No CrossRef data available.
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.
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: 07 April 2017
In a previous article, based on a rigorous study of the text on both sides, I hope to have shown that fragments A and B of the famous Tabula Bembina should be set c. 35 letter-spaces closer together than in Mommsen's edition, and that the estimated width of the tablet should be reduced correspondingly. This is likely to have disturbing consequences. In particular, it now seems fairly certain that four whole chapters of the extortion law—mainly concerning rewards to prosecutors—recur verbatim in the fragmentary republican law from Tarentum. I would like to probe this matter further. Theoretically three possibilities would appear to be open. The two laws could be identical. The passage could have been transferred from one extortion law to another. Or, thirdly, it could have been adapted from the extortion law to a statute governing another quaestio. Schönbauer indeed argued that the Tarentine law was the Lex Apuleia de maiestate. Against this one must set the strong arguments for identifying the Lex Bantina with Saturninus' treason law. Though there is some overlap, the Lex Tarentina and the Lex Bantina are clearly not parts of the same measure.
1 See JRS XLIX (1969), 129–43 (especially 139 ff.). I use CIL I2, 583 for the extortion law, but adjust the lacunae in accordance with my results. For Mommsen's commentary, see Ges. Schr. I, 1–64. For the Tarentine law see Bartoccini, R., Epigraphica IX (1947), 33 ff.Google Scholar; AE 1950, no. 80; Degrassi, Imagines …, no. 386 a−b. My present paper—like its predecessor—owes a great deal to searching criticisms by the editor's readers, which have improved its presentation.
2 Iura (Riv. Int. di Dir. Rom. e Ant.) VII (1956), 113–17.
3 See Stuart-Jones, H., JRS XVI (1926), 171Google Scholar; Last, H.M., CAH IX (1932), 160 f.Google Scholar; Gelzer, M., Hermes LXIII (1935), 124.Google Scholar Lex Tarentina, lines 19 ff. closely match lines 19 ff. of the Lex Bantina (CIL I2, 582), but the contexts are quite different.
4 Compare Lex Tar., 16 (‘ …]io populo ceivitate regnove tota scripta apud forum siet et … ’) with Lex Bemb., 60 (‘regis populeive ceivisve suei nomine litem aestumatem esse sibei’) and 63 (‘quoius regis populeive nomine lis aestumata erit legati adessint’).
5 See Bauman, R. A., The Crime of Treason in the Roman Republic … (1968), 37, 44–55Google Scholar and 59 for a good discussion of the view that the lex Apuleia was principally concerned with the tribunate.
6 As many scholars believe. For Caepio as its author, see Tibiletti, G., Athenaeum N.S. XXXI (1953), 73–5.Google Scholar For Glaucia, see Bartoccini, o.c. (n. 1), 28 f.; Piganiol, A., CRAI 1951, 62 f.Google Scholar; Luzzatto, G., Archiv. stor. pugl. IV (1951), 29 ff.Google Scholar
7 See my argument and combined text in JRS 1969, 141 f. The crucial clause reads ‘[…. praetor quei inter pe]regrinos ious deicat is facito utei socium nominisque Latini omnium …‥’.
8 See Ges. Schr. I, 51 f. (on lines 12 and 15 f.); StR II3, 200, n. 1; Strafrecht 205, n. 4.
9 For Pulcher see CIL I2, 2, p. 200 with Cic, II in Verr. 2, 49, 122. For the iudex phrase, see lines 19, 60 and 62, and the good discussion by Eder, W. in Das vorsullanische Repetundenverfahren (1969), 176 f.Google Scholar, n. 2 and 212 f., n. 1.
10 See Philologus LXXXIII (1928), 444 f.
11 ‘… deque ea re eiei praetori quaestorique omnium rerum … siremps lex esto …’.
12 The lacuna in line 15 f.—on the praetor responsible after ‘this year’—is most unfortunate. For the point about Sulla, see also Eder, o.c. (n. 9), 174 f., n. 2; Mommsen, , StR 3 II, 199 f.Google Scholar
13 In 95 B.C., indeed, Pulcher was instructed by the senate to draw up regulations for Sicilian Halaesa (Cic, , II in Verr. II, 49, 122Google Scholar)—a task which one might have expected to be left to the peregrine praetor.
