previous next


LEX This term indicates generally a rule of law binding universally on the citizens of a given state: “Lex est commune praeceptum, virorum prudentium consultum, delictorum coercitio, communis reipublicae sponsio” (Dig. 1, 3, 1); “Legis virtus est haec, imperare, vetare, permittere, punire” (ib. 7). In the works of the Roman writers and jurists it is used to denote an enactment of any body (or even individual) constitutionally empowered to legislate, but more properly it is used only of the enactments of the Comitia Centuriata. Definitions of lex will be found in Cicero, de Leg. 1.6 (cf. 2.16); in Aulus Gellius, 10.20 (by the jurist Capito); in Gaius, 1.3 (adopted in Justinian's Institutes, 1.2, 4); and in Dig. 1, 3, 1 (by Papinian).

The earliest leges of which we read were those made in the Comitia Curiata (whence they are called Leges Curiatæ), which till the reforms of Servius Tullius was the only legislative body at Rome. Some of these--the so-called leges regiae--were said to have been enacted by the Comitia on the motion of Romulus, as well as of the kings who succeeded him (Dig. 1, 2, 2, 2). Dionysius says (3.36) that a collection of these leges regiae was made towards the end of the regal period by one Sextus Papirius, a commentary on which, written in the time of Julius Caesar by Granius Flaccus, is quoted in Dig. 50, 16, 144; but it is improbable that they were anything more than formal restatements of customary law already binding, and the fact that Sextus Papirius was (according to Dionysius) a pontifex suggests that they may have been only of sacerdotal import. (Some of their substance has been collected in a fragmentary form by earlier writers, and there is an essay on the subject by H. E. Dirksen: Versuche zur Kritik und Auslegung, Leipzig, 1823). It may indeed be doubted whether any large proportion of the enactments of the Comitia Curiata were genuine “laws,” though the fifty leges of Servius mentioned by Dionysius (4.13) seem to have made some general changes; at any rate it is certain that after the establishment of the Comitia Centuriata by Servius Tullius the assembly of the Curiae, as a legislative body, fell almost entirely into disuse. We read of its conferring the imperium on the magistrates, sanctioning testaments and adrogations, and confirming some of the resolutions of the centuries which were held to require a religious sanction, and in all these cases it acted by a resolution or lex, but the difference between such a lex and a true law is too obvious to need any further exposition. And though even under Augustus a shadow of the old constitution was preserved in the formal bestowal of the imperium by a Lex Curiata only, the assembly of the Curiae had ceased even before Cicero's time to consist of the old patricians: they were merely represented by thirty lictors.

In the sense of a genuine enactment, establishing a rule of law, lex denotes the legislation of the Comitia Centuriata, in which the law was proposed (rogabatur) by a magistrate of senatorial rank, usually by one or both of the consuls for the year (Inst. 1.2, 4). Such leges were also called populiscita (Festus, s. v. Scitum Pop.).

The resolutions of the Comitia Tributa, whose origin was almost contemporaneous with that of the centurial assembly, had not at first the force of law: they seem to have been regarded merely as expressions of plebeian opinion, by which the patricians gauged the temper of the political opposition, and were guided to the line of policy which party exigencies rendered expedient. They were known as plebeiscita because the Comitia Tributa was at first attended only by members of the plebs, though every Roman was in fact enrolled in a tribe, and entitled to attend. When the tribunate of the plebs was instituted (circ. B.C. 494), a means was provided by which the resolutions of the tribes might become law. The tribunes were permitted to appear at the threshold of the building where the senate deliberated, and lay before it the proposals of the order which they represented: if approved, these proposals could then be referred in the ordinary way to the Comitia Centuriata, and thereby become genuine enactments of the sovereign populus (V. Max. 2.2, 7). After the enactment of the Lex Horatia Valeria (B.C. 449) the patricians seem to have begun to take part in the business of the Comitia Tributa, and it was perhaps provided by the same statute that plebiscita which related to matters of purely private law should have binding force without confirmation by the centuries. This exemption was apparently extended to all plebiscita by the first of the Leges Publiliae, B.C. 339 (Liv. 8.12; Gellius, 15.27), and finally a Lex Hortensia (B.C. 287) dispensed with the requirement of senatorial sanction to plebiscita. By this last change they were placed on a footing of complete equality with leges passed in the Comitia Centuriata (Dig. 2, 14, 7, 7; Gaius, 1.3; Inst. 1.2, 4): as the latter were proposed to the centuries by a senatorial magistrate, so they were submitted to the tribes by a tribune: leges related in the main to administrative and constitutional matters, plebiscita to matters of private law. The result of the equal legislative authority of the two comitia was that plebiscita came not uncommonly to be called leges, lex becoming a generic term (Dig. 1, 3, 32, 1), to which was sometimes added the specific designation, as “lex plebeivescitum,” “lex sive plebiscitum est” (e. g. the Tabula Heracleensis, Savigny, Zeitschrift, &c. vol. ix. p. 355). Cicero, in his enumeration of the sources of Roman law (Top. 5), does not mention plebiscita, which he undoubtedly included under leges: among the so-called leges which in fact were plebiscita are the Lex Aquilia (Cic. pro Tullio, 8, 11; Dig. 9, 2, 1, 1), the Lex Canuleia, Lex Rubria, &c. [p. 2.33]

The term rogatio means any measure proposed (bill, projet de loi) to the legislative body, whether on its enactment it would technically be a lex or a plebiscitum: hence the expressions populum rogare (Cic. Phil. 1.10.26), plebem rogare (de Leg. 3.3, 9), legem rogare (de Republ. 3.10, 17; Phil. 2.29, 72; Dig. 9, 2, 1, 1), and, by analogy, magistratum rogare, to offer a magistrate for election to the people (Liv. 3.65, 6.42; Cic. Att. 9.1. 5, 2, &c.; Sallust, Sal. Jug. 29: cf. Festus, s. v. Rogatio). The form of such rogation (in the case of an adrogation effected before the Comitia Curiata) is given by Gellius, 5.19, 5, 9: “Velitis jubeatis, uti L. Valerius L. Titio tam jure legeque filius siet, quamsi ex eo patre matreque familias ejus natus esset, utique ei vitae necisque in eum potestas siet, uti patri endo filio est, haec ita uti dixi, ita vos quirites rogo.” Assent to the proposal was expressed in the form “uti rogas” (which explains the term sponsio in the definition of lex above from Dig. 1, 3, 1); rejection by the verb antiquo (Liv. 4.58, 5.30, 55, &c.; Cic. de Off. 2.2. 1, 73; ad Att. 1.13; de Leg. 3.17, 38). The measures submitted were not unfrequently called rogationes even after their definite enactment as leges or plebiscita; and in Dig. 35, 2, 1, pr., an enacted statute is termed “lex rogata.” “Promulgare legem” denotes the publication of its terms for the public information (see LEX CAECILIA DIDIA inf.), such publication being usually followed by contiones or meetings in which the bill was explained and recommended to the people by its proposer or supporters (suasores): this promulgation and informal discussion is expressed by the phrase “ferre legem” as contrasted with rogare, which is confined to the solemn submission of the measure to the Comitia for acceptance or refusal: the general term used for acceptance is “rogationem accipere.” “Legem perferre” is to carry a rogatio, to convert it into a lex (Cic. Cornel. fragm. ap. Ascon.; Liv. 33.46). Other terms familiarly used in connexion with leges are explained by Ulpian (Reg. 1, 3): “Lex aut rogatur, id est fertur: aut abrogatur, id est, prior lex tollitur: aut derogatur, id est, pars primae legis tollitur: aut subrogatur, id est, adjicitur aliquid primae legi: aut obrogatur, id est, mutatur aliquid ex prima lege.”

By Festus rogatio is described as equivalent to what is otherwise called privilegium: “a command of the populus relating to one or more persons, but not to all persons, or relating to one or more things, but not to all:” cf. Dig. 50, 17, 196. Privilegia had been forbidden by the Twelve Tables (Cic. de Leg. 3.1. 9, 44; pro Domo, 17, 43), but in the sense of statutes in favour of or directed against individuals they are common; e. g. the Lex Centuriata by which Cicero was recalled from exile: “Non sunt generalia jussa, ... sed de singulis concepta, quocirca privilegia vocari debent, quia veteres priva dixerunt quae nos singula dicimus” (Gellius, 10.20, 4). The term is generally used by Cicero in the unfavourable sense (pro Domo, 17, 43; pro Sestio, 30, 65; Brut. 23, 89), and from the language in pro Domo, 11, 28, it may be inferred that privilegia were not considered leges proper: cf. Ulpian in Dig. 1, 3, 8: “Jura non in singulas personas, sed generaliter constituuntur.” In the Corpus juris privilegium is used generally to denote a jus singulare or privilege conferred on classes by law: cf. Dig. 1, 3, 16; 9, 2, 51, 2; 1, 3, 14 and 15: and see Savigny, System, i. p. 61.

Of the form and style of Roman legislation we can judge to some extent from the fragments which survive. The Romans seem to have always adhered to the old expressions, and to have used few superfluous words. Great care was taken with such clauses as were intended to alter a previous lex (whence the standing clause “de impunitate si quid contra alias leges, ejus legis ergo, factum sit,” Cic. Att. 3.2. 3), and to avoid all interference with prior enactments when no change in them was contemplated (whence the common formula “ejus hac lege nihil rogatur,” E. H. L. N. R. Lex Tab. Heracl., Lex Rubria, Lex Quinctia de aquaed.: cf. Valerius Probus; Cic. pro Caec. 33, 95; pro Balbo, 14, 32): though the general principle seems to have been that a subsequent repealed or modified a prior lex with which it was inconsistent. The leges were often divided into chapters (capita), e. g. the Lex Aquilia (Gaius, 3.210, 215, 217): cf. also the tablet of the Lex Rubria or de Gall. Cisalp. and Cic. ad Att. l.c. In order to preserve a permanent record, the lex was engraved on bronze (aes) and deposited in the Aerarium (Sueton. Jul. 28; Plut. Cat. min. 17): but it also seems to have been usual to cut statutes on tablets of oak (Dionys. A. R. 3.36), which were whitened over and then fixed in a public place for all citizens to read, though whether they were so exposed for any great length of time is uncertain (Cic. Att. 14.1. 2). The title of the lex was generally derived from the gentile name of the magistrate who proposed it, and sometimes from those of both the consuls or praetors (e. g. Lex Aelia Sentia, Junia Norbana, Papia Poppaea, &c.): and it was sometimes further described by reference to the topic to which it related (e. g. Lex Cincia de donis et muneribus, Lex Furia de sponsu, Lex Furia testamentaria, Lex Julia municipalis, &c.). Leges which related to a common subject were often designated by a collective name, as Leges agrariae, judiciariae, sumptuariae, &c. When a lex comprised very various provisions, relating to matters essentially different, it was called Lex Satura.

The terms in which a statute was expressed were fixed by the proposer, though he would usually be assisted by others who possessed the requisite familiarity with technical language: it was proposed to the Comitia for acceptance or rejection in its entirety, there being no discussion of or alteration in its clauses, which indeed in such an assembly would have been injurious, if not impossible. One important part of the lex was its sanctio--i.e. that part of it which provided a penalty for, or declared what should be the effect of, its infraction (Inst. 2.1, 10; Auct. ad Herenn. 2.10; Cic. de Invent. 2.4. 9, 146; Papinian in Dig. 48, 19, 41). If the sanctio declared that the act against which the statute was directed should be void, the lex was said to be perfecta; if there was no such provision, it was imperfecta (e.g. the Lex Cincia): and if an act was merely penalised, but not declared void, the lex is said by Ulpian (Reg. 1, 2) to be called “minus quam perfecta” (e. g. the Leges Furiae [p. 2.34]testamentaria and de sponsu): cf. Savigny, System, iv. p. 549 sq.

The number of leges was largely increased towards the end of the republican period (Tac. Ann. 3.25-28), and Julius Caesar is said to have contemplated a revision of the whole of them. Augustus, and perhaps his immediate successors, was careful to conduct his legislation under republican forms, though it may be doubted whether any statute was enacted after the fall of the Republic except on the initiative of the emperor, or at any rate without his sanction express or implied. The Comitia assembled and gave the force of law to the proposals submitted to them for some time after the constitution had lost all trace of real freedom (Tac. Ann. 1.15 relates to the election of magistrates, not to legislation); and most of the Leges Juliae, a Lex Visellia, an agrarian law of Caligula, and a law of Claudius (Gaius, 1.157, 171) were enacted in the ordinary way. The last statute which we know to have been passed in this manner is a lex agraria of the time of Nerva (A.D. 96-98), mentioned in Dig. 47, 21, 3, 1. Gaius speaks of the Comitia as in theory still a source of law ( “lex est, quod populus jubet atque constituit, plebiscitum, quod plebs jubet atque constituit,” 1.3: cf. Inst. 1.2, 4, in which the present tense has been turned into the past): but it is improbable that they had been called upon to discharge legislative functions since A.D. 100.

For some reigns after that of Augustus legislation was most ordinarily conducted by resolutions of the senate [SENATUSCONSULTUM], into which the proposed law was introduced by a consul, or very often by an oration of the emperor [CONSTITUTIONES]. Originally senatusconsulta did not acquire the force of law until they had been confirmed by the Comitia, in which case they were leges proper: but during the last half-century of the Republic the senate asserted and established an independent right of legislation. Hence, when genuine statutes ceased to be enacted with any frequency, senatusconsulta came to be actually called leges. Justinian says (Inst. 1.2, 5), “Cum auctus esset populus Romanus in eum modum ut difficile esset in unum eum convocari legis sanciendae causa, aequum visum est senatum vice populi consuli:” a passage based on similar language of Pomponius in Dig. 1, 2, 2, 9. The name comitia came to be commonly given to the sittings of the senate (Tac. Ann. 1.15; Capitol. Max. 10). Gaius says (1.4) that a senatusconsultum “vicem legis obtinet,” and in 1.85 he terms a senatusconsult of Claudius a lex: for similar passages cf. Dig. 14, 6, 9, 4; ib. 14; 48, 16, 10. No senatusconsulta occur after the reign of Septimius Severus (A.D. 193-211). The constitutions of the emperors, which succeeded senatusconsulta as the ordinary mode of legislation, were also called leges (e.g. Lex Anastasiana, Cod. 4, 35, 22): cf. Inst. 1.2, 6, and Dig. 1, 4, 1: “Quodcunque Imperator statuit, legem esse constat.” [See CONSTITUTIONES]

A less common and proper signification of lex, quite distinct from that of a general rule of law, is that in which it denotes the conditions under which a thing is to be done, or under which parties contract with one another: e. g. “lex commissoria” [COMMISSORIA]; “leges venditionis” or “emptionis,” conditions of sale, Dig. 18, 1, 40 (which explains why Cicero speaks of Marcus Manilius' work on sales as “Manilianas venalium vendendorum leges,” de Orat. 1.58, 246); “legem traditioni dicere,” Dig. 8, 4, 17, 3; “lex donationis,” Dig. 1, 5, 22, Accordingly we find the expression “leges censoriae” to express the conditions on which the censors let the public property or taxes to farm, which were perhaps embodied in certain standing regulations (Fragm. de jure fisci, § 18; Dig. 50, 16, 203). Similarly the term is used of conditions imposed on a testamentary disposition: “legatario legem dicere,” Dig. 40, 5; 40, 1; cf. Dig. 32, 22, pr. Not unfrequently lex denotes merely the statute of the Twelve Tables (e. g. Dig. 2, 14, 7, 14; 8, 3, 13; 41, 3, 3, &c.), and in one passage it means nothing more than the nature or character of a thing: “lex danda operi talis, ne quid noceat vicinis,” Dig. 39, 2, 15, 10. The extant authorities for Roman leges are inscriptions and the works of the classical writers and jurists. The Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum of Mommsen of course comprises all extant records of authentic legislation, along with a vast number of other inscriptions; smaller collections, relating more particularly to leges, are those of Göttling (Römische Urkunden auf Erz und Stein, Halle, 1845) and Zell (Delectus inscriptionum cum monumentis legalibus fere omnibus): cf. also Rudorff, Römische Rechtsgeschichte, 1. § § 81-86. The best information as to the fragmentary citations from or references to leges which are found scattered about in non-juristic Latin writers is to be obtained from Haubold's Institutiones juris Romani litterariae, vol. i. pp. 241-44, 297-349 (Leipzig, 1809): of the imperial legislation (independently of the Codes which have come down to us) there is a very full collection by Haenel, Corpus legum, &c. Fasc. i. (Leipzig, 1857). But perhaps the most useful modern collection to the classical student is that of Orelli (vol. viii. of his edition of Cicero) entitled “ Index legum Romanarum quarum apud Ciceronem ejusque Scholiastas, item apud Livium, Velleium Paterculum, A. Gellium nominatim mentio fit.

The following is a list of the principal Leges:--




ACI´LIA REPETUNDARUM, B.C. 102 (Cic. in. Verr. 1.17, 51; 2.1, 9). [REPETUNDAE]




AEBU´TIA enacted probably about B.C. 170 (for the various views as to its precise date see Rudorff, Rechtsgeschichte, 1.44, p. 106; Padelletti, Hist. Roman Law, ch. 32, note 2): it abolished the legis actio procedure except in suits tried before centumviri, in cases of damnum infectum, and for the voluntary jurisdiction employed for adoptions, manumissions, in jure cessio, &c. (Gellius, 16.10, 8; Gaius, 4.31). [JUDEX; ACTIO.] Another lex of the same name prohibited the proposer of a lex which created any office or power (curatio ac potestas) from having such office or power, and even excluded his collegae, cognati and affines (Cic. de lege agr. [in Rull.] 2.8, 21; de Domo, 20, 51). [p. 2.35]


AE´LIA This and a Lex Fufia passed towards the end of the sixth century of the city (Cic. in Pison. 5, 10) gave every magistrate the right of declaring beforehand his intention of taking the omens on a fixed day, and thereby (on the plea of their being unfavourable) of preventing the assembly of the Comitia (obnuntiatio). This right was frequently exercised against the tribunes of the people (Cic. in Vatin. 7, 9), for which reason Clodius (B.C. 58) got it temporarily taken away (D. C. 38.13). The better opinion seems to be that there were two distinct leges (see Walter, Geschichte des römischen Rechts, § 152, note 98); they are frequently mentioned by Cicero, especially in Vatin.; pro Sestio; in Pison.; ad Att. 1.16, 2.9, 4.16, 5. See also Orelli's discussion of them in his Onomasticon; Index Legum, where the passages in which they are mentioned are collected; and Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, i. pp. 80, 107.




