud antiquos ponebatur pro 'inde' et 'postea' et 'rum'.

(h) See Tabula 1, 2-3, Source (c). Reconstruction We print, (b) above, the evidently corrupt reading of our only witness to the whole clause. The text is in serious doubt at two points. (1) It has long been disputed whether to print ito after si in ius uocat: see Dirksen, Zwölf-Tafel-Fragmente, 130-44, rejecting ito; Mommsen in Bruns7, p. 18: 'Mihi ito uidetur rectius abesse.' Noailles, Fas et ius, 171-2, reached the same conclusion, arguing that obligations are here imposed only on the plaintiff; but there is no way in which this is knowable. The most likely origin of the letters uocatio in Porfyrio is that a scribe thought

40 - TWELVE TABLES

585

he read the nonsensical uocatito and made the obvious correction; and some support for the presence of ito is to be found in our earliest source, (c) above. (The text-critical argument for the elimination of ito, namely that the I of 'ni (i)t' and the O "of 'antestamin(o)' were omitted, added above the line, then inserted at the end of 'uocat', is not to be accepted.) It remains true that the sentence can be understood without ito; and although the word almost certainly stood in our late Republican and early Imperial texts, it may have been inserted in the course of a process of modernisation. (2) en in Porfyrio and Festus, Source (f), the latter perhaps glossing the precise fragment of the Twelve Tables quoted by Porfyrio, is normally corrected to em, comparing Festus, Pauli Exc. 92 L: lim' ponebantpro 'eum\ a nominatiuo 'is'] cf. 41 L; Charisius 133 Keil = 1 6 9 Barwick. The form en capito is no doubt the result of pronouncing em capito; but the original form must be im: compare Tabulae I, 17; X, 8. The meaning is in any case clear. Text si in ius uocat, ?ito;? ni it, antestamino; igitur (im) capito. Translation If he (i.e., anyone) summons to a pre-trial, ?he (the defendant) is to go;? if he does not go, he (the plaintiff) is to call to witness; then he is to take him. Commentary The procedures of in ius uocatio and antestatio are illuminated by a number of passages in Plautus, though they do not help in the reconstruction of the text, notably Persa 745-9: (Saturio) age ambula in ius, leno. (Dordalus) quid me in ius uocas? (Sat.) illi apud praetorem dicam. sed ego in ius uoco. (Do.) nonne antestaris? (Sat.) tuan ego caussa, carnufex, quoiquam mortali libero auris alteram, qui hie commercaris ciuis homines liberos? See also E. Paratore, in Synteleia V. Arangio-Ruiz II (Naples, 1964), 828-48, 'Ad Hor.Serm. 1.9.35-42 e 74-78', with bibliography; P. Witt, In ius uocare bei Plautus una Terenz (Diss.Freiburg-im-Br., 1971); for antestatio, compare also Virgil, Eel. VI, 3-4; Pliny, NH XI, 251: antiquis Graeciae in supplicando mentum attingere mos erat, est in aure ima memoriae locus quem tangentes antestamur. For the sense of capere, which is clearly a long way short of manum inicere, compare the use of the word for the act of making someone a priest or Vestal Virgin; also Plautus, Most. 556-9 (a iudex); Truc. 627-30 (an arbiter). Gaius observes libro primo ad legem duodecim tabularum (Dig. II, 4, 18; 20; 22pr-l.), that in ius uocatio could take place in any public or private place, except in the home of the defendant, which would be regarded as involving uis:

ROMAN STATUTES

586

(18) plerique putauerunt nullum de domo sua in ius uocari licere, quia domus tutissimum cuique refugium atque receptaculum sit, eumque qui inde in ius uocaret, uim inferre uideri. For the circumstances in which in ius uocatio may occur, see Behrends, Zwölf tafelprozess, 11-14. Tabula I, 2-3 Sources (a) Festus, 408-10 L: 'struere' antiqui dicebant pro 'adicere', 'augere' ... aut in xii quod est 'si caluitur pedemue struit, manum endo iacito'; ahi putant significare retrorsus ire; ali in aliam partem; ali fu(ge)re; ali gradum augere; ali minuere; | a c | uix pedem pedi praefert, otiose it, remoratur. (b) Festus, 232 L (cf. Pauli Exc. 233 L): 'pedem struit' in xii significat 'fugit', ut ait Ser. Sulpicius. (e)

Nonius Marcellus I, 6 Mercerus = 10-11 Lindsay: 'caluitur' dictum est 'frustratur': tractum a caluis mimicis, quod sint omnibus frustrami ... Lucilius Satyrarum lib. xvii (552-3 Marx = 579-80 Warmington = 553-4 Krenkel): '"si non it, capito" inquit "eum"; et "si caluitur"; ergo / fur (so the MSS) dominum (...)' (For the punctuation see below.)

(d) Dig. L, 16,233pr.: Gaius libro primo ad legem duodecim tabularum: 'si caluitur' (ut) (et MSS; corr. Schoelï) moretur et frustretur. inde et calumniatores appellati sunt, quia per fraudem et frustrationem alios uexarent litibus ... (e)

Gellius XX, 1,9-29: 'noli' inquit Fauorinus 'ex me quaerere, quid ego existumem. ... (10) sed non leuis existimator neque aspernabilis est populus Romanus, cui delieta quidem istaec uindicanda, poenae tarnen huiuscemodi nimis durae esse uisae sunt; passus enim est leges istas de tam immodico supplicio situ atque senio emori. (11) sicut illud quoque non humaniter scriptum improbauit, quod, si homo in ius uocatus morbo aut aetate aeger ad ingrediendum inualidus est, arcera non sternitur, sed ipse aufertur et iumento imponitur ...' (24, Sex. Caecilius Africanus) 'sed cur tibi esse uisa est inhumana lex omnium mea quidem sententia humanissima, quae iumentum dari iubet aegro aut seni in ius uocato? (25) uerba sunt haec de lege "si in ius uocat": "si morbus aeuitasue uitium escit, qui in ius uocabit, iumentum dato; si nolet, arceram ne sternito". (26) an tu forte morbum appellari hic putas aegrotationem grauem cum febri rapida et quercera iumentumque dici pecus aliquod unicum tergo uehens? ... (27) hoc, mi Fauorine, nequaquam ita est. nam morbus in lege ista non febriculosus neque nimium grauis, sed uitium aliquod inbecillitatis atque inualentiae demonstratur, non periculum uitae ostenditur. ceteroqui morbum uehementiorem uim grauiter nocendi habentem legum istarum scriptores alio in loco non per se morbum, sed morbum sonticum appellant. (28) iumentum quoque non id solum significat, quod nunc dicitur; sed uectaculum etiam, quod adiunctis pecoribus trahebatur, ueteres nostri iumentum a iungendo

40 - TWELVE TABLES

587

dixerunt. (29) arcera autem uocabatur plaustrum tectum undique et munitum quasi area quaedam magna uestimentis instrata ... ' Reconstruction (1) There are no grounds for emending the last phrase in Lucilius, ergo fur dominum, either to endo ferto manum (Carrion, followed by Bruns7), which is unmetrical in this period, since we cannot scan ferto, or to endo ferte manum (Müller), or to endo füre manum (Th. Bergk, Jahrbücher für cLPhil. 7, 1861, 316-34, 495-509, 617-38, 'Kritische Studien zu Ennius, at 632 n. 81), or to ergo fertote endominum (!) (G. Radke, in Festgabe U. von Lubtow (Berlin, 1970), 223-46, 'Sprachliche und historische Bedeutungen zu den leges Xu tabularum', at 226-7). For we cannot know whether the phrase is complete as preserved or not, or what followed, either as the continuation of the same sentence or as the next sentence; and the phrase is intelligible in a variety of ways as it stands, either following S. Boscherini, in Studia Fiorentina A. Ronconi oblata (Rome, 1970), 51-9, 'Pedem struere', at 52-5, with full discussion (see also below; we adopt his punctuation), or supposing that the joke lies in the grammatically possible, but actually absurd, supposition that the subject of it and caluitur on the one hand and of capito on the other hand is the same (so Marx, ad loc). It is in any case important to observe that Lucilius will only have needed to quote a bit of a clause of the Twelve Tables for his readers to recognise instantly what was going on. (2) E. Fraenkel, Hermes 60, 1925, 415-43 = Kleine Beiträge II (Rome, 1964), 417-45, 'Zum Texte römischer Juristen', at 440-3 = 442-5, argues almost certainly correctly that uitium in the sense of '(removable) obstacle' is impossible for the archaic period and that its presence is contrary to the style of the Twelve Tables: the word is a gloss of Gellius. (At Cicero, Tusc. IV, 28-9, morbus and uitium are quite different things.) (3) Editors normally and probably rightly exclude qui in ius uocabit in Gellius as a gloss. Text 2. 3.

si caluitur pedemue struit, manum endo iacito. si morbus aeuitasue escit, iumentum dato; si nolet, arceram ne sternito. Translation

2. If he (the defendant) delays or drags his feet, he (the plaintiff) is to lay a hand on. 3. If there is illness or age, he (the plaintiff) is to provide a yoked beast of burden; if he shall be unwilling, he is not to prepare a carriage. Commentary The grammatical and lexicographical evidence cited by Boscherini, I.e., makes it clear that caluiot caluere, calui, is the verb which underlies the noun calumnia; but this is not very helpful in the absence of any other Latin noun formed in the same way. Boscherini goes on to argue that caluitur means 'engages in calumnia\ by calumniae causa denying the claim made (55-6) or even calumniae causa bringing a reciprocal action. On the first

ROMAN STATUTES

588

hypothesis it would follow that the procedure of the archaic period assumed that the defendant knew the charge against him. But it is in the highest degree unlikely that that procedure authorised a plaintiff to decide if anything so complex as calumnia was taking place and to take action accordingly. For the sense adopted here, see Plautus, Cas. 168-9: 'nam ubi domi sola sum, sopor manus caluitur'; the range of meanings in CGL, s.v., is much wider and no doubt reflects later usage. For the strong sense of pedem struere, see Boscherini, I.e., 56-8; there is no need to suppose with G. Pascucci, SIFC 40, 1-2, 1968, 3-43 = Scritti scelti I (Florence, 1983), 311-51, 'Aspetti del latino giuridico', at 41 = 349 n. 21, that the act is magical in origin. For manus iniectio as a possible, but not necessary, distinct second element of the procedure, after in ius uocatio, see Kaser, ZPR, 47-9, with bibliography; Boscherini, I.e., 58-9 with nn. 32-4. With manus iniectio here, which is preliminary to and not part of a legis actio, contrast that on a confessus or iudicatus (Tabula III, 1-7; cf. Tabula VI, 1). The consequence here also, however, was presumably that the magistrate authorised addictio to the plaintiff, if the defendant disobeyed. For morbus, see also Dig. L, 16, 101, 2 (Modestinus); for arcera, see Varro, SatMen. 188 Cèbe: 'uehebatur cum uxore semel aut bis anno, cum arceram si non uellet non sterneret'; TLL, II, 447. Contrast Tabula II, 2. For escit, meaning 'there is', not 'there shall be', despite Festus, Pauli Exc. 68 L, 207 L, and Festus, 394 L, see Fraenkel, I.e., 442-3 = 444-5; Pascucci, I.e., 24 = 332 n. 2; and compare the Introduction, '9 - The unattributed fragments', (1); Tabulae V, 4, 5, 7; X, 8. The emendation to essit proposed by A. Pariente, Emerita 46, 1978, 423-43, 'Notas al lessico juridico latino', may be right: see the Introduction, '8 - The language of the collection'. We cannot know whether the person who shall be unwilling is the plaintiff or the defendant. One might suppose the latter; but if. Varro, quoted above, is echoing the Twelve Tables, it will be the former: 'if he (the plaintiff) shall be unwilling (to prepare a carriage), he is not to prepare a carriage'. Tabula I, 4 Sources (a)

Gellius XVI, 10, 2-6: turn ibi quaeri coeptum est, quid esset proletarius. ... (4) ... 'eo maxime' inquam 'te dicere hoc oportet, quando, ut praedicas, peritus iuris es. (5) nam Q. Ennius (183-4 V = 170-1 Skutsch: 'proletarius publicitus scutisque feroque / ornatur ferro') uerbum hoc ex duodecim tabulis uestris accepit, in quibus si recte commemini ita scriptum est: "adsiduo uindex adsiduus esto. proletario feuif quis uolet uindex esto." (6) petimus igitur, ne annalem nunc Q. Ennii, sed duodecim tabulas legi arbitrere et, quid sit in ea lege proletarius ciuis, interpretere.'

(b) Cicero, Topica 10: tum notatio, cum ex uerbi ui argumentum aliquod elicitur, hoc modo: 'cum lex adsiduo uindicem adsiduum esse iubeat, locupletem iubet locupleti'; is est enim adsiduus, ut ait Aelius, appellatus ab asse dando.

40 - TWELVE TABLES

589

(c) Nonius I, 67 Mercerus = 93-4 Lindsay: proletari dicti sunt plebei, qui nihil rei publicae exhibeant, sed tantum prolem sufficiant. ... Varro de uita populi Romani lib. i (fr. 9 Riposati) quibus erant pecuniae satis, locupletis, adsiduos; contrarius proletarios. adsiduo neminem uindicem uoluerunt (nisi adsiduum id est) locuplet(em) (uoluerunt locupleti MSS, corr. Turnebus). Reconstruction We print in Gellius the reading of Families i and ii in the MS tradition (P.K. Marshall, in Texts and Transmission, 178-9); the reading of Family iii, 'proletario iam ciui cui quis uolet ...', is almost certainly the result of rhetorical 'improvement' of the text, contra G. Radke, cited on Tabula I, 2-3. fcwif m a v readily be corrected to ciui and this is almost certainly what stood in the text of Gellius, because of quid sit in ea lege proletarius ciuis. We print the word ciui below, though with considerable hesitation. For it is curious that ciui is not also associated with adsiduo; and it is a habit of Gellius to insert into a quotation2 a word which forms part of the way in which he understands the quotation2: compare Tabula I, 3; while the authors of the Twelve Tables surely took it for granted that they were dealing with relations between citizens. Note that Gellius is here quoting from memory and may have felt subconsciously the need to make it explicit for the age in which he lived that proletarii were dues. The lex from Luceria, ILLRP 504 (see on the Lex Silia, Law 46), even if [ceiu]ium quis uolet, is correctly restored, is not an argument for restoring qui ciuis uolet here, since the function of that text is different, namely to define who can bring an action: the authors of the Twelve Tables again surely took it for granted that a uindex had to be a ciuis. Text adsiduo uindex adsiduus esto. proletario ?ciui? quis uolet uindex esto. Translation For an assiduus an assiduus is to be guarantor. For a proletarius ?citizen? whoever shall wish is to be guarantor. Commentary In addition to the uindex here, there is also a uas (and subuas) in Tabula I, 10, and one would expect their functions to be different. If the uindex fulfilled the same role here as in Tabula III, it was to extinguish the action against the defendant: see Dig. II, 4, 22, 1: Gaius libro primo ad legem duodecim tabularum: qui in ius uocatus est, duobus casibus dimittendus est: si quis eius personam defendet (the word is presumably used loosely) et si, dum in ius uenitur, de re transactum fuerit.

ROMAN STATUTES

590

Or it may be that the uindex did not discharge the defendant, but suffered condemnation if the defendant was released and then did not appear: see the Lex de Gallia Cisalpina, Law 28, Ch. XXI, 1. 23; Festus, 516 L: uindex ab eo quod uindicat, quo minus is qui prensus est ab aliquo teneatur. For discussion and bibliography, see Käser, ZPR, 49-51. For assidui, the propertied, and proletarii, those without significant property, see Mommsen, St. Ill, 237-9 = DP VI, 1, 268-70, with the sources, which are much given to etymological speculation; also Nonius II, 155 Mercerus = 228 Lindsay; Festus, Pauli Exe. 49 L. We do not think that there is anything to be learnt from speculation about the prehistory of the Roman uindex or his supposed IE parallels. For quis = qui, compare Tabula II, 2; Festus, 166 L (Tabula XII, 1, Source (c)); the Lex Silia, Law 46; and the lex from Luceria, ILLRP, 504; and see Leumann-Hofmann-Szantyr I, pp. 540-1. Tabula I, 5 Sources (a) Festus, 426-8 L: (426, 18) [sanates quasi sana] ti appellaci —] (426, 27) in xii: 'nex[— c.20 —] forti sanatiq[—] (sanatid[—], Lindsay, less probable) (428, 5 ) . . . ne Valerius [quidem Messalla] in xii explanatio[ne —] men in eo libro quem [—] uolute inscribi, forc[tos —] duas gentis finitimas [—] [— l]egem hanc scripta tarn —]n ut id ius man[—]s Romanus haberent. (b)

Festus, 474 L (cf. Pauli Exc. 475 L): 'sanates' dicti sunt, qui supra infraque Romam habitauerunt. quod nomen his fuit, quia cum defecisse(n)t a Romanis, breui post redierunt in amicitiam, quasi sanata mente, itaque in xii cautum est, ut idem iuris esset sanatibus quod forctibus, id est bonis et qui numquam defecerant a populo Romano.

(c) Festus, Pauli Exc. 74 L: 'forctes' fmgi et bonus siue ualidus. (d) Festus, Pauli Exc. 91 L: 'horctum' et 'forctum' pro bono dicebant.

40 - TWELVE TABLES

591

Reconstruction The letters nex[...] look like the beginning of some part of nexum or nexus; and, discounting the etymology, we may infer from Source (b) that certain rights were possessed by forctes and sanates. Scaliger's *nex[o solutoque] forti sanatiq[ue]' is unlikely: it is hard to envisage nexi and soluti as being on the same footing; and Huschke's and Schoell's 'nex[i mancipique cum p.R. idem] forti sanati[sque supra infraque idem ius esto]' (see also Bruns II, p. 35) is rendered unlikely by the account of Festus as a whole: fragmentary though this is, we must remember that the sources used had the whole text of the clause; and Gellius XVI, 10, 8, quoted in the Introduction, '6 The order of the collection', and under Tabula I, 10, places sanates between proletarii et adsidui and uades et subuades, where a substantive statement about nexum mancipiumque looks very implausible. Might one think of nex[us uindex ne esto; liceto] forti sanatiq[ue ...]? One might then suggest in Festus, 428, 11-12 L: ... ut id ius man[um depellendi quod ciui]s Romanus haberent. Text nex[us? —1 for(c)ti sanatiq[ue —] Translation A nex[usl —] for forctis and sanas [—] Commentary Forctes and sanates are not otherwise attested. With forctes = boni, one may perhaps compare xprjoxoi as the designation of slaves (of Spartans) if they had been enfranchised (in Tegea), in the treaty between Sparta and Tegea: see F. Jacoby, CQ 38, 1944, 15-16 = Abhandlungen zur griechischen Geschichtsschreibung (Leiden, 1956), 342-3, 'XprjGTobç TioiEÎv (Aristotle fr. 592 R)'. (For his critique to be convincing, T.F.R.G. Braun, CQ 44, 1994, 40-5, 4Xpriaxoi)çrcoieîv',would have to produce parallels for the circumlocution 'to make dead'.) M. Valerius Messalla apparently thought the two groups were 'two neighbouring gentes'; but it is not possible to make them into two of the peoples in the list in Pliny, NH m, 69 (H. Philipp, RE XIV (1928), 985-7, 'Manates', with bibliography; M. Lejeune, Rev.Phil. 77, 1951, 202-35, 'Problèmes de philologie vènete', at 218-24): that two named peoples of Latium should appear in the middle of the section of the Twelve Tables dealing with procedure is very unlikely.

ROMAN STATUTES

592

Tabula I, 6-9 Sources (a) ad Her. U, 13,20: ex pacto ius est, si quid inter se pepigerunt, si quid inter quos conuenit. pacta sunt, quae legibus obseruanda sunt, hoc modo: 'rem ubi pagunt orat(o); ni pagunt in comitio aut in foro ante meridiem causam conicito'. sunt item pacta, quae sine legibus obseruantur ... Compare Priscian, Inst.Gramm. X, 32 (523-4 Keil): sed antiqui 'pago' quoque dicebant pro 'paciscor'. Cicero in ii ad Herennium: 'pacta sunt, quae legibus obseruanda sunt, hoc modo: "rem ubi pagunt forationif pagunt'". (b)

Gellius XVII, 2, 2 and 10: uelut haec uerba ex Q. Claudi primo annali, quae meminisse potui, notaui, quern librum legimus biduo proximo superiore. ... (10) 'sole' inquit 'occaso', 'sole occaso' non insuaui uetustate est, si quis aurem habeat non sordidam nee proculcatam; in duodeeim autem tabulis uerbum hoc ita scriptum est: 'ante meridiem causam fconiciunt, cum peroranti ambo praesentes. post meridiem praesenti litem addicito. si ambo praesentes, sol occasus suprema tempestas esto'.

(e) Cicero, Mur. 27 (Porfyrio, on Horace, Sat. I, 9, 41, may be a reminiscence of this passage): iam illud mihi quidem mirum uideri solet, tot homines tarn ingeniosos post tot annos etiam nunc statuere non potuisse, utrum 'diem tertium' an 'perendinum', 'iudicem' an 'arbitrum', 'rem' an 'litem' dici oporteret. (d)

Quintilian I, 6, 11: nos praeter auctoritatem oratorum atque historicorum analogia quoque dictum tuebamur. nam cum legeremus in xii tabulis 'ni ita pagunt', inueniebamus simile huic 'cadunt' ; inde prima positio, etiamsi uetustate exoleuerat, apparebat 'pago' ut 'cado', unde non erat dubium sic 'pepigi' nos dicere ut 'cecidi'. {Quintilian has inserted ita in reference to the preceding clause, which is of course known to him.)

(e)

Censorinus 23-4: horarum nomen non minus annos trecentos Romae ignoratum esse credibile est; nam xii tabulis nusquam nominatas horas inuenies, ut in aliis postea legibus, sed 'ante meridiem' ... (24) ... secundum diluculum {after the pre-dawn) uocatur mane, cum lux uidetur solis; post hoc ad meridiem; tunc meridies, quod est medii diei nomen; inde de meridie; hinc suprema, quamuis plurimi supremam post occasum solis esse existimant, quia est in xii tabulis scriptum sic: 'solis occasus suprema tempestas esto'.

(f)

Varro, LL VI, 5: suprema summum diei, id ab superrimo. hoc tempus xii tabulae dicunt occasum esse solis.

40 - TWELVE TABLES

593

(g) ibid., Vn, 51: supremum ab superrumo dictum; itaque duodecim tabulae dicunt: 'solis occasu diei suprema tempestas esto'. (h) Festus, 396 L: alias extremfum —] in legibus xii: 'solis [occasus diei supre]ma tempestas esto'. (i) Macrobius, Sat. I, 3, 14: ... et mox suprema tempestas, hoc est diei nouissimum tempus, sicut expressum est in duodecim tabulis: 'solis occasus suprema tempestas esto'. Reconstruction Much uncertainty attaches to the authenticity of rem, which is very awkward as an accusative of respect depending on pacunt; and while Cicero, Mur. 27, (c) above, may be an allusion to Tabula I, 6-9, rem - ubi pacunt - orato is much too literary in style. On balance, we exclude the word. In (a), we follow the text of G. Achard, which goes back in essentials to Scaliger and Bosius (see Dirksen, Zwölf-Tafel-Fragmente, 168-80). Given that the letter G did not exist until the last quarter of the third century BC, pacunt will have stood in the original text; compare Scaurus, de orthographia p. 2253 P = VII, 15 Keil: 'item xii tabulae, ubi est "ni pacunt" per hanc formam We correct coniciunt in Source (b) to coniciunto; pérorant should similarly be corrected to peroranto (compare the corruptions in the Lex Quinctia, Law 63). To treat com or cum as an adverb meaning 'together', fails to carry conviction, contra Th. Bergk, RhMus 19, 1864, 602-6, 'Philologische Thesen. Zweite Centurie', at 605-6; Schoell, 102; the construction is otherwise only attested in the Visio Pauli, since the epigraphic attestation alleged from Wilmanns II, 1705, is in fact misread: see CIL VI, 10215 (see also Wackernagel, Syntax II, 177; E. Löfstedt, Philologischer Kommentar zur Peregrinano Aetheriae (Uppsala, 1911), 281-2); com is in any case a modern pseudoarchaism, without authority. Mommsen, in Bruns7, corrected cum to turn, which is possible, though it does not sound quite like what one envisages as the style of the Twelve Tables. We suggest *comperoranto. There are no grounds for breaking Tabula I, 7, after in foro: the ad Herennium is interested in pacere, but continues to quote as far as conici{un)to, presumably because that was where the sentence ended. The whole point of the quotation2 by Gellius is lost unless the text of the Twelve Tables read 'sol occasus'; it is the lectio difficilior, occurring also in the Lex Plaetoria, Law 44, and in Charisius, 262 Keil = 346 Barwick; it should be preserved despite the other testimonia and indeed the reading 'solis' in Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS Lat. 8664, contra Mommsen, in Bruns 7 ; the terminology will sometimes have been modernised. (Pliny, NH VII, 212, 'xii tabulis ortus tantum et occasus nominantur. post aliquot annos adiectus est et meridies ...', is plainly just wrong: he cannot be understood to mean that the text of the Twelve Tables was at some point altered by the insertion of the word meridies, as supposed by P. Petot, Le défaut in judicio dans la procédure ordinaire romaine (Paris, 1912), 5-7; B. Albanese, Ann.Sem.Giur.Palermo 42, 1992, 95-113, 'La

594

ROMAN STATUTES

menzione del meridies in XII Tab. 1, 6-9'; for Tabula I, 7-9, depend for their existence on the notion of meridies.) Text 6. ubi pacunt, orato. 7. ni pacunt, in comitio aut in foro ante meridiem causam conici(un)to. *comperoranto ambo praesentes. 8. post meridiem praesenti litem addicito. 9. si ambo praesentes, sol occasus suprema tempestas esto. Translation 6. He (the plaintiff) is to plead, where they agree. 7. If they do not agree, they are to present their case in the Comitium or the Forum before midday. They are to finish bringing action together, both present. 8. After midday he is to confirm the suit to the one present. 9. If both are present, sunset is to be the last time. Commentary The principal problem is whether these clauses refer to procedure in iure, apud iudicem or both; and the terminology for what is at issue is complex: causa and lis (for res and lis, see Cicero, Mur. 27, (c) above; Varro, LL VII, 93). The presence of lis has suggested that the procedure is at least in part apud iudicem, since in later procedure the term only appears at the moment of litis contestatio, which lies between the stage in iure and the stage apud iudicem; and there is no doubt that the bipartite division of Roman procedure is known to the Twelve Tables: see on Tabula I, 12. But addicere in later procedure is quintessential^ the act of a magistrate, as in Varro, LL VI, 30: '... dies nefasti, per quos dies nefas fari praetorem: "do, dico, addico'" (cf. ibid. 61: 'hinc (from dico) indicit (be)llum (ilium, MS, corr. Turnebus), indixit funus, prodixit diem, addixit iudicium'); Plautus, Poen. 185-6, 'ubi in ius uenerit, addicet praetor familiam totam tibi'. It has been suggested that a judge here functions under the control of a magistrate, who pronounces the judgment (M. Kaser, Tijdschrifl 32, 1964, 329-62, 'Prätor und Judex im römischen Zivilprozess', at 352-3; W. Selb, in Gedächtnisschrift W. Kunkel (Frankfurt-am-Main, 1984), 391-448, 'Vom geschichtlichen Wandel der Aufgabe des iudex in der legis actio'), or that a judge himself pronounces an addictio (Lévy-Bmhl, Actions de la loi, 209-11). Against the first hypothesis, note that in later procedure a judge could function on days on which a magistrate could not. Both hypotheses seem needlessly complicated. For litis addictio here clearly takes place before a trial proper begins and it may be that in the Twelve Tables the word lis was used in relation to this stage. Varro, LL V, 155 and 145, clearly echo these clauses of the Twelve Tables; and they suggest that lis could mean simply controuersia. With the sentence, *comperoranto ambo praesentes, we have reached the end of the hearing of the case in the normal course of events. The sentence, post meridiem praesenti litem addicito, relates on any showing to a different track that has branched off at an

40 - TWELVE TABLES

595

earlier stage in the proceedings; it seems possible to suppose that if one party, either despite in ius uocatio, manus iniectio and uindex - the defendant or - more likely - the plaintiff, fails to turn up in iure, a magistrate may award the case to the person who is present. (Petot, I.e., 15, claimed that Tabula I, 6-9, took place apud iudicem, because in this period a magistrate only sat in the Comitium: that was to claim to know the unknowable. It remains the case that the link between the Comitium and the timetable for jurisdiction was close, since the Comitium was used as a sun-dial throughout the fifth and fourth centuries: see Pliny, NH VU, 212, with the Commentary on Tabula I, 6-9; R. Santoro, Ann.Sem.Giur.Palermo 41, 1991, 281-308, 'II tempo ed il luogo deWacîio prima della sua riduzione a strumento processuale'.)

*** The word pacunt should have the same sense in both its occurrences, in which it is a plural applied equally to the two parties. It has usually been supposed that the object of the pactio was the case itself, that its occurrence (ubi = 'when') put an end to the process, and that orato refers to the announcement of this fact by the magistrate (M. Wlassak, RE IV, 1 (1900), 882-4, 'Coniectio causae') or the judge (P.F. Girard, Histoire de l'organisation judiciaire des Romains (Paris, 1901), 85 n. 3. There is a sequence of objections. (1) The Twelve Tables use cum, quando and si: if they use ubi here, it should mean 'where'. (2) If A sues B, and there is a pactio, it is an unequal pactio between two parties: what happens is that B pacit with A (see Tabula I, 13). TLL, despite saying that in these circumstances paciscor is used 'rarius de utraque parte', in fact produces no instance (the usage in the speech attributed to Antiochus at Livy XXXTV, 57, 7, is not an encouraging parallel). We should not go down the road of supposing that when the Twelve Tables meant 'ni (the defendant) cum eo pacit', they were so careless as to say 'ni pacunt'. Note also that when Gaius (Dig. II, 4, 22, 1, 'libro primo ad legem duodecim tabularum', quoted on Tabula I, 4) talks of there being an agreement about the case itself, he does not use the word pactum. (3) The meaning hypothesised for orare is absolutely unparalleled: one should surely start from the well attested archaic equivalence of orare and agere (see on the Lex Osca Tabulae Bantinae, Law 13,11. 14, 16). (The suggestions that orato might refer to an announcement of where the suit shall be judged, by magistrate (Wlassak, I.e.) or judge (Girard, I.e.) or either party (Käser, ZPR, 83, §18 with n. 5; I.e., 349-51) seem without merit.) The Lex Flavia, Ch. 91,11. 8-10, 31-3, now attests the right of the two parties and the judge in the procedure of Rome to agree on where the suit shall be judged; that must be the element in procedure to which our text refers (so already Lévy-Bruhl, Actions de la loi, 206-7; Pugliese, Processo civile I, 217-18). The specification of in comiiio aut in foro, in case ni pacunt, clearly implies that the case might in certain circumstances be heard elsewhere. Note that there is no call to print ora(n)to; quite apart from the readiness of legal texts to slide between singular and plural, see the General Introduction, Ch. XII, it is entirely consistent with the style of the Twelve Tables to understand, but not to specify, the subject of a verb. There are three elements to what happens 'ni pacunt': specification of place, time, action. No support may be found for the hypothesis of G. Broggini, Iudex Arbiterve

ROMAN STATUTES

596

(Cologne & Graz, 1957), 81, that the parties had a choice between appearing before a magistrate in the Comitium or a judge in the Forum.

*** On the meaning of causam coicere, Nonius IV, 267 Mercerus = 409 Lindsay, is likely to be right: 'coicere, agere, Afranius Materteris: "causam coicere hodie ad te uolo. / ambon adestis? profuturos arbitror'" (216-17 Ribbeck; cf. Gellius V, 10, 9). Gaius, Inst. IV, 15, looks like no more than learned guesswork as to the meaning, though clearly written with our text in mind: 'deinde cum ad iudicem uenerant, antequam apud eum causam perorarent, solebant breuiter ei et quasi per indicem rem exponere; quae dicebatur causae co(ni)ectio (collectio, MS), quasi causae suae in breue coactio' (there are similar accounts in Pseudo-Asconius 231 St; Dig. L, 17, 1 (Paul)). *comperoranto ambo praesentes presumably defines the circumstances in which *comperorare is valid, i.e., both parties must be there while the action is being completed. The dilemma is whether si ambo praesentes picks up ambo praesentes in 7 or praesenti litem addicito in 8. If the former is the case, the phrase si ambo praesentes is strictly redundant and was excluded by Schoell, following others. But it is worth prospecting the possibility that the latter is the case. Why might both litigants wait after midday, until sunset? Presumably for the magistrate, who might well in a small agrarian community surrounded by enemies not be available in the morning. (For the theory of G. Nicosia, that there was no magistrate, see Kaser, cited on Tabula I, 11.) If we are right, the statute will implicitly - or explicitly, since we do not know what came next - have permitted proceedings in iure and apud iudicem to begin after midday, if the litigants were not at fault. For tempestas = tempus, see Festus, 498-9 L, Pauli Exc. 98 L. Note that a ban on proceedings at night need not preclude resumption the following day: compare the Lex Plaetoria, Law 44, which places a time-limit on jurisdiction, not on cases; see also the Commentary on Tabula I, 10. Cicero, Tuli. 6, and Quinci. 34, manifestly do not prove that the hearing of cases was limited to a day; that there could be such cases is shown by the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Ch. CIL Tabulai, 10 Source (a) Gellius XVI, 10, 7-8: 'ego uero' inquit ille 'dicere atque interpretari hoc deberem, si ius Faunorum et Aboriginum didicissem. sed enim cum "proletarii" et "adsidui" et "sanates" et "uades" et "subuades" et "uiginti quinque asses'* et "taliones" furtorumque quaestio "cum lance et lido" euanuerint omnisque ilia duodecim tabularum antiquitas nisi in legis actionibus centumuiralium causarum lege Aebutia lata consopita sit, Studium scientiamque ego praestare debeo iuris et legum uocumque earum, quibus utimur.' Text ... uades... subuades ...

40 - TWELVE TABLES

597

Translation ... sureties ... ?secondary sureties? ... Commentary It emerges from Gellius that uades and subuades occurred in the Twelve Tables at some point after sanates. It has been suggested that the word subuades is a caique on tmeyyuoc (F. Bader, La formation des composés nominaux du latin (Paris, 1962), p. 67 n. 76); but the two words are quite different in their structure. Although the story of M. Volscius Fictor in Livy, DI, 13, 5-10, inspires little confidence, it may enshrine a real element of legal procedure, namely the use of joint sureties, in this case for a iudicium publicum and ten in number; and such may be the subuades of our text (Käser, ZPR, 51 n. 39). Note also Festus, Pauli Exc. 100 L: iustum uadem idoneum sponsorem\ 519 L: uadem sponsorem significai datum in re capitali; Cicero, de re pub. n, 61, Livy XXV, 4, 8-11. If we can compare the procedure described by Gaius IV, 184: 'cum autem in ius uocatus fuerit aduersarius neque eo die finiri potuerit negotium, uadimonium ei faciendum est, id est ut promittat se certo die sisti', it may be that we here have a fragment of such a rule; compare also Dig. ÏÏ, 11,6: 'Gaius libro primo ad legem duodecim tabularum: si is quifideiussoremdedit ideo non steterit, quod rei publicae causa afuit, iniquum estfideiussoremob alium necessitate sistendi obligatum esse, cum ipsi liberum esset non sistere'. (Varro, LL VI, 74, is very confused.) Tabula I, 11 Sources (Tabula D, I (Schoell, Bruns) = II, la (F1RA)) (a) Gaius IV, 12-14: (For what precedes, see Tabula I, 16, Source (c).) lege autem agebatur modis quinque: sacramento, per iudicis postulationem, per condictionem, per manus iniectionem, per pignoris capionem. .(13) sacramenti actio generalis erat; de quibus enim rebus, ut aliter ageretur lege, cautum non erat, de his sacramento agebatur. eaque actio proinde periculosa erat falsi [—] (see on Tabula XII, 3) atque hoc tempore periculosa est actio certae creditae pecuniae propter sponsionem, qua periclitatur reus si temere neget, et restipulationem qua periclitatur actor, si non debitum petat. nam qui uictus erat, summam sacramenti praestabat poenae nomine; eaque in publicum cedebat praedesque eo nomine praetori dabantur, non ut nunc sponsionis et restipulationis poena lucro cedit aduersarii qui uicerit. (14) poena autem sacramenti aut quingenaria erat aut quinquagenaria, nam de rebus mille aeris plurisue quingentis assibus, de minons uero quinquaginta assibus sacramento contendebatur; nam ita lege xii tabularum cautum erat, at si de übertäte hominis controuersia erat, etiamsi pretiossimus homo esset, tarnen ut (quinquaginta) assibus sacramento contenderete eadem lege cautum est, fauore scilicet libertatis, ne onerarentur adsertores [—]

ROMAN STATUTES

598 (b)

Cicero, Mur. 27 (cf. Valerius Probus §4, 9): iam illud mihi quidem minim uideri solet, tot homines tarn ingeniosos post tot annos edam nunc statuere non potuisse, utrum 'diem tertium' an 'perendinum', 'iudicem' an 'arbitrum', 'rem' an 'litem' dici oporteret.

(c)

Varro, LLV, 180: s(tl)is (see below) ea pecunia quae in iudicium uenit in litibus, sacramentum a sacro; qui petebat et qui infitiabatur, de aliis rebus uterque quingenos aeris ad pontem deponebant, de aliis rebus item fcertof alio legitimo numero assum; qui iudicio uicerat, suum sacramentum e sacro auferebat, uicti ad aerarium redibat.

(d)

Festus, 468 L: sacramentum aes significat, quod poenae nomine penditur, siue eo quis interrogatur siue contendit (contenditur, Codex Farnesianus, corr. Mommsen). id in aliis rebus quinquaginta assium est, in alis rebus quingentorum inter eos, qui iudic(io) inter se contenderent. (See the Lex Papiria, Law 45.) sacramenti autem nomine id aes dici coeptum est, quod, et propter aerari inopiam et sacrorum publicorum multitudinem, consumebatur id in rebus diuinis.

(e)

Festus, 466 L: 'sacramento' dicitur quod [iurisiurandi ]one (these three letters seen by Orsini) interposta actum [est]. (The rest of the lemma relates to other matters.)

(f)

Festus, Pauli Exc. 467 L: sacramentum dicitur quod iurisiurandi sacratione interposita geritur.

(g)

Digest L, 16,233,1: Gaius libro primo ad legem duodecim tabularum: post kalendas Ianuarias die tertio pro salute principis uota suscipiuntur. (See the Introduction, p. 558.)

(Tabula VI, 5 (Schoell) = VI, 5a (Bruns) = VI, 6a (FIRA)) (h)

Gellius XX, 10, 1-10: 'ex iure manum consertum' uerba sunt ex antiquis actionibus, quae, cum lege agitur et uindiciae contenduntur, dici nunc quoque apud praetorem soient. (2) rogaui ego Romae grammaticum ... (the grammaticus) '... si quid igitur ex Vergilio, Plauto, Ennio quaerere habes, quaeras licet'. (3) 'ex Ennio ergo' inquam 'est, magister, quod quaero. (4) Ennius enim uerbis hisce usus est' ... turn ego hos uersus ex octauo annali absentes dixi... non ex iure manu consertum, sed magis ferro rem repetunt regnumque petunt, uadunt solida ui (272-3 Skutsch)

V =

252-3

... (6) itaque id, quod ex iureconsultis quodque ex libris eorum didici, inferendum his commentariis existimaui, quoniam, in medio rerum et hominum uitam qui colunt, ignorare non oportet uerba actionum ciuilium celebriora. 'manum conserere' (—) (7) nam de qua (re) disceptatur in iure (in re) praesenti, siue ager siue quid aliud est, cum aduersario simul manu prendere et in ea re sollemnibus

40 - TWELVE TABLES

599

uerbis uindicare, id est uindicia. (8) correptio manus in re atque in loco praesenti apud praetorem ex duodecim tabulis fiebat, in quibus ita scriptum est: 'si qui in iure manum conserunt'. (9) sed postquam praetores, propagatis Italiae finibus, dads iurisdictionis negotiis occupati proficisci uindiciarum dicendarum causa (ad) longinquas res grauabantur, institutum est contra duodecim tabulas tacito consensu, ut litigantes non in iure apud praetorem manum consererent, sed 'ex iure manu (the reading of the Codex Florentinus) consertum' uocarent, is est alter alterum ex iure ad conserendam manum in rem, de qua ageretur, uocaret atque profecti simul in agrum, de quo litigabatur, terrae aliquid ex eo, uti unam glebam, in ius in urbem ad praetorem déferrent et in ea gleba, tamquam in toto agro, uindicarent. (10) idcirco Ennius significare uolens non, ut ad praetorem solitum est, legitimis actionibus neque ex iure manum consertum, sed bello ferroque et uera ui atque solida (—>; quod uidetur dixisse, conferens uim illam ciuilem et festucariam, quae uerbo diceretur, non quae manu fieret, cum ui bellica et cruenta. (i)

Cicero, Mur. 26: cum hoc fieri bellissime posset 'fundus Sabinus meus est' 'immo meus', deinde iudicium, noluerunt. 'fundus' inquit 'qui est in agro qui Sabinus uocatur' satis uerbose; cedo, quid postea? 'eum ego ex iure Quiritium meum esse aio', quid turn? 'inde ibi ego te ex iure manu (the reading of all the MSS) consertum uoeo' ('Thence and there I call you from the pre-trial to engage by hand1), quid huic tarn loquaciter litigioso responderet ille unde petebatur non habebat. transit idem iuris consultus tibicinis Latini modo, 'unde tu me' inquit 'ex iure manum consertum uocasti, inde ibi ego te reuoco'. praetor interea ne pulchrum se ac beatum putaret atque aliquid ipse sua sponte loqueretur, ei quoque carmen compositum est cum ceteris rebus absurdum, tum uero in ilio 'suis utrisque superstitibus praesentibus istam uiam dico; ite uiam\ praesto aderat sapiens ille, qui inire uiam doceret. 'redite uiam'. eodem duce redibant. (For superstites = testes praesentes, see Festus, 394-6 L; Servius, on Virgil, Aen. ///, 339; Isidore XVIII, 15, 8.)

(j)

Cicero, de or. I, 41: quod uero in extrema oratione quasi tuo iure sumpsisti, oratorem in omnis sermonis disputatione copiossime posse uersari, id nisi hic in tuo regno essemus non tulissem multisque praeissem, qui aut interdicto tecum contenderent aut te ex iure manum consertum uocarent, quod in aliénas possessiones tam temere inruisses.

(k)

Varro, LL VI, 64: sic conserere manu dieimur cum hoste; sic ex iure manu consertum uocare; hinc adserere manu{m} in libertatem cum prendimus.

(1)

Valerius Probus §4,4: E.LM.C.V.

ex iure manu consertum uocauit.

*** (Tabula VI, 6 (Schoell, Bruns) = VI, 7 (FIRA)) In recounting the edifying tale of Appius Claudius and Verginia, the Roman historical tradition claimed to know that, in a case turning on whether someone was slave or free, the Twelve Tables ruled that the magistrate was obliged uindicias dicere/dare secundum libertatem, to grant provisional liberty: Livy III, 44-57; D.Hal. XI, 30-44; Dig. I, 2, 2, 24

600

ROMAN STATUTES

(Pomponius). But the tradition may also be a false inference from the provision which lies behind the fauore scilicet libertatis of Gaius IV, 14, (a) above. (It is not clear whether the tradition is echoed in the metaphor in Cicero, de re pub. Ill, 44: 'quid? cum decemuiri Romae sine prouocatione fuerunt tertio ilio anno, cum uindicias amisisset ipsa libertas?') In any case, it is clear that the de liberiate controuersia is only one variety of the legis actio sacramento', and that there are no grounds for elevating a fragment of the narrative in Livy to the status of a clause in the Twelve Tables. For the link between the procedure concerned and liberty, see Gellius XX, 10, 10, (h) above, ... uim illam ... festucariam ...; Varro, LL VI, 64, (k) above; Terence, Adelph. 193-4, with Donatus, ad loc; Festus, 460 L: sertorem quidam putant dictum a prendendo, quia (cum) cuipiam adserat manum, educendi eius gratia ex seminate in libertatem, uocetur adsertor ... For the form of the 'Freiheitsprozess', see J.-G. Wolf, in Symposion Fr. Wieacker (Ebelsbach, 1991), 61-96, 'Die manumissio vindicta und der Frei hei tsprozess' (the relative chronology of manumission censu, uindicta and testamento remains obscure). For uindiciae, see on Tabula XII, 3. Reconstruction Sources (a) - (f) expound the legis actio sacramento of the Twelve Tables, Sources (h) (1) provide us with part of the clause regulating the procedure in detail and with the related form of words; the last words of Gellius, (h) above, make it clear that he saw a link between uis and uindicare\ they also - conferens uim illam ciuilem et festucariam make it clear that he is talking of the legis actio sacramento. The observation that clauses traditionally assigned to Tabula II and Tabula VI in fact belong together goes back at least to Wordsworth, Early Latin, 517. In the procedure as reported by Gaius (IV, 15, continuing from (a) above), there was a sequence of phases involving a iudex: '(Gaius has taken as an example a case in which the sacramentum was of 500 asses and after a lacuna goes on to discuss how it was prescribed that) ad iudicem accipiundum uenirent; postea uero reuersis dabatur. ut autem (die) xxx iudex d(ar)etur (compare IV, 77-75), per legem Pinariam factum est; ante earn autem lege[m statjim dabatur iudex, illud ex superioribus intellegimus, si de re minoris quam (mille) aeris agebatur, quinquagenario sacramento, non quingenario, eos contendere solitos fuisse, postea tarnen quam iudex datus esset, conperendinum diem, ut ad iudicem uenirent, denuntiabant. deinde cum ad iudicem uenerant, antequam apud eum causam perorarent, solebant breuiter ei et quasi per indicem rem exponere; quae dicebatur causae co(ni)ectio, quasi causae suae in breue coactio' (see on Tabula I, 6-9). The problem is that in what follows, up to the beginning of the next lacuna, Gaius deals only with the procedure in iure. In the text of Varro, (c) above, for s(tl)is, see J.D. Cloud, Ath 80 (n.s., 70), 1992, 159-86, 'The Lex Papiria de sacramentis', at 164 n. 4; for rejection both of the conjecture pont(ific)em and of the interpretation pontem (Sublicium) (compare V, 83), ibid., n. 6; for the almost certain suggestion cert(abant), ibid., n. 5. Note in general that Pugliese, Processo civile I, 52 with n. 99, does not need to express surprise that Varro apparently knew less than Gaius or Festus: since Varro is writing about the Latin language, he simply chooses to reproduce less detail.

40 - TWELVE TABLES

601

The lemma at Festus, 466 L, (e) above, should be understood as meaning 'One says "by means of a sacramentum11 because the action takes place with the ??? of an oath interposed'; it is a clear reference to the legis actio sacramento. Unfortunately, it is of little help: if the word sacratio was used by Festus, it functioned as no more than an etymological explanation of sacramentum; in fact, the word seems not to be otherwise attested earlier than Macrobius, Sat. HI, 7, 3-4, who reads as if he was inventing it; it is then common in Christian literature and was perhaps substituted by Paulus for whatever stood in Festus. If the word was not used by Festus, one might hazard the guess [exacti]one. Cicero, Mur. 27, (b) above, seems to be drawing on the text of the Twelve Tables; they perhaps used both diem tertium and perendinum, a possibility supported by the occurrence of comperendinum diem in Gaius* Institutes, quoted above, and die tertio in his ad legem duodecim tabularum libri vi, (g) above. But it cannot be excluded that one or other expression comes from the commentators. The exact context in which either or both were used remains uncertain; and the later institution of in tertium is itself obscure. But it is possible that the expression (or expressions) is to be related to the rule of Tabula 1,10. In Gellius, (h) above, si qui seems very literary; and we should, with Schoell, expunge qui. The lines of Ennius are cited also three times by Cicero: see S kutsch; and the problem of deciding between manu and manum is complicated by the fact that Ennius obviously need not be citing the exact text of the clause. The words have become garbled in Probus, (1) above, but the balance of the textual evidence is in favour of manu. The following phrases may have followed the attested text: < « . . . si mille plus est, sacramentum quingentorum esto; si minus, quinquaginta esto. si adserit, quinquaginta esto.»> Text ...?in diem tertium? ... ?in perendinum? ... si in iure manu conserunt... Translation ... ?for the third day? ... ?for the day after the morrow? ... If they engage by hand at a pre-trial... Commentary The formulation hypothesised above has the merit of allowing us to understand how it may have come about that Gaius and Varro give very different accounts of the procedure: for the two accounts, see the discussion in Cloud, I.e. The sacramentum to which the two parties challenge each other was presumably in origin an oath by the gods; and these were presumably regarded in the procedure as known both to Varro and to Gaius as guardians of the oaths and of the stakes. In any case, the effect of the sacramentum was to convert a question about, e.g., the fact of ownership into a judgment about who was not telling the truth: see J.G. Wolf, in O. Behrends & M. Diesselshorst (edd.), Römisches Recht in der europäischen Tradition.

602

ROMAN STATUTES

Symposion aus Anlass des 75. Geburtstages Franz Wieacker ... 1983 (Ebelsbach, 1985), 1-39, 'Zur legis actio sacramento in rem'; also M. Käser, in Estudios A. D'Ors U (Pamplona, 1987), 671-706, 'Zur legis actio sacramento in rem\ esp. 693. For the form of words, see Valerius Probus §4, 2: 'q(uando) n(egas,) t(e) s(acramento) q(uingenario) p(rouoco)'. The second treaty between Rome and Carthage apparently refers to the use of a similar procedure for the release of prisoners brought for sale by Carthaginians, whether the prisoners were Romans or allies, Polybius EH, 24, 6: 'ëav 8è xmax-dévioç £7oAaßr|Tca ó 'Pcoumoç, àcpiéatfû) (the prisoner)'. Humbert, Municipium, 263 n. 4, is too rigid: the words ex iure quiritium could of course not be used; but that does not prove that the procedure was of non-Roman origin. M. David, in Symbolae J.C. van Oven (Leiden, 1946), 231-48, 'The treaties between Rome and Carthage and their significance for our knowledge of Roman international law', at 242-3, claimed that the procedure in Polybius was not Roman, on the grounds that Polybius did not specify that E7iiAa|aßavea'oai occurred with the use of a festuca; but the developed form of the 'Freiheitsprozess' did not use a rod: see Wolf, I.e.; also Livy VI, 14, 3; and compare Tabulae II, 2; VI, 4. (Livy Vm, 14, 6, see on Tabula XII, 1, may be trying to say that the senators of Velitrae caught south of the Tiber could have pledges extracted from them appropriate for actions up to 1,000 asses, i.e. actions concerning freedom.) Lévy-Bruhl, Actions de la loi, 82-3, argued that ex iure means 'according to the law'; but the Latin for this should be iure, and ex iure should mean 'from a pre-trial': see Kaser, ZPR, 74-5. The argument of Skutsch ad loc, similar to that of Lévy-Bruhl, is refuted by L. Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius (London, 1988), 221 n. 35. Three negative points: (1) the form of words for rerum repetitio in Livy I, 24, 4-9, must not be used to complement what we are told about the legis actio sacramento, since the former is a late construction based on the latter: see Ogilvie, ad loc; E.D. Rawson, JRS 63, 1973, 161-74 = Roman Culture and Society (Oxford, 1991), 80-101, 'Scipio, Laelius, Furius, and the ancestral religion'; (2) the Roman tradition on a phase of fines in cattle and sheep and their replacement by fines in bronze is internally incoherent and in any case of no help for understanding the procedure here under discussion: see Crawford, Coinage and Money, 19-20; (3) Festus, 466-7 L, provides no evidence for the notion that the loser in a legis actio sacramento ever became sacer, contra A. Magdelain, RIDA 3e série, 37, 1990, 197-246, 'Esquisse de la justice civile au cours du premier âge républicain'. Tabula I, 12 (Tabula II, lb (FIRA)) Sources (a) PSI XI (1933), no. 1182 = V. Arangio-Ruiz, Studi epigrafici e papirologici (Naples, 1974), 55-109, 'PSI. 1182. Frammenti di Gaio', 11. 178-98 = Gaius IV, 17: p(er) iudici[s p]ostulat[i]one(m) agebaftur si] q[u]a de re ut ita ager[et]ur lex ius[si]sse[t], sicu[ti] lex xii [tjabularum de [eo] q(uod) ex stipu[l]at[i]one petitur. eaq(ue) res talis t + î erat, qui agebat sic dicebat: 'ex sponsione te mi[h]i x m(ilia) s(e)s(tertiorum) d(are) o(portere) aio; id postulo faies an negasf. adu(er)sarius dicebat n(on) o(por)tere. a{u}ctor dicebat: 'quamdo (sic) tu negas (cf. Valerius Probus, §4, 3), te pr(aetor) iudicem siue arbitrum postulo uti des{t}'. itaque in eo genere a(cti)onis sine poena quisque negabat. item de h(eredi)tate diuidenda i(nter) coh(ere)des eadem lex p(er) iudicis postulationem agi ius[sit].

40 - TWELVE TABLES

603

(b) Cicero, Mur. 27: iam illud mihi quidem minim uideri solet, tot homines tarn ingeniosos post tot annos etiam nunc statuere non potuisse, utrum 'diem tertium' an 'perendinum', 'iudicem' an 'arbitrum', 'rem' an 'litem' dici oporteret. Reconstruction We have not indicated letters in themselves uncertain, but clear in context; there is one uncertain letter after talis: fere, hesitantly read by Arangio-Ruiz, is extremely improbable. The form of words for the legis actio per condictionem, which follows, has in the Verona MS 'id postulo aies aut neges'; apart from the question whether the difference between an and aut makes one uneasy, whether one restores ais and negas or aias and neges, will depend on whether one thinks the plaintiff was asking of the defendant, (1) whether he would accept a procedure involving his admitting - or denying - the claim, or (2) whether he was admitting the claim or was denying it. Virtually decisive for the second alternative is Plautus, Rudens All, 'uel tu mi aias uel neges'; 1331, 'proin tu uel aias uel neges'; cf. Naevius, Pall. fr. 19 Marmorale. The construction is the same as that of a rogatio: see the General Introduction, Ch. VII. The fact that Gaius inserts the present petitur in the middle of a series of imperfect main verbs may suggest that in the phrase in question he is close to the words of the statute. In contrast to Cicero, Valerius Probus, §4, 8, has ... iudicem arbitrumue postulo ... There is no certain attestation of siue in the Twelve Tables, whereas -ue is common. No portion of a text is attested; but the following may have stood there: < « s i ex sponsione petit, iudicem arbitrumue postuIato.»> Commentary The wording of specific actiones did not figure in the text of the Twelve Tables, but that of an actio generalis may have done. The specific actiones add detail to the information that the Twelve Tables authorised the legis actio per iudicis postulationem for disputes arising out of a stipulation and out of the actio familiae erciscundae, for which see on Tabula V, 10. There has been a long and unresolved controversy as to whether the Twelve Tables authorised the procedure for a dispute arising out of a stipulano certae pecuniae only (V. Arangio-Ruiz, BIDR 42, 1934, 571-624 = Studi epigrafici e papirologici (Naples, 1974), 110-39, 'Il nuovo Gaio'; Pugliese, Processo civile I, 336-8) or also for one arising out of a stipulano for an object of uncertain value or for an uncertain amount, involving a function of arbitration, as was of course the position later (E. Levy, ZSS 54, 1934, 258-311 = Gesammelte Schriften I (Cologne & Graz, 1963) 60-95, 'Neue Bruchstücke aus den Institutionen des Gaius', at 303 = 90-1; Käser, RPR I, 142-3; A. Magdelain, RIDA, 3e série, 27, 1980, 205-81 = Jus Imperium Auctoritas (Rome, 1990), 591-652, 'Aspects arbitraux de la justice civile archaïque à Rome'; M. Kaser, ZSS 100, 1983, 80-135, 'Unmittelbare Vollstreckbarkeit und Bürgenregress'; W. Selb, in Gedächtnisschrift W. Kunkel (Frankfurt-am-Main, 1984), 391-448, 'Vom geschichtlichen Wandel der Aufgabe des iudex in der legis actio'). The text we regard as probable contains no restriction of any kind. The form of words of the actio here has clearly been modernised, at the very least by the use not only of sestertii, but also of a relatively late abbreviation for them. On the

ROMAN STATUTES

604

assumption that the doublet iudicem arbiirumue was present, it conveyed the fact that the iudex had a function of arbitration as well as of judication, though we are not certain that the Twelve Tables conceptualized what happened in the complex fashion postulated by Magdelain, I.e., 206-7 = 592-3. In the actio familiae erciscundae, it is generally assumed that the iudex had a function of arbitration in the division of the property and of judication in its assignment: see G. Broggini, Iudex arbiterve (Cologne & Graz, 1957), 156-9, 190-3; Käser, ZPR, 91; Magdelain, I.e., 232 = 613. It is impossible to know whether the legis actio per iudicis postulationem is an invention of the Twelve Tables; but since before the publication of PSI 1182 the procedure was usually supposed to be much later, it is generally held that it is an innovation of the Twelve Tables. It has a clear division of procedure into two, in iure and apud iudicem; and it poses the simple question whether or not there is an obligation arising out of a particular stipulation. Note that Gaius is not concerned to claim that it was an innovation to have removed the sacramentum or poena, but simply that its absence was a legitimate inference from the form of words in question. Tabula I, 13-15 (Tabula Vm, 2-4 (Schoell, Bruns, FIRA)) Sources (a)

Gaius m, 223, whence Justinian, Inst. IV, 4, 7: poena autem iniuriarum ex leg(e) (legum, MS) xii tabula(rum) (tabulas, MS) propter membrum quidem ruptum talio erat; propter os uero fractum aut conlisum trecentorum assium poena erat {uu}, si libero os fractum erat; at si senio, CL; propter ceteras uero iniurias XXV assium poena er(a)t (erit, MS) constituta. et uidebantur illis temporibus in magna paupertate satis idoneae istae pecun(iar)iae (pecuniae, MS) poenae (esse) (ne, MS). (224) sed nunc alio iure utimur ...

(b)

Pauli Sent V, 4, 6: See Tabula VIII, 1, Source (n).

(c)

Gellius XX, 1, 12-38: quod uero dixi uideri quaedam esse inpendio molliora, nonne tibi quoque uidetur nimis esse dilutum, quod ita de iniuria poenienda scriptum est: sin iniuria(m) (iniuria, the early MSS) alteri faxsit, uiginti quinque aeris poenae sunto. ... (14) nonnulla autem in istis legibus ne consistere quidem, sicut dixi, uisa sunt, uelut ilia lex talionis, cuius uerba, nisi memoria me fallit, haec sunt: 'si membrum rupit, ni cum tepactot, talio esto'. ... (31) iniurias factas quinque et uiginti assibus sanxerunt. non omnino omnes, mi Fauorine, iniurias aere isto pauco diluerunt, tametsi haec ipsa paucitas assium graue pondus aeris fuit; nam librariis assibus in ea tempestate populus usus est. (32) sed iniurias atrociores, ut de osse fracto, non liberis modo, uerum etiam seruis factas inpensiore damno uindicauerunt, (33) quibusdam autem iniuriis talionem quoque adposuerunt. ... (36) sed quoniam acerbum quoque esse hoc genus poenae putas, quae, obsecro te, ista acerbi tas est, si idem fiat in te, quod tute in alio feceris? praesertim cum habeas facultatem paciscendi et non necesse sit pati talionem, nisi earn tu elegeris. (37) quod edictum autem praetorum de aestimandis iniuriis probabilius esse existimas, nolo hoc ignores hanc quoque ipsam talionem ad aestimationem iudicis redigi necessario solitam. (38) nam si reus, qui depecisci noluerat, iudici talionem

40 - TWELVE TABLES

605

imperanti non parebat, aestimata lite iudex hominem pecuniae damnabat atque ita, si reo et pactio grauis et acerba talio uisa fuerat, seueritas legis ad pecuniae multam redibat. (d) Festus, 496 L: talionis mentionem fieri in xii ait Verrius hoc modo: 'si membrum irapitt, ni cum eo pacit, talio esto'. neque id quid significet indicat, puto quia notum est; permittit enim lex parem uindictam. (e) Isidore V, 27, 24: talio est similitudo uindictae, ut taliter quis patiatur ut fecit. (f)

Collatio II, 5, 4-5: Paulus libro singulari et titulo de iniuriis. ... iniuriarum actio aut légitima est aut honoraria. (5) légitima ex lege duodecim tabularum: qui iniuriam {Codices Berlinensis, Viénnensis, iniuria Codex Vercellensis) alteri facit, quinque et uiginti sestertiorum poenam subit, quae lex generalis fuit; fuerunt et speciales, uelut (illa:) man(u) f(u)st(iue si) os fregit libero, CCC, (si) seruo, CL poenam subit{o} (s)e(s)tertiorum (for the text, see Völkl, Körperverletzung, 144-7).

(g) Festus, 508 L: uiginti quinque poenae in xii significat uiginti quinque asses. (h) Gellius XVI, 10, 8: 'ego uero' inquit ille 'dicere atque interpretari hoc deberem, si ius Faunorum et Aboriginum didicissem. sed enim cum "proletarii" et "adsidui" et "sanates" et "uades" et "subuades" et "uiginti quinque asses" et "taliones" furtorumque quaestio "cum lance et licio" euanuerint omnisque illa duodecim tabularum antiqui tas nisi in legis actionibus centumuiralium causarum lege Aebutia lata consopita sit, Studium scientiamque ego praestare debeo iuris et legum uocumque earum, quibus utimur.' (i) Priscian Inst.Gramm. VI, 69 (254 Keil) = Cato, Origines IV, 7 Chassignet = 83 Peter: Cato tarnen 'os' protulit in iiii Originum: 'si quis membrum rupit aut os fregit, talione proximus cognatus ulciscitur'. (j)

Festus, 320 L: trupitiast xii significat damnum dederit.

