Sie sind auf Seite 1von 25
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE ROMAN REPUBLIC ANDREW LINTOTT The Constitution of the Roman Republic ANDREW LINTOTT OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS This hook has heen printed digitally and produced in a standard specification in order to ensure its continuing availability OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship. and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Bangkok Buenos Aires Cape Town Chennai Dares Salaam Delhi Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kolkata Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Mumbai Nairobi So Paulo Shanghai Taipei Tokyo Toronto Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York © Andrew Lintot 1999 The moral rights of the author have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press {maker} Reprinted 2002 All rights reserved, No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law. or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization, Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above ‘You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer ISBN 0-19-815068-7 Contents - - I Vv VI VIII Introduction 1 Sources of Legal Authority 3 A Roman Political Year 9 Polybius and the Constitution 16 The Story of the Origin of the Constitution 27 The Assemblies 40 Comitia, Contio, and Concilium a Assembly Procedure B ‘The Organization of the Different Assemblies 49 Obstruction, Abrogation, Annulment 6 The Nature of Roman Legislation 63 ‘The Senate 65 Membership of the Senate 68 The Place and Time of Meetings 72 Procedure 75 The Authority of the Senate 86 Appendix — The So-Called Last Decree 89 The Higher Magistrates and the Pro-Magistrates 4 ‘The Nature of the Magistrate’s Power O4 ‘The Functions of Magistrates 104, Tribunes, Aediles, and Minor Magistrates 121 Tribunis Plebis 121 Aedilis 129 Quaestor 33 Minor Magistrates a7 The Cursus Honorwen 144 viii Contents xl XI XII ‘Criminal Justice The Early Republican Background The Development of the Law in the Later Republic ‘The Influence of Society and Religion Aristocratic Families and their Values Plebeian Connections and Dependence Religion The Balance of the Constitution The Magistrates The Senate and the Aristocracy The Pawer of the People Changes in the Balance The Mixed Constitution and Republican Ideology The Mixed Constitution im Classical Greece and in Polybius ro's De Re Publica ero’s De Legibus ci The Republic Remembered The Middle Ages Machiavelli The Antiquarians The Roman Republic and the English Revolution Montesquieu and the Founding Fathers Bibliography Index of Ancient Sources Cited General Index ly 149 WF 163 164 176 182 191 192 196 199 208 4 214 220 225 233 235 236 244 251 256 269 293 Abbreviations Abbreviations of periodicals in general follow the system of L’A with one important exception; 288 for Zeitschrift der Savigny ie Philologigne, ung fiir Rechis- geschichte, romanistische Abteilung, Abbreviations of papyri in general follow those in E, G, Turner, Greek Papyri: Ant Tntreduction (Oxford, 1980), pp. 159 ff. ANRW Braund, AN Bruns CAH CL De Martino, SCR Ey FGH FIRA HRR IG IGRR ILLRP ILS Imp.Rom. Anfetieg und Niedergang der rimischen Welt, Festschrift J. Vogt, ed, H, Temporini and W, Haase (Berlin and New York, 1972-) D.C, Braund, Augustus to Nera: A Sourcebook on Roman History 31 2c-aw 68 ( London/Sydney, 1985) G. Bruns and Q. Gradenwitz, Fontes Juris Romani Autiqui (7th edn., Tubingen, 1919) Cambvidge Ancient History Corpus Inscriptiontm Latinaram F. de Martino, Storia della costiuzione romana, 5 vols. (Naples, 1958-67) V. Ehrenberg and A. H. M. Jones, Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius (and edn. with adden- da, Oxford, 1975) F, Jacoby, Die Fragteute der Griechischen Histariker, 3 parts, 11 vols (Berlin and Leiden, 1923=58) S. Riccobono, Fontes [uris Romani Anteiustiniani (2nd edn. Florence, 1968) H, Peter, Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae 2 vols. (2nd cedn., Stuttgart, repr. 1993) Inscriptiones Graecae R. Cagnat et al,, Inscriptiones Graecae ad Res Romanas Pertinentes, 3 vols. (Patis, 1906-27) A. Degrassi, Inscriptiones Latinae Liberae Rei Publicac, 2 vols. (2nd edn., Florence, 1966) H, Dessau, Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, 4 vols, (Berlin, 1892-1916, repr. 1954) A. Lintott, Imperium Romanum: Politics and Adminis- tration (London and New York, 1993) Abbreviations x Inser.ital, A. Degrassi, Inscriptiones Italiae, xiii Fasti et Elogia, 3 vols. (Rome, 1947-63) JRLR A. Lintott, Judicial Reform and Land Reform in the Roman Republic (Cambridge, 1992) MRR T.R.S, Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, vols. i and ii. (2nd edn., New York, 1960); vol. iii (Atlanta, 1987) OGIS W. Dittenberget, Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae, 4 vols, (Leipzig, 1903, repr. Hildesheim, 196) ORF H. Maleovati, Oratortrt Romenoruim Fragmenta, 2 vols. (4th edn,, Turin, 1976-9) RE Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopaedie der classisehen Alter- tumswissenschaft RDGE R. K. Sherk, Roman Documents from the Greek East (Baltimore, 1964) RRC M, H. Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1974) RS M. H. Crawford, ed. Reman Statutes, 2 vols, (London, 1996) SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecums Smallwoed, GCN EB. M. Smallwood, Documents Mlustrating the Principates of Gaius, Claudius and Nero (Cambridge, 1967) ‘Staatsr. Th, Mommsen, Rémisches Staatsrecht, vols. i and ii, 3rd edn., vol. iii, 1st edn. (Leipzig, 1887-8) Strafr. Th, Mommsen, Rémisches Strafrecht ( Leipzig, 1899) Syl W. Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscriptionten Graecarum’, 4. vols. Grd edn., Leipzig, 1915; repr. Hildesheim, 1960) VRR A.W. Lintott, Violence in Republican Rome (Oxford, 1968) ‘The following legal texts may be referred to without further reference: Frag Tar, Lex age. Lex Ant.Term, Lex de Delo Lex Gen.Urs. Lex Ien, Lex lul.agr. Lex lat.Bant. Fragmentum Tareustinue, R. Bartoccini, Epigraphica 9 (1947), 3-3 R518 Lex Agraria, CIL #. 585; FIRA i. 8; IRLR, pp. 17 ffs Ri. 2 Lex Antonia de Termessibus, CIL ?, 589; FIRA i. uy RS i. 19 Lex Gabinia Calpurnia de insula Delo, CHL i*, 2500; RS i. 23; C. Nicolet, ed. Jnsula Sacra (Rome, 1980) Lex Colaniae Genetivae Ursonensis, CHL i*. 594: FIRA i. 21; RSi. a5, Lex Imitana, J. Gonzalez, JRS 76 (1986), 147-243 Lex Julia agearia (or Mamilia Roscia Pedueaea Allien Fabia), FIRA i.12; RS ii. 54 Lex latina tabulae Bantinae, CIL®. 582 (cf.i.2.iv* (1986), pp. 907-8); FIRAL 6; RS i 7 Abbreviations xi Lex mavn.Mal, Lex osca Bant. Lex portorit Asiae Lex prov. praet. Lex rep. Lex Rubr.Gall. SC Asclep. SC Baech. SC Calvisianson Tab. Heracl. Lex municipii Malacitani, CHL ii. 1964; FIRA i. 24 Lex osca tabulae Bantinae, FIRA i, 16; Bruns, % new fragment, D. Adamesteanu and M. Torelli, Arch.Class, 21 (1969), a7; RS 113 H, Engelmann and D, Knibbe, ‘Das Zollgesetz der provin- cia Asia, Ein neues Inschrift aus Ephesus’, Epig Anat. 14 (1989), 1-206 Lex de provinciis practoriis (de piratis), FIRA i. 9; new frag- ments, M, Hassall, M. Crawford, J, Reynolds, JRS 64 (9741, 193-2205 RS i. 12 Lex Repetundaruny, CIL i, 583; FIRA i. 7) IRLR, pp. 81h RSi4 Lex Rubria de Gallia Cisalpina, CTL i, 5923 FIRA i, 195 RS i. 28 Senatus Consultuns de Asclepiade, CLL #. 588; FIRA i. 35 Senatus Consultun de Bacchanalibus, CIL ?, 581; FIRA i, 30 FIRA i. 68, ¥ (pp. 409-14); SEG ix. 8 Tabula Heracleensis, CIL?, 593; FIRA i. 133 RS i, 24 Introduction ‘Who is there so feeble-minded or idle that he would not wish to know how and with what constitution almost all the inhabited world was conquered and fell under the single dominion of Rome within fifty-three years? (Polybivs, 1.1.5) Polybius’ association of Rome’s phenomenal military success with the excellence of her constitution may surprise twentieth-century readers, but it was almost self-evident for a Greek intellectual from within the governing class in his period. It was Herodotus who first made the con- nection between political systems and their military capacities. In his view an important result of the reforms (evnomia) of Lycurgus was the victory of the Spartans over their neighbours; again, when the Athenians acquired democracy (iségoria) through Cleisthenes, the immediate con- sequence was their victory over the Boeotians and Chalcidians. This is of course also the theme of Pericles’ funeral oration, as reported by Thucydides. In Plata’s Republic the starting-point of the discussion of the ideal constitution (as apposed to the utopian primitivism first described in Book 2) is the need for the city to be victorious in war,' As far as I know, there is no specific text of this kind in our Roman sources: the closest parallel is in Livy, who ascribes Roman success to their skills in civil and military affairs (artes domi militiaeque) as well as their way of life (vita and mores), For other Romans their military success was the outcome of good mores and the favour of the gods.’ Nevertheless, the Livian narrative of the Second Punic War, for example, places in relief not only the effectiveness of Roman political activity but also the ‘Ht. 1, 65-85 5. 77-8; Thuc. 2. 56, 4-373 Plato, Rep. 2. 3734-374. Herodotus’ point about Athenian democracy was picked up approvingly by Machiavelli, Discorsi, 1. 58. 30. > Livy, Praef 9. In Sall. Cat. 7. 3 success follows the founding of the Republic, For mores see e.g, Sal. Cat, 9.15 ig. 41. 25 Hist. 1. 1M; for divine favour Cic, Mur, 75 (referring to a speech of Scipio Aemilianus); RDGE 34, lines mf. (the letter of the praetor Messalla to Teo). 