We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 September 2012
Any knowledge of the municipal system evolved in Italy after the Social War must turn, however we might wish it otherwise, upon the four bronze inscriptions found respectively at Tarentum, Veleia, Ateste and Heraclea. They have been much discussed, and it may seem that there is nothing more useful to be said; but the present state of opinion leaves room for doubt. To Mommsen and scholars of his generation they were at least ingenuous documents, but poorly engraved and in places obscure and inexplicable. Even that was challenged by Gradenwitz, who in a remarkable series of articles turned upon them an eye sharpened in the pursuit of interpolation in legal texts, and declared that at least two—the Lex Rubria and the Tabula Heracleensis—were products of inept draftsmen who inserted glosses and interpolations in defiance of style and sense. A. von Premerstein went further; like the Spanish charter from Urso, the Heraclea inscription was an unfinished draft of Caesar's published, after his murder, by Antony with reckless additions of his own; and more recently, the same has been urged by G. Beseler, F. Schulz and others of the Lex Rubria. The internal problems of these inscriptions are thus met by questioning their evidential value, but this seems, like a conjuror's explanation, to raise deeper mysteries than it solves.
1 For a full bibliography, see Barbieri and Tibiletti, Diz. epigrafico s.v. ‘Lex’, (to 1957); L. Wenger, Die Quellen des römischen Rechts, 375 f. A select list is given below; otherwise I hope to have reckoned with the most important views in the course of this article, but cannot meet every particular argument.
2 F. Schulz, Roman Legal Science 88.
3 For what follows, it should be noted that most edd. print a smooth text without attempting to register the readings of the bronzes; these are discoverable from primary editions. Inspection of the bronzes reveals that occasional errors have been missed or silently corrected by Mommsen and others. But total fidelity in reproducing error might seem hardly worth while.
4 The ill-written Tabulae Hebana and Ilicitana were local; as was the Lyons Table (see Fabia, La Table Claudienne 9), and the Flavian charters from Spain (Dessau, , Wien. St. 24 (1902), 240).Google Scholar In general, Mommsen, Str. 3 1, 205; 3, 418 ff.; 1014 ff.; A. Stein, Römische Inschriften in der antiken Literatur, passim; Fr. v. Schwind, Zur Frage der Publikation im römischen Recht, passim; Weiss, E., Atti del congr. intern. di diritto romano 2, 49 ff.Google Scholar
5 Wilhelm, A., Beiträge zur griechischen Inschriftenkunde (1909), 257 ff.Google Scholar is fundamental; cp. A. Heuss, Klio 27 (1934), 231 ff. In Greece as in Rome the λεύκωμα could serve for temporary publication; in both permanent copies might only be excerpts of originals in the archives. On which points see Wilhelm, 272 ff. and Öst. Jahresh. 17 (1917), 17.
6 Text as in Tibiletti, G., Athenaeum 31 (1953), 38 ff.Google Scholar
7 cf. F. M. Abel, Les livres des Maccabées 154. J. C. Dancy, A Commentary on I Maccabees 130.
8 E. Täubler, Imperium Romanum 369, who reads ἔμ μέν․…ἕν δέ.
9 So especially Heuss, , Klio 1934, 39 ff.Google Scholar; 47, n. 2. He admits the possibility of bronze copies cut in Rome; so also Tibiletti o.c. (n. 7), 16, n. 2, ‘non so dire …”
10 ‘An Cibyratae de forma et loco inscriptionis consilium mutaverunt?’ Dittenberger, OGIS 762, n. 6.
11 For supplements, see G. Colin, FD III, 4, 43 ff. The provision was oddly interpreted at Delphi by placing it high on the monument of Aemilius Paullus.
12 Sc. in Astypalaea: so rightly Tibiletti, o.c (n. 7), 14 f. Earlier edd. omit καὶ in 1. 11 and insert τε or καὶ in 1. 12, which gives an otherwise unexampled double publication in Rome.
13 The suggestion goes back to Cousin, G., BCH 10 (1886), 170 f.Google Scholar, adducing the treaty with Thyrreum (below).
14 Cp. Dittenberger ad loc., n. 5; Heuss 249.
15 Clearly the official archive of Epidaurus, as Wilhelm, Beitr. 257 ff.; contra Heuss 249, n. 1.
16 So also Josephus, , Ant. Jud. 14, 219Google Scholar (where, with Viereck, read κηρώματι πρώτῳ); ILS 5947. Cp. Mommsen, , Ges. Schr. 2, 339 f.Google Scholar
17 Cp. Cic., Att. 3, 15, 6; Phil. I, 26; and Mommsen Str. 3 2, 371. Pompey's amendment of the lex de iure magistratuum in 52 B.C. was made ‘lege iam in aes incisa et in aerarium condita’ (Suet. DJ, 28)—that is after it was published and placed in the archive. That the Lex Licinia Iunia concerned proposed laws seems established by Cic., Vat. 33 and Phil. 5, 7 (‘non ante lata quam scripta est?’).
18 Degrassi, A., Riv. fil. 64 (1936), 279Google Scholar; cp. PBSR 14 (1959), 103 f.
19 See Degrassi, ILLRP 511, n.
20 This important bronze is now known to have been found at Forum Sempronii: Campana, A., Rend. Pont. Acc. 23–4 (1947–1949), 13.Google Scholar
21 If the Lex Osca is later (so E. Vetter, Handbuch d. ital. Dialekte 13; Zotta, M., Atti Ist. Veneto 98 (1938–1939), 373 ff.Google Scholar; Gabba, E., Athen. 33 (1955), 230, n. 3Google Scholar; Schönbauer, E., RIDA 3 (1955), 351 ff.Google Scholar) and a municipal charter of Sullan date, then the Latin law was superseded or no longer needed. But neither the magistracies nor the criminal powers of the Oscan document seem conceivable in a Sullan municipium. That it is a versio Osca prepared in Rome, a fortiori that the whole bronze was cut in Rome in Oscan (so Schönbauer), are, for such a badly engraved text, not real possibilities.
22 Not even as sacra; the penalties for default (IG XIV, 645 = Schwyzer, , DGE 62, 11, 108, 120Google Scholar) conflict with the ius civile flatly, see Mitteis, Reichsrecht und Volksrecht, 415 f. The incautious notion that it too is a Roman lex data (so Schönbauer, , RIDA I (1954), 432Google Scholar) is amply refuted by dialect (recently Devoto, Atti I Convegno Magna Grecia, 119 ff.) and script (recently Lo Porto, F. G., Boll. d'Arte 46 (1961), 133 f.Google Scholar) that point to a date c. 300 B.C.; content alone should decide the matter.
23 So respectively Gelzer, M., Hermes 71 (1936), 275 ff.Google Scholar (= Kl. Schr. 3, 256) and Fraenkel, E., Hermes 67 (1932), 369 ff.Google Scholar (= Kl. Beitr. 2, 447 ff.). Against Gelzer it must be observed that literal accuracy was more natural at this date in Greek archives, and the SC de Bacch. is not the only case of free adaptation by an engraver. See recently Dihle, A., Hermes 90 (1962), 376 ff.Google Scholar The last words ‘in agro Teurano’ as Fraenkel saw, suggest that the bronze was cut at another town (say Vibo) for local diStribution. Thus the officinae at Malaca later served the area nearby, Dessau, , Wien. St. 24 (1902), 240 ff.Google Scholar
24 So the Greek arbitrations, such as Syll. 3 679, 683, 685, all in local copies only. Magistrates' letters, Syll. 3 601, 611, 646, 679, 688, etc.
25 Unteritalische Dialekte 155. E. Täubler, Imp. Rom. 361 f.; G. Luzzatto, Festschr. Pringsheim 8.
26 Pol. 2, 24; 6, 21, 5. Livy 29, 15, 7. Cp. Cic., Arch. 8. Mommsen Str. 3 3, 673 f.; Röm. Forsch. 2, 104. Land registers survived a long time, ILS 251, 5947. On later municipal archives, LT 13, 30. Liebenam, Städteverw. 288 ff. on scribae and tabulae.
27 CIL I, p. 119; a select list of errors, 124 f.
28 E. Diehl, Inscriptiones Latinae (tabulae in usum scholarum), XIII f.
29 Acutely detected in the Lex Ursonensis by Mallon, J., Arch. esp. d'arch. 17 (1944), 234 ff.Google Scholar, who suggests the same of the Lex Cornelia de XX quaestoribus and the Lex Antonia de Termessibus (CIL I2, 587, 589). The paragraphs of Titus' letter are reproduced in the newly found bronze, see Nesselhauf, , Madrider Mitt, 1960, 142 ff.Google Scholar (= AÉ 1962, 288).
30 Briefly discussed by F. Schulz, Roman Legal Science 96 f. Cp. L. Wenger, Quellen III ff. A serious study of the Latin of the laws is lacking.
31 Rightly taken as engraver's error; Gradenwitz, ‘Versuch’ (above, p. 183), 6.
32 Löfstedt, , Syntactica 1, 8 ff.Google Scholar The mixture of -ve and -que is deceptive (Gradenwitz, ‘Gemeindeordonnanzen’ (see above, p. 184), 8 ff.): as is shown by the words of Paulus (Dig. 50, 16, 53)—‘Saepe comparatum est ut coniuncta pro disiunctis accipiantur et disiuncta pro coniunctis, interdum soluta pro separatis’ —and the examples there quoted.
33 Ges. Schr. I, 192 f.; already adumbrated in the studies of the Spanish charters, Ges. Schr. I, 152; 286, n. 10.
34 Wlassak, M., ‘Judikationsbefehl der röm. Prozesse,’ SB. Akad. Wien 197 (1921), 184Google Scholar, n. 39; Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani, 15 ff.; and especially G. Tibiletti, Studi De Francisci, 593 ff. Ancient theory would not support such a distinction, e.g. Cic., II Verr. 2, 121.
35 Cic., Fam. 13, 11, 3. Caes., B. Civ. I, 15. Pompey and Piso at Capua, Cic., Pis. 24–5. Cp. the pair at Teanum Sidicinum of Claudian date, Inscr. Ital. 13, 265 and Degrassi, in Riv. fil. 66 (1938), 140 f.Google Scholar For other senators as local Magistrates, CIL I2, 1560, 1744–5, 2098, etc.
36 Ch. 72 ‘uti h.l.d(ata) oportebit’ can hardly be rightly supplemented: how else to translate it but ‘in accordance with the giving of this law’? Read ‘d(are)’ or (since confusion of formulae is persistent) ‘f (acere)’. The Leges Salpensana and Malacitana were not in their time (A.D. 82–4) comitial laws; that would, for our purposes, make them irrelevant, not probatory. Only modern writers call them ‘leges a Domitiano datas’ (Bruns 143, FIRA 203): unhappily, for ‘dare’ never defines the source of authority. Contrast RG 28, ‘mea auctoritate deductas,’ and ILS 6841. Also below, n. 49.
37 Thus Kipp, Gesch. d. Quellen d. röm. Rechts 37 f.; Karlowa, , Röm. Rechtsg. 1, 441Google Scholar; Hardy, Six Roman Laws 124; Tibiletti, Diz. epig. s.v. ‘lex’, 730 f.
38 So Mommsen, , Ges. Schr. 1, 192 f.Google Scholar; his earlier view seems the correct one, 180 ff.
39 If Kunkel (Festschr. Koschaker 2, 1 ff.) is right about the origin of bonae fidei iudicia, it could not have been created by statute. For most scholars, damnum infectum was covered by a legis actio, probably ex stipulatu (Gaius 4, 31); so e.g. M. Kaser, Das altrömische Ius 220; for Wlassak, (Röm. Prozessgesetze 1, 238 ff.Google Scholar, 251 f.) it was an actio on its own; for Branca (Danno temuto, passim) a regular delictal action. But obscurity prevails.
40 ‘Si quis decurio …colon(iae) G(enetivae) I(uliae) … erit, tum quicumque decurio huiusce coloniae…, is in ea colonia …’, etc. For further duplicates: LT 21–5 = Lex Urs. 80, Lex Mal. 67; Lex Urs. 101 = Lex Mal. 54. Of the new fragments of the Urso charter (D'Ors, , Emerita 1941, 146 f.Google Scholar; Wenger, L., Anz. Öst. Akad. Wiss. 86 (1949), 245 ff.Google Scholar; cp. AÉ 1946, 123), ch. 108–9 = Lex Salp. 28–9.
41 So the Twelve Tables 5, 8, on the reversion to the dominus of the property of an intestate freedman, ‘ex ea familia in eam familiam’; Thes. Ling. Lat. VII, 473, 63 ff.; Svennung, J., Untersuch. z. Palladius u. zur lateinischen Fach- und Volkssprache 294 ff.Google Scholar, etc. Hence also TH 145 ‘quei eius praefecturae sunt’, which so puzzled Gradenwitz (‘Gemeindeordonnanzen’ 23); and in Lex Mal. 56 and 59, ‘is qui ea comitia habebit’ must be translated not ‘the said comitia’ (as Hardy), for none has been mentioned, but ‘any given comitia’.