AE´LIA SE´NTIA This was passed A.D. 4, mainly to prevent the true Roman population from being swamped by a too free exercise of the master's right of making his slaves citizens of Rome by manumission [LIBERTUS]. It contained the following provisions:--

(i.) Slaves who had been put in irons or branded by their masters as a punishment, or put to torture on a criminal charge and convicted, or made to fight in the arena, or thrown into prison or consigned to the gladiatorial school, were not by subsequent manumission to attain any higher status than that of peregrini dediticii (Gaius, 1.13; Ulpian, Reg. 1.11; Paul. Sent. rec. 4.12, 3-8: see DEDITICII and LIBERTUS). (ii.) Slaves under thirty years of age could not in future be manumitted so as to become cives unless the form of manumission were “per vindictam,” and a sufficient reason for it were proved before a consilium, consisting at Rome of five senators and five equites, sitting on fixed days, and in the provinces of twenty recuperatores or judges who were cives, and who sat for this purpose on the last day of the conventus or judicial assize in different towns (Gaius, 1.18, 20; Ulp. Reg. 1.12). Among the “sufficient reasons” (justae causae) were that the slave was a child or near relation of the manumitter, or his paedagogus; or that he wished to make him his agent, or (being a girl) to marry her (Gaius, 1.19). But even a slave under thirty could be made a civis by his master's will if he were instituted heres necessarius “cum libertate,” and the master was insolvent (Gaius, 1.21). Slaves under thirty manumitted otherwise than “vindicta apud consilium” at first remained slaves in the eye of the law [LIBERTUS], but by the Lex Junia Norbana, A.D. 19, they acquired the status of Latini. The Lex Aelia Sentia, however, itself provided one way in which they could rise to the condition of civitas; that is to say, if they married a civis Romana, or a Latina coloniaria, or a woman of the same class as themselves, had as evidence of this fact the presence of five Roman citizens of full age, and begot a son who attained the age of one year, they could prove these facts to the praetor at Rome, or the governor in a province,; and on the magistrate declaring the case “proven,” the man, his wife and child became all Roman citizens. If the man died before he had proved his case to the magistrate, the mother could do it, and the legal effect was the same. There were also other modes in which a Latinus could become civis [LATINITAS; cf. Poste's Gaius, note on 1.35]. (iii.) Manumission by a master under twenty was declared void unless made “per vindictam” and on proof of a “justa causa” of the same kind as above before the consilium (Gaius, 1.38). Thus, after this, though he could make a will at fourteen, a master could not manumit his slaves by it unless he was twenty (Gaius, 1.40); but Justinian permitted testamentary manumission at seventeen (Inst. 1.6, 7) and (by Nov. 119, 2) even at fourteen. Even manumission in one of the informal modes (e.g. inter amicos) by a master under twenty, which at the most could only have made him a Latinus, was held void unless a “justa causa” were proved before the consilium (Gaius, 1.41). (iv.) Manumission being an act by which a man diminished his property, manumission in fraud of creditors was by the statute made revocable by the latter (Gaius, 1.37; Inst. 1.6, pr.--4), and this provision was extended to peregrini by a senatusconsult under Hadrian (Gaius, 1.47): but it did not apply to the institution of a slave as “necessarius heres,” in order to save the testator from the disgrace of posthumous bankruptcy (Inst. l.100.1). Similarly the patron of a freedman who owned slaves was enabled to prevent the libertus from prejudicing his contingent rights of succession by revoking manumissions “in fraudem patroni” (Gaius, 1.37). (v.) The statute also allowed a patron to bring a criminal prosecution against his liberti if guilty of ingratitude (Dig. 40, 9, 30; 50, 16, 70, pr.: cf. Tac. Ann. 13.26).

Of the above provisions only the third and fourth were in force under the law of Justinian. The supposed reference to a Lex Aelia Sentia in Cicero (Top. 2, 10) is shown by Orelli to be a myth.




AEMI´LIA DE CENSORIBUS, passed by M. Aemilius when dictator, B.C. 433: it gave the censors, though elected at intervals of five years, only a year and a half instead of a whole lustrum for the discharge of their functions (e. g. holding the census and letting out the taxes and public works to farm), so that the state was without censors for intervals of three years and a half (Liv. 4.24, 9.33, 34; Mommsen, Röm. Staatsrecht, ii. p. 336).


AEMI´LIA DE LIBERTINORUM SUFFRAGIIS, B.C. 116 (Aurel. Vict. de Vir. illustr. 72).


AEMI´LIA SUMPTUARIA, passed by Aemilius Lepidus, B.C. 179 (Macrob. Saturn. 2.13, p. 369). Pliny (Plin. Nat. 8.223) seems to be referring to a different sumptuary law of the same name passed by M. Aemilius Scaurus, B.C. 116, though this may have been identical with the Lex Aemilia de libertinorum suffragiis.






A´MPIA a lex proposed by T. Ampius and [p. 2.36]T. Labienus, trib. plebis, B.C. 64, by which Cn. Pompeius was allowed to wear a crown of bay at the Ludi Circenses, and the like (Vell. Paterc. 2.40; D. C. 37.21).


ANASTASIA´NA a constitution of the Emperor Anastasius, A.D. 506 (Cod. 4, 35, 22), providing that no purchaser of a debt or “chose in action” should be able to recover more from the debtor than what he had paid for it himself, with ordinary interest, even though it was alleged that the transaction was in part a gift (Vangerow, Lehrbuch der Pandekten, § 576).


ANNA´LES were those statutes which determined at what age a man might be a candidate for the several magistracies: if he was elected to one at the earliest possible age, he was said to become praetor, consul, &c., “anno suo” (Cic. de Off. 2.1. 7, 59; Philip. 5.17, 47 sq.; Tac. Ann. 11.22). The first of them was a Lex Villia, proposed by L. Villius, a tribune, B.C. 180 (Liv. 25.2, 40.44), by which a man could be elected quaestor at the age of thirty-one, aedile at thirty-seven, praetor at forty, and consul at forty-three. There seems to have been a Lex Pinaria on the same subject carried by one M. Pinarius Rusca, a tribune, circ. 134 B.C. (Cic. de Orat. 2.65, 261): see Wex, Rhein. Museum, 1845, pp. 276-288; Hofmann, Röm. Senat. pp. 172-177.


A´NTIA (Gel. 2.24, 13; Macrob. Saturn. 2.13). [SUMPTUARIAE LEGES]


ANTO´NIA DE TERMESSENSIBUS, a plebiscitum enacted circ. 72 B.C., by which Termessus in Pisidia was recognised as libera. (See FOEDERATAE CIVITATES; Puchta, Institutionen, § 69; and Dirksen, Bemerkungen über das Plebiscitum de Thermensibus.


ANTO´NIAE the name of various enactments proposed or passed by the influence of M. Antonius after the death of the dictator Julius Caesar (Cic. Phil. 3.4, 9; 5.4, 10; 6.2, 3; 13.3, 5; ad Fam. 12.14, 6). One abolished the dictatorship (Phil. 1.1, 3; D. C. 44.51); others related to the constitution of the judicia (Phil. 5.5, 12; 8.9, 27), to appeals after conviction for Vis or Majestas (Phil. 1.9, 21), to permutatio of the provinces (D. C. 45.9, 20; Vell. 2.20; Appian, App. BC 3.27, 30), to honours to be paid to Caesar at the ludi Romani (Phil. 2.43, 110), and to an agrarian division of land (Phil. 5.3, 7; D. C. 45.9).


APULE´IA B.C. 102, gave one of two or more sponsors or fidepromissors (sureties), who paid the whole debt which they had guaranteed, the right of bringing an actio pro socio against the rest for the recovery of what he had paid in excess of his fair share (Gaius, 3.122). [INTERCESSIO]


APULE´IA AGRARIA, proposed by the tribune L. Apuleius Saturninus, B.C. 101 (Liv. Epit. 69; Appian, App. BC 1.29; Cic. pro Sestio, 16, 37; 47, 101).


APULE´IA DE COLONIIS DEDUCENDIS, perhaps really a chapter of the preceding lex: at any rate passed by the same tribune in the same year (Aurel. Vict. de Vir. illust. 73; Cic. pro Balbo, 21, 48).


APULE´IA FRUMENTARIA, of the same date and author (Auct. ad Herenn. 1.12, 21). [FRUMENTARIAE LEGES]


APULE´IA MAJESTATIS, probably passed by the same tribune and about the same time (Cic. de Orat. 2.2. 5, 49, 107, 201). [MAJESTAS]




ATE´RNIA TARPEIA B.C. 454, gave to all magistrates the right, which had hitherto belonged only to the consuls, of fining those who resisted their authority: the maximum of the fine, which had been fixed by a Lex Valeria (B.C. 509) at two sheep and five oxen, was raised to two sheep and thirty oxen: cf. PAPIRIA or JULIA PAPIRIA (Cic. de Republ. 2.35, 60; Dion. Halic. 10.50; Gellius, 11.1, 2-3; Festus, s. vv. Ovibus, Duobus, Peculatus; Paul. Diac. ex Festo, s. v. Maximam Multam; Plin. Nat. 18.11; Niebuhr, Röm. Geschichte, ii. p. 341 sq.; Mommsen, Röm. Staatsrecht, i. p. 128; Huschke, Multa, pp. 31, 46, 88; Puchta, Institutionen, § 53 ad fin.; Walter, Geschichte des röm. Rechts, § 820.)


A´TIA DE SACERDOTIIS, B.C. 63, proposed by the tribune T. Atius Labienus; it restored the regulations of the Lex Domitia on the same subject, which had been repealed by Sulla (D. C. 37.37; Ascon. in Div. 3).




ATI´LIA MA´RCIA B.C. 312, related to the election of tribuni militum by the people (Liv. 9.30).


ATI´NIA passed perhaps B.C. 198, repeated the rule of the Twelve Tables that stolen property should not be acquirable by usucapio, and added that the vitium furti should be removed, and the property admit of usucapio, as soon as the owner recovered possession of it, or was in a position to bring a vindicatio for its recovery (Gel. 17.7; Inst. 2.6, 2; Dig. 41, 3, 4, 6; 50, 16, 215: see FURTUM).


ATI´NIA a plebiscitum of the time of Sulla; apparently enacted that tribuni plebis should be elected solely from senators. The chief authority on its content is Gel. 14.8 (cf. Plin. Nat. 7.143; Cic. pro Dom. 47), which may also be interpreted to mean (1) that tribuni plebis should become senators virtute officii sui (Becker, 2.2, 277), or (2) that they might (but not must) be chosen from senators (Hofmann, Böm. Senat. pp. 144-165). On the different views, see Walter, Geschichte des röm. Rechts, § 140, note 128. There is a reference to certain Leges Atiniae in Cic. Phil. 3.6, 16; Verr. 1.42, 109, of which nothing further is known.


AUFI´DIA B.C. 62 (Cic. Att. 1.1. 6, 13). [AMBITUS]


AURE´LIA DE AMBITU (Cic. ad Q. fratrem, 1.3, 8).


AURE´LIA JUDICIARIA, B.C. 71 (Cornel. fragm. 26; Ascon. in Pis. p. 16, 19, in Com. p. 67, 78 sq.; Liv. Epit. xcvii.; Veil. Pat. 2.32, 3). [JUDEX]


AURE´LIA TRIBUNICIA (Ascon. in Com. p. 66, 78). [TRIBUNI.]


BAE´BIA B.C. 192, enacted that four and six praetors should be chosen in alternate years; but the law was not observed, and perhaps repealed (Liv. 40.44; Festus, s. v. Rogat; Meyer, Orator. Rom. fragm. p. 90, ed. 2).




CAECI´LIA DE CENSORIBUS or CENSORIA, carried by Metellus Scipio, B.C. 52: it repealed a plebiscitum of Clodius (B.C. 58) which had prescribed a formal procedure for the censors in [p. 2.37]exercising their functions as inspectors of Mores, by providing that they should not, in selecting the senate, pass over and so cast a slur on any one who had not been explicitly accused before them, and marked with the nota censoria by both (Ascon. in Pis. 4, p. 9 (Orelli); Cic. pro Sest. 25, 55, and Schol. Bob. p. 360; D. C. 38.13, 15, 40.57).


CAECI´LIA DE CN. POMPEIO, B.C. 63 (Schol. Bob. pro Sestio, p. 302; D. C. 37.43; Plut. Cato minor, 100.26 sq.).


CAECI´LIA DE P. SULLA ET P. AUTRONIO (Cic. pro Sulla, 22 sq.; D. C. 37.25: see Orelli, Onomasticon).


CAECI´LIA DE VECTIGALIBUS, B.C. 62, released the harbours of Italy from payment of direct taxes (portoria) to the state (D. C. 37.51; Cic. Att. 2.1. 6; ad Quint. fratr. 1.10; Dig. 50, 16, 203), which, however, were re-imposed by Caesar (Suet. Jul. 43).

CAECl‘LIA DI´DIA, B.C. 98, forbade the proposing of a Lex Satura (i. e. of enactments relating to different matters in one rogatio), lest people might be compelled either to vote for something which they did not approve, or reject something which they did. It also contained a provision that leges should be promulgated trinis nundinis before they were proposed to the Comitia (Cic. Phil. 5.3, 8; pro Dom. 16, 41; 20, 53; pro Sestio, 64, 135; ad Att. 2.9, 1: see LICINIA JUNIA).




CALI´DIA B.C. 99, by which Q. Metellus Numidicus was recalled from exile (V. Max. 5.2, 7; Aurel. Vict. de Viris illustr. 100.62; Cic. pro Plancio, 28, 69).




CALPU´RNIA DE AMBITU, B.C. 67 (D. C. 36.21; Cic. pro Mur. 23, 46; 32, 67). [AMBITUS]




CALPU´RNIA DE REPETUNDIS, B.C. 49 (Cic. Brut. 27, 106; de Off. 2.21, 75; Verr. 4.25, 56, &c.). [REPETUNDAE]


CANULE´IA B.C. 445, legalised conubium between patricians and plebeians, which had been denied by one of the two last tables of the decemviral legislation; so that issue of such a marriage would in future be in the patria potestas (Liv. 4.1, 4, 6; Cic. de Rep. 2.37, 63).


CA´SSIA AGRA´RIA B.C. 486, one of the early concessions to the plebs (Liv. 2.41; Dionys. A. R. 8.76).


CA´SSIA B.C. 104, proposed by the tribune L. Cassius Longinus: it deprived of their senatorial rank those who had been. convicted in a judicium publicum, or whose imperium had been taken from them by the populus (Cornel. fragm. 24, p. 451: Ascon. in Cornel. p. 78, ed. Orelli). Mommsen conjectures that it also disabled such persons from all office (Staatsrecht, i. p. 464).


CA´SSIA (Tac. Ann. 11.25) empowered the dictator Caesar to add to the number of the patricii, in order to prevent their extinction: cf. Sueton. Jul. 41. C. Octavius was made a patrician by this lex (Sueton. Aug. 2).


CA´SSIA TABELLA´RIA B.C. 37 (Cic. Brut. 25, 97; 27, 106; de Legg. 3.16, 37). [TABELLARIAE LEGES]


CA´SSIA TERE´NTIA FRUMENTA´RIA B.C. 73, provided for the distribution of corn among the poorer citizens, and for the means of obtaining it from Sicily (Cic. Ver. 3.70, 163; 5.21, 52).


CICERE´IA enacted that a creditor on taking sponsors or fidepromissors should first state publicly what the debt to be guaranteed was, and also the number of sureties he was going to take: if this were not done, they could, by taking action within thirty days, procure their release (Gaius, 3.123; Dig. 50, 16, 33; cf. Puchta, Institutionen, § 264, note s).


CI´NCIA or MUNERA´LIS, a plebiscitum carried by the tribune M. Cincius Alimentus, B.C. 204 (Cic. Cato, 4; ad Att. 1.20; de Orat. 2.71, 286; de Senect. 4, 10; Liv. 34.5), and entitled de donis et muneribus. In relation to gifts pure and simple, its enactments seem to have been two: (1) It forbade gifts beyond a certain maximum, the amount of which is unknown (Fragm. Vat. 304; Ulp. Reg. 1.1; Paul. Sent. rec. 5.11, 6; Dig. 39, 5, 21, 1); but it did not avoid gifts in excess of the limit, or even impose a penalty on the donee for taking the excess: it was, in fact, a “lex imperfecta” (Ulp. Reg. 1.1, 2; Macrob. Somn. Scip. 2.17). (2) It prescribed a form in which gifts must be made. A gift of a res mancipi was perfecta only if the res donata were mancipated and actually delivered (Fragm. Vat. 313), that of a res nec mancipi only if it were delivered (ib. 293, 313); that of a res mobilis was not perfected until the donee had possessed the thing for the greater part of the preceding year, for not till then was he entitled to the Interdictum Utrubi for his protection (ib. 293, 311). Absence of the mancipation form, if requisite, could be compensated for by usucapio (ib. 293). Thus the general effect of this provision was that gifts made in any other fashion (e. g. release or stipulation) were invalid (Fragm. Vat. 283, 310, 311; Dig. 20, 6, 1, 1).

Puchta (Institutionen, § 206) is of opinion that a gift was originally revocable in the ways described below if either of these provisions was disregarded: but that after some time observation of the statutory requirement as to form of conveyance was allowed to atone for violation of the rule as to amount, so that the latter became tacitly repealed by disuse. If the maximum of the Lex Cincia was no higher than that of the Lex Furia testamentaria, only twenty years later in date, it certainly must in time have come to be regarded as ridiculously small. Certain classes of donees, however, were excepted (Legis Cinciae exceptae personae) from the operation of both of these enactments, on the ground of being connected with the donor by the tie of kinship, affinity, betrothal, patronatus or guardianship (Fragm. Vat. 298-309).

But though the lex was imperfecta, there were means by which gifts in violation of its provisions could be rescinded, by the donor's having practically a power of revocation. If he were sued by a persona non excepta on a promise to give, he could defeat the action by “exceptio legis Cinciae” (Fragm. Vat. 310), which was also available if a res mancipi had been mancipated but not yet delivered (ib., and Dig. 44, 4, 5, 2). If it were mancipi, and had been tradita [p. 2.38]but not yet mancipated, the donor could assert his ownership in it by a vindicatio, and meet the defendant's “exceptio rei donatae” by “replicatio legis Cinciae:” and wherever the donee of a res mobilis had not possessed it for six months, the donor could recover possession by the Interdictum Utrubi. Where the gift was not revocable in any of these ways (e. g. if it had been a release of a debtor by acceptilatio, or by novation in favour of a third person, Dig. 39, 5, 21, 1), the donor was allowed an actio rescissoria, and he could recover by condictio any property of his which had definitely passed to the donee “contra legem Cinciam” (Fragm. Vat. 266; Dig. 39, 5, 21, 1; 44, 4, 5, 5). If, however, the donor died without revoking or expressing his intention of revoking a gift against the statute, it could not be upset by his heir: “morte Cincia removetur” (Fragm. Vat. 259, 266, 294).

Under the later Empire the rules of the Lex Cincia gradually went into disuse. Insinuatio (registration in the acta) of gifts to non exceptae personae was first required by Constantius Chlorus, and this rule was extended to exceptae personae by Constantine (Cod. Theod. 3, 5, 1). Later still the exemption of gifts to exceptae personae from the requirement of appropriate conveyance was done away with, except as between parent and child: and insinuatio was required by Theodosius II. only if the amount exceeded 200 solidi in value (Cod. Theod. 3, 5, 8): this maximum was raised to 500 solidi by Justinian, who also abolished the necessity of conveyance in any form, thus making a mere promise to give actionable (Inst. 2.7, 2).