14 For the bibliography on the Lex Tarentina see my n. 6 and Schönbauer, o.c. (n. 2), 93–104. Nicolet, C. (L' ordre équestre …, (1966), 515Google Scholar, n. 52 and 557 f.) identifies it with the lex Acilia, which he puts vaguely c. 122–106 B.C. For the bibliography on the Lex Bembina, see Eder, o.c. (n. 9), 120–24.
15 Compare Lex Tar., 20 ff.; CIL I2, 582, 19 ff.; SEG III, 378 (FIRA I, no. 9), C 8–19; Appian BC I, 29, 130 ff.
16 See Adamesteanu, D. and Torelli, M., Arch. Class. XXI (1969), 1–17.Google Scholar For Torelli' s alternative placings of the fragment, see p. 12, fig. 2 and pp. 2 and 13. For the sanctio, see Probus, de litt. sing. 3, 14; CIL I2, 2, 2500, 1. 36. The new fragment differs a little from the MSS readings in Probus. For rogato rather than rogatur, see Mommsen, , Ges. Schr. I, 62.Google Scholar For e(x), not e(ius), see also CIL I2, 585, 13.
17 Against Tibiletti (o.c. (in n. 6), 39 and 55 f.) and Schönbauer (o.c. (in n. 2), 109), I wrongly argued that tr. pl. was merely ‘a kind of signature’ (JRS XLIX (1969), 139, n. 67). Less than half the lines (the right-band side) is preserved on the tablet.
18 See SEG III, 378 (FIRA I, no. 9), C II f.; Cic., ad Att. III, 23, 4.
19 See Yarnold, E. J., AJPh LXXVIII (1957), 165 f.Google Scholar, n. 7 (on CIL I2, 582, 14).
20 Torelli has been able to improve the reading of part of the senatorial oath in CIL I2, 582, 1. 25 (nequeseese quo minus sei). He now proposes (o.c. 9) to restore ‘neque seese [intercessurum] quo minus seţ[iusve hace lege fiat]’, as in Lex Tarentina, 20. We must certainly allow for an extra word here, but it should surely be gesturum (see line 2, senatorve fecerit gesseritve).
21 Despite Tibiletti' s doubts (o.c. (in n. 6), 28 f.) the clause in lines 11 and 13 must be identical: I give the combined text.
22 o.c. (in n. 14), 508 f. and 490 f.
23 JRS XLI (1951), 73, n. 17 and 84 f.
24 Asconius made enmity to Q. Caepio (whose imperium was abrogated) Longinus' main motive; but Cicero, in passing straight from the lex Cassia tabellaria of 137 to the lex Cassia of 104 B.C., implies that there was no intervening statute. For C. Cato, see Strachan-Davidson, , Problems of the Roman Criminal Law (1912), 11, 13 f.Google Scholar; M. I. Henderson, o.c. 73 and 85; Sherwin-White, A. N., JRS XLII (1952), 44 f.Google Scholar and PBSR XVII (1949), 7.
25 See CIL I2, I, p. 200 with Cic, II in Verr. II, 49, 122; Cic, pro Rab. Perd., 7, 20 and 21 (omnes praetores).
26 Eburnus was cos. 116 B.C. and so presumably praetor at the trial (Broughton, Magistrates … I, 526). For the charge, see Broughton, l.c. (maiestas or repetundae); Münzer, , RE VI, col. 1797 and XVIIIGoogle Scholar, col. 1020 (favouring maiestas): Fraccaro, , Studi stor. V (1912), 445 ff.Google Scholar (repetundae). None of the counts in Cic., de Orat. II, 40, 170 can have been part of the actual charge: they simply ‘proved’ that Carbo was not a bonus civis. The consul Cn. Caepio was to have presided over the trial of Tubulus (Cic, ad Att., XII, 5, 3; de fin. 11, 16, 54). For the Vestals, see Ascon., in Milon. 45 C (a quaesitor?) and compare the tres quaesitores of the Mamilian bill (Sail., Jug. 40). For a iudex quaestionis de veneficiis c. 98 B.C., see CIL I2, 2, p. 200.
27 Strachan-Davidson incidentally (o.c. (in n. 24), 1, 151) thought that the final exception was clumsy and liable to make ‘tacking’ easier: respectable citizens would be stopped from voting against it. But surely the assumption is that such an assembly would be illegal anyway. See Mommsen, Ges. Schr. I, 59. We should note also that both witnesses and jurors were under strong pressure to attend the court (including fines): see Lex Bembina, 32 ff. with 39 and 45 f.