(k) Festus, Pauli Exc. 321 L: frupitiat damnum dederit significat. Reconstruction In order to explicate Sources (j) and (k) (Tabula VIII, 5 (Bruns, FIRA))y Lindsay suggested a lacuna {CR 5, 1891, 9-11, 'Notes on Festus and Nonius', at 10); but it would have to have existed before the tradition reached Paul the Deacon, and the suggestion is in any case unnecessary. Far better the suggestion of Mommsen, RhMus 15, 1860,

606

ROMAN STATUTES

463-7, 'Ueber die Buchstabenfolge des lateinischen Alphabets', at 464-5, followed by Schoell, 96-7, that rupitias is a corruption for rupit in: rupit has then been explained by Festus in the future perfect normal in later legal drafting. (The solution of Scaliger, rupsit in, is essentially similar, except that he cannot resist archaic morphology; Paul the Deacon has converted rupitias to rupitia, omitted xii, and changed the word order.) It follows that rupitia(s) is a vox nihili and that these texts provide no evidence for any clause of the Twelve Tables other than this one, contra Pernice, cited by Bruns, ad loc: for damnum dederit is no more than a fragment of an attempted explanation of rupit, by Verrius Flaccus. Two further problems are relatively straightforward: (1) we have printed, (d) above, the reading of the apograph of the Codex Farnesianus made by Politian; the alternative is trapseriff. But the unanimous reading of the MSS of Gellius, (c) above, appears to be rupit\ the form is perfectly acceptable (see the Introduction, '8 - The language of the collection') and we have no right to invent archaising forms like rupsit (so Turnebus); (2) -fepacwf is the unanimous reading of the MSS of Gellius, ni pacit a correction in a single MS, perhaps from Festus; ni pacit is nonetheless manifestly right and the OCT text, ni cum e pacto, is unacceptable. In Tabula I, 14: (1) manu fustiue, for which compare Gaius II, 220, and Coll. II, 6, 4 (Paul), is much more likely to be a juristic addition, on the basis of typical actions, than to have stood in the Twelve Tables; (2) it is likely that in the Collatio, (f) above, which does not in any case claim to give the text of the Twelve Tables, poenam subit has replaced an original poenae sunto (see Mommsen, Str., 13 n. 1 = DPén I, 13 n. 2; (3) sestertiorum has replaced assium, which has in turn been inserted into the original text between its redaction and the Middle Republic (see also below). In Tabula I, 15: (1) the fact that the early MSS of Gellius read iniuria is insignificant, given ancient habits of abbreviation; and the fact that facio is everywhere else in the Twelve Tables a transitive verb is decisive for the reading iniuriam, contra Völkl, Körperverletzung, 169-75; (2) alteri may be an expansion of the text by Gellius and the Collatio; (3) Festus explicitly attests that the word asses did not appear in the text of the Twelve Tables: and in the Collatio, sestertiorum has replaced assium, which has in turn been inserted into the original text between its redaction and the Middle Republic. The text of Cato, (i) above, may reflect the wording of the Twelve Tables; but it cannot be taken as an attestation of them, contra Selb (cited on Tabula I, 12), 416-17. For two other fragments of Book IV deal with Carthage, so that it is uncertain on general grounds whether this fragment relates to Rome; and exaction of talio by cognates would be surprising in Roman law: see in general.Chassignet ad loc. Mommsen, Str., 802 = DPén ITI, 116, thought that the fragment related to the law of a Latin community, perhaps not very plausibly; A.R. Herdlitczka thought, RE IVA, 2 (1932), 2070-1, that talio at Rome was extended to os frangere, very implausibly. (For the impossibility of using Plautus or Terence as evidence, see R. Wittmann, Die Körperverletzung an Freien im klassischen römischen Recht (Munich, 1972), 13-16.) Text 13. 14. 15.

si membrum rupit, ni cum eo pacit, talio esto. si os fregit libero, CCC, (si) senio, CL poena(e) su(n)to. si iniuriam ?alteri? faxsit, uigintiquinque poenae sunto.

40 - TWELVE TABLES

607

Translation 13. If he has maimed a part (of a body), unless he settles with him, there is to be talion. 14. If he has broken a bone of a free man, 300, if of a slave, 150 (asses) are to be the penalty. 15. If he do (any other) injury ?to another?, 25 (asses) are to be the penalty. Commentary There is no evidence that in any of the three delicts any explicit distinction was made between deliberate and involuntary action: see Wittmann, I.e., 19-23; Völkl, Körperverletzung, 119. But it is unreasonable to expect such a distinction, since to any Roman of the period, rupit, fregit, iniuriam faxsit, would have deliberateness written all over them, the obvious sophistries in Gellius, (c) above, notwithstanding. It is clear, independently of our assessment of the nature of the three penalties, though the order in Gaius, as well as in Gellius, (c) above, should not be disregarded, that membrum rumpere is the gravest of the three delicts; it will mean 'render a part of a body useless': see Wittmann, I.e., 3-4; Völkl, I.e., 44-5; Livy XXII, 10, 5: 'si quis rumpet occidetue insciens {a sacrificial victim), ne fraus esto'; Gaius HI, 219: '... uelut si quis ... iumentum tarn uehementer egerit ut rump(er)et(ur) ...'; and the expression foedus rumpere (TLL VI, 1, 1007). See also on the Lex Aquilia, Law 41. Note that the formulation is different from that in Tabula I, 6-7: there, pacunt is applied equally to the two parties, whereas here one person settles with another. The subject of pack is the same as that of rupit, and the implication is that it was up to the guilty party to achieve composition and that he was in the power of the injured party. The effect of the clause was perhaps to make it clear that talio could be exacted with impunity. But exaction of talio was no doubt limited by the social conventions of a faceto-face society. Gellius thought the injured party had no choice but to accept composition and that the guilty party who refused composition (at the level requested) could still avoid talio: compare Dig. IX, 2, 25, 2 (Ulpian) - 26 (Paul), with Y. Thomas, in L'aveu. Antiquité et Moyen-âge (Rome, 1986), 89-117, 'Confessus pro iudicato. L'aveu civil et l'aveu pénal à Rome', at 92 n. 14 (with an inaccurate text of Gellius). (Selb (cited on Tabula I, 12), 416-17 with n. 106, suggested that there was a legis actio sacramento in personam if there was no pactio.) For pacisci in cases of debt, see the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24,11. 110 and 115. Although protected by a lesser penalty than a free man, the slave under Tabula I, 14, nonetheless enjoys a higher status than under the Lex Aquilia, Law 41, where damage to a slave is treated like damage to any other object: see Wieacker, RRG, 364-5. The penalty was presumably paid to the master. A slave could have been protected by Tabula I, 13, rather than there being a separate clause, contra Daube, 'Damnum1, 289; if so, ni cum eo pacit would have included 'unless he settles with him (the master)'. There is no evidence whether a slave was protected under Tabula I, 15. It is possible that if a slave committed any of these three delicts, Tabula XII, 2, could be invoked: see Wittmann, I.e., 16. There has been much discussion of the meaning of iniuria: including (Huvelin) or excluding (Pugliese) membrum rumpere and os frangere. As Mommsen observed, Str., 784 = DPén III, 94, if we are right to suppose that the three clauses stood as we print

ROMAN STATUTES

608

them here, a normal reading of the Latin would understand: 'If he has done (any other) injury ... ' For its physical nature, see Wittmann, I.e., 9-16. Note that any derogation from any of these clauses would be sufficient to justify Dig. IX, 2, lpr. (Ulpian): 'Lex Aquilia omnibus legibus, quae ante se de damno iniuria locutae sunt (it does not follow that the words damno iniuria occurred in the Twelve Tables), derogauit (not abrogauit), siue xii tabulis siue alia quae fuit; quas leges nunc referre non est necesse'. The attempt of A. Watson to establish a strict correspondence between the provisions of the Twelve Tables and those of the Lex Aquilia, Iura 17, 1966, 174-8 = Studies in Roman Private Law (London & Rio Grande, 1991), 253-62, 'Personal injuries in the Twelve Tables', is based on a false premiss: quod usserit fregerit ruperit of the Lex Aquilia shows that we are dealing with a quite different kind of legal drafting from that of the Twelve Tables; it may be that the Lex Aquilia set out to relate itself systematically to the Twelve Tables; but that would not be recoverable from the fragments we have of the two statutes. Tabula I, 16 (Tabula VIII, 10 (Schoell) = 11 (Bruns, FIRA)) Sources (a) Pliny, AW XVII, 7: fuit et arborum cura legibus priscis; cautumque est xii tabulis ut qui iniuria cecidisset aliénas, lueret in singulas aeris xxv. (b)

Fronto, ad amicos II, 7, 14: leges pleraeque poenas constituerunt, ne quis arborem felicem succidisset.

(c)

Gaius IV, 11: ... unde eum, qui de uitibus succisis ita egisset, ut in actione uites nominaret, responsum e(st) (eum, MS) rem perdidisse, {cum} quia debuisset arbores nominare, eo quod lex xii tabularum, ex qua de uitibus succisis actio conpeteret, generaliter de arboribus succisis loqueretur.

(d) Dig. XIX, 2, 25, 5 (Gaius): ipse {quoque} si exciderit, non solum ex locato tenetur, sed etiam lege Aquilia et ex lege duodecim tabularum arborum furtim caesarum et interdicto quod ui aut clam. (e) Dig. XII, 2, 28, 6 (Paul): colonus, cum quo propter succisas forte arbores agebatur ex locato, si iurauerit se non succidisse, siue e lege duodecim tabularum de arboribus succisis siue e lege Aquilia damni iniuria siue interdicto quod ui aut clam postea conuenietur, per exceptionem iurisiurandi defendi potent. (f)

Dig. XLVH, 7, 2: Gaius libro primo ad legem duodecim tabularum: sciendum est autem eos, qui arbores et maxime uites ceciderint, etiam tamquam latrones puniri.

40 - TWELVE TABLES

609

(g) Dig. XLVII, 7, 4: Gaius libro (—) ad legem duodecim tabularum: certe non dubitatur, si adhuc adeo tenerum sit, ut herbae loco sit, non debere arboris numero haberi. (h) Dig. XLVII, 7, 1 (Paul): si furtim arbores caesae sint, et ex lege Aquilia et ex duodecim tabularum dandam actionem Labeo ait... (i) Dig. XLVH,7, 11 (Paul): sed si de arboribus caesis ex lege Aquilia actum sit, interdicto quod ui aut clam reddito absoluetur, si satis prima condemnatio(ne) grauauerit reum, manente nihilo minus actione ex lege duodecim tabularum. Reconstruction No prudent person, who knows Pliny, will suppose that he is reliable testimony for the presence of the word iniuria in the Twelve Tables (see below). In the references to the action of the Twelve Tables in Sources (d) and (h), the name of the action has been contaminated with the name of the praetorian action arborum furtim caesarum (Ed.Perp., XXÜI, 12 (139)). For a defence of the texts in the Digest, see Berger, 'Citazioni', 614-23. No portion of a text is attested, but the following may have stood there: < « s i arborem felicem succiderà, XXV poenae sunto.»> Commentary Source (i) demonstrates the customary replacement of the action under the Twelve Tables by the action under the Lex Aquilia, Law 41; it is not necessary to suppose that the word iniuria stood in the Twelve Tables in order to understand this development (see above). The praetorian action is presumably a further development. For arbor feliXy see J.-L. Voisin, Latomus 38, 1979, 422-50, Tendus, crucifiés, oscilla dans la Rome païenne'. Tabula I, 17-18 (Tabula VIII, 11-12 (Schoell) = 12-13 (Bruns, F1RA)) Sources (a) Dig. IX, 2, 4, 1 (Gaius): lex duodecim tabularum furem noctu deprehensum occidere permittit, ut tarnen id ipsum cum clamore testificetur; interdiu autem deprehensum ita permittit occidere, si is se telo defendat, ut tarnen aeque cum clamore testificetur. (b) Plautus, Trin. 864: credo edepol, quo nox (so Scaliger, endorsed by Skutsch, see below, mox, MS) furatum ueniat, speculatur loca.

ROMAN STATUTES

610

(e) Gellius XI, 18,6: decemuiri autem nostri qui post reges exactos leges quibus populus Romanus uteretur in xii tabulis scripserunt, neque pari seueritate in poeniendis aeque omnium generum furibus neque remissa nimis lenitate usi sunt, nam furem, qui manifesto furto prensus esset, tum demum occidi permiserunt, si aut cum faceret furtum nox esset aut interdiu telo se cum prenderetur defenderet. (d) Cicero, Mil. 9 (partly quoted in Quintilian V, 14, 18, also echoed in the Excerpta of Seneca, Contr. X, 6; cf. Schol.Bob. 114 St): quod si duodecim tabulae nocturnum furem quoquo modo, diurnum autem, si se telo defenderet, interrici impune uoluerunt, quis est qui, quoquo modo quis interfectus sit, poeniendum putet, cum uideat aliquando gladium nobis ad hominem occidendum ab ipsis porrigi legibus? (e) Collatio VII, 1-3: quod si (leges) duodecim tabularum nocturnum furem (quoquo modo, diurnum) autem si se audeat telo defendere, interrici iubent, scitote iuris consulti quia Moyses prius hoc statuit ... (2, 1) Paulus libro sententiarum V (23, 9) ad legem Corneliam de sicaris et ueneficis. si quis furem nocturnum uel diurnum cum se telo defenderet occident ... (3, 1) Vlpianus libro Vili ad edictum sub titulo si quadrupes pauperiem dederit. ... (3, 2) proinde si furem nocturnum, quem lex duodecim tabularum omnimodo permittit occidere, aut diurnum, quem aeque lex permittit, sed ita demum si se telo defendat, uideamus an lege Aquilia teneatur. (For what follows, compare Dig. IX, 2, 5pr. (Ulpian).) (f)

Augustine, QuaesLin Hept. II (Exodus), 84: hoc et in legibus antiquis secularibus ... inuenitur, impune occidi nocturnum furem quoquo modo, diurnum autem si se telo défendent.

(g) Gellius VIE, fr. 1: ... quod decemuiri in xii tabulis 'nox' pro 'noctu' dixerunt. (h) Gellius XX, 1,7: dure autem scriptum esse in istis legibus quid existimari potest? nisi duram esse legem putas, ... quae furem manifestum ei, cui furtum factum est, in seruitutem tradit, nocturnum autem furem ius oeeidendi tribuit. (i) Macrobius, Sat. I, 4, 19: non esse ab re puto hoc in loco id quoque admonere quod decemuiri in xii tabulis inusitatissime 'nox' pro noctu dixerunt. uerba haec sunt: 'si nox furtum factum sit, si im occisit, iure caesus esto'. (j) Cicero, Tuli 47-52: atque ille legem mihi de xii tabulis recitauit, quae permittit ut furem noctu liceat occidere et luci, si se telo defendat, et legem antiquam de legibus sacratis, quae iubeat inpune occidi eum qui tribunum pi. pulsauerit. nihil, ut opinor, praeterea de legibus. (48) qua in re hoc primum quaero, quid ad hoc iudicium recitari istas leges pertinuerit. num quem tribunum pi. serui M. Tulli pulsauerunt? non opinor. num furatum domum P. Fabi noctu uenerunt? ne id quidem. num luce furatum uenerunt et se telo defenderunt? dici non potest. ... (50) furem, hoc. est praedonem et latronem, luce occidi uetant xii tabulae; cum intra parietes tuos

40 - TWELVE TABLES

611

hostem certissimum teneas, nisi se telo défendit, inquit, etiamsi cum telo uenerit, nisi utetur telo eo ac repugnabit, non occides; quodsi répugnât, endoplorato, hoc est conclamato, ut aliqui audiant et conueniant. quid ad hanc clementiam addi potest, qui ne hoc quidem permiserint, ut domi suae caput suum sine testibus et arbitris ferro defendere liceret? ... (52) si qui furem occident, iniuria occident, quam ob rem? quia ius constitutum nullum est. quid si se telo défendent? non iniuria. quid ita? quia constitutum est. (k) Festus, Pauli Exc. 67 L (cf. 260 L): 'endoplorato', inplorato, quod est cum questione inclamare ... (1) Festus, 402 L: 'sub uos placo', in precibus fere cum dicitur, significat id quod 'supplico' {cf. 206 L), ut in legibus 'transque dato' fedendo quae ploratof. (m) Glossarium Ansileubi (W.M. Lindsay et al., Glossarla Latina I (Paris, 1926), 202 = CGLV, 193,26): endoplorato inplorato. (n) Pseudo-Philoxenus (CGLII, 61, 39): endoplorato emKOXsaov. (o) Dig. XLVII, 2, 55 (54), 2 (Gaius): furem interdiu deprehensum non aliter occidere lex duodecim tabularum permisit, quam si telo se defendat. teli autem appellatione et ferrum et fustis et lapis et denique omne, quod nocendi causa habetur, significatur. (p) GaiusIV, 111: See Tabula I, 19, Source (b). (q) Dig. L, 16, 233, 2: Gaius libro primo ad legem duodecim tabularum: 'telum' uolgo quidem id appellator, quod ab arcu mittitur; sed non minus omne significatur quod mittitur manu ... Reconstruction Macrobius, (i) above, presumably derives his information from a lost part of Gellius VIII, indicated by the list of contents, (g) above. Cujas, Obs. XI, 27, paraphrasing Macrobius, wrote si nox furtum faxit, si im aliquis occisit, iure caesus esto; Schoell's/ax.«* is perhaps the original form. Schoell's correction of the second si to ast is surely right, since si introducing a second condition is attested nowhere else in the Twelve Tables; the original form of the subsequent verb was perhaps occesit: see CGL V, 630, 21; Goetz, Adnotationes, §IH For nox, see Skutsch on Ennius, Ann. 431 V = 423 Skutsch, si luci si nox si mox si iam data sitfrux. There is no reason to suppose that Ennius is alluding to the Twelve Tables rather than reflecting a common usage; but taken with Cicero, (j) above, he may justify printing si luci. It is likely that the text then repeated furtum faxit; for ast, see above.

612

ROMAN STATUTES

Agustin's et 'endoque ploralo' is a brilliant emendation of Festus, (1) above; for transque dato y see Tabula I, 19. The qualification that if one is going to kill a thief by night, endoplorare, or clamor, beforehand is necessary, (a) above, has been rejected as a Justinianic interpolation by A. Berger, in Studi A. Albertoni I (Padua, 1933), 379-97, 'D. IX 2, 4§1 und das "endoplorato" der Zwölftafeln', partly on the grounds that the qualification is clumsily formulated, partly on the grounds that it is inherently implausible. The qualification has been defended, notably by Fr. Wieacker, in Festschrift L. Wenger I (Munich, 1944), 129-79, 'Endoplorare. Diebstahls Verfolgung und Gerüft im altrömischen Recht': the clumsy formulation will represent a rephrasing of a decemviral rule; and parallels can be found in other societies. But anyone who wishes to accept this defence must face two problems: Tabula I, 17, must be one of the best attested of all the decemviral rules, yet the qualification is nowhere else mentioned; and how could the qualification have been expressed in the Twelve Tables except by an implausible concatenation of conditional clauses? We cannot know whether Tabula I, 18, went on to spell out the next stage or left it to be understood. Text 17. 18.

si nox furtum fa(x)it, (ast) im occisit, iure caesus esto. si luci (furtum faxit, ast) se telo défendit, ... endoque plorato. Translation

17. If he commit theft by night (and) he killed him, he is to be lawfully killed. 18. If (he commit theft) by day (and) he defended himself with a weapon, ... and he is to call out. Commentary Note that at the time of the Twelve Tables, furtum can already mean 'theft' as well as 'a stolen object', contra Daube, cited on Tabula I, 19: compare Tabula XII, 2; that theft does not have to take place secretly and may involve the use of force (there is no evidence for the early existence of a separate offence: see the analysis of U. Ebert, Die Geschichte des Edikts de hominibus armatis coactisve (Heidelberg, 1968), 83 n. 28); and that certain misappropriations of property do not count as theft, such as failure to restore a deposit or malversations by guardians: see in general B. Albanese, Ann.Sem.Giur.Palermo 23, 1953, 5-210, 'La nozione del furtum fino a Nerazio'. For the later development of the rules, to which phase belong Dig. XLVIII, 8, 9 (Ulpian), and much of the material in the Collatio, (e) above, see Kaser, RPR II, 64. Meanwhile, it is perhaps misleading to conceptualise killing a thief by night - or, if he resists with a weapon, by day - as 'private justice', whatever that may be: the state chooses not to regard killing in either case as an offence. Against an excessively formalistic interpretation of Tabula I, 18, see O. Szemerenyi, in Festschrift F. Altheim I (Berlin, 1969), 173-91 = Scripta Minora II (Innsbruck, 1987), 892-910, 'Si parentem

40 - TWELVE TABLES

613

puer verberit, ast olle plorassit', at 184-5 = 903-4. (His hypotheses on the original meanings of plow and endoploro are not relevant to the Latin of thefifthcentury BC.) For im = eum> see on Tabula I, 1. Tabula I, 19 (Tabula VIII, 13 (Schoell) = 14 (Bruns, FIRA)) Sources (a) Gaius UI, 189: poena manifesti furti ex lege xii tabularum capitalis erat, nam liber uerberatus addicebatur ei cui furtum fecerat; utrum autem seruus efficeretur ex addictione an {adjiudicati loco constitueretur, ueteres quaerebant. in (seruum) a(e)que (in eum atque, MS) uerbera[tum animaduertebatur. sed] postea improbata est asperitas poenae, et tarn ex semi persona quam ex liberi quadrupli actio praetoris edicto constituta est. (b) Gaius IV, 111: [fur] ti quoque manifesti actio, quamuis ex ipsius praetoris iurisdictione [—] proficiscatur, perpetuo datur; et merito, cum pro capitali poena pecuniaria constituta si{n}t. (c) Gellius XI, 18, 8 and 10: (decemuiri) ex ceteris autem manifestis furibus liberos uerberari addicique iusserunt ei cui furtum factum esset, si modo id luci fecissent neque se telo défendissent; seruos item furti manifesti prensos uerberibus adfici et e saxo praecipitari; sed pueros impubères praetoris arbitratu uerberari uoluerunt noxiamque ab his factam sarciri. ... (10) sed nunc a lege ilia decemuirali discessum est. nam si qui super manifesto furto iure et ordine experiri uelit, actio in quadruplum datur. (d) Gellius XI, 18, 18: sed enim M. Cato in oratione, quam de praeda militibus diuidenda scripsit, uehementius et inlustribus uerbis de impunitate peculatus atque licentia conqueritur. ea uerba, quoniam nobis inpense placuerunt, adscripsimus: 'fures' inquit ' priuatorum furtorum in neruo atque in compedibus aetatem agunt, fures publici in auro atque in purpura' (ORF 8, LXXI, 224). (e) Gellius VI (VII), 15, 1: Labeo in libro de duodecim tabulis secundo acria et seuera iudicia de furtis habita esse apud ueteres scripsit. (f)

Gellius XX, 1,7: dure autem scriptum esse in istis legibus quid existimari potest? nisi duram esse legem putas, ... quae furem manifestum ei, cui furtum factum est, in seruitutem tradit, nocturnum autem furem ius occidendi tribuit.

(g) Dig. D, 14, 7, 14 (Ulpian): nam et de furto pacisci lex permittit.

ROMAN STATUTES

614

(h)

Festus, 402 L (cf. 480 L): 'sub uos placo', in precibus fere cum dicitur, significat id quod 'supplico' (cf. 206 L), ut in legibus 'transque dato' fedendo quae ploratof.

(i)

Festus, 466 L: ... scelera nefaria fie[— sacramento traderetur lege est [—]

(j)

Servius, on Virgil, Aen. VIII, 205: pro ingenti scelere furis nomen posuit; capitale enim crimen apud maiores fuit ante poenam quadrupli.

(k)

Isidore V, 26, 18: furtum autem capitale crimen apud maiores fuit ante poenam quadrupli. Reconstruction

Note that the lacuna in Gaius, (a) above, cannot be convincingly filled in such a way as to refer to the specific penalty of being thrown from the Tarpeian Rock, contra Lachmann, in Schoell, 146. (In the Late Republic slaves seem to have been manumitted before being hurled from the Tarpeian Rock: see the case of Barbarius Philippus, Dig. I, 14, 3 (Ulpian), with Dio XLVHI, 34, 5.) For pactio in the case of theft, see Ulpian, (g) above; the inference is that there was a clause nipacit, as in Tabula I, 13. For the attribution of transque dato and of Festus, (i) above, to this clause, see Kunkel, Untersuchungen, 102-4. The passage of Plautus, Rudens, cited by A.W. Lintott, Violence in Republican Rome (Oxford, 1968), 33, may well illustrate this procedure; but Plutarch, Cato min. 2, 6, may well refer to normal ductio. (Servius and Isidore are using the word crimen loosely: it is more normal in public law.) No portion of a text is attested, except perhaps for transque dato, but the following may have stood there: < « s i furtum manifestum est, ni pacit, uerberato>» transque dato. < « s i seruus, uerberato deque saxo deicito. si impubes, uerberato noxiamque sarcito.»> Commentary For Tabula I, 19-21, see the incomparable exposition of D. Daube, Studies in Biblical Law (Cambridge, 1947), 259-305 (a much expanded version of Tijdschrift 15, 1934, 448-77); see also, very briefly, Wieacker, RRG, 245. In contrast to furtum manifestum, an informal search with witnesses, probably in the context of pursuit, makes the case one of furtum conceptum; a formal search cum lance licioque makes the case one of furtum manifestum', if an object in the hands of A is identified as belonging to B, the case is one of furtum nee manifestum: since there is still a penalty, albeit only double, not simple restitution, the implication is presumably that A ought to have known that the object belonged to B. Since the provisions of the Twelve Tables relating to a search cum lance licioque (Tabula I, 20) were replaced by the actio furti prohibai, it seems reasonable to infer that a formal search cum lance licioque was only undertaken if an attempt was made to refuse

40 - TWELVE TABLES

615

an informal search. A search cum lance licioque evidently could not be refused. It also seems likely that a search cum lance licioque was undertaken against the alleged thief: furtum manifestum itself can only be a delict of the thief. (For an informal search, see the story in Macrobius, Sat. I, 6, 30.) In contrast, Gaius is explicit that for furtum conceptum it is irrelevant whether the object has been found in the hands of the thief; the actio furti concepti cannot raise the question of the identity of the thief. Similarly with furtum oblatum and the actio furti oblati; it is irrelevant whether the person who passed the stolen object is the thief. The scale of the penalty makes it likely that someone condemned in an actio furti concepti was thought of as guilty of 'receiving'; he presumably established his innocence by a successful actio furti oblati. The earliest parallels for the meaning of manifestus are naturally to be found in Plautus, where the word sometimes means 'caught in the act' and sometimes 'clearly identifiable'. It it is likely that 'caught in the act' was the normal meaning in the Twelve Tables, since if an object was in the hands of A, but alleged to belong to B, that was precisely where proof and trial were necessary: see in general the discussion of Gaius ITI, 184. The description of the poena as capitalis is sufficiently explained by the prescription of addictio, which deprived someone of their caput. There is no need to suppose with E. Levy, Die römische Kapitalstrafe (AJcad.Wiss.Heidelberg, Phil.-hist. KL, Sb. 21, 5, 1930-1) = Gesammelte Schriften U (Cologne & Graz, 1963), 325-75, at 330-1, that the clause endorsed private execution of the thief. In this clause, according to the evidence we have, the state prescribes flogging (see perhaps Ps.-Asconius, 201 St) and addictio, the loss of liberty by one of its citizens; there are no grounds for supposing that addictio here is any different from addictio in Tabula ETI, 1-7. V. Arangio-Ruiz, Revue AI Qanoun Wal Iqtisad 2, 1932, 109-35 = Scritti di diritto romano II (Naples, 1974), 369-97, 'La répression du vol flagrant et non-flagrant dans l'ancien droit romain', argued that the quadruple penalty foi furtum manifestum existed already in the Twelve Tables and was enforced by addictio; but the hypothesis is contradicted by the evidence. M. Wlassak, ZSS 24, 1904, 81-188, 'Der Gerichtsmagistrat im gesetzlichen Spruchverfahren', at 95-102, argued that the magistrate under the provisions of the Twelve Tables did no more than endorse a seizure which had already taken place; but there is no hint of this in the texts and the ueteres of Gaius, (a) above, presumably had problems precisely because the text was of extreme brevity. Mommsen held, Str. 751, 931 = DPen III, 55-6, 270, that both delict and penalty were private, not public; but here, as in Tabula VIII, 5, a magistrate is implied as the originator of the punishment. For impubes, compare Tabula VIII, 5; for noxiam sarcito, compare Tabula VETI, 2 and 6; the Introduction, '9 - The unattributed fragments', (7); for nox(i)a, see on Tabula XII, 2. Tabulai, 20 (Tabula VIII, 14 (Schoell) = 15 (Bruns, FIRA)) Sources (a) Gaius IV, 173 (in part = Justinian, Inst. IV, 16, 1): statim autem ab initio pluris quam simpli actio est uelut furti manifesti quadrupli, nee manifesti dupli, concepti et oblati tripli...

ROMAN STATUTES

616

(b) Gaius III, 183-7 (with very minor variations = Justinian, Inst. IV, 1, 4): furtorum autem genera Ser. Sulpicius et Masurius Sabinus iiii esse dixerunt, manifestum et nee manifestum, coneeptum et obl{ig)atum; Labeo duo, manifestum (et) nee manifestum; nam coneeptum et oblatum species potius actionis esse furto cohaerentes quam genera furtorum; quod sane uerius uidetur, sicut inferius apparebit. ... (186) coneeptum furtum dicitur, cum apud aliquem testibus praesentibus furti(u)a (furtibusa, MS) res quaesita et inuenta est. nam in eum propria actio constituta est, quamuis fur non sit, quae appellatur concepti. (187) oblatum furtum dicitur, cum res furtiua tibi ab aliquo oblata sit eaque apud te concepta sit, {uel} utique si ea mente data tibi fuerit, ut apud te potius quam apud eum qui dedcrit conciperetur. nam tibi, apud quem concepta est, propria aduersus eum qui optulit, quamuis fur non sit, constituta est actio, [quae] appellatur obl(a)ti (obliti, MS). (c) Gaius HI, 191-3: concepti et oblati poena ex lege xii tabularum tripli (est, eaque) (esse qua, MS) similiter a praetore seruatur. (192) prohibiti actio quadrupli est ex edicto praetoris introducta. lex autem eo nomine nullam poenam constituit; hoc solum praec(i)pit (praecepit, MS), ut qui quaerere uelit, nudus quaerat, (licio) (linteo, MS) cinctus, lancem habens; qui si quid inuenerit, iubet id lex furtum manifestum esse{t}. (193) quid sit autem (licium) (linteum, MS), quaesitum est; sed uerius (est) (seam, MS) consuti genus esse, quo necessariae partes tegerent(ur). (193a) quae {res} lex tota ridicula est; nam qui uestitum quaerere (prohibet) (perhibet, MS), is et nudum quaerere prohibit(ur)us est, eo magis quod ita quaesita (re et) (res, MS) inuenta maiori poenae subiciatur... (d) Gellius XVI, 10, 8: 'ego uero' inquit ille 'dicere atque interpretari hoc deberem, si ius Faunorum et Aboriginum didicissem. sed enim cum "proletarii" et "adsidui" et "sanates" et "uades" et "subuades" et "uiginti quinque asses" et "taliones" furtorumque quaestio "cum lance et licio" euanuerint omnisque ilia duodecim tabularum antiquitas nisi in legis actionibus centumuiralium causarum lege Aebutia lata consopita sit, Studium scientiamque ego praestare debeo iuris et legum uocumque earum, quibus utimur.' (e) Gellius XI, 18, 9 and 12: ea quoque furta quae per lancem liciumque concepta essent, proinde ac si manifesta forent, uindicauerunt. ... (12) furti concepti, item oblati, tripli poena est. (f) Festus, Pauli Exc. 104 L: lance et licio dicebatur apud antiquos, quia qui furtum ibat quaerere in domo aliena licio cinctus intrabat lancemque ante oculos tenebat propter matrum familiae aut uirginum praesentiam. (g) Glossa Taurinensia, §936 Alberti: ita enim fiebat ut is qui in alienam domum introibat ad requirendam rem furtiuam, nudus ingrediebatur discum fictile in capite portans, utrisque manibus detentus.

40 - TWELVE TABLES

617

Reconstruction It seems clear that in the text of the Twelve Tables known to our sources there stood lance and licio; and that cinctus is the result of interpretation. The original formulation must have been lance licioque: see Norden, Priesterbüchern, 18 n. 2. On balance, we accept cum. (In Source (f), propter... praesentiam was presumably originally attached to licio cinctus intrabat.) No portion of a text is attested, except for cum lance licioque, but the following may have stood there: (si) cum lance licioque Commentary It is sometimes held that our sources present a contradictory picture of furtum conceptum and furtum oblatum punishable by a triple penalty and furtum conceptum assimilated to furtum manifestum. But this is to misunderstand our sources; the waters have been muddied by Gellius, (e) above, who has loosely and non-technically used concipere with per lancem liciumque. There is abundant comparative evidence for: (1) searches without clothing in which objects might be concealed: see, e.g., Plato, Laws XII, 954a-b (there is a double penalty for refusing a search); Aristophanes, Clouds, 497-9; (2) ritual searches: see J.G. Wolf, in Sympotica Fr. Wieacker (Göttingen, 1970), 59-79, 'Lanx und licium', with bibliography. But since there are no grounds for supposing that nudity was prescribed by the Twelve Tables, rather than inferred by our sources, we cannot begin by supposing that such nudity meant, not nudity in the strict sense, but 'absence of arms', and therefore a purely pacific search. The explanation offered by Festus for the lanx has always been rejected as absurd; but a plate bearing a reward for an informer (Mommsen, citing Petronius, Sat. 97) or a magic mirror (Goldman) are not obvious improvements; along the same lines as Goldman, one might suggest that the lanx might have fulfilled the role of a sieve, KÓoKivov or A.ÌKVOV, in koskinomancy. Although licium is a perfectly good Latin word, our sources clearly did not know what to make of it here: it has been seen in modern times as a rope to lead back stolen cattle (Kunkel) or to tie up the thief (Kaser) or as possessing a magic function (von Schwerin and Horak); this last approach has the merit that there is abundant Roman evidence for such a function from Virgil, Eel. VIII, 74, onwards. Wolf has argued that the lanx was for sacrificial purposes and that the licium was analogous to the filum worn by some priests; but it is unlikely that if this had been the case such knowledge would have been lost. It is perhaps worth wondering whether there was not an archaic *licium, meaning 'public gathering', underlying the phrase uoca inlicium omnes Quirites hue ad me (Varro, LL VI, 86, 87, 88, 93; other attestations in TLL, VII, 2, 1373-4, with bibliography, superseding the entry for illicium, VII, 1, 376); lance would then be a corruption which had already occurred before the period of our sources; and the search would take place 'with ??? and public gathering'.

ROMAN STATUTES

618

Tabula I, 21 (Tabula Vili, 15 (Schoell) = 16 (Bruns, FIRA)) Sources (a)

Gaius ni, 190: nec manifesti furti poena per legem (xii) tabularum dupli inrogatur, eamque etiam praetor conseruat.

(b)

Gellius XI, 18, 15: ... furtis omnibus, quae nec manifesta appellantur, poenam iinposuerunt dupli,

(e)

Cato, de agr., praef.: maiores ... in legibus posiuerunt furem dupli condemnari, feneratorem quadrupli

(d)

Gaius IV, 37 (cf. 45): uelut si furt(i) (furtum, MS) agat peregrinus aut cum eo agat(ur) (agat in, MS), formula ita concipitur: iudex esto ... quam ob rem eum si ciuis Romanus esset (pro) (per, MS) fure damnum decidere oporteret...

(e) Dig. IV, 4, 9, 2 (Ulpian): ergo et si potuit (a minor) pro fure damnum decidere magis quam actionem dupli uel quadrupli pati, ei subuenietur. (f)

CJ VI, 2, 13 (Diocletian and Maximian, AD 293): post decisionem furti leges agi prohibent, quod si non transegisti, sed de sublatis partem tantum accepisti, residuam uindicare uel condicere et actione furti apud praesidem agere potes.

(g) Festus, 158 L: 'nec' coniunctionem grammatici fere dicunt esse disiunctiuam, ut 'nec legit nec scribit', cum, si diligentius inspiciatur, ut fecit Sinnius Capito, intelligi possit earn positam esse ab antiquis pro 'non', ut in xii est: 'ast ei custos nec escit' item: 'si adorât furto, quod nec manifestum erit'. Reconstruction The Twelve Tables imposed a double penalty for furtum nec manifestum; and it is generally held that they imposed it with the words duplione damnum decidito. But this is the language of the classical law (compare the improper use of damnum by Gellius XX, 1, 32, a propos of iniuria), while our sources for the clause of the Twelve Tables talk of a poena: compare the poena légitima of Dig. XIII, 1, 7, 1 (Ulpian). We suspect rather » (see Daube, lNoxa\ 80-1, not refuted by D. Liebs, ZSS 85, 1968, 173-252, 'Damnum, damnare und damnas', at 181 n. 31). P. Huvelin, Études sur le furtum I (Lyon & Paris, 1915), 74, argued for a clause containing a procedure for assessing the penalty; but it is more likely that, here and elsewhere, the process of assessment was implicit, not explicit.

40 - TWELVE TABLES

619

For Ulpian and Diocletian, pro Jure damnum decidere is a way of avoiding an action. Hence the attempt of M. Lemosse, in Mélanges H. Levy-Brühl (Paris, 1958), 179-86 = Études romanistiques (Clermont-Ferrand, 1991), 73-80, 'Les actions pénales de vol dans l'ancien droit civil romain', to make adorare mean 'confess'; but for adorare = agere, see the material collected in the Commentary on the Lex Osca Tabulae Bantinae, Law 13, 11. 14-15, esp. Festus, Pauli Exc. 17 L: 'adorare' apud antiquos significabat 'agere'. The form furto in Festus is surprising: neither a dative or an ablative on the one hand, nor an archaic accusative after adorare = agere on the other hand, is deeply convincing; but the Codex Farnesianus is all too likely to have transmitted a corrupt form. It would also be unwise to suppose that the tense of e rit is that of the Twelve Tables, rather than the result of an adaptation of the text to the legislative forms of a later age. The rewriting of the clause by A. Watson, Labeo 21, 1975, 193-6 = Studies in Roman Private Law (London and Rio Grande, 1991), 309-12, 'Si adorât furto', is not to be accepted. Text ... si adorât furt(i) quod nee manifestum erit... Translation ... if he accuses of theft which shall be not manifest... Commentary R. Yaron, Tijdschrifi 34, 1965, 510-24, 'Si adorât furto', argued that because the clause begins si adorât - which is not certain - it is this which is the offence, accusation calumniae causa; but the preserved text cannot give this sense and it is not likely that there was an explanatory clause after quod nee manifestum erit. Nor is it plausible, despite supposed oriental parallels, that accusations specifically of theft calumniae causa would have been separately covered; or that the penalty for agere calumniae causa would have been so light. The argument of V. Arangio-Ruiz, cited on Tabula I, 19, that the Twelve Tables did not distinguish the offence of furtum nee manifestum, has been universally rejected: see, e.g., Kaser,fl/>/?I, 158-9. For the meaning of damnum, 'penalty' = 'expenditure of the offender by way of punishment', see Daube, 'Damnum* 281 n. 26; and on Tabula XII, 3. Tabula I, 22 (Tabula VIII, 16 (Schoell) = 17 (Bruns, FIRA)) Source (a) Gaius II, 45-9: sed aliquando etiamsi maxime quis bona fide alienam rem possideat, non tarnen Uli usucapio procedit, uelut si qui(s) rem furtiuam aut ui possessam possideat{ur}; nam furtiuam lex xii tabularum usucapì prohibet, ui possessam lex Iulia et Plautia.

620

ROMAN STATUTES ... (49) quod ergo uulgo dicitur furtiuarum rerum et ui possessarum usucapionem per lege(m) xii tabularum (—) prohibitam esse, non eo pertinet, ut n[e ipse] f[ur quiue] per uim [possi]det usucapere [po]ssit (nam huic ali [a] ratione usucapio non competit, quia scilicet mala fide possidet), sed nee ullus alius, quamquam ab eo bona fide emerit, usucapiendi ius habeat. Reconstruction

(In Gaius II, 49, we must surely suppose that something like aut per legem Iuliam et Plautiam has dropped out.) We shall come in the Commentary to attempts to distinguish the Twelve Tables and the Lex Atinia, Law 48; but given the formulation of Tabula VI, 3-4, and of the Lex Atinia, it seems likely that aeterna auctoritas esto stood here. And given the archaic morphology of quod subruptum erit of the Lex Atinia (see F. RitschI, RhM 8, 1851, 451, 464 = Kleine Schriften IV, (Leipzig, 1878), 66-8), it seems plausible to suppose that some part of subruptus stood here; note that subripio is standard terminology in Plautus. No portion of a text is attested, but the following may have stood there: Commentary For furtum, see the Commentary on Tabula I, 19; for auctoritas, see the Commentary on Tabula VI, 3-4. Here, we think, auctoritas is the title of the victim of a theft. The principal problem is that from what we are told of either statute, the content of this clause and of the Lex Atinia, Law 48, appears to be the same. Later sources either treat the two as one (Dig. XLI, 3, 33pr. (Julian); Justinian, Inst. II, 6, 2) or cite only the Lex Atinia (Dig. XLI, 3, 4, 6 (Paul)). What might the Lex Atinia have changed with respect to the rule of the Twelve Tables? Various possibilities have been canvassed, now discussed by M. Käser, ZSS 105, 1988, 122-64, 'Altrömisches Eigentum und "usucapio"', at 138-40, with bibliography. There is a further possibility: it would be extremely surprising if a statute of the Gracchan age, such as the Lex Atinia, even on a private law matter, consisted only of the single clause known to us. Even within this clause, there is a qualification, nisi... reuersum erit, which probably did not stand in the Twelve Tables and which generated controversy; and there may have been further clauses, unknown (and unknowable) to us, one of which perhaps extended the rule of the. Twelve Tables from res mancipi to res nee mancipi (cf. Tabula VI, 3).

40 - TWELVE TABLES

621

Tabula II, 1 (Tabula II, 3 (Schoell, Bruns, FIRA)) Sources (a) Festus, 262 L: portum in xii pro domo positum omnes fere consentiunt: 'cui testimonium defuerit, {h}is tertiis diebus ob portum obuagulatum ito'. (b) Festus, 514 L: uagulatio in l(ege) (Lindsay's decision to exclude 1 does not convince) xii significat quaestio cum conuicio: 'cui testimonium defu{g}erit, is terti(i)s diebus ob portum obuagulatum ito'. Text cui testimonium defuerit, is tertiis diebus ob portum obuagulatum ito. Translation Whoever shall have been lacking witness, he is to go every other day to complain at the entrance passage. Commentary Wordsworth, Early Latin, 518, suggested hesitantly that tertiis diebus might refer to a single occasion for each of a number of people, but this is very unlikely. With portus, compare the word angiportus: the interpretation in Festus gives only the general sense. The word obuagulo is usually taken as describing some form of charivari and as involving the imprecation of divine sanctions: see H. Usener, RhM, 56, 1901, 1-28 = Kleine Schriften IV (Leipzig & Berlin, 1913), 356-82, 'Italische Volksjustiz', at 22-8 = 376-82; he may be right, though it remains unclear whether the action was intended as punishment for failure to appear or encouragement to appear. Mommsen argued in Zeitschrift für die Altertumswissenschaft 2, 1844, 457-72 = GS III, 500-12, reviewing J.H.A. Escher, De testium ratione quae Romae Ciceronis aeiate obtinuit (Zurich, 1842), at 465-6 = 507, that deesse described the misconduct of a witness obliged to act and hence took obuagulatio as punishment; but such a strong interpretation of deesse can hardly be justified; see also the survey of M. Radin, RE XVII, 2 (1937), 1747-50. The word obuagulo occurs only here and a cautious enquirer will wonder whether wc know so much of the Latin of this period that we can exclude the possibility that obuagulo meant little more than appello. Doubt will continue to subsist as to whether quaestio is a corruption of questus. If Festus wrote questus, he perhaps, though not necessarily, thought that the action was intended as a punishment. Tabula VIII, 11, relates to the behaviour of someone who has borne witness and has no necessary connection with this provision.

622

ROMAN STATUTES Tabula II, 2 Sources

(a)

Dig. II, ll,2,3(Ulpian): et ideo etiam lex duodecim tabularum, si iudex uel alteruter ex litigatoribus morbo sontico impediatur, iubet diem iudicii esse diffìssum.

(b)

Festus, 372 L (cf. Pauli Exc, 373 L): sonticum morbum in xii significare ait Aelius Stilo certum cum iusta causa; quem nonnulli putant esse, qui noceat, quod 'sonte(s)' significat 'nocentes'. Naevius ait: 'sonticam esse oportet causam, quam ob rem perdas mulierem' (Fabulae palliarne-, XXXVI, fr. 21 Marmorale).

(c)

Festus, 464 L: [sontica] causa dicitur a morbo [sontico ...] gerendum agere [... M. Porci]us

Text 1. aeris confessi (iudicatique) ?xxx? dies iusti sunto. 2. post deinde manus iniectio esto. 3. in ius ducito. ni iudicatum facit aut quis endo eo in iure uindicit, secum ducito. uincito aut neruo aut compedibus. quindecim pondo ne (maiore) aut si uolet (minore) uincito. 4. si uolet, suo uiuito. ni suo uiuit, qui eum uinctum habebit, libras farris endo dies dato, si uolet, plus dato. 5. See above. 6. < « n i pacit,»> tertiis nundinis partis secanto. si plus minusue secuerunt, se fraude esto. 7. See above.

628

ROMAN STATUTES

Translation 1. In respect of an admitted sum (and of a thing judged), there are to be the ?30? lawful days. 2. Next afterwards there is to be laying on of a hand. 3. He (the plaintiff) is to take (him) to a pre-trial. Unless he does what has been judged or anyone acts as a guarantor in respect of him at a pre-trial, he (the plaintiff) is to take (him) with himself. He is to bind (him) with rope or shackles. He is to bind (him) with not (more) thanfifteenpounds or (less) if he shall wish. 4. If he (the defendant) shall wish, he is to live off his own. If he does not live off his own, he who shall have him bound is to give him a pound of spelt a day. If he shall wish, he is to give him more. 5. See above. 6. on the third market-day they are to ??? ??? If they have ??? more or less, it is to be without liability. 7. See above. Commentary The statute here provides for execution on the person of a confessus, in respect of a sum of aes, or a iudicatus. Our procedure is described in detail by Gaius IV, 21 (cf. Livy VI, 14; XXIII, 14, 3): per manus iniectionem aeque (de) his rebus agebatur, de quibus ut ita ageretur lege aliqua cautum est, uelut iudicati lege xii tabularum. quae actio talis erat: qui agebat, sic dicebat: 'quod tu mihi iudicatus* (siue 'damnatus') es sestertiorum x milia, quandoc non soluisti, ob earn rem ego tibi sestertiorum x milium iudicati manum initio' et simui aliquam partem corporis eius prendebat. nee licebat iudicato manum sibi depellere et pro se lege agere, sed uindicem dabat, qui pro se causam agere solebat; qui uindicem non dabat, domum ducebatur ab actore et uinciebatur. (For aeque, compare the beginning of the account of the procedure per iudicis postulationem, Tabula I, 12. It is surely more likely that 'damnatus' is a later alternative within the form of words, to cope for instance with a legacy per damnationem, than that 'iudicatus siue damnatus* all belongs in the original form of words, contra A. Magdelain, * RIDA, 3e série, 27, 1980, 205-81 = Jus Imperium Auctoritas (Rome, 1990), 'Aspects arbitraux de la justice civile archaïque à Rome*, at 241 = 619.) It is clear from Gaius that when the defendant finds himself in iure he is not held; and that refusal iudicatum facere is followed by the pronouncement of the form of words and seizure. It would be paradoxical to suppose that the Twelve Tables mentioned seizure prior to the defendant finding himself in iure, but not seizure with the pronouncement of the form of words. Exactly as in Gaius, therefore, manus iniectio esto is a description of the whole procedure. It is for this reason that we have isolated the phrase under a single clause: compare in general Tabula I, 2; Käser, ZPR, 97-8, with bibliography. There is a more distant description of the procedure in Servius, on Virgil, Aen. X, 419: 'INIECERE MÀNUM PAJRCAE: traxerunt debitum sibi. et sermone usus est iuris; nam manus iniectio dicitur quotiens, nulla iudicis auctoritate expectata (i.e., without an actio iudicati), rem nobis debitam uindicamus'. The guarantor offers to pay: he cannot contest the judgment. In general, in proceedings pro iudicato, for a judgment debt, i.e., what is owed as a result of a judgment, the grounds

40 - TWELVE TABLES

629

for the judgment are no longer relevant: compare the Lex Osca Tabulae Bantina, Law 13, 1. 24; the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Ch. LXI; the Lex Silia, Law 46. For endo eo, compare Tabula V, 7. We do not know whether uindicit is an attestation of uindicere or a fossilised archaic subjunctive of uindicare, and we offer a cautious translation. For the role of the uindex, see also on Tabula I, 4. For the assimilation of the confessus to the iudicatus, see on the Lex de Gallia Cisalpina, Law 28. Our text, either as preserved or as emended, does not distinguish between aes confessum, presumably fixed in money, and res iudicatae or iudicatum, perhaps not. A check by the magistrate that judgment has been passed is implicit in the process of checking that it has not been carried out, represented by the phrase ni iudicatum facit. For ductio in late Republican procedure, see on the Lex de Gallia Cisalpina, Law 28. For the words aut nemo aut compedibus compare Cato, ORF 8, LXXI, 224 (Tabula I, 19, Source (d)). For the status of the uinctus, see Festus, Pauli Exc. 72 L. For pacisci in cases of iniuria, see Tabula I, 13. Much ink has been spilt on partis secanto, normally taken to mean '(the creditors) are to cut (the debtor) into pieces': see, e.g., Käser, ZPR, 102. The fact that our sources only wax indignant about a dismemberment of the debtor, along with the whole structure of the text of Gellius, makes it clear that these two words are all that furnish testimony for death as penalty for failure to pay a debt. The absence of the words from the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, along with sale beyond the Tiber, may no doubt be explained on the hypothesis that popular revulsion led to a change in the law. But there are problems: not least, partis secanto is odd Latin for 'they are to cut into pieces', although Gaius takes the phrase in this way. It is furthermore clear that the account of what happens, if the debt is not paid and ni pacit, begins with the words tertiis nundinis. In other words, if partis secanto means 'they (the multiple creditors) are to cut into pieces', there cannot have been any reference to the single creditor who alone has figured so far in the text. Naturally, neither of these problems altogether goes away on the view that the multiple creditors are to cut the property of the debtor into pieces. But the existence in classical Latin of the anomalous expressions bonorum sector and bonorum sectio nonetheless makes this the least unlikely explanation (Attempts to evade the problem by arguing that the subject of partis secanto are the gods (H. Lévy-Bruhl, Quelques problèmes du très ancient droit romain (Paris, 1934), 152-67; Actions de la loi, 303); or a crowd, to whom as sacer the debtor is surrendered (A. Magdelain, in Studi C. Sanfilippo (Milan, 1982), 287-92 = Jus Imperium Auctoritas (Rome, 1990) 653-7, 'La manus iniectio chez les Etrusques et chez Virgile'), are devoid of evidential base and cannot be confirmed or refuted.) Sale beyond the Tiber, perhaps because it was not Roman territory when the rule was formulated, serves to distinguish 'sale' here from 'sale' of Romans to Romans in Tabula IV, 2. Livy III, 13, 10, is only compatible with 26, 8, if the four iugera Cincinnatus was cultivating on the latter occasion were not his, contra Pliny, NH XVIII, 20; Festus, Pauli Exc. 307 L; it may be that Livy thought of Cincinnatus as suffering the consequences of Tabula HI, 7. (Relegation beyond the Tiber, used as a punishment in the cases of rebellion by Velitrae, Privernum and Capua, is a different matter, though it may explain Livy's uelut relegatus in III, 13, 10.) Note that Solon is reported as having released Athenians from bondage and brought them back from abroad; and that it was not permitted for an Alexandrian to be the slave of an Alexandrian: see PDikaiomata, 11. 219-21.

ROMAN STATUTES

630

Tabula IV, 1 Sources (a) Cicero, de leg. Ili, 19: deinde quom esset cito tlegatust (the tribunate), tamquam ex xii tabulis insignis ad deformitatem puer, breui tempore nescio quo pacto recreatus ... (b) The Autun version of Gaius IV, 85-6: [—1 cum patris potestas talis est ut habeat uitae et necis potfestatem]. (86) de filio hoc tractari crudele est, sed [—] non est [—] post r[— occi]dere sine iusta causa, ut constituit lex xii tabularum. Reconstruction The usual correction for legatus is necatus; but it is hard to see how such a corruption arose. The suggestion of Orelli, leto datus is better palaeographically and has the merit of restoring a form of words that is almost a cliché: see Festus, 304 L; Varro, LL VII, 42. One may add'that cito leto datus forms the middle of a hexameter: Ennius? But we are no nearer to the text of the Twelve Tables. (The conjecture of Brisson and Dorat, ablegatus, reported by Lambinus and adopted by Schoell, has little to recommend it.) On the basis of Gaius, W. Kunkel argued, ZSS 83, 1966, 219-51 = Kleine Schriften (Weimar, 1974), 116-49, 'Das Konsilium im Hausgericht', at 241-4 = 139-41, that the Twelve Tables conferred immunity on the killing of a son under certain conditions: contra, A. Guarino, Labeo 13, 1967, 124, 'Tagliacarte 1', arguing that any such conditions were a later development. It may be: (1) that the Twelve Tables contained no positive statement on patria potestas, contra Riccobono on Tabula IV, 2; (2) that it was from a negative formulation in the Twelve Tables that there was derived also a general statement such as that of Papinian, Coll. IV, 8: cum patri lex regia dederit in filium (so the MSS) uitae necisque potestatem ...; cf. Dion.Hal. U, 26, 1-6 (Romulus). Cicero, (a) above, makes it plausible to suppose that the Twelve Tables conferred immunity on exposure of a deformed child, perhaps with some form of words such as se fraude esto. No portion of a text is attested, but the following may have stood there: < « s i deformis natus est, ast non tollit (or ast exponit, ast abicit, ast necat: see F. Lanfranchi, Ricerche sulle azioni di stato nella filiazione in diritto romano // (Bologna, 1964), 5-35), se fraude esto.»> Commentary The Roman institution of patria potestas is of course well-known: see W.V. Harris, in Studies A. Arthur Schiller (Leiden, 1986), 81-95, 'The Roman father's power of life and death'; and Roman fathers did kill their sons in the historical period. Even if the Twelve Tables did not contain any positive statement about such a power, it is certainly assumed in the early or archaising form of words for adrogatio preserved by Gellius V, 19, 9 (see the General Introduction, Ch. VII); see in general Kaser, RPR I, 61-3. The right to expose a deformed (or monstrous) child is attributed to Romulus by Dion.Hal. H, 15, 2.

40 - TWELVE TABLES

631

Tabula IV, 2 Sources (a)

Gaius I, 132 (cf. IV, 79; Epit. I, 6, 3; Justinian, Inst I, 12, 6): [—] emancipatione desinunt liberi in potestate parentum esse, sed filius quidem tribus mancipationibus, ceteri uero liberi siue masculini sexus siue feminini una mancipatione exeunt de parentium potestate; lex enim xii tabularum tantum in persona filii de tribus mancipationibus loquitur h[is] uerbis: 'si pater (ter) filium uenum du[it], a patre filius liber esto'. [eaque] res ita agitur: mancipat pater filiuin alicui; is eum uindicta manumittit; eo facto reuertitur in potestatem patris; is eum iterum mancipat uel eidem uel alii - sed in usu est eidem mancipari - isque eum postea similiter uindicta manumittit; eo facto rursus in potestatem patris reuertitur; tertio pater eum mancipat uel eidem uel alii - sed hoc in usu est, ut eidem mancip[etur - eaque] mancipatione [de]sini[t i]n p[otest]ate patris ess[e et]iamsi nondum manumissus sit, sed adhuc in causa mancipii...

(b)

TitUlp. 10, 1: sed filius quidem ter mancipatus, ter manumissus sui iuris fit; id enim lex duodecim tabularum iubet his uerbis: 'si pater filium ter uenum dauit (so the MS, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Reg.Lat. 1128),filiusa patre liber esto'.

(c)

Dion.Hal. II, 27, 3-4, esp.: τούτον τον νόμον (of Romulus) οί... δέκα άνδρες άμα τοις άλλοις ανέγραψαν νόμοις καί έστιν εν τη τετάρτη των λεγομένων δώδεκα δέλτων.

(d)

Dig. Π, 14,48: Gaius libro tertio ad legem duodecim tabularum: in traditionibus rerum, quodcumque pactum sit, id ualere manifestissimum est. Reconstruction

The dauit of Source (b) is probably a mistake for dabit, pace R. Godei, Gioita 57, 1979, 23Q-6, 'Le subjonctif latin duim (duam)': duit is the most likely form here (J. Cujas, Opera omnia I (Naples, 1758), 316-17, wrote venumduvit, presumably supposing that to be the reading, but commented 'id est, duit'). The word order in Gaius, (a) above, must have been si pater (ter)... It is preferable. Gaius, (d) above, on the later law, may as readily be a comment on Tabula VI, 1, Tabula VI, 2, or Tabula VI, 1-2 (a), as on Tabula IV, 2. See also the Introduction, '9 The unattributed fragments', (6). Text si pater ter filium uenum duit, a patre filius liber esto. Translation If a father thrice sell a son, from the father the son is to be free.

ROMAN STATUTES

632

Commentary There was nothing in the Twelve Tables on daughters, grandsons, or granddaughters. That the statute relates to multiple sales of a son, not sequential sales of several sons, is rendered certain by the pontifical interpretation of the clause to cover daughters. The collusive use of the procedure is well known to Gaius, who expatiates on its ramifications (133-41); note in particular the definition of in causa mancipii (138) and the incidental reference to the person, 'quern pater ea lege mancipio dedit, ut sibi remancipetur (sic)' (140, cf. Dig. II, 14, 48, (d) above); such a person is presumably in a different position from the person discussed in the Twelve Tables. We cannot know whether the Twelve Tables adopted the rule in order to permit the emancipation of a son (Kaser, RPR I, 69-71, with bibliography) or in order to punish a father who persistently 'sold' a son (Kunkel and Yaron, cited by Käser). J.M. Kelly, in Daube Noster (Edinburgh and London, 1974), 183-6, 'A note on "threefold mancipation'", argued convincingly that originally the father did not give by means of mancipium, but uenum dedit, 'hired out' his son; and that it was only in the collusive use of the procedure that he 'sold' by means of mancipium (for which see on Tabula VI, 1). It is not possible at the time of the Twelve Tables to distinguish between uenum dare meaning 'to sell' or 'to hire out'. For a similar alleged lex regia of Romulus, see Source (c); Dion.Hal. II, 27, 4, alleges a lex of Numa which modified it; cf. Plutarch, Numa 17, 5. For Latins formally selling their sons to Romans to be manumitted,.see Livy XLI, 8, 10.

Tabula IV, 3 Sources (a) Dig. XLVIII, 5, 44 (cf. XXIV, 2, 2 (Gaius libro undecimo ad edictum prouinciale)): Gaius libro tertio ad legem duodecim tabularum: si ex lege repudium missum non sit et idcirco mulier adhuc nupta esse uideatur ... (b) Cicero, Phil. II, 69: frugi factus est (M. Antonius); mimulam suam suas res sibi habere iussit ex duodecim tabulis, clauis ademit, exegit. Reconstruction Source (a) shows that the Twelve Tables imposed a formal statement by husband to wife in the case of a divorce, but does not mention any particular form of words (against the view that the text is interpolated, see E. Volterra, in Studi B. Biondi II (Milan, 1965), 123-40 = Scritti giuridici II (Naples, 1991), 521-36, 'Intorno a D. 48, 5, 44 (43)'); Cicero, in talking of the separation between Antonius and his mistress, refers not to the text of the Twelve Tables, contra R. Yaron, Tijdschrifi 28, 1960, 1-12, 'Minutiae on Roman divorce', at 1-8, but to words often used by citizens to divorce their wives: compare, e.g., Plautus, Amph. 928; Trin. 266: 'res tuas tibi habeto'; Cas. 210: 'i foras'; Nonius II, 77 Mercerus = 108 Lindsay: 'annos multos quod parere ea non poterai,

40 - TWELVE TABLES

633

mulierem foras baetere iussit'. We take Cicero to refer the rule of the Twelve Tables to suas res sibi habere, not to confiscation of the keys: note that Nonius IV, 291 Mercerus = 449 Lindsay, quotes only claues ademit forasque exegit. The occurrence of the phrase repudium mittere also in Gaius I, 137a; and of repudium remitterey for reasons of metre, in Terence, Phorm. 928-9; Lucilius 848-50 Marx = 931-3 Warmington = 905-7 Krenkel, makes it very likely that the Twelve Tables used the phrase: Commentary Note that hypobole of keys is one of the grounds for divorce allowed to husbands in the statutes of Romulus as reported by Plutarch, Rom. 22, 3. The Twelve Tables as we have them are mute on grounds for divorce: see in general Watson, Roman Private Law around 200 BC (Edinburgh, 1971), 23-4.

Tabula IV, 4 Sources (a) Dig. XXXVm, 16, 3, 9-11 (Ulpian): utique et ex lege duodecim tabularum ad legitimam hereditatem is qui in utero fuit admittitur, si fuerit editus. ... (11) post decern menses mortis natus non admittetur ad legitimam hereditatem. (b)

Gellius III, 16,12: praeterea ego de partu humano ... hoc quoque usu uenisse Romae comperi: feminam bonis atque honestis moribus, non ambigua pudicitia, in undecimo mense post mariti mortem peperisse, factumque esse negotium propter rationem temporis, quasi marito mortuo postea concepisset, quoniam decemuiri in decern mensibus gigni hominem, non in undecimo scripsissent. Reconstruction

Our sources suggest the use of the words decern menses, perhaps of post decern menses natus\ the Twelve Tables will perhaps have gone on to say 'is not to be heir'. Schoell, 71, following others, is clearly right to say that this clause belongs with what follows in Tabula V. (For negotium facessere, see on the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Ch. XCV, 11. 26-7; we should here emend Gellius to ...factumque esse (ei) negotium ...) No portion of a text is attested, but the following may have stood there: < « s i post decern menses natus est.. . » >

ROMAN STATUTES

634

Tabula V, 1 Sources (a)

Gaius I, 144-5: ueteres enim uoluerunt feminas, etiamsi perfectae aetatis sint, propter animi leuitatem in tutela esse. (145) ... loquimur autem exceptis uirginibus Vestalibus, quas edam ueteres in honorem sacerdotii libéras esse uoluerunt; itaque etiam lege xii tabularum cautum est.

(b)

Gellius I, 12, 9: uirgo autem Vestalis, simul est capta atque in atrium Vestae deducta et pontificibus tradita est, eo statim tempore sine emancipatione ac sine capitis minutione e patris potestate exit et ius testamenti faciundi adipiscitur.

(c)

Gellius I, 12, 18: praeterea in commentariis Labeonis, quae ad duodecim tabulas composuit, ita scriptum est: 'uirgo Vestalis neque heres est cuiquam intestato neque intestatae quisquam, sed bona eius (in) publicum redigi aiunt. id quo iure fiat, quaeritur.' Reconstruction

The Twelve Tables will certainly have used the words uirgo Vestalis. No portion of a text is attested, apart from uirgo Vestalis, but the following may have stood there: uirgo Vestalis < « a tutela libera esto.»> Commentary Similar information is also to be found in Gaius I, 130; TiuUlp. 10, 5; the measure is attributed to Numa by Plutarch, Numa 10, 5. See in general F. Guizzi, // sacerdozio di Vesta. Aspetti giuridici dei culti romani (Naples, 1968), 3-31, with bibliography. Tabula V, 2 Sources (a) Gaius II, 47 (cf. I, 157): trest mulieris, quae in agnatorum tutela erat, res mancipi usucapi non poterant, praeterquam si ab ipsa tutore (auctore) traditae essent; id ita lege xii tabularum [cautum est.] (b) Gaius n, 80: nunc admonendi sumus neque feminam neque pupillum sine tutoris auctoritate rem mancipi alienare posse; nec mancipi uero feminam quidem posse, pupillum non posse.

40 - TWELVE TABLES

635

Reconstruction The presence of res mancipi in Source (a) is guaranteed by its presence in Source (b), contra David & Nelson; likewise the addition of the omitted auctore. If one looks at the whole run of the text of Gaius here, it appears likely that the first (redundant) res is to be explained as a corruption of item; for the supplement at the end of Source (a) compare Tabula V, 1. No portion of a text is attested, but the following may have stood there:

Commentary For tutela by agnates, compare the Lex Flavia, Ch. 29. It emerges from Cicero, Flac. 84-9, the whole of which must be read, that in his period the principle enshrined in this clause was applied to prevent a woman passing out of tutela into the manus of her husband without the agreement of all her guardians; see in general Mayer-Maly, 'Usucapio II', 262-4, with bibliography.