Tacitus (Tac. Ann. 11.5) refers to another enactment of this statute, forbidding a person to take anything for his pains in pleading a cause, “ne quis ob causam orandanm pecuniam donumve accipiat:” Ann. 13.42 is explained by the fact that this provision was confirmed by a senatusconsult under Augustus, which imposed on the advocate a penalty of four times the sum received (D. C. 54.18). Under Claudius, however, advocates might take fees, but not in excess of 10,000 sesterces for each suit; a sum which under Nero was represented by 100 aurei: in this reign, too, further regulations were made on the subject (Suet. Nero 17), especially one subjecting those who took any sum in excess of the specified maximum to a prosecution for repetundae. But from Pliny (Plin. Ep. 5.21) it seems that in Trajan's time the fee could not be paid until the work had been done. (Savigny, Die Lex Cincia, Zeitschrift, 4.1; Verm. Schriften, 1.315-385; Rudorff, de lege Cincia, 1825; Wenck, Preface to Haubold, Opusc. acad. i. p. 37; Hasse, Rhein. Museum 1.185 sq., 3.174 sq.; Puchta, Institutionen, § 206; Francke, Civil. Abhandl. 1826, p. 1 sq.; Klinkhamer, de Donationibus, 1826; Bruns, Quid conferant Vat. fragm. ad Melius cognosc. jus Romanum, 1838, pp. 112 sq.


CLAU´DIA passed by the Emperor Claudius: it abolished the tutela legitima of agnates over women not in potestas or manus, thus in effect greatly enlarging their control of their property (Gaius, 1.157, 171-2).


CLAU´DIA DE SENATORIBUS, a plebiscitum of 218. B.C.: it enacted that no senator or senator's son should own a ship of larger cubic capacity than 300 amphorae (Liv. 21.63): Cicero says that in his time it was “antiqua et mortua” (in Verr. 5.18, 45).




CLAU´DIA DE SOCIIS, B.C. 177 (Liv. 41.8, 9).


CLO´DIAE a number of plebiscita carried by Clodius when tribune, B.C. 58, and frequently referred to by Cicero and Dio Cassius: among them are--


CLO´DIA DE AUSPICIIS [see AELIA]: it is also enacted “ut omnibus fastis diebus legem ferri liceret” (Cic. pro Sestio, 15, 33; 26,56; in Vatin. 17, 35; in Pison. 4, 5; D. C. 38.13).




CLO´DIA DE CIVIBUS ROMANIS INTEREMTIS, which led to Cicero's exile: it interdicted from fire and water [EXSILIUM] those who had put a Roman citizen to death uncondemned (Vell. 2.45, 1, 2; Dio Cass. xxxviii, 14). Cicero himself considered it a privilegium (ad Att. 3.15, 6; 23, 3; ad Fam. 14.4, 2; in Pison. 13, 30; pro Sestio, 24, 53; 32, 69; pro Domo, 18, 47, &c.).


CLO´DIA DE COLLEGIIS restored the clubs or guilds (collegia) which had been abolished by a senatusconsult, probably of B.C. 64, and permitted the formation of new ones (Cic. Att. 3.1. 5, 4; pro Sest. 25, 55; in Pison. 4, 8; D. C. 38.13). Nearly all of them were subsequently swept away by Julius Caesar (Sueton. Jul. 42).


CLO´DIA DE LIBERTINORUM SUFFRAGIIS (Cic. pro Milon. 12, 33; 33, 89).






CLO´DIA DE REGE PTOLEMAEO ET DE EXSULIBUS BYZANTINIS (Vell. 2.45; Cic. pro Domo, 8, 20; 20, 52; pro Sestio, 26, 57; D. C. 38.30; Plut. Cat. min. 34).


CLO´DIA FRUMENTARIA, directing the free distribution of corn to the poorer citizens instead of its sale at a low rate (D. C. 38.13; Cic. pro Sest. 25; Ascon. in Pison. 4; pro Dom. 10, 26). [FRUMENTARIAE LEGES]


CO´CTIA the reading in Cic. Att. 4.1. 6, 14: it means the lex judiciaria of L. Aurelius Cotta. [AURELIA JUDICIARIA.]


COLO´NIAE GENETI´VAE a lex of B.C. 44, regulating the constitution of this colony, established by Julius Caesar on the site of Urso in Baetica: discovered on bronze at Osuna in 1870, 1875 (Bruns, Fontes juris Rom. antiqui, 1880, pp. 43-103, 109-127).




CORNE´LIAE These comprise (I.) a large number of leges passed by Sulla in his dictatorship (Liv. Epit. lxxxix.); (II.) leges of L. Cornelius Cinna; and (IlI.) a number of statutes passed by different magistrates bearing this name.

I CORNE´LIAE AGRA´RIAE, “quibus agri perduellium publicati veteranisque assignati sunt” (Orelli): apparently referred to in Cic. in Rullum, 2.28, 78; 3.2, 6; 2, 8; 3, 12.


CORNE´LIA DE CIVITATE (Liv. Epit. lxxxvi.; Cic. pro Dom. 30, 79; pro Caec. 35, [p. 2.39]102; Sallust. Hist. fragm. lib. i. orat. Lepidi): it took the full civitas away from Volaterrae and other municipia.


CORNE´LIA DE FALSIS or TESTAMENTARIA (Cic. in Verr. 1.42, 108; Inst. 2.12, 5, 4.18, 7). [See FALSUM]


CORNE´LIA DE MAGISTRATIBUS, making discharge of inferior magistracies a necessary condition to the attainment of higher ones (Appian, App. BC 100, 101), and re-affirming the provisions of certain old plebiscita (Liv. 7.42, 10.13). The “lex de viginti quaestoribus” (Tac. Ann. 11.22) was probably merely one of its chapters (see Puchta, Institutionen, § 79, note a; Mommsen, Röm. Staatsrecht, i. pp. 519-524, 548).


CORNE´LIA DE PROSCRIPTIONE (Cic. in Verr. 1.47, 123; pro Sext. Rose. 43, 125-128; Vell. 2.29; Quintil. Inst. Or. 11.1, 85; Plut. Sull. 31). [PROSCRIPTIO]


CORNE´LIA DE PROVINCIIS ORDINANDIS limited the costs which might be incurred by provincial towns in sending public deputations to Rome for the purpose of praising their governor before the senate (Cic. Fam. 3.8, 10), and enacted (1) that those who had provinces under the Lex Sempronia should retain their imperium till they had re-entered the city on their return (Cic. Fam. 1.9, 25); and (2) that provincial governors should leave their province not later than thirty days after the arrival of their successors (Cic. Fam. 3.6, 3; ib. 6).


CORNE´LIA DE REJECTIONE JUDICUM allowed an accused senator the right of challenging a larger number of his judges than persons of lower rank, the latter's challenges being limited to three (Cic. in Verr. 2.31, 77; see Orelli's Onomasticon).


CORNE´LIA DE REPETUNDIS (Cic. pro Rabirio, 4, 9). It was under this statute that Verres was prosecuted. [REPETUNDAE]


CORNE´LIA DE SACERDOTIIS (Liv. Epit. lxxxix.; Pseudo-Ascon. in Div. p. 102, Orelli: see SACERDOTIA).


CORNE´LIA DE SENTENTIA FERENDA enabled the accused to say whether the votes of the judges should be given openly or by ballot: probably only a chapter of the Lex Cornelia judiciaria (Cic. Clu. 20, 55; 27, 75).


CORNE´LIA DE SICARIIS ET VENEFICIS. From Pliny (Plin. Nat. 18.12) we learn that the Twelve Tables contained some regulations as to homicide, but probably these were little more than a repetition of the law of Numa Pompilius which punished intentional slaying with death (Festus, s. v. Parici): unintentional killing was atoned for under the old religious law, and possibly by the Twelve Tables (Cic. pro Tull. 51; Top. 17; Festus, s. v. Subici, Subigere), by the offer of a ram (Serv. in Eclog. 4.43; Georg. 3.387; Dionys. A. R. 7.22: cf. Festus, s. v. Sororium). The Twelve Tables also penalised incantations (Plin. Nat. 28.17; Sen. Nat. quaest. 4.7; Augustin. de Civ. Dei, 8.19) and poisoning, both of which offences appear to have been included under parricidium [POMPEIA DE PARRICIDIIS]: the murderer of a parent was sewed up in a sack (culleus) and thrown into a river. It was under the provisions of some old law that the senate by a consultum ordered the consuls P. Scipio and D. Brutus (B.C. 138) to inquire into the murder in the Silva Scantia (Cic. Brutus, 22). The Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis, passed circ. B.C. 81, inflicted penalties not only for actual killing, but for going about with weapons for the purposes of murder or thieving; for incendiarism; for preparing, having, or selling poisons for the destruction of human life; for inciting a magistrate without cause to bring a capital charge; for the taking of money by a magistrate for such a service, and for bearing false witness in a capital prosecution (Collatio leg. Mos. 1.3; Cic. pro Cluentio, 54, 55, 57; Dig. 48, 8, passim; Paul. Sent. rec. 5.23, 1 and 10; Inst. 4.18, 5). By an enactment of Antoninus Pius the killing of slaves without just cause was brought within the statute (Gaius, 1.53), which by senatusconsulta and imperial legislation was also extended to the offence of castration and to human sacrifices. The penalty which it inflicted was aquae et ignis interdictio (later deportatio: see EXSILIUM), to which Julius Caesar added forfeiture (Dig. 48, 8, 3, 5): in the case of meaner criminals, even death (Dig. ib.).






CORNE´LIA JUDICIARIA took the judicia away from the equites exclusively, and divided them between equites and senators (Tac. Ann. 11.22; Veil. Pat. 2.32, 3: see JUDEX).


CORNE´LIA MAJESTATIS (Cic. in Pison. 21, 50; Ascon. in Cornel. p. 59, Orelli). [MAJESTAS]


CORNE´LIA NUMMARIA (Cic. in Verr. 1.42, 108). [FALSUM]


CORNE´LIA SUMPTUARIA (Gel. 2.24, 11; Macrob. Saturn. 2.13; Plut. Sull. 100.35). [SUMPTUARIAE LEGES]


CORNE´LIA TESTAMENTARIA (Cic. in Verr. 1.42, 108; Inst. 4.18, 7). [FALSUM]


CORNE´LIA TRIBUNICIA took away to a large extent the tribunes' right of intercession, and disabled those who had served this office from attaining a patrician magistracy (Vell. 2.30; Appian, App. BC 1.100, 2.29; Caesar, Caes. Civ. 1.5, 1; 1.7, 3; Cic. in Verr. 1.60, 155: see POMPEIA TRIBUNICIA).


CORNE´LIA UNCIARIA, perhaps passed about the same time as Sulla's Lex sumptuaria. It seems to have lowered the rate of interest (Festus, s. v. Unciaria).


II CORNE´LIA DE NOVORUM CIVIUM ET LIBERTINORUM SUFFRAGIIS, B.C. 87 (Cic. Phil. 8.2, 7; Veil. Pat. 2.20: cf. Appian, App. BC 1.64 sq.).




CORNE´LIA DE REVOCANDIS EXSULIBUS (Aurel. Vict. de Vir. illustr. 100.69).


III CORNE´LIA BAE´BIA DE AMBITU, B.C. 181, passed by the consuls P. Cornelius Cethegus and M. Baebius Tamphilus (Liv. 40.19; Schol. Bob. in Cic. pro Sulla, p. 361, Orelli).


CORNE´LIA CAE´CILIA DE CN. POMPEIO, B.C. 57, gave Cn. Pompeius extraordinary powers for five years for the management of the corn supply of Rome (Cic. Att. 4.1, 7; Liv. Epit. civ.; D. C. 39.9; Plut. Pomp. 49). [FRUMENTARIAE LEGES]


CORNE´LIA DE EDICTIS, passed by C. Cornelius, [p. 2.40]tribunus plebis, B.C. 67: it enacted that praetors should not vary the rules proclaimed in their perpetual edicts issued on their entry on office by subsequent Edicta repentina, or apply a different law from that which they had proclaimed claimed they would observe (Ascon. in Corn., Orelli, p. 58; D. C. 36.23: cf. Cic. in Verr. 3.14, 36). [EDICTUM]


CORNE´LIA DE INJURIIS, B.C. 81, perhaps a statute of Sulla. Its original object was the criminal prosecution of injuriae (assaults and batteries) “quae manu fiant” (Dig. 47, 10, 5, pr.); but by gradual usage a civil action was developed under its provisions, which had the advantage over the ordinary actio injuriarum in not being barred by a year's prescription (Dig. 47, 10, 37, 1; Inst. 4.4, 8). [INJURIA]


CORNE´LIA DE LUSU allowed betting at gymnastic exercises (Dig. 11, 5, 2, 1 and 3).


CORNE´LIA DE NOVIS TABULIS, passed by P. Cornelius Dolabella, B.C. 47 (Liv. Epit. cxiii.; D. C. 42.32; Plut. Antonius, 100.9).


CORNE´LIA DE RESTITUENDO CICERONE, B.C. 57 (Cic. in Pison. 15, 35).


CORNE´LIA DE SPONSORIBUS (B.C. 81), probably enacted by Sulla: it provided that (with a few exceptions) no one should become surety for the same debtor to the same creditor in any one year for a larger sum than 20,000 sesterces (Gaius, 3.124, 5). See INTERCESSIO




CORNE´LIA NE QUIS LEGIBUS SOLVERETUR, passed by C. Cornelius, tribunus plebis, B.C. 67, and directed against the reckless exercise by the senate of its usurped power of granting dispensations from the laws: in future such a dispensation required the presence of 200 members in the senate, and also confirmation by the Comitia Tributa; but no tribune was to be able to veto the proposal (Ascon. in Corn. p. 57, 72, Orelli; D. C. 36.22).


CREPERE´IA a lex of the Second Punic War, which regulated the coinage by fixing the relation between as, sestertius, and denarius (Plin. Nat. 33.45; Cod. 8, 54, 37); according to Studemund, it is the lex mentioned in Gaius, 4.95.


CURIA´TA DE ADOPTIONE (Gel. 5.19; Cic. Att. 2.7, 2; de prov. Consul. 19, 45; pro Domo, 15, 39; pro Sest. 7, 16; Tac. Hist. 1.15; Sueton. August. 65). [ADOPTIO]


CURIA´TA DE IMPERIO (Cic. de Rep. 2.13, 25, 2.17, 18, &c.; Tac. Ann. 11.22; Liv. 5.46, 9.38, &c.). [IMPERIUM]






DECIMA´RIA a chapter of the Lex Papia Poppaea, limiting the amount which a wife could take under her husband's will, and vice versâ, if they had no children, to a tenth of what was actually given (Fragm. Vat. 264; Quint. 8.5; Cod. 8, 58, rubr.).


DI´DIA B.C. 144 (Macrob. Saturn. 2.13). [SUMPTUARIAE LEGES]


DOMI´TIA DE SACERDOTIIS, B.C. 105 (Cic. in Rull. 2.7, 18; Epist. ad Brut. 1.5; Suet. Nero 2; Vell. 2.12, 3). [SACERDOTIA.]


DUI´LIA a plebiscitum of 449 B.C., imposing severe penalties on the tribune responsible for the choosing of his own and his colleague's successors who omitted to see that they were duly elected, and on those who created new magistrates from whom there was no appeal (Liv. 3.55: see VALERIAE HORATIAE).


DUI´LIA MAE´NIA DE UNCIARIO FENORE, B.C. 357, establishing or confirming a rate of interest at 8 3/4 per cent. (12 unciae to 100 asses) per annum (Liv. 7.16, 19). The same tribunes Duilius and Maenius carried a measure for the prevention of such unconstitutional proceedings as the enactment of a lex by the soldiers out of Rome on the consul's proposal (Liv. 7.16: see Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, i. p. 69, note 2).


DUO´DECIM TABULA´RUM The enactment of the Twelve Tables was the outcome of plebeian agitation for an “exaequatio juris” between the two orders in the state. In the year B.C. 462 the tribune of plebs C. Terentilius Arsa had obtained a resolution of the plebs for the appointment of five persons, with the object of enacting laws for the definition of the consular imperium; but this the senate, the stronghold of the patricians, had refused to send on to the Comitia Centuriata (Liv. 3.9). In the next year he proposed a codification or definite statement of the whole law by a commission of ten; but this, though carried by the plebs, was equally unsuccessful in its later stages (Liv. 3.10; Dionys. A. R. 10.3). In B.C. 454, however (Dionys. A. R. 10.52, 54), the senate so far yielded as to assent to a plebiscitum, pursuant. to which three commissioners were to be sent to Athens and the Greek cities in order to make themselves acquainted with their laws. On their return, after two years' absence, it was proposed (B.C. 451) that all the ordinary magistracies should be suspended, and the whole authority of the state vested in ten patrician commissioners, including the three who had been to Greece ( “decemviri legibus scribundis” ) from whom there was to be no provocatio, and who were directed to codify the public and private law of Rome (Dionys. A. R. 10.54-57; Liv. 3.32, 33). The plebeians consented to stand out of the commission only under express reservation of their previously established rights and liberties (Liv. 3.32). This proposal was carried through the Comitia Centuriata and Curiata without opposition (Liv. 3.34; Dionys. A. R. 10.32). The decemviri were appointed by the comitia of the centuries, being presided over by Appius Claudius, Consul designate; but they took the administration of affairs by turn, the insignia of office being used only by him who for the time being represented the executive (Liv. 3.33). Ten Tables of laws were prepared during the year, and after being approved by the senate were confirmed by the Comitia. Centuriata and Curiata: two further tables (which Cicero, de Rep. 2.37, calls “tabulae iniquarum legum” ) were added in the next year, these having been prepared by decemviri among whom were (according to Dionys. A. R. 10.58) three plebeians, though Livy (4.3) does not suggest that there had been any change in the constitution of the commission. Cicero's remark may be due to the fact that the prohibition of conubium between plebs and patricians was enacted by the eleventh Table (Dirksen, Uebersicht, &c., p. 740). In their integrity, the whole [p. 2.41]Twelve Tables were first published in B.C. 449, after the downfall of the decemviri (Liv. 3.54, 57); they are mentioned by the Roman writers under a great variety of names (e. g. Leges Decemvirales, Lex Decemviralis, Leges Duodecim, Duodecim Tabularum, or lex or leges simply); and, being the only attempt at codification of the jus civile until Justinian's time, are spoken of by classical writers throughout Roman history as the fundamental element of the system: by Tacitus as “finis aequi juris,” by Livy as “corpus omnis Romani juris” and “fons publici privatique juris.”

Some doubt has been cast, but without reason, on the story of the embassy to the Greek states, which preceded the enactment of the Twelve Tables. Pomponius (Dig. 1, 2, 2, 3 and 4) also refers to assistance given to the decemviri by an Ephesian named Hermodorus, who was living as an exile in Italy; but the assistance consisted perhaps more in interpreting the laws brought back by the commissioners from Greece than (as Pomponius hints) in the suggestion of new legislation. At any rate, this last tradition was confirmed by the fact of a statue having been erected in the Comitium at Rome in memory of Hermodorus; but it did not exist in the time of Pliny (Plin. Nat. 34.21). The foreign source of some of the laws was acknowledged by the Romans themselves: e. g. Cicero attributes to Solon the original of the rules as to burial (de Leg. 2.25, 64). Similarly Gaius, in his Commentary on the Twelve Tables, where he is speaking of Collegia (Dig. 47, 22, 4), says that the members of Collegia may make what terms they please among themselves, if they thereby violate no “publica lex;” and he adds that this rule seems to be taken from the legislation of Solon, to whom also (Dig. 10, 1, 13) he refers for the origin of certain rules as to boundaries and the actio finium regundorum. But that the decemviral legislation contained any considerable element of foreign law is in the highest degree improbable. The law as previously established seems to have been handed down in the main, if not entirely, by oral tradition; and whether it be true or not that the patricians were especially cognisant of it, it is certain that the plebeians had suffered largely from having no certain or full knowledge of its intricate rules and formulae. What they desired primarily was a plain and clear statement in writing ( “legibus scribundis” ) of the law as it stood: it was only in the jus publicum that they wished for change, and that only so far as was required to place the two orders on a tolerable equality in respect of civil and political rights. The caprice of the magistrate who administers the law is best guarded against by those over whom it is administered having a clear knowledge of its provisions.