28 The accused had first to provide a full list of all his connections on the panel (line 20)—but if he failed to do so or would not pick his 50, this would be done for him (line 25 f.). For a good discussion of lines 20–6, see Eder, o.c. (in n. 9) 184 f., n. 2.
29 See Geib, , Römischer Criminalprocess (1843), 314Google Scholar; Strachan-Davidson, o.c. (inn. 24) 103–8. The latter compared (p. 107) nomen editicii iudicis non tulerunt etc. with Cicero's remark in pro Rose. Amer. 48, 140 that the nobility whom Sulla restored equestrem splendorem pati non potuerunt. The parallel is striking.
30 The prosecution of Silanus in 104 B.C.: see Cic., Div. in Caecilium, 20, 67 with Ascon., in Cornelian. 80 C. Strachan-Davidson was cautious about nuper, but gave full weight to t he fact that the editicii iudices were equestrian: this, in his view, ruled out Mommsen's theory that the system alluded to was that proposed by Servius Sulpicius Rufus in 63 B.C. (Cic, , pro Murena, 23, 47Google Scholar). See Mommsen, De Collegiis 63.
31. Pro Scauro in Ascon. 21 C: ‘ … cum iudicia penes equestrem ordinem essent et P. Rutilio damnato nemo tam innocens videretur ut non timeret ilia.’
32 ‘Scaurus tanta fuit continentia animi et magnitudine ut … M. quoque Drusum tribunum plebis cohortatus sit ut iudicia commutaret.’
33 Geib, l.c. (in n. 29); Strachan-Davidson, o.c. (in n. 24), 106 with n. 1.
34 Note Cic, , II in Verr. I, 9Google Scholar, 26, where the lex Acilia is termed mollior (to the defendant) than Glaucia's, and characterized as mitissima.
35 o.c. in n 24, 98, n. 2. He was arguing against Mommsen's denial (De Collegiis, 63, nn. II f.) that the jurors of Lex Bembia 21–6 could properly be called editicii.
36 fragmenta legis Serviliae repetundarum. Agostio and Orsini, however, rejected this view already in the sixteenth century: see Mommse, , Ges. Schr. I, 22.Google Scholar
37 Zumpt, C. T., Berl. Akad. phil.-hist. Abh. 1843, 1–70 and 475–515Google Scholar; Mommsen, , Zeitschr. für Altertumswiss, 1843, 824Google Scholar, n. 26 ( = Ges. Schr. III, 350, n. 26); Carcopino, , Autour des Gracques (1928), 205–35.Google Scholar
38 Gelzer, , Gnomon V (1929), 653Google Scholar; Last, , CAH IX (1932), 890 ff.Google Scholar; Fraccaro, , Athenaeum N.S. IX (1931), 316 ff.Google Scholar; Balsdon, , PBSR XIV (1938), 108–14.Google Scholar Carcopino has had a few followers, but the weight of opinion against him can be gauged from Eder, o.c. (n. 9), 122 f., n. 1.
39 See Balsdon, o.c. (n. 38), 108.
40 o.c. (n. 37), 216 f., with n. 1 on 217. Mommsen first split the words (CIL I (1st. edn.), 198) but was persuaded by Rudorff to take them together and change his supplements (Ges. Schr. 1, 57).
41 Livy XLIII, 2, 6; Val. Max. VIII, 1, 11 (L. Cotta); Charisius, , Gramm. Lat. I, 195.Google Scholar Balsdon terms Carcopino's restoration ‘equally plausible’, but leans towards Mommsen's (p. 108 f.)—which most scholars adopt without question. The latest are Nicolet (o.c. in n. 14, 489) and Eder (o.c. in n. 9, 203).
42 Between a 43 extr. ([? aget]ur) and e 3 (er deixerit) we cannot tell exactly how many letters are missing, since both fragments are lost. A possible alternative is [amplia]re. Carcopino follows Mommsen closer, but would read ita pronon[tiato ‘amplius’]. See l.c. in n. 40. I prefer here the text in Ges. Schr. i.