Tabula V, 3 Sources (a) Dig. XXXVm, 6, lpr. (Ulpian): posteaquam praetor locutus est de bonorum possessione eius qui testatus est, transitum fecit ad intestatos, eum ordinem secutus, quem et lex duodecim tabularum secuta est; fuit enim ordinarium ante de iudiciis testantium, dein sic de successione ab intestato loqui. (b) ad Her. 1,13,23: et lex: paterfamilias uti super familia pecuniaue sua legauerit, ita ius esto. (e) Cicero, de inv. II, 148: et lex: paterfamilias uti super familia pecuniaque sua legassit, ita ius esto. (d) Gaius II, 224: sed ohm quidem licebat totum Patrimonium legatis atque libertatibus erogare nec quicquam heredi relinquere praeterquam inane nomen heredis; idque lex xii tabularum permittere uidebatur, qua cauetur, ut quod quisque de re sua testatus esset, id ratum haberetur, his uerbis: 'uti legass(i)t (legasset, MS) suae re(i) (res, MS), ita ius esto'. qua(r)e (quaee, MS) qui scripti heredes erant, ab hereditate se abstinebant et ideirco plerique intestati moriebantur. (e) Justinian, Inst. II, 22pr.: cum enim olim lege duodecim tabularum libera erat legandi potestas, ut liceret uel totum Patrimonium legatis erogare, quippe ea lege ita cautum esset, 'uti legassit suae rei ita ius esto', uisum est hanc legandi licentiam coartare ...

ROMAN STATUTES

636 (f)

Translation of Inst, by Theophilus: πάλαι γαρ έξήν πάσαν την ούσίαν δια ληγάτων δαπανάν ή και σχεδόν πάσαν, τούτο του δωδεκαδέλτου νόμου επιτρέποντος, δστις φησίν, uti legassit suae rei quis ita ius esto.

(g)

Dig. L, 16, 120 (Pomponius): uerbis legis duodecim tabularum his 'uti legassit suae rei ita ius esto' latissima potestas tributa uidetur et heredis instituendi et legata et libertates dandi, tutelas quoque constituendi. sed id interpretatione coangustatum est uel legum uel auctoritate iura constituentium.

(h) Nov. 22, 2pr. (Justinian): νομοϋετείτω μεν γαρ έκαστος έπι τοις εαυτού τα εικότα και έστω νόμος ή τούτου βουλή, καϋάπερ και ό παλαιότατος ήμΐν των νόμων και πρώτος σχεδόν την πολιτείαν ' Ρ ω μ α ι ο ι ς δ ι α τ ά ξ α ς φησ'ι (φαμεν δε τον δυωδεκάδελτον), κατά την άρχαίαν και πάτριον γλωτταν ούτωσί που λέγων, uti legass(i)t (legasset, MSS) quisque de sua re, ita ius esto. (i)

Tit.Ulp. 11, 3 and 14: legitimi tutores sunt, qui ex lege aliqua descendunt; per eminentiam autem legitimi dicuntur, qui ex lege duodecim tabularum introducuntur, seu palam, quales sunt agnati, seu per consequentiam, quales sunt patroni. ... (14) testamento quoque nominatim tutores dati confirmantur eadem lege xii tabularum his uerbis: 'uti legassit super pecunia tutelaue suae rei, ita ius esto'.

(j)

Dig. L, 16, 53pr. (Paul): nam cum dicitur apud ueteres 'adgnatorum gentiliumque' pro separatione accipitur. at cum dicitur 'super pecunia{e} tutela{e}ue tsuaef tutor separatim sine pecunia dari non potest. Reconstruction

The text is highly problematic. (1) Given the avoidance in the Twelve Tables of a· subject (for a verb) which is in any way redundant, paterfamilias in Sources (b) and (c), quis in (f), and quisque in (h), which does not in any case claim absolute accuracy, are surely explanatory expansions of an original text. It is important to observe that the need for a subject was felt just as acutely by Theophilus and Justinian as in the citation in the ad Herennium and Cicero. (2) In Source (b), legauerit is naturally a modernisation of legassit. (3) The word order in Sources (b) and (c) has presumably been modernised. But, (4), super is surely part of the original text. Jurists have tended to dismiss the ad Herennium and Cicero as sources (for the early history of the controversy, see Dirksen, Zwölf-Tafel-Fragmente, 330 n. 395a, citing great names on both sides). Thus M. Wlassak writes, Studien zum altrömischen Erb- und Vermächtnis recht (Akad.Wiss.Wien, Phil.hist.Kl., Sb. 215, 2, Viennna & Leipzig, 1933), 3: 'Wo wir den Gesetzestext einem klassischen Juristen verdanken, wird diese Fassung der Regel nach mehr Vertrauen verdienen als eine andere, die ein Nichtjurist, z.B. in einer rhetorischen Schrift, beibringt ... Unter anderem ersetzen die Rhetoren aiefamilia des echten Textes [of Tabula V, 4] durch familia pecuniaque.' Similarly, Β. Albanese, Ann.Sem.Giur.Palermo 20, 1949, 125-488, 'La successione ereditaria in diritto romano antico', at 280-1, cf. 337-42, talks

40 - TWELVE TABLES

637

of a 'redazione retorica' and adds the misstatement that 'il testo decemvirale con familia pecuniaque, tramandatoci dagli scritti retorici, non è confermato da nessun altro testo collaterale, sia esso giuridico o letterario'. But these approaches are probably misconceived, since it can be shown that the formulation in the ad Herennium and Cicero is completely alien both to classical oratory and to classical works about oratory. The ad Herennium never elsewhere uses super = de = 'concerning' and Cicero never elsewhere uses such an expression except in his letters to Atticus; it follows that super is the word that the author of the ad Herennium and Cicero both found, perhaps - why not - in a legal source; for its use in archaic prose, compare Cato, ORF 8, XXVII, 109, from Festus (to be read with Kunkel, Untersuchungen, 99 n. 363): nemo antea fecit super tali re cum hoc magistratu uti (quaererem) (utique rem, MS). Note also Plautus, Amph. 58, in the course of a passage the latter part of which is full of parodies of legal formulae. And though we shall see in a moment that neither the Tituli Ulpiani, (i) above, nor Paul, (j) above, is a perfect text, it is interesting that both read super. It would also be surprising, leaving aside for a moment what follows, that an unambiguous super + ablative should have been replaced by an ambiguous genitive partitive or of respect. It is true that it is as a genitive of respect that Gaius, the Institutes and Pomponius take suae rei, but it is the context that makes this clear: uti legassit suae rei is surely a text created for a context where it is embedded in interpretation. It is also a text that made at least Pomponius uneasy, (g) above: he knew that the Twelve Tables were the source of the power to appoint a tutor and was forced to observe that it seemed to be attributed by the citation - 'uti legassit suae rei ita ius esto' - he had in front of him (Wlassak, I.e., 4 n. 6, skates too rapidly over this text). To return to the genitive, note that Justinian, (h) above, evidently felt the need to be absolutely clear by attributing de sua re to the text of the Twelve Tables. (The modern suggestion, U. Coli, Iura 7, 1956, 24-91 = Scritti di diritto romano II (Milan, 1973), 613-76, 'Il testamento nella legge delle XII Tavole', at 36 = 626, that suae rei is a dative, is not plausible: the fact that curare takes the dative in early Latin is not relevant. Nor is it likely that legare suae rei = legem dicere suae rei, as already at least F.A. Schilling, Bemerkungen über römische Rechtsgeschichte. Eine Kritik über Hugo's Lehrbuch der Geschichte des römischen Rechts bis auf Justinian (Leipzig, 1829), 97 n. 1. If that is what the Twelve Tables had wanted to say, they could perfectly well have said it.) As far as what follows super is concerned, as between the ad Herennium and Cicero on the one hand and the Tituli Ulpiani and Paul on the other hand, the former surely carry greater authority on one point: it seems unlikely that a fifth-century BC text would mention pecunia, but not mention familia, contra Schoell, 13 n. 2; it is as near certain as may be that the latter word stood here, as also in Tabula V, 4-5 and 7. As for the absence of tutelaue from the ad Herennium and Cicero, it may be explained by the likelihood that it was not germane to the particular case that they both discuss. It is on the other hand not at all certain that the ad Herennium and Cicero are wrong to use the doublet familia pecuniaue. Jurists have tended to argue that they are wrong, for instance R. Santoro, .Ann.Sem.Giur.Palermo 30, 1967, 103-664, 'Potere ed azione nell'antico diritto romano', at 400-2, on Tabula V, 4-5, following B. Albanese, cited above; it is alleged that the legal sources are more trustworthy; that the ad Herennium and Cicero omit clauses cited in the legal sources; that in Tabula V, 4-5, they conflate

638

ROMAN STATUTES

agnaîum gentiliumque; and that in Tabula V, 3, they wrongly mention pecuniaue. But the first and fourth points are precisely what is at issue. And in assessing the second and third points, one must remember that both authors cite the Twelve Tables in connection with a particular case. It does not follow from the fact that they omit and conflate that they have here actually inserted pecuniaue. The legal sources are not in any case unanimous, since the Tituli Ulpiani and Paul both have pecunia. The text of Paul is corrupt, but it seems likely that the citation has been corrupted from one which was the same as that of the Tituli Ulpiani: the insistence that tutor separatim sine pecunia dari non potest seems to read better if it follows super pecunia {e} tutela {e} ue suae (rei). It is in any case important to note that both the citations are strictly instrumental to a discussion of tutela. A man appointed a tutor to look after sua res, his property. We should regard suae rei as an explanatory gloss inserted into the text: it implicitly clarifies what is going on for the Tituli Ulpiani, while it underlies the concern of Paul with the inseparability of tutor and pecunia. To take super pecunia tutelaue as an explanatory gloss inserted between uti legassit and suae rei involves a tortured reading of the Latin. By any normal standards of textual criticism, the agreement of the Tituli Ulpiani and Paul with the ad Herennium and Cicero, from whom they cannot possibly derive, is a powerful argument for the presence of super ... pecuniale) in the text of the Twelve Tables. One cannot in the end prove that familia pecuniaue stood here or indeed anywhere in the Twelve Tables. But the contrary arguments are weak and arbitrary. And the doublet is certainly archaic, occurring in the formula used by the familiae emptor in the testamentum per aes et libram preserved by Gaius II, 104: 'familiam pecuniamque tuam endo mandatela tua custodelaque mea (esse aio ...)'. (It does not matter for present purposes whether or not one expunges tua.) That the formula used by the familiae emptor is early is demonstrated by the use of the form endo, otherwise only attested in the Twelve Tables; the early formula endo procinctu in Festus, Pauli Exc. 67 L; the early or archaising formula for adrogatio preserved by Gellius V, 19, 9; the archaising formula in Cicero, de leg. II, 19; Ennius, Lucilius and Lucretius and an echo of Ennius in Varro, RR III, 17, 10 (see on Ennius, Ann. 272 Skutsch). And as is clear from Tabula V, 8, familia was certainly used in the Twelve Tables to refer to persons; they might well wish here to make it clear when they were referring to property: compare, appositely, Tabula I, 2, where pedemue struit adds precision to caluitur. The absence of pecunia from some of the legal sources is not surprising: after centuries of interpretation they knew what they meant. On balance, the word deserves to stand here and in Tabula V, 4-5 and 7. For comparison, note familia pecuniaque in Festus, 422 L; and domus familia{que) in the inscription from Ardea discussed by R. Wächter, Altlateinische Inschriften (Bern, etc., 1987), 392; Cato, Agr., 141 (CL), 2-3. For pecunia, compare the Latin treaty of 493 BC (Festus, 166 L). Text uti legassit super familia ?pecuniaue? tutelaue sua, ita ius esto. Translation As he has disposed by will concerning his familia ?or goods?, or guardianship, so is there to be a source of rights.

40 - TWELVE TABLES

639

Commentary Note that Source (a) guarantees the relative order of Tabula V, 3 and 4-5. In Dig. V, 3, 1 (Gaius), 'hereditas ad nos pertinet aut uetere iure aut nouo. uetere e lege duodecim tabularum uel ex testamento, quod iure factum est, ...', the will which is iure factum presumably includes the will made acording to the Twelve Tables: compare the formula in Gaius II, 104, quoted above (see also the Introduction, p. 559). The principal problem, however, is that legare, whose etymology is uncertain, elsewhere means: (1) 'to entrust' (adopted here by H. Lévy-Bruhl, in Mélanges F. de Visscherll = RIDA, le série, 3, 1949, 137-76, 'Heres'; Albanese, I.e., 433-8), as in, e.g., Plautus, Cos. 100: quin potius quod legatum est tibi negotium, id curas ... (2) 'to dispose by way of legacy' (adopted here by Kaser, RPR I, 110), as in, e.g. Lucilius 519 Marx = 552 Warmington = 520 Krenkel: legauit quidam uxori mundum omne penumque ... not 'to dispose by way of testament'. Yet this is without exception how every later legal source took the provision here. Compare also Dig. L, 16, 130 (Ulpian): 'lege obuenire hereditatem non inproprie quis dixerit et earn, quae ex testamento defertur, quia lege duodecim tabularum testamentariae hereditates confirmantur'. The same general capacity to dispose is also presumably the rule invoked in Tit. Ulp. 1, 9; 2, 4, to underwrite two aspects of testamentary manumission; and in Tit.Ulp 19, 17, to underwrite legacies; and in Quintilian III, 6, 96. Given that the provision must have been invoked year after year at Rome, we must suppose with Coli, I.e., that legare in the Twelve Tables indeed means 'to dispose by way of testament' and that it was always taken as such. It is of course likely that in early Latin the word meant simply to dispose, with all three senses. See also on Tabula V, 7. For familia as property, see on the Lex Silia, Law 46; the Lex Osca Tabulae Bantinae, Law 13, 1. 22. Against the view of Wlassak, I.e., that the Twelve Tables made a distinction within the property of a paterfamilias, between what was his and what belonged to the family, and allowed him only to make legacies of the former, see Kaser, Eigentum und Besitz, 169-99; Das altrömische lus, 149-50; 160-73 (the arguments are not all of equal weight); Coli, I.e.. The possibility of appointing guardians by will is confirmed for the Twelve Tables by Dig. XXVI, 2, lpr. (Gaius); 20, 1 (Paul); there is, in the light of what has already been said, no reason to suppose with Lévy-Bruhl, I.e., 163, and Albanese, I.e., 310, that the tutela referred to is the provisional entrusting of the inheritance to the familiae emptor under a will by means of a mancipatio familiae per aes et libram (Gaius II, 102-4). (See A. Guarino, Studi S. Solazzi (Naples, 1949), 31-8 = Le origini quintane (Naples, 1973), 237-43, 'La "Lex Xu Tabularum" e la "tutela"', and J. Gaudemet, in Hommages à R. Schilling (Paris, 1983), 109-15, "'Uti legassit ..." XII Tables V, 3', for the view that the Twelve Tables contained no specific disposition on tutela.) We cannot here discuss what type of will the Xviri had in mind or perhaps explicitly authorised: testamentum calatis comitiis, testamentum in procinctu or testamentum per aes et libram (Gaius II, 102-4; Käser, Das altrömische Jus, 147-9). The bibliography is enormous and there is no evidence: see Coli, I.e.; A. Magdelain, in Hommages à R. Schilling (Paris, 1983), 159-73 = lus Imperium Auctoritas (Rome, 1990), 659-77, 'Les

ROMAN STATUTES

640

mots legare et heres dans la loi des XII Tables'. Their assault on the testamentum per aes et libram is not convincing: few historians will believe that a procedure involving aes rude and a balance was adopted after 450 BC. Note that there is no reason to limit the capacity to dispose at will to a paterfamilias without a potential suus heres: since a tutor testamentarius must be for afilius, not for a heres extraneus, the existence of testamentary tutela in the Twelve Tables shows that disposition by will and potential suus heres can coexist. Tabula V, 4-5 Sources (a) ad Her. I, 13, 23: ex ratiocinatione controuersia constat, cum res sine propria lege uenit in iudicium, quae tarnen ab aliis legibus similitudine quadam aucupatur. ea est huiusmodi, lex: 'si furiosus existet, adgnatum gentiliumque in eo pecuniaque eius potestas esto'. et lex: 'qui parentem necasse iudicatus erit, ut is obuolutus et obligatus corio deuehatur in profluentem'. et lex: 'paterfamilias uti super familia pecuniaue sua legauerit, ita ius esto'. et lex: 'si paterfamilias intestato moritur, familia pecuniaque eius agnatum gentilium esto'. (b) Cicero, de inv. II, 148: ex ratiocinatione nascitur controuersia, cum ex eo quod uspiam est ad id quod nusquam scriptum est uenitur, hoc pacto: 'si furiosus est, agnatum gentiliumque in eo pecuniaque eius potestas esto'. et lex: 'paterfamilias uti super familia pecuniaque sua legassit, ita ius esto'. et lex: 'si paterfamilias intestato moritur, familia pecuniaque eius agnatum gentiliumque esto'. (c)

Tit.Vip. 26, 1-la: ... cautum est lege duodecim tabularum hac: 'si intestato moritur, cui suus heres nee essit, agnatus proximus familiam habeto'. (la) si [a]gnatus defuncti non sit, e[a]dem lex duodecim tabularum gentiles ad hereditatem uoc[a]t his uerbis: 'si [a]gnatus nee vacat, gentiles familiam h[abento'. nu]nc nee gentilicia iura in usu sunt.

(d)

CollatioXWIA, 1-2: ... cautum est lege duodecim tabularum hac: 'si intestatus moritur, cui suus heres nee est, agnatus proximus familiam habeto'. (2) si agnatus defuncti non sit, eadem lex duodecim tabularum gentiles ad hereditatem uocat his uerbis: 'si agnatus tnescitf, gentiles familiam [habento'. nunc nee ullus est] heres hinc nee gentilicia iura in usu sunt.

(e) Dig. XXVIH, 2, 9, 2 (Paul): (In the context of later interpretation) ... haec uerba 'si intestato moritur' ... (0

Dig. L, 16, 195, 1 (Ulpian): familiae appellatio qualiter accipiatur uideamus. et quidem uarie accepta est: nam et in res et in personas deducitur; in res, ut puta in lege duodecim tabularum his uerbis 'adgnatus proximus familiam habeto'. (See Tabula V, 8, Source (c).)

40 - TWELVE TABLES

641

Reconstruction The citations in the ad Herennium and Cicero are clearly instrumental to the particular case they discuss: is a matricide ex hypothesi a furiosus and therefore incapable of making a valid will, so that even if there is one the estate passes by intestacy? But it must be remembered that we remain extremely ill informed about the details of the case, details which might have explained much about the citations. It is nonetheless clear that the two texts omit the clause cui suus heres ..., because it is taken for granted in the case; that they conflate agnati and gentiles (note that in Tit.Ulp. 26, 1, just before the passage quoted, the agnatus proximus has also slid into the plural); and that they insert paterfamilias. It is on the other hand not certain that they are wrong to use the phrase familia pecuniaque: see on Tabula V, 3. More problematic is the form of the verb in the clauses cui suus heres ... and si agnatus ... Sources (c) and (d) offer essit, nothing, est, nescit. Since escit is a well-attested late Republican form and is more likely to be a mistake for an archaic subjunctive than the other way round, we print essit in both clauses. The MSS of the ad Herennium are divided between intestato and intestatus, but the former is better attested overall. Text 4. si intestato moritur, cui suus heres nee essit, agnatus proximus familiam ?pecuniamque? habeto. 5. si agnatus nee essit, gentiles familiam ?pecuniamque? hfabento]. Translation 4. If he dies intestate, to whom there be no suus heres, the nearest agnate is to have Uve, familia ?and goods?. 5. If there be no agnate, the gentiles are to have the familia ?and goods?. Commentary The order of the si clause and the cui clause is determined by the fact that there cannot be the certainty that there is not a suus heres, until after death has occurred. It follows that the first provision deals with that case in which death without a will is followed by the establishment of the absence of a suus heres\ and that the text is perfectly neutral about whether at the time of the Twelve Tables a paterfamilias could make a will in the presence of a potential suus heres. The argument must be conducted on other grounds, but not here: see on Tabula V, 3; and in general Gaius m, 1-17. Naturally, only a man could have a potential suus heres: Tit.Ulp. 26, 7, with Berger, 'Citazioni', 598-9. Note further only: (1) for the relevance of the consortium to the powers of the family, see on Tabula V, 10; (2) the etymology of heres, which might suggest an original meaning of 'heir by default' (E. Benveniste, Le vocabulaire des institutions indoeuropéennes I (Paris, 1969), 84), is of no help here, since the Twelve Tables, as far as we know, only talk of the suus heres; (3) arguments about the supposed 'normality' of

ROMAN STATUTES

642

testating drawn from the fact that intestatus or intestato are negative word forms are hazardous. For agnates, see Gaius I, 156; Dig. XXXVIII, 10, 10, 2 (Paul); G. Hanard, RIDA, 3e série, 27, 1980, 169-204, 'Observations sur Vagnatio': they are cognati linked by patrilineal descent, by blood or by adoption. A woman married cum manu joined the agnati of her husband (Gaius I, 111; n, 139); and Pauli Sent. IV, 8, 20 (22), shows that the Twelve Tables were taken as including women among agnates. For the agnatus proximus, see the Lex Flavia, Ch. 29; Dig. XXVI, 4, 9 (Gaius); L, 16, 162pr. (Pomponius); W.W. Buckland, A Text-book of Roman Law (3rd ed., Cambridge, 1966), 369-70. For the meaning of familia, see on Tabula V, 3. For gentiles, see Cicero, Topica VI, 29; Festus, Pauli Exc. 83 L; B. Kubier, RE VII (1910), 1175-98, which remains the best treatment: in the first century BC, any free-born Roman is regarded as belonging to a gens by virtue of patrilineal descent, natural or adoptive, from a supposed founder of the gens, provided that no intervening ancestor has suffered any form of capitis deminutio. The rights of gentiles were still real in the first century BC: note the case between the Claudii Marcelli and the patrician Claudii, Cicero, de or. I, 176; the case of the Minucii, Cicero, // in Verr. 1, 115; and, in general, Cicero, de or. I, 173, quoted in the Introduction, p. 567; also Tabula V, 6, on tutela, and V, 7, on furiosi. But the rights were dead by the time of Gaius (III, 17). They presumably came into play under this clause if no-one claimed to be agnatus proximus. The nature and function of the gentes in the archaic period are of the utmost obscurity: there is a range of views in K.A. Raaflaub (ed.), Social Struggles in Archaic Rome (University of California Press, 1986). Tabula V, 6 Sources (a) Gaius I, 155 (whence Justinian, Inst. I, 15pr.): quibus testamento quidem tutor datus non sit, iis ex lege xii (tabularum) agnati sunt tutores, qui uocantur legitimi. (b) Dig. XXVI, 4, 6 (Paul): intestato parente mortuo adgnatis defertur tutela ... (c) Dig. XXVI, 4, 9 (Gaius): si plures sunt adgnati, proximus tutelam nanciscitur et, si eodem gradu plures sint, omnes tutelam nanciscuntur. Reconstruction Since Latin has no definite article, Gaius I, 155, (a) above, is equally applicable to a situation in which the will did not assign a tutor and to a situation in which there was not a will. That Paul represents in his own words the second situation was shown by F. de Visscher, in Mélanges G. Cornil II (Gand & Paris, 1926), 539-611 = Etudes de droit romain (Paris, 1931), 23-107, 'La curatelle et l'interdiction des prodigues'.

40 - TWELVE TABLES

643

In Sources (a) and (b), agnati and adgnatis do not refer to the agnates as a group, but to agnates, one or more as the case may be: see Source (c). The so-called Laudatio Turiae, Col. I, II. 21-4, reveals that the right to exercise tutela over women, and presumably over minors, reverted ultimately to the gens: CIL VI, 1527 = ILS 8393. It is likely that there was a further clause relating to gentiles, as with Tabula V, 4-5; compare also Tabula V, 7. No portion of a text is attested, but the following may have stood there: < « s i tutor nee essit, agnatus proximus tutelam habeto.»> Commentary What is willed under Tabula V, 3, is tutela over potential sui heredes (and others); what is established here is tutela over instituted heirs (and others) in the case of a will which does not assign a tutor and over sui heredes in the case of intestacy: see Kaser, RPR I, 88. (A woman who passes under tutela may of course also be a heres.) There are further allusions to the rule stated here in Dig. XXVI, 4, lpr. (see A. Berger, BIDR 43, 1935, 195-208, 'La citazione della legge delle XII Tavole in Dig. XXVI, 4, lpr.'); 4, 3pr.; 4, 5pr. (Ulpian); Tit. Vip. 11,3 (Tabula V, 3, Source (i)); Dig. IV, 5, 7pr. (Paul) (see Berger, 'Citazioni', 606-8); Gaius I, 157; Justinian, Inst. I, 15pr. For the extension of the right to tutela to patrons of freedmen, see Gaius I, 165; Tit. Ulp. 11, 3; Dig. XXVI, 4, 3pr. (Ulpian); compare Tabula V, 8. Tabula V, 7 Sources (a) ad Her. I, 13,23; See Tabula V, 4—5, Source (a). (b)

Cicero, de inv. II, 148: See Tabula V, 4-5, Source (b).

(c)

Cicero, Tusc.Disp. Ill, 11 (also quoted by Nonius V, 443 Mercerus = 711 Lindsay): hanc enim insaniam ... a furore distinguimus ... qui ita sit adfectus, eum dominum esse rerum suarum uetant duodecim tabulae; itaque non est scriptum, 4si insanus', sed 'si furiosus' esse incipit (so the MSS, esset, Nonius, escit, Bouhier: for the preservation of the reading of the MSS, whatever originally stood in the Twelve Tables, see P. Graffigna, Studi Noniani 13, 1990, 237-43, 'Furor et insania').

(d)

Cicero, de rep. Ill, 45: ... cum furiosomm bona legibus in adgnatorum potestate sint...

(e) Varro, RR I, 2, 8 (cf. Columella I, 3, 1 ): ... mente est captus adque adgnatos et gentiles est deducendus. (f)

Dig. L, 16, 53pr. (Paul): See Tabula V, 3, Source (j).

ROMAN STATUTES

644 (g)

Horace, &zr. II, 3,217-18: ... interdicto huic {a furiosus) omne adimat ius praetor et ad sanos abeat tutela propinquos.

(h)

Dig. XXVII, 10, lpr. (Ulpian): lege duodecim tabularum prodigo interdicitur bonorum suorum administratio, quod moribus quidem ab initio introductum est.

(i)

Pauli Sent. III, 4a, 6-7: et mulieri, quae luxuriöse uiuit, [bonis] interdici potest (= Dig. XXVII, 10, 15pr.) (7) moribus per praetorem bonis interdicitur hoc modo: 'quando

G)

Tit.Ulp. 12, 1-3: curatores aut legitimi sunt, id est qui ex lege duodecim tabularum dantur, aut honorarii, id est qui a praetore constituuntur. (2) lex duodecim tabularum furiosum itemque prodigum, cui bonis interdictum est, in curatione iubet esse agnatorum. (3) a praetore constituitur curator, quern ipse praetor uoluerit, libertinis prodigis (who have no agnates) itemque ingenuis, qui ex testamento parentis heredes facti male dissipant bona; his enim ex lege curator dari non poterat, cum ingenuus quidem non ab intestato, sed ex testamento heres factus si[t] patri ...

(k)

Dig. XXVI, 1, 3pr-l. (Ulpian): qui habet tutorem pupillus uel pupilla, si furere coeperint, in ea causa sunt, ut in tutela nihilo minus durent; quae sententia Quinti quoque Mucii fuit et a Iuliano probatur eoque iure utimur, ut cesset cura, si tutelae aetas indigeat. quare si tutores habent, per furorem in curam non rediguntur, siue non habent et furor eis accesserit, nihilo minus tutores accipere poterunt; quia lex duodecim tabularum ita accepta est, ut ad pupillos uel pupillas non pertineat. (1) quia autem in pupillorum persona adgnatos curatores non admittimus, idcirco putaui et si minor uiginti quinque annis furiosus sit, curatorem ei non ut furioso, sed ut adulescenti dari, quasi aetatis esset impedimentum.

(1)

Dig. XXVÏÏ, 10, 13 (Gaius): saepe ad alium e lege duodecim tabularum curatio furiosi aut prodigi pertinet, alii praetor administrationem dat, scilicet cum ille legitimus inhabilis ad earn rem uideatur.

(m)

Gaius n, 64: ex diuerso agnatus furiosi curator rem furiosi alienare potest ex lege xii tabularum

(n)

Jusünian, Inst. I, 23, 3 (cf. CJ V, 70, 5 (Anastasius, AD 498); Theophilus I, 23, 3): furiosi quoque et prodigi, licet maiores uiginti quinque annis sint, tarnen in curatione sunt adgnatorum ex lege duodecim tabularum.

40 - TWELVE TABLES

645

Reconstruction In the story in Sources (a) and (b), Malleolus had evidently been judged and was therefore presumed of sound mind; but presumably someone then tried to make the argument that a matricide was ipso facto mad. Given that lege, (h) above, may mean 'under the terms of the statute', we cannot absolutely exclude the possibility that in the case of a prodigus a magistrate, in the spirit of the Twelve Tables, sometimes granted interdicts and that the position of the prodigus was then by a process of interpretation assimilated to that of the furiosus, so Schoell, 12-13. But it is perhaps more likely that the prodigus didfigurein the Twelve Tables; if so, it is hard to see how, except as an alternative to the furiosus: sifuriosusprodigusue ... There is no reason to suppose that there was a separate clause relating to the prodigus: for although it has been held that the person and goods of the furiosus fell under tutela, but only the goods of the prodigus (see, e.g., Kaser, RPR I, 90-1), there is no independent evidence that the Twelve Tables took this view. It is also necessary to accommodate the rule in the Tituli Ulpiani, (j) above, limiting the effect of the clause to prodigi succeeding by intestacy; but it is hard to imagine a clause of the Twelve Tables capable of accommodating all the other information necessary on the prodigus (and perhaps also furiosus) and the rule in question. It is surely much more likely that the rule arose by interpretation from respect for Tabula V, 3: a testator could be presumed to have acted in the knowledge that his potential heres was also a prodigus and the Twelve Tables could not themselves be used to upset the consequences. For familia, see on Tabula V, 3. It is illegitimate to deny the absence of the word here on the basis of the ad Herennium and Cicero, (a) and (b) above, contra Guarino, cited below, since we can have no idea whatever of the nature of the selection which their source might have operated in the light of the details of the case involved: there would in any case have been good stylistic reasons for the two authors to use only the doublet, in eo pecuniaque, rather than the triplet, in eofamiliaque pecuniaque\ and our other sources for the law of the Twelve Tables assume the power of the agnati and gentiles over the property of the furiosus to be comprehensive. Believing the absence of familiaque from the clause to be securely established, A. Guarino has argued (Ann.Sem.Giur. Catania 3, 1948-9, 194-204, = Le origini quintane (Naples, 1973), 244-53, TI "furiosus" e il "prodigus" nelle "XII Tabulae"'; Labeo 35, 1989, 79-91, 'Variazioni sul tema di Malleolo'), that the estate in general of & furiosus or prodigus passed to the suus heres, as if the man were dead, and that the agnati or gentiles only exercised a cura over the man and his pecunia. FOT pecunia, see on Tabula V, 3. Nonius, (c) above, perhaps justifies printing essit. Our sources talk of potestas as being agnatum gentiliumque; but it is legitimate to wonder whether the original text did not read: '... agnati proximi in eo (familiaque) ?pecuniaque? eius potestas esto. si agnatus nee essit, gentilium esto\ The fact that some of our sources use the language of cura is no evidence that the word or any of its cognates stood in the Twelve Tables in addition to potestas. For Festus, 158 L, sometimes attributed to this clause, see the Introduction, '9 - The unattributed fragments', (1).

ROMAN STATUTES

646

Text si furiosus ?prodigusue? ess(i)t, agnatum gentiliumque in eo (familiaque) ?pecuniaque? eius potestas esto. Translation If there be a madman ?or spendthrift?, power in respect of him (and his familia) ?and goods? is to belong to his agnates and gentiles. Commentary For in eo, compare Tabula III, 3. For the incapacity of the prodigus to make a will, see also Dig. XXVTO, 1, 18pr. (Ulpian). For the capacity of the furiosus (and prodigus) to return to control of their affairs, see M. Käser, ZSS 59, 1939, 31-51, 'Ruhende und verdrängende Hausgewalt im älteren römischen Recht'. Tabula V, 8 Sources (a)

Tit.Ulp. 29, 1: ciuis Romani liberti hereditatem lex duodecim tabularum patrono defert, si intestato sine suo herede libertus decesserit...

(b)

Gaius ni, 40: olim itaque licebat liberto patronum suum impune testamento praeterire. nam ita demum lex xii tabularum ad hereditatem liberti uocabat patronum, si intestatus mortuus esset libertus nullo suo herede relieto ...

(e) Dig. L, 16, 195, 1 (Ulpian): (See Tabula V, 4-5, Source (f).) ad personas autem refertur familiae significatio ita, cum de patrono et liberto loquitur lex: 'ex ea familia* inquit, 'in earn familiam\ et hic de singularibus personis legem loqui constat. (d) Fragmenta Vaticana 308: sed tantum patronum a liberto excipit (the Lex Cincia, Law 47). quidam putant etiam liberos patroni exceptos, quoniam libertus continetur serui appellatone et, sicut in xii tabulis patroni appellatione etiam liberi patroni continentur, ita et in hac lege. Reconstruction Various attempts have been made, from Godefroy to Mommsen, St. Ill, 22 n. 5 = DP VI, 1, 23 n. 4. The Tituli Ulpiani and Gaius, (a) and (b) above, suggest that the clause will have begun: 'si libertus intestato moritur, cui suus heres nee essit...' (compare Tabula V, 4-5). Ulpian, (c) above, will no doubt have given his two citations in the correct order.

40 - TWELVE TABLES

647

(Note that they may have been widely separated in the original text.) But he will have written de patrono et liberto rather in a hierarchical order; he also makes it clear that familia here relates to 'freedman' or 'patron', as the context determines. So: '... ex ea familia ... in earn familiam'. The clause cannot have used familia to describe the inheritance and can hardly have used familia pecuniaque; and we have seen that pecunia by itself in this context is unlikely: see on Tabula V, 3. Given a choice between hereditas and bona, the former is perhaps more likely. Perhaps: 'si libertus intestato moritur, cui suus heres nee essit, ex ea familia hereditas ... ' (Note that hereditas at this date means the abstract 'succession', rather than the concrete 'property': see on Tabula VII, 3.) We arc perhaps left only with 'in earn familiam', since Ulpian and the Fragmenta Vaticana do not necessarily imply that the. wordpatronus stood in the clause: perhaps '... hereditas in earn familiam unde manu missus est... (We do not believe with Frederiksen, 'Municipal laws', 191 n. 41, that is here means 'such-and-such': the Republican examples cited from TLL VII, 2, 473-4, are very misleading.) We print as text, in any case, only the words si libertus and the two phrases preserved by Ulpian. Text si libertus ... ex ea familia ... in earn familiam ... Translation If a freedman ... from that familia ... to that familia ... Commentary The rule is simple; there are further allusions to the rule of the Twelve Tables in Dig. V, 3, 1 and 3 (Gaius); V, 3, 2 (Ulpian); XXXVII, 14, 11 (Ulpian); Coll. XVI, 8, 2; 9, 2; to the position of the patrona in Gaius III, 49-51 ; Tit. Ulp. 29, 6; to the rights of the children of the patron in the Twelve Tables in Gaius III, 45-6; Tit.Ulp. 29, 6; Dig. XXXVIII, 16, 3, 9 (Ulpian); to the extension of the rule from hereditas to tutela in Gaius I, 165; Justinian, Inst. I, 17; Dig. XXVI, 4, lpr. and 3pr. (Ulpian); Tit.Ulp. 11,3 (Tabula V, 3, Source (i)). Cicero, de or. I, 176, makes it clear that the right to the estate of a freedman who died intestate without suus heres reverted in the end to the agnates and gentiles: see on Tabula V, 4-5. Since we can only guess at the wording of the clause, we cannot know the extent of the freedom to dispose by will enjoyed by freedmen; but there is no specific reason to doubt its completeness: see Watson, XII Tables, 109. For later praetorian changes, see Watson, Succession, 186-7. Note that the succession to a freedman which has reverted to the patronus cannot be alienated to a heres extraneus in preference to sui heredes, agnates and gentiles. The classic statement of the view that this is a survival of what was once the case for all property is F. Wieacker, in Festschrift H. Siber I (Leipzig, 1941), 1-57, 'Hausgenossenschaft und Erbeinsetzung' (see also on Tabula V, 3); M. Humbert, Index 15, 1987, 130-48, 'Hispala Faecenia', at 140-3, suggests that the hereditas of a

ROMAN STATUTES

648

freedman was regarded as indissolubly linked to the members of the familia with which he had had personal links. The matter remains obscure.

[Tabula V, 9] Sources (a)

Dig. X, 2, 25, 9 (Paul): an ea stipulatio, qua singuli hcredes in solidum habent actionem, ueniat in hoc iudicium {the actio familiae erciscundae), dubitatur; ueluti si is qui uiam iter actum (actus, Codex Florentinus) stipulatus erat decesserit, quia talis stipulatio per legem duodecim tabularum non diuiditur, quia nee potest, sed uerius est non uenire earn in iudicium, sed omnibus in solidum competere actionem et, si non praestetur uia, pro parte hereditaria condemnationem fieri oportet.

(b)

Dig. X, 2, 25, 13 (Paul): idem iuris est in pecunia promissa a testatore, si sub poena promissa sit; nam licet haec obligatio diuidatur per legem duodecim tabularum, tarnen quia nihilum prodest ad poenam euitandam partem suam soluere, siue nondum soluta est pecunia nee dies uenit, prospiciendum est per cautionem, ut de indemnitate caueat per quern factum fuerit, ne omnis pecunia solueretur, aut ut caueat se ei qui solidum soluerit partem praestaturum; siue etiam soluit unus uniuersam pecuniam quam defunctus promi(s)it, ne poena committeretur, familiae erciscundae iudicio a coheredibus partes recipere potent.

(c)

Dig. X, 2, 3 (Gaius) - 4pr. (Ulpian): plane ad officium iudicis nonnumquam pertinet, ut debita et eredita singulis pro solido aliis alia adtribuat, quia saepe et solutio et exaetio partium non minima incommoda habet, nee tarnen scilicet haec adtributio illud efficit, ut quis solus totum debeat uel totum alicui soli debeatur, sed ut, siue agendum sit, partim suo partim procuratorio nomine agat, siue cum eo agatur, partim suo partim procuratorio nomine conueniatur. nam licet libera potestas esse maneat creditoribus cum singulis experiundi, tarnen et his libera potestas est suo loco substituendi eos, in quos onera actionis officio iudicis translata sunt. (4pr.) ceterae itaque res praeter nomina ueniunt in hoc iudicium {the actio familiae erciscundae). sin autem nomen uni ex heredibus legatum sit, iudicio familiae erciscundae hoc heres consequitur.

(d)

C/ni,36,6(Gordian): ea quae in nominibus sunt non recipiunt diuisionem, cum ipso iure in portiones hereditarias ex lege xii tabularum diuisa sunt.

(e)

Cyn, 3, 26 (Diocletian): pactum successorum débitons ex lege xii tabularum aes alienum hereditarium pro portionibus quaesitis singulis ipso iure diuisum in solidum unum obligare creditori non potest...

40 - TWELVE TABLES

649

Reconstruction Sources (d) and (e) claim that, although obligations, because personal, were not normally transmissible, the Twelve Tables provided that debts owed by, (e) above (cf. CJ IV, 16, 7 (Diocletian and Maximian); IV, 2, l(Severus and Caracalla)), or to, (d) above (cf. CJ Vin, 31, 1 (Valerian and Gallienus); VIII, 35 (36), 1 (Caracalla), the deceased person, were automatically divided in proportion to the inheritance. But although per legem duodecim tabularum, which occurs only in Sources (a) and (b), is usually translated 'according to the Twelve Tables*, that is not what the phrase means: it means 'by means of the Twelve Tables'. The fact that Paul uses the phrase, rather than lege or ex lege, argues that the Twelve Tables made no mention of nomina; rather, the principle of the actio familiae erciscundae was extended to them. The authors of the rescripts will have misunderstood the position: it is most unlikely that we have a separate provision of the Twelve Tables. (The problem posed by per is ignored by V. Korosec, Die Erbenhaftung nach römischem Recht (Leipzig, 1927), M. Käser., RIDA, 2e série, l, 1952, 507-44, 'Die altrömische Erbenhaftung', at 532-5; Berger, 'Citazioni', 608-14. Tabula V, 10 Sources (a) Dig. X, 2, lpr. (Gaius libro septimo ad edictum prouinciale): haec actio (familiae erciscundae) profisci tur e lege duodecim tabularum; namque coheredibus uolentibus a communione discedere, necessarium uidebatur aliquam actionem constimi. (b) Festus, Pauli Exc. 72 L: erctum citumque fit inter consortes, ut in libris legum Romanorum legitur. erctum a coercendo dictum, unde et erciscendae et ercisci. citum autem est uocatum a ciendo. (e) Nonius IV, 265 Mercerus = 405-6 Lindsay: citum: diuisum uel separatum. (d) Quintilian Vn, 3, 13: opus est aliquando finitione obscurioribus et ignotioribus uerbis: quid sit clarigatio, erctus citus (so the MSS: see on Tabula XII, I). interim notis nomine tuidebisf: quid sitpenus, quid litus. (e) Gellius 1,9, 12: sed id quoque non praetereundum est, quod omnes simul atque a Pythagora in cohortem illam disciplinarum recepti erant, quod quisque familiae pecuniae habebat, in medium dabat, et coibatur societas inseparabilis, tamquam illud fuit anticum consortium, quod iure atque uerbo Romano appellabatur 'ercto non cito'.

ROMAN STATUTES

650

(f)

Cicero, de or. I, 237: nam neque illud est mirandum ... nec, si parui nauigii et magni eadem est in gubernando scientia, idcirco qui quibus uerbis erctum cieri oporteat nesciat, idem erciscundae familiae causam agere non possit.

(g) Servius, on Virgil, Aen. VIII, 642: Donatus hoc loco contra metum sentit, dicens 'citae* diuisae, ut est in iure 'ercto non cito', id est patrimonio uel haereditate non diuisa; nam 'citus' cum diuisus significat, 'ci' longa est. (h) Festus, Pauli Exc. 97 L: inercta indiuisa. (i) PS! 1182 = Gaius IH, 154a-b: e(st) a(u)t(em) aliud genus soci {a Jetatis proprium ciuium Romanor[um]. olim enim mortuo patre familias i(nter) suos h(ere)des quaedam erat légitima simul et naturalis societ{a}[e]t[a]s, quae appell[abatur ercto non cito, i(d) e(st) dominio non diuiso; erct]um enim do[minium e(st), un]de eru[s] dominus dicitur; ciere a(u)[t(em)] diuidere e(st); unde c(a)edere et secare et diuidere dicimus. (154b) alii q(uo)q(ue) qui uolebant eandem habere soci {a Jetatem poterant id (con)sequi ap(ud) praetorem ce(r)ta legis actione, in hac a(u)t(em) soci{a)etate fratruum (sic) (suorum) ceterorumue qui ad exemplum fratruum (sic) suorum soci{a}etatem coierint, illud proprium {i} [era]t {uunusj quod u(el) unus ex sociis communem senium m(anu)mittendo liberu(m) faciebat et omnibus libertum adquirebat; item unus [rem co]mmunem m(an)c[ipa(n)do ] Q) Gaius II, 219: ... iudicio familiae erciscundae, quod inter heredes de hereditate erciscunda, id est diuidunda, accipi solet. Reconstruction No portion of a text is attested, but the following may have stood there: Commentary The actio familiae erciscundae must have been in continuous use from the Twelve Tables to the Lex de Gallia Cisalpina, Law 28, and beyond; the full name may originally have been actio familiae erciscundae ciendae. Since the Lex de Gallia Cisalpina uses the words de familia erceiscunda deiuidunda, it is likely that ciere was always taken as implying 'to divide* (see the material collected by Goetz, Adnotationes, §IX). A plausible guess as to how that came about, given the range of meanings otherwise attested, might be that the parties at a certain point each said 'cieo quod meum est': note CJ II, 3, 26 (Diocletian (Tabula V, 9, Source (e))), pro portionibus quaesitis singulis. It is also beyond reasonable doubt that what was erctum was not divided; erciscor, whose morphology links it with nanciscor, should mean 'to gather*. The sources which explain ercisci as diuidere (for instance, Source (h) above; CGL, Index, s.v.) will have done so

40 - TWELVE TABLES

651

because the action was often known simply as the actio familiae erciscundae and its function was to divide an inheritance. Another plausible guess is that all of a property that could be was physically gathered prior to division. For an example of an actio familiae erciscundae\ see Frier, Jurists, 20-3. For the consortium which arose automatically on the death of the paterfamilias and which was ended by the actio familiae erciscundae, see F. de Zulueta, JRS 25, 1935, 19-32, The new fragments of Gaius. Part IT, esp. 21 n. 4; 28-32; E. Levy, ZSS 54, 1934, 258-311 = Gesammelte Schriften I (Cologne & Graz, 1963) 60-95, 'Neue Bruchstücke aus den Institutionen des Gaius'; Fr. Wieacker, Societas, Hausgemeinschaft und Erwerbgesellschaft (Weimar, 1936); M. Käser, SDHI4Ì, 1975, 278-338, 'Neue Literatur zur Societas', with bibliography. For iudicis arbitriue postulatio in the actio familiae erciscundae, see on Tabula I, 12.

ROMAN STATUTES

652

Tabula VI, 1 Sources (a)

Festus, 176 L (cf. Tabula VI, 2, Source (a)): nuncupata pecunia est, ut ait Cincius in lib. ii de officio iurisconsulti, nominata, certa, nominibus propriis pronuntiata: 'cum nexum faciet mancipiumque, uti lingua nuncupassit, ita ius esto\

(b)

Cicero, de or. I, 245: {In order to win a case for a son omitted in a will) lapides mehercule omnes fiere ac lamentali coegisses, ut totum illud 4uti lingua nuncupassit' non in xii tabulis, quas tu omnibus bibliothecis anteponis, sed in magistri cannine scriptum uideretur.

(e)

Varro, LL VII, 105: in Colace, 'nexum'; Manilius scribit: 'omne quod per libram et aes geritur, in quo sint mancipia'; Mucius, quae per aes et libram fiant ut obligentur, praeterquam (quod) mancipio detur. hoc uerius esse ipsum uerbum ostendit, de quo quaerit(ur); nam id est quod obligatur per libram neque suum fit, inde nexum dictum, liber, qui suas operas in seruitutem pro pecunia quam debebat (—), dum solueret (for the meaning, see L Peppe, Studi sull'esecuzione personale / (Milan, 1981), 167), nexus uocatu(s) (uocatur, MS), ut ab aere obaeratus. hoc C. Poetelio Libone Visolo dietatore (313 BC; see below) sublatum ne fieret, et omnes qui bonam copiam iurarunt (see the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24, //. 113-17), ne essent nexi, dissoluti.

(d)

Festus, 160 L: nexum est, ut ait Gallus Aelius, quodeumque per aes et libram geritur: id quod necti dicitur. quo in genere sunt haec: testamenti factio, nexi datio, nexi liberano.

(e)

Festus, 162 L: nexum aes apud antiquos dicebatur pecunia, quae per nexum obligatur.

(f)

Cicero, Caec. 102: ... deinde quod Sulla ipse ita tulit de ciuitate, ut non sustulerit horum nexa atque hereditates.

(g)

Cicero, Mur. 3 (cf. Topica 45): quodsi in iis rebus repetendis, quae mancipi sunt, is (the transferor) periculum iudicii praestare debet, qui se nexu obligauit, profecto etiam rectius in iudicio consulis designati is potissimum consul, qui consulem declarauit, auctor beneficii populi Romani defensorque periculi esse debebit. (For the role of the auctor in mancipium, see on Tabula VI, 3.)

40 - TWELVE TABLES

653

(h) Cicero, de har. resp. 14: multae sunt domus in hac urbe, patres conscripti, atque haud scio an paene cunctae iure optimo, sed iure priuato: iure hereditario, iure auctoritatis, iure mancipi, iure nexi. (i) Cicero, de rep. I, 27: ... nee ciuili nexo, sed communi lege naturae ... (j)

Cicero,^ or. m, 159: nam si res suom nomen et uocabulum proprium non habet, ut pes in naui, ut nexum quod per libram agitur, ut in uxore diuortium, nécessitas cogit quod non habeas aliunde sumere.

(k) Cicero, Topica 28: abalienatio est eius rei, quae mancipi est, aut traditio alteri nexu aut in iure cessio, inter quos ea iure ciuili fieri possunt. (1) Cicero, Paradoxa Stoicorum 35: non enim ita dicunt (Stoici) eos esse seruos, ut mancipia, quae sunt dominorum facta nexo aut aliquo iure ciuili, sed si seruitus sit, sicut est, oboedentia fracti animi et abiecti et arbitrio carentis suo, quis neget omnes leues, omnes cupidos, omnes denique improbos esse seruos? (m) For the inapplicability of nexum and mancipium to provincial land, see Frontinus, 36, 2-9 L = Agennius Urbicus, 63, 1-7 L = 23, 13-20 Th; Gaius I, 120; II, 27; Cicero, Flac. 80. mancipium (n) Varro, LL VI, 85: a manu, manupretium; mancipium, quod manu capitur. (The same information is to be found in Gaius I, 121; Isidore V, 25, 31 (in both cases attached to the form mancipatio, which isfirstattested in Pliny, NH IX, 117); IX, 4, 45.) nuncupare (o) Cicero, de off. IH, 65: See Tabula VI, 2, Source (a). (p) Varro, LL VI, 60: nuncupare nominare ualere apparet in legibus, ubi 'nuncupatae pecuniae' sunt scriptae. (q) Gaius II! 104: et hoc (the testamentum per aes et libram) dicitur nuncupatio; nuncupare est enim palam nominare, et sane quae testator specialiter in tabulis testamenti scripserit, ea uidetur generali sermone nominare atque confirmare.

***

ROMAN STATUTES

654 (r)

Dig. II, 14, 48: See Tabula IV, 2, Source (d).

Reconstruction In Source (c), we print the information derived from Manilius as a quotation, in order to justify the indicative of geritur, it remains possible, however, that in quo sint mancipia is not from Manilius, but an inference of Varro. We assume that the information derived from Mucius is in indirect speech; but it may also be a quotation, with quae and a generic subjunctive. We restore praeterquam (quod); Kent's liber, qui operas suas ... pro pecunia quam debebat {nectebat) is implausible, since there is no parallel for operas nectere, and it may be that a whole phrase has dropped out: perhaps therefore ... pro pecunia quae per nexum obligabatur dabat, dum ... Such a phrase, for which see Source (e), would restore a parallelism between nexum: nexus and aere: obaeratus. The hyperbaton of cum nexum faciet mancipiumque is perhaps the result of Cincius' 'improvement' of an original cum faciet nexum mancipiumque: one has only to look at the rest of his oeuvre to see that he fancied himself as a stylist (Bremer I, 252-60). (O. Behrends, Iura 33, 1982, 46-103, 'La mancipatio nelle XII Tavole', claims that Source (o) is not a reference to a general rule, uti lingua nuncupassit... ; treats Tabula VI, 2, as relating solely to the actio de modo agri; and holds that uti lingua nuncupassit ... relates solely to the statement nunc ego hominem ... (see below). But Cicero is not to be taken so narrowly: his ea ... quae ... echoes the uti ... ita ... of Cincius, (a) above: both formulae imply a range of possibilities.)

Text cum ?faciet nexum? mancipiumque, uti lingua nuncupassit, ita ius esto.

Translation When he shall perform nexum and mancipium, as his tongue has pronounced, so is there to be a source of rights.

Commentary Note that Festus, (a) and (e) above, and Varro, (p) above, are irrelevant to the question of whether or not the word pecunia figured in the Twelve Tables: see on Tabula V, 3. uti lingua nuncupassit: for the contracts in Cato, see M. Lemosse, in Studi A. Biscardi I (Milan, 1982), 235-44 = Études romanistiques (Clermont-Ferrand, 1991), 107-44, 'Le régime primitif de la lex dicta1. The text as preserved endorses the validity of a procedure or procedures per aes et libram: nexum = mancipium or nexum and mancipium. For the form of mancipium, 'taking by hand', see Gaius I, 119 (whence Fragmenta Vaticana 50; Boethius, on Cicero, Topica 28): '... is qui mancipio accipit, rem tenens, ita dicit: "nunc ego hominem ex iure Quiritium meum esse aio isque mihi emptus esto hoc aere aeneaque libra'". The procedure involves a claim of ownership by the acquirer, accompanied by the tacit assent

40 - TWELVE TABLES

655

of the disposer; and, by way of a future perfect imperative and hoc aere aeneaque libra, a command which determines the definitive status of the object and an explication of how this definitive status is to be achieved. For the linguistic usage, compare the Greek use of the past infinitive. (Apparently, manceps, mancipium, is the only group of words which conveys the sense of 'taking by', as opposed to 'taking', as in auceps, municeps, particeps, princeps; but it is nonetheless unlikely that mancipium originally meant 'taking the hand, shaking the hand', as an act of fides: see, against G. Beseler, ZSS 45, 1925, 396-432, 'Bindung und Lösung', at 428-9, Käser, Das altrömische Jus, 137-45, and A. Magdelain, RIDA, 3e série, 28, 1981, 127 -61, 'L'acte per aes et libram et l'auctoritas'.) The problem of nexum is best approached indirectly. It is generally supposed and we also accept: (1) that there were in early Rome nexi who were bondsmen for debt; (2) that the category was at some point abolished, contra Columella, RR I, 3, 12: see Varro, (c) above; Cicero, de re p. H, 59: ... cum sunt propter unius libidinem omnia nexa ciuium liberata nectierquepostea desitum ...; Livy VIII, 28, 1-9 (326 BC): eo anno plebi Romanae uelut aliud initium libertatis factum est, quod need desierunt; mutatum autem ius ob unius feneratoris simul libidinem, simul crudelitatem insignem. (2) L. Papirius is fuit; cui cum se C. Publilius ob aes alienum paternum nexum dedisset, quae aetas formaque misericordiam elicere poterant, ad libidinem et contumeliam animum accenderunt ... (8) uictum eo die ob impotentem iniuriam unius ingens uinculum fidei; iussique consules ferre ad populum ne quis, nisi qui noxam meruisset, donec poenam lueret, in compedibus aut in neruo teneretur; (9) pecuniae creditae bona débitons, non corpus obnoxium esset, ita nexi soluti cautumque in posterum ne necterentur. (3) that the contract which bound the debtors was known as nexum. It is the last point which is contentious. There is no doubt, in the light of the sources quoted above, that in the late Republic, and after, nexum existed and was an alternative name for mancipium: note especially totum illud in Cicero, de or. I, 245, (b) above; and see Cicero, adfam. VU, 30 = 265 SB, 2. Cicero, de har.resp. 14, cannot be taken to show that the two were different; and the isolated notice of Mucius, accepted by Varro, cannot be more than a guess; it looks like an attempt to account for the disappearance of nexi and should be rejected. (Although there were men in bondage for debt in the late Republic, they were not known as nexi.) But this does not in itself bring us nearer to understanding the relationship of nexum and mancipium at the time of the Twelve Tables, in which they were, we believe, related but different entities: see Watson, XII Tables, 119-20 (see below); M. Bretone, Iura 32, 1981, 143-6, 'Manilio e il nexum'; B. Albanese, La dottrina romana dell'obligatio rei (Milan, 1991), 31-6; id., Ann.Sem.Giur.Palermo 42, 1992, 50-70, 'Cum nexum faciet mancipiumque'. The point of ita ius esto is, we hypothesise, to make it clear that whatever had been transacted by nexum or mancipium, it was as if there had been a judgment: a slave transferred to me mancipio is meus; a debtor bound nexo is bound; the magistrate has only to establish that the transaction has actually occurred and the debtor is in the same position as a confessus or iudicatus: see Käser, Das altrömische Jus, 103-4, 118-35; ZSS 100, 1983, 80-135, 'Unmittelbare Vollstreckbarkeit und Bürgenregress', at 111-12. Given that our sources had no clear idea of what was specific to nexum, the easiest hypothesis is that nexum was a source of obligation which led to debt and to binding if the debt was not paid: see the lucid account of 'this volcanic controversy' in F. de Zulueta, The Recent Controversy about Nexum. inaugural Lecture Delivered Nov. 9, 1912 before

656

ROMAN STATUTES

the University of Oxford at All Souls College (1912) = LQR 29, 1913, 137-53; Kaser, RPR I, 166-7; 172-3; Wieacker, RRG, 335-6. (F. Horak, ZSS 93, 1976, 261-86, 'Kreditvertrag und Kreditprozess in den Zwölftafeln, analyses the arguments of Behrends, Zwölfiafelprozess, esp. 38 n. 32, and RIDA, 3e série, 21, 1974, 137-84, 'Das nexum im Manzipationsrecht, oder die Ungeschichtlichkeit des Libraldarlehens', especially the argument that nexum as a distinctive source of obligation which led to debt is a learned fiction; and that the early Roman loan contract was stipulano and sponsio.) It seems likely on general grounds that the legislation of 326 - or 313 - BC did not outlaw nexum, but instructed magistrates to disallow binding of persons in cases of nexum. At the time of the Twelve Tables, we hypothesise, nexum and mancipium shared certain formal characteristics. But although citizens, by nexum, were bound to others, they never appear in lists of res mancipi. Plautus perhaps preserves for us both an echo of the procedure and an indication of the blurring of the distinction between nexum and mancipium {Mil. 21-3): peiiuriorem hoc hominem si quis uiderit aut gloriarum pleniorem quam illic est, me sibi habeto, ego me mancupio dabo. Note also that in the formula in Gaius EQ, 173-4, for solutio per aes et libram, it is the person concerned who releases himself from debt: est et (PSI 1182; etiam, Codex Veronensis) alia species imaginariae solutionis, per aes et libram; quod et ipsum genus certis ex (PSI 1182; in, Codex Veronensis) causis receptum est, ueluti si quid eo nomine debeatur, quod per aes et libram gestum esset, siue quid ex iudicati causa debeatur. (174) adhibentur non minus quam quinque testes et libripens; deinde is qui liberatur ita oportet loquatur: "quod ego tibi tot milibus sestertiorum {om. Codex Veronensis) iudic[io] {om. Codex Veronensis) condemna[tus] sum, me eo no[mine a] te soluo liberoque hoc aere aeneaque libra, hanc tibi libram primam postremamque expendo (secundum) legem publicam." deinde asse percutit libram eumque dat ei a quo liberatur ueluti soluendi causa ... Note that the counterpart of nexi Uberatio is nexi datio, Festus 160 L, (d) above, faithfully echoed by Plautus, Mil. 21-3; Livy VIII, 28, 2, quoted above; and Varro (c) above. There is in our view a parallelism between nexi Uberatio and solutio per aes et libram; but this does not affect the general position of Watson, XII Tables, 119-20 (the account of A. Magdelain, MEFRA 98, 1986, 265-358 = Jus Imperium Auctoritas (Rome, 1990), 3-93, 'Le ius archaïque', at 292-5 = 27-9, misinterprets the texts). For addictio after judgment, see Tabula KI, 1-7. For the controversies concerning the supposed relationship between this clause and classical leges mancipii, see N. Bellocci, La struttura del negozio dellafiducianeWepoca repubblicana. I. Le nuncupationes (Naples, 1974), 47-121; Watson, XII Tables, 145 n. 54.

40 - TWELVE TABLES

657

Tabula VI, 2 Source (a)

Cicero, de off. Ill, 65: ac de iure quidem praediorum sanctum apud nos est iure ciuili, ut in iis uendendis uitia dicerentur, quae nota essent uenditori. nam cum ex duodecim tabulis satis esset ea praestari, quae essent lingua nuncupata, quae qui infìtiatus esset dupli poenam subiret, a iurisconsultis etiam reticentiae poena est constituta; quicquid enim esset in praedio uitii, id statuerunt, si uenditor sciret, nisi nominatim dictum esset, praestari oportere. Reconstruction

No portion of a text is attested, but the following may have stood there: < « n i fariatur, duplum poenae esto.»> Compare Tabula VIII, 11 ; and see on Tabula VI, 3. Commentary The clause imposes a double penalty - Cicero is quite explicit - on anyone who denies an obligation incurred under the terms of Tabula VI, 1, presumably in fact with any act per oes et libram\ the same penalty applies to uindicia falsa: see Tabula XII, 3; and anyone who uses uis to evade addictio: see the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Ch. LXI. See in general Cicero, de or. I, 178-9; Varro, RR II, 10, 5; Käser, Das altrömische Jus, 118-35; ZPR, 99-100; ZSS 100, 1983, 80-135, unmittelbare Vollstreckbarkeit und Bürgenregress'; Wieacker, RRGy 248. Tabula VI, 1-2 (a) (Tabula VII, 12 (Schoell, Bruns, FIRA)) Sources (a)

Tit.Ulp. 2,1-4: qui sub condicione testamento liber esse iussus est, statu liber appellatur. (2) statu liber, quamdiu pendet condicio, seruus heredis est. (3) statu liber seu alienetur ab herede siue usu capiatur ab aliquo, libertatis condicionem secum trahit. (4) sub hac condicione liber esse iussus, si decern milia heredi dederit, etsi ab herede abalienatus sit, emptori dando pecuniam ad libertatem perueniet; idque lex duodecim tabularum iubet.

(b) Dig. XL, 7, 25 (Modestinus): statu liberos uenumdari posse leges duodecim tabularum putauerunt... (c) Dig. XL, 7, 29, 1 (Pomponius): {The question arose of a statu liber in a case of a disputed inheritance.) sed uerissimum est, quod et Aristo Celso rescripsit, posse dari pecuniam heredi ab intestato, secundum quem sententia dicta est {that money can be given (by the statu liber) to the heir on intestacy, in whose favour judgment has been given), quoniam lex duodecim tabularum emptionis uerbo omnem alienationem complexa uideretur.

ROMAN STATUTES

658

Reconstruction It has often been doubted whether there was a clause in the Twelve Tables about statuliberi, on whom see Festus, 414 L; Kaser, RPR I, 114, with bibliography: the metaphors in Sources (a) and (b) are startling. But the problem is not so much whether there could be a conditional transaction so early or whether mancipatio familiae existed in the fifth century BC (see Watson, XII Tables^ 93-4, with a discussion of earlier views); it is whether there there are likely to have been enough slaves conditionally transferred to another to justify legislation. On the other hand there was probably a large category of men who could be freed if a payment was made and who were very likely to be transferred to another: the nexi. It has been doubted by Riccobono, ad loc, whether emptio stood in the text of the Twelve Tables: see A. Watson, Ciotta 53, 1975, 294-6 = Legal Origins and Legal Change (London & Rio Grande, 1991), 147-9, "Emptio: "taking"', for the argument that emere in the Twelve Tables meant no more than 'to receive'; compare Tabula VI, 5, and the Lex Osca Tabulae Bantinae, Law 13, 11. 15-16. It would be reasonable to suppose that the Twelve Tables granted the capacity to free a nexus whose debt was paid to a man to whom he had been transferred. The position of such a man will have been assimilated to that of a statuliber in a piece of retrospective erudition. No portion of a text is attested, but the following may have stood there: < « q u i emerit... > » Tabula VI, 3 Sources (a) Cicero, Caec. 54: lex usum et auçtoritatem fundi iubet esse biennium; at utimur eodem iure in aedibus, quae in lege non appellantur. (b) Cicero, Topica 23: item quod in re pari ualet, ualeat in hac quae par est, ut quoniam usus auctoritas fundi biennium est, sit etiam aedium. at in lege aedes non appellantur et sunt ceterarum rerum quarum annuus est usus. (c) Gaius n, 42-4 (cf. II, 201-4): (usucapio autem) mobilium quidem rerum anno completur, fundi uero et aedium biennio; et ita lege xii tabularum cautum est. (43) ceterum etiam earum rerum usucapio nobis conpetit, quae non a domino nobis traditae fuerint, siue mancipi sint eae res siue nee mancipi, si modo eas bona fide acceperimus, cum crederemus eum, qui traderet, dominum esse. (44) quod ideo receptum uideretur, ne rerum dominia diutius in incerto essent, cum sufficeret domino ad inquirendam rem suam anni aut biennii spatium, quod tempus ad usucapionem possessori tributum est. (d) Gaius II, 53-4: et in tantum haec usucapio (pro herede) concessa est, ut et res quae solo continentur, anno usucapiantur. (54) quare autem hoc casu etiam soli rerum annua constituta sit usucapio, ilia ratio est, quod olim rerum hereditariarum possessione ipsae hereditates usucapì credebantur, scilicet anno, lex enim xii tabularum soli quidem res biennio usucapi iussit, ceteras uero anno.