The laws were cut on tablets of bronze and put up in a public place (Liv. 3.57; Diod. 12.56), though Pomponius, in the passage of the Digest already referred to, says that the material of the Tablets was ivory (see Zimmern, Geschichte des röm. Privatrechts, vol. i. p. 101). It is commonly supposed that they were destroyed in the burning of the city by the Gauls some sixty years after their enactment, but the passage of Livy on which this is based (6.1) is just as conclusive against as for the supposition. The Romans of the age of Cicero had no doubt of the genuineness of the collection which then existed; and if we may believe Cyprian (Ep. 2, 4, ad Donat. de gratia Dei), the Twelve Tables, were exposed in the forum as late as the third century of our era. Cicero speaks of learning the text of them by rote ( “ut carmen necessarium” ) when a boy (de Leg. 2.4, 23), and up to his time the chief juristic work of the lawyer class seems to have been their interpretatio--the extension of a rule of the Twelve Tables (or of other early statutes, such as the Lex Aquilia) to cases not strictly within its letter: but shortly before the fall of the Republic, as he tells us (de Leg. 1.5, 17), the jurists had abandoned the jus civile, and taken to commenting instead on the Praetor's Edict. Of actual commentaries on the Twelve Tables we hear of one by Sextus Aelius Paetus Catus in his Tripartita, a work which existed in the time of Pomponius [JUS AELIANUM]. Others. were written by another Aelius, by Atilius (Cic. de Leg. 2.2. 3, 59; Dig. 1, 2, 2, 38), by Labeo (Gel. 1.12, 7.15, 20.1), and finally by Gaius: this was in six books, from which twenty excerpts are preserved in the Digest. The decemviral legislation, though largely modified (especially in the parts of it relating to public law) by subsequent enactments, was not formally repealed till the time of Justinian, nearly 1000 years after its first establishment. No complete copy of its text has come down to us, but about 100 fragments, partly incomplete, have bees collected from citations and references in classical and juristic literature.

It remains to give a short account of the contents of the Twelve Tables, so far as they can be gathered from the extant fragments and the notices of earlier writers.

    I. The personal freedom and civil equality of citizens was secured by the exclusion of all capital sentences except those delivered by the Comitia Centuriata (Cic. de Leg. 3.1. 9, 44; de Republ. 2.36, 61; pro Sest. 30, 65), by the recognition as provisionally free of a man whose free status was called in question, and by the prohibition of privilegia.
  • II. Freedom of individual action within the domain of private law was secured by the recognition of contracts and testaments.
  • III. Certain points of private law were more precisely defined which would otherwise have endangered the security of rights of property, or opened the door to harshness and oppression: especially as regards (a) usucapion and the restrictions imposed on property in the interest of neighbours; (b) the law of debt and the rights of unsatisfied creditors; (c) family law (manus, patria potestas, tutela, and conubium between patricians and plebeians); and (d) inheritance, especially on intestacy.
  • IV. Capital penalties were prescribed for false witness, judicial partiality or corruption, incendiarism, nocturnal theft of crops, and libel; and the right of appeal from condemnation to any of these was given to every citizen (Cic. de Republ. 2.31).
  • V. Private poenae were established for injuria, theft, and certain kinds of damnum.
  • VI. The mode of summons and the procedure in actions generally were defined and regulated, especially with a view to preventing capricious [p. 2.42]exercise of his authority and jurisdiction by the magistrate; and
  • VII. Certain sanitary and sumptuary rules were laid down as to the interment of dead bodies.

The most celebrated attempt to re-arrange the extant fragments of the Twelve Tables in the order in which they originally stood, or to reconstruct the Tables themselves, is that of Jacobus Gothofredus (Heidelberg, 1616): on this and similar works there is an admirable critique by Dirksen, Uebersicht der bisherigen Versuche zur Kritik und Herstellung des Textes der Zwölf-Tafel-Fragmente, 1824; and especially M. Voigt, Civil und Criminalrecht der Zwölf Tafeln. Cf. also Schöll, Leg. XII. Tab. reliquiae, Leipzig, 1866; Bruns, Fontes juris Rom. antiqui, ed. 4 (Tübingen, 1880), pp. 14-37; and Puchta, Institutionen, vol. 1. § § 54, 55.


FA´BIA DE PLAGIARIIS (Cic. Rab. Perd. 3, 8; Paul. Sent. rec. 5.306; Inst. 4.18, 10; Dig. 48, 15; Cod. 9, 20). [PLAGIUM]


FA´BIA DE NUMERO SECTATORUM (Cic. pro Murena, 34, 70, 71).


FABRI´CIA DE REDITU CICERONIS (Cic. pro Milone, 14, 38).




FA´NNIA B.C. 161 (Gel. 2.24, 2-6; Macrob. Saturn. 2.9, 13; Plin. Nat. 10.139; Athen. 6.274 c). [SUMPTUARIAE LEGES]




FLAMI´NIA an agrarian law for the distribution of lands in Gaul and Picenum, proposed by C. Flaminius, tribunus plebis (Cic. Brut. 14, 57; Acad. 2.5, 13; de Invent. 2.17, 52; V. Max. 5.4, 5; Plb. 2.21). According to Polybius, who here seems more reliable than Cicero, the date of the law was B.C. 232.


FLAMI´NIA MINUS SOLVENDI, B.C. 217, reduced debts by more than a third by allowing sixteen asses to be paid by ten (Festus, s. v. Sestertii).


FLA´VIA AGRA´RIA B.C. 60: by this the tribune L. Flavius proposed a distribution of lands among Pompeius' soldiers (Cic. Att. 1.1. 8, 6, 1.19, 4; D. C. 37.50; Marquardt, Röm. Staatsverwaltung, i. p. 446).






FU´FIA CANI´NIA circ. A.D. 4, limited the number of slaves who could be manumitted by will (Gaius, 1.42-46; Inst. 1.7; Ulpian, Reg. 1.24, 25; Paul. Sent. rec. 4.14; Cod. 7, 3; Sueton. Aug. 40). It is also sometimes called Furia or Fusia Caninia. [MANUMISSIO]


FU´FIA DE RELIGIONE, B.C. 61, a plebiscitum of the tribune Q. Fufius Calenus, relating to the mode of selecting the judges who were to try Clodius for his outrage on the rites of the Bona Dea (Cic. Att. 1.1. 3, 3; ib. 16, 2).


FU´FIA JUDICIARIA (B.C. 59?) apparently provided that the senators, knights, and tribuni aerarii should vote separately in the judicia (D. C. 38.8; Schol. Bob. pro Flacco, p. 235, Orelli).


FU´RIA ATI´LIA a plebiscitum of 137 B.C. enacting the surrender of C. Mancinus to the Numantines (Cic. de Off. 3.3. 0, 109).


FU´RIA DE SPONSU (Gaius, 3.121, 122). [INTERCESSIO]


FU´RIA TESTAMENTARIA, B.C. 183 (Gaius, 2.225, 4.23; Cic. pro Balbo, 8, 21). [LEGATUM]


GABI´NIA DE SENATU LEGATIS DANDO, a plebiscitum of Aulus Gabinius, tribunus plebis B.C. 67, appropriating the sittings of the senate in the month of February to the reception of embassies (Cic. ad Quint. fratr. 2.1. 3, 3; ad Fam. 1.4).


GABI´NIA DE UNO: IMPERATORE, &c., passed by the same tribune in the same year, and conferring extraordinary powers on Cn. Pompeius for conducting the war against the pirates (Vell. 2.31, 2; D. C. 36.6-20; Plut. Pomp. 25; Cic. pro lege Manilia, 17-19).


GABI´NIA DE VERSURA, passed by the same tribune in the same year, and forbidding all loans of money at Rome to legationes from foreign parts, its object being to prevent the senate from being bribed by such embassies (Cic. Att. 5.2. 1, 12; 6.2, 7).






GE´LLIA CORNE´LIA B.C. 72, gave to Cn. Pompeius the extraordinary power of conferring the Roman civitas on Spaniards in Spain with the advice of his council (Cic. pro Balbo, 8, 14 and 19; 14, 32, 33).


GENU´CIA DE FENORE, B.C. 343, forbade taking interest for the use of money (Liv. 7.42; Tac. Ann. 6.16). It was persistently evaded (Liv. 35.7), and eventually altogether disregarded (Plut. Cato Major, 21; Appian, App. BC 1.54).


GENU´CIA DE CONSULATU, B.C. 343, a proposal by the same tribune Genucius for opening both consulships to plebeians (Liv. 7.42). In 8.12 Livy represents the law as having actually been passed; but we do not read of both consuls being plebeians till the 6th century, and he is probably incorrect: see Puchta, Institutionen, § 57, note 1; Mommsen, Röm. Staatsrecht, ii. p. 76.


GLI´CIA a statute supposed by Cujacius as the origin of the querela inofficiosi testamenti, but apparently without reason (see Vangerow, Pandekten, 7th edit. ii. p. 218).


GUNDOBA´DA a name sometimes given to the Lex Burgundiorum of King Sigismund, otherwise known as “Papian,” A.D. 517.


HERE´NNIA B.C. 60 (Cic. Att. 1.1. 8, 4; 1.19, 5).




HI´RTIA DE POMPEIANIS, circ. 49 B.C. (Cic. Phil. 13.16, 32).


HORA´TIA B.C. 449, made the persons of the tribunes, aediles, and decemviri sacrosancti (Liv. 3.55). [VALERIAE ET HORATIAE.] Another Lex Horatia mentioned by Gellius (6.7, 2-4) was a privilegium relating to a vestal virgin named Caia Tarratia.


HORTE´NSIA DE PLEBISCITIS, B.C. 287 (Plin. Nat. 16.37; Gel. 15.27, 4; Gaius, 1.3; Inst. 1.2, 4). [PLEBISCITUM; PUBLILIAE LEGES.]


HORTE´NSIA DE NUNDINIS, of about the same date, enacted that the market days, which had hitherto been Feriae, should be dies fasti. This was done for the purpose of accommodating the inhabitants of the country (Macrob. Saturn. 1.16; Plin. Nat. 18.13).


HOSTI´LIA enabled the actio furti to be [p. 2.43]brought by an agent on behalf of any person who (or whose tutor) was in foreign captivity or absent reipublicae causa (Inst. 4.10, pr.).


ICI´LIA DE AVENTINO PUBLICANDO, a plebiscitum proposed by L. Icilius, B.C. 456, granting the Aventine, hitherto possessed by the patricians, as a dwelling-place to the plebs, who thereby acquired a right to the buildings which they erected on it (Liv. 3.31, 32; Dionys. A. R. 10.31, 32; cf. Niebuhr, Rom. Hist. 2.301: and see SUPERFICIES).


ICI´LIA DE SECESSIONE, B.C. 449 (Liv. 3.54).


ICI´LIA TRIBUNICIA, B.C. 469, enacted that any person who interfered with a tribune in the exercise of his constitutional powers should be put to death unless he gave sureties for the payment of the fine to which he rendered himself liable (Dionys. A. R. 7.17; Cic. pro Sestio, 39, 84; Becker-Marquardt, 2.3, 129).


JU´LIAE LEGES most of which were passed in the time of C. Julius Caesar and Augustus: among them are--


JU´LIA AGRARIA, passed by Julius Caesar in his first consulate, B.C. 59: it provided for an assignment of lands in Campania (whence Lex Campana in Cic. Att. 2.1. 8) to the Pompeian veterans and the poorer citizens generally, especially such as had three children (D. C. 38.1-7; Veil. Pat. 2.44; Appian, App. BC 2.10; Sueton. Jul. 20; Cic. Att. 2.1. 6, ad Fam. 13.4, Phil. 2.39, 101, 5.19, 53; Plut. Cato Minor, 31-33; Dig. 47, 21; Zumpt, Comment. Epigraph. 1.277-302; Harless, Ackergesetzgebung C. Julius Caesar, Bielefeld, 1841).


JU´LIA CADUCARIA, identical with the Lex Julia et Papia Poppaea.






JU´LIA DE ANNONA, directed against attempts to raise in any way the price of corn, and making it a criminal offence (Inst. 4.18, 12; Dig. 47, 11, 6, pr.; 48, 12, 2).


JU´LIA DE BONIS CEDENDIS. Up to nearly the end of the Republic an insolvent debtor was unable to escape from the two severe forms of bankruptcy execution (manus injectio and bonorum emptio or venditio) by a voluntary composition. This statute (whether due to Julius or Augustus Caesar is uncertain) enabled him, at any moment before his creditors took steps to have him adjudged a bankrupt, to make a cessio bonorum to them, though the right could not be exercised if his insolvency was due entirely to his own fault (Cod. 7, 71, 8, pr.). He surrendered his property, which was dealt with in much the same way as if the procedure had been by bonorum emptio; but he escaped infamia and the liability to personal arrest, and was entitled to the beneficium competentiae: i.e. his creditors were bound to let him retain so much of his means as was sufficient to provide him with the necessaries of life. The provisions of the statute, originally intended to benefit cives only, were extended to the provinces by imperial constitutions, Cod. 7, 71, 4 (Caes. Civ. 3.1; Sueton. Jul. 42; Tac. Ann. 6.16; D. C. 58.21; Gaius, 3.78).


JU´LIA DE CAEDE ET VENEFICIO (Sueton. Nero, 33), perhaps the same as the Lex Julia de vi publica.


JU´LIA DE CIVITATE, B.C. 90 (Cic. pro Balbo, 8, 21; Gel. 4.4,3). [CIVITAS; FOEDERATAE CIVITATES.]


JU´LIA DE CRETA (Cic. Phil. 2.38, 97).


JU´LIA DE EXSULIBUS (Cic. Phil. 2.38, 98: cf. Phil. 5.4, 11).


JU´LIA DE FENORE (or DE PECUNIIS MUTUIS or CREDITIS), passed by Julius Caesar when dictator, B.C. 49. It compromised the claims of creditors and debtors by estimating property at the value it had held before the depreciation occasioned by the Civil War, and compelling the creditors to take it at this valuation; and by allowing debts to be discharged without payment of the accumulated interest. It was calculated that the creditors lost about one-fourth of what was their due (Caes. Civ. 3.1; Sueton. Jul. 42; Plut. Caes. 37; Appian, App. BC 2.48).


JU´LIA DE FUNDO DOTALI, a chapter of the Lex Julia de adulteriis: it absolutely prohibited mortgages of Italian land which formed part of a dos by the husband, and allowed its alienation only with the wife's consent. It was commented on by Papinian, Ulpian, and Paulus (Gaius, 2.63; Inst. 2.8, pr.; Paul. Sent. rec. 2.21, 2; Dig. 23, 5). See ADULTERIUM


JU´LIA DE LIBERIS LEGATIONIBUS (Cic. Att. 15.1. 1, 4; de Legg. 3.8). [LEGATUS]




JU´LIA DE PROVINCIIS, passed by Julius Caesar: it limited the governorship of a praetorian province to one year, that of a consular one to two. Orelli also ascribes to this lex certain regulations of Caesar as to provincial expenses, which Ernesti considers to have been part of the Lex Julia repetundarum (Cic. Phil. 1.8; D. C. 43.25; Ferrat. Epist. 3.14).


JU´LIA DE PUBLICANIS (Cic. pro Plancio, 14, 35; Appian, App. BC 2.13; D. C. 38.7; Sueton. Jul. 20).


JU´LIA DE REGE DEIOTARO (Cic. Phil. 2.37, 93: cf. ad Att. 14.12, 1).


JU´LIA DE RESIDUIS, part of the Lex Julia peculatus (Inst. 4.18, 12; Dig. 48, 13). [PECULATUS]


JU´LIA DE SACERDOTIIS (Cic. ad Brut. 1.5; cf. Phil. 2.3, 6).




JU´LIA DE SICULIS (Cic. Att. 14.1. 2, 1).




JU´LIAE JUDICIARIAE One of Julius Caesar deprived the tribuni aerarii of their share in the judicia publica (Suet. Jul. 41; Cic. Phil. 1.8); others, more probably of Augustus than Julius, instituted an “album selectorum judicum” for the hearing of civil causes (Suet. Octav. 32; Gel. 14.2), and perhaps fixed at twenty years the age under which a person could not be compelled to be a judex (Dig. 4, 8, 41); limited the jurisdiction of the centumviri (Gaius, 4.30; see Keller, Civil Process, § 23); and divided actions in respect of their pendency into judicia legitima and judicia quae imperio continentur (Gaius, 4.104). For the whole subject, see JUDEX


JU´LIA MAJESTA´TIS (Cic. Phil. 1.9, 23; Inst. 4.18, 3; Dig. 48, 4). [MAJESTAS]


JU´LIA MISCELLA avoiding a condition annexed to the institution of a heir or a legacy to the effect that the person benefited should [p. 2.44]not marry: probably a clause of the Lex Julia et Papia Poppaea (Dig. 35, 1, 64; ib. 72, 4, &c.; Cod. 6, 40).


JU´LIA MUNICIPA´LIS commonly called the Tabula Heracleensis. It was discovered on bronze in two fragments at Tarentum (Heraclea) in 1732 and 1735, which have been united and kept in the Museo Borbonico at Naples since 1760. The inscription on one side is a Greek psephisma of the town of Heraclea, that on the other is a copy of part of a Roman lex (clearly made for the use of the citizens of the town), which contains police regulations for the city of Rome: rules for the constitution of communities of Roman citizens (municipia, coloniae, praefecturae, fora, conciliabula civium Romunorum), and others relating to capacity for the decurionatus and magistracies, to the census in the Italian towns, and to changes in local regulations. It was thus a lex of the class called Satura.

It seems that the lex of the year B.C. 49, which gave the civitas to the Transpadani, enacted that a Roman commissioner should be sent to all the towns for the purpose of framing regulations for their municipal organisation. The Lex Julia empowered the commissioners to continue their labours for one year from its date, and included the whole of Italy within the scope of their authority. The name of the lex (which for a long time was called simply Tabula Heracleensis) was determined by Savigny by means of an inscription discovered at Padua in 1696 (Orelli, Inscr. 2.3676): its date is now regarded by the authorities to be fixed at B.C. 45 by a passage of Cicero (Cic. Fam. 6.18), so that its determining cause seems to have been the admission of the Transpadani to the civitas, B.C. 49.

(A lithographed copy of the Table is given by Ritschl, Tab. xxxiii. xxxiv.: the text may also be found in Orelli's Inscriptions, 1.206, and Spangenberg's Monumenta legalia, 1830, No. 16, p. 99 sq. The first work on the subject is that of Mazochi, Naples, 1754, 1755: the best is Savigny's Essay (with two appendices) in his Vermischte Schriften, vol. iii. pp. 279-413: cf. Puchta, Institutionen, § 90.)