2 Introduction constitutional innovations that the war brought about. We shall see in the next chapter how political activity is used in a later book of Livy to frame the story of military success. Nowadays, when historians study the republican constitution, it is not so much because it is the key to understanding Roman success abroad, but because they wish to evaluate Roman politics and society in this period, The fact that the constitution was, as Polybi Ss Saw, a natural growth,* rather than the creation of a legislator at a spe time, arguably justifies us in treating it as a true reflection of forces in Roman society and of Roman ideology concerning the conduct of politics, although even here there may have been a conflict between traditional norms and current practice (I shall have more to say about this later). In the study of Roman history understanding of the constitution is also helpful in various ways, Politics in the Republic were a game played according to complex rules. Without knowledge of these it is hard to grasp the behaviour of the contestants. Moreover, knowledge of consti- tutional norms may help us to choose between accounts given by ancient (or modern) authorities or to fill gaps in our evidence. Again, a proper understanding of constitutional norms is a safeguard against anachron- istic political judgements based on subjective principles. How otherwise can we properly evaluate the deaths of Tiberius Gracchus and Julius Caesar or Cicero’s actions against the Catilinarians? There is a further justification of a quite different type. Polybius’ and Cicera’s view of the Republic as a mixed constitution, in which, at its acme, the balance of elements produced harmony and stability, has had an important effect on Renaissance and post-Renaissance political theory (see Chapter XIII). It may be, however, that recent generations have been more impressed by the myth than the reality. Without an attempt to grasp the reality, this cannot be assessed. The fact that the Republic was a natural growth creates also the funda- mental problem in analysing it. It was not a written constitution, nor was it entirely unwritten. Two questions may make the problem clearer. First, how could Romans during the Republic find out what was proper constitutional practice in any particular political situation? Secondly, what were the sources of law, i.e. what was the authority which sanc- tioned a given constitutional practice? ® Pol. 6. 10-4, 10. ag. Introduction 3 Sources of Legal Authority By the second century ne the Romans were regularly publishing copies of statutes on bronze in public places, probably ‘in a position where it can be correctly read from ground level’, as the texts of the statutes themselves say, when referring to the publication of essential notices.‘ Copies were also kept on tablets or papyrus in the treasury or its associ- ated record-office. The purpose of publication has been much discussed recently, To what extent was it merely symbolic, to what extent genu- inely intended for information?’ Clearly, in a certain sense it was the assertion of the law’s existence. At the same time it is unlikely that the majority af the Roman people had the capacity to read, still less to understand legal texts. Nevertheless, men with skill in legal language could have understood them and told the others, and those in public office were obliged to read either the public copies on bronze or those in. the treasury. The same is true of senatus consulta, the minutes of senate- meetings, after a decree had been made and had not been vetoed by tribunes (those vetoed were on occasion written down," but it is unlikely that they were ever displayed in public places). We have copies of a number of senatorial decrees published for diverse reasons in what is intended to be a readable form, Especially important were those which urged magistrates to penalize certain kinds of activity, such as the decree about the Bacchanals of 186 nc and the imperial decree found at Larinum forbidding senators and equites to become gladiators.’ ‘The authority behind a Jaw was that of the populus Romanus or plebs Romana voting in an assembly; ‘Titus Quinctius Crispinus the consul lawfully asked the people, and the people lawfully resolved.”* Polybius reports that the people had the right to make or rescind any law (6. 14. 10) and, he implies, no other body. The authority behind a senatus consultui under the Republic was different and less absolute. The decree stated the senate’s view on a question put to it, usually recommending a certain course of action to the magistrate who consulted it and perhaps to other magistrates as well. In executing the decree the magistrate enjoyed the legal and moral standing consequent on senatorial approval. 4 Lex rep, lines-65-6 (JRL, p. 104}: frag: Tar. (RSi. 8), 14; Tab, Herack, (Si. 24},16. See also 108, AJ, 19, 291, 5 Harris, 1989, 164ff, 206 ffs Williamson, 1987, 160-85. § Cie, de Oran. 3.55 Fam 1 2. 4.7.45 8 8 4-8) AM, 5,2. 3, > CILI $81 = FIRA i. 30; Levick, 1983. © RS ii, 63 (= Erontinus, de agiis, 129). This—from an Augustan law—is the only com- plete prescript of a Roman statute surviving; for fragments of Republican prescripts see JRLR, p. 2003. 