40 - TWELVE TABLES (e)

659

TU. Ulp. 19, 8 (whence Isidore V, 25, 30): usucapione dominium adipiscimur tarn mancipi rerum quam nee mancipi, usucapio est autem dominii adeptio per continuationem possessionis anni uel biennii: rerum mobilium anni, immobilium biennii.

Reconstruction Neither evidence nor likelihood supports the view, which must underlie the priority normally accorded to the Topica, that Cicero went back to the sources between delivering the pro Caecina and writing the Topica. It follows that in our text of the latter, which also seems to be the text which Boethius used for his commentary, usus aucîoritas are in asyndeton: see Mayer-Maly, 'Usucapion II', expressing caution over ceterarum rerum. (Boethius thought that the whole discussion was simply about usucapion, which is indeed the context in which Sources (c) - (e) place the one-year and two-year rule.) It looks as if Cicero is citing the word of his own day - usus - and the word of the Twelve Tables aucîoritas: and in proposing to exclude usus, we reach by a different route the view of auctoriias adopted by Mayer-Maly, I.e. This suggestion is marginally strengthened by the fact that only aucîoritas is present in what is probably a parallel clause, Tabula VI, 4, though the way in which this latter clause is reported means that this argument should not be pressed.

Text auctoritas fundi biennium (esto. ?ceterarum rerum? annus esto.)

Translation For an estate auctoritas (is to be) two years. (?For other things? it is to be one year.)

Commentary What is auctoritasl There appears to be a classical 'actio aucioriiaîis' (Kaser, ZPR, 72: it is extremely doubtful whether Varro, LL VI, 74, is relevant here), though the name is not attested. In it, a man whose title to a res was challenged appealed to the person from whom he had acquired it to prove his title. There are also references to an aucìor in an obscure entry in Valerius Probus, §4, 7, quando in iure te conspicio, posiulo anne îfarï aucîon in Plautus, Cure. 487-98; in Gellius II, 6, 16, laudare significai prisca lingua nominare appellareque. sic in aciionibus ciuilibus aucìor laudari diciîur, quod est nominali; in Cicero, Caec. 54, actio est in auctorem praesentem his uerbis: 'quandoque te in iure conspicio'. hac actione Appius ille Caecus uii non possei, si... (the passage is separated from that quoted above by a quite different point); and - in a metaphorical sense - in Mur. 3 (Tabula VI, 1, Source (g)): see Mayer-Maly, I.e., 239-56. The problem is that at no point is the laciio auctoritatis* related to the rule under discussion here; and the references to an aucìor just cited may all relate to the rule in Tabula VI, 2 (cf. Plautus, Persa 524-5). It is only by combining material very disparate in nature and date that one can produce the view that acquiring by mancipium depended

ROMAN STATUTES

660

in the Twelve Tables on the auctoritas of the disposer to protect possession during a oneyear or two-year period of usucapion leading to ownership; and hence that an acquirer by mancipium did not at once become the owner (the view of Th. Mommsen, De auctoritate (Diss.Kiel, 1843) = GS III, 458-65; M. Käser, ZSS 105, 1988, 122-64, 'Altrömisches Eigentum und "usucapio'", esp. 126 n. 22, 128 n. 34, with the intervening bibliography). One should perhaps rather suppose that auctoritas meant something like eminent title' (so A. Magdelain, Mélanges F. de Visscher IV = RIDA, le série, 5, 1950, 127-53 = Jus Imperium Auctoritas (Rome, 1990), 685-705, 'Auctoritas rerum', thought with an unacceptable text of this clause); and that this lasted only two or one years, as the case might be, against someone who was usucaping. After one or two years, as the case may be, the object or estate is mine by usucapion, irrespective of the actual mode of acquisition or of the title of my predecessor, and his auctoritas is at an end. The clause is thus about usucapion, which is how our sources take it, but indirectly: see Cicero, Caec. 14, fundus a paire relinqui potest, at usucapio fundi, hoc est-finis sollicitudinis ac periculi litium, non a patre relinquitur, sed a legibus; aquae ductus, haustus, iter, actus, a patre, sed rata auctoritas harum rerum omnium ab iure ciuili sumitur, de har.resp. 14 (Tabula VI, 1, Source (h)). This approach has the advantage that auctoritas can have the same meaning here and in Tabula I, 22; Tabula VI, 4; and the Lex Atinia, Law 48. The classical 'actio auctoritatis\ mentioned above, may have been rather distantly related. There is a useful general account of possessio in B. Albanese, Le situazioni possessorie (Palermo, 1985), though wih an unacceptable text of this clause. We cannot here discuss whether usucapion was originally restricted to res mancipi (cf. Tabula I, 22; Watson XII Tables, 151 n. 6). Tabula VI, 4 Source (a) Cicero, de off. I, 37: hostis enim apud maiores nostras is dicebatur, quern nunc peregrinum dicimus. indicant duodecim tabulae: 'aut status dies cum hoste' (Tabula II, 2), itemque: 'aduersus hostem aeterna auctoritas'. Reconstruction Daube, Forms, 106, argued for the possibility of sentences without an expressed verb in the Twelve Tables; but there are no secure parallels. Text aduersus hostem aeterna auctoritas (esto). Translation Against a foreigner, auctoritas (is to be) everlasting.

40 - TWELVE TABLES

661

Commentary We adopt the commonest meaning of aduersus; for the sense of hostis, see on Tabula II, 2. If we are right about the meaning of Tabula VI, 3, the function of this clause may have been as follows: the Twelve Tables legislated into extinction any claim a ciuis might have against a man who had usucaped, after one year or two years as the case might be; they could not legislate on the same basis for foreigners; they could - and did - proclaim the lasting auctoritas of a Roman against a foreigner. Note also the important suggestion of D. Nörr that TÉA.OÇ in the first treaty between Rome and Carthage translates auctoritas {Aspekte des römischen Völkerrechts (Munich, 1989), 104-5; and compare Tabulae I, 11;

n, 2. The majority view is that a foreign acquirer by mancipium - he must have commercium - may depend on the auctoritas of a Roman disposer indefinitely, as being debarred from acquiring ownership by usucapion: see Kaser, RPR I, 136-7, with bibliography. But this depends on a view of Tabula VI, 3, which we doubt. Tabulavi, 5 Sources (a)

Gaius I, 110-11: olim itaque tribus modis in manum conueniebant: usu, farreo, coemptione. (Ill) usu in manum conueniebat quae anno continuo nupta perseuerabat, (quia) enim uelut annua possessione usu capiebatur, in familiam uiri transibat filiaeque locum obtinebat. itaque lege duodecim tabularum cautum est, ut si qua nollet eo modo in manum mariti conuenire, ea quotannis trinoctiö abesset atque eo modo cuiusque anni (usum) interrumperet.

(b)

Gellius III, 2, 12-13 (whence Macrobius, Sat. I, 3, 9): (Q.) quoque Mucium iureconsultum dicere solitum legi non esse usurpatam mulierem, quae, cum Kalendis Ianuariis apud uirum matrimonii causa esse coepisset, ante diem iv Kalendas Ianuarias sequentes (= three days before) usurpatum isset: non enim posse impleri trinoctium, quod abesse a uiro usurpandi causa ex duodecim tabulis deberet, quoniam tertiae noctis posteriores sex horae alterius anni essent, qui inciperet ex Kalendis.

(c)

Servius, on Virgil, Georg. I, 31: tribus enim modis apud ueteres nuptiae fiebant: usu, si uerbi gratia mulier anno uno cum uiro, licet sine legibus, fuisset... Reconstruction

It is clear from the uelut in Gaius that the Twelve Tables did not use the language of usucapio of his own day. A. Watson, SDHI29, 1963, 337-8 = Legal Origins and Legal Change (London & Rio Grande, 1991), 9-10, 'Usu farre(o) coemptione', suggested that these three words stood in the Twelve Tables, but this is not likely. (The word coemptio may orginally have

ROMAN STATUTES

662

meant something like 'mutual taking': see on Tabula VI, 1-2 (a).) No portion of a text is attested, but the following may have stood there: < « s i trinoctium in anno abest . . . » > Commentary It has been held both that the clause reveals a distinction between marriage, which existed while the year was being completed, and manus, which then came into existence: see, e.g., E. Volterra, La conception du manage d'après les juristes romains (Padua, 1940) = Scritti giuridici II (Naples, 1991), 3-68; and that the institution of the trinoctium served to prevent marriage becoming marriage with manus: see, e.g., B. Albanese, SDHI 35, 1969, 73-98, 'II trinoctium del "flamen dialis"'. The period necessary for the acquisition of manus, at any point in the life of the marriage, one year, was perhaps specified by analogy with the period for the usucapion of mobile goods (Tabula VI, 3); compare also usucapio pro he rede (Tabula VI, 3, Source (d)). We do not know what act may have marked the beginning of acquisition of manus. There is a dim recollection of the rule of the Twelve Tables in Tacitus, Ann. XII, 46, so first L. Latini to G.V. Pinelli, X Cal.Sept. 1590, Epistulae I (Rome, 1659), 366. Note that a woman in manu may also be what we might describe as being in potestate: in the manus of her husband, but in the potestas of his father. In lay terminology, the same words could be used for both relationships: ... quae in mariti manu mancipioque aut in eius, in cuius maritus, manu mancipioque esset (Gellius XVIII, 6, 9, whence Servius, on Aen. XI, 476: see A. Watson, in J.E. Spruit, ed., Maior Viginti Quinque Annis (Assen, 1979), 195-201 = Studies in Roman Private Law (London & Rio Grande, 1991), 15-22, Two notes on manus\ at 197-200 = 18-22). See also on Tabula V, 2, for divorce; apd the general account in Watson, XII Tables, 16-19. Tabula VI, 6 Sources (a) Festus, 502 L: tignum non solum in aedificiis, quo utuntur, appellatur, sed etiam in uineis, ut est in xii: 'tignum iunctum aedibus uineaue fet concapitj ne soluito'. (b) Dig. XLVII.3, lpr.-l (Ulpian): lex duodecim tabularum neque soluere permittit tignum furtiuum aedibus uel uineis iunctum neque uindicare ... sed in eum qui conuictus est iunxisse in duplum dat actionem. (1) tigni autem appellatione continetur omnis materia, ex qua aedificium constet uineaeque necessaria. (c) Dig. XLVI, 3, 98, 8 (Paul): denique lex duodecim tabularum tignum aedibus iunctum uindicari posse seit, sed interim id solui prohibuit pretiumque eius dari uoluit. (d) Dig. XLI, 1, 7, 10 (Gaius) (whence Justinian, Inst. II, 1, 29): cum in suo loco aliquis aliena materia aedificauerit, ipse dominus intellegitur aedificii, quia omne quod inaedificatur solo cedit, nee tarnen ideo is qui materiae dominus fuit desiit eius dominus esse; sed tantisper neque uindicare earn potest

40 - TWELVE TABLES

663

neque ad exhibendum de ea agere propter legem duodecim tabularum, qua cauetur, ne quis tignum alienum aedibus suis iunctum eximere cogatur, sed duplum pro eo praestet. appellatione autem tigni omnes materiae significantur, ex quibus aedificia fiunt. (e) Dig. X, 4, 6 (Paul): ... in tigno iuncto aedibus, de quo nee ad exhibendum agi potest, quia lex duodecim tabularum solui ueta{re}t; sed actione de tigno iuncto ex eadem lege in duplum agitur. (f)

Dig. VI, 1,23, 6 (Paul): tignum alienum aedibus iunctum nee uindicari potest propter legem duodecim tabularum, nee eo nomine ad exhibendum agi nisi aduersus eum qui sciens alienum iunxit aedibus; sed est actio antiqua de tigno iuncto, quae in duplum ex lege duodecim tabularum descendit.

(g) Dig. XXIV, 1, 63 (as emended by Berger, 'Citazioni', 623-9, following Riccobono): Paulus libro tertio ad Neratium. de eo quod uxoris in aedificium uiri ita coniunctum est, ut detractum alicuius usus esse possit, dicendum est agi posse{, quia nulla actio est ex lege duodecim tabularum, quamuis decemuiros non sit credibile de his sensisse, quorum uoluntate res eorum in alienum aedificium coniunctae essent}. Paulus notât: sed in hoc solum agi potest, ut sola uindicatio soluta re competat mulieri, non in duplum ex lege duodecim tabularum; neque enim furtiuum est quod sciente domino inclusum est. (h) Dig. L, 16,235, 1: Gaius libro tertio ad legem duodecim tabularum: 'fabros tignarios' dicimus non eos dumtaxat, qui tigna dolarent, sed omnes qui aedificarent. Reconstruction The jurists discuss the question of whether the tignum in question was in some way improperly where it was; this might lead one to suppose that an appropriate adjective stood where \et concapit\ stands in Festus; and that in such a text everything between tignum iunctum and ne soluito qualified tignum iunctum. Such observations, combined with the existence of the expression furtum coneeptum, lie behind the emendation of Cujas (Obs. XXII, 19): et concapitum. Analogous reasons lie behind the emendations of Ph.E. Huschke (Ad legem duodecim tabularum de tigno iuncto commentano (in Glückwunsch der Universität zum 100-jähr.Jubil der Universität Gottingen, Breslau, 1837), 28): sei concapit\ and Voigt (I, 717): sei concapsit. The emendations founder on two rocks: (1) the fact that a furtum may be conceptum does not at all imply that a tignum may be; (2) the jurists appear to distinguish between a tignum alienum (used in good faith) and a tignum furtiuum (used in bad faith), and it is unclear how a single adjective or clause could underlie both possibilities: that the consequences of the (much later) attempt to introduce a distinction between material used in good or bad faith are not systematically worked out in the material available to us is a good indication that the text of the Twelve Tables gave no clear lead in this connection). There are still further problems: (1) with such hypotheses, even that part of the text of Festus which appears acceptable seems to require correction, uineaue (certainly the reading of the Codex

664

ROMAN STATUTES

Farnesianus) to uineaeue, since the cases of iungere + ablative cited in TLL VII, 2, 653, 63-6, are not adequate parallels; (2) with the hypothesis of Cujas, it is necessary to attribute to et a meaning, 'even', otherwise unattested in the Twelve Tables. (For problems of morphology, see Norden, Priesterbüchern, 93-4.) The Lex Quinctia, Law 63, 11. 39-43, and de aq. 127, 1, cited thereon, very strongly imply that a tree built into a building had an unconditional right to stay where it was. It is much better to suppose that the jurists talk of tignum alienum and tignum furtiuum because a long process of interpretation has inserted the rule of the Twelve Tables into the procedures relating to these two possibilities; and to seek to emend fer concapif\ to indicate the place from which the tignum iunctum might not be removed. To correct et to e is easy, assuming dittography followed by correction of c to t. We reject: Agustfn, ad loc.y et concapu or et capulo; Turnebus, e copula or cum capite; Bosius, as reported by Müller, e compage; G. Mayans, Disputationes Iuris (Leiden, 1752), XLVm.4, building on a suggestion of Janus a Costa, et concapi; Schoell, building on a suggestion of Müller, e concapi; A. Watson (RIDA, 3e série, 21, 1974, 337-42 = Legal Origins and Legal Change (London & Rio Grande, 1991), 141-6, 'Tignum iunctum, the XII Tables, and a lost word', tignum iunctum aedibus uineaue concaput ne soluito (the word would have to be conciput; and the chiastic construction postulated is completely alien to the style of the Twelve Tables; the second objection also applies to the essentially similar suggestion of Scaliger, ad loc, despite his vigorously expressed contempt for those who understood the Twelve Tables less well than he did: tignum iunctom aedibus, uineaeque concapes nei soluito). We follow Goetz, Adnotationes,§Y: e concapedine. Text tignum iunctum aedibus uineaue e concap(edine) ne soluito. Translation He is not to remove a linked beam from a house or a vineyard out of a joint. Commentary The purpose of the rule was presumably to prevent a man removing a beam which was essential also to a neighbouring structure, whether in a town or in a vineyard; the claim of L. Minieri, in Sodalitas HI (Naples, 1984), 1223-32, Tab. 6.8: il tignum iunctum e la coltura vinaria "a palo morto'", that beams were not used in Roman vineyards of the fifth century BC is unprovable and implausible. For the wide understanding of the meaning of tignum in the classical jurists, compare also Dig. X, 4, 7pr. (Ulpian); L, 16, 62 (Gaius). See, in general, R. Monier, Le tignum iunctum (Paris, 1922); and the survey of recent literature in M. Marrone, Labeo 37, 1991, 382-8, "Tignum iunctum" e "inaedificatio"'.

40 - TWELVE TABLES

665

Tabula VI, 7 Sources (a)

Festus, 474 L: (sar)puntur uineae, id est putantur, ut in xii: 'quandoque sarpta, donee dempta erunt'.

(b)

Festus, 310 L: (quando) ... in xii quidem cum c littera ultima scribitur, idemque significat.

Reconstruction Source (b) suggests that Source (a) is corrupt: quandoc ) quandoq; the tense of the second verb in Source (a) is certainly not original. A. Pari ente, cited under Tabula I, 3, proposes to emend sarpta to carpta, wrongly; for sarpoy compare Festus, Pauli Exc> 429 L; CGL II, 350, 12: Ktaxôe-ocû à[inéXovç, sarpo; Charisius, 245, 21 Keil = 319, 23-4 Barwick; Goetz, Adnotationes, §X.

Text ... quandoc sarpta, donee dempta erunt...

Translation ... whenever pruned, until they shall have been removed ...

Commentary It is clear from the texts cited above that sarpere is specific to vines. Huschke, I.e., proposed to restore {neque, uinea) quandoque sarpta, donee dempta erunt {tigna, uindicito), 'and he is not, whenever the vineyard is pruned, until the beams shall be removed, to claim them', following on from Tabula VI, 8: the style is absurdly Ciceronian. It is more likely that the subject of sarpta and dempta is the same; and that the clause is about vine prunings, for which see Cato, agr. 37 (XLIII), with the commentary of R. Goujard. Compare also Tabula VII, 9.

ROMAN STATUTES

666

Tabula VII, 1 Sources (a)

Varro, LL V, 22: etiam ambitus (i)ter quod circumeundo teritur; nam ambitus circuitus; ab eoque duodecim tabularum interprètes 'ambitus parietis' circuitum esse describunt.

(b)

Cicero, Topica 24: itaque Graeci talis argumentationes àiiyyoMC, uocant, id est artis expertis, ut si ita respondeas: 'quoniam P. Scaeuola id solum esse ambitus aedium dixerit, quantum parietis communis tegendi causa tectum proiceretur, ex quo in tectum eius, aedis qui protexisset, aqua defiueret {provided that the water ran off that (roof) on to the roof of the person who had protected his house), id tibi ius uideri'.

(c)

CiL VI, 29788: inter duos parietes ambitus priuat(us) Flaui Sabini {brother or nephew of Vespasian)

(d)

Festus, Pauli Exc.t 5 L: ambitus proprie dicitur circuitus aedificiorum, patens in latitudinem pedes duos et semissem, in longitudinem idem quod aedificium.

(e) Festus, Pauli Exc. 15 L: ambitus proprie dicitur inter uicinorum aedificia locus duorum pedum et semipedis ad circumeundi facultatem relictus. (f)

Isidore XV, 16, 12: ambitus inter uicinorum aedificia locus, duorum pedum et semipedis ad circumeundi facultatem relictus et ab ambulando dictus.

(g)

Volusius Maecianus, Distributio 46: denarius primo asses decern ualebat ... sestertius duos asses et semissem, quasi semis tertius ... lex {a provision) etiam duodecim tabularum argumento est, in qua duo pedes et semis sestertius pes uocatur.

(h) Dig. Vm, 2, 14 (Papirius Iustus): Imperatores Antoninus et Seuerus (perhaps Verus) Augusti rescripserunt in area, quae nulli seruitutem debet, posse dominum uel alium uoluntate eius aedificare intermisso legitimo spatio a uicina insula. Text ambitus parietis sestertius pes (esto). Translation The surround of a wall (is to be) two feet and a half.

40 - TWELVE TABLES

667

Commentary We cannot tell on internal evidence whether the Twelve Tables imposed for the first time, endorsed or mentioned an ambitus parietis\ or whether the corresponding obligation (or practice) was general or limited to some particular circumstance. But it is likely that the Twelve Tables impose or endorsed a general practice. It is in any case clear that at all observable periods of the history of the city of Rome many, even most, houses had party walls. A wall could have an ambitus even if it was a party wall. P. Scaeuola indeed apparently argued, perhaps paradoxically, that an ambitus parietis only extended as far as was necessary for a roof to carry water clear of a party wall on to a lower roof of the same property; the opinion was perhaps a piece of restrictive interpretation in the context of an ever more crowded city. Attempts by Nero or other later Emperors to enforce gaps between properties are another matter. (In Dig. XLVII, 12, 5 (Pomponius), ambitus is not an area, but the act of walking round something: see on the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Ch. LXXIX.) See in general B. Brugi, Rivista Italiana per le Scienze Giuridiche 4, 1887, 161-212, 363-407, 'L'"ambitus" e il "paries communis" nella storia e nel sistema del diritto romano'; C. Ferrini, ZSS 23, 1902, 431-3, '"Ambitus" und "angiportus"'; J.M. Rainer, ZSS 105, 1988, 488-513, 'Der paries communis im klassischen römischen Recht'. D'Ippolito, Questioni^ 13-32, much exaggerates the level of technical sophistication presupposed by this and similar clauses. [Tabula VII, 2] Source (a) Dig. X, 1, 13: Gaius libro quarto ad legem duodecim tabularum: sciendum est in actione finium regundorum illud obseruandum esse, quod ad exemplum quodammodo eius legis scriptum est, quam Athenis Solonem dicitur tulisse; nam illic ita est: eàv TIÇ alfiaoiav rcap'àAAoTpiœ x ^ P ^ opimfi (opDyfj, MSS), tbv öpov \x\\ rcapaßaiveiv, ëav TEI^ÌOV,rcoôaàrcoteirceiv, éav Ôè oÏKT||ia, Ôt>o 7io8aç. ëav 8e xotfppov (xd(pov, MSS) f\ ßotfpov opm-ni, Öaov (av) to ßaftoc fj, xoaomov àrcoteiTteiv, éav Se cppéap, òpyuiàv. étaxiav 8è Kai GVKfjv, évvéa rcóSac arcò TOÛ àM.oTpioi) cpweuetv, rà 8è àXfax 5év5parcevxeTtoSaç. Reconstruction Gaius is presumably commenting at this point on a provision of the Twelve Tables cited just previously, noting that it is to be observed in the actio finium regundorum and adding that it is reminiscent of a provision attributed to Solon. (He is no doubt reporting the existence of a rule rather than creating one; the suspicion arises that obseruandum is a corruption for obseruatum.) It is immaterial for present purposes whether the citation from the nomoi of Solon is by Gaius himself or a commentator on Gaius or the compilers. The important point is that the text does not document a provision of the Twelve Tables other than Tabula VII, 4: quodammodo is damning. The Greek citation appears in a more complex version in P.Dikaiomata, 11. 79-99 (bibliography at p. 67 n. 2), the municipal statute of Alexandria, with different rules for

ROMAN STATUTES

668

country and town (see in general P.M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria I (Oxford, 1972), 110-11, with bibliography); and the provisions relating to trees and ditches are explicitly attributed to Solon by Plutarch, Solon 23, 7 = Fr. 60b Ruschenbusch. In our text, aijiaoidv ... òpvraì stands instead of ocppiVynv ••• [oi]KOOou.fìi in P.Dikaiomata\ there seems to be a technical sense of maceria, 'footings of a wall', which might be the meaning in the Lex Quinctia, Law 63, 1. 40, and which seems to exist also for aijiaoia (Hesychius, o^p-uyn,» xcbjia, tatyoç, aljiaaià). Digging is a perfectly acceptable verb and the emendation of Lòwenklau on the basis of the Basilica should stand. Note that many boundaries will always have had existing olives and figs and other (fruit) trees closer than the prescribed limits, hence the importance of Tabulae VII, 9; VIII, 3. Tabula VII, 3 Sources (a)

Pliny, NH XIX, 50: in duodecim tabulis legum nostrarum nusquam nominatur uilla; semper (!) in significatione ea hortus, in horti uero heredium.

(b)

Festus, Pauli Exc. 91 L: hortus apud antiquos omnis uilla dicebatur, quod ibi qui arma capere possint orirentur.

(c)

Pliny, NH XVIII, 39: ... (early Romans) quorum heredia colenda suscipiebat res publica ...

(d)

Festus, Pauli Exc. 89 L: heredium praedium paruulum.

(e) Festus, 486 L: [tugu]ria a tecto appellantur [—] sordida. Afranius in D[—]: 'tugurium est turpe'. [Caecilius in Hypo]bolimaeo: 'habitaba[t in tuguriolo pau]perculo\ quo nomine [Messala in explanajtione xii ait etiam [— signifi]cari. Reconstruction Messalla is a plausible conjecture in Festus, (e) above: compare Tabula I, 5; but there is no certainty that tugurium stood in the Twelve Tables, despite its frequent occurrence in the Glossaries. Rather the word may have formed part of the explanation of some quite different word: the two occurrences in the Digest, VIII, 3, 6, 1 (Paul); L, 16, 180pr. (Pomponius), place tugurium firmly in the language of their own day. The testimony of Pliny - and perhaps Festus, (d) above - that heredium in the Twelve Tables means hortus is incompatible with the claim of Varro, RR I, 10, 2, bina iugera, quod a Romulo primum diuisa dicebantur uiritim, quae heredem sequerentur, heredium appellarunt. For the view that this claim is late Republican antiquarian fantasy, see E. Gabba, RIL 112, 1978, 250-8 = id., in id. & M. Pasquinucci, Strutture agrarie e allevamento transumante nell'Italia romana (Pisa, 1979), 55-63, 'Per la tradizione

40 - TWELVE TABLES

669

dell' heredium romuleo'. For the view that a heredium of two iugera was at some point arbitrarily established as the minimum qualification for service in the legions, see Crawford, Coinage and Money, 23-4. But one may not wish to abandon the link between heredium and heres\ and one may in consequence wonder whether Pliny has the whole story. It may be that heredium began life meaning 'inheritance* and was replaced by hereditas as it took on the meaning of 'property': see on Tabula V, 8; hereditas took the same route: Cicero, Topica 29. If we are right about Tabula VII, 4, it would be possible to find a place in it for hortus and heredium: »hortum heredium Text ... hortus ... heredium ... Translation ... land with a farm ... a plot of land ... Tabula VII, 4-5 Sources (a) Cicero, de leg. I, 55: ex hac autem non rerum sed uerborum discordia controuersia est nata de finibus, in qua, quoniam usus capionem duodecim tabulae intra quinque pedes esse noluerunt, depasci ueterem possessionem Academiae ab hoc acuto homine non sinemus, nee Mamilia lege singuli, sed e xii très arbitri finis regemus. (b)

'Hyginus' 126, 3-7 L = 89, 1-5 Th: de fine si agetur. quae res intra pedum quinque aut sex latitudinem quaestionem habet, quoniam hanc latitudinem uel iter culturas accedentium occupât uel circumactus aratri, quod usu capi non potest; iter enim non, quia ad culturas perueniatur, capitur usu {excluding id est quod in usu biennio fuit as a gloss: cf. 12, 12-17 L = 61, 3-7 Th; Tabula V, 3).

(c) Nonius V, 430-1 Mercerus = 695 Lindsay: iurgium leuior res est, siquidem inter beneuolos aut propinquos dissensio uel concertatio iurgium dicitur; inter inimicos dissensio lis appellatur. M. Tullius de republica libro iv: 'admiror, nee rerum solum sed uerborum etiam elegantiam. "si iurgant" inquit (lex); beneuolorum concertatio, non lis inimicorum, iurgium dicitur'. et in sequenti: 'iurgare igitur lex putat inter se uicinos, non litigare'. (d) Isidore V, 25, 11: finium regundorum actio dicta eo quod per earn regantur fines utrique, ne dissipentur, dummodo non angustiore quinque pedum loco ea controuersia sit. (e) Dig.X, 2, 57 (Papinian): arbitro quoque accepto fratres communem hereditatem consensu diuidentes pietatis officio funguntur, quam (diuisionem) reuocari non oportet, licet arbiter sententiam iurgio perempto non dixerit, si non intercédât aetatis auxilium.

670

(0

ROMAN STATUTES

C.Th. II, 26, 5 (Theodosius, Arcadius, Honorius): cunctis molitionibus et machinis amputatis, finalibus iurgiis ordinem modumque praescripsimus ac de eo tantum spatio, hoc est pedum quinque, qui ueteri iure praescripti sunt, sine obseruatione temporis arbitras iussimus iudicare. Reconstruction

A reference to the Twelve Tables must have stood in the text of Cicero just before the quotation by Nonius begins. The quotation from Cicero provides us with our only portion of the text of Tabula VII, 4; but the following may have stood there: A ban on usucapion could have been inferred from such a rule (compare Tabula X, 9-10). Cicero, (a) above, playing on the meanings of finis, 'aim' or 'boundary', does not necessarily show that the Twelve Tables specified three arbiters, rather that they allowed two or more, contra Crawford, cited below: for the interlocutors in the de legibus were precisely three. Contrast Tabula XII, 3, where the magistrate is ordered to appoint precisely three arbiters; and for a single arbiter de finibus, probably before the Lex Mamilia, see Terence, Heaut. 498-500. Text 5.

si iurgant, (arbitros postulanto.) Translation

5.

If they disagree, (they are to demand arbiters.) Commentary

The part of the width of difiniswhich went with each property is die same as the ambitus parietis of Tabula VII, 1. For iudicis arbitriue postulano, see Tabula I, 12. (W.W. Buckland, RHD 15, 1936, 741-50, 'Finium regundorum', seems hyper-cautious in denying that this was the procedure.) Compare also Seneca, fr. 90 Haase; Horace, Ep. II, 1, 38; 2, 170-1: sed uocat usque suum, qua populus adsita certis limitibus uicina refugit iurgia ... But the meaning of iurgare is not so limited as the sources cited above imply: see Cicero, de leg. H, 19 and 29; Festus, Pauli Exc. 21 L; and arbitral procedure was also used for genuinely adversarial actions. The judgment of the arbitri will have created a right, not simply declared that one existed: see M. Kaser, Symbolae M. David I (Leiden, 1968), 85-109 = Ausgewählten Schriften II (Camerino, 1976), 117-44, 'Adiudicare bei der actiofiniumregundorum und den Vindikationen', with bibliography. There is no warrant for introducing a distinction between controversies de fine and de loco into the discussion: our earliest source,

40 - TWELVE TABLES

671

Frontinus, distinguishes (artificially) between fifteen kinds of controversies, 9, 6-11 L = 4, 7-11 Th. For the Republican distinction, see Cicero, Acad. II, 132: nam aut Stoicus constituatur sapiens aut ueteris Academiae. utrumque non potest; est enim inter eos non de terminis, sed de tota possessione contentio. For the occurrences of five foot boundary strips (and occasionally six or four foot), see M.H. Crawford, Ath 11, 1989, 179-90, 'The Lex lulia agraria', at 183. There is a generic reference to the content of Tabula VII, 2-5, at Cicero, Caec. 73-5. Tabula Vu, 6-7 Sources (a)

Festus, 508 L: uiae sunt et publicae, per [quas —]e omnibus licet, et priuatae quibus neminem uti [—] praeter eorum quorum sunt, et ita priuatae viii pedes in latitudine iure et lege, publicae quantum ratio utilitatis permittit. lex iubet xvi [in anfractu fle]xuque pedes esse uias, tut quit uias muniunto tonisamdi lapidassunt qua uolet iumento agetot-

(b) Varro, LL VE, 15: anfractum est flexum, ab origine duplici dictum, ab ambitu et frangendo; ab eo leges iubent in directo pedum viii (uiam) esse, in anfracto xvi, id est in flexu. (e) Cicero, Caec. 54: (lex) si uia sit immunita, iubet qua uelit agere iumentum. (d) Dig. L, 16,235pr.: Gaius libro tertio ad legem duodecim tabularum: 'ferri' proprie dicimus, quae quis suo corpore baiulat; portari ea, quae quis iumento secum ducit; agi ea quae animalia sunt. (e) Dig. Vili, 3, 8 (Gaius): uiae latitudo ex lege duodecim tabularum in porrectum octo pedes habet, in anfractum, id est ubi flexum est, sedecim. (f)

Dig. VOI, 3, 13, 1-3 (Javolenus): si totus ager itineri aut actui seruit, dominus in eo agro nihil facere potest, quo seruitus impediatur, quae ita diffusa est, ut omnes glaebae seruiant, aut si iter actusue sine ulla determinatione legatus est; modo determinabitur et qua primum iter determinatum est, ea seruitus constitit, ceterae partes agri liberae sunt; igitur arbiter dandus est, qui utroque casu uiam determinare debet. (2) latitudo actus itinerisque ea est, quae demonstrata est; quod si nihil dictum est, hoc ab arbitro statuendum est. in uia aliud iuris est; nam si dicta latitudo non est, légitima debetur. (3) si locus non adiecta latitudine nominatus est, per eum qualibet iri poterit; sin autem praetermissus est aeque latitudine non adiecta, per totum fundum una poterit eligi uia dumtaxat eius latitudinis, quae lege compraehensa est; pro quo ipso, si dubitabitur, arbitri officium inuocandum est.

672

ROMAN STATUTES

Reconstruction Festus allows us to treat the two rules as related, though he only provides a direct citation for the second. For the first lacuna, the conjecture of Th. Bergk, ZGR 14, 1848, 139-44, 'Über das Zwölftafelgesetz vom Wegbau', is very plausible: per [guas ire agere ueher]e. At the very end, we report the reading of the copy of the Codex Farnesianus by Politian; and the correction of Mommsen must be right: ni sam de lapidas s int. But if we understand sam as earn, it is hard to avoid correcting uias to uiam\ and it would then be hard to avoid the implication that the Twelve Tables occupied themselves with munera. The same objection applies to the suggestion of Pithou, [amsegetes] uiam muniunto, in itself far from contemptible: compare Festus, Pauli Exc. 19 L, amsegetes dicuntur quorum ager uiam tangit. (D'Ippolito, Questioni, 30-2, advances no argument for the view that the roads of uias muniunto are public.) It is perhaps best to understand sam as suam: compare O. Skutsch on Ennius, Ann. 137; and uias muniunto does not need a subject. The continuation will be qua uolet iumenta agito, an easy correction in the light of Cicero, (c) above. There is no convincing correction for 'tutquif. There are further references to the legal width of a uia in general, to the specification of 8 or 16 feet, and to the right of passage anywhere, in Dig. VIII, 6, 6 (Celsus). The quotation from Gaius on the Twelve Tables does not give us any of the text; for its relevance to the order of the fragments, see the Introduction, '6 - The order of the collection*. No portion of a text of Tabula VI, 6, is attested, but the following may have stood there: Text 7.

uias muniunto. ni sam delapidassint, qua uolet, iumenta agito. Translation

7. They are to make roads. Unless they have placed stones along their own, he is to drive yoked beasts of burden, where he shall wish. Commentary It is not obvious how to reconcile the designation of certain roads as private, see Festus, (a) above, with the obligation that they be of a specified size and that they be (?) surfaced. (The Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24, 11. 53-5, is probably about the upkeep of public roads.) It is easiest to suppose that certain roads resulted from servitudes on the properties through or along the edge of which they passed, whether the servitudes were for the benefit of a single neighbouring proprietor or for the benefit of a group of persons. Compare for a later age the lucid account of Ulpian, Dig. XLIII, 8, 2, 23; VIII, 3, lpr. Since there is no evidence, the nature of such servitudes is a matter for speculation; it may be explored in L. Capogrossi Colognesi, La struttura della proprietà e la formazione dei 'iurapraediorum' nelV età repubblicana II (Milan, 1976), 1-269, at 249-69. For delapidare, 'surface with stone', compare Festus, Pauli Exc. 64 L: delapidata lapide strata; CGL II, 341, 52; but Wieacker, 'Zwölftafelprobleme ', 476-7, may be right

40 - TWELVE TABLES

673

to suggest 'mark with stones' (compare depalare): our translation preserves the ambiguity. (The meaning in Cato, agr. LIV, 46, 1, is different.) There is a generic reference to the content of Tabula Vu, 6-7, at Cicero, Caec. 73-5. Tabula VU, 8 Sources (a) Dig. XL, 7, 21pr.: Labeo libro posteriorum ita refert: 'Calenus dispensator meus, si rationes diligenter tractasse uidebitur ...' et quod ita scriptum est 'uidebitur', pro hoc accipi debet 4uideri poterit'; sic et uerba legis duodecim tabularum ueteres interpretati sunt 'si aqua pluuia nocet', id est, 'si nocere poterit'. (b) Cicero, Top. 39: cum autem a genere ducetur argumentum, non erit necesse id usque a capite arcessere. saepe etiam citra licet, dum modo supra sit quod sumitur, quam id ad quod sumitur; ut aqua pluuia ultimo genere ea est quae de caelo ueniens crescit imbri, sed propiore, in quo quasi ius arcendi continetur, {genus est aqua pluuia} nocens; eius generis formae, loci uitio et manu nocens, quarum altera iubetur ab arbitro coerceri, altera non iubetur. (c) Dig. XLm, 8, 5 (Paul): si per publicum locum riuus aquae ductus priuato nocebit, erit actio priuato ex lege duodecim tabularum, ut noxa(e) domino ca{r}ueatur. (d) Dig. XXXIX, 3, 3, 3 (Ulpian) (cf. 18pr. (Javolenus)): quare si quis in publico opus faciat, haec actio cessât, sibique imputare debet is qui damni infecti cautione sibi non prospexit. si tarnen in priuato opus factum sit et publicum interueniat, de toto agi posse aquae pluuiae arcendae Labeo ait. (e) Dig. XXXIX, 3, 1, 18 (Ulpian): nee illud quaeramus unde oriatur; nam et si publico oriens uel ex sacro loco per fundum uicini descendat isque opere facto in meum fundum earn auertat, aquae pluuiae arcendae teneri eum Labeo ait. Reconstruction The bracketed phrase in Cicero, (b) above, is clearly in origin a marginal gloss. The received text thereafter, loci uitio et manu nocens\ is just about intelligible if one understands loci uitio (nocens) et manu nocens. In Paul, (c) above, there is no palaeographical justification for any reading other than that printed, which represents the correction of the scribe of the Codex Florentinus, who wrote 'carueatur' and crossed out the 'r\ Cujas, on Paul, 49 ad ed., dealing with this text, after stating that some MSS had sarciatur and that this was preferable, continues {Opera Omnia V (Naples, 1758), 659: 'Nam in Basilicis ita est: KIVCÒrcotiMvti èia TÒ TtctrMv TÒ àÇrijiiov, Ago ut mihi praestetur indemnitas, ut damno indemnis server, ut patiar TO àÇr||iiov ...' In the first edition, I (Lyon, 1606), 1429, the quotation from the Basilica

674

ROMAN STATUTES

begins KOivo7ia#eîv. Neither text nor scholia of the Basilica for Dig. XLIII, 8, 5, are now known. Mommsen, ad loc, suggested excising 7tcri>eîv xi; but it may be that Cujas originally wrote KIVCO àyûyyr|v = ago. And there must be a more fundamental doubt, whether the passage of the Basilica reported by Cujas actually corresponds to Dig. XLIII, 8, 5, at all. His report is a very fragile basis for emending the Codex Florentinus. Hugo von Burckhard, in Christian Friedrich von Glück, Ausführliche Erläuterung der Pandekten, Fortgesetzt von ... Hugo von Burckhard, Vol. 3 = 48 (Erlangen, 1881), 52-7 = Commentario alle Pandette, Libro XXXIX, Parte terza (Milan, 1906), 39-42, suggested {c}ar(c)eatur; but noxam arcere would be surprising Latin. It is above all desirable to establish the nature of the action with which Paul is concerned. Note first that his text is not explicitly about work on public ground at all. And Sources (d) and (e) suggest that the action is the actio aquae pluuiae arcendae: Source (c) has been assigned to the Title, 'Ne quid in loco publico uel itinere fiat', because of a rather loose association of ideas with the principle underlying Dig. XLIII, 8, 2, esp. 5 (Ulpian), between ductus here and factus in 2, 5. (For the principle, compare the Lex Tarentina, Law 15, 11. 39-42, and the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Ch. LXXVn; Dig. XLIII, 8, 2, 10 (Ulpian).) There is then no clause apart from si aqua pluuia nocet (contra Watson, Property, 131-4; Sitzia, cited below, 19-29; R. Martini, Studi Senesi 94, 1982, 319-24, 'Un azione contro lo stato in diritto romano?'). We do not know what follows: < « a r c e t o > » will suffice. The judge could order removal of the intervention,, which had created a danger of damage from rainwater (see below), as well as restoration of any damage caused thereby, occurring after litis contestalo; such restoration could not be ordered for any damage which had occurred before litis contestano (Dig. XXXIX, 3, 6, 6 (Ulpian)). Failure to comply will lead to a monetary condemnation. To return to Paul, noxa is impossible in Latin as the subject of caueatur and it is necessary to correct to noxa{e). If nocebit here means nocere poterti, then ut noxa{e) domino caueatur means 'in order that the proprietor be secured against the (danger of) damage': caueatur is being used metaphorically (compare Cicero, de leg. II, 61 (Tabula X, 9-10, Source (a))). Note that the information provided by Paul looks like a piece of antiquarian information very similar to that often provided by Gaius. Text si aqua pluuia nocet... Translation If rainwater damages ... Commentary For the actio aquae pluuiae arcendae, see in general M. Sargenti, Uactio aquae pluuiae arcendae (Milan, 1940); Watson, Property, 155-75; F. Sitzia, Ricerche in tema di 'actio aquae pluviae arcendae' (Milan, 1977); A. Rodger, ZSS 105, 1988, 726-8, 'The palingenesia of Paul's commentary on the actio aquae pluviae arcendae': the common view is that the rule of the Twelve Tables functioned to force a proprietor to reverse an

40 - TWELVE TABLES

675

intervention which had created a danger of damage from rainwater and to condemn him in the case of failure to do so. The other possibility is that the ueteres extended the scope of the action and that originally the plaintiff had had to wait until damage had occurred. With much hesitation, we adopt the translation which goes with the latter view. Watson and Sitzia are probably right against Sargenti (who repeats his view in Studi P. de Francisci III (Milan, 1956), 347-71, 'Sulla responsibilità per danni nei rapporti di vicinanza'), that from the outset the action only applied in the case of rainwater manu nocens, as a result of human intervention. The action came before an arbiter, perhaps by iudicis arbitriuepostulatio: see on Tabula I, 12; Käser, ZPR, 79 n. 13. For Athenian parallels, see Plato, Laws VIII, 844c-d; Demosthenes LV, In Calliclem. For noxa, from nocere, see on Tabula XII, 2. There is a generic reference to the content of Tabula VII, 8, at Cicero, Caec. 73-5. Tabula VII, 9 Sources (a) Dig. XLm. 27, lpr. and 7-9 (Ulpian); 2 (Pomponius): ait praetor: 'quae arbor ex aedibus tuis in aedes illius impendet, si per te stat, quo minus earn adimas, tunc, quo minus ill! earn arborem adimere sibique habere liceat, uim fieri ueto\ ... (7) deinde ait praetor: 'quae arbor ex agro tuo in agrum illius impendet, si per te stat, quo minus pedes quindecim a terra earn altius coerceas (if it is within your power to keep it to within no more thanfifteenfeet from the ground (and you do not)), tunc, quo minus iili ita coercere lignaque sibi habere liceat, uim fieri ueto'. (8) quod ait praetor et lex duodecim tabularum efficere uoluit, ut quindecim pedes altius rami arboris circumcidantur (that the branches of a tree which extend more thanfifteenfeet (from the ground) may be cut back); et hoc idcirco effectum est, ne umbra arboris uicino praedio noceret. (9) differentia duorum capitum interdicti haec est: si quidem arbor aedibus impendeat, succidi earn praecipitur, si uero agro impendeat, tantum usque ad quindecim pedes a terra coerceri. (2) si arbor ex uicini fundo uento inclinata in tuum fundum sit, ex lege duodecim tabularum de adimenda ea recte agere potes ius ei non esse ita arborem habere. (b) Pauli Sent. V, 6, 13: arbor, quae in aliénas aedes imminet uel in uicini agrum, nisi a domino sublucari non potest, is {que} conueniendus est, ut earn sublucet. quod si conuentus dominus id facere noluerit, a uicino luxuries ramorum compescitur ... Reconstruction No portion of a text is attested, but the following may have stood there: < « s i arbor in alienum imminet, quindecim pedes altius sublucato.»> Commentary The Twelve Tables clearly permitted an owner to deal with the tree of a neighbour if the neighbour failed to do so: see Kaser, RPR I, 126. (The translation of Source (a) offered by Watson, Property, 118-19, is unsatisfactory: see Munro on Lucretius IV, 414.)

676

ROMAN STATUTES

Note that it will have often been the case in mountainous terrain that an owner could not prune one of his trees. Note also that the nomoi of Solon likewise contained a reference to overhanging branches, Hesychius, s.v., 7ip07rcóptìia, ev xoîç aÇooiv f| téÇiç (pépexai (Fr. 61 Ruschenbusch). The brief remark of Pomponius on the arbor ... uento inclinata - note that inclinata means 'overhanging', not 'fallen' - cannot be taken as evidence for a rule separate from that of Ulpian; de adimenda ea looks like a reference to the removal of the overhanging part and the whole like an extension by interpretation of the basic rule. For sublucare, see Festus, 474 L.

40 - TWELVE TABLES

677

Tabula VIH, 1 Sources (a) Pliny, NH XXVIII, 17 (XXVIII, 10, is not relevant): quid? non et legum ipsarum in xii tabulis uerba sunt: 'qui fruges excantassit', et alibi: 'qui malum carmen incantassit'. (b) Festus, 190 L (cf. Pauli Exc. 191 L): 'occentassi{n}t' {the singular is justified by CGL V, 228, 29: occentauisset) antiqui dicebant quod nunc 'conuicium fecerit' dicimus, quod id clare et cum quodam canore fit, ut procul exaudiri possit. quod turpe habetur, quia non sine causafieriputatur. (c) Augustine, City of God II, 9 = Cicero, de re pub. IV, 12: dein paulo post 'nostrae' inquit 'contra duodecim tabulae, cum perpaucas res capite sanxissent, in his hanc quoque sanciendam putauerunt, si quis occentauisset siue carmen condidisset quod infamiam faceret flagitiumue alteri ...' ('... if anyone had "sung in enmity", that is, composed a song which would bring infamy or disgrace on someone else ...'). (d) Augustine, City of God H, 12-14 : at Romani, sicut in illa de re publica disputatione Scipio gloriatur, probris et iniuriis poetarum subiectam uitam famamque habere noluerunt, capite etiam plectendum sancientes, tale carmen condere si quis auderet ... (14) deinde quaerimus, ipsi poetae talium fabularum compositores, qui duodecim tabularum lege prohibentur famam laedere ciuium, tain probrosa in deos conuicia iaculantes, cur non ut scaenici habeantur inhonesti ... (e) Horace, Ep. II, 1, 152-5: ... quin etiam lex poenaque lata, malo quae nollet carmine quemquam describi; uertere modum, formidine fustis ad bene dicendum delectandumque redacti. (f)

Porfyrio, ad loc. : fustuarium supplicium constitutum erat in auctorem carminum infamium.

(g) Schol. on Persius, Sat. I, 123 (ed. O. Jahn, 1843, p. 276): ... primi (the Greek comedians) etiam exemplum dederunt libere scribendi ... propter quod lege duodecim tabularum cautum est ut fustibus feriretur qui publice inuehebatur. (h) Horace, Sat. II, 1,82-3: si mala condiderit in quern quis carmina, ius est iudiciumque. (i) Porfyrio, ad loc. (cf. Ps-Acro, ad loc): quia lege cautum erat, ne quis in quemquam maledicum carmen scriberet.

ROMAN STATUTES

678 G) ad Her IV, 25, 35:

iniuriae sunt, quae aut pulsatione corpus (aut) conuicio auris aut aliqua turpitudine uitam cuiuspiam uiolant. (k) Dig. XLVÏÏ, 10, 15, 3 (Labeo): conuicium iniuriam esse Labeo ait. (1) Cicero, Tusc.Disp. IV, 4: quamquam id quidem etiam xii tabulae declarant condi iam tum solitum esse carmen, quod ne liceret fieri ad alterius iniuriam lege sanxerunt. (m)

Arnobius, adv.nat. IV, 34:

carmen malum conscribere, quo fama alterius coinquinetur et uita, decemuiralibus scitis euadere noluistis impune, ac ne uestras aures conuicio aliquis petulantiore pulsaret, de atrocibus formulas constituistis iniuriis. (n)

Pauli Sent. V, 4, 6: iniuriarum actio aut lege aut more aut rnixto iure introducta est: lege duodecim tabularum de famosis carminibus, membris ruptis et ossibus fractis; ...

(0)

Cicero, Brutus 217 (cf. or. 129; David, Patronat, 4-5): qui (C. Scribonius Curio) in iudicio priuato uel maximo, cum ego pro Titinia Cottae perorauissem, ille contra me pro Ser. Naeuio diceret, subito totam causam oblitus est idque uenefìciis et cantionibus Titiniae factum esse dicebat.

(p)

Dig. L, 16,236pr.: Gaius libro quarto ad legem duodecim tabularum: qui uenenum dicit, adicere debet, utrum malum an bonum; nam et medicamenta uenena sunt, quia eo nomine omne continetur, quod adhibitum naturam eius, cui adhibitum esset, mutat. cum id, quod nos uenenum appellamus, Graeci cpàpiiocKOV dicunt, apud illos quoque tarn medicamenta quam quae nocent, hoc nomine continentur; unde adiectione alterius nomine distinctio fit. admonet nos summus apud eos poetarum Homerus; nam sic ait: (pàpuxxKCc, 7coAAa JIEV èo-òXìx u.eu.vyu£va, noXXa òk Xvypà. Reconstruction

The evidence is contradictory: (1) The general context in Pliny, (a) above, is that of human powers over the supernatural: see E. Fraenkel, Gnomon 1, 1925, 185-200 = Kleine Beiträge II (Rome, 1964), 397-415, reviewing Fr. Beckmann, Zauberei und Recht in Roms Frühzeit. Ein Beitrag zur Gechichte und Interpretation des Zwölftafelrechtes (Diss. Münster, 1923), at 187-8 = 400-1. It is reasonably certain that 'whoever cast a magic spell ...' stood in the Twelve Tables and defined an offence. (2) The form reported by Festus, (b) above, occentassit, and the account of Cicero (Augustine), (c) - (d) above, make it likely both that there was also a provision along the lines of qui occentassit carmen(ue) cond(issit) ... (see below) and that it was of high antiquity: see H. Usener, RhMus 56, 1901, 1-28 = Kleine Schriften IV (Leipzig & Berlin, 1913), 356-82, 'Italische Volksjustiz'; G.L. Hendrickson, CPh 20, 1925, 289-308, 'Verbal injury, magic, or erotic comus?'; Hermes 61, 1926, 79-86, 'Occentare ostium bei

40 - TWELVE TABLES

679

Plautus'. What has often been doubted is whether the penalty was capital. (There may be an echo of the association between occentare and flagitium in Plautus, Merc. 405-9.) (3) The word occentare had in the earliest usage that we can observe no magic connotations: Plautus, Cure. 145; Merc. 408; Persa 569. (4) Horace, (e) above, picks up the term malum carmen from the clause reported by Pliny, (a) above, but applies it to defamation; and, (h) above, he combines the terms malum carmen and condere. (5) All this is explicable on the hypothesis that there was a single provision in the Twelve Tables against incantations and defamation and that the penalty in both cases was capital; and that Horace, who was after all writing poetry, conflated elements from both clauses. This is in effect the view of Fraenkel, cited above, and Momigliano, cited below; it seems very difficult to suppose that the words malum carmen appear in Horace by coincidence, as does CO. Brink, Horace on Poetry. Epistles Book II (Cambridge, 1982), 196-9. (The account of the evidence in Wieacker, 'Zwölftafelprobleme', 462-4, 466, is not accurate.) (6) There is no evidence and little likelihood that anyone was ever put to death at Rome for singing insulting verses. But Naevius was probably kept in detention awaiting trial and died in exile; the sources do not suggest a connection, 'although it is still the best explanation' (A.D. Momigliano, JRS 32, 1942, 120-4 = Quinto contributo alla storia degli studi classici (Rome, 1975), 949-58, reviewing L. Robinson, Freedom of Speech in the Roman Republic (The author, Center College, Kentucky, 1940), at 122 = 954). (7) By the late Republic, Sources (j) and (k), compare (1), defamation was thought of as a kind of iniuria. The provision of the Twelve Tables had no doubt long fallen into desuetude. (8) Cicero, (1) above, even uses the word iniuria in talking of the Twelve Tables; that perhaps explains the erroneous belief that the Twelve Tables dealt with defamation as a form of iniuria. For the late assimilation of singing insulting verses under the heading of iniuria in Pauli Sententiae, (n) above, compare Gaius III, 220, 223-5. (9) By the late Republic, incantations and poison could be mentioned in the same breath, (o) above (compare Tacitus, Ann. Ill, 13); this fact is adequate to explain the discussion of uenenum by Gaius in his commentary For incantations and poison, in relation to crops, see Tabula Vm, 4.

*** Possible forms of wording are discussed by Fraenkel. In addition to the points made above, note that although some part of alter appears in Cicero, (c) and (1) above, and Ajnobius, (m) above, it does not do so in the company of anything that looks like original wording. There is no certain attestation of siue in the Twelve Tables, whereas -ue is common. The form condidisset is impossible in this period: perhaps condissit. Text qui malum carmen incantassit... (quiue) occentassit carmen(ue) cond(issit)... Translation Whoever cast a magic spell... (or whoever) sing in enmity (or) compose a song ...

ROMAN STATUTES

680

Tabula Vili, 2 (Tabula VIE, 5 (Schocll) = Vili, 6 (Bruns, FIRA)) Sources (a) The Autun version of Gaius IV, 81 : si per lasciuiam aut feruorem aut feritatem damnum [datum est], tenetur dominus ut aut damnum sustineat aut in noxam [tradat] animai. (b) Justinian, Inst. IV, 9pr.: si quadrupes pauperiem fecisse dicitur. animalium nomine, quae ratione carent, si quidem lasciuia aut femore aut feritate pauperiem fecerint, noxalis actio lege duodecim tabularum prodita est; quae ammalia si noxae dedantur, proficiunt reo ad liberationem, quia ita lex duodecim tabularum scripta est. ... pauperies autem est damnum sine iniuria facientis* datum; nee enim potest animal iniuriam fecisse dici, quod sensu caret. (e) Dig. IX, 1, lpr.-3 (Ulpian): si quadrupes pauperiem fecisse dicetur, actio ex lege duodecim tabularum descendit; quae lex uoluit aut dari id quod nocuit, id est id animal quod noxiam commisit, aut aestimationem noxiae offerre. (1) noxia autem est ipsum delictum. (2) quae actio ad omnes quadrupèdes pertinet. (3) ait praetor pauperiem fecisse. pauperies est damnum sine iniuria facientis datum; nee enim potest animal iniuria fecisse, quod sensu caret. (d) Pauli Sent. I, 15, 1: si quadrupes pauperiem fecerit damnumue dederit quidue depasta sit, in dominum actio datur, ut aut damni aestimationem subeat aut quadrupedem dedat. (e) Fes tus, Pauli Exe. 246 L: pauperies damnum dicitur quod quadrupes facit. Reconstruction It seems clear that Gaius, as well as Ulpian, linked pauperies with noxal surrender (see Kaser, RPR I, 633 n. 30, with bibliography, for refutation of the view that the link was invented by the compilers); and there is no reason to doubt that the alternatives of monetary reparation or noxal surrender were prescribed by the Twelve Tables. It seems unlikely that dicitur stood in the text; the clause will have begun: si quadrupes pauperiem faxit ... (fecit is impossible); given the proclivity of the Twelve Tables to change subjects between verbs, one may reasonably guess: < « n i sarcit, noxae dato>». It is unlikely that noxiam stood in the second dependent clause: the word is redundant and it would be surprising for the Twelve Tables to change technical terms from one dependent clause to another. Text si quadrupes pauperiem (faxit)...

40 - TWELVE TABLES

681

Translation If a quadruped (cause) loss ..

Commentary For the action, see Dig. IX, 1, as a whole. There is no reason to suppose that it applied only to those quadrupeds which were res mancipi, as hesitantly Z. Lisowski, RE, Supp. VII (1940), 657. Speculation on the etymology of pauperies seems unprofitable; it should derive from pauper = 'poor' and perhaps mean originally 'impoverishment' = 'loss', rather than simply 'poverty': compare perhaps fallacies or pernicies. A. Watson, RIDA, 3e série, 17, 1970, 3 5 7 - 6 7 = Legal Origins and Legal Change (London & Rio Grande, 1991), 129-39, 'The original meaning of pauperies1, argued that the word meant originally 'lack of productivity' and then acquired a technical legal meaning; but there is no evidence for this technical legal meaning: in the legal texts the word has a perfectly general meaning, rendered specific by the context. For nox{i)a, see on Tabula XII, 2.

Tabula VIII, 3 (Tabula VIII, 6 (Schoell) = VIII, 7 (Bruns, FIRA)\ VII, 10 (Schoell, Bruns, FIRA)) Sources (a)

Dig. XIX, 5, 14, 3 (Ulpian): si glans ex arbore tua in meum fundum cadat eamque ego immisso pecore depascam, Aristo scribit non sibi occurrere legitimam actionem, qua experiri possim; nam neque ex lege duodecim tabularum de pastu pecoris (quia non in tuo pascitur) neque de pauperie neque (de) damni iniuriae agi posse; in factum itaque erit agendum.

(b)

Dig. X, 4, 9, 1 (Ulpian): glans ex arbore tua in fundum meum decidit, earn ego immisso pecore depasco; qua actione possum teneri? Pomponius scribit competere actionem ad exhibendum, si dolo pecus immissi, ut glandem comederet.

(c)

Dig. L, 16,236,1: Gaius libro quarto ad legem duodecim tabularum: 'glandis' appellatione omnis fructus continetur, ut Jauolenus ait, exemplo Graeci sermonis, apud quos omnes arborum species àKpoÔpDa appellantur.

(d)

Pliny, NH XVI, 15: cautum est ... lege xii tabularum ut glandem in alienum fundum procidentem liceret colligere.

(e)

Dig. XLIII, 28, lpr.-l (Ulpian): ait praetor: 'glandem, quae ex illius agro in tuum cadat, quo minus illi tertio quoque die legere auferre liceat, uim fieri ueto'. (1) glandis nomine omnes fructus continentur.

ROMAN STATUTES

682

Reconstruction Sources (d) and (e) have traditionally been taken as documenting an independent clause of the Twelve Tables, VII, 10 (Bruns, FIRA), conferring a right to fruits which had fallen on the land of a neighbour. But it is hard to see how such a right can be reconciled with Sources (a) and (b): Pliny is not to be trusted. Any clause here must have contained a rule which could be described as being de pastu pecoris; must have contained the word glans\ and must have permitted the inference of the rule in Source (e). No portion of a text is attested, but the following may have stood there: It is not clear that a provision, noxiam sarcito, as suggested by Daube, 'Noxa\ 81 n. 35 (compare A. Fliniaux, in Mélanges G. Cornil I (Gand & Paris, 1926), 245-94, 'Une vieille action du droit romain. L"'actio de pastu'"), is necessary. Commentary It is not certain that Pauli Sent. I, 15, 1 (Tabula VIII, 2, Source (d)), has anything to do with this clause (so Watson, XII Tables, 159 n. 16), since quidue depasta sit there may be one of two explanatory expansions to si quadrupes pauperiem fecerit, both of which hence probably presuppose spontaneous grazing on the part of the sheep. The passage (cited as I, 23, 1) led Cujas, Opera Omnia I (Naples, 1758), 366-7, to suggest noxal surrender as the sanction of this clause. For a comparable rule in a Latin city, see Festus, Pauli Exc. 4. Tabula VIII, 4 (Tabula VIE, 7 (Schoell) = VIII, 8 (Bruns, FIRA)) Sources (a) Pliny, NH XXVIII, 17 (XXVIII, 10, is not relevant): quid? non et legum ipsarum in xii tabulis uerba sunt: 'qui fruges excantassit', et alibi: 'qui malum carmen incantassit'. (b) Virgil, Eel Vm, 95-9: has herbas atque haec Ponto mihi lecta uenena ipse dedit Moeris; nascuntur plurima Ponto, his ego saepe lupum fieri et se condere siluis Moerim, saepe animas imis excire sepulchris atque satas alio uidi traducere messis. (c) Servius, ad loc. : magicis quibusdam artibus hoc fiebat; unde est in xii tabulis 'neue alienam segetem pellexeris' ; quod et Varro et multi scriptores fieri deprehensum adfirmant. (d) Pliny, M/XVIII, 41: C. Furius Chresimus e seruitute liberatus, cum in paruo admodum agello largiores multo fructus perciperet, quam ex amplissimis uicinitas, in inuidia magna erat, ceu fruges aliénas pelliceret ueneficiis. quamobrem a Sp. Albino (aedile) curuli die dicta, metuens damnationem, cum in suffragium tribus oporteret ire, instrumentum

40 - TWELVE TABLES

683

rusticum omne in forum attulit... postea dixit: beneficia mea, Quirites, haec sunt (e)

Augustine, City of God VIII, 19: illud etiam quod alio loco de his artibus dicit: 'atque satas alio uidi traducere messes', eo quod hac pestifera scelerataque doctrina fructus alieni in alias terras transferri perhibentur, nonne in xii tabulis, id est Romanorum antiquissimis legibus, Cicero commémorât esse conscriptum et ei qui hoc fecerit supplicium constitutum?

(f)

Apuleius, Apol 47: magia ista, quantum ego audio, res est legibus delegata, iam inde antiquitus xii tabulis propter incredundas frugum illecebras interdicta ...