JU´LIA ET PA´PIA POPPAEA The relation of this statute to the Lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus is not perfectly clear. Augustus appears in his sixth consulate (B.C. 28) to have issued an edict (Tac. Ann. 3.28) on the subject of marriage, which he followed up (B.C. 18) by proposing a law to the senate regulating certain marriages, imposing disabilities on unmarried persons (caelibes), and establishing rewards for those who had married and reared children (D. C. 54.16). This he carried with difficulty through the senate, but, apparently owing to the organised resistance of the equites, it was tumultuously rejected at the Comitia (Suet. Aug. 34). Towards the end of his reign, however (A.D. 3), he succeeded in carrying it, with its rewards increased and its penalties mitigated: it is referred to in the Carmen Saeculare of Horace, which was written B.C. 17, and is mentioned under the name Lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus in Dig. 38, 11; 23, 2. The opposition of the knights was overcome by a provision that it should not come into force for three, a period subsequently extended to six, years; and taking advantage of this, Augustus passed in A.D. 9 another statute (called Papia Poppaea from the consules suffecti for the year, M. Papius Mutilus and Q. Poppaeus Secundus: D. C. 56.1-10), containing further enactments on the same subject. Some writers are of opinion that there was but one lex (Papia Poppaea), in which the earlier unsuccessful law was incorporated, and it is true that the frequent mention of them together as one lex (Julia et Papia Poppaea) lends some colour to the supposition: but the view here taken seems more in accordance with the information given by historians, and to be confirmed by the provisions of the statutes being sometimes distinguished in close juxtaposition. Sometimes they are cited by reference to their various chapters: e. g. Lex Caducaria, Lex Decimaria, Lex Miscella, &c.

Many commentaries were written on these leges by the Roman jurists, of which considerable fragments are preserved in the Digest: Gaius wrote fifteen books, Ulpian twenty, and Paulus at least ten. The joint statute contained at least thirty-five chapters (Dig. 22, 2, 19), but as a rule it is impossible to say to which of the two leges included under the general title of Lex Julia et Papia Poppaea the several provisions as now known to us belong. Attempts have been made both by J. Gothofredus and Heineccius to restore them, on the assumption that their provisions are reducible to the two general heads of a Lex Maritalis and a Lex Caducaria (cf. Puchta, Institutionen, § 107).

Among the enactments of these statutes are the following:--

(i.) Prohibition of certain marriages under penalties: viz. of ingenui with infames (e. g. actresses and prostitutes); and of senators or their children with freedwomen, freedmen, and actors' daughters (Ulpian, Reg. 13.1, 16.2; Dig. 23, 2, 44, pr. and 1). Marriages between a senator or his issue and libertini were declared void by a senatusconsult passed under M. Aurelius (Dig. 23, 2, 16, pr.), and the rule was subsequently extended to actors and actresses (Dig. ib. 42, 1).

(ii.) Avoidance of conditions against marriage annexed to legacies and inheritances. [JULIA MISCELLA.]

(iii.) Provisions to encourage marriage. Caelibes were disabled by the Lex Julia from taking either as heirs or as legatees (Gaius, 2.111, 144, 286) under a will, unless the testator were related to them within the sixth degree (Ulpian, Reg. 16.1; Frag. Vat. 216, 219), or unless they married within 100 days (Ulpian, Reg. 17.1; 22.3). Spadones and vestal virgins were exempted from the operation of the statute, as were widows for twelve months, and divorced women for six: these periods were extended by the Lex Papia to two years and eighteen months respectively (Ulp. Reg. 14). Again, the penalty of the statute could be evaded by an engagement to marry, if carried out within two years (Sueton. Octav. 34; D. C. 54.16, 56.7; Dig. 23, 1, 17). Finally, males were released from its provisions in this respect on attaining sixty, women on attaining fifty years of age; but a Senatusconsultum Persicianum passed under Tiberius enacted that they should be regarded as caelibes in perpetuity if they postponed marrying till so late in life. A Senatusconsultum [p. 2.45]Claudianum so far modified the strictness of the new rule as to give a man who married after sixty the same advantage that he would have had if he had married under sixty, provided he married a woman who was under fifty; but it was enacted by a Senatusconsultum Calvisianum under Nero, that if a woman over fifty married a husband under sixty, even the latter should not escape the disabilities imposed by the statute (Ulpian, Reg. 16.4). Similarly, by the Lex Papia, orbi (persons who had been married, but had no children living) were disabled from taking more than a moiety of what was left them by way of either inheritance or legacy (Gaius, 2.111, 286; Ulpian, Reg. 16.1; Sozomenus, 1, 9), unless related to the testator within the sixth degree. Males escaped the penalties of orbitas by having a single (even adoptive) child (Juv. 19.83, 86-89), but by a Senatusconsultum Memmianum adoption was deprived of this effect when resorted to merely in order to evade the statute: but women were not so well off, ingenuae being released only by three, libertinae only by four children (Paul. Sent. rec. 4.9, 1-3). There were exceptions to these rules if the wife was under twenty or over fifty, or the husband under twenty-five or over sixty, and also if the husband was residing away from the wife reipublicae causa (Ulpian, Reg. 16.1). Legacies and inheritances which could not be taken either in whole or part, owing to these provisions of the Lex Julia or Lex Papia Poppaea, became caduca [BONA CADUCA], the law upon which subject was considerably modified by these statutes.

(iv.) Some other provisions have been noticed elsewhere [DECIMARIA; JULIA MISCELLA]. To these may be added the rule giving a preference to candidates for office according to the number of their children (Tac. Ann. 15.19; Plin. Ep. 7.16): the release of ingenuae with three and libertinae with four children from tutela (Gaius, 1.144, 145), and of libertini with a certain number of children from operarum obligationes (Dig. 38, 1). The exemption of persons from discharging the office of tutor or curator jure liberorum (Inst. 1.25, pr.; Dig. 27, 1, 18) was based on these statutes, which also introduced changes (besides those already noticed) into the law of succession, both testamentary and intestate, especially in connexion with libertini (Gaius, 3.42-50, &c.: see PATRONUS). And the Lex Julia also fixed the date at which wills were opened as that at which the rights of legatees should become indefeasible (dies cedit: see LEGATUM), which previously had been the decease of the testator; but the old rule was restored under Justinian.

After the enactment of the Lex Papia Poppaea, it became not unusual to obtain a grant of a fictitious jus liberorum by special favour from the senate, and later from the emperor (D. C. 55.2; Sueton. Claud. 19; Plin. Ep. 2.13, 10.2, 95, 96; Paul. Sent. rec. 4.9, 9), whereby those who had no children, or not enough, were enabled to escape its disabilities and even enjoy most of its benefits (Fragm. Vat. 170). This privilege is mentioned in some inscriptions, on which the abbreviation I. L. H. (jus liberorum kabens) sometimes occurs. The Emperor M. Aurelius enacted that children should be registered by name within thirty days of their birth with the Praefectus Aerarii Saturni (Capitol. Marc. 9; cf. Juv. Sat. 9.84).

The penalties of caelibatus and orbitas were abolished by Constantine and his sons (Cod. Theod. 8, 16), as were the disabilities contained in the “Lex Decimaria” by Theodosius II. (Cod. Theod. 8, 17, 2, 3), so that little is left of these statutes in the law of Justinian.






JU´LIA, ET PLAU´TIA, of uncertain date, enacted that res vi possessae should stand on the same footing with res furtivae [ATINIA] and be incapable of acquisition by usucapio. It related solely to land, for robbery of res mobiles was theft itself (Gaius, 3.209), and land could not be stolen (Inst. 2.6, 7). (Gaius, 2.45, 51; Inst. 2.6, 2; Dig. 41, 3, 4, 22.) It would seem from Theophilus on the passage of the Institutes last referred to that there were really two statutes, Julia and Plautia, perhaps the two of those names “de vi.”




JU´LIA SUMPTUA´RIA passed B.C. 49 by Julius Caesar (Cic. Att. 13, 7, 1; ad Fam. 7, 26, 2; 9, 15, 5). Augustus, too, seems to have re-enacted with additional severities the earlier sumptuary laws (Gel. 2.24; 43.25). [SUMPTUARIAE LEGES]


JU´LIA THEATRA´LIS (Sueton. Aug. 40; Plin. Nat. 33.32) permitted Roman equites, in case they or their parents had ever had a census equestris, to sit in the fourteen rows of the theatre appropriated to them by the Lex Roscia Theatralis, B.C. 67.


JU´LIA, ET TI´TIA (supposed to have been passed B.C. 31) assigned to the governors of provinces (praesides) the duty of appointing guardians for women and impuberes who were not in patria potestas, or already provided with one. A Lex Atilia, which was in existence in the seventh century of the city, had already given the same power in Rome to the praetor urbanus, acting with a majority of the tribuni plebis (Gaius, 1.185; Inst. 1.20, pr.; Ulpian, Reg. 11.18).


JU´LIA VICESIMA´RIA passed by Augustus, A.D. 6 (D. C. 55.25, 56.28; Plin. Paneg. 37-40; Capitol. Marc. 11). [VICESIMA]




JU´NIA DE PEREGRINIS, or JUNIA PENNI, a plebiscitum of M. Junius Pennus, B.C. 126, expelling peregrini from the city (Cic. de Off. 3.1. 1, 47; Brut. 28, 109). By a Lex Fannia (possibly merely an edict of the Consul Fannius) B.C. 122, Latins and Italians were similarly treated (Appian, App. BC 1.23; Plut. C. Gracchus, 12; Cic. Brut. 26, 100, pro Sest. 13, 31), as were all persons who had not an Italian domicile by a Lex Papia, B.C. 65 (D. C. 38.9; Cic. in Rull. 1.4, 11; de Off. loc. cit.; ad Att. 4.16).




JU´NIA NORBA´NA probably A.D. 19 (see Puchta, Institutionen, § 213, note u), created the status of Latinus Junianus by enacting that slaves manumitted otherwise than by one of the manumissiones legitimae, or against the provisions of the Lex Aelia Sentia, should have the rights of Latini (i.e. commercium without conubium). [p. 2.46]The statute, however, expressly deprived them of the right of making, or taking under a will, or of being testamentary guardians: see AELIA SENTIA LEX; LATINITAS; LIBERTUS; MANUMISSIO. (Gaius, 1.16, 17, 22, &c., 3.56; Ulpian, Reg. i., 20.8, 22.3.)




JU´NIA PETRO´NIA or PATRO´NIA, enacted that if the judges in a suit relating to personal freedom were evenly divided, the person whose status was in question should be declared free (Dig. 40, 1, 24: cf. Dig. 42, 1, 38, pr.). Whether it is the same statute as the Lex Petronia is doubtful.




JU´NIA VELLE´IA A.D. 10, made it possible (which hitherto had not been allowed) to either institute or disinherit certain postumi sui (i.e. descendants who after the making of a will come into the immediate potestas of the testator). Those to whom this lex related were (a) children of the testator born in his lifetime, but after the execution of his will; (b) grandchildren of the testator born after their father's death, but in the lifetime of the testator; (c) grandchildren born before the execution of the grandfather's will, but who become sui heredes by their father's decease after that event (Ulpian, Beg. 22.19; Dig. 28, 2, 29; Gaius, 2.134, and Mr. Poste's note on § 130).


LAETO´RIA the same as PLAETO´RIA [CURATOR]. Sometimes the lex proposed by Volero for electing plebeian magistrates at the Comitia Tributa is cited as a Lex Laetoria (Liv. 2.56, 57).


LE´NTULI (Cic. ad Fam. 13.48), really a magisterial decretum relating to the provincial organisation of Cyprus: cf. the “decretum Rupilii” for Sicily (Cic. in Verr. 2.13, 16).


LICI´NIAE In B.C. 375 C. Licinius Stole and L. Sextius, two of the tribunes of the plebs, proposed a number of rogationes, partly in the political, partly in the economical interests of the plebeians (Liv. 6.35). The latter were aggrieved by their practical exclusion from the chief magistracies: but they were still more distressed by the burden of their debts. They had suffered heavily through the sacking of the city by the Gauls (Liv. 6.11, &c.), and in comparison with the patricians were taxed out of all proportion to their real means (Liv. 4.60, 5.10; Niebuhr, Röm. Gesch. 1.645); they were largely indebted to the other order, which was rapidly buying them out of their land (Liv. 34.4), and cultivating its new acquisitions by slave labour, so that the plebeians were debarred from making their livings even as farmers holding under their own creditors (Appian, App. BC 1.8).

The Licinian rogation which was intended to settle the financial question proposed that all sums which had been paid by way of interest should be struck off the capital debts, and that three annual periods should be allowed for the payment of the residue (Liv. 6.35, 39). The precise content of the second (de modo agrorum, Liv. 34.4; Gel. 20.1, 23; V. Max. 8.6, 3; Veil. Pat. 2.6, 3; Appian, App. BC 1.8; Plin. Nat. 18.3) is less certain. According to one view (Puchta, Institutionen, § 57) it proposed that no one should own more than 500 jugera of land, or pasture on the ager publicus more than 100 cattle and 500 sheep or smaller beasts: others (e. g. Niebuhr, and Walter, Gesch. des röm. Rechts, § 62) hold that it prescribed the limit of 500 jugera merely for the “possessiones” of ager publicus: a third view (advanced by Huschke, Ueber die Stelle des Varro, 1835, and Rudorff, Röm. Feldmesser, 2.312, Röm. Rechtsgeschichte, 1.38) is that both ownership and possession were comprised in the enactment. The first of these theories at any rate seems to be disproved by Livy, 6.37 and 39 ( “agris occupatis . . . injustis possessoribus” ), Plin. Nat. 18.17, and Appian, App. BC 1.8 sq.; and perhaps that of Niebuhr is best supported by the authorities. It was also proposed, in the interest of those plebeians who were too poor to buy land, that a certain number of free persons should be employed on every estate (Appian, loc. cit.). A third rogatio was for the abolition of the military tribunate (an office created some years previously in order to relieve the consuls of some of their less important duties, to which the plebeians had been eligible, though Livy says, 6.37, that in B.C. 369 it had not been occupied by any of them for forty-four years), and for the election of one of the consuls every year from the ranks of the plebeians (Liv. 6.35, 7.1, 21, 22, 25, 10.7; Gel. 17.21, 26, 27; Schol. Bob. pro Scauro, p. 375; Orelli). The patricians prevented the enactment of these rogations by inducing the other tribunes to veto them: Stole and Sextius, according to Livy, retaliated in the same way, and, being repeatedly re-elected tribunes, persevered for five years in preventing the election of any curule magistrates.

In B.C. 368, encouraged by the support of one of the tribuni militum, M. Fabius, Licinius' father-in-law, and by the decreasing opposition of their colleagues, the two tribunes proposed, and after two years' violent agitation carried (B.C. 366), a new rogatio that, instead of the duumviri hitherto established, there should be a collegium of decemviri for the custody of the Sibylline books, and the performance of the sacra therewith connected, and that one-half of these decemviri should be plebeians (Liv. 6.42). This paved the way for the admission of the plebeians to the consulship: and in the next year (B.C. 365) the three original rogations were at last carried together in the form of a Lex Satura (Liv. 7.39; Dio Cass. Fragm 33), and L. Sextius was elected consul, being the first plebeian who attained that dignity. The patricians were in some degree compensated by retaining the monopoly of the praetorship (urbana): but the incorrectness of Livy in representing them also as solely eligible to the curule aedileship, established about this time, has been shown by Niebuhr, 3.39-49.

The penalty fixed for an infraction of the Lex Licinia de modo agrorum was an arbitrary fine sued for before the populus by the plebeian aediles. Curiously enough, Licinius Stolo himself was (B.C. 357) the first person against whom the statute was put in force (V. Max. 8.6, 3). Livy (7.16) says that together with his son he held a thousand jugera of ager, and by emancipating his son fraudulently evaded the provisions of his own law: which apparently means that he emancipated the son in order that the latter [p. 2.47]might get 500 jugera nominally for himself, but which would practically be at his father's disposal: at any rate, he was fined 10,000 asses. From this story (which is also told by Columella, 1.3, and Pliny, Plin. Nat. 18.17) it is clear that the plebeians had now acquired the right of holding (possidere) the ager publicus, probably under the Lex Licinia itself; and it would seem that the estates which the patricians had to surrender as being against the statute came for the most part into the possession of plebeians. Niebuhr (Röm. Geschichte, 3.19) attributes to the lex a genuinely agrarian character, and believes that there was a regular distribution of land among them; but the passages on which he relies (especially Varro, de Re Rust. 1.2, and Columella, loc. cit.) hardly bear out his view, which is directly contradicted by Appian (App. BC 1.8). The history of the later agrarian legislation, however, makes it clear that in some way or other the Lex Licinia de modo agrorum (if it related at all to the possessiones of ager publicus, which Puchta denies) was persistently evaded.

(Besides the works of Niebuhr, Puchta, Huschke, and Rudorff, already referred to, cf. Göttling, Geschichte der röm. Staatsverfassung, p. 354; the Classical Museum, Nos. v. vi. and vii.; and AGRARIAE LEGES).


LICI´NIA of uncertain date, containing provisions similar to those of the second Lex Aebutia noticed above, in connexion with which it is mentioned by Cicero (in Rull. 2.8, 21; cf. pro Domo, 20, 51).


LI´CINIA DE CREANDIS TRIUMVIRIS EPULONIBUS, B.C. 197 (Liv. 33.42; cf. Cic. de Orat. 3.19, 73).




LI´CINIA DE SACERDOTIIS, B.C. 146 (Cic. de Am. 25, 96).


LI´CINIA DE SODALITIIS, B.C. 56 (Cic. pro Planc. 15, 36; ad Fam. 8, 2, 1: see Wunder's Prolegomena, cited in full by Orelli, Ciceronis opera, vol. viii. pp. 200, 201; and AMBITUS).


LI´CINIA JU´NIA sometimes called JUNIA LICINIA, passed B.C. 62 by the consuls L. Licinius Murena and Junius Silanus, perhaps to enforce more strictly the provisions of the Lex Caecilia Didia, in connexion with which it is sometimes mentioned (Cic. Phil. 5.3, 8; ad Att. 2.9, 1; 4.16, 5; in Vatin. 14, 23; pro Sestio, 64, 135). But it also seems to have enacted that a copy of every proposed statute should be deposited before witnesses in the Aerarium (Schol. Bob. p. 310; Mommsen, Röm. Staatsrecht, ii. pp. 532, 533).


LICI´NIA MU´CIA DE CIVIBUS REGUNDIS (probably REDIGUNDIS), passed B.C. 95 by the consuls L. Licinius Crassus the orator, and Q. Mucius Scaevola, Pontifex Maximus; ordained a strict examination into the title to citizenship, as many non-cive had contrived to get themselves put on the census, and ordered back to their own civitates all who could not make out a good title. This. measure partly led to the Marsic war, and is cited by Cicero as an instance how even the wisest men sometimes pass bad laws (Cic. de Off. 3.1. 1, 47; Brut. 16, 63; pro Balbo, 21, 24; pro Sestio, 13, 30: Ascon. in Cornel. p. 67).


LICI´NIA SUMPTUA´RIA (Gel. 2.24, 7-10; Macrob. Saturn. 2.13; Festus, s. v. Centenaria). [SUMPTUARIAE LEGES]


LI´VIAE Various enactments carried by M. Livius Drusus the younger, when tribunus plebis B.C. 91, for establishing colonies in Italy and Sicily (Appian, App. BC 1.35), distributing corn among the poorer citizens at a low rate (Liv. Epit. 71), and admitting the foederatae civitates to the Roman citizenship (ib. Appian, loc. cit.). He was also the author of a lex judiciaria, dividing the judicia equally between the senate and the Equites (Vell. 2.13; Liv. Epit. 70; Cic. pro Cluentio, 56, 153), and instituting a penal procedure against judges who allowed themselves to be bribed (Cic. loc. cit.; Appian, App. BC 1.35); and he is said by Pliny (Plin. Nat. 33.46) to have proposed a measure for adulterating silver by mixing with it an eighth part of brass. Drusus was assassinated, and the senate declared his laws not binding, either because they had been carried “contra auspicia” (Ascon. in Cornet. p. 68), or because they were in violation of the Lex Caecilia Didia (Cic. pro Domo, 16, 41). Cf. Cic. de Leg. 2.6, 12; Florus, 3.17; Plut. C. Gracchus, 9 if.


LUTA´TIA DE VI [VIS]. The supposed existence of such a lex (based on Cicero, pro Caelio, 29, 70) is now much discredited but see Rein, Criminalrecht, p. 742.


MAE´NIA probably passed by Maenius, tribunus plebis, B.C. 287. It is mentioned only by Cicero (Cic. Brut. 14, 55), who says that “M. Curius Dentatus compelled the Patres ante auctores fieri, in the case of the election of a plebeian consul, which was a great thing to accomplish, as the Lex Maenia had not yet been passed.” The statute seems to have enacted that the senatorial auctoritas to the Comitia Curiata (by a vote of which the magistrates acquired their imperium) should be given before instead of after the assembly of the centuries in which the magistrates were elected (cf. Liv. 1.17; Cic. pro Plancio, 3, 8; Licinius Macer in Sallust. Frag. iii. p. 972, ed. Cort; Puchta, Institutionen, § 59, notes l and n; Walter, Geschichte des röm. Rechts, § 66; and AUCTORITAS).


MAE´NIA DE DOTE, B.C. 186: see Voigt's treatise on the subject, Weimar, 1866, and Puchta, Institutionen, § 74, note k, and § 292, note b.


DE MAGISTRIS AQUA´ RUM: (Haubold, Spangenberg, Mon. Leg. p. 177).


MAMI´LIA DE COLONIIS. It was supposed that Rudorff had proved (Zeitschrift, 9.12) that the Lex Mamilia, Roscia, Peducaea, Alliena, Fabia, is the same as the “Lex agraria quam Gaius Caesar tulit” (Dig. 47, 21, 3), and that this Gaius Caesar is the Emperor Caligula. But Mommsen (Schriften der röm. Feldmesser, ii. p. 223) believes that the so-called Lex Mamilia related to the appointment of C. Julius Caesar's agrarian commission: and this seems to be confirmed by the discovery of the Lex Coloniae Genetivae.


MAMI´LIA DE JUGURTHAE FAUTORIBUS established a special tribunal of three quaesitores to investigate cases of bribery among Romans by Jugurtha (Sallust, Jugurtha, 40, 65; Cic. Brut. 33, 34: cf. Mommsen, Röm. Staatsrecht, vol. ii. pp. 646, 647).


MAMI´LIA FINIUM REGUNDORUM (B.C. 110, Ernesti; B.C. 165, Pighius) re-enacted the provision [p. 2.48]of the Twelve Tables, that a space of 5 ft. along the boundaries of landed estates (extending 2 1/2 ft. into each) should be excluded from usucapio, and ordained a new procedure in cases of dispute (Cic. de Leg. 1.2. 1, 55; Rudorff; “Gränzscheidungsklage,” Zeitschrift, x. pp. 355-363).


MANI´LIA proposed by the tribune C. Manilius B.C. 66, and conferring on Cu. Pompeius the command in the war against Mithridates. It was supported by Cicero when praetor in his speech pro lege Manilia (cf. Vell. 2.33, 1; Liv. Epit. 100; D. C. 36.25; Appian, Bell. Mithrid. 97).


MANI´LIA DE LIBERTINORUM SUFFRAGIIS (D. C. 36.25; Ascon. in Corn. pp. 64, 65): perhaps the same as the Lex Manilia de suffragiorum confusione (Cic. pro Mur. 23, 47), which seems to have enacted that the libertini should vote in all and not only in the four urban tribes.


MANILIA´NAE (Cic. de Orat. 1.58, 246). These were not statutes at all, but forms which it was prudent for parties to observe in contracts of sale, whence they are called actiones by Varro, de Re Rust. 2.5, 11. They seem to have been invented by a jurist called M‘. Manilius, who was consul B.C. 149.


MA´NLIA a name wrongly given to the Lex Licinia de creandis triumviris epulonibus, because P. Manlius was one of the first triumviri appointed under its provisions (Liv. 33.42).


MA´NLIA DE LIBERTINORUM SUFFRAGIIS, B.C. 58, probably identical with the Lex Manilia of the same title (Ascon. in Mil. p. 46).


MA´NLIA DE VICESIMA MANUMISSORUM, B.C. 357, imposed a tax of one-fifth on the value of all manumitted slaves (Liv. 7.16; cf. 27.10). [MANUMISSIO]


MA´RCIA circ. 352 B.C., prescribed the procedure per manus injectionem against feneratores for recovering from them four times any sum which they had taken by way of illegal interest (Gaius, 4.23; Liv. 7.21).


MA´RCIA AGRA´RIA proposed by L. Marcius Philippus, tribunus plebis, B.C. 104 (Cic. de Off. 2.2. 1, 73).


MA´RCIA DE LIGURIBUS, B.C. 172 (Liv. 42.22).


MA´RIA proposed by C. Marius, when tribune B.C. 119, for narrowing the pontes at elections (Cic. de Legg. 3.1. 7, 38; Plut. Marius, 4).




MENE´NIA seems to have in some way limited the magistrate's power of inflicting arbitrary fines: see ATERNIA TARPEIA.


ME´NSIA or MINI´CIA enacted that the children of parents, either of whom was a peregrinus, should be peregrini themselves: and thus (where a civis Romana married a peregrinus) introduced an exception to the rule that where there was no conubium between man and wife the issue should follow the condition of the mother (Ulpian, Reg. 5.8).




ME´SSIA DE REVOCANDO CICERONE (Cic. post Red. in Sen. 8, 21).


METI´LIA B.C. 217 (Liv. 22.25 sq.; Plut. Fabius, 9).


MIINI´CIA (Gaius, 1.78, Studemund ad loc.): see MENSIA.




MU´CIA a plebiscitum of 141 B.C.: resulted in the exile of L. Hostilius Tubulo (Cic. de Fin. 2.16, 54).


NERVAE AGRA´RIA the latest known instance of a lex passed at the Comitia (Dig. 47, 21, 3, 1).


OCTA´VIA probably B.C. 87 (Cic. de Off. 2.2. 1, 72; Brut. 62, 222). [FRUMENTARIAE LEGES]


OGU´LNIA proposed by two Ogulnii, who were tribunes B.C. 300: it increased the number of the Pontifices and Augurs from four each to eight and nine respectively, and enacted that four of the former and five of the latter should be taken from the plebs (Liv. 10.6-8).


OP´PIA B.C. 215 (Liv. 34.1, 8; V. Max. 9.1, 3). It was repealed twenty years after its enactment. [SUMPTUARIAE LEGES.]


O´RCHIA B.C. 171 (Macrob. Saturn. 2.13). [SUMPTUARIAE LEGES]


OVI´NIA enacted probably circ. B.C. 312: apparently assigned to the censors the function of selecting the senate, but required them to choose the persons best qualified without distinction between patricians and plebeians (Festus, p. 246). Perhaps the strict meaning of Festus' text is that on coming into office they revised the list of the senate, those whose names were passed over ipso facto losing their seats (Hoffmann, Röm. Senat, pp. 3-18).

The nature of the Lex Ovinia mentioned by Gaius (4.109) is unknown.








PAPI´RIA or JU´LIA PAPI´RIA DE MULTARUM AESTIMATIONE, B.C. 430, substituted money fines for those of cattle and sheep fixed by the Lex Aternia Tarpeia, a sheep being valued at ten, a bullock at a hundred asses (Liv. 4.30; Cic. de Rep. 2.35). Gellius (11.1) and Festus are wrong in making this change a part of the Lex Aternia Tarpeia itself.


PAPI´RIA 89 B.C., fixed the value of the as at half an ounce: one of the numerous enactments which tampered with the coinage (Plin. Nat. 33.46).


PAPI´RIA DE ACERRANORUM CIVITATE, B.C. 332, proposed by L. Papirius when praetor, and giving the civitas sine suffragio to the people of Acerrae (Liv. 8.17; cf. Veil. Pat. 1.14, 4).


PAPI´RIA DE CONSECRATIONE AEDIUM, circ. 303 B.C., enacted that no land, temple, or altar should be consecrated without a plebiscitum (Cic. pro Dom. 49, 50; Liv. 9.46).


PAPI´RIA DE SACRAMENTO, a plebiscitum of L. Papirius, providing that the tres viri capitales should be elected by the people, and should exact from unsuccessful litigants the stake (sacramentum) which they lost in the legis actio of that name, and which was forfeited to the aerarium (Festus, s. v. Sacramento: cf. Mommsen, Röm. Staatsrecht, ii. pp. 580, 585). Puchta (Institutionen, § 161, note g) conjectures that the statute also put an end to the actual deposit of the stake in sacro, and substituted the giving of security (praedes) for its payment.


PAPI´RIA PLAU´TIA B.C. 89, enacted that all cives and incolae of foederatae civitates, who [p. 2.49]at the date of the statute were domiciled in Italy, should be able to obtain the Roman civitas by giving in their names to the praetor urbanus at Rome within sixty days (Cic. pro Archia, 4, 7; ad Fam. 13.30). [CIVITAS; FOEDERATAE CIVITATES.].






PE´DIA B.C. 44, interdicted from fire and water all who had taken part in the murder of Julius Caesar (Vell. 2.69, 5).


PEDUCAE´A a privilegium of B.C. 114, relating to incest committed by certain Vestal Virgins (Cic. de Nat. Deor. 3.3. 0, 74; Ascon. in Milon. p. 46).


PESULA´NIA seems to have extended to dogs the rule of the Twelve Tables (Inst. 4.9, pr.; Dirksen, Uebersicht, &c. p. 532), that if damage were done by an animal the owner must either surrender it or pay compensation (Paul. Sent. rec. 1.15, 1).


PETI´LLIA DE PECUNIA REGIS ANTIOCHI, B.C. 186 (Liv. 38.54; cf. 39.6).


PETRE´IA, A lex of this name (de decimatione militum) applying in cases of mutiny is mentioned in the old editions of Appian (de Bell. Civ. 2.47), but the true reading is πατρίῳ νόμῳ.


PETRO´NIA forbade masters to make their slaves fight with wild beasts, unless they had committed some serious offence, and the magistrate had assented to their being so treated (Dig. 48, 8, 11, 2; Gel. 5.14); it was followed by a number of senatusconsulta to the same purpose. Puchta (Institutionen, § 107) is of opinion that it provided for the appointment of special magistrates in the towns to deal with the matter; but the inscriptions on which he relies (cited in Marquardt, Röm. Staatsverwaltung, i. p. 494) seem to relate to a different Lex Petronia (de praefectis). Whether there were two leges or one, the first mention of legislation by this name occurs in the fasti of Venusia, B.C. 32.


PINA´RIA (Gaius, 4.15). Its effect is merely matter of conjecture. According to Studemund and Walter, a single judge was originally appointed at the close of the formal proceedings before the praetor, to try sacramenta: and this was altered by the statute, which prescribed an interval of thirty days between the proceedings before the praetor and the appointment of the judex. Keller supposes that its effect was not to create a necessary interval of thirty or any other number of days at all, but to transfer the hearing of sacramenta from the standing collegia of judges (decemviri and centumviri) to a single judex. Bethmann-Hollweg (Civil Process, i. p. 65) holds that it required all actions of debt for less sums than 1000 asses to be tried before a single judge.




PINA´RIA DE INTERCALANDO, B.C. 472 (Varro in Macrob. 1.13).


PLAETO´RIA or LAETO´RIA (Cic. de Off. 3.15, 61; de Nat. Deor. 3.30, 74). [CURATOR]


PLAETO´RIA allowed the praetor to fix any time he pleased for the termination of legal proceedings, the Twelve Tables having enacted that they should not close till sunset (Varro, L. L. 6.5; Censorin. de Die Nat. 24).


PLAU´TIA or PLO´TIA AGRA´RIA, B.C. 98 or 89 (Cic. Att. 1.1. 8, 6).


PLAU´TIA or PLO´TIA DE REDITU LEPIDANORUM (Sueton. Caesar, 5; Gel. 13.3).


PLAU´TIA or PLO´TIA DE VI (Ascon. in Milon. 35; Cic. Att. 2.2. 4; de Harusp. Resp. 8; Sallust. Cat. 31: see C. G. Wächter's paper on the subject in the Neues Archiv des Criminalrechts, xiii. p. 8 sq., cited at length in Orelli's Cicero, vol. viii. pp. 233-243, and VIS).


PLAU´TIA or PLO´TIA JUDICIA´RIA, B.C. 89, enacted that fifteen persons should be selected annually from each tribe, without reference to their rank, to act as judges in criminal trials. It was repealed by the Lex Cornelia judiciaria of Sulla (Cic. pro Cornel. fragm. 27; Ascon. in Cornel. p. 79).




POETE´LIA a plebiscitum of B.C. 358: the first law against ambitus (Liv. 7.15).


POETE´LIA PAPI´RIA the name usually given to a lex, supposed to have been passed B.C. 326, for the relief of the nexi (Liv. 8.28; Cic. de Republ. 2.34, 59; Varro, L. L. 7.105). [NEXUM]


POMPE´IA B.C. 89, passed by Cn. Pompeius Strabo, father of the great Pompeius, when consul: it conferred Latin rights [LATINITAS] on the Transpadani, and probably the civitas on the Cispadani (Strabo v. p.213; Savigny, Zeitschrift, 9.308-326).


POMPE´IA DE AMBITU (D. C. 40.52; Ascon. in Mil. p. 37). [AMBITUS]


POMPE´IA DE IMPERIO CAESARI PROROGANDO, B.C. 55 (Vell. 2.46, 2; Appian, App. BC 2.18; Cic. Phil. 2.10, 24).


POMPE´IA DE JURE MAGISTRATUUM (Sueton. Caesar, 28; Cic. Att. 8.3, 3, cf. Phil. 2.10, 24; D. C. 40.56) forbade candidature for public offices by persons who were not at Rome: but C. Julius Caesar was excepted from its operation. This was doubtless the old law, but it appears to have become obsolete.


POMPE´IA DE PARRICIDIIS, B.C. 52. It is difficult to come to any definite conclusion as to the precise meaning of parricida and parricidium in early Roman history and literature. From a quotation which Cicero makes from some old source ( “sacrum sacrove commendatum qui cleperit rapsitque parricida esto,” de Leg. 2.9, 22), the offence seems at one time not to have been confined to killing; and even when it had acquired this narrower signification, it apparently denoted the taking of the life of any free person ( “si quis hominem liberum dolo sciens morti duit parricida esto,” law of Numa Pompilius in Festus, s. v. Parici Quaestores: cf. Rein, Criminalrecht, pp. 401, 449). The Romans themselves seem to have had great doubts about the etymology of the word: συστέλλοντες τὴν πρώτην συλλαβὴν καὶ βραχεῖαν ποιοῦντες, τοὺς γονέας (pārentes), ἐκτείνοντες δὲ, τοὺς ὑπηκόους (pārentes) σημαίνουσιν (Johannes Lydus, de Mag. Rom. 1.26). “Parricida, quod vel a pari componitur, vel a patre: quibusdam a parente videtur esse” (Prisc. Gram. i.: cf. Cic. pro Cluentio, 11, 32; Liv. 40.24; Quintil. Inst. 8.6, 35). But by the time of Cicero parricidium seems to have acquired the specific sense of killing near relatives: the application of it to Catiline and to the murderers of Caesar (Sueton. [p. 2.50]Jul. 88) may perhaps be regarded merely as an oratorical survival of older usage. There seems to be no doubt that the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis contained provisions as to the killing of near relations (Dig. 48, 9, 1; Inst. 4.18, 6 ad fin.): the Lex Pompeia de parricidiis, some thirty years later, apparently re-enacted these, and defined the crime of parricidium as the deliberate and wrongful slaying of ascendants, husbands, wives, consobrini, brothers and sisters, uncles and aunts, stepfathers and mothers, fathers and mothers in law, patrons and descendants; but the killing of a child by its father was excepted (Dig. 48, 9, 1). Hadrian sentenced a man who killed his son to deportatio (Dig. ib. 5); but it was not parricidium to kill one's own children till the age of Constantine, who prescribed for it the punishment of the sack described below (Cod. 9.17; Inst. loc. cit.). For most cases of parricidium no change was made in the penalties of the Lex Cornelia (death, banishment, and forfeiture) by the statute of Pompeius; but for the murder of a father, mother, grandfather or grandmother, the old punishment of the cullcus was ordained (Dig. 48, 9, 9, 1; Paul. Sent. rec. 5.24). This consisted in the guilty person being first whipped till he bled, sewn up in a sack with a dog, a cock, a viper, and an ape, and thrown into the sea or a river: if there was no water near, Hadrian sanctioned his being torn in pieces by wild beasts (Dig. 48, 9, 9, pr.), and in Paulus' time he seems sometimes to have been burnt. The antiquity of this punishment is attested by Valerius Maximus, who records that it was inflicted on M. Tullius by Tarquinius when king (1.1, 13: cf. “more majorum,” Dig. 48, 9, 9, pr. and 1; and Cic. pro Rosc. Am. 25, 70, ad Quint. Fratr. 1.2; Juv. Sat. 3.8, 212 sq.). The selection of animals was supposed to be symbolical: μετὰ ἀσεβῶν ζώων ἀσεβὴς ἄνθρωπος (Dosith. 3.16): τὰ δὲ προειρημένα θήρια ἐμβάλλεται διὰ τοῦτο, ἐπειδὴ ὁμοιότροπα αὐτῷ ἐστί τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἀναιρεῖ τοὺς γονεῖς, τὰ δὲ πρὸς αὐτοὺς οὐκ ἀπέχεται μάχης (Theophilus). Accessories to the crime were punished as severely as principals under the Lex Cornelia (Cod. 9, 16, 7).


POMPE´IA DE VI, a privilegium relating to the trial of Milo by a quaestio extraordinaria for killing Clodius, though there was a permanent commission for trying offences of this class (Cic. Phil. 2.9, 22): it also seems to have contained some general provisions as to the procedure and penalty in cases of violence (Ascon.; and Schol. Bob. pro Milone: cf. Wächter's note, cited by Orelli, Cicero, vol. viii. pp. 247-250, and Walter, Geschichte des röm. Rechts, § 834, note 7).