43 I think that we must reject Mommsen's restoration ‘[… ad quem praetorem ita relatum eritiudicum plus tertiam partem negare iu]dicare…’. It depends absolutely on his view of amplius bis. At the second session the individual juror was already liable to be fined for persisting in non liquet. My supplement between ader[unt] and [iudice]s precisely fills the lacuna after adjustment according to JRS 1969, 132 f. (Mommsen's III–c. 35).
44 o.c. (n. 38), 109. I suspect that the legislator intended to imply by the very imposition of the fine that persistence in non liquet was due to bribery or ‘influence’.
45 Judgement could proceed as soon as two-thirds of the jurors present agreed to vote (lines 46–9). But see ad Herenn. IV for the view that to condemn at the first hearing was to be crudelis.
46 o.c. (n. 37), 217. Balsdon (o.c. 108–13) very acutely demolished Carcopino's view that the Lex Acilia barred adjournments—so that Glaucia's law which permitted a single unpenalized ampliatio, could alone be identified with the Lex Bembina. Carcopino, unwisely, had put too much trust in the scholiast on II in Verr. 1, 9, 26.
47 Balsdon uses the very same phrase in discussing the passage (p. 112). Tarde … licebat implies to me a freer system than one imposing heavy fines after the first ampliatio.
48 See Livy XLIII, 2, 6; Val. Max. VIII, 1, 11 (L. Cotta); Appian, , BC I, 22Google Scholar, 92 (Cotta's trial was one of the scandals that impelled C. Gracchus to action).
49 I cite as typical Tibiletti o.c. (n. 6), 19, n. 3; Sherwin-White, PBSR XVII (1949), 6Google Scholar, n. 9; Balsdon, o.c. (n. 38), III f. Only Tibiletti, in fact, brings in Caepio's law.
50 For the sources see Greenidge and Clay, Sources for Roman History 2, 78; and for Badian's discussion, see Historia XI (1962), 208.
51 See Mommsen, , Ges. Schr. I, 21 f.Google Scholar; Tibiletti, o.c. (n. 6), 35, 52 f. and 75; Badian, , AJPh. LXXV (1954), 378–84Google Scholar; Serrao, F., Studi in onore di P. de Francisci, II (1956), 497 f.Google Scholar, and Nicolet, o.c. (n. 14), 515, n. 52 (both follow Tibiletti); Greenidge and Clay2, 34 f. (sources).
52 Cicero imagines that he is delivering II in Verr. I after the legal adjournment. Hortensius claims that he has defeated ‘the intention of the comperendinatio procedure’ by his chosen tactics (Balsdon, p. 110). Cicero counters by telling Verres to imagine that he was being tried under the Lex Acilia. What would happen? There would be only one actio, even though the jury was free to ask for adjournment. They would be ashamed not to reach a verdict straightaway, when called on by him to vote—‘testibus editis ita mittam in consilium ut, etiamsi lex ampliandi faciat potestatem, tamen isti turpe sibi existiment non primo iudicare.’ This seems to be a valid interpretation of a passage that has caused much difficulty (Balsdon, 108–13).
53 Historia XVIII (1969), 465–75.
54 Cic., Brutus 89, 304 f. and 90, 308 and 311.
55 Badian, o.c. (n. 53), 475; Cic, Brut. 90, 308 and 311.
56 See Greenidge and Clay2, 272 f. for the sources.
57 Mommsen, , Ges. Schr. I, 21Google Scholar; Fraccaro, , Opuscula II, 255 ff.Google Scholar
58 See Cic, , Brut. 34, 128Google Scholar (Gracchani iudices); Badian, , Hist. XI (1962), 208.Google Scholar
59 See Badian, o.c. (n. 58), 205 f.; Livy Epit. LX and Vell. II, 7.
60 Cotta seems to have taken a very active part in the movement for reform (Cic, , II in Verr. III, 96, 223Google Scholar).
61 Scholars clearly feel that C. Gracchus cannot have been content with reform of the juries (as Caepio in 106 and Pompey in 70 B.C.). As Mommsen put it (Ges. Schr. I, 21), ‘nee fieri potuit, quin lata lege Sempronia iudiciaria repetundarum quaestio universa retractaretur novaque et prioribus severior de ea lex perferretur …’. But such feelings are not evidence.
62 On the other hand I would not pretend to have proved that the law was Glaucia's. One text that needs further study is the mysterious couplet of Lucilius (573 M):
Calpurni saeva lege in Pisonis reprendi
eduique animam in primori〈s fauc〉ibus naris.
This comes from Book XX, which Marx plausibly dated 107 B.C. (Lucilius I, XLIX and 11, 212 f.) If the Lex Bembina is the Lex Acilia, the Calpurnian law will have been repealed by the Junian c. 125 B.C.—it would have long ceased to be very topical by the time Lucilius penned these lines. I hope to investigate this puzzling allusion elsewhere.
63 Cic., pro Rab. Post. 4, 8 f.
64 See pro Rab. Post. 4, 9 to 5, 12; pro Cluentio 41, 116; ad fam. VIII, 2, 4.
65 Mommsen, , Ges. Schr. I, 49Google Scholar; Eder, o.c. (n. 9), 189, n. 1. Between d 7 and e 16 and d 9 and e 18 the lacunae are of c. 215 and 210 letter-spaces respectively (Mommsen's figures less 35), but essential supplements require c. 50.
66 The restorations in CIL I2, 583, 57–68 are fairly well guaranteed by context and the parts preserved. See also the translations and commentary of Hardy, E. G. (Six Roman Laws (1911), 26–9)Google Scholar and Eder (o.c. (in n. 9) 209–17).
67 Mommsen, , Ges. Schr. I, 53Google Scholar; Tibiletti, o.c. (n. 6), 32 f.; Eder, o.c. (n. 9), 180 f.; Carcopino, o.c. (n. 37), 220–6 (equestrian).
68 Line 23: ‘[queive reipublicae causa ?] aberit, queive trans mare erit; neive amplius de una familiaunum.’ Mommsen read: ‘[queive ab urbe Roma plus … passuum] aberit.’
69 Mommsen's 67-letter lacuna between A and B must be reduced by 35. For liceat one might perhaps read deceat. Another possibility is to restore ‘neive eum [quem cens(or) notarit quod quom eo lege Calpu]rnia aut lege Iunia …’. Compare line 28, where the lacuna must again be halved and where I would read: ‘[q]uei pequniam ex h.l. capiet, eum ob eam rem, quod pequniam ex h.l. ceper[it, nei quis cens(or) notato neive senatu? mo]veto neive equom adimito neive quid ei ob earn rem fraudei esto. 
' I do not really think that Cic, , pro Cluentio 42, 119 and 43Google Scholar, 121 should be used to exclude the idea of censorial nota in line 23.
70 For my interpretation, compare what Cicero says about how Roman citizens had to recover moneys extorted from them: ‘civibus cum sunt ereptae pecuniae, civili fere actione et privato iure repetuntur; haec lex socialis est’ (div. in Caec. 5, 17). For the controversy over peregrini and legis actio—based on this one passage of the Lex Bembina—see the good summary in Eder, o.c. (n. 9), 67–71.
71 pro Rab. Post, 5, 11. His client, however, was being illegally arraigned on a main extortion charge—or so he claims.
72 See Mommsen, Ges. Schr., 61 and 19 (Glaucia); Luzzatto, Epigrafia 367 and Badian, , CR LXVIII (1954), 101 f.Google Scholar (Caepio).
73 See Appian, , BC I, 28, 126Google Scholar; Cic. de Orat. 11, 48, 199 and Brut. 62, 224. For 103 B.C. as the date of the Lex Apuleia see the arguments of Last, , CAH IX, 160Google Scholar, n. 4; Broughton, , Magistrates …, I, 563 and 565Google Scholar, n. 4; Schönbauer, o.c. (n. 2), 106 and 114.
74 Appian, , BC I, 28, 127Google Scholar (Glaucia presides as praetor over tribunician elections !). Niccolini (Fasti … 195 ff.), among others, accepts this but makes Glaucia tribune. So too does Broughton, o.c, 571 and 573, n. 2.
75 See Piganiol, , CRAI 1951, 52 ff.Google Scholar; Serrao, o.c. (n. 51), 501; Tibiletti, o.c. (n. 6), 83 ff.; Badian, , Hist. XI (1962), 205.Google Scholar
76 pro Balbo 8, 20–4 and 20, 46–23, 53.