4 Introduction Although it was dangerous to consider a decree of the senate to be a justification for overriding a law, if there was no conflict with a law, a magistrate, who executed a decree of the senate, added to it his author- ity as one elected by the people, and this had obvious implications for those subject to him. Asource of public law which was less defined, but essential, was trad- ition and precedent, Many of the fundamental rules of the constitution were not based on written statutes, for example, the annual election of two consuls, the convening of different types of assembly for different purposes, the very existence and functions of the senate. However, although these elements of the constitution were not based on specific legislation, they may well have been referred to in written laws or senatus consulta as existing institutions. They would also have been mentioned in the books of the religious colleges, especially those of the augurs, which were concerned with rules for assemblies. When Cicero was con- sidering in March 4g nc the elections which Caesar planned to hold, he refers to the authority of books (‘nes autem in libris habemus.. . .") for assertion that while consuls could preside over the elections of con- suls or praetors, praetors could not preside over the election of either consuls or praetors, These books are generally and plausibly identified with augural commentaries, which collected previous augural decisions. There were also the commentaries on constitutional practice written in the later second century se by C. Sempronius Tuditanus, which would not have any special authority in themselves but doubtless exploited augural lore. Hence we have evidence in the late Republic for written exegesis and consolidation of unwritten constitutional tradition.’ In other words, there were rules which were written down but did not derive their authority from the writing in which they were recorded. Constitutional tradition (instituta, mos, consuetudo) had under the Republic an enormaus spectrum ranging from basic unwritten laws— ius, even if not scriptari—to what one may term mere mos, the way things happened to be done at the time. We may be reminded of the English Common Law, especially in so far as this was held to be the char- ter for a particular relationship between the crown, parliament, and the people."” However, this parallel cannot be pressed, for one reason in ® Gic, Att 9. 9. 35 also Div, 2. 42, 73% Dons. 39 om augural commentaries, from which Marcus Messala would have derived his book, De Auspiciis (Gell. 13. 15. 3-16. 3). On Tuditanus’ commentaries see ibid. 13. 15. 4; HRR i. 146-7, fir. 7-8 Note also Tunius Gracchanus’ de potestatibus (Dig. a. 13. 4. pr. (Ulpian)s F. B, Bremer, Iurisprucentia Antehadriana 1, p. 3786). © Pocock , 19875 Weston, 199i. See also Nippel, i980, 240-6, Introduction 5 particular, that, by contrast with Common Law for which a clearly defined antiquity was a necessary qualification, Roman mos was regarded as something in continuous development. ‘This also will become established, and what we now defend by precedents (exempla) will itself join the ranks of precedents.’ So Tacitus in his version of the emperor Claudius’ speech on the Gallic senators—and the emperor himself in the preserved text of his speech had included constitutional changes in his panorama of Roman growth. Furthermore, we find in the next book of the Annals a much more serious breach of tradition— Claudius” marriage to his niece—justified by the need to accommodate mos to the times. This sort of argument was treated as commonplace by Cicero in 66 Bc when replying to those who claimed that Pompey’s pro- posed command under Manilius’ bill was a breach of precedent and the practices of their ancestors; ‘I will not point out here that our ancestors have always followed precedent in peace, but expediency in war and have always adapted the ideas of new policies to suit changing circum- stances.”"! ‘The ambiguous nature of mos is best illustrated by an incident from the period of the Second Punic War, In 209 Bc the pontifex maximus Publius Licinius Crassus forced a dissolute and prodigal young man, Gaius Valerius Flaccus, to be inaugurated as flamen Dialis (an ancient priesthood subject to numerous taboos). The latter, the story goes, immediately threw off his wicked ways and then claimed a seat in the senate in respect of his priesthood—a tradition which had fallen into disuse, allegedly because of the poor calibre of previous incumbents. He was expelled from the senate by Lucius Licinius Crassus, the brother of the pontifex maximus, who happened to be praetor at the time, and in consequence he appealed to the tribunes. The praetor’s argument was that ‘law did not depend on obsolete precedents from ancient annals but on the usage established by all the most recent customs’. However, the tribunes decided that ‘it was equitable that the negligence of previous holders of the priesthood should detract from them and not from the status of the priesthood itself*, and they brought Flaccus back into the senate amid the approval of both the senators inside and the crowd out- side. The implication of the practor's conduct was that recent precedent tended to prevail over what was more remote and that mos was expected to-change. The young flamen Dialis, however, showed that one could win MW Tac. Aum, 11. 