POMPE´IA JUDICIARIA (Cic. Phil. 1.8, 20; in Pison. 39, 73; Ascon. in Pison. p. 16; Sall. de Rep. Ord. 2.3). [JUDEX]


POMPE´IA TRIBUNICIA, B.C. 70, restored the old tribunicia potestas which Sulla had almost destroyed (Sueton. Jul. 5; Vell. 2.30; Cic. de Leg. 3.9, 11; Liv. Epit. 97). [TRIBUNI.]


PO´RCIA probably B.C. 197, appears to have enacted that a Roman citizen might save himself from the punishment of death or flogging by withdrawing into exile (Sal. Cat. 51; Cic. pro Rabirio, 3, 4; in Verr. 5.63, 163; Liv. 10.9; Gel. 10.3, 13). Cicero (de Rep. ii, 31, 54) alludes to three leges Porciae on this or similar matters, but nothing more is known about them.


PO´RCIA DE PROVINCIALIBUS SUMPTIBUS, apparently due to M. Portius Cato, praetor B.C. 298, and perhaps referred to in Liv. 32.27: it is mentioned in the Plebiscitum de Termessensibus (Lex Antonia), which enacts “nei quis magistratus prove magistratu legatus neu quis alius neive imperato quo quid magis iei dent praebeant ab ieisve auferatur nisei quod eos ex lege Portia dare praebere oportet oportebit” (Haubold, Mon. legal. p. 137).


PRAEDIATO´RIA the reading in some editions of Gaius (4.28); but the true reading, according to Studemund, is lege censoria.


PUBLI´CIA permitted betting at certain games which required strength, such as running and leaping (Dig. 11, 5, 2, 1 and 3). [CORNELIA; TITIA.]


PUBLI´LIA proposed by Publilius Volero, tribunus plebis, and carried after much opposition B.C. 471. It provided “ut plebeii magistratus (tribunes and plebeian aediles) tributis comitiis fierent” (Liv. 2.56); but this apparently should not be taken to mean that these magistrates had previously been elected in the Comitia Centuriata (as is held by Mommsen, Röm. Tribus, p. 83; Becker-Marquardt, 2.2, 253-260, &c.): the choice had practically been made by the plebs, but in a less organised fashion than became the rule after it had by this statute been definitely assigned to the Comitia in which the plebeians had the preponderance (Schwegler, 26.7: cf. Walter, Geschichte des röm. Rechts, § 44; for another view, see Mommsen, Röm. Geschichte, 2.2). “From this time onward,” says Dionysius (9.49), “up to my own day, the election of tribunes and aediles was made without birds (augural ceremonies) and all the rest of the religious forms in the Comitia Tributa.” By the same enactment the number of the tribunes was raised from two to five (Liv. 2.58; Diod. 2.38), and B.C. 454 to ten (Liv. 3.30; Dionys. A. R. 10.30), who were elected in equal proportions from the five classes of the Servian Constitution (Ascon. in Cornel. p. 77): this change was readily acquiesced in and perhaps even suggested by the patricians, who foresaw in the larger number increased chances of disagreement, and were more likely to win over to their own side one of many than one of few plebeian magistrates. Possibly, too, the office of tribune was opened to the patricians, two of whom were tribuni plebis B.C. 448 (Liv. 3.65), though these, according to Mommsen (Röm. Staatsrecht, ii. p. 265), were only coopted members of the Collegium.

We are told by Dionysius (9.43, 44) that when Publicius failed in the first attempt to carry his measure, he added a fresh provision, enabling the Comitia Tributa to discuss and resolve on matters of public importance (cf. Zonaras, 7.17): this was carried along with his earlier proposal, and was of considerable constitutional significance: for it thus became easy for the tribunes to unite the plebeians on any matter on which they had to vote in the Comitia Centuriata, and also to consult them as to the submission of proposals for legislation to the senate: these, if approved, could then be referred in the ordinary way to the centuries, [p. 2.51]and thereby become genuine enactments of the sovereign populus (V. Max. 2.2, 7; Dionys. A. R. 10.30, 48, 52). For the further history, see PUBLILIAE and PLEBISCITUM


PUBLI´LIA DE SPONSU gave the kind of surety called a sponsor an actio depensi to recover twice the sum which he had paid for his principal unless reimbursed within six months, and enabled him after obtaining judgment to proceed at once by manus injectio pro judicato (Gaius, 3.127, 4.22). [INTERCESSIO]


PUBLI´LIAE LEGES carried B.C. 339 by the Dictator Q. Publilius Philo: their substance is thus described by Livy (8.12): “Tres leges secundissimas plebei, adversas nobilitati tulit: unam ut plebiscita omnes Quirites tenerent: alteram, ut legum quae comitiis centuriatis ferrentur, ante initum suffragium Patres auctores fierent: tertiam, ut alter utique ex plebe, quum eo ventum sit ut utrumque plebeium consulem fieri liceret, censor crearetur.” The first of these seems to stand in connexion with one of the leges Valeriae Horatiae, B.C. 449, which enacted “ut quod tributim plebs jussisset populum teneret” (Liv. 3.55): i. e. it restored the Comitia Tributa after the second secession of the plebs, and perhaps also provided that plebiscita which had no constitutional import, or which related purely to matters of private law, should have the force of statute, even without subsequent confirmation or enactment by the centuries. In B.C. 339, the patricians having now brought themselves to take regular part in the business of the Comitia Tributa, confirmation by the centuries must have seemed a superfluity in any case; and accordingly the first Lex Publilia seems to have dispensed with it for all plebiscita whatsoever. They still, however, required to be sanctioned by the senate before they acquired complete validity; but the necessity of this seems to have been abolished by the Lex Hortensia, B.C. 287, which enacted “ut eo jure, quod plebs statuisset, omnes Quirites tenerentur” (Gaius, 1.3; Dig. 1, 2, 2, 8; Laelius Felix in Gel. 15.27; Plin. Nat. 16.37). There is, however, great difference of opinion as to the real import of, and the relation between, these three leges, which, if literally taken, seem all to have enacted the same thing. Walter (Geschichte des röm. Rechts, § 65) thinks that the last two dispensed with the senatorial confirmation of plebiscita which were not proposed “ex senatus auctoritate;” Niebuhr (2.415; 3.170, 171, 491), that the Lex Publilia did away with the necessity of confirmation by the Comitia Curiata, and that the senatorial approval was dispensed with by the Lex Hortensia: while Mommsen (Röm. Geschichte, 2.3) and Lange (1.469-473) take the accounts given to us literally, and hold the last two laws to be merely re-enactments of the Lex Valeria Horatia, which got rid of confirmation by the senate and the Comitia Curiata as well. The view adopted above is that of Puchta (Institutionen, § 59).

As to the meaning of the second Lex Publilia, there is also some difference of opinion, occasioned by our uncertainty as to the signification of “Patres” in the text of Livy cited above. According to one view, it simply re-affirmed the constitutional doctrine that no measure should be submitted for enactment to the Comitia Centuriata without having been previously approved by the senate: such re-affirmation seeming desirable in consequence of the recent changes in respect of plebiscita, which were sanctioned by the senate after, and not before, being passed by the Comitia Tributa. But Livy's remark that all the leges Publiliae were “adversae nobilitati” makes the view of Niebuhr more probable, that by “Patres” is meant the Comitia Curiata; the assent of which was by this statute reduced to a mere formality by the requirement that it should be given before the centuries had considered whether they should pass any given measure or not.

The third Publilian law requires no explanation. We read of a plebeian being censor as early as B.C. 351 (Liv. 7.22; 10.8, 8): but this statute required that one of the censors should always be selected from the plebs.


PU´PIA (Cic. ad Q. Fratr. 2.13; ad Fam. 1.4) enacted that the senate should not sit on dies Comitiales. Previously it could deliberate on any day whatsoever (see Cic. Fam. 12.5. 5; ad Q. Fratr. 2.1, &c.; ad Att. 4.2; Liv. 39.39). Its date was perhaps B.C. 224.


QUI´NTIA a lex proposed by T. Quintius Crispinus (consul B.C. 9) for the preservation of the Aquaeductus. It is preserved by Frontinus (de Aquaeduct. Roman.).


RE´GIA properly LEX DE IMPERIO PRINCIPIS. The nature of the imperium, and the mode in which it was conferred, are explained under IMPERIUM Augustus united in his own person most of the republican powers and magistracies, though they were bestowed upon him by the populus separately and at different times. After holding the consulship for nine years in succession, he received the proconsulare imperium and the potestas consularis and tribunicia for life: the powers of the censorship were granted him at first for five years, but were periodically renewed without interruption: he was also Pontifex Maximus and Princeps Senatus, whence, according to some, he took the title “Princeps” by which the earlier emperors were known, and which personally he preferred to the style of “Imperator,” which, though it belonged to him, he never asserted within the city of Rome. [PRINCEPS] The practice of investing the emperor with these various powers or authorities by distinct leges was followed for a considerable time. The preservation of the Lex de imperio Vespasiani (which seems to have been only a senatusconsultum representing the old Lex Curiata de imperio) has led to the belief that in the time of that emperor all the powers enjoyed by Augustus were conferred on the sovereign by a single statute. The fragment which is extant (Haubold, Spangenberg, Monum. Legal. p. 221) empowers Vespasian to make treaties, originate senatusconsulta, propose persons to the people and the senate for election to magistracies, extend the pomoerium, and make edicts with the force of law: it releases him from the same laws from which Augustus, Tiberius, and Claudius had been released; and provides that all that he had done before its enactment should have the same effect as if it had been done by the people. But, sweeping as the form seems to be, it is clear that the senate continued even after Vespasian “to dispense the various prerogatives of sovereignty, one by one, with affected hesitation.” [p. 2.52]It was not really till the time of Alexander Severus that the whole of the imperial powers (including the proconsulare imperium, the principatus senatus, and the tribunicia potestas) were conferred on the emperor uno ictu, and Severus himself remarks upon this as a novelty ( “quae omnia novo exemplo uno die in me contulistis,” Lamprid. Alex. Sev. 1): but from his time the practice became usual, the formal imperium however being bestowed first by a separate resolution of the senate (cf. Capitol. Max. et Balb. 8; Vopisc. Prob. 2). For the meaning of legibus solutus as applied to the emperor, see Mommsen, Röm. Staatsrecht, ii. p. 728, and Merivale, Hist. of the Romans under the Empire, iii. p. 466 sq.

The Lex de Imperio is in the Corpus Juris of Justinian sometimes called “Lex Regia,” an expression which occurs in Dig. 1, 4, 1, pr. (Ulpian), transcribed in Inst. 1.2, 6, and in Cod. 1, 17, 1, 7. The title of Dominus was applied to the emperor as early as Trajan, but the phrase “lex regia” does not appear to occur before the third century, when to avoid the comparison between “rex” and “imperator” would have been mere affectation. For the whole subject, see D. C. 53.16-19; Tac. Hist. 1.47, 4.3, 6; and Merivale, Hist. chap. 31.




RE´MMIA (Cic. pro Rosc. Am. 19, 55). [CALUMNIA]


RHO´DIA a term used to denote those portions of the Rhodian maritime code (referred to by Strabo xiv. p.652; and Cic. pro lege Manilia, 18, 54) which were adopted into the Roman law, and on which information may be obtained from Dig. 14, 2, and Schryver, Sur la loi Rhodia de jactu, Brussels, 1884. Its main principle was that, where property was thrown overboard to lighten and so assist in saving a ship, the loss should be portioned out among all in whose interest the sacrifice was made.


RO´SCIA THEATRA´LIS carried by the tribune L. Roscius Otho, B.C. 67: it assigned to the Equites the fourteen rows of seats in the theatre next to those of the senators, who sat in the orchestra, to which apparently (Vell. 2.32, 3) they had a kind of prescriptive right (Liv. Epit. 99; D. C. 36.25; Cic. pro Murena, 19, 40; ad Att. 2.19; Juv. 14.324; Hor. Epod. 4.16). This provision was re-enacted by the Lex Julia theatralis. The statute also seems to have assigned seats in the theatre to persons who had lost their property, whether by their own fault or by misfortune (decoctores), Cic. Phil. 2.18, 44. The law caused some popular disturbances when Cicero was consul, which he allayed by a speech (ad Att. 2.1; Plut. Cic. 13).


RU´BRIA or GA´LLIAE CISALPI´NAE. When Cisalpine Gaul ceased to be a province and became part of Italy, it was necessary to provide for the administration of justice, as the usual forms of provincial administration would cease with the determination of the provincial mode of government. This was done (B.C. 49, Mommsen and Rudorff; B.C. 42, Savigny and Puchta) by a plebiscitum proposed by an otherwise unknown tribune, named Rubrius, of which a portion was discovered in 1760 on a tablet in the ruins of Veleia, which is preserved in the Museum at Parma. The whole lex probably covered five Tables, and was divided into chapters, of which we have caps. 20-22 complete, and parts of the 19th and 23rd: it apparently followed the order of the praetorian edict, and regulated the judicial competence and procedure of the Cisalpine municipia. Its policy seems to have been restrictive: e. g. it is provided that the municipal magistrates shall have jurisdiction to try by judices (in the ordinary Roman fashion) all suits in which the sum involved does not exceed 15,000 sesterces, and some even irrespective of their amount: as for actions to which their jurisdiction does not extend, they may conduct the preliminary inquiry, but must remit them for trial to the praetor at Rome. The 19th chapter relates to “operis novi nuntiatio;” the 20th, to “damnum infectum;” the 21st and 22nd, to the jurisdiction, especially restricting the right of imprisoning for money debts; and the 23rd, to the “judicium familiae erciscundae.”

The text of the lex is lithographed in Ritschl's Inscriptions, vol. i. Tab. xxxii., and may also be found in Mommsen's Inscriptions, vol. i. No. 205, as well as in the earlier editions of Carli, Pietro di Lama, and Haubold (Spangenberg). The subject is expressly handled by Savigny (Zeitschrift, ix.) and Puchta, Kleine civil. Schriften, 1851: cf. Huschke, Ueber die Klagformeln in der Lex Rubria; Gaius, pp. 203-242; Hugo, Civil. Magazin, vol. ii. pp. 431-496; and Dirksen, Obs. ad selecta legis Gall. Cisalp. capita, Berlin, 1812.


RUPI´LIAE These are not leges proper, but regulations for the organisation of Sicily, comprised in a decretum issued by P. Rupilius, its proconsul (B.C. 131), in accordance with instructions given him by tie ten legati sent by the senate, as was usual (Liv. 45.17; Appian, Iber. 99, Pun. 135; Sall. Jugurtha, 16) when the organisation of a province was being settled (Cic. in Verr. 2.13, 16, 40; Pseudo-Ascon. p. 212: cf. V. Max. 6.9, 8). There is frequent mention in Cicero's second speech against Verres of the regulations (leges) of Rupilius in respect of the Sicilian judicial procedure, e. g. one by which he there established the supposed principle of the Lex Pinaria, requiring an interval of thirty days between the proceedings in jure and the appointment of a judex (cap. 15). Other leges of the same person, relating to the co-optation of the senate of Heraclia, where he had established a colony, are mentioned in Verr. 2.50, 125; and as to “res frumentaria,” in Verr. 3.40, 91. (See Marquardt, Röm. Staatsverwaltung, i. p. 341.)


RUTI´LIA related to the appointment of the tribuni militum (Festus, s. v. Rufuli; Liv. 8.5; Ascon. in Verr. 1.10, p. 112, Orelli).


SACRA´TAE (mentioned or referred to by Liv. 2.33, 3.55, 7.41, &c.; and Cic. pro Sest. 7, 16, 30, &c.; de Off. 3.31, 111; de Leg. 2.7, 18, &c.). The term seems properly to have been used of laws to which a religious sanction was attached, so that the person who was convicted of violating them became sacer: “Sacratae leges sunt, quibus sanctum est, qui quid adversus eas fecerit, sacer alicui deorum sit cum familia pecuniaque” (Festus). As to the nature of the sanction, something more may be gathered from Festus, s. v. Sacer mons: “At [p. 2.53]homo sacer is est, quem populus judicavit ob maleficium, neque fas est eum immolari: sed qui occidit parricidii non damnatur, nam lege tribunicia prima cavetur: si quis eum qui eo plebei scito sacer sit occiderit parricida ne sit.” Among such leges sacratae were the Lex Valeria de provocatione, the statute affirming the inviolability of tribuni plebis (Liv. 2.8, 33, 3.55; Cic. de Leg. 3.4, 11), the Lex Icilia de Aventino (Liv. 3.32) and the Lex militaris referred to by Liv. 7.41. See Ernesti's note cited by Orelli, Cicero, viii. p. 257; Ihering, Geist des röm. Rechts, pp. 273-276.


SAE´NIA DE PATRICIORUM NUMERO AUGENDO, enacted in the fifth consulship of Augustus (Tac. Ann. 11.25; Mon. Ancyr. Pilae prioris, tab. 2. See CASSIA).


SALPENSA´NA a lex of the Emperor Domitian, A.D. 81-84, regulating the constitution of the Latin colony of Salpensa in Baetica.


SA´TURA [LEX p. 33 b supr.]


SCATI´NIAE another reading for Atiniae in Cic. Phil. 3.6, 16.


SCANTI´NIA a lex of unknown date, enacted for the suppression of unnatural crime (Auson. Epigr. 89; Juv. 2.44; Cic. Fam. 8.1. 2, 14; Suet. Domit. 8), which was treated by the Lex Julia de adulteriis merely as stuprum (Dig. 48, 5, 34, 1; Collatio, 5.2; Paul. Sent. rec. 2.26, 13), and punished by partial confiscation of property, flogging, and relegatio (Inst. 4.18, 4). For these death was substituted by imperial constitutions (Coil. 5.3; Cod. 9, 9, 31).


SCRIBO´NIA of unknown date, enacted that praedial urban servitudes should not be acquirable by usucapio (Dig. 41, 3, 4, 29): rustic servitudes could never be so acquired (apart from the praedia to which they were annexed), owing to the impossibility of applying to them the notion of possession (Dig. 8, 1, 14, pr.). The statute, however, did not prohibit the extinction of a servitude by lapse of time, which the Romans call “usucapio libertatis” (Dig. 41, 3, 4, 29). But the prescriptive acquisition of servitudes was re-introduced through the praetorian doctrine of longi temporis possessio. [SERVITUTES; USUCAPIO.] See Unterholtzner, Verjahrungslehre, 2. § § 195-197.


SCRIBO´NIA ALIMENTA´RIA (Cael. ad Fam. 8.6, 5).


SCRIBO´NIA VIA´RIA carried by the tribune C. Scribonius Curio, B.C. 51. Its motive and purport are explained by Appian, App. BC 2.26 sq.: cf. Orelli's Cicero, viii. pp. 259, 260.


