No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Notes on the Legislation of Julius Caesar
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 September 2012
Extract
Discussion of this law (of which the text, so far as it survives, will be found in Bruns, Fontes Iuris Romani, 7th ed., pp. 95–6, or in C.Q. 1925, pp. 185–6) has recently been revived in a remarkable paper by E. Fabricius, in which it is contended that the measure did not form part of the agrarian and colonial legislation of Julius Caesar, as commonly supposed. According to Fabricius, the Lex Mamilia was carried in 109 B.C. by the tribune C. Mamilius Limetanus and by four of his colleagues of the above names; its purpose was primarily to delimit the whole ager privatus of Italy, so far as it had not been marked of by the Gracchan land-commissioners, and incidentally to regulate jurisdiction concerning disputed titles or boundary lines.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © M. Cary 1929. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies
References
page 113 note 1 Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse, 1924–5, 1te Abhandlung. Published separately by C. Winter, Heidelberg, 1924.
page 113 note 2 Economic History of Rome (2nd ed.), p. 166 and note.
page 113 note 3 Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire, p. 493.
page 113 note 4 Pauly-Wissowa xiii, pt. 2, col. 2397, art. lex Mamilia.
page 113 note 5 Autour des Gracques, pp. 234, 266 n. 1.
page 113 note 6 C.Q. 1925, pp. 185–191.
page 113 note 7 Fabricius agrees that the abbreviations KLIII, KLIV, KLV in our text of the law should be resolved into K(apitulum) LIII, etc., not into K(apitu)l(um) III, etc. The paragraphs thus numbered contain so many back-references to preceding clauses that they could not possibly have stood at the head of the statute as chapters 3, 4 and 5.
page 114 note 1 If we may judge by the surviving charters of Urso, Salpensa and Malaca (Bruns7, nos. 28, 30a and b), matter of this kind could not be condensed into less than 50 paragraphs.
page 114 note 2 So Mommsen (Die römischen Feldmesser ii, p. 221), followed by Bruns (op. cit. p. 95) and v. Premerstein (Savigny-Zeitschrift, romanistische Abteilung, 1922, p. 52).
page 114 note 3 Journ. of Philology no. 70 (1920), pp. 187–9.
page 114 note 4 Fabricius (p. 14) calls such legislation ‘constitutionally impossible.’ It was not more so than the nomination of a dictator by a praetor, which undoubtedly occurred in the self-same year. ‘Impossible’ was a word which Caesar did not admit into his vocabulary. At the same time it must be admitted that joint legislation by five praetors was covered by no precedent.
page 115 note 1 Le sénat de la république romaine i, p. 498, n. 5.
page 115 note 2 Caesar, Bell. Gall. i, 8Google Scholar, 1; i, 10, 3.
page 115 note 3 Ibid. i. 10, 3; ii, 8, 5.
page 115 note 4 32,000 according to Drumann-Groebe, (Geschichte Roms iv, p. 486Google Scholar, n. 5), 40,000 according to Kromayer (Neue Jahrbücher 1914, p. 160).
page 115 note 5 Suetonius (Divus Iulius 20, 3) and Velleius Paterculus (ii, 44, 3) state that 20,000 applicants of this class actually received allotments; Appian (B.C. ii, 10) merely says that 20,000 families were found to be qualified for a grant.
page 115 note 6 This statement holds good, whatever precise date we may assign to the legal term of expiry of Caesar's command.
page 116 note 1 The absence of references to the lex Mamilia in the correspondence of Cicero signifies little; for very few of his letters from the year 55 have survived. Neither can any conclusions be drawn from the reticence of our Greek sources, whose account of the events of 55 B.C. is incomplete and episodic.
page 116 note 2 This theory originated with Savigny, (Vermischte Schriften iii, p. 279 ff.Google Scholar). For recent restatements, see Hardy, E. G., Roman Laws and Charters, pp. 136f.Google Scholar, and (in a modified form) J.R.S. IV, 1914, pp. 65–110.
For the text of the Tables of Heraclea, see Bruns7, pp. 102–110; Dessau, I.L.S., no. 6085; or Abbott and Johnson, Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire, pp. 288–295.
page 116 note 3 The attempts by Legras (La table latine d' Héraclée) to refer the tables to the period of Sulla, and by Nap (Verbandelingen der koninglijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afdeeling Letterkunde 1910; Pauly–Wissowa xii, pt. 2. cols. 2368–9, art. lex Julia municipalis) to date them to 64 B.C., have been effectively refuted by Hardy, (J.R.S. IV, 1914, p. 65 ff.Google Scholar), Kübler (Savigny-Zeitschrift, romanistische Abteilung, 1907, pp. 409–15), Mitteis (ibid., 1912, p. 159 ff.), and Besnier (Rev. ét. anciennes, 1912, p. 40 ff.).
page 116 note 4 See esp. Mommsen, , Juristische Schriften i, pp. 152–4Google Scholar.
page 116 note 5 Savigny-Zeitschrift, romanistische Abteilung, 1922, pp. 45–152.
page 117 note 1 C.I.L. v, 2864; Dessau, 5406.
page 117 note 2 So Mommsen, loc. cit.
page 117 note 3 Laws and Charters, pp. 165–6; J.R.S. IV, 1914, pp. 108–9Google Scholar.
page 117 note 4 This objection is seemingly endorsed by Holmes, Rice (The Roman Republic iii, pp. 562–3Google Scholar).
page 118 note 1 C.I.L. x, 2666; Dessau, 6518.
page 118 note 2 C.I.L. x, 858.
page 118 note 3 C.I.L. x, 5655.
page 118 note 4 C.I.L. x, 5405; Dessau, 6125.
page 118 note 5 At Pompeii the lex Petronia sanctioned the appointment of a praefectus vice a IIIIvir, by the decuriones acting on behalf of the comitia : at Fabrateria it authorised iteration of a magistracy. These facts suggest that its object was to provide for emergency action for filling executive vacancies.
The terminus ante quem of the law is fixed by the Interamna text at A.D. 69. On the strength of the Fasti Venusini (C.I.L. x, 422; Dessau, 6123) Mommsen dated it back to c. 32 B.C. (Juristische Schriften i, p. 339 and n. 165). But the official who held a stop-gap post at Venusia in 32 B.C. is described as ‘praefectus’ without qualification, not as ‘praefectus lege Petronia.’ If, as suggested above, the purpose of the act was to cope with Φυϒαρχία, its date should be fixed near the middle of the century A.D. rather than to the age of Augustus. (Cf. clause 51 of the lex Malacitana, issued under Domitian.)
In any case, the lex Petronia of the above inscriptions should not be identified with an act of the same name which limited the number of slaves to be employed at beast-hunts (so Leonhard-Weiss, in Pauly-Wissowa xii, pt. 2, col. 2401, art. lex Petronia). The two laws are not in pari materia.
page 118 note 6 A further parallel to the lex Iulia municipalis may be found in two texts from Petelia (C.I.L. x, 113–4; Dessau, 6468–9), in which is mentioned a IIIlvir lege Cornelia. But since the lex Cornelia does not occur on inscriptions of other towns besides Petelia, its general character is less clearly proved.
page 119 note 1 Op. cit. pp. 68–75.
page 119 note 2 Prof. Adcock, to whom I owe several valuable suggestions on the subject of this paper, has pointed out to me that Antony might very well have passed through Fundi on his way to or from Campania in April—May 44 B.C.
page 119 note 3 There is a story of an Oxford don who induced friend at Whitehall to interpolate into the text of a lengthy canal-bill the following inconspicuous parenthesis: ‘notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary in the statutes of his college, M.N., of X college, Oxford, shall have authority to enter into a state of matrimony without forfeiting his emoluments.’ This anecdote illustrates the sleight-of-hand which I have imputed to Antony.