24; IES 21a, col. I, a4ff; Tac. Ann. 12. 6; Cic. imp. Pomp. 60 (in the ‘practeritio’ the argument is emphasized by being passed over), 6 Introduction arguments by citing ancient tradition, if other circumstances were favourable,” Jochen Bleicken has tried to create a theoretical model for the development of mos," which is usefully provocative, even if it cannot do justice to all the complexities. For him the early Republic was a period, in which lex—written law, such as the Twelve Tables—and mios were not in conflict, but were complementary aspects of an aristocratic regime based on consensus—a golden age, one might say. Mos and consnertdo described simply practice—whatever was done for whatever reason with whatever authority. We may object immediately that it is doubtful if such a golden age ever existed. Bleicken’s picture of an ideal consensus, social unity, and internal peace does not correspond well with the Romans’ own conception of the early Republic. However, for the sake of argument at least, we may concede that there was a time when there was no essential conflict between written statute (/ex) and unwritten tradition. Bleicken’s second stage is one in which drastic changes in law (ius) were required in order to cope with the ever more complex demands en the regime. New norms tended to be introduced by statute (lex), but, when this did not occur, recent sos came to supplement, even supplant, earlier mos. Bleicken’s example is the process by which the capital trials for treason (perduellia) laid down by the Twelve Tables were supple- mented by tribunician prosecutions for a fine (nrulta).!" I myselfam not sure that prosecutions by a magistrate for a fine were not envisaged in the Twelve Tables. However, what does seem to have been an important development in this field, not dependent on statute, is the regular appearance of the tribune as the prosecutor in both capital and non- capital cases, which must have been the result of the evolution of the tribune into an element of the government from the fourth century onwards. By this time mos appears as something which is separate from and hence potentially may be in conflict with lex.° Moreover, in the revolu- tionary period which followed, when aristocratic consensus was fragile, 12 Livy, 27. 8 4-10, See also Sall. Cat, 51, 37-40 for the argument that tradition was ‘expected to change, deployed in the speech assigned to Julius Caesar © Bleicken, 1975, 368ff. MRS ii 4o, Tabs IX. 1-2 448. '5 See eg, Livy, 25, 5. 8. One might usefully compare here the process whereby English ‘Common Law developed from being simply the law regularly enforced by the King’scourts to something distinet from the law of statutes (Pollock and Maitland, 1968, i. 176-8) Cic, Leg. 3. mand 445 ch Livy, 26. 2. 7-3. 9. See Lintott, 1987, Introduction 7 it became the norm to deal with new needs by legislation (when this was resisted, we find legislators even requiring oaths of obedience from magistrates and senators).'® The consequence was that was by contrast came to be regarded as preponderantly ancient tradition, idealized by conservatives as a counterpoise to new developments which, in their view, were rooted in corrupt statutes, This point of view lies at the heart of Tacitus’ sketch of the growth of legislation in Annals 3, 27-8, where the Twelve Tables are the end of equitable law, and legislation subsequent to them is inspired by ambition and jealousy with a view to self-promotion or injury to rivals. Custom tended to become a conservative catchword in so far as it was used to describe actions in opposition to the populares, even those taken after new expedients like the senatus consultum uleimmumn.”” It should be clear from this that the constitution of the Republic was not something fixed and clear-cut, but evolved according to the Romans needs by more means than one. It was also inevitably controversial: there were frequently at least two positions which could be taken on major issues. What must also be evident is the most likely way that young Romans from the élite learnt about the constitution, Occasionally, they might have referred to the text of a law or sesatus consultum or part of a religious commentary, but for the most part they would have learnt from the daily practice of political life and from what was said by orators on controversial issues. A further source of education for them from the early second century sc onwards was the annals of Rome, which, even in the works of the early Reman historians (¢.200 ac), contained stories of political crises, some of which seem shaped, if not invented, to explain difficult constitutional problems. This to a great extent foreshadows how scholars since the Renaissance have studied the Republic. We read the texts of laws and decrees of the senate, we study the fragments of learned commentaries to be found in antiquarian sources, but frequently our best guide to constitutional practice is to read in ancient narratives what actually happened over a period, and, where there was conflict, to dis- cover, as far as we can, in what terms the issues were formulated at the time. It may be helpful to differentiate between possible approaches to the constitution of the Republic. One is an analysis of how things worked in the last two centuries of the Republic, which can be achieved by a positivistic study of political history. A second is to trace developments 1 See VR 139-40; JRLR 243-4 See eg Cie. Cat. 1. 27-8) 4 5 Index of Ancient Sources Cited 285 340-7 35.41. 9-10 36.2.1 36. 3.3 36.171 sr 46-7 37. 46. 2-6 37. 46.10 37.49 37-49. 1-7 37.50 37. 50-31 ay. staff. 37. 52-6 3578 3757.9 58.2 377 a7. 57-8 7.59 3B. 35. 1-3 3B. 35. 4-6 38.35. 5-6 3836.7 38.36.79 38.42. 845 3B 44. 9-50. 3 3850.9 3851.6 3B, 52-5 38.54. 2°55-5 3B. 57. 28 38. 60. 8 39.7. des 39. B19 39. uf 39. Ag-19 39 14.810 39. 14-9 394 be I-10 4-10 39-19. 5 30.21. 1213. 3931 39.38. 9 39.45 40.19. 10 40.19.11 40. 25, 4-26. 2 187 1, 88 12M 4 M5 n. 97 740.39 5 n..97 ps 80 n, 62 1431. 96 p10 FTN. 54 un pa 126n.21 une 2 Bo n. 62 153 Mat 53 Peas Bn 4 P53 gt 4g 206 n. 49 62 n. 95; 2002, 30 84n.84 sin 195 18 1791, 58, 7 n. 22 as7 m. 42 165 1.5 17 B69 7 8. 67 189 n. 96 156-1. 34,7. 4 19 m3 189 1.96 amin. go a4zn. 92 138 0. 75 45 n25 35. 72 207 0. $4 won.21 5 n.97 8g n. 84 wn. M8 nat 120.120 won. 21 199.33 181-0. 63 F735 40. 29, 14 40. 704 40. 42.7 40. 4p. 813 40. 43.23 40. 40, 40. 40. a0. 40. a a a 42 44.30 58 46.16 Stet a9 9.9 273 27-7 #12 2.60 32. be 4.9. 78 p. 2 2 p a2, w.$ 10. 7-8 10. 98 10.10-11 1 22191 p 4218 42 32 78 a3 4-10 As 56 2 23 4 aa 14. 8 6.4 43.16, 9 8.1 43, 16, 10-16 a « 8. 4 16.1 16.13 ya 16.8 416.9 4 4, 5. 5. a. 5 45, 20.1 2.10 BR ae Be Bo 33.8 189 n. 95 19 1 135 156 Mh 345 157 neat 183.1. 73, bn, 8; 126 1 215 183 0. 72 19 #195156 mh 5s 157 Bab 145.1. 107 139 1. 78 16 m. 104, nid 1.106 sin 54 3m. 19mg 730.37 TOL. 33 17 n. 67 67.9 Won. 2 16 1 106 ionig ong 84m. 84 820.7 191.10 67 n. 9; 107 n. 575157 9. 42 wns 127 1. 23 yin. 24 102 n. 35 gn 158. 4p 22.1.3 740.39 roi a3 18 M112 120 n, 130 44.19 6 N. 106 33 1. 20 200 . 30 18 MALL 19m m8 n 113 286 Index of Ancient Sources Cited $59 7 n, 108 fre 1ng nn. ng5 9 nen 45.21 6 ain. 5) 460 27 fr. 136 181, 63 45.384 150 n. 95 160 1. 54 fer. 19-4o 181.63 45.361 41m. s 46m. 27 fr 234 154129 454k 7 137 1.68 Noi 207 9.56 Per. tt 38 n. 505 10 0.73 No. 18, fir. 4-7 228 n. 56 Por. 5 135.0. 55 No. an frog 18 mia Per. 19 un §srnyeyam4s | friB 9 m.117 Per. ay 126 n. 2153588. 4a fran ug nay Por. 48 wri usngrisya ge No.34,fe16 195 m5; 207 1. 56 er. $5 17 0.33 No. 48, i353 136 58 Por. 35 & Oxy frst 74.1. 36 Pengs 106.55 fay 206 1. 51 Per. 38 gn. 190 No. 58fr.6 174m. 34 Per. 59 10 n, 124; 123 n, 8 146 No, 66, fet 174 1634 B10 Por. 60 8an.3 onosius Por, 78 san. 58 435 26 0.19 Per. 84 sun. 6 583 62. 96 Per. 89 Min, 785228 1. 56 5.15 188 n. 91 Por. on 5 2. 98; 516.8 156 n. 36 Per. o7 109 0. 68 OVID Fastt LUCAN 5.285 uaa 43 5384 110 1.74 PERSIUS LYDUS De Magistratibus Linge 1300.35 135 134 Te 4g Ly 155.1655 PHOTIUS (Bekker) Bibliotheca a 217 mg MAGROBIUS Saturnalia PINDAR Pythian Odes 173s 9 n. 56 4. Bott 503 wo. 188 n. 91 vigya m neo PISO (Peter) Libary BG N.Y fr. 33 wim 1.16.25 aan z 1 n. 32) 1.16. 30 440.7 PLATO Laws L164 red 3 616-28, 109 n. 69-70 So3dtt tons 6. 756e-7a SS ee PLAUTUS win. 63 Ampkitruo 155 99 n, 265142 9. 81 NONIUS MARCELLUS (Miller) 7on4 189 1.98 304 1650.8 Asinaria Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta 130-3 142 n. 93 (Maleovati) Aulularia No. 8, 167, 237 1651.7 fir. 78-80 ny nu oso 189 0. 96 97 N. 14; 206-0. 49 6-7 142.0, 93, Index of Ancient Sources Cited 287 Bacchides 33 688 Captivi m 433 475 agafl, ante. 1019 Cusine 979-83 Cistellaria 494 Menaechoui spill, Miles 21a 1016 Pensa aif. Poenndus 8 Rudens a3 arr. 78 857 Stichus ahh Tritruneerius 27-3 4607 468 ff 491-9 4-8 os. sift, 872 990, Tructalentus 7s PLINY 189 n. 96 142. 95 arn 19, 13m. 4 130 n. 35; 431 9. a7 142.0, 93, 189 1. 96 165.7, 180 1. 61 99 n, 265141 n. 89 189 n. 96 1421. 95 a8 nu 31. a7 131. 3 169 1, 20 165 NLT 180 N, 61 165 1.7 169 n. 20 180 n, 60 1g n. 20 ay mit 99 1, 265 130 1 35, gan. 93. Historiae Naturales 0 2143 Bagg Bem 143m. 95 1239.8 12g na 120 n, 120 13 84-7 189 1. 95 16,37 38m, 50 18. Inga 12. 43 28.17 45m. 33 32 480.39 43 152.16 35.6 167 1.12 35-59 7am 36 PLINY Epistulae Big. 9 83m. Bo PLUTARCH Antortius 8.5 mn. 78 Breatus 14.2 7am. 36 Caesar 5.1 48 n. 4 215-6 74m gt 61.40 a A. Bi Cato minor 26 54.0. 29 5 raga Bas 140 n, B2 16-17 137 1.73 275 55 1. 69 281 46-1. 285135 1.14 asd 630.99, 3.4 2011. 34 B23 460.27 46.3 Bn. 385 24g n. 3 Cleomenes 2a3ku | TN Cicero 19.4 183.0. 71 Coriotanus 1B. ad 191.29 Crassus 14. 7 nan. Fabius Maximus 41 43 ado Det mL 79 9.28 m2 n. 84 Flamininus 18.2 15 n. 18; $1.1. $85 206 n. 49 General Index Abrogatio 61-2 Achaean League 23, 200, 254 M’. Acilius Glabtig 9-10, 12-15, 180 Acta senatns 85 Aedile 15, 18, 43, 129-33, 228-9 Cutule 96, 129-30 Plebeian 34, 36, 129-30 Prosecution by 13, 131-3, 834 (Qualified for senate 68 Sacrosanctity 129 L. Aemifius Regillus (fr. 190) 9,13. Aerarii 18 Amicitia 170-3 Autitales Pontifiewirt 27-8 Annulment (of legislation} 61-3 M, Antonius (cos. 44) 572 75-77) 916172 L. Appuleius Saturninus (tr, pl. 100) 69, ‘9h, 124, 152, 159) 201, 210 Aristotle 215-8, 231, 235 Assemblies 20-1, 40-64, 199-202 for trials 126-7, 1504, 225 see also camitic, corcilinm plebis Auegures 43 1 14, 183, 185 Augury 28 Auspicia 49-50, 67, 102-4, 229 Ineruguratio 185 Libri Augurales 4 see also obtiuntiatia Bacchanals (in 186 Be) 19, 28 n. 18, 156 189-90 Brindisi elogium 58-9 Caesar (C, Iulius Caesar, cos. 59) 40, 79, Br, 89-90, 92, 152, 195, 212 dictatorship: 1, 113 see ako Index of Ancient Sources Calendar 9,182 Campus Martins 1 55573107 Capitol 72-3 Carthage, its constitution 16, 22, 24 1. 5, 27 Sp. Cassius (cos. 486) 35-6 Castor, temple of 464 55. 73 Census 29, 56,115-20 Censor 12-13, 35, $1, $6, 115-120, 228 and senate 67-72 collegiality 100 Cicero (M. Tullius Cicero, cos. 63) 69,75, 77-8 85, 1555171 constitutional theories 220ff, see clio Index Of Ancient Sources Citizenship, granted by assembly 15, 52, 200 M. Claudius Marcellus (cas. #23) 81,194 Ap. Claudius Pulcher (cens, 312) 552,16 C. Claudius Pulcher (cos. 177} $1,102 Clientela 29, 175-6, 178-81 P, Clodius Pulcher (er. pl. 58) 52,72, 78, 81, 120, 132 Collegia 52.177-8, 199 Coercitio 97-9, 226-8 Conitia 43-4 Calata 49, 185 Centuriata 210.19, 29, 316 44 45, 48, 35-6, 7h 103, 115-6, 151, 204, 210, 529, 253s 254 11.54 Curiata 49-50 Tributa 43, 53-3. 204 see also assemblies. Comitiun 41-2, 955 72, 82 Concilines 43 plebis 34, 53-5, 121-2, 202, 210 Conshetudo (10s, constitutional tradition) 4-7, 68, 90 Consul 9-10, 17-18, 21, 43, 104-7, 192-4 Corisid prior 100 Election 56 Plebeian 36 Contio 42, 44-5,153 C, Cornelius (tr. pl 67) 124-5 L. Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus (cos. 190) 9, 13,127, 157, P, Comelius Scipio Aemilianus (vos, 147) 56, 114,175, 179, 195, 208 P, Comelius Scipio Africanus (c9s, 205) 17 N. 4, 23, 67, 78, 106-7, 114, 170, 180, 14-5, 294 General Index L, Cornelius Sulla (cos, 88), his legislation 108, 210-12 appointment as dictator 110,13 (M’, Curius Dentatus (cos. 290) 38, 208 Curia (senate-house) 72-3 Decemviri (quirtdecinviri) sacris faciundis 183-8 Decemviri legibus scribundis (Twelve Tables} 34-5, 185. Decenwiri stlitibus itdicandis 138, 148 fator 18, 32, 38, 43.75 M. 45, 95-6, 109-13, 222, Duumvir Navalis 37 Dummvir Perduellionis 152 Empire, the constitution’s value for 1, 240, 251 Epulonies (tresviri, septemviri) 184-5 Equites equo publica 46, 56-7, 60, 159-60, 176 xecognitio by censors 119 Etruscans 28-j1 Q. Fabius Maximus (cos, 233) 58,02 Q. Fabius Maximus (cos. 322) 1-12, 135-6 Q, Fabius Pictor (pr 189) 11, 15,126 Q. Fabius Pictor, the historian see Index cof Ancient sources Factio 165-6, 175 Fasces 18, 96, 100, 111 Fasti 27, 144-7 see aiso Calendar Fides 94 Bona 1029. Temple of 72,75 Flamen Dialis 5,183 Flamen Quirinalis 11, 15, 126 Flamines 183-5 Forvsula (in jurisdiction) 199, 148 Freedmen 51-2 M. Fulvius Flaccus (eas. 125) 52, 89, 113, 43 M. Fulvius Nobilior (cos. 189) 10, 15 Funerals 22, 28 Gentes 30, $0, 167-70 Haruspices 185 Imagines 167, 169 Imperium 18, 92-3 96-7, 105-6, 130, 193-4, 220-8 pro practore m4~5 Infamia 7-219 Intercessio (veto), by tribunes 21, 323, 38 99. 120, 208 on assemblies 45-6 on census 16 on senatus comsulttint 84-5, 122-3 by consuls or praetors 4, 100-1 Interregnum: 38, 911. 4, 39, 67, 99, 10, 164, 229 Interrogatio, special meaning of word 1 ieedex quaestionis see quacsitor Tustitiuen 125 Kings. of Rame 28-32, Latins 19, 46 feriae Latinae 105 Legeti, ambassadors. 19=20, 74 officers 74, 220 pro practore 14-5 Legetia libera 74 Leges Aelia et Fufia 62 Leges Liciniae Sextiae 36 Leges Porciae de provecatiane 97, 99, 206 Leges Valerie Horatiae 25 1 26, 35+ 129 Lex Aemitia (of M, Seaurus in 115) 52 Lex Aemilia de censoribus 6 Lex Atinia de tribunis plebis 69 Lex Aurelia indieiaria 160 Lex Gaecilia Diddia 44, 62, 87, 104, 210, 230 Lex Calpurnia de repetundis 158 Lex Canuleia 35, 165 Lex Cassia de suffeagiis «7 Lex censoria 119 Lex Clodia de censoribus 72,120 Lex Goelia de suffragiis 47 Lex Cornelia de iniuriis 148, 160 Lex Cornelia de raniestate 160, 212 Lex Cornelia de privilegiis (67 nc) 70 Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis 158 Lex euriata 28-9, 49, 103, 222 Lex Domitic dle sacerdoribus (104 we) 184 Lex Gabinia dle legationibus 73 Lex Gabinia de piratis 115, 205 Lex Gabinia aie suffragiis 47, 170, 201 Lex Hortensia 37-8, 40, 122, 245 Lex Iulia de civitate 52 Lex Julia de reperuntis: 160 Lex Licinia de sodaliciis 160, 176-7 Lex Maenia 38 General Index 295 ex Manilia de imperio Cn, Pompeii 5, 201, 205, Lex Manilia de libertinoruen suffragiis 52 ‘Lex Maria de suffragiis 46-7 Lex Ogulnia 38, 164 Lex Papiria de suffragiis 47 Lex Poetelia 37 Lex Porcia de provinciis 212 Lex Pupia de senatu habenda 75 Lex Pudlilia 37,122 Lex Rejretundartim 47, 30, 20% See alsa Index of Ancient Sources Lex Sempronia de capite civium 92 Lex Sempronia de provinciis 1012, 212 Lex Sulpicia de libertinis 52 Lex Terentia de libertinis 15, s1, 206 Lex Tita (43 Bc) 40 Lex Valeria de civitate 15, 206 Lex Valeria de provocatione (509 8c) 33, 38 (300 Be) 33, 37 Lex Villia Anmalis 143, 181 L. Licinius Crassus (e28. 