77 See Sherwin-White, Roman Citizenship, 92 f.; Schönbauer, o.c. (n. 2), 102 f. For Tibur's ius exilii—also enjoyed by Praeneste—see Polyb. VI, 14, 7 and Sherwin-White, o.c, 118 f.
78 Had there not even been a grant to a Latin that was worth quoting ?
79 CR LXVIII (1954), 101 f.
80 CR LXXXI (1967), 256–8. She thinks that the neque between passi sunt and ius ‘links two statements about the same law’(p. 257).
81 On p. 258 Levick sees ‘an attempt to detach the Latins from the rest of the allies’ in this presumed tampering with Glaucia's bill; and the Lex Licinia Mucia itself was ‘an act designed precisely to crush their hopes (sc. ‘the allies’) and prevent them agitating.’ Legal challenge was the procedure adopted both in 95 B.C. and after the Lex Papia in 65 B.C. See Cic., pro Balbo 21, 48 and 23, 52.
82 As Schönbauer argues in o.c. (n. 2), III with 114 ff. He was, of course, identifying the Lex Tarentina—which does have such a clause—as Saturninus' bill.
83 Sallust, Jug. 40: ‘huic rogationi … occulte peramicos ac maxume per homines nominis Latini et socios Italicos impedimenta parabant. sed plebes incredibile memoratu est quam intenta fuerit …’
84 For Venusia see RE VIII A. coll. 892 ff. and Appian, , BC I, 39, 175Google Scholar with 42, 190 and 52, 229. For this identification of the Lex Latina Bantina, see my p. 154 and nn. 3 and 4. The new fragment shows conclusively that the Latin text was inscribed first (Torelli, , Arch. Class. XXI (1969), 2 f.Google Scholar). Jones, Stuart (JRS 1926, 171, n. 3)Google Scholar argued that Bantia, bound by a foedus iniquum to ‘conserve’ the maiestas P.R., was required to adopt the latest definition of it—and Sherwin-White (Roman Citizenship, 122) concurred. This was very hypothetical.
85 SEG III, 378 (= FIRA I, n. 9), B 6: 
Compare the clause from an SC about Ambracia in 187 B.C. (Livy XXXVIII, 44, 4): ‘portoria … caperent dum eorum immunes Romani ac socii Latini nominis essent.’ Similarly in 180 B.C. the praetor Duronius (Livy XL, 42, 4) ‘adiecit multis civibus Romanis et sociis Latini nominis iniurias factas in regno eius (sc. Gentii)’.
86 My version of her theory would allow Glaucia to be the originator of prosecutors' rewards—rather than a man who took over verbatim previous arrangements.
87 For the first two chapters, the two versions (76/83 and 78/85) help to establish both text and the lacuna length; for the third we have only line 87. The lacuna between e 32 and d 24 in line 76 (of c. 78 letters) and between e 34 and d 26 in line 78 (of c. 83 letters) must be considered slightly ‘elastic’, since we do not know the exact shape of the lost fragment E. There is some control for the first in line 83, where the gap between the existing C and D fragments can be reasonably computed as c. 136 letters; this breaks down into 63 letters of certain supplement + 73. See the table in CIL I2, 583 (p. 442) with my fig. 12 and Pl. VII in JRS LIX (1969), 136.
88 See F. Serrao, o.c. (n. 51), 473–511.
89 In my composite text of Chapter III (JRS 1969, 141)—using the Lex Tarentina—I read ‘quei ceivis (better ‘sei quis ceivis’?) Romanus ex hace lege alte [rei nomen ad praetorem, quoius ex h.l. quaestio erit, detolerit et is eo ioudicio condemnatus erit, tum ipsei libe]risque eius …’. Was the quoius eorum maxume clause omitted by mistake by the Tarentine engraver, or did it not apply to the Roman prosecutor with his subscriptores? But note what Asconius says (39 and 54 C) of the trials of Milo de vi and de ambitu: ‘accusatores… Appius maior et M. Antonius et P. Valerius Nepos … damnatum autem opera maximi Appi Claudi pronuntiatum est … ilia quoque lege accusator fuit eius Appius Claudius, et cum ei praemium lege daretur, negavit se uti. subscripserunt ei in ambitus iudicio P. Valerius Leo et Cn. Domitius Cn. f.’. Whether non-Roman or Roman, only one prosecutor was to get the reward in any one case.