42 Sherwin-White, Roman Citizenship 136.
43 Degrassi, A., Mem. Acc. Linc. VIII, 2 (1949), 330 f.Google Scholar
44 F. Sartori, Problemi di storia costituzionale italiota 94 f.
45 So Degrassi, o.c. (above, n. 43) and De Petra, , Mon. Ant. 6 (1895), 418.Google Scholar
46 See nn. 29 and 65.
47 Kiessling, E., Klio 17 (1917), 238 ff.Google Scholar Ch. 130–1 is plainly meant to supersede 97.
48 Cp. Wilhelm, Beiträge, 272 ff.
49 A close analogy is found in the inscription from Henchir-Mettich (Bruns 295, FIRA 484) of a lex ‘data a Licinio Maximo et Feliciore Aug. lib. proc(uratoribus) ad exemplum legis Mancianae’. The terms of the primary statute clearly shine through its local application to an imperial estate. So F. Beaudoin, Les Grands Domains dans l'empire romain, 116 f; C. Saumagne, Tablettes Albertini, 119 ff., esp. 140; Levy, E., Z. Sav. Stift. 70 (1953), 502 f.Google Scholar Similarly in the so-called Lex Metalli Vipascensis (Bruns 289, FIRA 502), 1. 34 refers to the ‘lex ferrariarum’ as an antecedent statute: there is no iron-ore at Vipasca.
50 CIL VI, 1853, 1819. E. Fraenkel, Horace, 14 f.; Mommsen Str. 3 1, 352.
51 See above p. 188. The worst case is in ch. XXII, 45 (as Professor Daube pointed out to me): ‘is quei … Romae i.d. praerit in eum et in heredem eius … ita ius deicito … eosque duci bona eorum possideri.’ The last two are just permissible; but the offending et results probably from the omission of -ve in the hand-copy, as is suggested by the correct version in the next line, ‘is heresve eius.’ A similar slip in XX, 38.
52 Thus Beseler, , Bull. Ist. Dir. Rom. 53–54 (1948), 169 f.Google Scholar
53 Pringsheim, , Z. Sav. Stift. 43 (1921), 643 ff.Google Scholar; Kunkel, , Festschr. Koschaker 2, 1 ff.Google Scholar; Kaser, Altrömische Ius 289; Röm. Privatrecht I, 181 ff., 406 f.; Lombardi, Dalla Fides alla Bona Fides 165 ff.; A. Magdelain, Les actions civiles 42 ff.; Wieacker, , Z. Sav. Stift. 80 (1963), I ff.Google Scholar The ambiguity whether ‘ex fide bona’ points to a source of obligation (as Kunkel), or, as seems more likely, is a criterion by which the quicquid is to be assessed, is not here relevant.
54 Cp. Gradenwitz, ‘Versuch’ 37 ff., whose explanation is more intricate; on his view, clause I originally concerned only persons (hence ‘s(ine) d(olo) m(alo)’), clause 2 only places: both are then extended to cover each, and the resulting conflations allowed to stand.
55 ‘Versuch’ 34 f.
56 Acta Congr. Iurid. I, 362 f.
57 JRS LIV (1964), 129.
58 ‘Versuch’ 19 ff. Cp. JRS, l.c., 131 f.
59 ‘Versuch’ 20 ff. But rem could be omitted by mistake, and for ea cp. Gaius 4, 36. Other reasons make it hard to follow Pflüger, H. in suggesting (Z. Sav. Stift. 43 (1922), 160Google Scholar) that ‘Gradenwitz hat zwei Kapitel der lex Aebutia entdeckt’.
60 Wlassak, ‘Judikationsbefehl’ cit. (above, n. 34), 17
61 Beseler, , Acta Congr. Iurid. 1, 362.Google Scholar
62 Cp. JRS, l.c. (above, n. 57), 133. In Röm. Prozessgesetze Wlassak saw the LR as newly creating local jurisdiction; I should have noticed that in ‘Judikationsbefehl’ 274 he returned to the idea of an earlier law for Italy (thus further attenuating the Augustan ‘lex Iulia altera’).
63 Z. Sav. Stift. 43 (1922), 45 f. For Arangio Ruiz this was a ‘rimedio disperato’ (Stor. dir. rom. 6 199); but he was persuaded by Beseler's Strictures on the Lex Rubria, , St. Doc. Hist. Iur. 1936, 517.Google Scholar For a recent doubter, Schönbauer, E., RIDA I (1954), 389 ff.Google Scholar, but I cannot follow many of his arguments or his dating to the Sullan period.
64 Thus Phil. I, 2; Att. 14, 14, 2. Repeated allegations in Phil. I, 24; 3, 30; 5, 11 f.; 7, 15, etc. For salutary scepticism, R. Syme, Rom. Rev., 107 f.; H. Frisch, Cicero's Fight for the Republic 74–5.
65 An attempt to reconstruct the archetype, Abh. Heid. Akad. 1920, XVII. Cp. ‘Versuch’ cit., 7 ff.; Z. Sav. Stift. 42 (1921). 568 ff.; 43 (1922), 439 ff.
66 Rotondi, Leges 439. Recently, Arangio-Ruiz, , Studi De Francisci I, 3 ff.Google Scholar F. Schulz, Studi Solazzi 450 ff.; Wenger, L., Anz. öst. Akad. Wiss. 86 (1949), 252 ff.Google Scholar
67 cf. Nissen, , Rh. Mus. 45 (1890), 109 f.Google Scholar
68 Gradenwitz' suggestions are reinforced by the observations of J. Mallon (above, note 29).
69 So Le Gall, , Rév. Phil. 1946, 139Google Scholar, who proposes 47 B.C.; but his deduction from the absence of the praenomen imperatoris is not to be relied upon, Syme, Historia 7 (1958), 176.Google Scholar
70 In 18–19, no fine is stated for the professus; but the magiStrate's edict could have covered the point, as Premerstein 67, n. 2 admits. In 7–9, 10–12, the duplication seems otiose. In 44 ‘iudicem iudiciumve dato’ was queried by Kübler, , Z. Sav. Stift. 16 (1895), 171Google Scholar (cf. Mommsen Strafr. 178, n. 5), but is shown to be technically accurate by Wlassak, judikationsbefehl 268 f. In 130, some words have fallen out after ‘eorum’; on ‘eius’ in 145, see above n. 41.
71 Atti Acc. Torino 45 (1910–1), 148 ff.; 48 (1912–3), 275 ff. There are earlier intimations of such a view by Mazocchi, , Comm. in tab. Heracl. 2 (1755) 488 ff.Google Scholar; Nissen, , Rh. Mus. 45 (1890), 100 ff.Google Scholar; Legras, Le table latine d'Héraclée 345 ff.
72 Edd. place a full stop after ‘oporteat’ in 94; which means that the age limit applies to magistrates, but not to senatores and decuriones of 96 f., which is absurd. The same error in 104–5. As Gradenwitz saw, order is restored by placing brackets around ‘neve … habeto’ (94–5) and ‘neve … renuntiato’ (104–5). Perhaps too in III, the dolo malo condemnatus is out of place, hence a recent insertion: it was probably created in 66 B.C.
73 Mommsen's supplements are doubted by De Visscher (Droit des tombeaux romains 142 f.), who suggests annual festivals; the point is the same.
74 Cic., Leg. I, 14 ‘de stillicidiorum et de parietum iure’; the same attests the many handbooks of stipulationes and iudicia. Cicero's projected book never appeared. Caesar had intended ‘ius civile ad certum modum redigere atque ex immensa diffusaque legum copia optima quaeque et necessaria in paucissimos libros conferre’ (Suet., DJ 44). Cp. Isidore 5, 1, 5 (of Pompey); Tac., Ann. 3, 54, 2 f.
75 ILS 7742–49. Also, by converse, in ILS 7750—a librarius of Venafrum ‘qui testamenta scripsit annos XXV sine iuris consult.’; or, less flatteringly, in 8365— ‘abesto iuris consult.’
76 Known from the Greek reverse, IG XIV, 645; cp. Sartori, Problemi, 96 f.; P–W, s.v. Sitagertai, 377.
77 Busolt-Swoboda, , Gr. Staatsk. 1, 492.Google Scholar
78 Henchir Mettich: Bruns 295, ll. 4–5.
79 Cp. Bruns 286, 21; 287, 8.
80 Thus U. Kahrstedt, Wirtschaftlage Grossgriechenlands i.d. Kaiserzeit, 99 f.; Historia 8 (1959), 200 ff. More recent finds have not changed his conclusions, that the Greek town had virtually disappeared by the imperial period. Excavations have brought forth much Greek material, but only a thin scatter of Roman and Byzantine remains (Lo Porto, F., Boll. d'Arte 46 (1961), 133 ff.Google Scholar). Also an early trader (?) from Pella, ‘Athenodorus Leontus f. Heracleotes ex Italia salve’ (Petsas, Ph., Balkan Studies 4 (1963), 137 f.Google Scholar); and for coinage, see RÉG 1963, 126. Thus the veteran from Oescus (AÉ 1960 128: ‘C. Iulius C.f. Menenia Longinus Heraclea’) would afford the only later record of the town; but it is doubtful if ‘Heraclea’ tout court could refer to Italian Heraclea (cp. Badian, E., JRS 1962, 208Google Scholar). Further excavation is planned and may settle these points.
81 The last clause of the law is so dark that I have not discussed it; I doubt if it refers to Fundi, but that must wait another occasion.
82 I am grateful to Mr. R. Meiggs and Miss J. M. Reynolds for suggestions.