95) 67.174, 238 M. Licinius Crassus (cos. 70) 801, 106, 176,213 ius Crassus (pont, max. cos, 205) 5.1, 126 C, Licinits Stalo (cas, 364) 36 M, Livius Drusus (1r. ph, 91) 52, 67,143» 210 Ludi 199, 129-: P. Li 183 Machiavelli, Niccold 1, 23643 Sp. Maelius 35-6 ‘Magister Equitum 43,75, 95-6, 10-13 Ch. Manlius Wulso (¢0s 189) 81, 137 M. Manlius Capitolinus 35-6 L. Marcius Philippus (cos. 91) 68 C. Marius (cos, 107) 46, 14, 194, 210 Mixed Constitution, theory 16-17, 191-2, 214-23, 233-8, 24%, 247-50, 252-4 Moderator rei publicae 224-6 ‘Mos see Constietwudo ‘Multa mexinia 99 Nobles 144-70 Obnuntiatio 62,104 L. Opimius 89, 93, 99, 12-13, 155 Optimates 166, 173-4 Pagus 52 L, Papirius Cursor (ens, 326) 1-12, 125-6 Patria Potestas 71, 7-8 Patroni 177, 179-80 Pedarié 79, 83. People see Plebs, Populus Romanus, Comitia Peteduellio 122, 150-2 Plebiseitum Ovinium 38, 67-9 Plebs see also Concilium Plebis, Tribureus Plebis Q. Pleminius 106, 136, 157 Police 131 Polybius, and Republican constitution 152, 16-26, 40, 65, 67, 191, 198, 217-23, 237-8, 248, 250 and return of exiles 88 see also Index of Ancient Sources Pomeriti 72, 98 Pompey (Cn. Pompeius Magnus, cos. 70) BoH1s 171-2, 195, 212 Pontes (gangways) 46 Pontifice macxinaees §, 11,14, 49, 126, 283-5, 189 Pomtifices 183=4, 186-7, 189 M. Popilius Lacmas (cos.173) 67. 107, 170 P, Fopilius Laenas (cas. 132) 92, 99, 155 Populus Romantis, powers 20-22, 41, 198-208 see also Assemblies, Comitia Centuriata, Comitia Tributa Populares 174~5, 205-7, 223 M. Porcius Cato [c0s. 195) 13, 206 see also Index af Ancient Sources M, Porcius Cato (pr. 54) 78-9, $1 124-5, apuam Cumuas 139 Praefectus urbi 31 m. 4,75 Praerogative (centuria) 60 Practor 17-18, 364-43, 56 107-9, 193-4 200 Peregrinus 11,107,147 Urbans 1,167, 147 Professio (candidature) 43 Prinipium (first tribe to vote) 55 Proletarii 55-9 Prorogation 13-14 Provincia vo.-2, 107-8, 114, 135-6, 21-12 Provacatio 11, 15, 33-4, 37-8, 89-90, 97-9, 125-6, 152-7, 174, 222, 226-7 against dictator Publican’ (public contractors) 21-2, 119-20 296 General Index Public land 21, 36, 120, 201 Q. Publilius Philo (eos. and dict, 339) 37, m2 Quaesitor 97, 138 Quatestio. 44, 71, 96-8, 108, 157-8 ‘Quaestio Perpettia 108-9, 147-9, 158-61, 200, 228 de ambitu 158 de maiestate 159 de peculatn 158 de repetundis 108, 148, 158-9 de sicariis et vereficis 108,158 Quaestor 35.133-7 consularis 134-5 peirricidii 134, 142, 151-2, 156 tarbaits (at treasury) 17-18, 135, 135-7 in province 135-6 prosecutions by 134-5, 153, ‘Quattuorvini viés in urbem prrganatis 138 Quingueviri cis et wltis Tiberim 138 Recuperatores 198, 148, 161 Regia 28-9 Regnum , offence under Republic 31, 35-6 see also Kings af Rome Rex Sacrorum 28, 182—4, 241 Rogarores 46-7 P, Rutilius Lupus (ir, ph 56) 82, 84 Sacratio 3 Salli. 164-5, 185 ‘Saivctio Lins statutes) 63 Saepta 41, 46 Secessio of plebs 32 C. Sempronius Gracebus (tr pl. 123) 52, 75, 89) 91-2, 143, 209-10 Ti, Sempronius Gracchus (ens. 177) 51 ‘Ti Sempronius Gracchus (tr. pl. 133) 73 5s N25 25) 172; 175, 1Bly 201s 205, 207-9 . Sempronius Tuditanus (cos. 129), commentaries Seniaeedein 73 Senate 13-14, 18-22, 29, 23 relation to magistrates 66-8, 197-8 selection 68-72, 19 Senatus consultum 34, 7, 75-93. 230 (per discessionem 77, 82-3 ‘ultimaumn’ 7, 89-93, 228 Seniores . contrasted with iuniores 58-61, 69 32, 65-95, 198-9, Q, Servilius Caepio (q. 100) 124 C, Servilius Glaucia (pr. 100) 92, 201, 210 P. Servilius Isauricus (cos. 48) 79-80 P, Servilius Rullus (¢r, pl. 63) 143 Servius Tullius 28, 31, 55-6 L, Sextius Lateranius (cos. 366) 36 Sibylline Books 184, 186, 188 Sigonio, Carlo 50 n. 48, 244-6 Sadalitas 30,177 Sortitio, before assembly vote 46, 4-9 of provinciae for magistrates 101,136 Sparta, its constitution 16, 22, 217-9, 222, 238-40, 249, 254 Statutes (ages) 36-7 see alsa under Lex in this index and Index ‘of Ancient Saurces for individual laws P, Sulpicius Rufus (rr, pl. 88) 172 Suppliccttianes 12, 15, 83 Templurs (inaugurated space for magistrate) 43, 45-6, 60, 72 Tribunus Aerarii 53, 176 Tribvaarus Militunt 37,98, 43840, 143 Triburus Plebis 5, 1-13, 155 21, 26, 38, 68, rie, 2025, 205-8, 210-11, 222, 229-32 jouxilium, in response to appeal 125-8, 202 prosecution by 6, 12-15, 34, 122, 153-4 sacrosanctity 33, 121, 123-4 veto see intercessio Tribus, im assembly 21, 48, 50-5, 176-7, 204 incensus 117-8 organization 30 see also Comitia Tributa Trinundimwm a4, 62 fiunswir (tres viri) agris danclis sadsignardis 95, 143-4 capitalis 95, 99, 131, 138-9, 141-35 155 coloniae deducendae 12 imtoitetalis: 138-9, 145 Twelve Tables 6, 28; 34-5, 150-1, 154, 223 and see Index of Ancient Sources C. Valerius Flaceus (pr. 183, flartew Dials) P. Valetius Poplicola (cas. 509) 31, 67. 253 Views 52 Virtus 164, 169 General Index 297 Voting procedure, in assemblies 46-9 in senate 82-4 in comnitia centuriaga 57-61 secret ballot 47-8, 205 b 90000

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen