Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T08:32:00.213Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mumiceps, II

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

John Pinsent
John Pinsent
Affiliation:
The Universtiy of Liverpool
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A Previous article made a linguistic study of municeps. The present examines the Roman discussions of the word. I hope further to discuss the definitions of Verrius Flaccus, the history of the ius, and the juridical concept.

Roman historical and legal discussion of municeps is to be found in the Digest (50. 1. 1, Ulpian), in the Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius (16. 13), and in the De verborum significatu of Sextus Pompeius Festus (p. 126 L.) and its epitome by Paulus (pp. 117 and 155 L.). It comprises legal definitions, which must have had at least contemporary validity, historical definitions of what the word meant at different periods in its history, and the citation of precedents with or without historical detail. Of these the last two are the most important.

Type
Articles
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 7 , Issue 1-2 , January 1957 , pp. 89 - 97
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1957

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 89 note 1 ‘The Original Meaning of municeps’, C.Q,., N.s. iv (1954), 158–64.

page 89 note 2 Dig. 50. 1. 1: ‘municipem aut nativitas facit aut manumissio aut adoptio.’ Festus, p. 126 L.: ‘municeps est, ut ait Aelius Gallus, qui in municipio liber natus est. Item qui ex alio genere hominum munus functus est. Item qui in municipio ex servitute se liberavit a municipe.’ The addition of adoptio by Ulpian is historically interesting

page 89 note 3 Dig. 50. 1. 1. 1.: ‘sed nunc abusive municipes dicimus suae cuiusque civitatis cives.’ Paulus/Festus, p. 155 L.: ‘…uti municipia essent sua cuiusque civitatis et coloniae.’

page 89 note 4 Dig. 50. 1. 1. 1: ‘et proprie quidem municipes appellantur muneris participes, recepti in civitatem. ut munera nobiscum facerent.’

page 90 note 1 Aulus Gellius 16. 13. 4–5: ‘de cuius opinationis (that colonies were more honour able than municipia) tarn promiscae erroribus divus Hadrianus in oratione, quam de Italicensibus, unde ipse ortus fuit, in senatu habuit, peritissime disseruit’.

page 90 note 2 Aulus Gellius prefaces his discussion with the statement that many members of coloniae were calling themselves municipes. In this passage Schönbauer, ‘Municipium: Worterklärung u. rechtliche Bedeutung’, An– zeiger oslerr. Akademie, lxxxvi (1949), p. 562,Google Scholar finds an enlarged, untechnical use of the word municipium, first to be seen in Cicero, who called Placentia a municipium (ap. Asconius in Pisonianam 2). But Cicero was right because Placentia had become a municipium in the full technical sense of the word in 90 B.C. (see Mommsen, S.R. iii. 796 n. 2). Aulus Gellius, too, is authority only for the fact that the word municeps had come to mean only ‘member of a local community’. He does not say that this usage had extended to the word municipium, but only that the legal status of municipia was by then obscure (Aulus Gellius 16. 13. 1–3).

page 90 note 3 Aulus Gellius 16. 13. 6: ‘… muneristantum cum populo Romano honorari participes’. The fact that the Caerites are said to have received their status ‘ut civitatis Romanae honorem quidem caperent, sed negotiis tamen atque oneribus vacarent’ (13. 7) makes it unlikely that there is any reference to honores in the sense of the magistracy (as Mommsen, S.R. iii. 796 n. 3). ‘Honorari’ is perhaps best taken with ‘participes’ since ‘munus honorarium’ is a very awkward phrase which would almost in itself discredit the view being advanced by the Hadrianic lawyers. ‘Honorary participants in the munus’ gives good sense. But cf. White, Sherwin, The Roman Citizenship, Oxford, 1939, p. 208 n. 6.Google Scholar

page 90 note 4 Strabo, c. 220; Scholium Cruquianum on Horace, Epist. 1. 6. 62: ‘sacra cum servassent integra, pro eo beneficio Caerites civitate donati sunt municipesque facti: at posteaquam ausi sunt Romanis rebellare, eis devictis iterumque civitate donatis ius suffragiorum ademptum est censusque eorum in tabulas relati et a ceterorum censibus remoti sunt’ (from Mommsen, S.R. iii. 572 n. 3). Kornemann, ‘municipia 1’ in P.-W. 16. 1 (1933), 570–638 at 575 attributes the version to the younger annalistic tradition.

page 91 note 1 Livy 5. 50. 3; Pomponius Porphyrion on Horace, Epist. 1. 6. 62, perhaps following Acron: ‘victis Caeritibus Romani in percutiendo foedere non dederunt suffragii ferendi ius, quod ignominiosum fuit’ (from Mommsen, S.R. iii. 572 n. 3).

page 91 note 2 Aulus Gellius' words ‘primos autem municipes sine suffragii iure Caerites esse factos accepimus’ do not imply that he believed there to have been earlier municipes with the vote. For him municeps meant a full citizen, and he is simply indicating that the Caerites had been municipes of the earlier type.

page 91 note 3 The Greeks in 197 B.C.: Polybius 18. 27. cf. 29. 5, Ambracia in 187 B.C.: Livy 38. 44. 4, ‘in libertate essent ac legibus suis uterentur’. Heraclea-by-Latmos in (?)187 B.C.: S.I.G. 33. 618, Macedon in 167 B.C.: Livy 45. 29. 4, ‘liberos esse iubere Macedonas, habentes urbes easdem agrosque, utentes legibus suis, an-nuos creantes magistratus’. Termessus in 71 B.C.: lex Antonia de Termessibus, c. i, lines 7–8, ‘leiberei amicei socieique populi Romani sunto/eique legibus sueis ita utunto’

page 92 note 1 With the tenth and sixteenth quaternions it was retained, and lost, by Pomponius Laetus. See Lindsay (Teubner, 1913), raef., pp. xi–xii.

