Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:51:58.975Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Porcian Coins and the Porcian Laws

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2009

A. H. J. Greenidge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Article
Information
The Classical Review , Volume 11 , Issue 9 , December 1897 , pp. 437 - 440
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1897

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 438 note 1 Sallust, Cat. 51, 21. ‘Sed, per deos immortales, quam ob rem in sententiam non addidisti, uti prius verberibus in eos animadverterelur? an quia lex Porcia vetat? at aliae leges item condemnatis civibus non animam eripi sed exsilium permitti jubent. §§ 40. turn lex Porcia aliaeque leges paratae sunt, quibus legibus exsilium damnatis permissum est.’

page 438 note 2 If this interpretation be accepted, the law in question appears to have been considerably later than at least the first lex Porcia which dealt with the provocatio; for the theory of exsilium here stated differs from that with which Polybius was familiar (vi, 14).

page 438 note 3 Mommsen in Neue Jenaische Litteratur- Zeitung, 1844, p. 258. The acceptance of this interpretation of Mommsen's by no means proves the truth of his main contention in this article, viz. that the condemnation by a magistrate and provocatio were invariable elements in a judicium, populi. The procedure of the provocatio and that in an ordinary judicium populi were probably distinct. The distinguishing point was that the condemnation by a magistrate existed only in the first. The points of contact between the two processes were (a) the formalities of the trial before the people, (b) the possibility of exsilium (see C.S. ix. p. 6). A final proof that the provocatio played no part in a judicium populi is furnished by the fact that women could be the subjects of a judicium populi (GelL iv. 14, 2), although they did not possess the provocatio through not having communio comitiorum.

page 439 note 1 It was possibly to avoid the appearance of consular coercitio that the Catilinarian conspirators were strangled.

page 440 note 1 Seneca, de ira, 3, 12. ‘Pro scapulis cum dicit Cato significat injuria verberum (Festus ‘pro injuria verberum’); nam complures leges erant in cives rogatae, quibus sanciebatur poena verberum.’