(g) Tibullus I, 8, 19: cantus uicinis fruges traducit ab agris cantus et iratae detinet anguis iter... (h) Seneca, Nat.Quaest. IV, 7: et apud nos in xii tabulis cauetur, ne quis alienos fructus excantassit. rudis adhuc antiquitas credebat et attrahi cantibus imbres et repelli... (i) Martianus Capella DC, 928: quid (quod) canticis allici disrumpique serpentes, glandem ferunt messesquc transire? (k)

Servius, on Virgil, Eel. VIII, 71 : sane ueteres cantare de magico carmine dicebant, unde et excantare est magicis carminibus obligare; Plautus in Bacchidibus (33): 'nam tu quidem cuiuis excantare cor facile potes' (nam credo quoiuis excantare cor potesjt} in the direct tradition). Reconstruction

The context in Virgil, Eel. VIII, 95-9, makes it clear that the passage of the Twelve Tables invoked by Servius was relevant to the use of uenena, to acquire the crops of another, and that this delict was distinct from fruges excantare, so rightly Fraenkel, cited on Tabula VIII, 1. The use of ueneficia is explicit in Pliny, (d) above, who indeed reflects the technical language of the statute in Servius with remarkable fidelity. (Tibullus, Seneca and Martianus Capella have presumably muddled the two delicts.) But Servius does not always quote with absolute accuracy - note only Source (k) above - nor is his text always transmitted without error: a verb in the Twelve Tables cannot have stood in the second person singular. So pellexeris should be regarded as a simple error of transmission for pellexerity no doubt facilitated by respexeris in the next lemma (the form pellexity Festus, Pauli Exc. 225 L, may have been recorded by Festus from the Twelve Tables, where it will have been an archaic subjunctive); and neue should be regarded as substituted by Servius for quiue, in order to make his short citation syntactically acceptable.

ROMAN STATUTES

684

Text qui fruges excantassit... ?quiue? alienam segetem pellexeri(t) ... Translation Whoever has bewitched fruits ... ?or whoever? has enticed the harvest of another ... Commentary Fraenkel, cited on Tabula VIII, 1, argued that excantare means 'to sing so as to bring about the destruction of; one cannot perhaps exclude the meaning offered by ServiusH(k) above: it is acceptable in the passage of Plautus quoted there and in Cato, de agri cult. CLXVin, 160. The use of the term supplicium by Cicero and the appearance of an aedilician trial in Pliny make it clear that the offence was public: see Mommsen, Str. 772-3, 903 = DPén HL, 80-1, 237; the contrary argument of Kunkel, Untersuchungen, Al n. 160, 64 n. 241, is not plausible. For incantations, in relation to people, see Tabula VIII, 1. Tabula VIII, 5 (Tabula VIII, 8 (Schoell) = VHI, 9 (Bruns, FIRA)) Source (a) Pliny, MF/XVIII, 12: frugem quidem aratro quaesitam furtim noctu pauisse ac secuisse puberi xii tabulis capital erat; suspensumque Cereri necari iubebant grauius quam in homicidio conuictum, impubem praetoris arbitratu uerberari noxiamue duplionemue decerni. Reconstruction The 'codex Lucensis', to which Riccobono attributes the reading duplione decerni, appears to be a phantom, like the anonymous MSS cited by Hardouin III, p. 646. Schoell argued, rightly in our view, that decerni has been substituted for decidi by Pliny or by a copyist: compare Tabula XII, 3, damnum deciduo. Pliny will have substituted noxiam for damnum. The phrase frugem aratro quaesitam looks like a piece of literary embellishment: compare [Tibullus] HI, 7 {Panegyricus Messallae), 161-2; Ovid, Met. V, 341-3; and no prudent person, who knows Pliny, will suppose that he is reliable testimony for the presence of the word furtim; nor will praetoris arbitratu be more than an inference from the text. No portion of a text is attested, but the following may have stood there: < « s i nox segetem pauerit secueritue, Cereri suspensus esto. si impubes, uerberato duplioneque damnum decidito.»> For si nox, compare Tabula I, 17-18; for si impubes, uerberato, compare Tabula I, 19.

40 - TWELVE TABLES

685

Commentary The penalty of hanging 'for Ceres' is presumably one transferred from the sacral to the public domain: see Mommsen, Str., 772-3, 900-1 = DPén III, 80-1, 233-4; K. Latte, ZSS 67, 1950, 47-61 = Kleine Schriften (Munich, 1968), 329-40, 'Religiöse Begriffe im frührömischen Recht'; H. Le Bonniec, Le culte de Cérès à Rome (Paris, 1958), 165-71; the theory of Kunkel, Untersuchungen, 42-3, that the penalty derives from private vengeance and that the procedure is private, is less plausible. Compare Tabula VIII, 10, for the word sacer. For pascere secareue, compare the Sententia Minuciorum, ILLRP 517,1.40. In the penalty for an impubes, there is no reason to attach any significant disjunctive force to Pliny's -ue; and we have supposed that -que stood in the original text. The magistrate presumably has the discretion not to flog. The procedure in the case of an impubes is completely secular. Pauli Sent. II, 31, 24 (25), has assimilated a double penalty for this delict to that in the action arborum furtim caesarum, for which see on Tabula I, 16. Tabula Vm, 6 (Tabula VIII, 9 (Schoell) = VIII, 10 (Bruns, FIRA)) Source (a) Dig. XLVÜ, 9, 9: Gaius libro quarto ad legem duodecim tabularum: qui aedes aceruumue frumenti iuxta domum positum combusserit, uinctus uerberatus igni necari iubetur, si modo sciens prudensque id commiserit. si uero casu, id est neglegentia, aut noxiam sarcire iubetur aut, si minus idoneus sit, leuius castigatur. appellatione autem aedium omnes species aedificii continentur. Reconstruction There is no objection to supposing that the beginning of the text of Gaius preserves the words of the statute: see Mommsen, Str., 89 n. 5, 837 n. 1 = DPén I, 103 n. 4, III, 159 n. 5. As for the second clause, it is likely that casu occurred in the text, since Gaius explains it; there is again no objection to supposing that Gaius preserves some part of the words of the statute. The language may have been modernised in both clauses. The doubts of Völkl, Körperverletzung, 91-5, as to whether the rule originally distinguished between deliberate and involuntary action, are not justified. Some doubt must attach to domum: iuxta may originally have stood in the text as an adverb. There is no way of knowing whether the second clause repeated combusserit or used commiserit. For the sanction in the second clause, see Daube, 'Noxa\ 81 n. 35. Perhaps therefore: < « s i aedes aceruumue frumenti iuxta ?domum? positum combusserit, uinctus uerberatus igni ... si casu ..., noxiam sarcito . . . » > Commentary A similar principle to that of the first clause is enunciated in Dig. XLVIII, 19, 28, 12 (Callistratus). For the law of the Twelve Tables, see Mommsen, Str., 646, 923 = DPén II,

ROMAN STATUTES

686

364-5, III, 260-1, arguing that procedure and penalty in the first clause are public; the theory of Kunkel, Untersuchungen, 42-3, that the penalty derives from private vengeance and that the procedure is private, is less plausible. For nox(i)a, see on Tabula XII, 2; for noxiam sarcito, compare Tabula I, 19; Tabula VIII, 2; the Introduction, '9 - The unattributed fragments', (7). ???Tabula VIU, 7 (Tabula VIII, 18 (Schoell, Bruns, FIRA))1V. Sources (a) Tacitus, Ann. VI, 16: sane uetus urbi fenebre malum et seditionum di scordi arumque creberrima causa, eoque cohibebatur antiquis quoque et minus corruptis moribus. nam primo duodecim tabulis sanctum, ne quis unciario fenore amplius exerceret, cum antea ex libidine locupletium agitaretur; dein rogatione tribunicia ad semuncias redactum; postremo uetita uersura. (b) Cato, de agr., praef.: maiores ... in legibus posiuerunt furem dupli condemnari, feneratorem quadrupli

Reconstruction Livy records the same three measures as Tacitus under 357 BC (VII, 16, 1), 347 BC (VII, 27, 3) and 342 BC (VII, 42, 1, cf. Appian, BC I, 232). Gaius IV, 23, knows of a Lex Marcia aduersus faeneratores, ut, si usuras exegissent, de his reddendis per manus iniectionem cum eis ageretur, which presumably presupposes the last measure of Tacitus and Livy. There is little to be said, except that either .you believe Tacitus, in which case you suppose that the measure of the Twelve Tables fell into desuetude and had to be reenacted; or you do not. The sceptic will note that Tabula X, 1, is dated by Servius Duellio consule; and he or she will then wonder whether the measure of 357 BC, one of whose authors was the tribune M. Duilius, was not attributed in error to a Duillius as consul and then, by fraud or negligence in the course of the controversies of the late Republic, to the Twelve Tables: a K. Duillius was one of the second board of Xviri. (It is illegitimate to base a sceptical argument on a supposed later date of the division of the librai as into twelve unciae; the as presupposed by the Twelve Tables (see the Introduction, '9 - The unattributed frgaments', (5)), and it is unreasonable to doubt that it was already divided into twelve unciae.) Since the measure recorded by Cato involves a quadruple penalty, which is the penalty for furtum manifestum that replaces the penalty of the Twelve Tables, it seems likely that the measure of Cato also, whatever precisely it contained, is later. Commentary If interest at Rome was calculated monthly, unciarium fenus, interest of a twelfth of the capital per month, was interest at 100 % per annum. The question of whether loans in kind or in money are at issue is immaterial: Rome probably had a monetary system,

40 - TWELVE TABLES

687

though naturally not coinage, from the regal period (see Crawford, Coinage and Money, 19-21). For debt in the Twelve Tables, see Tabula VI, 1. ???Tabula VIII, 8 (Tabula Vm, 19 (Schoell, Bruns, F/Ä4))??? Source (a) ColLX,7, 1 and 11: Paulus libro secundo sententiarum sub titulo de deposito ... (11) ex causa depositi lege duodecim tabularum in duplum actio datur, edicto praetoris in simplum. Reconstruction There is a full survey of the secondary literature in R. Evans-Jones, Labeo 34, 1988, 188-208, The action of the Twelve Tables "ex causa depositi'". It has been doubted whether there was an actio {ex causa) depositi specific to the Twelve Tables: most importantly, (1) by Voigt, who thought that it was the same as the actio fiduciae; but see Evans-Jones, 190-1; Kaser, RPR I, 160 n. 49; (2) by Jhering, who held that retention of deposit fell originally in the category of theft; this view fails if theft involved removal (Evans-Jones, 192-3), but it may not have done so. Mommsen, Str. 738 n. 2 = DPén III, 40 n. 2, argued lucidly that the actio depositi and the action of Tabula VIII, 9, arose from interpretation of the clause of the Twelve Tables on furtum nee manifestum. Tabula I, 21. Commentary If there was an actio depositi specific to the Twelve Tables, another problem remains: the praetor later distinguished two kinds of deposit, Dig. XVI, 3,1, 1 (Ulpian): praetor ait: quod neque tumultus neque incendii neque ruinae neque naufraga causa depositimi sit, in simplum, earum autem rerum, quae supra comprehensae sunt, in ipsum in duplum ... iudicium dabo. It is a matter of dispute whether an action under the Twelve Tables covered any deposit or only a necessary deposit; there are no decisive arguments either way. (The positive arguments of Evans-Jones are surprising: (1) that in using the evidence of Plautus it is unnecessary to consider the Greek origin of the plays (202), despite the fact that depone re = KaxocTitìévca; (2) that the technical term for deposit in Plautus is deponere, despite the fact that it is the least frequently used (207); (3) that the actio depositi of the Twelve Tables was limited to deposits with temples and banks, the two cases in Plautus where deponere is used, despite the fact that the act is in both cases deeply embedded in a Greek context.)

ROMAN STATUTES

688

Tabula Vili, 9 (Tabula Vili, 20 (Schoell, Bruns, FIRA)) Sources (a) Dig. XXVI, 10, lpr.-2 (Ulpian) = in part Justinian, Inst. I, 26pr.: haec clausula et frequens et pernecessaria est; cottidie enim suspecti tutores postulantur. (1) primum igitur tractemus, unde descendat suspecti crimen et apud quos postulali quis possit suspectus tutor uel curator, deinde quis et a quo et ex quibus causis remouetur, deque poena suspecti. (2) sciendum est suspecti crimen e lege duodecim tabularum descendere. (b) Dig. XXVI, 7, 55, 1 (Tryphoninus): sed si ipsi tutores rem pupilli furati sunt, uideamus an ea actione, quae proponi tur ex lege duodecim tabularum aduersus tutorem in duplum, singuli in solidum teneantur et, quamuis unus duplum praestiterit, nihilo minus etiam alii teneantur; nam in aliis furious eiusdem rei pluribus, non est propterea ceteris poenae deprecano, quod ab uno iam exacta est. (c)

Cicero, de off. Ill, 61: atque iste dolus malus et legibus erat uindicatus, ut tutela duodecim tabulis, circumscripta adulescentium lege Laetoria et sine lege iudiciis, in quibus additur: 'ex fide bona'.

(d)

Donatus, on Terence, Eun. 515: DOLO MALO HAEC FIERI OMNIA ... quod autem addidit 'malo', aut àpxaïG|ioç est, quia sic in duodecim tabulis a ueteribus scriptum est, ...

(e)

Cicero, de or. I, 167: (Hypsaeus, as counsel for a minor, misguidedly desired to obtain from the praetor a statement of the issue to be tried, in which his claims would be put at more than double the amount. If the case was brought before the judge in this form, his client would lose his suit at once. Octavius, the counsel for the defendant, instead of waiting until the action was brought forward, exerted himself to the utmost before the praetor to hinder the suicidal action of his opponent, A.S. Wilkins, ad.loc.) 'atqui non defuit illis patronis' inquit Crassus 'eloquentia neque dicendi ratio aut copia, sed iuris ciuilis prudentia: quod alter plus lege agendo petebat, quam quantum lex in xii tabulis permiserat, quod cum impetrasset, causa caderet; alter iniquum putabat plus secum agi, quam quod erat in actione; neque intellegebat, si ita esset actum, litem aduersarium perditurum'.

(f)

Justinian, Inst. IV, lOpr.: nunc admonendi sumus agere posse quemlibet aut suo nomine aut alieno: alieno ueluti procuratorio tutorio curatorio, cum olim in usu fuisset alterius nomine agere non posse nisi pro populo, pro libertate, pro tutela. Reconstruction

Mommsen, Str. 738 n. 2 = DPén DI, 40 n. 2, argued lucidly that the action here and the action of Tabula VIII, 8, arose from interpretation of the clause of the Twelve Tables on furtum nee manifestum, Tabula I, 21. The argument is not plausible in this case. No

40 - TWELVE TABLES

689

portion of a text is attested, but the following may have stood there: < « s i tutor dolo malo ..., duplione damnum d e c i d u o » Commentary Mommsen, I.e., suggested that it was an actio popularis that led to the removal of a suspect guardian and the imposition of an appropriate penalty. There is no objection to supposing that the procedure was that of the legis actio: see Käser, ZPR, 46 n. 28, with bibliography: pro tutela will mean 'in the interest of the guardianship'. For details of the means of protection for the ward, see Kaser, RPR I, 89-90, 363-7. Tabula VIII, 10 (Tabula VIII, 21 (Schoell, Bruns, FIRA)) Sources (a)

Servius, on Virgil, Aen. VI, 609: AUT FRAUS INNEXA CLIENTI: ex lege xii tabulamm uenit, in quibus sic scriptum est: 'patronus si clienti fraudem fecerit, sacer esto'.

(b)

Gellius XX, 1,40: neque peius ullum facinus existimatum est, quam si quis probaretur clientem diuisui habuisse. Reconstruction

The reading 'si patronus ...', cited by Schoell from Menila, may be from a MS like that of the Codex Sangallensis, with si omitted and added above the line. But 'si patronus ... ' must have been the order of the Twelve Tables. A similar penalty is recorded by Dionysius of Halicarnassus II, 10, 3, under the measures of Romulus, against both patrons and clients who accused the other, bore witness against the other, or was the enemy of the other. There is no reference to a penalty in the account of clientship in Plutarch, Rom. 13, 4-9. Our text, unlike that of Dionysius, has no reference to a divinity to whom the individual was sacer. (It is very doubtful if Cato, Origines IV, 90 P = 15 Chassignet, is relevant.) Text si patronus clienti fraudem fecerit, sacer esto. Translation If a patron shall have done harm to a client, he is to be sacer.

ROMAN STATUTES

690

Commentary Our sources also know of a similar penalty: (1) in the leges regiae recorded by Festus, Pauli Exc. 5 L; Festus, 260 L (see the Introduction, '5 - The leges regiae'); (2) for those who destroyed or moved a boundary marker (Dion.Hal. II, 74, 3; Festus, Pauli Exc. 505 L); (3) for those who violated a tribune (Festus, 422-4 L, s.w. sacrosanctum, sacratae leges, sacer mons (where Festus uses populus loosely for plebs); Cicero, Tuli 47, where the implications are explained (Tabula I, 17-18, Source (j)); Mommsen, St. II, 286 n. 2; 306 n. 1 = DP m, 330 n. 1; 352 n. 2; Str. 900-4 = DPén III, 233-7); (4) for those who aspired to tyranny (Plutarch, Pubi. 12, 1); see also the Lapis Niger, ILLRP 3, 11. 2-3, ... sakros esed ... Someone who is sacer is too sinister and polluted to keep in the world: see WisSowa, RuK, 388-9; K. Latte, ZSS 67, 1950, 47-61 = Kleine Schriften (Munich, 1968), 329-40, 'Religiöse Begriffe im frührömischen Recht', at 50-2 = 332-3. Note also Cicero, de leg. II, 22: sacrum commissum quod neque expiari poterit impie commissum est{o); quod expiari poterit publici sacerdotes expianto; Servius, on Virgil, ken. II, 104. (The word iepoç has a different meaning at Plutarch, Rom. 22, 3.) Compare in general the penalties for excantare of corn (Tabula VIII, 4), theft of corn by night (Tabula VIII, 5), and arson (Tabula VIII, 6); and see also the clause on involuntary homicide (Tabula VIII, 13). For a sceptical view of the whole tradition, see Brunt, Fally 409-10. Tabula VIII, 11 (Tabula VIII, 22 (Schoell, Bruns, FIRA)) Sources (a) Gellius XV, 13, 11: item ex isdem tabulis id quoque est: 'qui se sierit testarier libripensue fuerit, ni testimonium fariatur, inprobus intestabilisque esto'. (b) Gellius VÜ, 7, 2-3: qua lege ei (the Vestal Virgin Taracia) plurimi honores fiunt, inter quos ius quoque testimonii dicendi tribuitur testabilisque una omnium sit feminarum ut sit datur. id uerbum est legis ipsius Horatiae; contrarium est in xii tabulis scriptum: (3) 'inprobus intestabilisque esto'. (c) Justinian, Inst. II, 10, 6 (cf. Dig. XXVIII, 1, 18pr. (Ulpian)): testes autem adhiberi possunt ii, cum quibus testamenti factio est. sed neque mulier neque impubes neque seruus neque mutus neque surdus neque furiosus nee cui bonis interdictum est nee is, quern leges iubent improbum intestabilemque esse, possunt in numero testium adhiberi. (d) Dig. XXVIII, 1, 26 (Gaius): cum lege quis intestabilis iubetur esse, eo pertinet ne eius testimonium recipiatur et eo amplius, ut quidam putant, ne uel (neue, MSS) ipsi dicatur testimonium. (e) Porfyrio, on Horace, Sat. II, 3, 181 : antiqui eos quos in testimonium nolebant admitti intestabiles uocabant.

40 - TWELVE TABLES

691

(f) Priscian, Inst.Gramm. VIII, 17 (382 Keil): Aelius: impubes libripens esse non potest neque antestari, rcpoOiau.apropri'dfivai. (g) Glossa Taurinensia, §218 Alberti: intestabiles sunt qui subscriptiones suas perfide negant. Reconstruction Wieacker, 'Zwölftafelproblcmc', 464-5, argued for the exclusion of libripensue fuerit, on the grounds that the second part of the clause does not appear to relate to him, since he is not a witness; but see below. Text qui se sierit testarier libripensue merit, ni testimonium fariatur, inprobus intestabilisque esto. Translation Whoever shall have allowed himself to bear witness or shall have been balance-holder, unless he stand by (his) evidence, he is to be unacceptable and unable to bear witness. Commentary For the meaning of improbus, 'unacceptable', see on the Lex Osca Tabulae Bantinae, Law 13, 1. 30. fariari, not otherwise attested, is presumably derived from/an; the sense is perhaps 'to endorse': compare Tabula VI, 2 (Schoell here emended to fatiatur = fateaîur, perhaps rightly). The implication of the clause as it stands is that the libripens is a kind of witness. The core meaning of inîesîabilis is presumably inability to bear witness; the word strengthens and adds precision to improbus. We cannot know whether the other meaning, inability to receive witness, is original or the result of juristic interpretation (Mommsen, Sir., 991 = DPén III, 342, was surely wrong to translate improbus iniestabilisque as 'unable to bear and receive witness'); nor is it at all likely that inîesîabilis here means 'unable to make or witness a will', as in the idiosyncratic definition apparently offered by Ulpian, Dig. XXVIII, 1, 18, 1. The joke in Plautus, Mil. 1411-22, depends on the idea that the consequence of breaking a promise on oath is to be made inîesîabilis. The phrase inprobus inîesîabilisque is used to characterise T. Turpilius Silanus after his presumed shameful escape from the massacre of the Italians at Vaga, Sallust, Jug. 67, 3. For the libripens in the procedure per aes ei libram, see the Commentary on Tabula I, 11. Compare in general Tabula II, 1.

ROMAN STATUTES

692

Tabula Vili, 12 (Tabula Vili, 23 (Schoell, Bruns, FIRA)) Source (a) Gellius XX, 1,53: an putas, Fauorine, si non illa etiam ex duodecim tabulis de testimoniis falsis poena aboleuisset et si nunc quoque, ut antea, qui falsum testimonium dixisse conuictus esset, e saxo Tarpeio deiceretur, mentituros fuisse pro testimonio tarn multos, quam uidemus? Reconstruction No portion of a text is attested, but the following may have stood there: < « s i falsum testimonium dixerit, de saxo deicito.»> Commentary Mommsen, Str., 668-9, 931 = DPén II, 389-91, m, 270, held that this clause related to private procedure: precipitation from the Tarpeian Rock is a private punishment in the other two cases where it is attested: Tabula I, 19, and punishments inflicted by tribunes, who were not magistrates; and the punishment here and in Tabula IX, 3, is to be supposed to be private also. A. Burdese, BIDR 69, 1966, 342-58, 'Riflessioni sulla repressione penale romana in età arcaica', and A. Magdelain, MEFRA 98, 1986, 265-358 = Jus Imperium Auctoritas (Rome, 1990), 1-93, 'Le ius archaique', at 332 = 68, argued that the punishment was public. Tabula IX, 3, shows that the Twelve Tables punished corruption in judging by death, which was not later the case; it is therefore plausible that a false witness in a iudicium priuatum could also be punished by death by the Twelve Tables; but it is of no help in deciding whether there was a single clause which covered both iudicium publicum and iudicium priuatum or indeed whether the Twelve Tables bothered with the distinction. Compare in general Plautus, Men. 840. Tabula VEŒ, 13 (Tabula VIII, 24 (Schoell, Bruns, FIRA)) Sources (a)

Cicero, Tuli 51: quis est, cui maghi ignosci conueniat, quoniam me ad xii tabulas reuocas, quam si quis quern imprudens occiderit? nemo, opinor. haec enim tacita lex est humanitatis, ut ab homine consilii, non fortunae poena repetatur. tarnen huiusce rei ueniam maiores non dederunt. nam lex est in xii tabulis: 'si telum manu fugit ma[...]' (the Turin palimpsest breaks off here).

(b) Cicero, Topica 64: nam iacere telum uoluntatis est, ferire quem nolueris fortunae. ex quo aries subicitur ille in uestris actionibus: 'si telum manu fugit magis quam iecit'.

40 - TWELVE TABLES

693

(c) Cicero, de or. Ill, 158: nonnunquam etiam breuitas translatione conficitur, ut illud, si telum manu fugit. inprudentia teli missi breuius propriis uerbis exponi non potuit, quam est uno significata translato. (d) Augustine, de libero arbitrio I, 4, 9: si homicidium est hominem occidere, potest accidere aliquando sine peccato; nam et miles hostem et iudex uel minister eius nocentem et cui forte inuito atque imprudenti telum manu fugit, non mihi uidentur peccare, cum hominem occidunt ... nam illi uel ex legibus faciunt uel non contra leges. (e) Festus, 470 L: subici ar[ies exemplo at[ (f)

] quod fit, ut ait Cincius [in libro de officio iuris]consulti, ] expiandi gratia aries m[ sce]lus admisit poen(a)e p[ ]

Festus, 476 L: subigere arietem in eodem libro Antistius esse ait dare arietem, qui pro se agatur, caedatur.

(g) Glossae Abauus, CGLIV, 350, 30: iecit misit. Reconstruction There is nothing to choose palaeographically between subig- and subie-; but the dictionaries suggest that subicere = 'offer in substitution' is the more plausible; the word will presumably have stood in the imperative in the text. In Festus, 470 L, Scaliger suggested At[heniensium, apud quos]y plausibly; but that does not require us to believe in Greek influence here. In Festus, 476 L, we suggest that the phrase reum agere was in the mind of the author: '... which can be "accused" instead of him, (and in fact) killed'. Text si telum manu fugit magis quam iecit, (aries subiectus esto). Translation If a weapon has escaped his hand rather than he has thrown it, (a ram is to be offered in substitution). Commentary A similar rule is attributed by Servius, on Virgil, Eel. IV, 43, to the leges of Numa; on Georg. EU, 387, to the leges of the kings, with the additional proviso in the first case that the ram was offered to the agnates.

ROMAN STATUTES

694

Völkl, Körperverletzung, 118-24, argued that this clause dealt with wounding and not just killing. But the supposed contrast between the lightness of the penalty for involuntary killing and the heaviness of the penalty for (involuntary) rumpere is spurious, since there is no reason to think that any Roman before Gellius thought of rumpere as involuntary: see on Tabula I, 13. The arguments at 121-4 are special pleading. (The terminology of the Collatio of lex generalis and lex specialis is in any case inappropriate to the Twelve Tables.) Since homicidium, first attested in Seneca, Contr. I, 2, 14, may include involuntary homicide, Pliny, NH XVIII, 12 (Tabula VIII, 9, Source (a)), may be a reference to this clause; for parricidium, deliberate homicide, see on [Tabula IX, 4]; and see in general Mommsen, Str. 612-15 = DPén II, 324-8. We cannot here discuss the various theories which have been canvassed as to the original significance of the offering of the ram: see Völkl, Körperverletzung, 97-117. Tabula Vffl, 14-15 (Tabula VIII, 27-8 (Schoell) = VIII, 26-7 (Bruns, FIRA)) Sources (a) Deci in Cat. 65 Kristoferson: primum xii tabulis cautum esse cognoscimus, ne quis in urbe coetus nocturnos agitaret (agitauerit, MSS, except Biblioteca Nazionale Braidense, Milan, MS Lat. A.G. IX. 33), deinde lege Gabinia promulgatum fuisse, qui coitiones ullas clandestinas in urbe confiauisset, more maiorum capitali supplicio mulctaretur. (b) Dig. XLVII, 22, 4: Gaius libro quarto ad legem duodecim tabularum: sodales sunt, qui eiusdem collegii sunt; quam Graeci eTOupeiocv uocant. his autem potestatem facit lex pactionem quam uelint sibi ferre, dum ne quid ex publica lege corru(m)pant. sed haec lex uidetur ex lege Solonis tra{n}lata esse, nam illuc ita est (Fr. 76a Ruschenbusch): eav 8e 8fiu.oç f| (ppàxopeç f| opyEcbvec f\ TEvvfÌTca (corr. Wilamowitz) f[ GUaoyroi f\ óu.ÓTa(poi f\ tìiaocòTca fi ETÙ Xetav otyóji£VOi fj eiç ëji7iopiav, ÒTI av xomcov (xivec;) (corr. Wilamowitz) ÔiaflcovTcarcpoçàXkf\Xovç„ icupiov eîvai, eav u.rj aTtayopeuöTi ôrinocna ypàu.u.ctta. (c) Lex Flavia, Ch. 64: R(ubrica). De coetu sodalicio collegio. Ne quis in e[o] municipio coetum facito, neue sodalicifum] conlegiumue eius rei causafm} habeto, neue habeatur coniurato, neue facito quo quid earum rerum fiat. (d)

Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Ch. CVI: ... ne que in ea col(onia) coetum conuentum coniu[rationem ...] Reconstruction

Doubts have been raised since Schoell, 46-7, about the testimony of the Declamatio in Catilinam, not least because the Rogatio Gabinia is otherwise unattested. But the position is rather different since the discovery of the Irni version of the Lex Flavia. The only thing

40 - TWELVE TABLES

695

actually banned there is a coetus, which is surprising in the light of late Republican legislation on collegia. What survives of the relevant chapter of the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae may be interpreted as reflecting a similar rule; for the definitions of conuentus and of coetus are very similar: conuentus quattuor modis intellegitur, ... altero, cum significatur multitudo ex conpluribus generibus hominum contracta in unum locum (Festus, Pauli Exe. 36 L ) coetus multitudinis magnae nomen est coeuntis ex consensu quodam (Seneca, Contr. IH, Excerpta 8 Häkanson: the définition is presumably a Roman one, even though the case is set in Athens) And the Lex Flavia forbade a coniuratio to have a sodalicium or collegium for the purpose of organising a coetus. It looks as if the Lex Flavia and the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, borrowing from early colonial statutes, have preserved for us an early rule, according to which a coetus or conuentus was an illegal gathering. Note also CIL XIV, 2112 = ILS 7212 (Lanuvium), 11. 10-11: kaput ex s.c. p.R. quib[us coire co]nuenire collegiumq. habere liceat...; B. Cohen, in CI. Nicolet (ed.), Des ordres à Rome (Paris, 1984), 24-60, 'Some neglected ordines: the apparitorial status-groups*, at 27 n. 17. If a coetus was illegal, so a fortiori was a coetus nocturnus, for which see Livy II, 27, 13, with commentary of R.M. Ogilvie; XXXIX, 15, 11. Now the remarkable thing is that a rule like that of the Lex Flavia would provide a perfect basis for the comment of Gaius, (b) above: the phrase potestatem facit suggests that what is allowed is only a very indirect consequence of a rule of the Twelve Tables (with the terms pactio and lex publica Gaius is using the language of his own day: see M. Käser, ZSS 103, 1986, 1-101, 'lus publicum and ius privatum*, at 75-88, for the opposition between pactum and lex publica in the classical period). The Solonian rule, assuming that it is authentic, is unhelpful for a reconstruction of the Roman rule. No portion of a text is attested, but the following may have stood there: »

ROMAN STATUTES

696

Tabula IX, 1-2,4,6 Sources (a)

Cicero, de leg. agr. II, 56 (63 BC): L. Sulla cum bona indemnatorum ciuium funesta illa auctione sua uenderet...

(b) Cicero, ad Au. HI, 15 = 60 SB, 5 (17 August 58 BC): quod te cum Culleone scribis de priuilegio locutum, est aliquid, sed multo est melius abrogari. (e) Cicero, dorn. 57-8 (30 September 57 BC): {Cicero is arguing thaï he left Rome in 58 BC in order not to offer P. Clodius an occasion for the use of violence.) utrum, si dies dicta esset, iudicium mihi fuit pertimescendum an sine iudicio priuilegium? iudicium? ... an uero in iudicio periculi nihil fuit, priuilegium pertimui ne, mihi praesenti si multa inrogaretur, nemo intercederet? (d)

Cicero, dorn. 9: an, quia non condemnaui sententia mea duo consules {of 57 BC), sum reprehendendus? eos igitur ego potissimum damnare debui, quorum lege perfectum est ne ego indemnatus atque optime de re publica meritus damnatorum poenam sustinerem?

(e)

Cicero, dorn. 26: extra ordinem ferri nihil placet Clodio. quid? de me quod tulisse te dicis ... nonne extra ordinem tulisti? an de peste ciuis, quemadmodum omnes iam di atque homines iudicarunt, conseruatoris rei publicae, quemadmodum autem tute ipse confiteris, non modo indemnati, sed ne accusati quidem, licuit tibi ferre non legem, sed nefarium priuilegium ... ?

(f)

Cicero, dorn. 43: quo iure, quo more, quo exemplo legem nominatim de capite ciuis indemnati tulisti? uetant leges sacratae, uetant xii tabulae leges priuatis hominibus inrogari. id est enim priuilegium. nemo unquam tulit. nihil est crudelius, nihil perniciosius, nihil quod minus haec ciuitas ferre possit. proscriptionis miserrimum nomen illud et omnis acerbitas Sullani temporis quid habet quod maxime sit insigne ad memoriam crudelitatis? opinor, poenam in ciues Romanos nominatim sine iudicio constitutam.

(g) Cicero, dorn. 110: ... cum indemnatum (me) exturbares priuilegiis tyrannicis inrogatis ... (h) Cicero, Sest. 65, 73 (11 March 56 BC): cur, cum de capite ciuis ... et de bonis proscriptio ferretur, cum et sacratis legibus et xii tabulis sanctum esset, ut ne cui priuilegium irrogari liceret neue de capite nisi comitiis centuriatis rogari, nulla uox est audita consulum ...? ... (73) tum princeps rogatus sententiam L. Cotta dixit... non posse quemquam de ciuitate tolli sine iudicio; de capite non modo ferri, sed ne iudicari quidem posse nisi comitiis centuriatis ...

40 - TWELVE TABLES

(i)

Cicero, Pis. 30 (55 BC): nam si illam legem (of P. Clodius) non putabatis, quae erat contra omnis leges indemnati ciuis atque integri capitis bonorumque tribunicia proscriptio, ac tarnen obstricti pactione tenebamini, quis uos non modo consules sed liberos fuisse putet

(j)

Cicero, de re p. II, 54: prouocationem autem etiam a regibus fuisse declarant pontificii libri, significant nostri etiam augurales, itemque ab omni iudicio poenaque prouocare licere indicant xii tabulae compluribus legibus ...

(k)

Cicero, de re p. II, 61 : quo tarnen e collegio laus est ilia eximia C. Iuli, qui hominem nobilem ... cum ipse potestatem summam haberet, quod decemuirum unus sine prouocatione eset, uades tarnen poposcit, quod se legem illam praeclarum neglecturum negaret, quae de capite ciuis Romani nisi comitiis centuriatis statui uetaret.

(1) Cicero, de leg. III, 11 and 44-5: priuilegia ne inroganto; de capite ciuis nisi per maximum comitiatum ollosque, quos censores in partibus populi locassint, ne ferunto. ... (44) tum leges praeclarissimae de duodecim tabulis translatae duae, quarum altera priuilegia tollit, altera de capite ciuis rogari nisi maximo comitiatu uetat. et nondum in(uen)tis seditiosis tribunis plebis, ne cogitatis quidem, admirandum tantum maiores in posterum prouidisse. in priuatos homines leges ferri noluerunt; id est enim priuilegium; quo quid est iniustius, cum legis haec uis sit, (ut sit) scitum et iussum in omnis? ferri de singulis nisi centuriatis comitiis noluerunt; discriptus enim populus censu, ordinibus, aetatibus plus adhibet ad suffragium (con)silii quam fuse in tribus conuocatus. (45) quo uerius in causa nostra uir magni ingenii summaque prudentia, L. Cotta, dicebat nihil omnino actum esse de nobis; praeter enim quam quod comitia ilia essent armis gesta seruilibus, praeterea neque tributa capitis comitia rata esse posse neque ulla priuilegii; quocirca nihil nobis opus esse lege, de quibus nihil omnino actum esset legibus. (m) Festus, Pauli Exe. 252 L (cf. Nonius II, 159 Mercerus = 235 Lindsay): priuos priuasque antiqui dicebant pro singulis. Ob quam causam et priuata dieuntur, quae uniuseuiusque sint; hinc et priuilegium et priuatus ... (n) Dig. I, 2, 2, 16 and 23 (Pomponius): exaetis deinde regibus consules constituti sunt duo; penes quos summum ius uti esset lege rogatum est; dicti sunt ab eo quod plurimum rei publicae consulerent. qui{a} tarnen ne per omnia regiam potestatem sibi uindicarent, lege lata factum est, ut ab eis prouocatio esset neue posse(n)t in caput ciuis Romani animaduertere iniussu populi; solum relictum est illis, ut coercere possent et in uineula publica duci iuberent. ... (23) et quia, ut diximus, de capite ciuis Romani iniussu populi non erat lege permissum consulibus ius dicere, propterea quaestores constituebantur a populo, qui capitalibus rebus praeessent; hi appellabantur quaestores parricidii, quorum etiam meminit lex duodecim tabularum. (o)

Augustine, City of God I, 19: uos appello, leges iudicesque Romani, nempe post perpetrata facinora nee quemquam scelestum indemnatum impune uoluistis occidi.

697

ROMAN STATUTES

698 (p)

Salvian, de gub. dei Vili, 5, 24: {In Roman Carthage) interfici enim indemnatum quemcumque hominem etiam duodecim tabularum decreta uetuerunt. #**

(q)

Dig. L, 16,237: Gaius libro quinto ad legem duodecim tabularum: duobus negatiuis uerbis quasi permittit lex magis quam prohibuit; idque etiam Seruius (Bremer, 230) animaduertit. Reconstruction

Here, if anywhere, it is crucial to consider the sources in historical order, as seen, for part of the tradition, by C. Venturini, in Roma tra oligarchia e democrazia (Naples, 1988), 91-5; SDHI56, 1990, 155-96, 'I "privilegia" da Cicerone ai romanisti'. It is also crucial to remember, in weighing their testimony, that we possess only a fraction of the de re publica; and that the de legibus was probably never published in the lifetime of Cicero. There are great difficulties in the way of accepting that Cicero provides us with a faithful account of the content of the Twelve Tables: (1) His report of the alleged measures was born in embittered and impassioned advocacy. It is of course not to be excluded that Cicero occasionally spoke the truth in a forensic speech; but the verbal similarity of dorn. 43 and de leg. Ill, 44, should at the very least instil a sense of caution. And some readers will be left with the uneasy suspicion that with the words admirandum tantum maiores ... prouidisse, (1) above, Cicero is almost telling us not to believe him on the subject of priuilegia. (2) At de re p. II, 54, (j) above, Cicero actually goes so far as to say that the Twelve Tables allowed appeal ab omni iudicio poenaque\ it is illegitimate to say that he meant 'from a penalty of death', in order to lend plausibility to his statement. And as for the implausibility of compluribus legibus ... (3) In de leg. Ill, 44, (1) above, with the expression ferri de singulis, rather than de capite ciuis, it is hard to avoid the suspicion that Cicero, obsessed by the priuilegium against him, has muddled the two provisions in which he is interested. The sceptical case is naturally incapable of formal proof: for another presentation of it, see A. Guarino, Labeo 37, 1991, 339-42, T "privilegia" dai romanisti a Cicerone'. There is a limpid presentation of the conservative view of the juristic and annalistic tradition in M. Humbert, MEFRA 100, 1988, 431-503, 'Le tribunat du la plèbe et le tribunal du peuple'.

*** It is clear that a lex in favour of an individual or group was completely unexceptionable, note only the Lex de Cn. Publicio Menandro, cited by Cicero, Balb. 28, de or. I, 182; cf. Dig. XLIX, 15, 5, 3 (Pomponius), Frontinus, 19, 3-4 L = 8, 1-2 Th. It is also clear that a multae irrogano was in form a rogatio against an individual; yet it was normal constitutional practice. This is in effect admitted by Cicero, (c) above; it was an oddity of the second statute of P. Clodius that it adopted the form of general legislation, but named Cicero; it was this

40 - TWELVE TABLES

699

that Cicero was attacking; but even here he was forced to admit that there was a precedent, albeit hateful, in the measures of Sulla. And the Roman historical tradition knows of at least two measures which adopted the form of general legislation, but which were directed against individuals: Livy VI, 38, 9 (M. Furius Camillus); XXV, 4, 9 (M. Postumius Pyrgensis). The first may not be historical, but the second certainly is. Leaving aside the question of whether it is plausible to suppose that the word priuilegium existed in the fifth century BC, how could the Twelve Tables have distinguished between acceptable and unacceptable priuilegia, if the word meant what it meant to Cicero? The word priuilegium indeed only loses its vagueness because it is combined with irrogare. Yet the verb irrogare elsewhere always governs multam or a similar word: the coupling irrogare priuilegium looks very like a Ciceronian invention. (It has been argued that the original meaning of priuilegium when it was used in the Twelve Tables was 'decision of the plebs alone': J. Bleicken, Lex Publica (Berlin and New York, 1975), 202-17, with bibliography. But it is an insuperable problem for this view that Cicero attributes the ban on priuilegia to the leges sacratae of the plebs with just as much fervour as to the Twelve Tables: they would hardly have banned their own decisions. Note also that a word which is a compound of lex is inappropriate for a decision of the plebs (the leges sacratae are not leges).)

* ** Even if one accepts the essence of the sceptical case, one must remember that there were limits to what even Cicero could get away with in a forensic speech. It is worth considering whether there might be anything underlying his claims. One may begin with the word comitiatus. It is a perfectly good word and there is no reason to suppose that Cicero invented it. Rather he found it in his source and was forced to interpret it in order to identify the comitia centuriata. There is little doubt that E. Gabba is right, Ath 75 (n.s. 65), 1987, 203-5, 'Maximus comitiatus', to argue that nisi per maximum comitiatum does not here refer to a kind of comitia, though it may occasionally do so (B. Albanese, in Estudios Juan Iglesias Santos I (Madrid, 1988), 13-20 = Scritti giuridici II (Palermo, 1991), 1689-98, 'Maximus comitiatus'), but means 'except by means of the fullest gathering': Forcellini, but not the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, succeeded in escaping from the dead hand of tradition created by the misinterpretation of Cicero, a misinterpretation to whihc he was already committed in 56 BC. The meaning of maximus will be close to that of quam maximus of classical prose. (Cicero presumably did not hold the standard modern view, that in 450 BC the only assemblies in existence were the comitia curiata and the comitia centuriata.) The contrary argument of A. Guarino, Labeo 34, 1988, 245, 'Tagliacarte 1', that maximus as a definition of a quorum is insufficiently precise, has no force. In historical times, a meeting of the senate that was quorate was described by the similarly, to us, imprecise term frequens: see Bonnefond-Coudry, Sénat, 358, 425; in both cases the term no doubt originally described the filling of a particular visible space or spaces, wherever it or they may have been in the fifth century BC. A formal point is worth making: the wording nisi per ... (which Cicero claims to have borrowed from the Twelve Tables) is too literary and insufficiently precise to be plausible: rather we would expect ni maximus comitiatus est, a construction attested from Tabula I, 1, onwards. At this point it will not escape notice that such a clause would explain the remark of Gaius, (r) above. It would be characteristic of the whole approach

700

ROMAN STATUTES

of the Twelve Tables to take the use of the comitia centuriata for granted and then to specify a particular rule in relation to it. We actually know that the Lex Osca Tabulae Bantinae, Law 13, drawing in general on archaic models, contained two clauses, one about a magistrate presiding over an assembly trial capitis, another about a magistrate initiating such an assembly trial. There is nothing unlikely about the Twelve Tables having contained a clause on the same subject.

*** As far as priuilegia are concerned, the tradition within which Cicero wrote was oi\e in which the institution of prouocatio was attributed at least to the beginning of the Republic (his own claim that it existed under the monarchy need not concern us here) and linked with assembly trial: note only the story of C. Iulius, (k) above, cf. Livy III, 33, 8-10. (We cannot here enter into a discussion of modern views on prouocatio.) For someone convinced of the reliability of the tradition, a reference to the possibility of trial before a popular assembly in the Twelve Tables would have helped to justify what Cicero actually claims. And if Cicero also found something akin to the pod ualaemom touticom tadait, quod optimum publicum censeat, of the Lex Osca Tabulae Bantinae, that could well have provided a basis for his concept of priuilegium. Note that such a provision is perhaps reflected in Plautus, Persa 65-7: nam puplicae rei caussa quiquomque id facit magi' quam sui quaesti, animus induci potest eum esse ciuem et fidelem et bonum. Tabula IX, 1, may have looked something like: < « d e capite ciuis iurati dicunto quod optimum publicum censeat.»>

* ** The word indemnatus is attested from Plautus onwards, Cure. 694-6, a passage which reveals a generic expectation of a right to trial and hearing of witnesses; see also Festus, 247 L, [Tabula DC, 4], Source (d). For the testimony of Pomponius, see on [Tabula IX, 4]. As for the later tradition, anyone who believes that Augustine, (o) above, had access to the content of the Twelve Tables except through Cicero or that Salvian, (p) above, had access except through Augustine and Cicero, will believe anything. All that is necessary to explain the remark of Salvian, is a generic recollection of the controversies of the late Republic and a hasty reading of de domo 43; the controversies of course begin with the Lex Sempronia of 123 BC and continue with the first Lex Clodia of 58 BC (see on the Lex Clodia, Law 56). (Schoell, 57-9, combined Salvian, (p) above, with the sources cited under [Tabula IX, 4], to create his Tabula VITI, 25, on homicide.) Text 1. 2.

(Protection of individuals) de capite ciuis, (ni) maximus comitiatus (est), ne ferunto.

40 - TWELVE TABLES

701

Translation 1. (Protection of individuals) 2. Concerning the caput of a citizen, (unless) the gathering (is) the fullest possible, they are not to carry (a measure). Commentary For the link between Tabula IX, 1-2, and Tabula IX, 3, see on the latter. The word caput of course means 'civic existence', as well as iife'. There is no reason to suppose that a man who contravened either of these clauses became sacer (for this penalty, see Tabula VIU, 5 and 10). Tabula IX, 3 Sources (a)

Gellius XX, 1,7-8: dure autem scriptum esse in isti s legibus quid existimari potest? nisi duram esse legem putas, quae iudicem arbitrumue iure datum, qui ob rem dicendam pecuniam accepisse conuictus est, capite poenitur ... (8) die enim, quaeso, die, uir sapientiae studiosissime, an aut iudicis illius perfidiam contra omnia iura diuina atque humana iusiurandum suum pecunia uendentis aut furis manifesti intolerandam audaciam aut nocturni grassatoris insidiosam uiolentiam non dignam esse capitis poena existumes?

(b)

Cicero, de off. m, 111: nullum enim uinculum ad astringendam fidem iure iurando maiores artius esse uoluerunt. indicant leges in duodecim tabulis ... Commentary

If we are right about the content of Tabula IX, 1-2, we would wish to see Tabula IX, 3, as punishing a man who contravened Tabula IX, 1; and we would see much of what Gellius says as the result of juristic interpretation. There is no direct evidence on whether the punishment is a private one, as Mommsen, Str.y 668-9 = DPén II, 389-90 (compare Tabula VIU, 12), or a public one, as A. Magdelain, MEFRA 98, 1986, 265-358 = Jus Imperium Auctoritas (Rome, 1990), 1-93, 'Le ius archaique', at 332 = 68. The nature of the evidence does not allow us to trace a direct link between this clause and (1) the later crime of corruption in a quaestio (see on the Lex Cornelia de sicariis, Law 50) or (2) the crime of the judge qui litem suamfacit (see G. MacCormack, ANRW II, 14 (1982), 3-28, 'The liability of the judge in the Republic and the Principate'; F. Lamberti, Labeo, 36, 1990, 218-66, 'Riflessioni in tema di "litem suam facere'"). The language used of L. Hostilius Tubulus, on the occasions of his acceptance of bribes as praetor in 142 BC and of his trial in 141 BC, may suggest that this clause of the Twelve Tables was invoked (see Fr. Münzer, RE VIU, 2 (1913), 2514-15, for the sources.)

ROMAN STATUTES

702

[Tabula IX, 4] Sources (a)

Lydus, de mag. I, 26: Γάίος τοίνυν ό νομικός εν τω έπιγραφομένω παρ'αυτού ad legem xii tabularum, οίον εις τον νόμον του δυοκαιδεκαδελτου, αύτοΐς ρήμασι προς έρμηνείαν ταύτα φησιν- \.. επειδή δε περϊ κεφαλικής τιμωρίας ουκ έξη ν τοις άρχουσι κ α τ ά Ρωμαίου πολίτου ψηφίσασϋαι, προεβλήϋησαν κυαίστορες παρρικιδίου, ώσανει κριται και δικασται των πολίτας άνελόντων'.

(b)

Dig. I, 2, 2, 16 and 23 (Pomponius): exactis deinde regibus consules constituti sunt duo; penes quos summum ius uti esset lege rogatum est; dicti sunt ab eo quod plurimum rei publicae consulerent. qui {a} tarnen ne per omnia regiam potestatem sibi uindicarent, lege lata factum est, ut ab eis prouocatio esset neue posse(n)t in caput ciuis Romani animaduertere iniussu populi; solum relictum est Ulis, ut coercere possent et in uincula publica duci iuberent. ... (23) et quia, ut diximus, de capite ciuis Romani iniussu populi non erat lege permissum consulibus ius dicere, propterea quaestores constituebantur a populo, qui capitalibus rebus praeessent; hi appellabantur quaestores parricidii, quorum etiam meminit lex duodecim tabularum.

(c)

Festus, 310 L: quaestores [—] capitalibus, unde [— quaestores parricidi appellantur.

(d)

Festus, Pauli Exe. 247 L (cf. Plutarch, Rom. 22, 4): parrici(di) quaestores appellabantur, qui solebant creari causa rerum capitalium quaerendarum. nam parricida non utique is, qui parentem occidisset, dicebatur, sed qualemcumque hominem indemnatum. ita fuisse indicai lex Numae Pompili regis his composita uerbis: 4si qui hominem liberum dolo sciens morti duit, paricidas esto'. Reconstruction

We hold that Lydus is right in the attribution of his quotation to Gaius (see J.D. Cloud, ZSS 88, 1971, 1-66, 'Parricidium from the lex Numae to the lex Pompeia de parricidiis', at 18-26; J. Caimi, Burocrazia e diritto nel de magistratibus di Giovanni Lido (Milan, 1984), 160-74, offers a survey); and that, although he was probably somewhat the older man, Pomponius drew on Gaius: there is nothing in Pomponius that resembles Lydus I, 34, from Gaius. We think that Pomponius carelessly inferred, from their presence in the commentary of Gaius, that quaestores parricidii figured in the Twelve Tables; and do not ourselves believe that they did: they appeared as a readily intelligible digression in the commentary on Tabula IX, 1-2 and 6. (We accept the obvious inference from the lex attributed to Numa, (d) above, that in early Rome murderers were assimilated to parricides, contra Y. Thomas, MEFRA 93, 1981, 643-715, 'Parricidium', at 676-9: for the language, compare Tabula VIII, 10-11.) There is no virtue, with Gothofredus, in restoring Festus, (c) above, to make him say the same as Gaius and Pomponius. Festus, (d) above, uses the word indemnatus\ but it is . not explained by the lex regia he quotes, echoing rather some of the sources for Tabula IX, 1-2 and 6.

40 - TWELVE TABLES

703

Völkl, Körperverletzung, 91-5, may be right to argue that the reference to a homo liber shows that the form of the lex regia as we have it is late. It is less clear that the reference to intention brands the text as late; in any case, Festus or Paul the Deacon has written dolo for dolo malo (for which see on Tabula VIII, 9). For involuntary homicide, see Tabula VIII, 13; for parricide, see Cloud, I.e., Thomas, I.e. It is uncertain that the 'commentarium uetus (a)nquisitionis' of M\ Sergius M'.f., Varro, LL VI, 90-2, is of a quaestor parricida. For this office, see K. Latte, TAPhA 67, 1956, 24-33 = Kleine Schriften (Munich, 1968), 359-66, The origin of the Roman quaestorship', at 24-8 = 359-62. [Tabula IX, 5] Sources (a) Dig. XLVni, 4, 2-3 (Ulpian and Marcian): maiestatis autem crimen ... quo tenetur is, cuius opera ... quiue sciens falsum conscripsit uel recitauerit in tabulis publicis; nam et hoc capite primo lege maiestatis enumeratur. (3) Marcianus libro quarto decimo institutionum. lex duodecim tabularum iubet eum, qui hostem concitauerit quiue ciuem hosti tradiderit, capite puniri. lex autem Iulia maiestatis praecipit eum qui maiestatem laeserit teneri; qualis est ille, qui in bellis cesserit... (b) Bas. LX, 36, 2-3: ... και ό γράψας ή άναγνούς τι πλαστον εν χάρτη δημοσίφ. (3) (Marcu) ó τους πολεμίους έρεύΗσας ή παραδους αύτοΐς πολίτην εις κεφαλήν τιμωρείται, τω αύτω νόμφ ενέχεται και ό εν πολέμοις παραχωρών ... Reconstruction It is surprising that an archaic law code needed to specify cither of the two offences; and that in our abundant late Republican material on perduellio, notably the pro Rabirio, there is no reference to the Twelve Tables: so, acutely, A. Guarino, Labeo, 34, 1988, 323-35, 'Il dubbio contenuto pubblicistico delle XII Tavole', at 335 (his general argument is unacceptable: see the Introduction, '4 - The nature of the collection'). Note also that Ulpian, Dig. XLVIII, 4, 1, 1, lists the first offence in the course of an account of maiestas that clearly belongs to his own day. (The argument of A. Magdelain, MEFRA 98, 1986, 265-358 = Jus Imperium Auctoritas (Rome, 1990), 1-93, 'Le ius archaique', at 328 = 63, that the clauses assimilated to murder actions 'which might cause the death of a man by arousing the enemy or surrendering a citizen to him', is forced and tenuous. So is the argument of M. Fuhrmann, RE Supp. IX (1962), 1222-30, 'Proditio', at 1227, that it is two acts of military indiscipline which are sanctioned.) It is best to hold that something has gone wrong with the text of the Digest (and the Scholia to the Basilica) and that the Basilica preserve the truth, namely that the two offences in question fell under the Lex Iulia.

ROMAN STATUTES

704

Tabula X, 1 Sources (a)

Cicero, de leg. II, 22, 45, 58: Cicero ends his statement of sacred law: 'sacra priuata perpetua manento. deorum manium iura sancta sunto, (bo)nos leto datos diuos habento. sumptum in olios luctumque minuunto'. The exposition thereof then begins: (45) (Atticus) habeo ista; nunc de sacris perpetuis et de manium iure restât. ... (58) (Atticus) uideo, quae sint in pontificio iure, sed quaero, ecquidnam sit in legibus. (Marcus) pauca sane, Tite, et ut arbitrar non ignota uobis; sed ea non tam ad religionem spectant, quam ad ius sepulchrorum. 'hominem mortuum', inquit lex in xii, 'in urbe ne sepelito neue urito'; credo uel propter ignis periculum. quod autem addit: 'neue urito', indicat, non qui uratur, sepeliri, sed qui humetur. (Atticus) quid, qui post xii in urbe sepulti sunt clari uiri? (Marcus) credo, Tite, fuisse aut eos, quibus hoc ante hanc legem uirtutis causa tributum est, ut Poplicolae, ut Tuberto, quod eorum posteri iure tenuerunt, aut eos, si qui hoc, ut C. Fabricius, uirtutis causa soluti legibus consecuti sunt.

(b)

Servius, on Virgil, Aen. XI, 206 (cf. V, 64; VI, 152): et meminit antiquae consuetudinis; nam ante etiam in ciuitatibus sepeliebantur, quod postea Duellio consule senatus prohibuit et lege cauit, ne quis in urbe sepeliretur; unde imperatores et uirgines Vestae, quia legibus non tenentur, in ciuitate habent sepulchra.

Reconstruction The testimony of Servius is manifestly garbled - under the Republic the senate was not able lege cauere - and should be regarded as an imperfect recollection of a measure enacted by K. Duillius along with the other decemvirs, not as a reference to a measure of 260 BC, when C.'Duilius was consul. See also on Tabula VIII, 7.

Text hominem mortuum in urbe ne sepelito neue urito.

Translation He is not to bury or burn a dead man in the city.

Commentary There is a dim memory of Tabula X as a whole in Ammianus XVI, 5. For inhumation and cremation in Rome, see Tabula X, 9-10; G. Bartoloni, Opus 3, 1984, 13-29, 'Riti funerari dell'aristocrazia in Etruria e nel Lazio', for the exclusion of adult burials from the city; C. Ampolo, MEFRA 92, 1980, 567-76, 'Le origini di Roma e la "cité antique'", both with bibliography. The rule was transferred to Roman colonial

40 - TWELVE TABLES

705

foundations: see the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Chs. LXXIII-LXXIV, with the parallels there cited.

Tabula X, 2 - 3 Sources (a)

Cicero, de leg. II, 59: iam cetera in xii minuendi sumptus sunt lamentationisque funebris, translata de Solonis fere legibus, 'hoc plus', inquit, 'ne facito. rogum ascea ne polito', nostis quae sequuntur; discebamus enim pueri xii ut carmen necessarium, quas iam nemo discit. extenuato igitur sumptu, tribus reciniis et tunicula purpurea et decern tibicinibus, tollit etiam lamentationem. ...

(b)

Cicero, de leg. II, 6 2 - 4 : (Atticus) gaudeo nostra iura ad naturam accommodari maiorumque sapientia admodum delector; sed requiro, ut ceteri sumptus, sic etiam sepulchrorum modum. (Marcus) recte requiris ... nostrae quidem legis interprètes, quo capite iubentur sumptum et luctum remouere a deorum manium iure, hoc intellegant in primis, sepulchrorum magnificentiam esse minuendam. (63) nee haec a sapientissimis legum scriptoribus neglecta sunt; nam et tAthenist ••• (64) postea quom, ut scribit Phalereus (Demetrius), sumptuosa fieri funera et lamentabilia coepissent, Solonis lege sublata sunt; quam legem eisdem prope uerbis nostri decemuiri in decimam tabulam coniecerunt; nam de tribus reciniis et pleraque ilia Solonis sunt; de lamentis uero expressa uerbis sunt...

(c)

Festus, 342 L: recinium omne uestimentum quadratum hi qui xii interpretati sunt esse dixerunt, (Verrius togam qua) (corr. Lipsius, uir toga, MS) utebantur, praetext(a)m (praetextum, MS) clauo purpureo.

(d) Nonius XIV, 542 Mercerus = 849 Lindsay (cf. Varro, LL V, 132; Servius, on Virgil, ken. I, 282): ricinium quod nunc mafurtium dicitur, palliolum femineum breue ... lib. i de uita p.R. ...: 'ex quo mulieres in aduersis rebus ac luctibus, cum omnem uestitum delicatiorem ac luxuriosum ... ponunt, ricinia sumunt'.

Reconstruction It is clear from the flow of the text that hoc plus ne facito forms an introduction to: (1) rogum ascea ne polito] (2) a series of regulations relating to three recinia, a tunicula and ten tibicines.

Text 2. 3.

hoc plus ne facito: rogum ascea ne polito. ... (tria recinia)... tunicula purpurea ... decern (tibicines)...

ROMAN STATUTES

706

Translation 2. 3.

He is not do to do more than this: he is not to smooth the pyre with a trowel. ... (three veils)... a little purple tunic ... ten (flautists) ...

Commentary For linguistic parallels to hoc plus ne facito in early Greek legislation, see Norden, Priesterbüchern, 255-7; since the linguistic usage is perfectly at home in both languages, it cannot be invoked in support of a Greek origin for the clause, though the content of the clause may be. Note only that it would be hard to think of a more suspect source for the sumptuary measures of Solon than Demetrius of Phalerum. For ascea, compare Vitruvius VII, 2, 2; for polire, the Lex parieti faciendo, ILLRP 518, II. 17-18. The measures of Solon prescribed that not more than three garments were to be buried with the body, Plutarch, Sol. 21, 6; it may be that this parallel should be allowed to determine the interpretation of the clause of the Twelve Tables; on the basis of the Roman evidence alone, one would not know whether the recinia were for the body or the female mourners.

Tabula X, 4 Sources (a)

Cicero, de leg. II, 59: ... tollit etiam lamentationem. 'mulieres genas ne radunto neue lessum funeris ergo habento'. hoc ueteres interprètes Sex. Aelius, L. Acilius non satis se intellegere dixerunt, sed suspicari uestimenti aliquod genus funebris, L. Aelius lessum quasi lugubrem eiulationem, ut uox ipsa significar, quod eo magis iudico uerum esse, quia lex Solonis id ipsum uetat. haec laudabilia et locupletibus fere cum plebe communia; quod quidem maxime e natura est, tolli fortunac discrimen in morte.

(b)

Cicero, de leg. II, 64: ... de lamentis uero expressa uerbis sunt: 'mulieres genas ne radunto neue lessum funeris ergo habento'.

(c)

Pliny, NH XI, 157: infra oculos malae nomini tantum, quas prisci genas uocabant, xii tabularum interdicto radi a feminis uetantes.

(d)

Servius, on Virgil, Aen. XII, 606: sciendum cautum esse lege xii tabularum ne mulieres carperent faciem, his uerbis (!!!): 'mulier faciem ne carpito'.

(e)

Festus, 338 L: radere ge[nas —] lege xii, id est unguibus [—].

40 - TWELVE TABLES

(f)

707

Servius, on Virgil, Aen. Ill, 67: Varro quoque dicit mulieres in exsequiis et luctu ideo solitas ora lacerare, ut sanguine ostenso inferis satisfaciant.

(g)

Cicero, Tusc. II, 55 ingemescere non nunquam uiro concessum est, idque raro, eiulatus ne mulieri quidem; et hic nimirum est ffletust quern xii tabulae in funeribus adhiberi uetuerunt. Text

mulieres genas ne radunto neue lessum funeris ergo habento. Translation Women are not to mutilate their cheeks or hold a wake for the purpose of holding a funeral. Commentary For the comparable measure of Solon, see Plutarch, Sol. 21, 6; also C. Ampolo, cited in the Introduction, '4 - The nature of the collection*. For 'blood for the ghosts', see Ville, Gladiatore, 9-11; 42-51. For the usage of ergo, see the General Introduction, Ch. XII. Tabula X, 5 Sources (a) Cicero, de leg. II, 60: cetera item funebria, quibus luctus augetur, xii sustulerunt. 'nomini', inquit, 'mortuo ne ossa legito, quo post (quoi pos, Ziegler) funus faciat'. excipit bellicam peregrinamque mortem. {Tabula X, 6-7.) credoque, quod erat factitatum, ut uni plura (funera)fièrentlectique plures sternerentur, id quoque nefieret,lege sanctum est. (b) Dig. UI, 2, 25, 1 (Papinian): si quis in bello ceciderit, etsi corpus eius non conpareat, lugebitur. Reconstruction Note that if one reads de legibus II, 60, as a piece of continuous prose, there is no reason to transpose the second passage cited above to follow immediately on thefirst:Cicero, in an exposition which is as a whole rather breathless, simply returns to comment on an earlier theme.. For aty compare Tabula X, 8.

ROMAN STATUTES

708

Text homini mortuo ne ossa legito, quo post funus faciat, Commentary The offence envisaged of dedicating the object in suit, which becomes irrecoverable, presumably occurs after the action has begun: see R. Santoro, Ann.Sem.Giur.Palermo 30, 1967, 5-102, 'XH Tab. 12. 3', at 14-15. For the double penalty, see on Tabula XII, 3.

40 - TWELVE TABLES

721

[Tabula XII, 5] Sources (a) Livy VII, 17, 12: in secundo interregno orta contentio est, quod duo patricii consules creabantur, intercedentibusque tribunis interrex Fabius aiebat in duodecim tabulis legem esse ut, quodcumque postremum populus iussisset, id ius ratumque esset; iussum populi et suffragia esse. (b)

Livy IX, 33, 8-9: negare Appius interrogationem tribuni magno opere ad causam pertinere suam. (9) nam etsi tenuerit lex Aemilia eos censores (C. Furius and M. Geganius), quorum in magistratu lata esset, quia post illos censores creatos earn legem populus iussisset, quodque postremum iussisset, id ius ratumque esset; non tarnen aut se, aut eorum quemquam, qui post earn legem latam creati censores essent, teneri ea lege potuisse.

(e) Livy IX, 34, 6-7: (In a speech of P. Sempronius) itane tandem, Appi Claudi, cum centesimus iam annus sit ab Mam. Aemilio dictatore, tot censores fuerint, nobilissimi fortissimique uiri, nemo eorum duodecim tabulas legit? nemo id ius esse, quod postremo populus iussisset, sciit? (7) immo uero omnes sciuerunt et ideo Aemiliae potius legi paruerunt quam illi antiquae, qua primum censores creati erant, quia hanc postremam iusserat populus et quia, ubi duae contrariae leges sunt, semper antiquae obrogat noua. Reconstruction For a sample of opposing views on the authenticity of this clause, see A. Guarino, Labeo 34, 1988, 323-35, 'Il dubbio contenuto pubblicistico delle XII Tavole', at 330-3; B. Albanese, Labeo 36, 1990, 19-35 = Scritti giuridici II (Palermo, 1991), 1699-1717, '"Privilegia", "maximus comitiatus", "iussum populi"'. It must be said that no worse source for the Twelve Tables can be imagined than speeches in Livy. Note also that the alleged clause is not a general statement of popular sovereignty, but a statement that ubi duae contrariae leges sunt, semper antiquae obrogat noua. We know that contrariae leges were a matter of concern in the first century BC (ad Her. I, 11, 20; II, 10, 15; Cicero, de inv. I, 17; II, 116; 144-7; Balb. 33). There is no reasonable doubt that the clause was invented in the course of the controversies of the first century BC. (MH,) ADEL, MHC

41 - LEX AQVILIA BIBLIOGRAPHY D. Daube, Law Quarterly Review 52, 1936, 253-68 = Collected Studies in Roman Law (Frankfurt am Main, 1991), 3-18, 'On the third chapter of the lex Aquilia' ; id., in Studi S. Solazzi (Naples, 1948), 93-156 = Collected Studies, 279-339, 'On the use of the term damnum'', J.A. Crook, Ath 72, 1984, 67-77, 'Lex Aquilia\ with further bibliography; H. Ankum, in Religion, société et politique. Mélanges en hommage à Jacques Ellul (Paris, 1983), 171-83, '"Quanti ea res erit in diebus xxx proximis" dans le troisième chapitre de la lex Aquilia: un fantasme florentin'; D. Nörr, in Iuris Professio. Festgabe fìir Max Käser zum 80. Geburtstag (Vienna, Cologne, Graz, 1986), 211-19, 'Texte zur lex Aquilia'. INTRODUCTION The Lex Aquilia was a plebiscite, passed probably after the Lex Hortensia of c. 287 BC and certainly before the Gracchan age. If we are right about the formez/, see below, the date will be no later than the early third century. There is no sufficient reason for believing that the statute originally had any title: Gaius, Inst. lu, 210, is quoting the common name of the action based on the statute. Three chapters, and two further provisions, of the statute are referred to in various legal sources, though only of Chs. 1 and 3 does any source purport to quote the actual wording. Ch. 2 provided that a joint creditor who fraudulently released a debtor was liable (Gaius, Inst. Ill, 215-16: see Daube (1948), 154-6 = 337-9; P. Birks, Index!!, 1994, 181-8, 'Wrongful loss by co-promissees', suggests that the rule in Ch. 2 was invented in a period of monetary instability). The two further provisions were procedural: ea lege aduersus infitiantem in duplum agitur (Gaius, I.e.; IV, 8-9; see also Ch. 1, Source (a); Cicero, Brut. 131, may refer to this provision); and constitutae sunt autem noxales actiones ... damni iniuriae {uelut} lege Aquilia (Gaius, Inst. IV, 76). Even in the case of Chs. 1 and 3, great difficulty and controversy attends any attempt to reconstruct the actual wording, and every such attempt is the concomitant of some hypothesis as to the original scope and meaning of the statute. The problem is exacerbated by the volume of juristic interpretation this statute underwent, since it remained the basis of the law of damage all through the Roman Republic and. Principate. That certain words must have been in the original is guaranteed by some of the juristic discussions, but it must not be supposed that we know, beyond that, the ipsissima uerba. This text was admitted to a place in Bruns7, but not in FIRA: it lies on a spectrum, on which the next item would have been the Lex Cornelia de falsis (see J.A. Crook, Ath 75 (n.s. 65), 1987, 163-71), which, after discussion, was rejected from inclusion in the present collection, as it was from all previous ones. We stress, therefore, that the text here supplied is conjectural; and the original text is likely to have been verbally more archaic. 723

724

ROMAN STATUTES

SOURCES Ch. 1 (a) Digest IX, 2, 2pr.-1 (Gaius): lege Aquilia capite primo cauetur, ut qui senium seruamue alienum alienamue quadrupedem uel pecudem injuria occiderit, quanti id in eo anno plurimi fuit, tantum aes dare domino damnas esto; et infra deinde cauetur, ut aduersus infitiantem in duplum actio esset. ut qui: the scholiast to the Basilica wrote éàv TIC, evidently from a reading si quis. quadrupedem uel: the Basilica and the scholiast wrote r\ zevpanobov, evidently from a reading quadrupedemue. (b)

Gaius,/iun III, 210: damni iniuriae actio constituit(ur) per legem Aquiliam, cuius primo capite cautum est, (ut) si quis hominem alienum (alien)amue quadrupedem, quae pecudum numero sit, iniuria occiderit, quanti ea res in eo anno plurimi fuit, tantum domino dare damnetur.

constitua, Codex Veronensis, constituitur, Justinian, Inst. IV, 3pr. si quis, Codex Veronensis, ut si quis, Justinian. eamue, Codex Veronensis, alienamue, Justinian. quarecudum, Codex Veronensis, quae pecudum, Justinian. fuit: Krueger & Studemund report 'ani fuit C(odex Veronensis) aut fortasse/wenï C(odex Veronensis, second hand)'', fuit, Justinian: see Sources (d) and (e). (c) Digest IX, 2, 2lpr. (Ulpian): ait lex 'quanti is homo in eo anno plurimi fuisset'. (d) Gaius, Inst, in, 214: quod autem adi(ec)tum (adistum, Codex Veronensis) est in hac lege 'quanti in eo anno plurimi ea res fuerit' ... (e) Justinian, Inst. IV, 3, 9: his autem uerbis legis 'quanti id in eo anno plurimi fuerit' ... (0

Digest IX, 2, 11, 6 (Ulpian): legis autem Aquiliae actio ero competit, hoc est domino.

Ch.3 (a) Digest IX, 2, 27, 5 (Ulpian): tertio autem capite ait eadem lex Aquilia: 'ceterarum rerum praeter hominem et pecudem occisos, si quis alteri damnum faxit, quod usserit fregerit ruperit iniuria, quanti ea res erit in diebus triginta proximis, tantum aes domino dare damnas esto. (b) Digest IX, 2, 29, 8 (Ulpian): haec uerba 'quanti in triginta diebus proximis fuit', etsi non habent 'plurimi', sic tarnen esse accipienda constat.

41 - LEX AQVILIA

725

(c) Gaius, Inst. III, 218 (cf. Justinian, Inst. IV, 3, 14-15): hoc tarnen capite non quanti in eo anno, sed quanti in diebus xxx proximis ea res fuerit, damnatur is qui damnum dederit... RECONSTRUCTION Crook, 70, suggested seruum seruam alienum alienarti alienamue quadrupedem pecudem, on grounds of logic. But the order is wrong; and in an early text aliénant could have been understood with quadrupedem pecudem. It is also likely that the original construction was paratactic, without use of -ue. The appearance of the form fuit in a number of our sources for Chs. 1 and 3 requires explanation; for if it is taken as a perfect, it is highly anomalous. It is easiest to suppose: (1) that a number of our sources found it in texts available to them; (2) that in this context it was an archaic optative or subjunctive with a future sense (a suggestion that we owe to Professor R.G. Coleman in discussion); and (3) that our sources sometimes modernised the form, (erit is denounced by Ankum as a scribal error for fuit in the Florentine codex in Ch. 3, Source (a); Norr is agnostic and the hypothesis is in any case not necessary.) TEXT Ch. 1 ?si quis seruum seruam alienum alienam quadrupedem pecudem iniuria occident, quanti id in eo anno plurimi fuit, tantum aes ero dare damnas esto.? Ch. 3 ?si quis alteri damnum faxit, quod usserit fregerit ruperit iniuria, quanti ea res fuit in diebus triginta proximis, tantum aes ero dare damnas esto.? TRANSLATION Ch. 1 If anyone shall have unlawfully killed a male or female slave belonging to another or a four-footed animal, whatever may be the highest value of that in that year, so much money is he to be condemned to give to the owner. Ch.3 If anyone may cause loss to another, insofar as he shall have burnt, smashed or maimed unlawfully, whatever may be the value of that matter in the thirty days next ?preceding?/?following?, so much money is he to be condemned to give to the owner. COMMENTARY Ch. 1 Reference to pecus is rejected by Pugsley, who holds that Ch. 1 concerned only slaves; we are unable to follow him (see Crook). occident. 'shall have killed by direct violent act': see N.H. Andrews, Cambridge Law Journal 46, 1987, 315-29, '"Uccidere" and the Lex Aquilia'.

726

ROMAN STATUTES

quanti idlquanti ea res/quanti is homo: the choice depends on views about the original content of the statute, see Crook, 71-2. (Ea res in Ch. 3 is more likely to mean 'that matter' than 'that object', see the Index, s.v. res.) Homo, Source (c), is probably a modernisation of seruus, since homo by itself does not seem to signify a slave before the Middle and Late Republic. But there is no obvious way of telling whether an original is seruus ea serua ea quadrupes pecus had in a text or texts available to our sources been abbreviated to id or ea res', or whether id or ea res had been expanded. in eo anno presumably means 'in the year in question'; but that might not necessarily be the same as 'in the year preceding the alleged act in question'. ero (Source (f)): cf. dare domino (Source (a)), domino dare (Source (b) and Ch. 3); aes, ero may be genuine or false archaisms in the texts that were available to our sources, cf. faxit, but domino, in Ch. 3. Ch. 3 praeter ... occisos: regarded by many, following Pernice, as a later addition; ceterarum rerum and praeter ... occisos are defended by Norr on the ground of parallels from other legislative language, but the parallels are scarcely compelling in dealing with what is probably a statute of the early third century BC. damnum faxit: Daube, in influential papers, argues that damnum originally meant not damage, but pecuniary loss; that may be right, see on the Twelve Tables, Law 40, Tabula I, 21, but the conclusions drawn do not necessarily follow. Ea res in Ch. 3 will mean 'that matter'; 'that matter' is a generic reference to the pecuniary loss; and the pecuniary loss in turn depends on the value of the thing involved and what has been done to it. It is thus not certain that the 30 days follow, rather than precede, the act damnum faxit. The choice of 30 days remains in any case surprising, given in eo anno in Ch. 1, itself not without problems. damnum facere by itself means 'to suffer loss', but there is no reason to doubt that alteri damnum facere may mean 'to cause another person loss'. quod usserit fregerit ruperit: the Paraphrasis has Xéyei yctp ó vóu.oc si quid ustum aut ruptum aut fractum fuerif, but this is probably an adaptation of the quod clause, itself highly characteristic of Roman legislation. Daube argued that Ch. 3 dealt with wounding slaves and beasts, Ch. 1 having dealt with killing them; but, given the existence of Ch. 2, which has a different subject matter, we would have to suppose that the texts available to our sources had rewritten the statute to the point of removing in Ch. 3 an explicit reference to slaves and beasts. And the best evidence for the meaning of urere and rumpere in early Latin suggests that both involved total destruction, see on the Twelve Tables, Law 40, Tabula I, 13. If, however, as some on this basis believe, Ch. 3 was like Ch. 1 concerned only with total destruction, it came to be treated as the basis for any sort or degree of damage. iniuria: rejected, for this chapter, by Daube; but the argument of Cicero, Tuli 11, seems to imply it: one would otherwise have to argue that Cicero was quoting the terms of the action based on the statute. JAC

42 - LEX SVLPICIA BIBLIOGRAPHY J.A. Crook, Alh 74 (n.s. 64), 1986, 45-53, 'Lex "Riualicia" (FIRA I, no. 5)', with selective bibliography. INTRODUCTION The only evidence for this statute is a passage in Festus. Date and context remain uncertain; the absence of any reference in Frontinus suggests an early date and the language, insofar as it can be judged, is more reminiscent of the Lex Aquilia than of the Lex Plaetoria or the Lex Papiria. The author is presumably a consul or praetor. For the conjectural double accusative after rogauit, compare the Lex Papiria, Law 45. There is no sufficient reason for believing that the statute originally had any title, such as (Lex Sulpicia) riualicia. SOURCE Festus, 458 L: the Codex Farnesianus, Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale, MS IV A 3, s.xi, is mutilated at this point and only eleven words or parts of words survive (we print the conjectural supplements of Crook for the introductory matter): Sifus [dicitur in legibus publi]çis ipsis, id quod Graece [oûpcûv uocatur, et in lejge riualicia sic est [scriptum, quam de usu aqu]ae populum Ser. Sulpi[cius — rogauit: mon]tani paganiue si[fis —]o; donee earn inter se [—]s iudicatio esto. RECONSTRUCTION There is no need to doubt the authenticity of the actual quotation from the statute, but the restoration of the missing words is highly conjectural: see Crook. It may reasonably be assumed that the reference in both clauses was to the division of water; but the water was presumably defined in an earlier clause and we print earn in both places. TEXT [monjtani paganiue si[fis earn protinus diuidunt]o; donee earn inter se [diuiserint, —]s iudicatio esto.

727

728

ROMAN STATUTES

TRANSLATION The 'hill'- or 'plain'-dwellers [are to divide it (the water) at once with pipes]: until [they have divided] it amongst themselves, [???] is to have right of judgment. COMMENTARY montani paganiue: the two groups are relevant to the urban structure of early Rome, but the details are mysterious, see Crook; A. Fraschetta Roma e il principe (Bari, 1990), 134-80. sifus = tube, see Crook; the spelling is characteristic of the first century BC and later, but that need tell us nothing about the date of the original statute, since archaic spelling is regularly, if incompletely, modernised in Festus. The word is in any case a hapax legomenon. (riualicius is another hapax legomenon, but presumably derives from riuus in the sense of a water-course of any kind, whether natural or man-made, via riualis, one who shares access to such a water-course.) Orsini offered [praetori]s or [curatori]s\ one might expect [censori]s or [aedili]s. JAC

43 - LEGES DE AQVIS INTRODUCTION Frontinus, de aq. 94, begins his survey of the legal and administrative structure of the Roman water supply with historical remarks about the period before Augustus. He says he has looked at the leges de singulis (d)qui{s) lata{s), 'passed concerning the individual aqueducts', 94, 2, and twice offers what purport to be verbatim quotations from them, at 94, 3, and 97, 5-6. There are also references to their content in 95, 1-2, and 97, 3. Such being the context, the texts plainly cannot be earlier than the building of the first Roman aqueduct in 312 BC. The quotations were admitted to the collection of Bruns, but in the category of leges dictae (Bruns7, 111); they may well not have been leges rogatae, which, to judge from Frontinus, did not play a part in the establishment of the Republican aqueducts; and it may be that one should emend to (d)ata{s). But the import of the passages quoted and cited is perfectly general and we print them here as perhaps deriving from general legislation and by way of comparison with the Lex Sulpicia, Law 42. SOURCES (1) Frontinus, de aq. 94, 3: apud antiquos omnis aqua in usus publicos erog(ab)atur et cautum ita fuit, ne quis priuatus aliam ducat quam quae ex lacu humum accidit. haec enim sunt uerba eius legis. (2) Frontinus, de aq. 97, 5-6: in isdem legibus adiectum est ita: 4ne quis aquam oletato dolo malo ubi publice saliet. si quis oletarit, sestertiorum decern milium multa esto'. TEXT (1)

ne quis priuatus aliam duc(ito) quam quae ex lacu humum accidit.

(2) ne quis aquam oletato dolo malo ubi publice saliet. si quis oletarit, sestertiorum decern milium multa esto. TRANSLATION (1) No private person may draw any (water) except that which falls to the ground from the basin.

729

730

ROMAN STATUTES

(2) No one is to pollute water with wrongful deceit, where it shall pour forth publicly. If anyone shall have polluted, there is to be a fine of ten thousand sesterces. COMMENTARY (1) If what Frontinus is quoting really was a statute or even a lex dicta, it presumably said ne. quis ... ducito, in which case the allegedly verbatim quotation has been at the very least assimilated to the grammatical structure of the sentence. Compare in general the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Ch. C. aliam aquam was suggested by Bücheier, unnecessarily, because the word aqua may have occurred in a previous part of the sentence not quoted by Frontinus. (2) If the original enactment quoted the fine in sesterces, it presumably dates from after C.141 BC: see Crawford, Coinage and Money, 147-8; but it is more likely that the text has been modernised by Frontinus or his source. Compare in general CIL XII, 2426 (Les Échelles, on the Guiers, near Chambéry) = Bruns, 110. JAC

44 - LEX PLAETORIA BIBLIOGRAPHY J.A. Crook, Ath 72 (n.s. 62), 1984, 586-95, 'Lex Plaetoria (FIRA no. 3)', with selective bibliography. INTRODUCTION The Lex Plaetoria was a plebiscite of not earlier than 241 BC, the date of the introduction of the peregrine praetor; a few words are quoted by Censorinus. SOURCE Censorinus, de die natali 24, 3; the Codex Darmstadiensis, now Cologne, Dombibliothek, MS Latinus 166, reads, with the addition of punctuation and quotation marks: sed postea M. Pletorius tribunus plebiscitum tulit in quo scribtum est: 'praetor urbanus qui nunc est quiq. post hac fìat duo lictores apud se habeto isq. supremam ad solem occasum iusq. inter ciues dicito \ RECONSTRUCTION The transmitted text is evidently corrupt, and the last nine words of the quotation cannot be translated as they stand. (It is uncertain whether the Codex Darmstadiensis is the archetype of our other MSS (C.A. Rapisarda, GIF 41, 1989, 3-28, 'Fondamenti della tradizione manoscritta di Censonno'); but the rest of the tradition preserves nothing of significance for this section.) All proposed emendations depend on the views of their authors as to the meaning of the provision, and none so far proposed is free from objections. We print Crook's conjectures (as a possible wording of the statute, not as a proposal for emending Censorinus, who may not have understood his source), except that, as most may prefer it, we suggest, as the least violent emendation of the end of the transmitted text, the loss after isq. of the abbreviation for per (see Crook, 590). One cannot exclude the suspicion that urbanus is a literary version of qui inter ciues ins dicit. For factus erit, compare the Lex Papiria, Law 45. TEXT praetor urbanus qui nunc est quique posthac (factus erit) duo lictores apud se habeto i(u)sque (per) supremam ad solem occasum {i Jusque inter ciues dicito.

731

ROMAN STATUTES

732

TRANSLATION Whoever is now urban praetor and whoever (shall be appointed) hereafter is to have two lictors with him and he is to have jurisdiction between citizens (through) the last hour right down to sunset. COMMENTARY We know from Varro, LL VI, 5, that a Lex Plaetoria, presumably the same as the present one, redefined the suprema or supremum tempus: suprema summum diei, id ab superrimo. hoc tempus xii tabulae dicunt occasum esse solis; sed postea lex Plaetoria (Praetoria, MS) id quoque tempus esse iubet supremum quo praetor in comitio supremum pronuntiauit populo. It seems probable that, in contrast to the rule of the Twelve Tables, the suprema was now before sunset. All that can be said with certainty about Censorinus' quotation is that the words quoted regulated the number of lictors to be assigned to the urban praetor, and laid down something, probably related to the new definition of suprema, about the time of day to which the urban praetor must, or more probably might, go on in the exercise of his jurisdiction inter dues. See also on the Twelve Tables, Law 40, Tabula I, 9; and for the word suprema, Donatus, on Terence, Phorm. 208. JAC

45 - LEX PAPIRIA BIBLIOGRAPHY J.D. Cloud, Ath 80 (n.s. 70), 1992, 159-86, 'The Lex Papiria de sacramentis', with selective bibliography. INTRODUCTION The Lex Papiria was a plebiscite of not earlier than 241 BC, the date of the introduction of the peregrine praetor. Livy IX, 46, 3, has Cn. Flavius as Illvir nocturnus, generally taken as another term for Illvir capitalis, before 304 BC; while the Livian tradition has Ulviri capitales as tunc primum creati in 290 BC (Liv.Epit. 11). It is usually supposed that our statute substituted election for appointment; but it may be that it specified the presidency of the urban praetor, rather than that of the peregrine praetor; or that its innovation lay in the role of the Illviri capitales in relation to sacramenta. The very hypothetical reconstruction at which we arrive on text-critical grounds is compatible with this possibility. The Ulviri capitales had acquired by the time of the Second Punic War a police function and limited criminal jurisdiction, probably as the assistants of magistrates with imperium. Our text moves straight from election - on which there may, but need not have been, further details - to civil jurisdiction; one wonders whether the ulviri capitales acquired their name because they were used to exact sacramenta in civil cases which affected the caput of a citizen. SOURCE Festus, 468 L; the Codex Farnesianus reads (we have introduced uncontroversial corrections in the introductory matter): sacramentum aes significat, quod poenae nomine penditur, siue eo quis interrogatur siue contenditiur}. id in aliis rebus quinquaginta ass(i)um est, in alis rebus quingentorum inter eos qui iudic(io) inter se contend(u)nt. qua de re lege L. Papiri tribuni plebis sanctum est his uerbis: 'quicumque praetor post hoc factus erit, qui inter ciues ius dicet, très uiros capitales populum rogato, hique très uiri vaci quicumque vac cti erunt, sacramenta ex vac iudicantoque eodemque iure sunto, uti ex legibus plebeique scitis exigere iudicareque esse esseque oportet'.

734

ROMAN STATUTES RECONSTRUCTION

post hoc is clearly a literary deformation of posthac, standard in legal texts, hique is almost certainly an error for iique. The supplements for the three gaps in the MS, presumably left because the copyist could not read the original, are straightforward. For the end of the text, see the Commentary. TEXT quicumque praetor posth(a)c factus erit, qui inter ciues ius dicet, tresuiros capitales populum rogato, (i)ique tresuiri (capitales), 4 quicumque (posthac fa)cti erunt, sacramenta ex(igunto) iudicantoque feodemque iure sunto, uti ex legibus plebeique scitis exigere iudicareque esse esseque oportettTRANSLATION Whoever hereafter shall have been appointed the praetor, who shall have jurisdiction between citizens, is to propose to the people (the election of) III viri (capitales); and those Illviri capitales, whoever (hereafter) shall have been (appointed), are to (exact) and adjudge sacramenta and ??? COMMENTARY For the double accusative after roganti, compare Livy IH, 65, 3-4; the Lex Sulpicia, Law 42. The sacramenta are the stakes of 50 or 500 asses, mentioned by Festus here, as well as by Gaius, Inst. IV, 14-17, and Varro, LL V, 180 (for the text, see Cloud, 164-5), demanded from the parties to a legis actio. The only really plausible meaning for exigere is 'to collect/extract/exact' (Cloud, 162-3); and it is on balance most hkely that our statute refers to a moment in the procedure as described by Gaius: the parties initially gave sureties for the stakes and the actual stake itself was in due course collected from the loser (Cloud, 163-6). It is also on balance most likely that iudicare means 'to apportion/assign/adjudge', with sacramenta as the direct object, apportion, that is, as between different public purposes for the stake that falls to the community (Cloud, 166-70): compare the Lex S ilia, Law 46; the Lex Valeria Aurelia, Law 37, Tuder Fragment, 1. 7; and, in general, the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Ch. LXI. As for the end of the clause, 'one need only translate literally "eodemque iure ... oportet", to see that, even with the deletion of the first, as it stands, senseless esse, something is wrong: "Let them be with the same ius as in accordance with statutes and plebiscites it behoves them to exact and to apportion and to be'" (Cloud, 171-2). It is another matter to suggest a restoration. The least unlikely hypothesis is perhaps that siremps lex ius causaque esto atque uti... has been rewritten: Festus, 466 L, says '(siremps) ponitur pro eadem'; and itemque Us ... lex iusque esto in the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Ch.

45 - LEX PAPIRIA

735

LXXIX, has become in Hyginus, 120, 14-18 L = 83, 14-18 Th, (sanxerunt) uti ... ex omnibus eiusdem condicionis essent cuius ante fuissent, oportet is an easy corruption of the counter-factual subjunctive oporteret and one then thinks of... atque utei esset esseue oporteret of the Lex de Gallia Cisalpina, Law 28, Col. II, 11. 10-11; and the Lex Quinctia, L a w 63, 11. 2 9 - 3 2 (note the corruptions in the MS). Alternatively, a construction like that of the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Ch. CIII, or the Rogatio Seruilia agraria, Law 52, Ch. 4, may underlie the ruin we have. In any case, the Illviri are being assimilated to some other category.

JDC

46 - LEX SILIA BIBLIOGRAPHY J.D. Cloud, Ath 73 (n.s. 63), 1985, 405-18, 'A Lex de ponderibus (Festus, p. 288 L)\ with selective bibliography. INTRODUCTION The Lex Silia was a plebiscite which is probably to be dated after the Lex Hortensia of 287 BC and before the Lex Claudia of 223-218 BC, since the latter presupposes a standard quadrantal. The Lex Silia is perhaps later rather than earlier within this period. For rogarint without object, compare Festus, 372 L, and Gellius X, 20, 2; for the restoration of the preamble in general, Cloud, 406-7. The statute probably enjoined the aediles to standardise public weights and dry and liquid measures; the responsibility of aediles in municipia for weights and measures is well attested, see the Lex Flavia, Ch. 19; compare also CIL X, 6017 (Mintumae, late first century BC). There is no reason to identify our Lex Silia with the Lex Silia de condictione. SOURCE Festus, 288 L; the Codex Farnesianus reads (we have introduced uncontroversial corrections in the introductory matter: see Cloud, 406-7): (Qu. xii, col. 15) publica pondera [ad legitimam normam exacta fuisse] ex ea causa Iunius in [(libro) — de potestatibus — colligi]t, quod duo Silii P. et M. (duos illi pet. m, Codex Farnesianus) (Qu. xii, col. 16) tribuni pi. rogarint his uerbis: ex ponderibus publicis, quibus hac tempestate populus oetier tquij solet, futi coaequatur sedulum: ut hit quadrantal uini octoginta pondo siet; congius uini decern p. fist; sex sextari congius siet uini; duoquinquaginta sextari tquadarantatf siet uini; sextarius faequus aequo cum librario siet; sex de quinque libraef in modio sient. si quis magistrates aduersus hac d. m. pondera modiosque uasaque publica modica minora maioraue faxit iussit uere fieri dolumue adduit tquef ea fiant, eum quis uolet magistratus tmultareturt, dum minore fpatrisf familias taxât, liceto; siue quis in sacrum iudicare uoluerit, liceto.

737

738

ROMAN STATUTES RECONSTRUCTION

Many corrections involve simply the straightforward reversal of easy corruptions and do not require discussion. The statute presumably began with a reference to the aediles; we also restore curanto to govern uti: see Cloud, 407-8. Dry and liquid measures are mentioned later and presumably stood alongside ex ponderibus publicis, but were omitted by Verrius Flaccus or Festus in concentrating on pondera publica. Faute de mieux, we adopt the emendation coaequetur; but the corruption is perhaps much deeper, and it may be that uti coaequetur has ousted coeranto = curanto from here, rather than its having stood earlier in the text: see Cloud, 408-9. sedulum: it is now certain that the Lex agraria, Law 2, 1. 39, read se dulo mal[o]: the correction se dul(o) m(alo) imposes itself, despite the idiosyncratic abbreviation. In the two corrupt clauses which follow the statute may have made some statement about the appliances used for weighing and measuring. On the other hand, one might expect that there would have been some definition of the sextarius\ and since modii, dry measures, appear along with uasa publica, liquid measures, in the next sentence, the modius might also be expected. sextarius ... siet: the text is gibberish as it stands: see Cloud, 409-11, though not all of his strictures are wholly justified, since the text may now have reached dry measures and the Romans did know of heaped dry measures (Festus, Pauli Exc. 14 L). sex ... sient: the correction sedecimque is easy, but 16 librae cannot = 1 modius: see Cloud, 411-12. Varro's aecus ...ad aedilicium modium (Sat.Men. 245 Cèbe) perhaps suggests that one might countenance something like sextarius aequus ad aedilicium modum siet sedecimque sextari in modio sient. modica: see Cloud, 412. Given the style of Roman statutes, an object for iudicare can be understood from multare: there is no need to insert eiusque pecuniae petitio esto before siue quis ... liceto. The assumption would be that the magistrate would exact the fine for public purposes; or he could adjudge it for sacred purposes. TEXT (aediles qui nunc sunt ex hac lege curanto —) ex ponderibus publicis (—), quibus hac tempestate populus oetier {qui} solet, uti coaequ(e)tur se dul(o) m(alo): ut{h}i quadrantal uini octo4 ginta pondo siet; congius uini decern p(ondo) (siet); sex sextari congius siet uini; duo(de)quinquaginta sextari quad{a}ranta(l) siet uini; sextarius taequus aequo cum librario! siet; (sedecim)que flibraef 8 in modio sient. si quis magistratus aduersus hac d(olo) m(alo) pondera modiosque uasaque publica {modica} minora maioraue faxit iuss(er)itue{re} fieri dolumue (m(alum)) duit qu(o) ea fiant, eum quis uolet magistratus 12 multare {tur}, dum minor(is) pa(rt)is familias taxât, liceto, siue quis in sacrum iudicare uoluerit, liceto.

46 - LEX SILIA

739

TRANSLATION (The aediles who are now (in office), in accordance with this statute — are to see) that, in accordance with the official weights (—> which the people at this time is accustomed to use, there be, without wrongful deceit, equivalences, such that a quadrantal of wine weigh eighty pounds, a congius of wine weigh ten pounds, six sextarii constitute a congius of wine, forty-eight sextarii a quadrantal of wine, a sextarius ??? be in a modius. If any magistrate contrary to these rules with wrongful deceit shall have made the official weights, dry measures and vessels too small or too large, or shall have ordered (these things) to be done or shall have employed wrongful deceit to the effect that these things be done, it is to be lawful for any magistrate who shall wish to fine him, up to half his estate; or if any (magistrate) shall have wished to adjudge (it) for sacred purposes, it is to be lawful. COMMENTARY For the coherence of the equivalences, see Cloud, 416 n.16. aduersus hac: compare the lex from Luceria, ILLRP 504, 1. 4, aruorsu hac (on which R. Arena, GIF 22 (n.s. 1), 1970, 46-59, 'Attorno all'iscrizione di Lucerà, CIL I 2 , 2, 401', is crucial; see now also J. Bodel, Graveyards and Groves. A Study of the Lex Lucerina (= AJAH 11, 1986 (1994))); the SC de Bacchanalibus, ILLRP 511,1. 24, aruorsum ead. duit: compare the lex attributed to Numa in Festus, Pauli Exc. 247 L; the Twelve Tables, Law 40, X, 7; the Lex Cincia, Law 47; Plautus, Asin. 400; Aul. 62; Terence, Phorm. 713; Livy XXII, 10, 2 (Livian pastiche). For the imposition of a fine of up to half of an estate, compare Gellius VI, 3, 37 = Cato, ORF 8, XLU, 167, mille {dumi) minus dimidium familiae multa esto\ Fronto, ad Ant.Imp. I, 5, 3 (p. 93 van den Hout); the Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae, Law 7,11. 11-12; the Lex Osca Tabulae Bantinae, Law 13, 11. 12-13, 26-7, 35; the Lex Gabinia Calpurnia, Law 22,1. 32; for fines by magistrates in general, see the lex sacra from Luceria, ILLRP 504, seiue mag[i]steratus uolet mollare [lï\cetod\ the lex sacra from Spoletium, ILLRP 505, compare 506, Iouei bouid piaclum datod et a(sses) CCC moltai suntod. eius piacli moltaique dicator[ei] exactio est[od]. in sacrum iudicare: compare the Rogatio Valeria Aurelia, Law 37, Todi Fragment, 1. 7. JDC

47 - LEX CINCIA BIBLIOGRAPHY F. Casavola, Lex Cincia: contributo alla storia delle origini della donazione romana (Naples, 1960); P. Stein, Ath 73 (n.s. 63), 1985, 145-53, 'Lex Cincia', with selective bibliography; J. Chr. Dumont, Servus (Rome, 1987), 114-22. INTRODUCTION The Lex Cincia was probably a plebiscite of 204 BC. It contained a clause forbidding gifts (i.e., payments) to be made to orators for pleading cases; it also forbade gifts above a certain value (which is unknown) to be made except between certain specified classes of people. It is usually thought to be related to similar limitations on testamentary gifts contained in the roughly contemporary Lex Furia. The quotations from the statute that survive all deal with the persons excepted from the prohibition of gifts above a certain value. SOURCE The Vatican Fragments, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Lat. 5766 (s.v), §§298-309, checked by Clare Woods, Warburg Institute, list exceptions to the provisions of the Lex Cincia concerning gifts; the sections that purport to quote the text of the statute are §§298, 305, 307: 298 Paulus libro lxxi ad edictum, ad Cinciam. personae igitur cognatorum excipiuntur {in} his uerbis: 'siue quis cognatus cognata inter se, dum sobrinus sobrinaue prop{r}iusue feosett, siue quis in alterius potestate mmnioue erit qui eos hac cognatione attinget quorumue in potestate mmnioue erit, eis omnibus inter se donare capere liceto'. 299 item, quinque igitur gradus pieni excepti sunt et ex sexto una persona, sobrinus et sobrina. 300 item, excipiuntur et hii qui, in potestate eorum uel manu mancipioue, item quorum in potestate manu mancipioue erunt. 301 item, ita(que) (ita, MS) si is qui {que} in eo gradu est in potestate habeat eum, qui mihi longiore gradu sit, dare ei poterò, sic et lex Furia scribta est eo amplius, quod ilia lex sex gradus et unam personam ex septimo gradu excepit sobri no natum. 302 item, excipiuntur et adfinium personae, ut priuignus priuigna, nouerca uitricus, socer socrus, gener, nurus, uir et uxor, sponsus sponsa. 303 item, sed in hac adfines qui sunt tempore donationis excipiuntur, idemque etiam diuus Pius rescripsit; leges enim, quae uoluissent etiam eos excipere qui fuissent, nominatim id cauisse.

741

742

ROMAN STATUTES 304 item, excipit tutorem, qui tutelam gerit, si dare uolet, quia tutores quasi parentes proprii pupillorum sunt, nam permisit eis (in) (om. MS) infinitum donare, contra ut possit pupillus donare, non excepit. 305 item, item excipit, si quis mulieri uirginiue cognatus dotem conferre uolet; igitur quocumque gradu cognatus dotis nomine donare potest. 306 item, quaesitum (= qsit-, MS), an et cognata cognatae ultra exceptum (gradum) donare possit. Labeo scribit non posse; sed ratio aequitatis (aeque) (eaquae, MS) in feminis est. 307 item, item excipit, si quis a semis quique pro seruis seruitutem seruierunt accipit duit. his uerbis, 'si quis a semis', seruis (= s'uis, MS) liberti continentur, ut patronis dare possint. sequentibus uero excipitur, ut is qui bona fide semiit, si postea liber pronuntiatus sit, possit dare ei cui seruiit. Sabinus utraquc scribtura (libertos putat) contineri et (b)is (his, MS) idem dictum. 308 item, sed tantum patronum a liberto excipit. quidam putant etiam liberos patroni exceptos, quoniam libertus continetur semi appellatione et, sicut in xii tabulis patroni appellatione etiam liberi patroni continentur, ita et in hac lege. 309 item, contra autem liberti a patronis excepti sunt? et hoc iure utimur, ne excepti uideantur, ut et dare et capere lex (e}iis permittat.

RECONSTRUCTION 298 siue quis cognatus cognata inter se\ for this clause to make sense without emendation it is necessary to understand erit from the next clause. For dum + subjunctive, compare, e.g., the Lex Cornelia de XX quaestoribus, Law 14, Col. II, 11. 14-17; the doubts of Casavola, 58-9, are unnecessary. eo: the ablative of comparison, 'than that', is not elegant (though there are similar usages in the Lex agraria, Law 2,1. 78; the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24, 1. 15; the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Ch, LXI; the Lex Flavia, Ch. 90); and the suspicion arises that propiusue eo sit is a much abbreviated replacement of the formula found in the Lex repetundamm, Law 1, 11. 10, 20, 22; and in the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Ch. XCV. Any formula used here will need to convey the fact that two people in relation to each other are involved; the arguments of Casavola, 5 8 - 9 , are unconvincing. Stein offered: (1) propi(or)ue eo; but it is a difficulty that Festus, 260 L, confirmed by Pauli Exc, uses the wordingpropius sobrino mihi est...; or (2)propiusue eo {gradu)\ but it is a difficulty that gradus in this sense in legal language appears only with the jurists of the classical period. The normal resolution of mmnioue in the MS is matrimonioue; but it is very unlikely here (contra Casavola, 60-1): (1) §300 is clearly a commentary on the clause in question and demands the correction manu mancipioue; (2) since both the introduction and the text make it clear that §298 is about cognati, it is likely (contra Ph. Meylan, in Études J. Macqueron (Aix-en-Provence, 1970), 5 0 3 - 1 3 , 'Origine de la formule "in potestate manu mancipioue"'; Stein, 147-8), that §302, dealing with adfines, and §304, dealing with tutores, relate to clauses of the statute for which there is no direct quotation; (3) in ... matrimonio would not in any case be adequate to evoke as commentary the list of adfines in §302. 305 It is clear from the commentary in §307 that the clause beginning si quis is a quotation from the statute; the inference is that the clause beginning si quis in §305 is likewise a quotation.

47 - LEX CINCIA

743

307 Huschke proposed duit{ue Us); this was rejected by Mommsen in his edition of 1890, on the grounds that it contradicted the rule in §309; this must mean that when he himself proposed (isue) duit, he intended is to represent a slave or one who has served as a slave. He therefore took the second half of the clause to say the same as the first half of the clause, from the point of view of the giver. What was the original text? Paul seems not to know a rule of the Lex Cincia for gifts from masters to slaves and in §309 gives the rule as he knew it; it is therefore likely that Paul had the reading accipit duit and did not know what duit meant. And it is just possible that in an early statute duit could have been understood as meaning '(or) give (to them)'. If so, the law in the third century BC will have been changed by later interpretation. Given the form duit, it may be that Paul has also preserved the archaic optative or subjunctive accipit. The phrase in the late third century BC is likely to be tralatician. TEXT (298) siue quis cognatus cognata inter se, dum sobrinus sobrinaue propiusue eo s(i)t, siue quis in alterius potestate (manu mancipioue) erit qui eos hac cognatione attinget, quorumue in potestate (manu mancipioue) erit, eis omnibus inter se donare capere liceto. (305)

si quis mulieri uirginiue cognatus dotem con ferre uolet (—)

(307)

si quis a semis quique pro seruis seruitutem seruierunt accipit duit (—) TRANSLATION

(298) Whether anyone (shall be) a male or female cognate, one to another, provided that he or she be second cousin or nearer than that, or anyone shall be in the power (or manus or mancipium) of someone who shall be in this cognatic relationship to the other party or any of those in whose power (or manus or mancipium) he (i.e., someone who shall be in this cognatic relationship to the other party) shall be, it is to be lawful for all these to give or receive from one another. (305)

If any cognate shall wish to confer a dowry on a woman or a virgin (—)

(307) If anyone receive from slaves and from those who have served as slaves ?or give (to them)? COMMENTARY (298) It is disputed whether, e.g., anyone in power could give to or receive from the person in whose power he was or whether someone in power could only give or receive as a substitute for a cognate; the problem is complicated by uncertainty whether donatio had the same meaning in the third century BC as in the classical period of Roman law. In classical Roman law a donatio necessarily involved a transfer of ownership, which is obviously impossible in the case of those in power; but the meaning may have been wider in the third century BC: see Stein, 148-51. For the degrees of cognatio, see on the Lex repetundarum, Law 1,1. 12. In Republican and classical Roman law gifts between husband and wife were generally invalid, Dig.

ROMAN STATUTES

744

XXIV, 1, 1 (Ulpian); so it is usually held that uir et uxor, sponsus sponsa, in §302 are post-classical glosses. (305)

See also the Clusium Fragments, Law 9.

(307) For the restriction of this clause to slaves (and not also freedmen) and bona fide seruientes (and not also addicti and nexi), see Stein, 151-3. If this is right, donatio cannot here have involved a transfer of ownership. Brunt, Fall, 408 n. 73, seeks to apply qui... seruierunt to a sentis; but quiquepro semis seruitutem seruierunt should be taken to mean 'and those who have served as slaves (and still are)', not 'including those who have ceased to serve as slaves'. Dumont, 115-21, documents the capacity of slaves to have property and give it, unfortunately operating with an incorrect text of the MS and translating 'a seruis' as 'from among slaves'. MHC, JAC, PS

48 - LEX ATINIA BIBLIOGRAPHY P. Stein, Ath 72 (n.s. 62), 1984, 596-600, 'Lex Atinia', with selective bibliography. INTRODUCTION The Lex Atinia, of uncertain date, but probably of about the middle of the second century BC, forbade the usucapion of things which had been stolen. The problem is that we know that the Twelve Tables, Law 40, Tabula I, 22, forbade the usucapion of things which had been stolen. We discuss there what was the innovation of the Lex Atinia. Gellius records that a number of second century BC jurists, Scaevola, Brutus and Manilius, considered whether the statute applied only to goods stolen after it had been passed or also to things which had been stolen before. Their grounds were that subruptum erit, 'shall at some future date in relation to the passage of the statute be in a state of having been stolen', could perfectly well refer to goods stolen before the statute had been passed. Cicero, // in Verr. 1, 109, asserts the normal principle that legislation was prospective; but also (108) that something might be covered retrospectively quae sua sponte tarn scelerata et nefaria est ut, etiamsi lex non esset, magnopere, vitanda fuerit. It is perhaps against the background of this principle that, just after the passage of the statute, attempts were made by a clever verbal argument to extend its scope (see P. Stein, Regulae Iuris (Edinburgh, 1966), 21-4). SOURCES (a) Gellius XVII, 7,1: legis ueteris Atiniae uerba sunt: 'quod subruptum erit, eius rei aeterna auctoritas esto'. (b) Digest XLI, 3, 4, 6 (Paul): quod autem dicit lex Atinia, ut res furtiua non usucapiatur, nisi in potestatem eius cui subrepta est reuertatur, sic acceptum est, ut in domini potestatem debeat reuerti, non in eius utique, cui subreptum est. igitur creditori subrepta et ei cui commodata est in potestatem domini redire debet. RECONSTRUCTION The main enactment is recorded by Gellius, the exception by Paul. The problem is that juristic discussion of the exception, cited by Stein, appears to be based on the assumption that the text of the statute referred explicitly to the dominus and that the thing stolen was

745

746

ROMAN STATUTES

to return, not to the person from whom it was taken, but to the dominus; yet to insert the dominus into the text of the statute at this point, with Buckland and Stein,'involves contradicting the text of Paul cited above. TEXT Quod subruptum erit, eius rei aeterna auctoritas esto, (nisi in potestatem ?eius cui subruptum erit? (or ?domini?) reuersum erit). TRANSLATION Whatever shall have been stolen, the auctoritas in respect of that object is to be everlasting, (unless it shall have returned into the power ?of the person from whom it shall have been stolen? (or ?of the owner?). COMMENTARY subruptum = stolen: see Stein. For aeterna auctoritas, see on the Twelve Tables, Law 40, Tabula VI, 4. PS

49 - LEX CORNELIA DE PROSCRIPTIONE BIBLIOGRAPHY F. Hinard, Les proscriptions de la Rome républicaine (Rome, 1985), 67-86. INTRODUCTION The only citation of a part of the text of this notorious statute is to be found in the speech pro Sex. Roscio Amerino by Cicero. SOURCE Cicero, Rose.Am. 126; scriptum enim ita dicunt esse: ut eorum bona ueneant qui proscripti sunt - quo in numero Sex. Roscius non est - aut eorum qui in aduersariorum praesidiis occisi sunt. RECONSTRUCTION It is possible that Cicero has converted the future imperative of the original to ut with the subjunctive; or perhaps rather that he has omitted some such verb as curato. And it is likely that the strongly disjunctive aut is Cicero's, not the statute's. TEXT (— curato) ut eorum bona ueneant qui proscripti sunt eorum(ue) qui in aduersariorum praesidiis occisi sunt. TRANSLATION (— he is to see) that the goods be sold of those persons who have been proscribed or of those persons who have been killed in the camps of the enemy. COMMENTARY Compare the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24, 1. 122. It may be that the word aduersarius, otherwise attested in the Lex repetundarum, Law 1,1. 20, etc., was chosen because it was easier to define satisfactorily than the word hostis. MHC

747

50 - LEX CORNELIA DE SICARIIS ET VENEFICIIS BIBLIOGRAPHY J.-L. Ferrary, Ath 79 (n.s. 69), 1991, 417-34, 'Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis', with selective bibliography. INTRODUCTION The statute is one of those by which Sulla reformed Roman criminal jurisdiction. The prosecutions which evoked the pro Sex. Roscio Amerino in 80 BC and the pro Cluentio in 66 BC were brought under it; like the Lex Cornelia de falsis and the Lex Cornelia de iniuriis, it was not replaced by a Lex Iulia and it remained except for parricide the statute on murder in force throughout the Empire. We thus possess both Ciceronian and juristic references: the sources for each chapter are here presented in chronological order, as by Ferrary, to whom reference should be made for further details, even where not specifically cited. SOURCES Ch. 1 (a) Cicero, Rab.perd. 19: nisi uero interesse aliquid putas inter eum qui hominem occidit et eum qui cum telo occidendi hominis causa fuit. (b) Cicero, Mil 11: persapienter et quodam modo tacito dat ipsa lex potestatem defendendi, quae non modo hominem occidu sed esse cum telo hominis occidendi causa uetat, ut cum causa, non telum quaereretur, qui sui defendendi causa telo esset usus, non hominis occidendi causa habuisse telum indicaretur. (c) Cicero, Paradoxa Stoicorum, 31 : an, cum omnes leges te exsulem esse iubeant, non appellaret(ur) inimicus qui cum telo fuerit? ante senatum tua sica deprensa est; qui hominem occident? tu plurimos occidisti; qui incendium Fecerit? aedis Nympharum manu tua deflagrauit; qui tempia occupauerit? in foro castra posuisti. (d) Cicero, Phil II, 22: de morte P. Clodi fuit quaestio - non satis prudenter illa quidem constituta - quid enim attinebat noua lege quaeri de eo qui hominem occidisset. cum esset legibus quaestio constituta?

749

750

ROMAN STATUTES

(e)

Ulpian, de officio proconsulis 1, 7, in Coli. I, 3, 1: capite primo legis Corneliae de sicariis cauetur ut is praetor iudexue quaestionis cui sorte obuenerit quaestio de sicariis, eius quod in urbe Roma propius(ue) mille passus factum sit, uti quaerat cum iudicibus, qui ei ex lege sorte obuenerint, de capite eius, qui cum telo ambulauerit hominis necandi furtiue faciendi causa hominemue occident cuiusue id dolo malo factum erit, et reliqua. relatis uerbis legis, modo ipse loquitur Ulpianus.

(f)

Dig. XL Vin, 8, lpr. (Marcian): lege Cornelia de sicariis et ueneficis tenetur qui hominem occiderit, cuiusue dolo malo incendium factum erit, quiue hominis occidendi furtiue faciendi causa cum telo ambulauerit.

Ch. 5 Cicero, C/w. 148:

(a)

iubet lex ... iudicem quaestionis ... cum eis iudicibus qui ei obuenerint ... quaerere de ueneno. in quern quaerere? infinitum est: quicumque fecerit uendiderit emerit habuerit dederit ... ubi enim omnis mortalis adligat, ita loquitur (sc. lex): qui uenenum malum fecit fecerit. (b)

Cicero, Gael. 51: duo sunt enim crimina ... auri quod sumptum a Clodia dicitur et ueneni quod eiusdem Clodiae necandae causa parasse Caelium criminantur.

(c)

Dig. XLVIII, 8, 1, 1; 3, pr.-2 (Marcian): praeterea tenetur qui hominis necandi causa uenenum confecerit dederit ... (3pr.) eiusdem legis Corneliae de sicariis et ueneficis capite quinto, qui uenenum necandi hominis causa fecerit uel uendiderit uel habuerit. plectitur. (1) eiusdem legis poena adficitur, qui in publicum mala medicamenta uendiderit uel hominis necandi causa habuerit. (2) adiectio autem ista ueneni mali ostendit esse quaedam et non mala uenena. ergo nomen medium est et tarn id quod ad sanandum quam id quod ad occidendum paratum est continet, sed et id quod amatorium appellatur; sed hoc solum notatur in ea lege quod hominis necandi causa habet(ur).

(d)

Pauli Sent. V',23, 1: lex Cornelia poenam deportationis infligit ei ... qui uenenum hominis necandi causa habuerit uendiderit parauerit.

Ch. 6 (a)

Cicero, Clu. 144-57: nam ut haec ad me causa delata est ... dixi Habito statim de eo qui coisset quo quis condemnaretur illum esse liberum, teneri autem nostrum ordinem ... (148) deque eius capite quaerito. cuius? qui coierit conuenerit? non ita est. quid ergo est? die. qui tribunus militum legionibus quattuor primis quiue quaestor, tribunus plebis - deinceps omnis magistratus nominauit - quiue in senatu sententiam dixit dixerit. quid tum? qui eorum coiit coierit. conuenit conuenerit. quo quis iudicio publico condemnaretur ... nunc ita est: deque eius capite quaerito qui magistratum habuerit inue senatu sententiam dixerit. qui eorum coiit coierit ... (157) qua in lege est: qui coierit. quod quam late pateat uidetis, conuenerit. aeque infinitum et incertum est, consenseritt hoc uero cum infinitum tum obscurum et

50 - LEX CORNELIA DE SICARIIS ET VENEFICIIS

751

occultum, falsumue testimonium dixerit. quis de plebe Romana testimonium dixit umquam, cui non hoc periculum T. Attio auctore paratum ese uideatis? nam dicturum quidem certe, si hoc iudicium plebi Romanae propositum sit, neminem inquam esse confirmo. (b) Dig. XL Vili, 8, lpr.-l (Marcian): lege Cornelia de sicariis et ueneficis tenetur ... quiue, cum magistratus esset publicoue iudicio praeesset, operam dedisset, quo quis falsum indicium profiteretur, ut quis innocens conueniretur condemnaretur. (1) praeterea tenetur ... quiue falsum testimonium dolo malo dixerit quo quis publico iudicio rei capitalis damnaretur quiue magistratus iudexue quaestionis ob capitalem causam pecuniam acceperit, ut publica lege reus fieret. (e) Dig. XLVin, 8, 3, 1-4 (Marcian): eiusdem legis poena adficitur ... (4) et qui falsa indicia confessus fuerit confitendaue curauerit, quo quis innocens circumueniretur. (d)

Pauli Sent. V, 23, 1: lex Cornelia poenam deportationis infligit ei qui ... falsum testimonium dixerit quo quis periret. RECONSTRUCTION

Ch. 1 The words underlined in Sources (a) - (d) are certainly echoes of the Lex Cornelia de sicariis; they may also be echoes of the Lex Plautia de ui. For the adoption of the MS reading non modo, rather than non, in Source (b), see Ferrary, 418. The words of Ulpian, praetor ... factum erit, give us a part of the text of the first chapter of the statute: he has taken it from a source that has already converted quaerito to uti quaerat and has himself added a further cauetur ut at the beginning of his citation; he has probably also added is before praetor, but omitted hac in ex hac lege and eis in cum eis iudieibus (the beginning of the clause is authenticated by Cicero, Clu. 148, cited under Ch. 5); our manuscript tradition has probably omitted -ue after propius. For the perfects fuit, occidit, factum est, see Ferrary, 424 n. 34 (misplaced in typesetting); eius quod ... factum est erit is also preferable to eius quod factum sit. (The echoes in Cicero suggest that the original wording was cum telo fuerit, rather than cum telo ambulauerit; and the correct Republican formulation is quaestio inter sicarios.) Marcian gives part of the same text: (1) in a different order; (2) with hominis oeeidendi rather than hominis necandi - clearly rightly; (3) with incendium rather than id. In this last case, it is likely that the text of Marcian had been corrupted before the time of Justinian. Nevertheless, there is no reason to regard furtiue faciendi as interpolated in Sources (e) and (f). There are further echoes of the clause in Pauli Sent. V, 23; Dig. XLVIII, 19, 16, 8 (Claudius Saturninus); CJIX, 16, 6 (Diocletian and Maximian); Justinian, Inst. IV, 8, 15. Ch. 5 The words underlined in Sources (a) - (d) probably reproduce the words of the chapter reasonably faithfully; for the text printed see Ferrary, 424-6.

752

ROMAN STATUTES

Ch. 6 For the existence of a separate Ch. 6, see Ferrary, 426 n. 43. For the list of magistrates, we follow the argument of Ferrary, 427-8, although the Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae, Law 27, 1. 23, is probably not as he argues. For the rest of Ch. 6, see Ferrary, 428-32; and note the likelihood that the words innocens and circumueniretur probably appeared in clauses not now preserved. (With Ferrary, 432-4, we reject the view that the words mortisue causam praestiterit (in Pauli Seni. V, 23, 1) appeared in the text of the statute.) TEXT Ch. 1 praetor iudexue quaestionis, cui sorte obuenerit quaestio (inter) sicarios, eius quod in urbe Roma propius(ue) mille passus factum (est erit), cum (eis) iudicibus qui ei ex (hac) lege sorte obuenerint, de eius capite quaerito, qui cum telo (fuit) fuerit hominis occidendi furtiue faciendi causa, hominemue (occidit) occident, cuiusue dolo malo id factum (est) erit. Ch. 5 (praetor) iudex(ue) quaestionis (...) cum eis iudicibus qui ei (ex hac lege sorte) obuenerint, (de eius capite quaerito) qui hominis necandi causa uenenum malum fecit fecerit (uendidit) uendiderit (emit) emerit (habuit) habuerit (dedit) dederit. Ch. 6 (praetor iudexue quaestionis ...) de eius capite quaerito, qui tribunus militum legionibus quattuor primis (...) quaestor, tribunus plebis (... fuit fuerit) inue senatu sententiam dixit dixerit, qui eorum coiit coierit, conuenit conuenerit, (consensit) consenserit, (...) falsumue testimonium dolo malo (dixit) dixerit, (...) quo quis publico iudicio rei capitalis condemnaretur. TRANSLATION Ch. 1 The praetor or iudex quaestionis, to whom there shall have fallen by lot the investigation (in relation to) sicarii, in respect of that which (has or shall have) occurred in the city of Rome (or) within one mile, with (those) jurors who shall have fallen to him by lot according to this statute, is to investigate concerning the caput of the person who (has been or) shall have been armed with a weapon for the purpose of killing a man or perpetrating a theft, or (has or) shall have killed a man, or by whose wrongful deceit that (has been or) shall have been done. Ch. 5 The (praetor or) iudex quaestionis (...) with those jurors who shall have fallen to him (by lot according to this statute is to investigate concerning the caput of the person) who for the purpose of killing a man has or shall have prepared, or (has or) shall have sold, or (has

50 - LEX CORNELIA DE SICARIIS ET VENEFICIIS

753

or) shall have bought, or (has or) shall have had, or (has or) shall have administered a dangerous drug. Ch. 6 (The praetor or iudex quaestionis ...) is to investigate concerning the caput of the person who (has or shall have been) military tribune in the first four legions (...) quaestor, tribune of the plebs (...) or has or shall have spoken his opinion in the senate, whoever of them has or shall have combined, or has or shall have come together, or has or shall have agreed, (...) or (has or) shall have spoken false witness with wrongful deceit, (...) in order that anyone might be condemned on a capital charge in a iudicium publicum. COMMENTARY Ch. 1 The restriction of the provisions of Ch. 1 to 'the city of Rome or within one mile' (compare the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24,1. 20: Ulpian may have abbreviated the text here) suggested to Mommsen that the offences in question outside this limit were dealt with by municipal courts. Even leaving aside the fact that no municipium in this period had territory which extended to within a mile of the city of Rome, it is highly unlikely that municipal courts after the Social War were competent to inflict capital penalties (see Ferrary, 423-4; J.A. Crook, in id. & J.D. Cloud, in Tria Lustra (Liverpool, 1993), 169-80, 'Cicero, pro Vareno: an exposition and a riposte'; J.D. Cloud, LCM 18, 1993, 39-43, 'Municipal capital jurisdiction over Roman citizens: a chimaera?'; the Lex Osca Tabulae Bantinae, Law 13, Introduction; finally, Cicero, Mil. 30, would read very oddly if the Lex Cornelia de sicariis covered only Rome). It is better to suppose that a later chapter of the Lex Cornelia de sicariis established a parallel court for offences outside the limit, than that these were left to a private system of prosecution: we know that there were two courts inter sicarios sitting in 66 BC. It is possible that early legislation de sicariis was concerned with an essentially urban offence; and that the distinction was maintained in the Lex Cornelia because the list of offences, which Ulpian does not give us complete, was in some respects different for Rome and elsewhere. quaerito: the word is normal for the president of a court (see the Lex repetundarum, Law 1, passim), contra Mantovani, Accusa, 23 n. 63. Ch.5 uenenum malum: see on the Twelve Tables, Law 40, Tabula VIII, 1. Ch. 6 The chapter is drawn from a Lex Sempronia of C. Gracchus (see Cicero, Clu. 151). JLF

51 - LEX FABIA DE PLAGIO BIBLIOGRAPHY A. Berger, RE Supp. VII (1940), 386-94, 'Lex Fabia*; R. Lambertini, Plagium (Milan, 1980). INTRODUCTION The statute is of unknown date, but is probably of the Late Republic: it is earlier than 63 BC (Cicero, Rab.perd., 8); and Cicero would surely have mentioned it in the pro Cluentio of 66 BC, e.g., at 21 or 162, if it had existed. (The account of Rab.perd. 8 by Berger is very misleading; and Plautus, Merc. 665, does not presuppose the statute: cf. Amph. 65; and the Lex repetundarum, Law 1,1. 31.) The statute forbade claims of ownership over a Roman citizen or a freedman of a citizen and the kidnapping of the slave of another. The operation of the statute against senators was perhaps suspended in 33 BC (Dio XLIX, 43, 5). Dig. XLVIII, 15, 6, 2 (Callistratus), and Coll. XTV, 4-5, are probably fairly close to the original wording (cf. Pauli Sent. V, 6, 14); but for only one phrase do our sources claim to quote the words of the statute: the phrase is unexceptionable. See also on the Lex lulia de pecuniis repetundis, Law 55. SOURCE Dig. XLVm, 15, 3pr. (Marcian): legis Fabiae crimine suppressi mancipii bona fide possessor non tenetur, id est qui ignorabat senium alienum, et qui uoluntate domini putabat id {eum} agere. et ita {de bona fide possessore) ipsa lex scripta est; nam adicitur 'si sciens dolo malo hoc fecerit'. TEXT {—) si sciens dolo malo hoc fecerit (—) MHC

755

52 - ROGATIO SERVILIA AGRARIA BIBLIOGRAPHY J.-L. Ferrary, Ath 76 (n.s. 66), 1988, 141-64, 'Rogatio Servilia Agraria', with bibliography. INTRODUCTION The Rogatio Seruilia agraria, promulgated in December 64 BC Rullus, was never put to the vote. Our only source, apart from ad Att. II, 1 = 2 1 SB, 3, consists of the surviving speeches de Cicero. For detailed discussion, see Ferrary; references below chapter of the speech concerned.

by the tribune P. Servilius a brief mention in Cicero, lege agraria delivered by are simply to number and

SOURCES Ch. 1 iubet enim tribunum plebis qui earn legem tulerit creare Xuiros per tribus XVII, ut, quem Villi tribus fecerint, is Xuir sit. (H, 7, 16) ... iubet enim comitia Xuiris habere creandis eum qui legem tulerit. (II, 8, 20) Ch.2 'item', inquit, 'eodemque modo', capite altero, 'ut comitiis pontificis maximi'. (II, 7, 18) Ch.4 quid postea si (lex curiata) lata non erit? attendite ingenium. 'eodem iure sint quo qui optima lege'. (H, 11, 29)

'tum ei Xuiri', inquit,

(Ch. A) iubet auspicia coloniarum deducendarum causa Xuiros habere pullarios(que), 'eodem iure', inquit, 'quo habuerunt Illuni lege Sempronia'. audes etiam, Rulle, mentionem facere legis Semproniae nec te ea lex ipsa commonet tales uiros illos XXXV tribuum suffragio creatos esse? et cum tu a Ti. Gracchi aequi tate ac pudore longissime remotus sis, id quod dissimillima ratione factum sit, eodem iure putas esse oportere? (II, 12, 31) (Ch. B) datur igitur eis primum ut liceat ea uendere omnia 'de quibus uendendis senatus consulta facta sunt M. Tullio Cn. Cornelio consulibus post(ue) ea'. (II, 14, 35) (Ch. C) attendite animos ad ea quae consequuntur ... 'qui agri, quae loca aedificia'. quid est praeterea? ... ascripsit 'aliudue quid', qua breuitate rem nullam esse exceptam uidetis.

757

758

ROMAN STATUTES

quicquid igitur sit extra Italiani quod publicum populi Romani factum sit L. Sulla Q. Pompeio consulibus aut postea, id Xuiros iubet uendere. (II, 15, 38) (Ch.F) 'aurum argentum ex praeda ex manubiis ex (auro) coronario ad quoscumque peruenit neque relatum est in publicum neque in monumento consumptum', id profited apud Xuiros et ad eos referre iubet. (H, 22, 59, cf. I, 4, 12) (Ch. I) iubet agros emi. primum quaero quos agros et quibus in locis ... 'definio', inquit, 'Italiam'. satis certa regio! ... (67) age, non definis locum, quid? naturam agri? uero, inquit, 'qui arari aut coli possit'. 'qui possit arari', inquit, 'aut coli', non qui aratus aut cultus sit ... hoc tu eines ista innumerabili pecunia quod arari aut coli possit? quod solum tarn exile et macrum est, quod aratro perstringi non possit? aut quod est tarn asperum saxetum, in quo agricoiarum cultus non elaboret? 'idcirco', inquit, 'agros nominare non possum, quia tangam nullum ab inuito'. (II, 25, 66-7) Ch.40 Rulli cautio est haec: 'qui post C. Marium Cn. Papirium consules' ... (7) qui post Marium et Carbonem consules 'agri aedificia lacus stagna loca possessiones' (caelum et mare praetermisit, cetera complexus est) 'publice data adsignata uendita concessa sunt... ea omnia eo iure sint' ... 'ut quae Optimo iure priuata sunt'. (11) attendite quantas concessiones agrorum hie noster obiurgator uno uerbo facere conetur: 'quae data donata concessa uendita'. patior, audio, quid deinde? 'possessa'. hoc tribunus plebis promulgare ausus est ut, quod quisque post Marium et Carbonem consules posside(re)t, id eo iure teneret (quo) quod optimo priuatum (est)? (Ill, 2, 6 - 3, 11) (Ch. Z) quod uero totam Italiam uestris coloniis compiere uoluistis, id cuius modi esset neminemne nostrum intellecturum existimauistis? scriptum est enim: 'quae in municipia quasque in colonias Xuiri uelint deducant colonos quos uelint et iis agros adsignent quibus in locis uelint', ut cum totam Italiam militibus suis oecuparint, nobis non modo dignitatis retinendae, uerum ne libertatis quidem recuperandae spes relinquatur ... (I, 6, 17) (The following passage provides no certain indication of the original wording of this chapter of the rogatio: hi deducent colonias in eos agros quos emerint; etiamne si rei publicae non expédiât? et in quae loca praeterea uidebitur. (II, 27, 73)) TEXT Ch. 1 ... tribunu(s) plebis qui (hanc rogationem) tulerit... Ch.2 ... item eodemque modo ut comitiis pontificis maximi ...