SEMPRO´NIA AGRA´RIA carried by Tiberius Gracchus when tribune, B.C. 133. In settling its provisions he was aided by the advice of Crassus, then Pontifex Maximus, Mucius Scaevola, then Consul and later Pontifex Maximus himself, and Appius Claudius (Plut. Tib. Gracchus, 9); their main objects being to relieve the poverty of the humbler Roman citizens, and to establish a population of free and independent yeomen over the vast tracts of public land, the enjoyment of which the patricians had practically appropriated, notwithstanding the Lex Licinia, and which were at that date but sparsely peopled by shepherds, herdsmen, and a few slave cultivators. Its main enactment was that no person should hold more than 500 jugera of ager publicus (Liv. Epit. 58; Aurel. Victor de Vir. ill. 64), with an additional 250 jugera for each of two sons: but in no case was the holding to exceed 1000 jugera. From the estates recovered from the present tenants, as being in excess of the maximum fixed by the statute, holdings were to be provided for the poorer and landless citizens, which they were to have no power of alienating or even letting (Appian, App. BC 1.9, 10); the taxes assessed on the land were to be paid by the tenant. The execution of the statute was entrusted to a commission of three, which was to be elected every year (Appian, loc. cit.), the first three commissioners being Tiberius himself, his brother C. Gracchus, and Appius Claudius; but it was attended with great difficulties. The ager publicus had been held by private persons for generations as private property, had often changed hands by sale or assignment, and had been improved and built upon. Proposals were originally made for the payment of compensation for buildings and unexhausted improvements (Plut. loc. cit.; Appian, App. BC 1.11); but these, it would appear, were withdrawn.

The execution of the measure was stopped by a senatusconsultum which extinguished the powers of the commissioners to whom it had been entrusted; but it was revived by the Lex Sempronia of C. Gracchus, B.C. 123. The senate, however, practically rendered it a dead letter by employing Livius Drusus, another of the tribunes, to bring forward agrarian proposals even more popular with the proletariate than that of Gracchus; especially one permitting alienation of the holdings, whereby the tenants got money instead of land, and the rich were enabled to buy back the estates of which they had been temporarily deprived. (Plut. C. Gracchus; Appian, App. BC 1.21 ff.: for the whole subject, see Merivale's Fall of the Roman Republic, chap. i.)


SEMPRO´NIA DE CAPITE CIVIUM, carried by Caius Gracchus, B.C. 123: it re-affirmed the old legal principle that no judgment should be pronounced involving the life or freedom of a citizen without the assent of the Roman people (Cic. pro Rabirio, 4, 8; in Cat. 4, 5; in Verr. 5.63, 163; Gel. 10.3). See Ahren's Excursus on the statute, cited by Orelli, Cicero, vol. viii. pp. 264, 265.


SEMPRO´NIA DE PECUNIA CREDITA or DE FENORE, passed by the tribune M. Sempronius Tuditanus, B.C. 193. It was occasioned by the fact of citizens lending money in the names of non-cives in order to evade the laws against usury, to which it subjected the Socii and Latini (Liv. 35.7).


SEMPRO´NIA DE PROVINCIA ASIA provided that the taxes of the Roman province of Asia should be let out to farm by the censors (Cic. in Verr. 3.6, 12: cf. ad Att. 1.17, 9): probably a different lex from that which next follows. [DECUMAE]


SEMPRO´NIA DE PROVINCIIS CONSULARIBUS, passed by C. Gracchus, B.C. 123: it enacted that before the election of consuls the senate should in each year determine the two provinces which they were to have at the termination of their year of office; which of the two each was to take, was to be settled by them afterwards by [p. 2.54]lot or otherwise (Sall. Jugurtha, 27;--Cic. pro Domo, 9, 24; pro Balbo, 27, 61; ad Fam. 1.7, 10; de Prov. Cons. 2, 3).


SEMPRO´NIA DE SUFFRAGIIS, passed by C. Gracchus: it enacted that the order in which the centuries should vote should be determined by lot (Sall. de Republ. ordin. 2.8; Mommsen, Röm. Geschichte, 4.3).


SEMPRO´NIA FRUMENTARIA of C. Gracchus (Cic. Tusc. 3.20, 48; pro Sestio, 48, 103; de Off. 2.21, 72; Brut. 62, 222). [FRUMENTARIAE LEGES]


SEMPRO´NIA JUDICIARIA, carried by C. Gracchus, B.C. 122: it took the judicia publica from the senate and transferred them to the Equites (Appian, App. BC 1.22; Veil. Pat. 2.6, 32; Cic. in Verr. 1.13, 40; Tac. Ann. 12.60; Florus, 3.13, 17).


SEMPRO´NIA MILITARIS, for providing soldiers with an outfit at the cost of the state (Plut. C. Gracchus, 5).


SEMPRO´NIA NE QUIS JUDICIO CIRCUMVENIRETUR (Cic. pro Cluentio, 55, 151). It seems in reality to have been somewhat of the same nature as the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis.


SERVI´LIA AGRA´RIA brought forward by the tribune P. Servilius Rullus, B.C. 63: it proposed to divide the ager campanus and campus stellatis among the poorer citizens (Cic. in Rull. 2, 28), to compensate all who had been robbed of their property by Sulla by the sale of all the ager publicus in Italy and the provinces (Cic. ib. 2, 15, 38), and to purchase lands in Italy for the, poor otherwise unprovided for from the wealth which had poured into the treasury from the recent conquests of Pompeius. It was successfully opposed by Cicero as consul, but was in substance carried by Julius Caesar, B.C. 59 (Cic. in Pison. 2, 4; ad Fam. 8, 6, 5: see JULIA AGRARIA).


SERVI´LIA GLAU´CIA DE REPETUNDIS, B.C. 104 (Cic. pro Scauro, 1, 2; pro Rab. Post. 4, 9; in Verr. 1.9, 26; pro Balbo, 24, 54: see the. next note). [DELATIO NOMINIS; REPETUNDAE.]


SERVI´LTA JUDICIA´RIA B.C. 106: by this the consul Q. Servilius Caepio restored to the senators the monopoly of the judicia publica of which they had been deprived by the Lex Sempronia judiciaria (Tac. Ann. 12.60; Cic. Brut. 43, 44, 86; de Invent. 1.49; de Orat. 2.55, 223; pro Cluent. 55, 151), but it seems to have been almost at once repealed by the Lex de repetundis of Servilius Glaucia: see Klenze's work, Fragmenta legis Serviliae, &c., Berlin, 1825, and the extracts from it in Orelli's Cicero, vol. viii. p. 268.


SES´TIA DE REVOCANDO CICERONE, B.C. 67 (Cic. Att. 3.2. 0, 3; ib. 23, 4).


SI´LIA circ. 244 B.C., introduced the legis actio called condictio, for the recovery of “certa pecunia” (Gaius, 4.19). [PER CONDICTIONEM]


SI´LIA a plebiscitum proposed by P. and M. Silius, tribuni plebis, in respect of publica pondera (Festus, s. v. Publica Pondera).




SULPI´CIAE proposed by the tribune P. Sulpicius Galba, a supporter of Marius, B.C. 88, and enacting the recall of the exiles (Auct. ad Herenn. 2.28, 45), and the distribution of the new citizens and the libertini among all the thirty-five tribes (Ascon. in Corn. p. 64, Orelli): conferring the command in the Mithridatic war on Marius in lieu of Sulla (Vell. 2.18, 6), and prohibiting senators from incurring debts beyond 2,000 drachmae, or 20,000 asses (Plut. Sull. 8). Appian (App. BC 1.59) says that all these laws were repealed (ὡς οὐκ ἔννομα) by Sulla and Pompeius. (Cf. Liv. Epit. 77; Cic. Phil. 8.2, 7.)


SULPI´CIA SEMPEO´NIA B.C. 304; clearly the same as the LEX PAPIRIA DE CONSECRATIONE AEDIUM, and improperly named after the consuls of the year by some writers; its true title is clear from Cic. pro Domo, 49 and 50, 128. (Cf. Gaius, 2.5-7.)








TERENTI´LIA the proposals of the tribune C. Terentilius Arsa (B.C. 462), which eventually led to the enactment of the Twelve Tables (Liv. 3.9, 10, 31; Dionys. A. R. 10.1 sq.) [DUODECIM TABULARUM.]




THO´RIA This agrarian law, proposed by a tribune named Sp. Thorius, is mentioned by Cicero (Cic. Brut. 36, 136; de Orat. 2.70, 284) and Appian (App. BC 1.27), and was one of three statutes by which such provisions of the Lex Agraria of C. Gracchus as had not been repealed by M. Livius Drusus were abrogated (Appian, loc. cit.). The first, whose author is unknown, was passed B.C. 121, and apparently confirmed the enactment attributed above [SEMPRONIA AGRARIA] to Drusus, which permitted the sale of lands assigned to the poorer citizens under the law of Gracchus: the second (Lex Thoria), B.C. 119 or 118, prohibited all future distributions of ager publicus, abolished the “triumviri agris dandis assignandis” established by Tiberius Gracchus, and confirmed the old possessores in their holdings subject to the payment of a tax (vectigal), which was to be divided among the needier citizens in lieu of land: the third (B.C. 111), possibly proposed by: the tribune C. Baebius (Sall. Jug. 32, 33), relieved the possessores of this tax altogether.

The relation of these leges to one another is connected with the fragments of an extant bronze tablet, containing inscriptions on both sides: on one, parts of the Lex Servilia de repetundis (the chief authority on which is Klenze's work); on the other, parts of a Lex Agraria. The largest and most important of the fragments is now in the Museo Borbonico at Naples. The Lex Agraria was cut on the rough back of the tablet, the smooth side of which was intended for and occupied by the Lex Servilia; and the agrarian law being considerably longer than the latter, “the characters [on the reverse side] are remarkably small, the lines narrow, the abbreviations numerous, and the chapters only separated by two or three points, whereas on the other side the letters are uniform, large, and well made, the lines wide, the words written at full length, and the chapters of the lex separated by superscriptions . . . Further, the lines of the Agraria Lex are often so oblique that they [p. 2.55]cross the straight lines on the opposite side, which are cut very deep, and consequently are visible on the side on which the agrarian law is cut” (Rudorff).

The main subject of the lex, to which the first eighteen chapters or forty-three lines refer, is the public land in Italy as far as the rivers Rubico and Macra. Its second part, covering fifty-three lines, relates to land both public and private in the province of Africa: the final portion to the Roman public land in the territory of Corinth. Rudorff (Zeitschrift für rechtsgesch. Wissenschaft, vol. x. pp. 1-194) is of opinion that the lex applied to other land also, and for two reasons. First, the Roman agrarian laws of the seventh century of the city (e. g. the Lex Servilia of Rullus) apparently related to all the provinces of the Empire. Secondly, the fragment of this lex, which is preserved, is so broad compared with its height that the whole tablet may be concluded to have contained three times as much as the portion which we have: for nearly all the bronze tablets, on which Roman laws are cut, are oblong in form, with the height much greater than the width. Of the two-thirds of the tablet which he supposes to have been lost, no trace has yet been discovered.

Rudorff, in his essay on this lex (written in 1839), identified it with the Lex Thoria, by which name it was known for some considerable time. But more recently (Röm. Rechtsgeschichte, 1.16: cf. his note in Puchta's Institutionen, § 72, l) he has accepted the conclusion of Mommsen (Berichte der Sächs. Gesellschaft, 1850, p. 92) that it really is the third of the leges above mentioned, which possibly was a Lex Baebia. It is certainly said by Cicero (Cic. Brut. 36, 136) that Sp. Thorius “agrum publicum vitiosa et inutili lege vectigali levavit;” but this Mommsen renders “relieved the ager publicus of the useless agrarian law of Gracchus by imposing on it a vectigal.” The 19th and 20th lines of the lex on the tablet (which decree the repeal of the vectigalia) seem to be conclusive in favour of this and against Rudorff's earlier theory.

The extant text of this statute is printed by Mommsen, Inscr. Lat. No. 200, and by Rudorff in the essay referred to: cf. Huschke, Kritisches Jahrbuch, 1841, pp. 579-620; Zumpt, Comment. Epigraph. 1850, pp.: 205-221; and Walter, Geschichte des röm. Rechts, § 252, and note 69 ib.


TI´TIA Similar in its provisions to the Lex Publicia (Dig. 11, 5, 2, 3).


TI´TIA AGRA´RIA (V. Max. 8.1; Cic. de Leg. 2.12, 31; Julius, Obs. 100.45).


TI´TIA DE TUTORIBUS [JULIA ET TITIA]. Another Lex Titia is referred to in Cic. pro Mur. 8, 18.


TREBO´NIA carried by the tribune L. Trebonius (B.C. 448), and enacting that if the Comitia were unable to elect ten tribuni plebis on the proper day, those actually selected should not fill up the vacancies by cooptation, but the Comitia be continued until the full number was complete (Liv. 3.64, 65; 5.10).


TREBO´NIA DE PROVINCIIS CONSULARIBUS, B.C. 55 (Liv. Epit. 105; D. C. 39.33; Plut. Cato min. 43).


TRIBUNI´CIA Plebiscita are commonly described as “leges tribuniciae:” but the term is also applied by Cicero (in Verr. 1.16, 42) to the lex by which Pompeius restored to the tribunes the powers of which they had been shorn by Sulla.


TU´LLIA DE AMBITU, carried by Cicero B.C. 63 (pro Mur. 3, 23, 32, &c.; pro Sest. 64, 163; in Vatin. 15, 37; D. C. 37.29). [AMBITUS]


TU´LLIA DE LIBERIS LEGATIONIBUS, also carried by Cicero (de Leg. 3.8, 18). See LEGATUS




VALE´RIA DE AERE ALIENO, carried B.C. 86 by L. Valerius Flaccus, reducing all debts by three-fourths (Veil. Pat. 3.23; Sall. Cat. 33; Cic. pro Fonteio, 1, 1).


VALE´RIA DE CIVITATE CALLIPHANAE VELIENSIS, B.C. 98, a privilegium by which a priestess of Ceres was made a civis Romana (Cic. pro Balbo, 24, 55).






VALE´RIA DE SULLA DICTTORE, carried by L. Valerius Flaccus, B.C. 82, giving the force of law to all Sulla's acts (Cic. de Lege agr. 3.2, 7; de Leg. 1.15, 42; pro Rosc. Am. 43, 126; Plut. Sull. 33).


VALE´RIAE proposed and carried B.C. 508 by the consul P. Valerius, with the object of relieving himself from the suspicion of aiming at the kingly power and increasing his own popularity: means by which he acquired the name of Publicola or Poplicola, by which he is generally known. The first and best known of his laws is that which reduced the powers of the magistrate (de Provocatione--de Multa) by enacting that every citizen, whether patrician or plebeian, should have an appeal (provocatio) to the Comitia (curiata, Walter, Geschichte des röm. Rechts, § 40; Schwegler, 21.17, 25.12; centuriata, Mommsen, Röm. Geschichte, 2.1, and Huschke, Rein, Becker-Marquardt, &c.) from any magisterial sentence by which he was condemned to death or flogging (Cic. de Rep. 2.31, 54; V. Max. 4.1; Liv. 2.30), or to payment of any fine larger than two sheep and five oxen (Plut. Popl. 11). Cicero (de Rep. 2.31, 54) says that this was the first lex passed at the Comitia Centuriata. The right of appeal only applied to Rome and its precincts within a mile of the city, for the imperium of the consuls beyond this boundary was unlimited ( “neque enim provocationem esse longius ab urbe mille passuum,” Liv. 3.20). The second Lex Valeria of Publicola declared accursed anyone who formed designs to grasp the kingly power, and made both him and his property sacer [SACRATAE LEGES]: Dionys. A. R. 5.19, 70; Plut. Popl. 12.


VALE´RIAE HORA´TIAE carried B.C. 449 by the consuls L. Valerius Potitus and M. Horatius Barbatus. The probable import of one of these, relating to the binding force of plebiscita, has been stated above [PUBLILIAE LEGES]. A second was intended to secure the principle of the Lex Valeria de provocatione, enacting “ne quis ullum magistratum sine provocatione crearet: qui creasset eum jus fasque esset occidi, neve ea caedes capitalis noxae haberetur” (Liv. 3.55: cf. Cic. de Rep. 2.31, 54). This principle was re-asserted again almost at once by the Lex Duilia (Liv. loc. cit.), and many years afterwards by a third Lex Valeria, passed by M. Valerius, [p. 2.56]consul B.C. 300, which Livy (10.9) says was armed with more precise sanctions “quod plus paucorum opes quam libertas plebis poterant.”

A third Lex Valeria Horatia made “sacrosancti” the persons of the plebeian tribunes and aediles and the “judices decemviri” (Liv. 3.55): anyone who violated the enactment being made “sacer” to Jupiter, and his property confiscated to the temple of Ceres and Liber. The “judices decemviri” seem not to be two separate classes of judges, but the collegium of decemvirs.


VA´LLIA according to Studemund's recension, the name of the statute mentioned by Gaius (4.25), which limited the operation of Manus injectio for execution purposes to judgment debts (judicatum) and debts established by actio depensi. [PUBLILIA DE SPONSU.]


VA´RIA (V. Max. 8.6, 4; Appian, Bell. Civ. 1.37; Cic. Tusc. 2.24, 57; pro Scauro, 1, 3; Brut. 56, 89). [MAJESTAS]


VATI´NIA DE COLONIS, under which the Latin colony of Novum Comum in Cisalpine Gaul was founded B.C. 59 (Suet. Jul. 28).


VATI´NIA DE IMPERIO C. CAESARIS, carried B.C. 59 by the tribune P. Vatinius: it conferred on Julius Caesar the province of Cisalpine Gaul, with Illyricum, for five years: Gallia Transalpina was subsequently added by a senatusconsultum (Sueton. Jul. 22; D. C. 38.8; Appian, App. BC 2.13; Vell. 2.44; Cic. in Vatin. 15, 36: cf. TREBONIA).


VATI´NIA DE REJECTIONE JUDICUM, carried by the same P. Vatinius: it enabled both accuser and accused in a trial for Repetundae to once reject the whole consilium of judges drawn by the praetor: previously they had been able only to challenge individual members of the panel (Cic. in Vatin. 11, 27; Schol. Bob. pp. 321, 323, Orelli).


VATI´NIA DE L. VETTII INDICIO (Cic. in Vatin. 11, 26; D. C. 38.9; Appian, App. BC 2.12; Schol. Bob. in Vatin. p. 320, Orelli).


VECTIBULICI a law supposed to have been passed by the Comitia in the time of Trajan, and so later than the Lex Agraria of Nerva, generally held to have been the last enacted in this manner. The reading in Cod. 7, 9, 2, on which the assumption rests, is probably corrupt: see Puchta, Institutionen, § 106, note b.


VE´RRIA FRUMENTA´RIA (Cic. in Verr. 3.49, 117).


VIA´RIA a name sometimes given to the lex of Scribonius Curio, de viis muniendis [SCRIBONIA], because described under it by Cicero, Cic. Fam. 8.6.


VICESIMA´RIA (Gaius, 3.125, 126; Dig. 2, 15, 13; 11, 7, 37; 28, 1, 7, &c.). [JULIA VICESIMARIA.]




VISE´LLIA A.D. 23, rendered libertini liable to a criminal prosecution who fraudulently attempt to exercise the rights of ingenui (Cod. 9, 21; 10, 32, 1): it also enabled Latini Juniani to acquire the civitas by service in the Roman guards (vigiles) for six years, which was subsequently reduced to three by a senatusconsultum (Ulpian, Reg. 3.5).


hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: