Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T17:48:48.823Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Possible Conflict of Laws in Roman Britain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

C. E. Stevens
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is well known that in the various collections of imperial legislation there is only one enactment specifically addressed to Britain, Cod. Theod. XI, 7, 2, of 20th November, 319, to Pacatianus, Vicar of the Britains. It is a short text and may be at one point corrupt, but the general sense is clear: a decurion is liable to pay tax on his own property (whether held ‘in hand’ or occupied by coloni), he is not liable for the property and coloni of another decurion. The text is normally cited by students of Roman Britain to prove that the institutions of the colonate applied to Britain, and this it certainly proves. The purpose of this paper, however, is to inquire whether something more may not be extracted from it.

The principle contained in the law is actually established by legislation of more recent date also included in the Codex Theodosianus. That it appears in the Code at all is due to the hasty and unsystematic way in which the compilers of the Code went to work; legislation was simply collected with little regard to whether it had been repeated or even superseded.

Type
Papers Presented to N. H. Baynes
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 37 , Issue 1-2 , November 1947 , pp. 132 - 134
Copyright
Copyright © C. E. Stevens 1947. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

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

1 ‘Unusquisque decurio pro ea portione conveniatur, in qua vel ipse vel colonus vel tributarius eius convenitur et colligit; neque omnino pro alio decurione vel territorio conveniatur. id enim prohibitum esse manifestum est et observandum deinceps, quo iuxta hanc nostram provisionem nullus pro alio patiatur iniuriam.’

2 Mommsen's ‘expectes talia, qui conuenitur colligit’ is not very easy to understand. Gothofredus thought that ‘colligit’ could be used absolutely = ‘colligit fructus’.

3 It is accordingly cited by Lot, L'Impôt foncier et la Capitation personelle 35, n. 6, as one of his proofs for ‘La Solidarité fiscale du Propriétaire et du Colon’.

4 e.g. Haverfield, Romanization of Roman Britain, 4th ed., 1923, 65; Collingwood, Economic Survey of Ancient Rome (ed. T. Frank) III, 87.

5 Cod. Theod. XI, 1, 31 (pp. Italy, referring to Africa, A.D. 412); A.D. 412); VIII, 8, 10 (pp. Italy, A.D. 422); XII, 1, 186 (proconsul Africae, A.D. 429).

6 Seeck, , Geschichte d. Untergangs d. antiken Welt VI, 172–6Google Scholar.

7 Regesten der Kaiser und Päpste 1–18.

8 See Seeck in P-W VI, 30–3.

9 Seeck's words are worth quoting (Regesten 16): ‘Wenn der Kaiser oder seine Stellvertreter in einer streitigen Sache konsultiert oder an sie appelliert wurde, so mussten ihnen die vollständigen Akten übersandt werden, und zu diesen gehörten auch die Gesetze, auf welche die Parteien sich beriefen. Auf diese Weise konnten Urkunden aus den entlegensten Provinzen an die beiden Kaiserhöfe und in die Archive der höchsten Appellationsrichter gelangen.’

10 Venedotian Code II, 14; Dimetian Code III, 3, 38; Gwentian Code II, 30, 10.

11 Ellis, , Welsh Tribal Law and Custom in the Middle Ages I, 210Google Scholar.

12 Cf. Theodoret, , Graec. Affect. Curatio IX (ed. Raeder, , 223Google Scholar); Mommsen, , Ges. Schr. VI, 467Google Scholar.

13 Wheeler, Trans. Cymmrodorion Soc. (1920–1) 83–6; the use of the title ‘protector’ among these people (see MacAlister, , CIIC I, 358Google Scholar, cf. Y. Cymmrodor IX, 1) should be noted, though parallels are to seek; compare, however, ILS 2813.

14 Mitteis, Reichsrecht und Volksrecht 159–161.