52 - ROGATIO SERVILIA AGRARIA

759

Ch.4 ... tum ei Xuiri eodem iure sint quo qui optima lege ... (Ch. A) ... eodem iure quo habuerunt Illuiri lege Sempronia ... (Ch. B) ... de quibus uendendis senatus consulta facta sunt M. Tullio Cn. Cornelio consulibus post(ue) ea ... (Ch. C) ... qui agri, quae loca aedificia aliudue quid ... (Ch. F) aurum argentum ex praeda ex manubiis ex (auro) coronario ad quoscumque peruenit neque relatum est in publicum neque in monumento consumptum ... (Ch. I) ... qui arari aut coli poterit... Ch. 40 qui post C. Marium Cn. Papirium consules agri aedificia lacus stagna loca possessiones publice data adsignata uendita concessa sunt, (quaeque) possessa (sunt), ea omnia eo iure sint, ut quae optimo iure priuata sunt possessa ... (Ch. Z) ... quae in municipia quasque in colonias Xuiri uolent deducant colonos quos uolent et iis agros adsignent quibus in locis uolent... COMMENTARY Ch. 1 For the mode of election, see Ferrary, 146. Ch. 2 This chapter also mentioned the necessity for candidates for election to be present. Ch.3 This chapter specified that there was to be a lex curiata for the Xviri and that it was to be passed by the praetor first or, failing him, the praetor last elected, see Ferrary, 147-8. Ch.4 See on the Lex agraria, Law 2,11. 27-8. (Ch. C) The chapter must have continued with something like erit quod extra Italiam publicum populi Romani factum est L Sulla Q. Pompeio consulibus postue ea ... For the form of

760

ROMAN STATUTES

the consular dating, compare the Lex Antonia de Termessibus, Law 19, 1. 3. For the likelihood that the import of the chapter was relatively limited, see Ferrary, 153-5. (Ch. D) The rogatio continued with a chapter which required the Xviri to sell a series of named sources of revenue: uidete nunc proximo capite ... (I, 1, 2); sequitur enim caput... (II, 18, 47). The chapter seems to have ended in addition with an omniumgatherum phrase such as quibuscumque in locis (eis) uidebitur (Ferrary, 151). (Ch. E) The rogatio continued with a chapter which provided for an investigation as to whether land was private or public and the imposition of a uectigal, probably on land now declared public (Ferrary, 151-3): compare the Lex agraria, Law 2,11. 52-6. (Ch. F) The clause perhaps derives from a Lex Cornelia de pequlatu, itself based on earlier legislation: compare the Lex Tarentina, Law 15, 11. 1-6. For the significance of the clause, see Ferrary, 156 n. 67. (Ch.G) The rogatio continued with a chapter which provided that future booty, etc., except that of Cn. Pompeius, should be available to the Xviri (Ferrary, 156). (Ch. H) The rogatio continued with a chapter which provided that new revenues should be available to the Xviri (Ferrary, 156-7). (Ch. I) Compare I, 5, 14: cauet enim uir optimus ne emat ab inuito\ II, 27, 71: emi iubet, ab inuito uetat. Ch.40 Compare the Lex agraria, Law 2,11. 9-10; and see on 11. 27-8. (Ch. Z) The general provision here reproduced followed a specific provision for the colonisation of the Ager Campanus and the Ager Stellas. JLF

53 - LEX TVLLIA DE AMBITV BIBLIOGRAPHY G. Ville, IM gladiatore en Occident (Rome, 1981), 81-4. INTRODUCTION The aims of this statute, passed in 63 BC ex senatus consulto (Cicero, in Vat. 37), included preventing candidates and people who (knew they) would be candidates from giving gladiatorial shows, except under certain conditions. SOURCES (a)

Cicero, in Vat. 37: cum mea lex dilucide uetet biennio quo quis petat petiturusue sit gladiatores dare nisi ex testamento praestiruta die ...

(b)

Cicero, Sest. 133, cf. 136: acta mea sibi ait displicere. quis nescit? qui legem meam contemnat, quae dilucide uetat gladiatores biennio quo quis petierit aut petitums sit dare.

(There is also a résumé in Schol.Bob., 140 St.) RECONSTRUCTION We place first a clause quo biennio quis ... and print -ue rather than aut, in both cases regarding our text as closer to the normal style of Roman statutes than the alternatives. It is likely that petere would have had either a list of magistracies or magistratum as an object. There is no reason to suppose with Ville that the original text contained petierit petet as well as petitums erit\ rather an original petet appears in indirect speech, once as a present subjunctive, 'whoever may present his candidature', once as a perfect subjunctive, 'whoever may have presented his candidature'. It is possible that the clause nisi... is a résumé of a separate clause of the type quominus ... det, eXl.n.r. TEXT quo biennio quis (—) petet petiturusue erit, (eo biennio) gladiatores (ne) dato nisi ex testamento praestituta die.

761

762

ROMAN STATUTES

TRANSLATION In the two year period, which shall consist of the year of anyone's candidature and of that preceding that of his candidature (for —>, he is (not) to give a gladiatorial show except in execution of a will and on a date fixed beforehand. COMMENTARY Compare the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Ch. CXXXII. The biennium is probably the calendar year up to the election and the preceding calendar year: see Ville. For ambitus in general, see A. W. Lintott, JRS 80, 1990, 1-16, 'Electoral bribery in the Roman Republic'. MHC, PM

54 - LEX IVLIA AGRARIA (so-called Lex Mamilia Roscia Peducaea Alliena Fabia BIBLIOGRAPHY M.H. Crawford, Ath 11 (n.s. 67), 1989, 179-90, 'The Lex lulia Agraria*, with bibliography. INTRODUCTION For the argument that the three chapters of a statute, reported by the Gromatici as forming part of a Lex Mamilia Roscia Peducaea Alliena Fabia, in fact form part of the Lex lulia agraria of 59 BC, see Crawford. It is possible that the three chapters were originally in the reverse order. TEXT {Lex Mamilia, Roscia, Peducaea, Alliena, Fabia} K(aput) l(egis) III. Quae colonia hac lege deducta quodue municipium praefectura forum conciliabulum constitutum erit, qui ager intra fines eorum erit, qui termini in eo agro statuti erunt, quo in loco terminus non stabit, in eo loco is, cuius is ager erit, terminum restituendum curato, uti quod recte factum esse uolet; i(s)que magistratus, qui in ea colonia municipio praefectura foro conciliabulo iure dicundo praeerit, facito uti fiat. K(aput) l(egis) UH. Qui limites decumani qui hac lege deducti erunt, quaecumque fossae limitales in eo agro erunt, qui ager hac lege datus adsignatus erit, ne quis eos limites decumanosue obsaeptos neue quid immolitum neue quid ibi obsaeptum habeto neue eos arato neue eas fossas opturato neue obsaepito, quo minus suo itinere aqua ire fluere possit. si quis aduersus ea quid fecerit, (is) in res singulas, quotienscumque fecerit, HS IUI (n(ummum)) colonis municipibusue eis, in quorum agro id factum erit, dare damnas esto, (eiusque) pecuniae qui uolet petitio hac lege esto. K(aput) l(egis) V. Qui hac lege coloniam deduxerit, municipium praefecturam forum conciliabulum constituent, in eo agro, qui ager intra fines eius coloniae municipii fori conciliabuli praefecturae erit, limites decumanique ut fiant terminique statuantur curato; quosque fines ita statuent, ii fines eorum sunto, dum ne extra agrum colonicum territorium fines ducat; quique termini hac lege statuti erunt, ne quis eorum quem eicito neue loco moueto sciens dolo malo, si quis aduersus ea fecerit, is in terminos singulos, quos eiecerit locoue mouerit sciens dolo malo, HS V m(ilia) n(ummum) in publicum eorum, quorum intra fines is ager erit, (d(are)) d(amnas) esto; deque ea re curatoris, qui hac lege erit, iuris dictio reciperatorumque datio addictio esto. cum curator hac lege non

763

764

ROMAN STATUTES

erit, tum quicumque magistratus in ea colonia municipio praefectura foro conciliabulo iure dicundo praeerit, eius magistratus de ea re iuris dictio iudicisque dado addictio esto; inque earn rem is, qui hac lege iudicium dederit, testibus publice dumtaxat in res singulas h(ominibus) X denuntiandi potestatem facito, ita uti (ei) e re publica fideque sua uidebitur. et si is, unde ea pecunia petita erit, condemnatus erit, earn pecuniam ab eo deue bonis eius primo quoque die exigito; eiusque pecuniae quod receptum erit partem dimidiam ei cuius unius opera maxime is condemnatus erit (dato), partem dimidiam in publicum redigito, quo ex loco terminus aberit, si quis in eum locum terminum restituere uolet, sine fraude sua liceto facere, neue quid cui is ob earn rem hac lege (dare) damnas esto.

APPARATUS CRITICUS We do not report the readings of G, which is an apograph of P; we only occasionally report the readings of B. LCG = Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Ch. C u l l ; we tacitly make a number of trivial corrections. Peducaea, Bruns] Peducea, AP, Lachmann Alliena, Lachmann] Aliaena, A; Allena, P Fabia, A, Lachmann] Fauia, P K.L.III, Lachmann] K.ZJII, A; KL III, P Lacuna after statuti erunt, Goes stabit, A, Lachmann] extauit, P in eo loco his, AP uti que recta autum factum esse uellit, A; ut quae rectae factum esse uelit, P idque, AP uti fiat, A] ut fiat, P K.L.IIII, P, Lachmann] K.LIIII, A; Z with tail, followed without interpunct by ////, B decumani qui, P, LCG] decimani qui, A; decimanique, Lachmann deducti, AP, LCG] derecti, Lachmann in apparatus; ducti, Goes quaecumq(ue), P] quacumque, A fossae limitales, LCG] posse limites, A; fossae limites, P, Lachmann datus, P, LCG] cum datus, A; cui datus, Lachmann adsignatus, A] assignatus, P ne quis, BP, LCG, Lachmann] niquis, A decimanos non obsequi, A; decimani nee obsequi, B; decumanos ne obseptos, P; decumanosque opsaeptos, LCG; decimanosue obsaepito, Lachmann immolitum, P, LCG] in eis molitum, A, Lachmann oppositum, A, Lachmann; hos positum, B;positum, P; opsaeptum, LCG easfossas, P, Lachmann] eisfossas, A, LCG nequae qui sepito, A; ne qui qui serito, B\ neue quis saepito, P; neue opsaepito, LCG; neue qui saepito, Lachmann ire fiere, A; iurefluere, P is in res singulas, LCG] in res singulas, AP, Lachmann VIII-S-, A;#/ZZ7-,P eis aq. in quorum, A; eius in quorum, P

54 - LEX IVLIA AGRARIA

765

eiusq(ue) pecuniae, LCG] pecuniq(ue), A; pecuniaequae, B; pecuniae, P; pecuniaeque, Lachmann K.L.V, P, Lachmann] K.LV, A; K.V., B eius qui coloniae, A; eiusque coloniae, B decumanique, P] decimanoque, A; decimani quia, B; decimanique, Lachmann termini quae, A; terminatique, P quique fines, AP fines eorum sunt, A; si fines eorum sunt, P conmoueto in, A; commoueto, P SSumN,A; #XXV,P adesto, AP, corr. Turnèbe 55 X mi/, A; #ÂT-, P; corr. Mommsen, G51, 233 wr e re, A, Lachmann; ut he re, B; ut aere, P e/ cuius ... erit (dato), Bruns] ei (dato) cuius ... erit, Rudorff, Lachmann damnas esto, AP TRANSLATION Chapter III of the statute. Whatever colony shall have been founded or whatever municipium, prefecture, forum or conciliabulum shall have been constituted according to this statute, whatever land there shall be within their boundaries, whatever boundary markers shall have been set up on that land, in whatever place there shall not be a boundary marker, the person to whom that land shall belong is to see to the replacement of the boundary marker in that place, as he shall deem it proper; and (that) magistrate, who shall be in charge of jurisdiction in that colony, municipium, prefecture, forum or conciliabulum, is to see that it happen. Chapter Hü of the statute. Whatever boundaries and decumani shall have been drawn according to this statute and whatever boundary ditches there shall be on that land, which land shall have been granted or assigned according to this statute, no-one is to have those boundaries or 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 4,000 sesterces to those colonists or municipes, on whose land it shall have happened, for each offence, as often as he shall have done (this), and there is to be suit (for that) sum by anyone who shall wish according to this statute. Chapter V of the statute. Whoever shall have founded a colony or constituted a municipium, prefecture, forum or conciliabulum according to this statute, he is to see that boundaries and decumani be drawn and boundary markers be set up on that land, which shall be within the boundaries of that colony, municipium, forum, conciliabulum or prefecture; and whatever boundaries he shall have established in this way, they are to be their boundaries, provided that he do not draw boundaries outside the colonial land or the territory; and whatever boundary markers shall have been set up according to this statute, no-one is to overthrow or move from its place any of them knowingly with wrongful deceit. If anyone shall have acted contrary to these rules, he is to be condemned (to pay) for each boundary marker, which he shall have overthrown or moved from its place with

766

ROMAN STATUTES

wrongful deceit, 5,000 sesterces into the public control of those within whose boundaries that land shall be; and concerning that matter jurisdiction and appointment and confirmation of recuperatores is to belong to whoever shall be the curator according to this statute. When there shall not be a curator according to this statute, then whatever magistrate shall be in charge of jurisdiction in that colony, municipium, prefecture, forum or conciliabulurriy jurisdiction and appointment and confirmation of a judge concerning that matter is to belong to that magistrate; and in relation to that matter the person who shall have granted a trial according to this statute is to grant the power of publicly serving notice on witnesses, up to ten (men) for each matter, just as shall seem to him to be according to the public interest and his own good faith. And if the person, against whom there shall have been suit for that money, shall have been condemned, he is to collect that money from him or from his goods on the first available occasion; and (he is to give) half of that money which shall have been received to the single person, by whose agency he shall have been chiefly condemned, and he is to place half in public control. From whatever place a boundary marker shall be missing, whoever shall wish to restore a boundary marker to that place, it is to be lawful to do it without personal liability, nor is he to be condemned (to pay) anything to anyone on account of that matter according to this statute. COMMENTARY Chapter m K{aput) l(egis): see Crawford, 182. municipium ...: for constitution compare the Lex agraria, Law 2, 1. 22; Cicero, in Cat. II, 20 (Sulla); adfam. XIII, 11 = 278 SB, 3; Caesar, EC 1, 15, 2. terminum restituendum curato: compare the Gracchan cippus from Fanum, ILLRP AIA. Chapter IUI This chapter recurs with slight differences as the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Ch. CIIH. Contra Hinrichs, Die Geschichte der gromatischen Institutionen (Wiesbaden, 1974), 177 n. 35, it has nothing to do with the actio aquae pluuiae arcendae, which is a private law action. For the action for the benefit of the populus, see the General Introduction, Ch. XIV; note that it appears only to be available in colonies and municipia, in contrast to the procedures of Ch. V, but this may be the result of a slip in drafting or an error in transmission. Chapter V limites decumanique: this is a case where elements in a second list only apply in part and as appropriate to elements in the first list (see the General Introduction, Ch. XII). There is no reason to suppose that municipia had decumani, curator, see Crawford, 184. reciperatorumque datio addictio: P. Birks, The Cambridge Law Journal Al, 1, 1988, 36-60, 'New light on the Roman legal system: the appointment of judges', observes that addictio is not elsewhere used of recuperatores, who are normally simply dati, 'appointed' (the word has overtones of 'imposing'): it may be that iudicis has dropped out

54 - LEX IVLIA AGRARIA

767

(the text was already suspected by Brunt, Fall, 231 n. 109), just as it may be that recuperatorum has dropped out below. For recuperatores, see in general on the Lex agraria, Law 2, 11. 29-31; the provisions for witnesses here probably imply that a recuperatorial trial was normally to be expected, though it is not prescribed, if our suspicions about the text are justified. testibus ... X: see on the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Ch. XCV; for the limit here, compare Valerius Probus, §5, 8. ab eo deue bonis eius: compare the Lex repetundarum, Law 1,11. 56-8. partem dimidiam ... dato: compare the Lex de prouinciis praetoriis, Law 12, Cnidos Copy, Col. V, 11. 42-6; and for the formula cuius ... opera, the Tarentum Fragment, Law 8,11. 2-3. MHC

55 - LEX IVLIA DE PECVNIIS REPETVNDIS BIBLIOGRAPHY F. Serrao, Studi Pietro de Francisci II (Milan, 1954), 471-511 = Classi, partiti e legge nella repubblica romana (Pisa, [1974]), 231-75, 'Appunti sui "patroni" e sulla legittimazione attiva all'accusa nei processi "repetundarum"'; id., Studi Romani 2, 1954, 196-200, 'I "iudicia repetundarum" (Rassegna)' = Classi, partiti e legge, 277-85; M. David & H.L.W. Nelson, Tijdschrift 23, 1955, 75-82, 'Das neue Leidener PaulusFragment'; G.G. Archi, in M. David et al., Pauli Sententiarum Fragmentum Leidense (Studia Gaiana IV, Leiden, 1956), 79-111 = Scritti di diritto romano III (Milan, 1981), 1451-85, 'I nuovi frammenti e il diritto criminale romano'; F. Serrao, Il frammento leidense di Paolo (Milan, 1956); E. Fallu, REL 48, 1970, 180-204, 'La première lettre de Cicéron à Quintus et la Lex Julia de repetundis\ at 196-204; C. Venturini, Studi sul 'crimen repetundarum' nell'età repubblicana (Milan, 1979), 463-504, 518-21; A.W. Lintott, ZSS 98, 1981, 162-212, 'The leges de repetundis and associate measures under the Republic', at 202-7; C. Venturini, Studi A. Biscardi VI (Milan, 1987), 133-57, 'Concussione e corruzione'. INTRODUCTION This complex piece of legislation ran to at least 101 chapters (see the Text below); it is characterised by Cicero with the words sicuti multa sunt seuerius scripta quam in antiquis legibus et sanctius (Rab.Post. 8). It is, however, clear from Rab.Posl 8-19, taken as a whole, that liability for extortion was not extended to non-magistrates and non-senators, although the view that it should be so extended was expressed by some senators and the trial of C. Rabirius Postumus was in effect an attempt to achieve this by the use of the rule in Ch. C below. It is also by analogy likely that liability for taking money contrary to the rule in Ch. A below was not extended to non-magistrates and non-senators. It follows that Dig. XLVIII, 11, lpr.-l (Marcian), in any case a résumé of the content of the statute and not a quotation, reflects a later extension of the statute in claiming that the members of the staff of a magistrate were liable; so also XLVIII, 11, 4 (Venuleius Saturninus), 5 (Macer) and 9 (Papinian). A similar doubt arises as to how far the lists of offences in XLVIII, 11, 6 (Venuleius Saturninus) and 7 (Macer) are the result of a similar process. On the other hand, the Ciceronian evidence makes it clear that our statute included norms of conduct which went far beyond the matter of pecuniae repetundae: for a list of these items, see Venturini, Studi, 472-3; 482-504, and Lintott, I.e., with only partly overlapping citations of evidence; for rendering of accounts lege Mia, add E. Fallu, ANRW I, 3 (1973), 209-38, 'Les rationes du proconsul Cicéron'. There may have been precedents for such norms of conduct in the lex of Cicero, ad Q.fr. I, 1 = 1 SB, 26; and the plebiscite of Dig. I, 18, 18 (Modestinus).

769

770

ROMAN STATUTES

We now know that clauses of the Lex Iulia de pecuniis repetundis had figured in earlier legislation on different matters: thus the rule about a governor not leaving his province figured already in a Lex Porcia and in the Lex de prouinciis praetoriis, Law 12, Cnidos Copy, Col. Ill, 11. 4-6, as well as in the Lex Cornelia de maiestate (Cicero, in Pis. 50). And certain rules in the Lex Iulia de pecuniis repetundis, relating to norms of conduct towards allies, probably derived from the same Lex Porcia (Cicero, ad An. V, 16 = 109 SB, 3; see on the Lex Antonia de Termessibus, Law 19, Col. II, 11. 6-17). In these circumstances, it is unreasonable to deny the possible influence of the text of the Lex Cornelia de maiestate on the text of the Lex Iulia de pecuniis repetundis. (Venturini, Studi, 473-82, also misreads Cicero, in Pis. 50; and, in discussing Caesar, BG I, 40, 12, and the case of A. Gabinius, takes insufficient account of the opportunistic nature of criminal prosecutions in Rome.) The Lex Iulia then, in attempting to define what it wished to forbid, borrowed definitions of conduct from earlier statutes. A further example is that of the Lex Fabia de plagio, Law 51: see Pauli Sent. V, 28, 4. But it is to go too far to claim that the Lex Iulia specifically included the proscription of plagium, because senators had been getting away with it despite the Lex Fabia (contra Archi, 108-9 = 1481-2; the account at 99 = 1472 is muddled; Lintott, 205 n. 162, does not explain why he rejects a clause deriving from the Lex Fabia de plagio in the Lex Iulia de pecuniis repetundis.) A rule of the Lex Iulia in Dig. I, 16, 10, 1 (Ulpian), and a provision of the Lex de prouinciis praetoriis, Law 12, Column IV, 11. 31-42 = Block C, 11. 1-6, display in different forms a concern for continuity that may have been present in earlier legislation. And the rule cited in Dig. L, 5, 3, and Pauli Sent. V, 28, 3, derives ultimately from the Lex Claudia perhaps of 218 BC. The rule concerning public contracts in Dig. XLVIII, 11, 8, 1 (Paul) no doubt also originated outside legislation on extortion. The clause excluding those expelled from the senate from acting as jurors or witnesses (Dig. I, 9, 2 (Marcellus), of course recalls the Lex repetundarum, Law 1,11. 9-11. It has been argued that the Lex Iulia de pecuniis repetundis 'may have incorporated heavier than pecuniary penalties when the offences proved would also have been indictable under, e.g., the Sullan law de maiestate' (Brunt, Fall, 220 n. 71, citing A.N. Sherwin White, PBSR 17, 1949, 5-25, 'Poena legis repetundarum', at 12-25); this could in theory be a mechanism by which offences primarily dealt with by one statute, in this case the Lex Cornelia de maiestate, were also mentioned by another. But it is puzzling how such penalties might have been assessed for offences if there was no injured party: see A.N. Sherwin White, I.e.; 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'. Note further that it is improbable that the Caesarian substitution of aquae et ignis interdictio for the death penalty in cases of uis and maiestas formed an otherwise unknown provision of the Lex Julia de pecuniis repetundis, rather than being part of other - and later - Caesarian legislation (see, against Kunkel, J.D. Cloud, Ath 76 (n.s. 66), 1988, 579-95, "Lex Iulia de vi: Part I \ at 579-82, discussing other possibilities also). For the title of the statute, see Cicero, Sest. 135; in Vat. 29. It is reasonable to suppose that fragments of four clauses survive, though Dig. XLVIII, 11, 7pr. (Macer), is probably close to the original wording. For possible epigraphic fragments, see the Rome A and Guardia Vomano Fragments, Laws 20-1.

55 - LEX IVLIA DE PECVNIIS REPETVNDIS

771

SOURCES (Ch. A) lege Iulia repetundarum tenetur, qui, cum aliquam potestatem haberet, pecuniam ob iudicandum uel non iudicandum decernendumue acceperit. (Dig. XL VITI, 11,3 (Macer), cf. XLVIII, 11, 6, 2 (Venuleius Saturninus)) (Ch. B) lege repetundarum te[netur q]uicumque in curia uel concililo] auctor fueri[t h]onoribus praesidi comitibusque eius decernen[d]is decretumue su[per] ea re fecerit faciendumue curauerit. (Codex Leidensis = M. David et al., Pauli Sententiarum Fragmentum Leidense (Studia Gaiana IV, Leiden, 1956) = Pauli Sent. V, 28, 2) (Ch. C) iubet lex Iulia persequi ab iis ad quos ea pecunia quam is ceperit qui damnatus sit peruenerit. (Cicero, Rab.Post. 8, cf. 37) Ch. 101 postquam (Laterensis, who had presided over the court) discessit et pro absoluto Seruilius haberi coeptus legisque unum et centesimum caput legit, in quo ita erat: 4 quod eorum iudicum maior pars iudicarit id ius ratumque esto' ... ([Cicero], ad fam. Vni, 8 = 84 SB, 3) RECONSTRUCTION (Ch. A) We print that part of the clause which is authenticated by its occurrence in the proposal of M. Drusus in 91 BC to extend the legislation of C. Gracchus against judicial conspiracy: potentissimo et nobilissimo tribuno pi, M. Druso, nouam in equestrem ordinem quaestionem ferenti, si quis ob rem iudicandam (iudicatam, MSS) pecuniam cepisset, aperte équités Romani restiterunt (Cicero, Rab.Post. 16); compare the whole of Cicero, Clu. 150-60, for a similar proposal in 66 BC to extend the similar legislation of L. Sulla; Cicero, ad Att. I, 17 = 17 SB, 8; II, 1 = 21 SB, 8, for a similar proposal of M. Cato in 61-60 BC; and in general Cicero, / in Verr.y 38-9 and passim. These texts also of course reveal the origin of the clause outside legislation on extortion. (Ch. B) The punishment in a Republican statute of any person who attempted to corrupt a Roman magistrate, as opposed to the Roman magistrate, appears unparalleled: see Archi, 106-7 = 1480 (unknown, along with Serrao, to J. Niçois, Chiron 9, 1979, 243-60, 'Zur Verleihung öffentlicher Ehrungen in der römischen Welt', at 246-7). In its original form, the clause must have related to a Roman magistrate or senator: improper attempts by Romans to secure honours for themselves or their predecessors are widely attested (compare also the Lex de prouinciis praetoriis, Law 12, Delphi Copy, Block C, 1. 25). So in curia uel concilio has replaced something that made this clear. The word praesidi will have replaced one of the normal Republican formulae; for comitibus compare Cicero, Rab.Post. 13.

772

ROMAN STATUTES

A text too hypothetical to print might be: ... quicumque {—) auctor fuerit honoribus {—) comitibusque eius decemendis decretumue super ea re fecerit faciendumue curauerit (V, 28, 3 - 4 , preserve elements of Republican language: see Archi, 107-8 = 1480-1, for V, 28, 3; but the sections are clearly résumés, not quotations. The other four sections are even more distant from any conceivable original text.) (Ch. C) We print that part of the clause which is authenticated by the comparative material (see the Commentary), replacing damnatus with condemnatus (see on the Lex Iulia de ui, Law 62, Ch. 88). Ch. 101 See the Commentary. TEXT (Ch. A) ... qui (—) pecuniam ob iudicandum ceperit... (Ch. C) ... ab eis ad quos ea pecunia, quam is ceperit qui (condemnatus) sit, peruenerit... Ch. 101 ... quod eorum iudicum maior pars iudicarit, id ius ratumque esto ... COMMENTARY (Ch. A) The roots of the clause lie in the quaestio of 141 BC, followed by the Lex Sempronia ne quis iudicio circumueniatur, and the Lex Cornelia de sicariis, Law 50. But our clause will have had a somewhat different target from that of the Lex Sempronia or the Lex Cornelia, which was the capital condemnation of an innocent person as a result of a pecuniary consideration: see David, Patronat, 2 4 8 - 5 1 . (Ch. B) -que = -ue. (Ch. C) For the comparable clause in the Lex Seruilia (Glauciae) repetundarum, see the Tarentum Fragment, Law 8, Introduction. For the subjunctive of sit, compare the Lex repetundarum, Law 1,1. 13. Ch. 101 See [Cicero], adfanu VIII, 8 = 84 SB, 2 - 3 , Caelius to Cicero, for details of the procedure prescribed by this clause. The clause relates to the prosecution of someone alleged to be a person to whom ea pecunia peruenerit; but there is no reason to suppose that the corresponding clause relating to the substantive offence was different. MHC

56 - LEX CLODIA BIBLIOGRAPHY Ph. Moreau, Ath 75 (n.s. 65), 1987, 465-92, 'La Lex Clodia sur le bannissement de Cicéron', with bibliography. INTRODUCTION The Lex Clodia is a plebiscite whose complete title is not attested, presented by P. Clodius Pulcher and voted towards 24 April 58 BC, after the original rogatio had been modified. In his later discussions of it, Cicero cites the text of the rogatio rather than the text of the lex. It contained a reference to the charges against Cicero, who was mentioned by name: the execution of the accomplices of Catiline and the falsification of a SC; and it transformed his voluntary exile into banishment to more than 500 miles from Italy and authorised the execution of Cicero and of anyone who sheltered him if this condition was broken. The statute also authorised the confiscation of the property of Cicero, regulated its sale at auction, which was entrusted to Clodius, provided for the destruction of his house on the Palatine and authorised Clodius to build a monument on the spot and inscribe it with his name. A further clause forbade the preparation of a SC or a statute recalling Cicero from exile (Cicero, ad An. Ill, 15 = 60 SB, 6; post redin sen. 8). The normal sanctio stood at the end, see dorn. 106; the General Introduction, Ch. XIV. SOURCES (a)

Cicero, dorn. 47: at quid tulit legum scriptor peritus et callidus? 'uelitis iubeatis ut M. Tullio aqua et igni interdicami ? crudele, nefarium, ne in sceleratissimo quidem ciui sine iudicio ferundum! non tulit:'ut interdicatur'. quid ergo? 'ut interdictum sit'.

(b) Cicero, dorn. 50: quid si iis uerbis scripta est ista proscriptio, ut se ipsa dissoluat? est enim: 'quod M. Tullius falsum senatus consultum rettulerit' ... RECONSTRUCTION Cicero cites with slight adaptation two phrases of the rogatio; the citation in in Pis. 72, uelitis iubeatis ut quod M. Cicero uindicarit (—), has been more radically altered. The definitive text of the statute contained in its prescript (see the General Introduction, Ch. XI) the name of the first voter, Fidulius (dorn. 79-80).

773

774

ROMAN STATUTES TEXT

uelitis iubeatis ut M. Tullio aqua et igni interdictum sit (—) (—) quod M. Tullius falsum senatus consultum rettulerit (—) TRANSLATION (I ask) whether it be your wish, whether it be your order, that M. Tullius has been interdicted from water and fire (—) (—) whereas M. Tullius has entered a forged decree of the senate (—) COMMENTARY For uelitis iubeatis see the General Introduction, Ch. VII; for interdiction from water and fire, compare the Venafro Fragment, Law 27; and for the statute as a whole, Moreau, I.e. PM

57 - ROGATIO VIII TRIBVNORVM BIBLIOGRAPHY Ph. Moreau, Ath 11 (n.s. 67), 1989, 151-78, 'La rogatio des huit tribuns de 58 av.J.-C. et les clauses de sanctio réglementant l'abrogation des lois', with bibliography. INTRODUCTION Part of the text and much of the content of this rogatio, promulgated on 29 October 58 BC as part of a series of moves to recall Cicero, but never put to the vote, are known to us from ad Att. Ill, 23 = 68 SB, 1-3, and from two brief references in post red.in sen. 4 and Sest. 69 (see also on the Lex de prouinciis praetoriis, Law 12, Delphi Copy, Block C, 1. 11). The first chapter is described only in general terms by Cicero: it prescribed his return from exile, annulling the imposition of interdiction from water and fire and restoring his citizenship and his place in the senate. This shows that the eight tribunes accepted that the imposition of interdiction had removed his citizenship, contrary to what Cicero himself sometimes suggests (Caec. 100; dorn. 78), or that they wished to cover the possibility that it had so done. In contrast to the rogatio of P. Sestius, the rogatio of the eight tribunes evidently mentioned Cicero by name; it did not, however, restore his property. SOURCE Cicero, ad Att. Ill, 23 = 68 SB, 2-3: nam ea ueterum tribunorum pl(ebis) rogatio tria capita habuit; unum de reditu meo, scriptum incaute, nihil enim restituitur praeter ciuitatem et ordinem; quod mihi pro meo casu satis est, sed quae cauenda fuerint et quo modo te non fugit. alterum caput est tralaticium, de impunitate: si quid contra alias leges eius legis ergo factum sit. tertium caput, mi Pomponi, quo Consilio et a quo sit inculcatum uide. scis enim Clodium sanxisse ut uix aut omnino non posset nee per senatum nec 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 non earn abrogari oporteat. 3 hoc cum et re uera ita sit et cum semper ita habitum obseruatumque sit, octo nostri tribuni pl(ebis) caput posuerunt hoc: 'si quid in hac rogatione scriptum est quod per leges plebisue scita' (hoc est, quod per legem Clodiam) 'promulgare, abrogare, derogare, obrogare sine fraude sua non liceat, non licuerit, quodue ei qui promulgauit, (abrogauit), derogauit, (obrogauit) ob earn rem poenae multaeue sit, e(ius) h(ac) l(ege) n(ihilum) r(ogatur)\

775

776

ROMAN STATUTES

RECONSTRUCTION The phrase, si quid contra alias leges eius legis ergo factum sit, is exposed as a résumé, not a quotation, not least by the use of contra, not aduersus (Moreau, 162-3); for the tralatician chapter in question, see the General Introduction, Ch. XIV. TEXT si quid in hac rogatione scriptum est quod per leges plebisue scita promulgare, abrogare, derogare, obrogare sine fraude sua non liceat, non licuerit, quodue ei qui promulgauit, (abrogauit), derogauit, (obrogauit) ob earn rem poenae multaeue sit, e(ius) h(ac) l(ege) n(ihilum) r(ogatur). TRANSLATION If there is anything written in this rogatio, which it may or may have been unlawful without personal liability, as far as statutes or plebiscites are concerned, to promulgate or to propose by way of abrogation, derogation or obrogation, or whatever on account of that matter may be the cause of a penalty or a fine to the person who promulgated or proposed by way of (abrogation,) derogation (or obrogation), nothing of that is proposed by this statute. COMMENTARY The purpose of the second chapter, of which Cicero provides a résumé, was to render immune the proposer of a statute once the statute had been passed; and it is this fact which renders intelligible the third chapter (see Moreau, 166, for the grammatical structure). For the eight tribunes could not hope that their proposal would pass; they therefore inserted in it a chapter stating that nothing in their proposal was illegal, in order to protect themselves (Moreau, 164-77; 178, 'Quant à la valeur générale de la clause terminale ...'). There is every reason to suppose that the quotation is authentic. abrogare, derogare, obrogare: see the General Introduction, Ch. VTII. PM

58 - LEX IVLIA DE SACERDOTIIS BIBLIOGRAPHY Ph. Moreau, Ath 76 (n.s. 66), 1988, 365-9, 'Lex Iulia de sacerdote', with bibliography. INTRODUCTION The title and one clause of the statute are preserved by Cicero. It is probably to be placed between 49 and 44 BC, but its relationship with other Caesarian legislation on the priesthoods is unknown. Both the purpose of the statute and the function within it of this clause are unknown; for the hypotheses that have been advanced, see Moreau. The wording of the clause may readily be paralleled in the epigraphic and literary sources and there is no reason to doubt its authenticity. It is possible that comitiis stood after cuiusue ratio. SOURCE Cicero, ad Brut. I, 5 = 9 SB, 3 (43 BC): existimo omnino absentium rationem sacerdotium comitiis posse haben; nam et factum antea ... est etiam in lege Iulia, quae lex est de sacerdotiis proxima, his uerbis: 'qui petet cuiusue ratio habebitur'. aperte indicat posse rationem haben non petentis. TEXT (—) qui petet cuiusue ratio habebitur (—) PM

777

59 - LEX FALCIDIA BIBLIOGRAPHY P. Stein, Ath 75 (n.s. 65), 1987, 453-57, 'Lex Falcidia', with bibliography. INTRODUCTION The Lex Falcidia is a plebiscite, passed in 40 BC by C. (or P.) Falcidi us. It was the last of a series of measures which attempted to provide an incentive for testamentary heirs to accept inheritances, by limiting the proportion of the assets that could be given to other beneficiaries in the form of legacies (for detailed discussion, see Stein). The only source for the text of the statute is Dig. XXXV, 2, lpr. (Paul, lib.sing.ad leg.Falcidiarli); for the establishment of the text printed here, see Stein. SOURCE Dig. XXXV, 2, lpr. (Paul): lex Falcidia lata est, quae primo capite liberam legandi facultatem dedit ... his uerbis: 'qui ciues Romani sunt, qui eorum post hanc legem rogatam testamentum facere uolet, ut earn pecuniam easque res quibusque dare legare uolet, ius potestasque esto, ut hac lege sequenti licebit'. secundo capite modum legatorum constituit his uerbis: 'quicumque ciuis Romanus post hanc legem rogatam testamentum faciet, is quantam cuique ciui Romano pecuniam iure publico dare legare uolet, ius potestasque esto, dum ita detur leg(etur), ne minus quam partem quartam hereditatis eo testamento heredes capiant. eis, quibus quid ita datum legatum erit, earn pecuniam sine fraude sua capere liceto, isque heres, qui earn pecuniam dare iussus damnatus erit, earn pecuniam debeto dare, quam damnatus est. RECONSTRUCTION A lacuna must be hypothesised in Ch. 1, since earn pecuniam easque res must refer to a previous mention; Mommsen proposed de sua pecunia suisque rebus. Doubt must subsist as to whether ut hac lege sequenti {capite) licebit has not replaced uti infra scriptum est.

119

780

ROMAN STATUTES

TEXT Ch. 1 qui ciues Romani (er)unt, qui eorum post hanc legem rogatam (—) testamentum facere uolet, ut earn pecuniam easque res quibusque dare legare uolet, ius potestasque esto, ut hac lege sequenti (capite) licebit. Ch.2 quicumque ciuis Romanus post hanc legem rogatam testamentum faciet, is quantam cuique ciui Romano pecuniam (quamue rem) iure publico dare legare uolet, ius potestasque esto, dum ita detur leg(etur), ne minus quam partem quartam hereditatis eo testamento heredes capiant. eis, quibus quid ita datum legatum erit, earn pecuniam (eamue rem) sine fraude sua capere liceto, isque heres, qui earn pecuniam (eamue rem) dare damnatus erit, earn pecuniam (eamue rem) debeto dare, quam (dare) damnatus e(ri)t. TRANSLATION Ch. 1 Whoever (shall be) Roman citizens, whoever of them after the (successful) proposal of this statute shall wish to make a will (—), as he shall wish to give or bequeath that money and that property to anyone, there is to be right and power, as shall be lawful according to this statute in the following (chapter). Ch.2 Whichever Roman citizen after the (successful) proposal of this statute shall make a will, however much money (and whatever property) he shall wish to give or bequeath to any Roman citizen according to the civil law, there is to be right and power, provided that it (be) given or bequeathed in such a way that the heirs receive under that will not less than one quarter of the estate. It is to be lawful for those to whom it shall have been so given or bequeathed to receive that money (or that property) without personal liability; and that heir, who shall be charged to give that money (or that property), is to be obliged to give that money (or that property) which he (shall be) charged (to give). COMMENTARY Ch. 1 For pecunia cited separately from res, compare the Lex Gabinia Calpurnia, Law 22,1. 32. Ch.2 For ius publicum as a description of the civil law in general, see, e.g., Dig. XXVIII, 1, 3 (Papinian). For the obligations of the heir in respect of legacies and for the creation of legacies per damnationem, see Gaius II, 192-208. PS

60 - LEX IVLIA DE ADVLTERIIS COERCENDIS BIBLIOGRAPHY E. Sehling, ZSS 4, 1883, 160-3, 'Der Strafsystem der lex Iulia de adulteriis'; A. Esmein, Mélanges d'histoire du droit et de critique. Droit romain (Paris, 1886), 71-169, 'Le délit d'adultère à Rome et la loi Iulia de adulteriis'; O. Lenel, Palingenesia Iuris Civilis II (Leipzig, 1889), 931-9 (Ulpian ad legem Iuliam de adulteriis); Th. Mommsen, Römisches Straf recht (Leipzig, 1899), 688-99 = Le droit pénal romain II (Paris, 1907), 414-26; B. Biondi, Scrìtti F. Mancaleoni (Studi Sassaresi 16, 1938), 63-96 = Scritti giuridici II (Milan, 1965), 47-74, 'La poena adulterii da Augusto a Giustiniano'; E. Volterra, Studi economico-giuridici dell'Università di Cagliari 17, 1928, 1-62 = Scritti giuridici I (Naples, 1991), 219-78, 'Per la storia della "accusatio adulterii iure mariti vel patris'"; B. Biondi, in Acta Divi Augusti (Rome, 1945), 112-28 (collection of sources). D. Daube, Salonica Congress of Byzantine Studies (Athens, 1955), 8-21 Collected Studies in Roman Law (Frankfurt-am-Main), 1991, 561-73, 'The accuser under the lex Julia de adulteriis'; J.A.C. Thomas, Iura 12, 1961, 65-80, 'Accusatio adulterii'; id., in Études J. Macqueron (Aix-en-Provence, 1970), 637-44, 'Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis'; D. Daube, IJ 7, 1972, 373-80 = Collected Studies in Roman Law, 1267-76, 'The lex Julia concerning adultery'; G. Rizzelli, BIDR 90, 1987, 355-88, 'Stuprum e adulterium nella cultura e nella lex Julia de adulteriis''; H. Ankum, RIDA, 3e série, 32, 1985, 153-295, 'La captiva adultera'; id., in Estudios A. D'Ors I (Pamplona, 1987), 161-97, 'La sponsa adultera'; S.Treggiari, Roman Marriage (Oxford, 1991), 278-90; T.A.J. McGinn, TAPhA 121, 1991, 335-75, 'Concubinage and the lex Iulia on adultery'; R. Lambertini, 'Dum utrumque occidat', Lex Iulia e uccisione 'in continenti' degli adulteri 'iure patris' (Bologna, 1992); C. Lorenzi, SD///57, 1991 (1993), 158-80, 'Pap. Coll. 4, 8, 1: la figlia adultera e il "ius occidendi patris'". INTRODUCTION The Lex Iulia de adulteriis coercendis is the name given by a number of juristic and other sources: Justinian, Inst. IV, 18, 4; Dig. IV, 4, 37, 1 (Tryphoninus); XLVIII, 5 (Title); XLVIII, 5, 43 (42) (Tryphoninus); Coll. IV, 2, 1 (Paul: see below); XIV, 3, 3 (Ulpian); Pauli Sent. II, 21b, 2; CJ IX, 9, 3 (Caracalla); Valerius Probus, §3, 10; Porphyrio on Horace, Odes IV, 5, 22. The statute cannot be precisely dated, but Dio implies that both the Lex Iulia de maritandis ordinibus and the Lex Iulia de adulteriis coercendis belong to the period after Augustus' return from the east in 19 BC (LIV, 16), perhaps to 18 BC. The statute was certainly in force when Horace published Odes IV in or very soon after 13 BC (see IV, 5, 21-2: nullis polluitur casta domus stupris, mos et lex maculosum edomuit nef as ...). Given its name, it cannot have been passed between 16 and 13 BC, when Augustus was away from Rome; and, in addition, the sentiments expressed by Horace in the Carmen Saeculare of 17 BC imply that the statute had been passed by then (11. 57-8). 781

ROMAN STATUTES

782

The statute is the first of which we are told that it began by dealing with earlier legislation (Coll. IV, 2, pr.-2: see the General Introduction, pp. 12-13): Paulus libro singulari de adulteriis sub titulo. (1) breuem interpretationem (legis Iuliae) (add Huschke) de adulteriis coercendis facturus per ipsa capita ire malui ordinemque legis seruare. (2) et quidem primum caput legis {Iuliae de adulteriis) prioribus legibus pluribus obrogat. The Lex Iulia forbade the commission of adulterium and stuprum (see below). Limitations were also placed on the lus necandi of the pater, and especially on that of the husband of a woman caught in adultery, both being liable to prosecution for homicide if they contravened the limitations (Coll IV, 2, 3: secundo uero capite ...). The husband was obliged to divorce his adulterous wife if he wished to avoid a prosecution for lenocinium. Divorce was also a necessary preliminary to a prosecution of an adulterous wife. Prosecution of an adulterer or an adulteress was to take place before the new quaestio de adulteriis: the husband and pater were granted an exclusive right of prosecution of the adulteress for a period of 60 dies utiles after the divorce, preference being given to the husband over the pater (for the period, compare the Lex repetundarum, Law 1,1. 24). After this, or after husband and pater had renounced their rights within the period of 60 dies utiles (Dig. XL VIO, 5, 16 (15), 5 (Pomponius and Ulpian)), prosecution was open to anyone for a further four menses utiles. If the adulteress had been successfully prosecuted, the adulterer could be prosecuted within a period of five years. The main penalty prescribed for adulterium and stuprum was probably financial (there were consequential regulations about dowries); relegation may have been introduced later. In addition, a person condemned for adulterium could no longer be a witness; and the Lex Iulia de adulteriis coercendis took further the sanctions of the Lex Iulia de maritandis ordinibus against the re-marriage of an adulteress. SOURCES Ch. 1 Dig. XLVni, 5, 13 (12) (Ulpian): haec uerba legis 'ne quis posthac stuprum adulterium facito sciens dolo malo' et ad eum, qui suasit, et ad eum, qui stuprum uel adulterium intulit, pertinent. Ch.2 Dig. XLVIII, 5, 24 (23)pr., 4 (Ulpian): quod ait lex 'in filia adulterum deprehenderit', non otiosum uidetur; uoluit enim ita demum hanc potestatem patri competere, si in ipsa turpitudine filiam de adulterio deprehendat. ... (4) quod ait lex 'in continenti filiam occidat', sic erit accipiendum, ne occiso hodie adultero reseruet et post dies filiam occidat, uel contra; debet enim prope uno ictu et uno impetu utrumque uccidere, aequali ira aduersus utrumque sumpta. Ch.5 Dig. XLVni, 5, 26 (25) (Ulpian): (pr.) capite quinto legis Iuliae ita cauetur, ut uiro adulterum in uxore sua deprehensum, quem aut nolit aut non liceat occidere, retinere horas diurnas

60 - LEX IVLIA DE ADVLTERIIS COERCENDIS

783

nocturnasque continuas non plus quam uiginti testandae eius rei causa sine fraude sua iure liceat. ... (3) sed semel remissus adulter reduci non potest. (4) quid ergo si euaserit, an reductus custodiri uiginti horas possit? et putem hie magis dicendum reductum retineri posse, testandae rei gratia. (5) quod adicitur 'testandae eius rei gratia', ad hoc pertinet, ut testes inducat testimonio futuros accusatori deprehensum reum in adulterio. Ch.7 Dig. XLVIII, 5, 16 (15), 1-2 (Ulpian): legis Iuliae de adulteriis capite septimo ita cauetur: 'ne quis inter reos referat eum, qui turn sine detrectatione rei publicae causa aberit'; neque enim aequum uisum est absentem rei publicae causa inter reos referri, dum rei publicae operatur. necessario adicitur: 'sine detrectatione'; ceterum si quis euitandi criminis (causa) id egit, ut rei publicae causa abesset, nihil illi commentum hoc proficiat. Ch.9 Dig. XLVIII, 5, 28 (27)pr.-l; cf. h.L, 28 (27), 16 (Ulpian): si postulauerit accusator, ut quaestio habeatur de senio adulterii accusato, siue uoluit ipse interesse siue noluit, iubent iudices eum seruum aestimari, et ubi aestimauerint, tantam peeuniam et alterum tantum eum, qui nomen eius serui detulerit, ei ad quem ea res pertinet dare iubebunt. (1) sed dispiciamus, cui ista poena praestanda sit, quia lex eum nominauit 'ad quem ea res pertinebit'.

(Ch. X) Dig. XLVIII, 5, 30 (29)pr. (Ülpian): mariti lenocinium lex coereuit, qui deprehensam uxorem in adulterio retinuit adulterumque dimisit ... ideirco enim lex ita locuta est 'adulterum in domo deprehensum dimiserit', quod uoluerit in ipsa turpitudine prehendentem maritum

RECONSTRUCTION Ch. 1 There is no objection to supposing that these words form the beginning of the statute. Ch.2 Although Paul, quoted in the Commentary, may well be relatively faithful to some words of the statute, such as sine fraude (sua), we have not followed the reconstruction of the clause in Bruns, but print only the words from Ulpian. Ch. 5 Where he claims to be quoting, Ulpian uses the word gratia; but it would be quite without parallel if this word had stood in the text of the statute and Ulpian has clearly been influenced by the preceding phrase. We have not followed the reconstruction of the clause in Bruns, but print only the words from Ulpian, although much of 26 (25)pr. may well be relatively faithful to some words of the statute.

784

ROMAN STATUTES

Ch.7 No other source attests the presence of this clause in the Lex Iulia de adulteriis coercendis and at the height of 'Interpolationsjagd' its authenticity was doubted. But the principle is attested at least as early as 123 BC (see the Lex repetundarum, Law 1,11. 8-9; the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24, 11. 115-17; and note the case of the orator M. Antonius, who turned back voluntarily on his journey to the quaestorship of Asia, to face a charge of incestum in 113 BC: Val.Max. Ill, 7, 9), and such a clause is likely to have stood in every criminal statute of the Republic and the Augustan period. The suspicion arises, however, that sine detrectatione has replaced nisi iudicii detrectandi ergo: compare de vir.ill. 62, 4; Dig. I V , 6 , 2 1 , 3 ( U l p i a n ) . The subjunctive of referai may be explained on the assumption that the words quoted by Ulpian formed part of a dum clause. Ch.9 For the language compare, e.g., the Este Fragment, Law 16,11. 2 - 3 . (Ch. X) The proviso perhaps falls at the end of a list; if so, it will have been introduced by siue.

TEXT Ch. 1 ne quis posthac stuprum adulterium facito sciens dolo malo ... Ch.2 ... in filia adulterum deprehenderit... ... in continenti filiam occidat... Ch.5 ... testandae eius rei causa ... Ch.7 ... (dum) ne quis inter reos referat eum, qui turn sine detrectatione rei publicae causa aberit... Ch.9 ... ad quem ea res pcrtincbit... (Ch. X) ... (siue) adulterum in domo deprehensum dimiserit...

60 - LEX IVLIA DE ADVLTERIIS COERCENDIS

785

COMMENTARY Ch. 1 The terms stuprum and adulterium were evidently not defined by the statute; they are defined by the jurists, who also comment on the usage of the statute: lex stuprum et adulterium promiscue et mTa%pT|craK(üT£pov (by something of a misuse of language) appellat. sed proprie adulterium in nupta committitur, propter partum ex altero conceptum composito nomine; stuprum uero in uirginem uiduamue committitur, quod Graeci cptiopav appellant. (Dig. XLVIII, 5, 6, 1 (Papinian)) inter stuprum et adulterium hoc interesse quidam putant, quod adulterium in nuptam, stuprum in uiduam committitur. sed lex Iulia de adulteriis hoc uerbo indifferenter utitur (uses this word without distinguishing it). (Dig. L, 16, 101 (Modesti nus)) adulterium in nupta admittitur; stuprum in uidua uel uirgine uel puero committitur. (Dig. XLVIII, 5, 35 (34), 1 (Modestinus). Justinian, Inst. IV, 18, 4, states that the Lex Iulia de adulteriis coercendis punished homosexual acts: compare Pauli Sent. H, 26, 12. But the Lex Scantinia continued in force and it is likely that the punishment of homosexual acts under the Lex Iulia is the result of juristic interpretation and not of a provision in the statute: see Ankum (1985), 154 n. 4.) The jurists cannot mean that the statute sometimes used the one term, sometimes the other: they must mean that whereas doublets in Roman legislative texts were normally similar, such as ager locus, the doublet which occurred throughout the Lex Iulia de adulteriis coercendis was made up of two offences which in their eyes were very different. (The distinction was not systematically observed outside the jurists: see, e.g., Suetonius, Gramm. 14, 1.) Augustus presumably assimilated the offences because he wished to penalise them in the same way. (Treggiari, 279, adduces no evidence for the view that the statute was loosely drafted.) Sexual relations with a married woman who was of low repute, such as a prostitute or an actress, did not constitute adulterium: see Pauli Sent. H, 26, 11; Dig. XLVIII, 5, 11 (10), 2 (Papinian), by implication; compare also Dig. XXV, 7, 1, 1-2 (Ulpian). For cases of unwitting adultery, see Dig. XLVm, 5, 12 (11), 12 (Papinian); 44 (43) (Gaius: see the Twelve Tables, Law 40, Tabula IV, 3). Ch.2 The account by Paul in the Collatio places the two quotations in context (IV, 2, 3; compare IV, 3, 1-5; IV, 12, 1-3 = Pauli Sent. II, 26, 1-2 and 4): secundo uero capite permittit patri, (si in) (om. MSS) filia sua, quam in potestate habet aut in ea, quae (eo) (om. MSS) auctore, cum in potestate esset, uiro in manum conuenerit, adulterum domi suae generiue sui deprehenderit isue (corr. Mommsen; in quern, MSS) in earn rem socerum adhibuerit, ut is pater eum adulterum sine fraude (sua) (om. MSS) occidat, ita ut filiam in continenti occidat. For the final proviso, compare Coll. IV, 2, 6 - 7 (Paul); IV, 8-9 (Papinian); Dig. XLVIII, 5, 33 (32)pr. (Macer). There has been much debate over the definition of pater natural father or paterfamilias - and over the position of the daughter in the manus of the husband (see B. Albanese, in Studi G. Musotto II (1980), 1-38 = Scritti giuridici II

786

ROMAN STATUTES

(Palermo, 1991), 1487-1522, 'Vitae necisque potestas paterna e Lex lulia de adulteriis coercendis*. Ch.5 Compare Pauli Sent. H, 26, 3. Ch. 7 The immunity of course lasted only as long as the absence rei publicae causa. (T. Vinius Rufus was apparently accused of adultery, committed while he was military tribune, only after he had returned to Rome: for this complicated story, see Plutarch, Galba 12, 1-3; Tacitus, Hist. I, 48, 4; also Dio LIX, 18, 4.) Ch.9 See the whole of Dig. XLVUI, 5, 28 (27), 1-4. (Ch. X) Compare in general terms Dig. XLVUI, 5, 2, 2 (Ulpian); 34 (33), 1 (Marcian); Coll. IV, \2,7 = Pauli Sent. 11,26, 8. ECG, ADEL, MHC

61 - LEX IVLIA IVDICIORVM PRIVATORVM BIBLIOGRAPHY M. Kaser, Das römische Zivilprozessrecht (Munich, 1966), 115-16. INTRODUCTION The Lex lulia iudiciorum priuatorum, probably of 18 or 17 BC, was one of the main props of the Augustan reform of the Roman judicial system, along with the Lex lulia iudiciorum publicorum. Its provisions are many and complex (see Kaser); but for only one phrase do our sources claim to quote the words of the statute; the phrase is unexceptionable. SOURCE Dig. V, 1,2, l(Ulpian): conuenire autem utrum inter priuatos sufficit an uero etiam ipsius praetoris consensus necessarius est? lex lulia iudiciorum ait: 'quo minus inter priuatos conueniat'; sufficit ergo priuatorum consensus. TEXT (—) quo minus inter priuatos conueniat, (eius hac lege nihilum rogatur.) COMMENTARY For agreement between priuati on a suit, see on the Este Fragment, Law 16. MHC

787

62 - LEX IVLIA DE VI BIBLIOGRAPHY J.D. Cloud, Ath 76 (n.s. 66), 1988, 579-95, 'Lex lulia de vi: Part 1'; id., Ath 11 (n.s. 67), 1989, 427-65, 'Lex lulia de vi: Part 2', with bibliography. INTRODUCTION After a Lex lulia de ui of Caesar, there was probably a single Lex lulia de ui of Augustus, rather than separate statutes for uis publica and uis priuata (Cloud (1988)). It is on balance unlikely that the statute of Augustus had already adopted this distinction; and it is obscure whether it covered any form of non-capital uis (Cloud (1989), 435-7). Our Lex lulia de ui was probably passed between 19 and 16 BC. Augustus included for the first time under the heading of uis denial of prouocatio by a magistrate (Cloud (1989), 430-5); and much of the rest of the content of the statute can be reconstructed from Dig. XLVIII, 6-7, and Pauli Sent. V, 26 (Cloud (1989), 435-55). We print only, and that with hesitation, the text which can be derived from the explicit quotation in the Collatio IX, 2, 2-3. Both the chapters concerned exclude certain persons from witnessing against the defendant. There is no reason to suppose that the statute was also concerned to exclude certain persons from witnessing/or the defendant. SOURCES (a)

Coll IX, 2pr.-3 (we ignore minor errors in the (or some) MSS): Ulpianus LIBRO Vili (Villi, Codex Berolinensis, om. Vercellensis, Vindobonensis: see Cloud (1989), 457 n. 86) de officio proconsulis (sub titulo) ad legem Iuliam de ui publica et priuata. (1) eadem lege quibusdam testimonium omnino, quibusdam interdicitur inuitis capite octogesimo et septimo et capite octogesimo octauo. (2) (capite octogesimo octauo) (om. MSS) in haec uerba - his (uero) (corr. Lachmann, uerbis, MSS) hominibus hac lege in reum testimonium dicere ne liceto: 'qui se ab eo parenteue eius libertoue cuius eorum (libertaue) (libertus, MSS) (liberauerit) (libertauerit, MSS), quiue impubes erit, quiue (iudicio publico damnatus erit, qui) (om. MSS: see Source (b)) eorum in integrum restitutus non est, quiue in uinculis custodiaque publica erit, quiue depugnandi causa auctoratus erit, quiue ad bestias (ut) (om. MSS) depugnare(t) (depugnare, MSS) se (om. Codices Berolinensis, Vindobonensis) locauit locauerit, praeterquam qui iaculandi causa ad urbem missus est erit (steterit, Codices Vercellensis, Vindobonensis), palamue corpore quaestum faciet fecerit, quiue ob testimonium dicendum pecuniam accepisse iudicatus erit ne (neue, Codex Berolinensis, neque, Vercellensis, Vindobonensis) quis eorum hac lege in reum testimonium dicat\ (3) capite octogesimo septimo - hi (Codex Vindobonensis, his, Berolinensis; octoginta septimonium, Vercellensis) homines inuiti in reum testimonium nee

789

ROMAN STATUTES

790

dicunt: 'qui sobrinus est ei reo propioreue cognatione coniunctus, quiue socer gener uitricus priuignusque eius erit' et reliqua. (b) Dig. XXII, 5, 3, 5 (Callistratus): lege Iulia de ui cauetur, ne hac lege in reum testimonium dicere liceret, qui se ab eo parenteue eius liberauerit, quiue impubères erunt, quique iudicio publico damnatus erit qui eorum in integrum restitutus non erit, quiue in uinculis custodiaue publica erit, quiue ad bestias ut depugnaret se locauerit, quaeue palam quaestum faciet feceritue, quiue ob testimonium dicendum uel non dicendum pecuniam accepisse iudicatus uel conuictus erit. RECONSTRUCTION In the Collatio, Ch. 88 is sandwiched between 'his (uero) hominibus hac lege in reum testimonium dicere ne liceto' and 'ne quis eorum hac lege in reum testimonium dicat', Ch. 87 between 'hi homines inuiti in reum testimonium nee dicunt' and 'et reliqua'. It is normal for Roman statutes to be drafted with a long relative clause followed by the main verb: we think that 'his (uero) ... ne liceto' and 'hi homines ... nee dicunt' are both introductory remarks of Ulpian, but that 'ne quis eorum ... dicat' are the words of the statute, with dicito converted to dicat in an unsuccessful attempt to create a grammatically coherent sentence; et reliqua will then be all that is left of a similar phrase of Ch. 87. It follows that we do not think that anything is to be gained by following Lachmann and emending nee dicunt to ne dicunto. Ch. 87 priuignusue is a probable correction. Ch. 88 With minor corrections, qui se ... liberauerit seems unexceptionable. For impubes, see Cloud (1989), 459. For condemnatus, rather than damnatus, see Cloud (1989), 460. Ulpian has restitutus non est, Callistratus has restitutus non erit; non est erit would sound horrid and we simply adopt the text of Callistratus. For custodiaque, see Cloud (1989), 459-60. The Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24,1. 113, has auctoratus est erit fuit fuerit; we suspect that the elimination of three of the four verbs is a result of improved drafting in the Augustan period. The arguments advanced by Cloud (1989), 459, suggest that the best course is to print simply locauerit: faciet fecerit is obviously an intelligible formulation in the next phrase but one; if we print locauerit alone, the remaining phrases' future or future perfect emerge as perfectly coherent. Cloud (1989), 461-2, suspects praeterquam qui... missus est erit as an interpolation, on grounds of form and content: praeterquam qui is anomalous in a Republican or Augustan statute (see the Index, s.v., and the Lex Flavia, Ch. 91,1. 8); the exception may be the result of a process of juristic interpretation now unknown or of the erroneous transfer of a version of Dig. XLVIII, 6, lOpr. (Ulpian), exceptus est... conceditur. The Tabula Heracleensis, 11. 122-3, has queiue corpore quaestum fecit fecerit, but is at that point only concerned with men; our statute must have wished to exclude male and

62 - LEX IVLIA DE VI

791

female prostitutes and the quaeue of Callistratus cannot be correct. One could write quiue quaeue\ but the palamue of Ulpian has attractions, since the understood relative would be taken by a Latin speaker as male or female. Both uel non dicendum and uel conuictus in Ulpian may be juristic glosses. Nor is it certain that one should write ob {falsum) testimonium dicendum (Cloud (1989), 461); for the point is that the person forbidden to bear witness is quiue ... iudicatus erit, according to the Lex Iulia de pecuniis repetundis (Law 55); and that statute will have spelled out the details. TEXT Ch. 87 ... qui sobrinus (erit) ei reo propioreue cognatione coniunctus, quiue socer gener uitricus priuignusue eius erit... Ch. 88 ... qui se ab eo parenteue eius libertoue cuius eorum libertaue liberauerit, quiue impubes erit, quiue iudicio publico (condemnatus) erit, qui eorum in integrum restitutus non erit, quiue in uinculis custodiaque publica erit, quiue depugnandi causa auctoratus erit, quiue ad bestias (ut) depugnaret se locauerit palamue corpore quaestum faciet fecerit, quiue ob testimonium dicendum pecuniam accepisse iudicatus erit, ne quis eorum hac lege in reum testimonium dic(ito)... TRANSLATION Ch. 87 ... whoever (shall be) cousin to that defendant or linked (to him) by a closer relationship, or whoever shall be father-in-law, son-in-law, step-father or step-son ... Ch. 88 ... whoever shall have freed himself from him or his parent or from the freedman or freed woman of any of them, or whoever shall be below the age of puberty, or whoever shall have been (condemned) in a iudicium publicum, whichever of them shall not have been restored to his former status, or whoever shall be in public prison or detention, or whoever shall have been hired out for the purpose of fighting as a gladiator, or whoever shall have leased himself out (in order to) fight in wild beast shows or shall or shall have openly prostituted his or her person, or whoever shall have been judged to have received money for bearing witness, none of these (is to) bear witness against the defendant under this statute ... COMMENTARY Ch.87 For the list of relatives who cannot be compelled to bear witness, compare the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Ch. XCV; Dig. XXII, 5, 4 (Paul: the Lex Iulia iudiciorum

792

ROMAN STATUTES

publicorum); and, in a different context, the Lex repetundarum, Law 1, II. IO, 20 and 22. reus = defendant: see Cloud (1989), 464 n. 94. Ch. 88 cuius eorum: the last category is the freedman of either the defendant or his parent. For se liberare, compare Cicero, diu.in Caec. 55; de or. I, 182. Compare the Lex repetundarum, Law 1,1. 33; the Lex Iulia et Papia Poppaea, Law 64, Ch. B. For in integrum restituere, see on the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24,11. 117-18. quiue ... locauerit: compare £>/g. XXXVIII, 1, 37pr. (Paul). JDC

63 - LEX QVINCTIA BIBLIOGRAPHY Th. Mommsen, Zeitschrift für geschichtliche Rechtswissenschaft 15, 3, 1850, 287-326 = GS III, 75-97, 'Römische Urkunden. I. Edict Augusts über die Wasserleitung von Venafro' {CIL X, 4842 = ILS 5743 = Bruns 77); M. Petschenig, WS 6, 1884, 249-60, 'Ueber den Codex Casinensis der Schrift "De Aquis urbis Romae", nebst einer neuen Collation desselben'; G. Gundermann, BPhW 23, 46, 1903, 1450-5 (review of C. Herschel, The Two Books on the Water Supply of the City of Rome ... (Boston, 1899)); A. Pantoni, RPAA 33, 1960-1, 155-71, 'L'editto augusteo sull'acquedotto di Venafro e una sua replica alle fonti del Volturno' (improved text) = in part AE 1962, 92; R.H. Rodgers, BICS 30, 1983, 131-6, 'Frontinus On Aqueducts: textual temptations'. INTRODUCTION Frontinus, de aquis 129, preserves the text of a statute passed by T. Quinctius Crispinus as consul in 9 BC; of the MSS, C, Cassino, s.xii, written by Peter the Deacon, is the archetype of all other surviving MSS; B and U are good copies of good copies, which sometimes preserve readings where C is damaged; in addition B 2 incorporates corrections from a different good copy of C and offers intelligent conjectures (M.D. Reeve, in Texts and Transmission, 166-70, destroying the basis on which recent editions have been constructed). It is clear that the original text of the statute has been changed both as a result of the insertion of literary turns of phrase by Frontinus, for instance in 11. 12 and 25, and as a result of the process of transmission. It is also clear that the radical re-writing to which the text has sometimes been subjected is unnecessary. We print the text of C, preserving its line-arrangement for the sake of convenience; and offer suggestions for correction. Where these are self-evident, they are neither mentioned in the Apparatus Criticus nor discussed in the Commentary; in particular, punctuation, capitalisation and word-division have been silently corrected. Corrections are cited from authors listed in the Bibliography and from F. Orsini, in A. Agustin, De legibus et senatus consultis (Rome, 1583); B. Brisson, Deformulis (Paris, 1583); J. Opsopoeus, in O. Panvinio, Reipublicae Romanae commentariorum libri très (Paris, 1588); and the editions of G. Polenus (1722); G.F. Corradino dall'Aglio (1788); A. Dederich (1841); F. Bücheier (1858); P. Grimal (1961). We make no attempt to discuss water-works, except where this is necessary to an understanding of the text: see Liebenam, Städteverwaltung, 153-8; 408-16; M. Hainzmann, Wasser für Rom. Die Wasserversorgung durch Aqädukte (Zurich, 1979); A.T. Hodge, Roman Aqueducts and Water Supply (London, 1992), with bibliography.