page 92 note 2 The account given by Niebuhr, R.G. ii. 8 n. 109, and quoted by E. Schönbauer, ‘Municipium: Worterklärung u. rechtliche ledeutung’, Anzeiger österr. Akademie, lxxxvi 1949), P. 553.Google Scholar is not reliable.

page 92 note 3 Festus, pp. 124–30 L.; Paulus, pp. 125–31 L. The lemmata of the articles beginning ‘Manius Egerius’ (Festus, p. 128 L.) and ‘Maximam multam’ (Paulus, p. 129 L.) were ‘Multi Mani Ariciae’ and ‘Multam maximam’ respectively. For the division of each letter into parts see: K. O. Müller's edition, Leipzig, 1839; Gruppe, O., ‘Die Überlieferung der Bruchstücke von Varros Antiquitates rerum humanarum’, Commentationes philologas in honorem Theodori Mommseni scripserunt amici (Berlin, 1877), pp. 540–54Google Scholar; Hoffmann, F., De Festi de verborum significatione libris quaestiones, Königsberg, 1886Google Scholar; Reitzenstein, R., Verrianische Forschungen, Breslauer philologische Abhandlungen, Bd. i (1887), Heft 4.Google Scholar

page 93 note 1 It could be assumed that the codex Farnesianus contained the article municeps in both places, and that Paulus' copy of Festus did so too, and that he omitted it on p. 127 L. because he had epitomized it already on p. 117 L. This is not, however, very likely.

page 93 note 2 The article praefecturae is in part ii of the letter ‘P’ and its Verrian origin is therefore not certain.

page 94 note 1 Municipium: cum id genus hominum de-finitur, qui (and quorum) … Vici: cum id genus aedificiorum definitur, quae …

page 94 note 2 Municipium: cum id genus hominum definitur. conventus: excompluribus generibus hominum …

page 94 note 3 Municipium: qui ad civitatem Romanam ita venerunt, uti… Vici: quae in oppido privi in suo quisque loco proprio ita aedificant, ut…

page 94 note 4 Municipium: qui cum Romam venissent, neque cives Romani essent, participes tamen fuerunt… praefecturae: et erat quaedam earum R.P., neque tamen magistratus suos habebant. vici: partim habent rempublicam [sic] et ius dicitur, partim nihil eorum et tamen ibi nundinae aguntur…

page 94 note 5 Municipium: uti municipia essent sua cuiusque civitatis… Vici: quae in oppido privi in suo quisque loco proprio…

page 94 note 6 Municipium: alio modo cum… tertio cum… conventus: uno cum… altero cum… tertio cum… quarto cum… praefecturae: alteram… alterum… vici: altero cum …

page 94 note 7 Municipium: ut Aricini Caerites Anagnini… ut Tiburtes etc…. praefecturae: ut Fundos etc. vici: ut Marsi aut Paeligni.

page 94 note 8 Cf. Aulus Gellius 16. 13. 7: ‘honorem quidem caperent, sed negotiis tamen vacarent’. Paulus, p. 117 L. (municeps): ‘ut fuerunt Cumani Acerrani Atellani’. Dig. 50. 1. 1. 1: ‘municipes dicimus suae cuiusque civitatis cives’. Livy 26. 34. 7: ‘ita ut nemo eorum civis Romanus aut Latini nominis esset’. In the Digest definitions, however, are introduced by the verbs dici (50. 16. 15, 18, 39, 67, no, and 171), appellari (50. 16. 16, 59; 77, 89 and 234), and intellegi (50. 16. 32, 35, 76, 84, 108, 114, and 165).

page 94 note 9 For the authority and relations of these apographs see Lindsay, praef, pp. xi–xviii.

page 94 note 10 Neither Lindsay nor Bruns reports the apographs quite correctly.

page 95 note 1 Cicero, Epp. ad fam. 4. 3. 4: ‘Servius quidem tuus in omnibus ingenuis artibus in primisque in hac in qua ego me scripsi adquiescere ita versatur ut excellat’ is addressed to his father and not reliable evidence even as far as it goes.

page 95 note 2 Mommsen, S.R. iii. 235 n. 1; cf. Bruns (6th ed.), Scriptores, p. 15. Mommsen be lieved the other reading to be ‘Ser. filius’, and, indeed, it is not impossible that ‘Servius filius’ is the expansion by the apographer of what he took to be that.

page 95 note 3 The article posticam lineam (Festus, p. 262 L.) seems to be an amplification of Verrius' article posticum (Paulus, pp. 244–5 L.), and one of the lines in it does begin ‘tab’, which might well be a reference to the XII Tables. Portum, the article but one before it, does cite the XII Tables.

page 95 note 4 Cf. Festus, p. 462 L. (from part ii), the behaviour of a Claudius at the inauguratio of a ‘Sulpicius Ser. f.’ The fact that this is a reference to a Sulpicius with the same patronymic as Ser. Sulpicius Rufus the son is a pure coincidence.

page 96 note 1 The edition of Io. Baptista Pius, Milan, ap. Io. Angelum Seinzenzeler, 1500. See Lindsay, praef., pp. xxi–xxii. One Conagus actually edited Festus.

page 97 note 1 So Schönbauer, p. 559, suggests, for example, ‘qui aeque cives Romani erant ac suae cuiusque civitatis’ or ‘qui aeque civitatis Romanae erant ac suae cuiusque’. But some mention of the restrictions on their Roman citizenship is likely as well. A reference to the equality of their status in certain respects with that of full citizens is, however, equally likely.