90 Strachan-Davidson, o.c. (n. 24), 1, 147–50. Despite this Mommsen's view (Ges. Schr. I, 62 f.) prevails—as in Eder, o.c. (n. 9), 225.
91 o.c. (n. 24), 151. See my n. 27 for another passage where he detected clumsy drafting—unjustifiably, I think.
92 This view of the Lex Bembina clause was first put forward, to my knowledge, by Rosenberg, A. in Hermes LV (1920), 347 f.Google Scholar D. W. Bradeen then argued the case comprehensively (Class. Journ. LIV (1958/9), 221–8)—conclusively, I believe, for the period before 89 B.C. For Asconius' evidence see in Pisonian. 3 Brunt, C. P. A. (JRS LV (1965), 90Google Scholar, n. 4) judiciously took a middle line on the Lex Bembina: ‘Strictly this only implies that such exmagistrates had either the Roman citizenship or the privileges concerned.’ The judgement will be unexceptionable, if we omit the phrase from either to or.
93 Bradeen (o.c, n. 26 on p. 227) offers two restorations similar to mine, both including other peregrini and opening: ‘sei quis eorum quei [ceiveis Romani non sunt …]’ . His instinct for the formal balance seems sound. I am less happy about his suggestion of [quei] ęor. for [dicta]tor.
94 In line 3 we find ‘[quo]ive ipse parensve suos filiusve suos heres siet’, in line 60 filiusve suos is omitted: in line 62 the formulae are lost in the lacuna.
95 In line 60, note ‘queive … [sa]tis fecerit regis populeive ceivisve suei nomine litem aestumatam esse sibei’ and in line 63 ‘[aut] quoius regis populeive nomine lis aestumata erit legati adessint’. Mommsen restored line 4 as ‘[sei quis deicet praetorem nomen ex h.l. non recepisse utei delatum esset, neque iudicium ex h.l. ita datu]m esse utei peteret’ (see Ges. Schr. I, 48). Eder (o.c. (in n. 9) 158) simply repeats this, with comment on the variant views of Klenze and Rudorff.
96 See Mommsen, (Ges. Schr. I, 48 f.)Google Scholar and Eder (o.c. in n. 9, 158 n. 4 and 160) for comments on the very difficult line 5. All that we have of it is‘ […? iud]icata erit aut quoius nomen praevaricationis caussa delatum erit aut quoium nomen ex h.l. ex reis exemptum erit: seiquis eius nomen a[d praetorem? …].’
97 Compare the clause of the praetor's edict (Dig. III, 1, 1, 4: Ulpian) ‘si non habebunt advocatum ego dabo’.
98 For Serrao's view, see o.c. (n. 51), 497 ff. The clause runs ‘quei ex h.l. … detulerit, quibus eorum ante k.Sept. petitio erit, sei eis volet sibei patronos in earn rem darei …’. No patroni were needed for the more expeditious process after Sept. 1st (line 7 f.). Cicero, (Brut. 46, 169Google Scholar) records effective Latin orators of c. 100 B.C. from the Marsi and Asculum Piceni.
99 This seems proved by the listed exceptions— no close relative of the accused, no sodalis or colleague, no patron or client, no senator degraded for condemnation in a public trial, no iudex, no man already acting as a patronus. See Eder, o.c. (n. 9), 164 f. with n. 3.
100 The repetition of these chapters shows that they were badly bungled (see my article in JRS 1969, 138 f.). In Chapter I my supplement quibus … erit takes up only 55 spaces of the c. 70 allowed by Mommsen, but his estimate of the lacunae in lines 76 and 83 may be too generous (see n. 87). For the structure of the clause as I restore it—a definition of civic status followed by a clause of legal limitation ( ‘those eligible to sue’ )—compare SEG III, 378 (= FIRA 1, no. 9: the Pirate Law), C, 23: 
(‘quibus ex h.l. pecuniam petere in iusque inducere licebit’?).
101 My restoration for the lacuna between quei and tor gives 92 letters for Mommsen's estimated 83.
102 See pro Rab. Post., 
14; Lex Bemb. 2 (restored), and 8.
103 SEG III, 378 (= FIRA 1, no. 9), C 23.
104 Adamesteanu holds out hopes of further excavation at the find-spot of CIL I2, 582 and the new fragment, and this could well recover more pieces of the text. See o.c. (n. 16), 1.