793

ROMAN STATUTES

794

Facsimiles of C have been published by C. Herschel (1899, 2nd ed. 1913) and M. Inguanez (1930).

TEXT OF C f.32v

4

8

12

16

20

T. Quintals Crispinus consul populum iure rogauit.populusque iure sciuit in foro pro rostris aedis diui Iulii.P.R.Iulias tribui Sergia principium fuit pro tribus.Sex.L.F.virro. Quicumque post hanc legem rogatam riuos, specus, fornices, fistulas, tubulos, castella, lacus aquarum publicarum quae ad urbem ducuntur, sciens dolo malo forauerit, ruperit, foranda, rumpendaue curauerit, peioremue fecerit, quominus eaeaquaearumue quequa in urbem Romam ire cadere fluis peruenire duei, quoue manus in urbe Roma et in iis locis que edificia urbi continentia sunt erunt in his hortis, praediis, locis, quorum ortorum, praediorum, locorum. dominis possessoribus V.F. aqua data uel adtributa est uel erit, saliad distribuatur diuidatur in castella lacus [..Jmidtatur, is populo romano centum milia dare damnas esto. et quidam quid eorum ita fecerit, id omne sarcire reficere restituere edi ficare ponere et celere demolire damnas esto sine dolo malo. aquae omnia ita ut quicumque curator aquarum est erit, si cu rator aquarum nemo erit, turn his praetor qui inter ciues et peregrinos ius dicit multam pignoribus cogito exercito, eique curatori aut, si curator non erit, tum ei pretorio eo nomine cogère De coercenda multa dicenda sunt pignoris capiendi

f.33r

24

28

32

36

ius potestasque est. Si quid eorum seruus fecerit, dominus eius HS centum milia populo det. Si quis circa riuos, specus, forni ces, fistulas, tubulos, castella, lacus aquarum publicarum que ad urbem Romam ducuntur et ducentur terminatus steterit, neque quis in eo loco post hanc legem rogatam quid obponit molit obsepit figit statuit ponit conlocat arat serit neue in eum quid immidtit praeterquam earum faciendarum reponendarum causa praeterquam quod hac lege licebit oportebit. qui aduersus ea quid fecerit et aduersus eum si rem publicam ex iussu causaque omnium rerum omnibusque esto atque uti esset esseque oportere, si is aduersus hanc legem riuum specum rupisset forassetue. quo minus in eo loco pascere, herbam fenum secare, sentes Curatores aquarum qui nunc sunt quique erunt circa fontes et fortuni et murorum et riuos et specus terminatus est, arbores, uites, uepres, sentes, ripe, ma ceria, sallicta, harundineta tollantur, excidantur, effodi antur, excodicentur, uti quod rectum factum esse uolet; eoque nomine iis pignoris capto, multa edici, pò ' o R citi questo; idque iis sine fraude sua facere licet, lus potestasque isto. quominus

63 - LEX QVINCTIA

795

40

uites arbores, que uillis edificiis maceriisue incluse sunt, macerie, quas curatorum aquarum causa cognita ne demolirentur dominis permiserunt quibus inscripta insculptaque essent ipsorum qui permisissent cura torum nomina, maneant, hac lege nichilum rogatio. quominus ex iis 44 fontibus riuis specibus fornicibus aquam sumere aurire iis, quibus cumque curatores aquarum permiserint permiserint, praeterquam rota calice machina licea, dum ne qui puteus neque foramen nouum fiat eius hac lege nichilum rogato. TEXT T. Quin(c)tius Crispinus consul populum iure rogauit populusque iure sciuit in foro pro rostris aedis Diui Iuli{i} p(r(idie)) (k(alendas)) Iulias, tribu(s) Sergia principium fuit, 4 pro tribu {s} Sex.(—) L.f. Virro (primus sciuit). Quicumque post hanc legem rogatam riuos, specus, fornices, fistulas, tubulos, castella, lacus aquarum publicarum, quae ad urbem ducuntur (ducentur), sciens dolo malo forauerit, ruperit, foranda rumpendaue curauerit, peior(a)ue 8 fecerit, quo minus eae aquae (e)arumue qu(a)e (a)qua in urbem Romam ire cadere flu(ere) peruenire du(c)i (possit), quoue m(i)nus in urbe Roma et in iis locis, qu(a) (a)edificia urbi continentia sunt erunt, in (i)is hortis, praediis, locis, quorum (h)ortorum, praediorum, locorum dominis, 12 possessoribus, u(su)f(ructuariis) aqua data {uel} adtributa est {uel} erit, salia(t), distribuatur, diuidatur, in castella, lacus [im]mi(t)tatur, is populo Romano (HS) centum milia dare damnas esto. et qui (s(ine)) d(olo) {a} m(alo) quid eorum ita fecerit, id omne sarcire reficere restituere (reda)edi16 ficare (re)ponere {e} t(oI)lere demolire damnas esto sine dolo malo; (e)aqu{a)e omnia ita ut(i —) quicumque curator aquarum est erit (aut), si curator aquarum nemo erit, turn {h}is praetor qui inter ciues et peregrinos ius dic(e)t multa{m} pignoribus cogito exerc(e)to; 20 eique curatori aut, si curator non erit, tum ei pr(a)etori{o} eo nomine coge(n)d(i) (ex)ercend(i) multa(e) dicenda(e) {sunt} pignoris capiendi ius potestasque est(o). si quid eorum seruus fecerit, dominus eius HS centum milia populo (Romano) d(are) (d(amnas)) (e(sto)). si quis circa riuos, specus, forni24 ces, fistulas, tubulos, castella, lacus aquarum publicarum qu(a)e ad urbem Romam ducuntur ducentur (—) terminatus (e)st {et} erit, ne {que} quis in eo loco post hanc legem rogatam quid obponit(o) molit(o) obs(a)epit(o) figit(o) statuit(o) ponit(o) conlocat(o) arat(o) serit(o) neue in eum quid 28 immi(t)tit(o) praeterquam earum (rerum) faciendarum reponendarum causa {praeterquam} quod hac lege licebit oportebit. qui aduersus ea quid fecerit {et} aduersus eum siremp(s) (l)ex ius (su) causaque omnium rerum omnibusque (—) esto atque uti esset esse{q}ue oportere(t), si is aduersus hanc legem riuum 32 specum rupisset forassetue. quo minus in eo loco pascere, herbam f(a)enum secare, sentes (tollere liceat quoue minus) curatores aquarum qui nunc sunt quique erunt circa fontes et forni(ces) et muro(s) et riuos et specus (qua) terminatu(m) est (erit), arbores, uites, uepres, sentes, trip(a)ef, ma-

796

ROMAN STATUTES

36

ceria(e), salicta, harundineta tollantur, excidantur, effodiantur, excodicentur (curent), uti quod rect(e) factum esse uole(n)t, (e(ius) h(ac) l(ege) n(ihilum) r(ogatur)); eoque nomine iis pignoris cap(i)o multae dic(ti)o (coerciti)o (exe)rciti(o)qu(e) esto, idque iis sine fraude sua facere licet(o), ius potestasque (e)sto. quo minus 40 uites arbores, qu(a)e uillis (a)edificiis maceriisue inclus(a)e sunt, maceri(a)e, quas curator(es) aquarum causa cognita ne demolirentur dominis permiserunt, quibus inscripta insculpta{q}ue essent ipsorum qui permisissent curatorum nomina, maneant, (eius) hac lege ni{c}hilum rogat(ur). quo minus ex iis 44 fontibus riuis specibus fornicibus aquam sumere (h)aurire iis, quibuscumque curatores aquarum permiser(u)nt permiserint, praeterquam rota calice machina licea(t), dum ne qui puteus neue foramen nouum fiat, eius hac lege ni{c}hilum rogat(ur). APPARATUS CRITICUS 1 Mommsen, in Bruns, suggests supplying de s.s. in the small lacuna at the end of the line 3 p (k(alendas)), Bücheier, adapting Corradino dall'Aglio 4 tribu(s), Brisson 6 Perhaps ad urbem (Romam), Schultz in Dederich; ducuntur {et ducentur), Schultz in Dederich: but compare 1. 24 7 peior(a)ue fecerit, Schultz in Dederich; puteumue fecerit, Rodgers (1983), unnecessarily: furthermore, the word is twinned with foramen at 1. 46 8 eae aquae (e)arumue {que} qua, Polenus 9 flu(ere), Brisson; (possit), Bücheier 10 qu{a) (a)edificia, Mommsen, in Bruns 12 Supp. Orsini 14 (HS), Bücheier; et qui clam quid, Schultz in Dederich; et qui d(olo) [a] m(alo) quid, Bücheier; et quid{am}quid, Mommsen, Str. 1020 n. 5 = DPén III, 377 n. 2; com Crook 16 ponere {e} t(ol)lere démolirai), Gundermann; excidere demolir{i), Mommsen, in Bruns, no doubt thinking of 1. 36: but we have not yet had any trees 17 (e)aqu{a}e, Mommsen, St. II, 464 n. 2 = DP IV, 155 n. 2; ita ut {recte factum esse uolet), Mommsen, in Bruns: but ita ut(i ei e re publica fideque sua uidebitur esse) is preferable; the formula may have been abbreviated and then omitted as unintelligible by a scribe 19 dic{e)t, Bücheler; multa{m}, Brisson 23 (Romano), Bücheier; d.(d.e.), anon, in Orsini 25 (e)st {et} e rit, Grimal; ne {que} quis, Schultz and Heinrich in Dederich 28-9 ... causa/quae quidem hac lege ..., Opsopoeus in apparatus 30 {et}, Heinrich in Dederich; siremp(s), Brisson 34 Corr. Polenus 35-6 malceriate), Bücheier 38 dic(ti)o, Brisson 42 insculpta{q}ue, Mommsen, in Bruns 43 (eius), Bücheier 45 rota (coclea), Rodgers (1983) 46 ne\q}u(e)puteus, Rodgers, by letter

63 - LEX QVINCTIA

797

TRANSLATION 11. 1-4 T. Quinctius Crispinus as consul lawfully proposed to the people and the people lawfully resolved, in the forum before the rostra of the temple of the deified Iulius on the day before the Kalends of July, the tribe Sergia was the first to vote, for his tribe Sex.(—) L.F. Virro (voted first). 11. 4-14 Whoever after the (successful) proposal of this statute shall knowingly with wrongful deceit have holed or fractured, or shall have seen to the holing or fracture of, the underground conduits, the covered channels, the arches, pipes, tubes, reservoirs, pools of the public aqueducts, which are (or shall be) brought to the city, or shall have damaged them, to the effect that those aqueducts or any aqueduct of them not (be able) to come to, descend to, flow to, reach, be brought to the city of Rome, or to the effect that in the city of Rome and in those places where there are or shall be buildings continuous with the city it should not rise, be distributed or be divided, or be brought into reservoirs or pools, in those gardens, properties, places, to the owners, possessors or usufructuaries of which gardens, properties, places water has been or shall have been granted or attributed, he is to be condemned to pay 100,000 (sestertii) to the Roman people. 11. 14-23 And whoever (without) wrongful deceit shall have done any of those things with such consequences, he is to be condemned to mend, repair, restore, rebuild, replace, remove, demolish wherever appropriate without wrongful deceit; and whoever is or shall be curator aquarum, just as (—, or) if there shall be no curator aquarum, then that praetor who shall have jurisdiction between citizens and foreigners, is to enforce and administer all those matters, by means of fines and pledges; and that curator, or if there shall not be a curator, then that praetor, is to have on that account right and power of enforcing and administering and pronouncing fines and seizing pledges. If a slave shall have done any of those things, his master (is to be condemned) to pay 100,000 sestertii to the (Roman) people. 11. 23-32 If there is or shall be any (—) marked out with boundary stones around the underground conduits, the covered channels, the arches, pipes, tubes, reservoirs, pools of the public aqueducts, which are or shall be brought to the city of Rome, no-one in that place after the (successful) proposal of this statute is to place any obstruction, or build, enclose, fix, put, place, locate anything, or plough or sow, nor is anyone to bring anything into it, except for the sake of doing or replacing those things (which are written down above), insofar as it shall be lawful or appropriate according to this statute. Whoever shall have done anything contrary to these rules, against him statute, law and position in all matters and for all (—) is to be exactly as it would be or it would be appropriate for it to be, if he contrary to this statute had fractured or holed an underground conduit or a covered channel channel. 11. 32-9 To the effect that (it should not be lawful) to pasture in that place, to cut grass or hay, (to remove) briars, (or to the effect that) the curatores aquarum who are now or shall be in office, around the springs and arches and walls and underground conduits and covered channels, (where) it is (or shall be) marked out with boundary stones, (should not see that) trees, vines, thorns, briars, ???, field walls, willows, reeds be removed, cut out, dug out, rooted out, as they shall deem it proper, (nothing of that is proposed by this statute); and on that account they are to have (rights of) seizure of pledges and pronouncement of fines and (enforcement) and administration and it is to be lawful for them to act thus without personal liability, and they are to have right and power. 11. 39-43 To the effect that vines and trees - which are attached to villas, buildings or field walls - or field walls - which the curatores aquarum after investigating the position

798

ROMAN STATUTES

have given permission to their owners not to demolish, on which the names of the same curatores who have given permission have been inscribed or engraved - should not remain, nothing (ofthat) is proposed by this statute. 11. 43-7 To the effect that to whomever the curatores aquarum have or shall have given permission it should not be lawful to take or draw water from those sources, underground conduits, covered channels or arches, except by water-wheel, calix or machine, provided that no new shaft or hole be made, nothing of that is proposed by this statute. COMMENTARY II. 1-4 See the General Introduction, Ch. XI; for the place of voting, see Coarelli, Foro II, 308-24. 1. 1 T. Quinctius Crispinus Sulpicianus, cos. 9 BC: see PIR III1, no. 37; R. Syme, Sb.BayerAkad.Wiss., Phil.-hist.Kl., 1974, 7, 3-34 = Roman Papers III (Oxford, 1984), 912-36, 'The crisis of 2 B C , at 20-1 = 926. 1. 4 The missing nomen is perhaps Vibidius: see Insula Sacra, 56; for primus sciuit, compare also the Lex agraria, Law 2,1. 1; the Lex Antonia, Law 19,1. 4. 1. 6 It is hard to suppose that the statute did not provide for new channels etc. in the future. 1. 7 For adjectives agreeing with one item in a list, see General Introduction, Ch. XII. I. 8

earumue quae by itself is perhaps just about possible, but inelegant.

II. 8-9 Compare the Venafrum Edict, 1. 20, ire fluere duciue; the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Ch. Cull. 1. 11 horti: compare de aquis 11. 1. 10 continentia: compare de aquis 104 and 127; and see on the Tabula Heracleensis, Law 24,11. 20 and 56. 1. 12

See Valerius Probus, §3, 17: 'V.F., usus fructus'.

1.13

For the spelling of the supplement, compare 1. 28.

1. 14 The statute is mute on how the fine is to be enforced, but presumably by an action for the benefit of ihepopulus, for which see the General Introduction, Ch. 00. et qui: perhaps a literary replacement for quique. It goes against the grain simply to expunge the letters dam without explaining them, as Mommsen; our supplement both accounts for the transmitted text and provides a perfect contrast with 11. 4-6; Biicheler's text is tautologous, since it imposes a further obligation to repair on a man described for a second time as acting dolo malo. 1. 15 ita: missing in 1. 22. {reda)edificare: compare the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Ch. LXXV, 1. 19. 1. 16 (re)ponere: compare 1. 28. See D. Daube, CQ 44, 1950, 119-20 = Collected Studies in Roman Law I (Frankfurt am Main, 1991), 355-7, 'Demolior as passive'. 1. 17 For the curator aquarum, compare de aquis 97 and passim; Suetonius, Aug. 37, 1 ; Mommsen, St. II, 1044-54 = DP V, 344-56; O. Hirschfeld, Die kaiserlichen

63 - LEX QVINCTIA

799 1

Verwaltungsbeamten (Berlin, 1905), 273-84; A. Palma, Le 'curae pubbliche (Naples, 1980), 196-220. I. 18 For the role of the praetor, compare the Venafrum Edict, 1. 65. II. 19, 21, 38 We should expect precisely parallel formulations in these three lines; the text in 1. 38 is hopeless, but it is more likely that ex- has been corrupted to co- in 1. 21 than that co- has been corrupted to ex- in 1. 19. We should read a part or cognate of cogère, exercere at all three points. An uneasy suspicion remains that exercere etc. stands for exigere etc., given the use of exigere as a technical term in a similar context in the Lex Flavia, Ch. 19; but the sense would be the same. In any case, the curator aquarum (or the peregrine praetor) is given strictly limited powers of pronouncing fines and seizing pledges, analogous to those of municipal magistrates, in order to ensure the performance of the works specified in 11. 15-16 and the control of the activities specified in 11. 32-3: note eo nomine in 11. 20 and 37; no inferences may be made on the subject of coercitio in general, for which see Mommsen, St. I, 142-3; II, 461-9 = DP I, 163-4; IV, 151-60; Str. 38 n. 1 = DPénly 41 n. 2; Kunkel, Untersuchungen, 140. 1.21

See on 1.19.

11. 23-43 The general problem of intrusion on the space round aqueducts and on aqueducts themselves had been addressed by the SC of 11 BC, de aquis 127 = Bruns, 47. These lines are over-interpreted by F.M. de Robertis, La espropriazione per pubblica utilità (Bari, 1936), 127-9. I. 25 Despite in eo loco in the following line, it cannot be excluded that ager is the missing word. The abstract noun terminatus is not likely here or in 1. 35. II. 26-8 Compare the Lex Iulia agraria, Law 54, Ch. IV; the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, Ch. Olli. I. 30 The lacuna presumably contained a characterisation of those who might be able to take action against the offender. II. 33-7 The restoration may be justified against Biicheler, who inserts faciunto ut after quique erunt: (1) the rest of the statute consists of a series of prohibitions, with or without derogations; a positive instruction would interrupt this structure; (2) it seems pretty superfluous to issue instructions to the curatores aquarum to keep the aqueducts clear of weeds. I. 34 quique erunt: one would expect quique posthac erunt. II. 34-5 Compare 1. 6. The vulgate ripae seems quite inappropriate here, since it is unlike any other element in the list and not the sort of thing that one would want removed; we suggest retae, overhanging branches (Gellius XI, 17, 1-4). 1. 37 excodicentur: compare Festus, 350 L: 'cum aut siluester (ager) excodicatur'. 1. 38 See on 1. 19. 1. 40 Compare de aquis 127, 1; maceries perhaps here means field (or garden or courtyard) wall, as in the Lex parieti faciundo (ILLRP 518, Puteoli), rather than 'footings', as in Servius, on Virgil, Aen. II, 469: maceries quae ambit domum. 1. 41 Compare the SC of 11 BC, de aquis 127 = Bruns 47, '... deque ea re iudicarent cognoscerentque curatores aquarum*; it is mistaken of E. Weiss, ZSS 45, 1925, 87-116, 'Der Rechtsschutz der römischen Wasserleitungen', to claim of the SC that 'die

800

ROMAN STATUTES

Angelegenheit wird im Kognitionsprozess erledigt': the procedure is the same as in Cicero, Brut. 85-8. I. 42 Compare 1. 45. 1. 46 Compare de aquis 129. CHW, JAC, MHC

64 - LEX IVLIA DE MARITANDIS ORDINIBVS LEX PAPIA POPPAEA BIBLIOGRAPHY P. Jörs, Ueber das Verhältnis der Lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus zur Lex Papia Poppaea (Diss. Bonn, 1882) (reprinted together with a survey of subsequent modern work, by T. Spagnuolo Vigorita, Naples, 1986); O. Lenel, Palingenesia Iuris Civilis I (Leipzig, 1889), 246-50 (Gaius), 632-3 (Marcellus), 689-91 (Mauricianus), 1125-34 (Paul), II, 335-42 (Terentius Clemens), 939-50 (Ulpian); P. Jörs, in Festschrift Theodor Mommsen (Marburg, 1893), 'Die Ehegesetze des Augustus', 28-92 (reprinted together with a survey of subsequent modern work, by T. Spagnuolo Vigorita, Naples, 1986); B. Biondi, in Acta Divi Augusti (Rome, 1945), 166-98 (collection of sources); P.A. Brunt, Italian Manpower (Oxford, 1987), 558-66. INTRODUCTION The Lex Iulia and the Lex Papia Poppaea had the purpose of prohibiting marriage between partners whose statuses were regarded as socially unequal; but also in general of penalising failure to marry and childlessness, of rewarding marriage and procreation of children. There were also clauses relating to dowries and to the exemption of certain categories from bearing witness. We cannot here enter into a discussion of the wider aspects of Augustan social policy. The rewards and penalties affected the capacity to succeed (see Jörs (1882), 28-56; A. Wallace-Hadrill, PCPhS 27, 1981, 58-80, 'Family and inheritance in the Augustan marriage laws') and the holding of office (see below); they also had fiscal implications. In the context of the statutes themselves our principal concern is with those provisions where the text is preserved. The Lex Iulia cannot be precisely dated, but Dio implies that both it and the Lex Iulia de adulteriis coercendis belong to the period after Augustus' return from the east in 19 BC (LIV, 16), perhaps to 18 BC. The SC de ludis saecularibus of 17 BC shows that the statute had by then been passed, since it provides: [ut] ... sine fraude sua spedare liceai ieis qui lege de marita[ndis ordinibus tenentur] (Bruns 46 = FIRA I, 40; compare Dio LIV, 30, 4, for a similar dispensation). As far as the title of the statute is concerned, other evidence supports what the SC de ludis saecularibus implies: Suetonius, Aug. 34, 1, includes in a list of leges one de maritandis ordinibus. On the other hand, papyri from Egypt refer to marriages contracted [secundum legem Iulia]m quae de maritandis ordinibus lat[a est liberorum procreando]rum causa (P.Ryl. IV, 612 + H.A. Sanders, TAPhA 69, 1938, 104-16, *A Latin marriage contract' = P.Mich. VII, 434 = FIRA in, pp. 41-3; cf. PSI730); and both concerns are present in Ps-Acro, on Horace, Carm.Saec. 17-20. Yet other papyri reflect only the second concern: contrast a declaration of birth ex lege A(elia) S(entia) et Papiae Poppaeae quae de fills procreandis latae sunt (P.Mich. VII, 436 (it would be unwise to

801

802

ROMAN STATUTES

infer from so ungrammatical a product that the Lex Aelia Sentia was passed de filiis procreandis: Jòrs (1882), 16, offers a way of understanding the text); cf. Dig. XXII, 3, 16 (Terentius Clemens libro tertio ad legem luliam et Papiam); O. Montevecchi, Aegyptus 28, 1948, 129-67, 'Certificati di nascita di cittadini romani'; and the General Introduction, p. 31 n. 87). It may be that the first chapter of the statute sometimes gave a name to the whole - the resulting title is not appropriate to all the provisions contained in the statute - but that at least one alternative title was also in use. Gellius, in discussing the provisions of the statute in relation to the precedence of one consul over the other, does not use any title (II, 15, 4-8): sicuti kapite vii legis luliae priori ex consulibus fasces sumendipotestasfit... (compare the Lex Flavia, Chs. B and 56). The Lex Iulia ran to at least 35 chapters (Dig. XXIII, 2, 19 (Marcian), not quoting verbatim): capite trigesimo quinto legis luliae, qui liberos quos habent in potestate iniuria prohibuerint ducere uxores uel nubere, uel qui dotem dare non uolunt ex constitutione diuorum Seueri et Antonini, per proconsules praesidesque prouinciarum coguntur in matrimonium collocare et dotare. According to Dio, the Lex Papia Poppaea was passed by two consuls of AD 9, M. Papius Mutilus and Q. Poppaeus Secundus (LVI, 10, 3); the whole account implies that the Lex Papia Poppaea, although it extended deadlines for compliance (see below), strengthened and reinforced the provisions of the Lex Iulia. Suetonius, Aug. 34, 2, after reporting the watering down of the Lex Iulia, probably both between its proposal and its passage and by means of ad hoc exemptions after its passage, likewise records that the later statute, which he does not name, was intended to close loopholes: cumque etiam immaturitate sponsarum et matrimonio rum crebra mutatione uim legis eludi sentirei, tempus sponsas habendi coartauit, diuortiis modum imposuit (compare Dio LVI, 7, 3). It was against the Lex Papia Poppaea that the protests of AD 20 were directed (Tacitus, Ann. IH, 25-8; cf. II, 51; XV, 19). Jörs (1893) remains the best account of the testimony of the poets. But we think that he goes beyond the evidence in postulating a third statute between the Lex Iulia and the Lex Papia Poppaea. On the other hand, it is not impossible that the Lex Iulia de adulteriis, Law 60, was seen as modifying the Lex Iulia dc maritandis ordinibus.

* ** The complementary nature of the two statutes meant that the jurists always commented on them together: Terentius Clemens, libri xx ad legem luliam et Papiam; Gaius, libri xv ad legem luliam et Papiam; Marcellus, libri vi ad legem luliam et Papiam; Mauricianus, libri vi ad legem luliam et Papiam; Paul, libri x ad legem luliam et Papiam; Ulpian, libri xx ad legem luliam et Papiam. It is interesting that it is only in Book 5 that Paul comments: sed et posteriores leges ad priores pertinent, nisi contrariae sint, idque multis argumentis probatur (Dig. I, 3, 28); but the suggestion of A.A. Schiller, RE Supp. VI (1935), 227-32, following C. Ferrini, that the juristic commentaries in principle dealt first with the Lex Iulia and then with the Lex Papia Poppaea, has not commanded majority support. (P.Oxy. XVII (1927), 2089 = FIRA II, pp. 315-16, probably contains a fragment of a further commentary by an unknown author on the Lex Iulia et Papia: see E. Levy, ZSS 48, 1928, 549-55 = Gesammelte Schriften (Cologne & Graz, 1963) I, 4 4 - 8 , 'Juristenfragment (zur Lex Julia et Papia)'. The fragment includes no quotations from the

64 - LEX IVLIA ET PAPIA POPPAEA

803

text of either statute. The Scholia Sinaitica ad Ulpiani libros ad Sabinum, 8 = FIRA II, p. 641, probably refer to the rule attested by Gaius II, 63, and validate it [vou,cp] iulio. The Scholia include no quotations from the text of either statute: the word tributarius seems to be post-Augustan, apart from one occurrence in a metaphorical sense in Cicero.) Despite the fact that the jurists invariably dealt with the two statutes together, there is no reason to suppose that the texts of the two statutes left any room for uncertainty as to which provision belonged to which statute. (R. Astolfi, La Lex Iulia et Papia (2nd ed., Padua, 1986), makes no attempt to separate the two statutes.) A small number of problem texts require discussion: (1) Gaius I, 145: itaque si quis filio filiaeque testamento tutorem dederit et ambo ad pubertatem peruenerint,filiusquidem desinit habere tutorem, filia uero nihilo minus in tutela permanet; tantum enim ex lege Iulia et Papia Poppaea iure liberorum a tutela liberantur feminae. Other texts suggest that the Lex Iulia introduced exemption from tutela for ingenuae, the Lex Papia Poppaea for libertae (Gaius III, 44; Tit.Ulp. 29, 3; cf. Gaius I, 194). (2) There was a category described in an oratio of Severus as qui lege Iulia et Papia excepti sunt (Frag.Vat. 158, cf. 212-15; the nature of the category is much discussed: see B. Albanese, Le persone nel diritto romano (Palermo, 1979), 477 n. 245; Astolfi, I.e., 72-8). But it is possible that the reference is to new and separate provisions of the Lex Papia Poppaea, with or without citation of the Lex Iulia (see below on the Lex Iulia, Ch. 1). Note the double reference to alterutra lege excepti in Frag.Vat. 215; also the reference to the two statutes by Ulpian: [— q]uidam tarnen iustos secundum has [l]eges putant dici (Frag. Vat. 168). (3) Tit.Ulp. 16, 2: aliquando nihil inter se capiunt, id est si contra legem Iuliam Papiamque Poppaeam contraxerint matrimonium, uerbi gratia si famosam quis uxorem duxerit, aut libertinam senator. The phrase uerbi gratia makes it clear that the text is selecting from a range of forbidden marriages. Nothing contradicts the possibility that some marriages were forbidden by one statute, some by the other; some may indeed have been forbidden by the Lex Papia Poppaea citing the Lex Iulia in the course of adding further cases (see below on the Lex Iulia, Ch. 1). (4) Pauli Sent. IV, 8, 4 = Coll. XVI, 3, 4: sui heredes ... nee interest, si adoptiui sint an naturales et secundum legem iuliam Papiamue quaesiti ... Since both statutes defined aspects of marriage, it would be perfectly natural in a context such as this to refer to both, without implying anything as to overlap or confusion between the two. We conclude that there is no reason to suppose that the Lex Papia Poppaea, as well as revising and complementing the Lex Iulia, merely repeated any of its provisions.

*** Although some provisions are attributed specifically to the one statute, some to the other, only with extreme rarity does a source explicitly note the different provisions of the Lex Iulia and the Lex Papia Poppaea (despite Jörs (1882), 10-12, it is rash to suppose that the rhetorical outburst of Tertullian, Apol. 4, 8, provides reliable information on the content of either statute: see in general T.D. Barnes, Tertullian (Oxford, 1971), 27-9): (1) Tit.Ulp. 14: feminis lex Iulia a morte uiri anni tribuit uacationem, a diuortio sex mens(ium), lex autem Papia a morte uiri biennii, a repudio anni et sex mens(ium). (2) Gaius II, 286-286a (cf. Ili): caelibes quoque, qui per legem Iuliam hereditates legataque capere prohibentur, olimfideicommissauidebantur capere posse. (286a) item orbi, qui per legem Papiam ob id, quod liberos non habent, dimidias partes hereditatum

ROMAN STATUTES

804

legatorumque perdunt, olim solida fideicommissa uidebantur capere posse, sed postea senatus consulto Pegasiano ... (3) The Lex Papia Poppaea extended the list of adfines exempted by the Lex lulia (probably from bearing witness in cases arising out of the statute): see Frag. Vat. (Ulpian), 216-19. (This and the preceding text are ignored by A. Mette-Ditman, Die Ehegesetze des Augustus (tìisioria Einzelschrift 67, Stuttgart, 1991), 162-5.) SOURCES Lex lulia Ch. 1 Dig. XXIII, 2, 44pr.: Paulus libro primo ad legem Iuliam et Papiam. lege lulia ita cauetur: 'qui senator est quiue filius neposue ex filio proneposue ex filio nato cuius eorum est erit, ne quis eorum sponsam uxoremue sciens dolo malo habeto libertinam aut earn, quae ipsa cuiusue pater materne artem ludicram facit fecerit. neue senatoris filia neptisue ex filio proneptisue ex nepote filio nato nata libertino eiue, qui ipse cuiusue pater materue artem ludicram facit fecerit, sponsa nuptaue sciens dolo malo esto neue quis eorum dolo malo sciens sponsam uxoremue earn habeto.' (Ch. A) (a) Dig. XXIV, 2, llpr.-l: Ulpianus libro tertio ad legem Iuliam et Papiam. quod ait lex, 'diuortii faciendi potestas libertae, quae nupta est patrono, ne esto', non infectum uidetur effecisse diuortium, quod iure ciuili dissoluere solet matrimonium. quare constare matrimonium dicere non possumus, cum sit separatum. {Mommsen, ad loc., suggested reading cum sit separatum, sed nee dissolutum esse in totum: this no doubt represents Ulpian*s thought, but it may be that he expressed himself elliptically, rather than that a phrase has dropped out of the text.) denique scribit Iulianus de dote hanc actionem non habere, merito igitur, quamdiu patronus eius earn uxorem suam esse uult, cum nullo alio conubium ei est. nam quia intellexit legis lator facto libertae quasi diremptum matrimonium, detraxit ei cum alio conubium. quare cuicumque nubserit, pro non nupta habebitur. Iulianus quidem amplius putat nee in concubinatu earn alterius patroni esse posse, ait lex: 'quamdiu patronus earn uxorem esse uolet'. et uelle debet uxorem esse et patronus durare; si igitur aut patronus esse aut uelle desierit, finita est legis auctoritas. (b) Dig. XXin, 2, 45pr.-5: Ulpianus libro tertio ad legem Iuliam at Papiam. in eo iure, quod dicit inuito patrono libertam, quae ei nupta est, alii nubere non posse, patronum accipimus ... et eum qui hac lege emit, ut manumittat, quia manumissa liberta emptoris habetur. ... (4) hoc caput ad nuptam tantum libertam pertinet, ad sponsam non pertinet; et ideo inuito patrono nuntium sponsa liberta si miserit, cum alio conubium habet. (5) deinde ait lex 'inuito patrono'; inuitum aeeipere debemus eum qui non consentit ad diuortium; ideirco nec a furioso diuertendo soluit se huius legis necessitate nec si ab ignorante diuorterit; rectius enim hie inuitus dicitur quam qui dissensit.

64 - LEX IVLIA ET PAPIA POPPAEA

805

(c) Dig. XXXVIII, 11, 1: Ulpianus libro quadragesimo septimo ad edictum. ... (1) ut autem haec bonorum possessio locum habeat, uxorem esse oportet mortis tempore, sed si diuortium quidem secutum sit, uerumtamen iure durât matrimonium, haec successio locum non habet, hoc autem in huiusmodi speciebus procedit. liberta ab inuito patrono diuortit; lex Iulia de maritandis ordinibus retinet istam in matrimonio, (cum) earn (prohibeat) (dum earn prohiberet, Codex Florentinus) alii nubere inuito patrono. Ch. 7 See below. (Ch. B) (a) Dig. XXXVIII, 1, 37pr. (Paul): Paulus libro secundo ad legem Iuliam at Papiam. 'qui libertinus duos pluresue a se genitos natasue in sua potestate habebit praeter eum, qui artem ludicram fecerit quiue operas suas ut cum bestiis pugnaret locauerit, ne quis eorum operas doni muneris aliudue quicquam libertatis causa patrono patronae liberisue eorum, de quibus iurauerit uel promiserit obligatusue erit, dare facere praestare debeto'. (b) Dig. L, 16, 134: Paulus libro secundo ad legem Iuliam et Papiam. 'anniculus' non statim ut natus est, sed trecentesimo sexagensimo quinto die dicitur, incipiente plane, non exacto die, quia annum ciuiliter non ad momenta temporum, sed ad dies numeramus. RECONSTRUCTION Ch. 1 By analogy, one must supplement proneposue ex (nepote)filionato (so Brenkmann, ad loc). In the second sentence, nata is to be excluded (so Mommsen, ad loc.)\ and dolo malo sciens is very implausible. We do not accept the suggestion that sponsam and sponsa are additions to the text to reflect later imperial modifications to the rule (E. Volterra, BIDR 40, 1932, 109-13 = Scritti giuridici I (Naples, 1991), 361-5, 'Ricerche intorno agli sponsali in diritto romano'): (1) Ulpian in Dig. XXQI, 1, 16, referring to an oratio imperatorum Antonini et Commodi, comments that de sponsalibus nihil locuta est, which implies that earlier legislation did so speak; (2) Ulpian in Dig. XXIII, 2, 45, 4, says hoc caput ad nuptam tantum libertam pertinet, ad sponsam non pertinet, which implies that other chapters did so pertain: (Ch. A) The evident purpose of this chapter is to prevent a slave woman gaining freedom by agreeing to marry her patron and then divorcing him (compare Dig. XXIV, 1, 60-2 (Hermogenian and Gaius); 2, 10 (Modestinus); CJ V, 5, 1 (Severus Alexander)); it forms part of a whole pattern of early Imperial legislation restricting manumission. Ulpian appears to suggest that the Lex Iulia forbade a freedwoman both to divorce and to remarry inuito patrono; but it is clear from the language he uses that he is close to the text

806

ROMAN STATUTES

when he is discussing divorce and distant from it when he is discussing remarriage. We do not believe that the Lex Iulia mentioned remarriage (compare our argument below) and reject a reconstruction such as that of Bruns, {neue) inulto patrono (alii nubere potestas esto), despite the attempt to save it by E. Volterra, in Studi S. Riccobono III (Palermo, 1936), 201-30 = Scritti giuridici I (Naples, 1991), 499-526, 'Sul divorzio della liberta'. Levy attempted to insert the phrase inuito patrono into a clause about divorce: diuortii faciendi potestas libertae, quae nupta est patrono, inuito eo, ne esto, quamdiu patronus earn uxorem esse uolet (Der Hergang der römischen Ehescheidung (Weimar, 1925), 137-44). But we do not believe that a Roman legislator could ever have drafted anything so bizarre; and we believe on balance that the phrase inuito patrono is not a straight quotation, but a résumé of quamdiu patronus earn uxorem esse uolet. For ait lex introducing a résumé, compare Dig. XXIV, 3, 64, discussed below. A further problem is that it was contrary to the principles of the Roman civil law to deny either party the freedom to divorce; and Solazzi and Bonfante (cited by Volterra) both believed that the Lex Iulia forbade remarriage, not divorce, in the chapter in question. But the consequence of such theories would be that the quotation in Source (a) would have to be regarded as a complete invention; an invention, moreover, by jurists who clearly found the notion of forbidding divorce an embarrassment. Rather, forbid divorce is precisely what the Lex Iulia did; while the jurists seized on the phrase quamdiu patronus earn uxorem esse uolet as evidence that what mattered was the attitude of the patron to the marriage of his freedwoman. Ch.7 Frag.Vat. 197-8 (Ulpian) mentions a provision similar to that attributed to Ch. 7 by Gellius II, 15, 4-8, defascibus sumendis (see above); the same problem is discusssed in Dig. XXVII, 1,18 (Ulpianus libro uicensimo ad legem Iuliam et Papiam), and reflected in I, 16, 14 (Ulpianus libro uicensimo ad legem Iuliam et Papiam); IV, 4, 2 (Ulpianus libro nono ad legem Iuliam et Papiam). The provision in question underlies the Lex Flavia, Chs. B and 56 (compare Dio LIII, 13, 2); the variation in language between these sources makes it clear that although one can be certain of some of the terms used, no reconstruction is possible. (Ch. B) The incongruity of genitos natasue makes it clear that both cannot have stood in the text: we excise natasue as an unthinking gloss. (The correction a se natos natasue of J. Cujas, Opera IV (Naples, 1758), 1039, is not necessary.) A noun is essential before the genitives doni muneris; and quicquam is likely to have replaced quid. The phrase de quibus jars slightly. On the other hand, iuratus uel promiserit go closely together and are distinguished from obligatusue erit. It is possible that the text ran qui libertinus duos pluresue a se genitos (qui anniculi erunt) in sua potestate habebit; but it is equally possible that Paul is commenting on a general rule which was applied to the provisions of the Lex Iulia. It is also important to observe that the Lex Flavia, Ch. 56, uses the phrase post nomen impositum to describe children who may be counted; and it may be that Paul is citing the term anniculus to contrast it with the terminology of the Lex Iulia.

***

64 - LEX IVLIA ET PAPIA POPPAEA

807

Dig. XXIV, 3, 64 (Ulpianus libro septimo ad legem Iuliam et Papiam), contains a discussion of the liability of a husband in respect of a slave forming part of the dowry of the wife: at three points, phrases are introduced by ut ait lex (6), adicitur in lege (7) and quod ait lex (10). The first citation is palpably a résumé; the second occurs also in Dig. XLVIII, 10, 14, 2 (Paul), but with a partially different wording; only the third has some chance of being authentic, quanta pecunia erit, tantam pecuniam dato; but the quality of the other 'quotations' does not inspire confidence. TEXT Lex Iulia Ch. 1 qui senator est (erit) quiue filius neposue ex fìlio proneposue ex (nepote) filio nato cuius eorum est erit, ne quis eorum sponsam uxoremue sciens dolo malo habeto liberti nam aut earn, quae ipsa cuiusue pater materne artem ludicram facit fecerit. neue senatoris filia neptisue ex filio proneptisue ex nepote filio nato {nata} libertino eiue, qui ipse cuiusue pater materne artem ludicram facit fecerit, sponsa nuptaue sciens dolo malo esto neue quis eorum (sciens dolo malo) sponsam uxoremue earn habeto.' (Ch. A) ... diuortii faciendi potestas libertae, quae nupta est patrono, ne esto, quam diu patronus earn uxorem esse uolet... Ch. 7 See above. (Ch. B) qui libertinus duos pluresue a se genitos {natasue} in sua potestate habebit praeter eum, qui artem ludicram fecerit (—) quiue operas suas ut cum bestiis pugnaret locauerit, ne quis eorum operas (aliquidue) doni muneris aliudue (quid) libertatis causa patrono patronae liberisue eorum, de quibus iurauerit uel promiserit obligatusue erit, dare facere praestare debeto. TRANSLATION Ch. 1 Whoever is (or shall be) a senator or whoever is or shall be a son of any of them or a grandson through a son or a great-grandson through (a grandson) born to a son, none of them, knowingly with wrongful deceit, is to have as fiancée or wife a freedwoman (or someone) who herself is or shall have been an actress or whose father or mother is or shall have been an actor or actress. No daughter of a senator or granddaughter through a son or great-granddaughter through a grandson born to a son, knowingly with wrongful deceit, is to be fiancée or wife to a freedman or someone who himself is or shall have been an actor or whose father, or mother is or shall have been an actor or actress nor is any of them to have her as fiancée or wife knowingly with wrongful deceit.

ROMAN STATUTES

808

(Ch. A) ... a freedwoman, who is married to her patron, is not to have the power of divorcing, for as long as the patron shall wish her to be his wife ... Ch. 7 See above. (Ch. B) Whatever freedman shall have in his power two or more offspring, apart from one who shall have been an actor (—) or who shall have leased out his services in order to fight in wild beast shows, none of them is to be obliged to offer or perform or provide services (or any) gift or service or anything else in return for liberty to a male or female patron or to their children, concerning which he shall have sworn or promised or shall have been placed under an obligation. COMMENTARY Ch. 1 Much of the language of the chapter is preserved in the partial résumé in Dig. XXIII, 2, 42, 1 (Modestinus libro singulari de ritu nuptiarum); compare also the SC from Larinum, analysed by Demougin, Ordre equestre, 555-64, noting that the SC does not affect only patrilineal descendants of senators. The main reason for supposing that this is the first chapter is its occurrence in the first book of Paul, libri x ad legem Iuliam et Papiam. Tit. Vip. 13, 1-2, shows that this is the principal provision of the statute: lege Iulia prohibentur uxores ducere senatores quidem liberique eorum libertinas et quae ipsae quarumue pater materne artem ludicram fecerit, item corpore quaestum facientem. (2) ceteri autem ingenui prohibentur ducere lenam et a lenone lenaue manumissam et in adulterio deprehensam et iudicio publico damnatam et quae artem ludicram fecerit... (The phrase item corpore quaestum facientem was perhaps added to §1 by juristic interpretation; in the text of the statute, the category presumably formed part of the list which underlies §2. If all men were forbidden to marry prostitutes, so a fortiori were senators. The phrase et quae artem ludicram fecerit is obviously to be excised from §2.) The principal problem arises because Celsus and Ulpian appear to imply that the Lex Papia Poppaea included the ban on senators marrying freedwomen (Dig. XXIII, 2, 23 (Celsus)): lege Papia cauctur omnibus ingenuis praeter senatores eorumque liberos libertinam uxorem habere licere. (C7V,4,28): an soluatur matrimonium, apud Ulpianum quaerebatur, quia lex Papia inter senatores et libertas stare conubia non patitur. The parallel to which J.-L. Ferrary draws attention is that of the Lex Valeria Cornelia and the Lex Valeria Aurelia (Law 37), esp. Tabula Hebana, 1. 14; in that case, it would have been quite impossible to refer to either statute separately, once the second had been

64 - LEX IVLIA ET PAPIA POPPAEA

809

passed, since the later referred to the earlier. So also, we suggest, the ban on senators was inevitably enshrined both in the Lex Iulia and in a citation of the Lex Iulia accompanied by further provisions in the Lex Papia Poppaea. It may be that the explicit permission to ingenui in general to marry freedwomen was an innovation of the Lex Papia; and that this involved a reference to the Lex Iulia. (The Lex Papia Poppaea presumably went on to provide that ingenui could not marry famosae (Tit.Ulp. 13, 2, quoted above).) (Ch. A) See above. Ch. 7 See above. (Ch. B) The compilers of the Digest will have omitted a reference to gladiators, quiue depugnandi causa auctoratus erit, preserved by one of our sources for the Lex Iulia de ui, Law 62. For dare facere praestare, compare the Lex de Gallia Cisalpina, Law 28, Col. II, 11. 31 and 39. Juristic interpretation and imperial enactment eventually decided that two children, even if they were not both alive and in potestate at the same time, earned the exemption in question within the terms of the Lex Iulia, provided that at least one of them had reached the age of five in the potestas of his father {Dig. XXXVm, 1, 37, 1-2 (Paul); CJ VI, 3, 7, 1 (Severus Alexander); compare Livy XLV, 15, 1). ECG, ADEL, MHC

65 - LEX IVNIA VELLAEA BIBLIOGRAPHY P. Stein, Alh 75 (n.s., 65), 1987, 459-64, 'Lex Junia Vellaea', with bibliography. INTRODUCTION The Lex lunia Vellaea is thought to be the last statute passed by the assemblies, for which traces of the text survive; it was probably enacted in AD 28, the proposing consuls being L. Iunius Silanus and C. Vellaeus Tutor (see Mommsen on Dig. XXVI, 2, 10, 2 (on tutela). The statute represents a stage in the process by which Roman law dealt with the particular problem of postumi in the law of testamentary succession (for details, see Stein). SOURCE Dig. XXVIII, 2, 29, 11-14 (Scaevola): nunc de lege Vellaea uideamus ... (12) ... quid enim necesse est tempus testamenti faciendi respici, cum satis sit obseruari id tempus quo nascitur? (t)ametsi ita uerba sunt: 'qui testamentum faciet, is omnis uirilis sexus, qui ei suus heres futurus erit' et cetera. (13) ... et bene uerba se habent: 'si quis ex suis heredibus suus heres esse desierit', ad omnes casus pertinentia. ... (14) uidendum, num hac posteriore parte, 'si quis ex suis heredibus suus heres esse desierit, liberi eius' et cetera, in locum suorum sui heredes succedunt, possit interpretatione induci, ut... RECONSTRUCTION The indicative of succedunt gives it away: the original may simply have had sunto; and although the phrase in locum suorum sui heredes succedunt in our view gives the content of the statute, we regard the words as a juristic résumé. TEXT (Ch. A) qui testamentum faciet, is omnis uirilis sexus, qui ei suus heres futurus erit, (—) (Ch. B) si quis ex suis heredibus suus heres esse desierit, liberi eius (—)

811

812

ROMAN STATUTES TRANSLATION

(Ch. A) Whoever shall make a will, all of the male sex, who shall be direct heirs to him, he (—) (Ch. B) If any of the direct heirs shall have ceased to be a direct heir, his children (—)

PS

INDICES

INDEX OF LATIN WORDS by Michael Crawford We do not index the repeated lines of the Lex repetundarum, Law 1,11. 79-86: apart from engraving errors, the only difference is abdicauerit in 1. 72, abdicaueritue in 1. 79. Since this is an index of Latin words in Roman statutes, we do not index the decrees of the senate which frame Laws 3 7 - 8 . In general, reference is to a line number, where appropriate within a fragment or column or chapter; the line number is omitted for some of the short texts known from literary sources or replaced by a chapter number. We do not index unidentifiable parts of words. A: 1, [51]; [53] a, ab (aa): 1, [2]; [4]; 19; 29; 58; 67; [70]; 2, [4]; 17; 17; 18; 23; [(23)]; 23; [31]; [37]; 54; 56; [61]; 63; [71]; 71; 5,7; 9c, 3; 14, II, 28; 29; 15, I, 16; II, 40; 16, 4; 17, 16; 19, I, 5; 32; II, 16; 26; 30; 20, I, [7]; 24, (17); 67; 75; 82; 121; 147; ; 154; 161; 25, XCIII, 20; 22; XCVI, 3; C, 11; CV, 22; Fr. 1, [7]; CXXIII, 1; CXXVI, 35; 28, I, 7; 8; II, 2; 5; 9; 25; 29; 30; 38; 39, 30; 31; 47, 307; 54, V, 14; 55, C; 62, 88; 64, B abalieno: 2, 11; [15]; 15; 15; 15; 16; [54]; [54]; 64; 19,1, 32; II, 27 abdico: 1, 72 abduco:l,71;71 abeo: 1, 9; 29; 29; 72; 54, V, 17; 60, 7 abiuro: 24, (113); 113 abrogo: 10, 10; 37, Todi [10]; 57; (57) absoluo (see also A): 1, [53]; [54]; 55; 56; 25, CXXIII, 1; 2; 3; 28,1, 31; 40 absum: 1, 23; 24, 116; 117; 25, XCV, 26 ac: 22, 6; 9; 16; 17; 20; 28, II, 47; 37, Heb. 15; 39, 9; 32 accedo: 37, Heb. 29 accensus: 25, LXII, 12; 23; 34 accido: 43, 1 accipio: 1, 58; 2, 84; 7, 21; 8, [22]; 14, II, 28; 29; 15, I, 13; 17; 30; 24, 148; 154; 25, XCIII, 23; CI, 1; 28,1, 8; 43; 48; 47, 307; 62, 88 accusator: 25, CU, 27; 29; 34 accuso (accusso): 24, 120; 25, CII, 28; CXXIII, 1;CXXIIII,4;5

actio: 1, 56; 75; 25, XCV, 36; CII, 34; 36; Fr. 3, 5; 6; CXXV, 27; CXXVI, 46; CXXVIII, 30; CXXIX, 37; CXXX, 50; CXXXI, 13; CXXXII, 32; 37, Todi [6]; 38, Triv. 4; 39, 38 actus: 25, LXXIX, 2 ad (at): 1, [5]; [6]; 9; 19; 29; 30; [30]; [34]; [34]; 40; 53; 59; 62; 65; 67; 71; [75]; [76]; 78; 2, 9; [16]; 17; [18]; [26]; [75]; [80]; 7, 11; 24; 8, 5; 6; 15; 14, [Tablet 7]; I, 10; 15; 19; 23; 27; 31; II, 40; 15,1, 9; 10; [18]; 37; 16, 2; 24, 1; 3; 4; 5; 7; 8; 8; 9; 10; 11; 11; 78; 150; 150; 160; 162; 25, LXUI, 3; LXIIII, 10; LXV, 21; 24; 26; LXIX, 29; 31; 34; [4]; LXX, 17; LXXII, 35; LXXIX, 1; LXXXII, 34; XCII, 9; XCIII, 24; XCV, 10; XCVI, 4; XCVII, 14; XCVIIII, 1; C, 10; 11; 12; Fr. 1, [5]; Fr. 4, 5; CXXVIII, 14; 15; 18; 25; CXXX, 39; 46; CXXXI, 52; 7; CXXXII, 18; 21; 27; CXXXIV, 40; 28, II, 19; 34, II, 3; 37, Heb. 1; 6; 13; 29; [29]; 32; 34; 61; 44; 52, F; 55, C; 60,9; 62, 88; 63, 6; 25 addico: 16, f 2 | ; 7; [18]; 17, [16]; [18] addictio:16, 15; [22]; 54, V, 9; 11 addo: 24, 160; 162; 28,1,5; 5 adduco: 25, XCVIIII, 1 adeo: 2, [16]; 17; [18]; 24; 30; 37; [37]; 93; [102]; 8, 6; 15; 19, II, 3; 24, 44; 152; 154; 25, C, 10; CV, 23; Fr. 1, [5]; 28,1, 10; 16 adeo (ateo): 25, XCV, 1 adfinitas (atfinitas): 1, [25]; 25, XCV, 19 adicio: 37, Heb. 6; 46 adigo: 25, LXII, 29; 29; LXXXI, 18; 27 adimo: 1, 28; 24,121

815

816

ROMAN STATUTES

adiudico: 2, 62; 69; 90 administra: 22, 19 adopto (atopto): 25, XCVII, 15; CXXX, 43; CXXXI, 4 adsigno, see assigno adsum (atsum): 1, 32; 39; [47]; 47; 49; [62]; 63; 63; 64; 71; 75; 25, LXIIII, 12; 15; LXIX, 30; 37; LXXV, 20; XCII, 10; 11; XCV, 34; 1; 10; 20; 24; 25; 29; 32; 35; XCVI, 10; 11; XCVII, (18); 19; XCVIII, 25; XCVIIII, 2; 4; C, 13; 14; CHI, 5; 9; CXXV, 19; CXXVI, 34; 37, Heb. 17; [61] adueho: 24, 58 aduentor (atuentor): 25, CXXVI, 31 aduersarius (aruorsarius): 1, 20; [20]; [21]; 25; 49 aduersus (aduorsum, aduorsus, atuersus): 1, [5]; 30; [74]; 2, [36]; [40]; 7, 8; 18; 25; 8, 10; 15, I, 34; 19, I, 10; 24, 18; 97; 107; 112; 124; 139; 140; 25, LXXIII, 6; 10; LXXIV, 14; LXXV, 21; XCIII, 24; XCVII, 20; CIIII, 17; Fr. 4, 2; CXXV, 23; 24; (25); CXXVI, 43; 45; CXXVIII, 27; 27; CXXIX, 35; CXXX, 46; 49; CXXXI, 7; 11; CXXXII, 30; 26,1, 7; 12; 34, I, 2; 37, Todi 5; [6]; [8]; 38, Triv. 2; 3; [6]; 39, 34; 46, 8; 54, lin, 5; V, 6; 63,29; 30; 31 adulter: 60, 2; X adulterium: 60, 1 aedes: 7, 17; 14, II, 40; 22, [3]; 24, 29; 30; 57; 25, LXXII, 30; 33; 35; 36; 37, Siar. [7]; [10]; Heb. 59; 63, 3 aedificium: 2, 6; 7; [8]; 8; 8; [8]; [8]; 9; [9]; 10; [10]; [11]; 12; 12; [13]; 19; [20]; 23; 72; [85]; 85; 85; [86]; 99; [101]; 15, I, 28; 29; 30; 32; 34; 19, I, 12; 28; II, 23; 26; 28; 24, 20; 22; 29; 29; 30; 32; 35; 35; 38; 39; 53; 53; 25, LXXV, 17; LXXVI, 26; 27; LXXXII, 30; XCVI, 5; XCVIIII, 5; 52, C; 40; 63, 10; 40 aedifico: 15, I, 40; 24, 58; 25, LXXIII, 5; LXXVII, 30 aedilis (aidilis): 1, [2]; [8]; 78; 7, [14]; 15; 15, I, 7; 14; 39; II, [1]; 24, 21; 21; 24; 24; 27; 27; 30; 32; 33; 34; 46; 50; 54; 69; 25, LXU, 15; 16; 16; 20; 37; LXXI, 20; 26; LXXIII, 9; LXXVII, 29; LXXXI, 14; XCIIII, 29; XCVIII, 29; CV, 29; CXXVI, 29; CXXVIII, 12; CXXIX, 32; CXXX, 39; CXXXI, 52; CXXXIV, 39; 46, (1) aedilitas: 25, CV, 27 aeneus (aheneus): 8, [14]; 19 aequo: 6, 3; 37, Heb. 23; 38, Ilic. [6] aequus: 46, f7t; |7f

aerarium: 1, [59]; 61; 64; [64]; 66; [66]; 68; [69]; [72]; [72]; 2, 46; 7, 24; 14,1, 1; 2; 10; 15; 19; 23; 27; 31; 24, 37; 39; 47; 48; 37, Heb. 34 aerarius: 7, [6] aes: 1, 77; 8, 4; [9]; 25, LXVI, 2; LXXXI, 25; 41, 1; 3 aestimatio (aestumatio): 1, [3]; 4; [5]; 6; 41 aestimo (aestumo): 1, [7]; [8]; 56; 58; [58]; [59]; 60; 60; 61; [61]; [63]; 63; [63]; 68 aeternus: 48 afferò: 1, 40 affinitas, see adfinitas ager: 1, [2]; [8]; 13; 16; 22; 2, 1; [1]; [1]; [2]; 2; [2]; [2]; [3]; [3]; 3; 3; [3]; [3]; [3]; [4]; [4]; 4; 4; 4; 5; [6]; [6]; [6]; 6; 6; 7; [7]; [7]; [8]; 8; 8; [8]; [8]; 9; 9; 10; [10]; [11]; [11]; [11]; [11]; 12; 12; [12]; [12]; 13; 13; 13; 13; [14]; 14; 14; 14; 14; 15; 15; 15; [15]; [16]; 16; 16; [16]; [16]; 16; [16]; 17; 17; [18]; [18]; [19]; [19]; 19; 19; [20]; [20]; 20; [21]; 21; 21; [21]; [22]; [22]; [22]; 22; 22; 22; 22; 22; 23; 23; [23]; [23]; 23; 24; 24; [24]; 24; [24]; 25; 25; 25; 25; [26]; [27]; [27]; [27]; 27; 27; [27]; 27; [27]; 27; 27; [28]; 29; [29]; 29; 31; [31]; [31]; 32; 32; 33; 33; 33; [34]; [35]; [35]; 35; 36; [40]; [40]; [40]; 40; 43; 43; 44; 44; 45; 45; 47; 48; 48; 49; 49; 50; 51; 51; 51; 52; [55]; [55]; [57]; [58]; [58]; 58; 59; [60]; 60; 62; 62; 63; 63; 63; 64; 65; 65; 65; 65; [66]; 66; 66; [67]; [67]; [67]; 67; [68]; 68; 68; 68; 68; 68; 68; 69; 69; 69; 69; 72; 73; 74; 74; 74; 75; 75; [76]; 76; 76; [76]; 76; 76; [77]; 77; [78]; [78]; [78]; [78]; [79]; [79]; [79]; 79; 79; [80]; [80]; 80; 80; 80; 80; 80; [81]; 81; 81; [82]; [82]; 82; [82]; 82; [83]; 83; 83; 83; 83; [85]; [85]; 85; 85; [86]; 86; 88; [88]; 88; 88; [89]; 89; [90]; [90]; 90; 90; [90]; 90; 91; 91; 91; [92]; [92]; [92]; [92]; 92; 92; 92; [92]; 93; 93; 94; [94]; 94; 95; 95; 96; [96]; [97]; 97; [99]; 99; 101; 7, [14]; 15; 19, I, 12; 28; II, 8; 23; 26; 27; 25, LXXIIX, 36; LXXIX, 40; 3; 4; 5; LXXXII, 30; 32; 35; XCVI, 5; XCVII, 16; XCVIIII, 2; 6; CIIII, 11; 13; 52, C; 40; Z; 54, III, 2; 2; 3; IUI, 2; 2; 6; V, 2; 2; 4; 8 ago: 1, 23; 32; 39; 50; [73]; [73]; [74]; 5, 12; 16, (see the Commentary); 4; 4; 17, 14; 24, 57; 60; 64; 65; 144; 145; 146; 148; 150; (152); 153; 25, XCV, 33; 34; 11; 16; 30; Fr. 3, 2; CXXIX, 34; 35; CXXX, 41; 45; CXXXI, 6; CXXXIV, 43; 28, I, 23; 24; 30; 32; 33; 39; 45; 50; II, 21; 27; 29; 30; 30; 38; 31b, [3]; [4]; 37, Heb. 37; 37; 38; 38; 50; Todi [5]; 5; [5]; [6]; 39, 19; 29; 32; 39

INDEX OF LATIN WORDS aidilis, see aedilis album: 1, 14; [17]; 24, 15; 18; 25, Fr. 7, 2; 28, I, 25; 35 alienus: 1, 6; 25, CXXVI, 43; 41, 1; 1 aliquis: 1, 2; [8]; [12]; 16; [21]; [22]; [23]; 64, B aliter: 2, [13]; 36; [42]; 72; 86; [86]; [88]; [89]; 6, 9; 17, 14; 25, LXV, 23; LXXXII, 36; CXXVI, 37; 41; 37, Todi 11 aliubi (aliubei): 2, 86; [86] alius (aliut): 1, 12; 2, [40]; [86]; 19, II, 7; 14; 22, 23; [34]; 24, 73; 83; 90; 95; 98; 100; 122; 136; 143; 153; 25, LXV, 22; 27; LXIX, 33; 4; LXX, 18; LXXII, 37; 1; XCIII, 23; Fr. 3, 6; CXXV, 22; CXXVI, 30; 37; 41; CXXXII, 25; 29; CXXXIV, [45]; 28,1, 52; 43, 1; 52, C; 64, B alter: 1, [19]; [21]; 44; [51]; [51]; [51]; 78; [78]; 87; 4, 4; 8, [8]; 25, CU, 29; 32; 35; CXXXII, 26; 28; 37, Heb. [30]; 30; 38, Ilic. [19]; 19; 41, 3; 47, 298 alternus: 2, 37 altus: 1, [50] aluus: 34,1,4 ambigo: 2, 33; [35]; 16, 14; 28, II, 18 amicitia: 1, 1; 2,75; 79 amicus: 19,1, 7 amitto: 19, II, 1 amplifico: 22, 19 amplius: 1, [2]; 23; [47]; [48]; 48; 2, 14; [60]; 60; 86; [87];