Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T21:59:03.611Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Lex Repetundarum and the Political Ideas of Gaius Gracchus*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

A. N. Sherwin-White
A. N. Sherwin-White
Affiliation:
St. John's College, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It may be taken as proven, so far as anything is ever finally proved in ancient history that the Roman law contained in the fragmented bronze tablet once owned by Cardinal Bembo is the lex repetundarum, or recovery law, of Gaius Gracchus, or of a political associate who shared the same ideas about the so-called ‘extortion court’, despite the doubts of Professor Mattingly, who, reviving the thesis of Carcopino and earlier scholars, sought to identify it with the later law of Servilius Glaucia. This law, which may be conveniently called the Lex Sempronia; is probably the only law of Gaius Gracchus that was concerned with jurors. It is both a lex repetundarum and a lex iudiciaria, because at this time there was no other regular political jury court except the court of recovery. The Lex Sempronia which succeeds the Lex Calpurnia of 149 (and its adjunct the obscure Lex Iunia), replace the senatorial jurors of the previous system by jurors who are not drawn from the senatorial class. But it does many other things, and it is an absolute treasure-house of information about the political and social ideas of its author. Historians have not effectively used it information for the general interpretation of the political thinking of Gaius Gracchus because they suffer from a fixed idea.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 72 , November 1982 , pp. 18 - 31
Copyright
Copyright © A. N. Sherwin-White 1982. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Modern discussion has tended to centre on the charges and penalties of the Lex Repetundarum, cf. A. N. Sherwin-White, PBSR 17 (1949), 5 ff., Henderson, M. I., JRS 41 (1951), 71Google Scholar ff., Sherwin-White, A. N., JRS 42 (1952), 43Google Scholar ft., and on its possible relation to the short fragment of a law known as the Lex Tarentina (with which this paper is not concerned), first published by Bartoccini, R., Epigraphica 9 (1949), 3Google Scholar ff. For the Gracchan date see now Sherwin-White, A. N., JRS 62 (1972), 83Google Scholar ff., at length, against the identification with the Lex Servilia argued by Mattingly, H. B., JRS 60 (1970), 154Google Scholar ff. (Earlier, cf. J. P. V. D. Balsdon, PBSR 14 (1938), 98 ff.) For the latest recension of the text see Mattingly, , JRS 59 (1969), 129Google Scholar ff., on the basis of somewhat shorter lines than in the system of Mommsen followed in FIR 7 (Bruns) 10, and FIRA 2 (Riccobono) I. 7. For the general history of the ‘extortion court’ see Pontenay de Fontette, F., Leges Repetundarum (1954)Google Scholar, Eder, W., Das vorsullanische Repetundenverfahren (1969)Google Scholar and his commentary on the text of the law, ib. 153 ff.

2 cf. my arguments, art. cit. (1972), 85 f., adding that Gaius dealt with the problem of occasional quaestiones by another method in his lex ne quisiudicio circumveniatur (cf. Ewins, U., JRS 50 (1960), 94Google Scholar ff.). That he altered the qualifications of civil indices is problematical, but hardly calls for discussion here: in III the qualification for recuperatores was not ‘equestrian’ but ‘prima classis’ (Bruns, FIR 7 II. 37); contra, Stockton, D., The Gracchi (1979), 146 ffGoogle Scholar.

Lex Sempronia: despite much argumentation about the identity of the Lex Acilia cited by Cicero (Verr. I. 51–2), it remains improbable that Acilius Glabrio, who was son-in-law of the jurist P. Mucius Scaevola (who approved the murder of Ti. Gracchus) or of his consular brother Quintus and who married his son to a daughter of the optimate leader Aemilius Scaurus (who helped to engineer the fall of Gaius, de vir. ill. 72. 9), was the formal author of this bill. If Diod. 34–5. 27 describes the passing of the lex repetundarum (as Appian, B.C. I. 22. 93, with Diod. 37. 9, suggests), then Gaius proposed the bill in person (cf. Tac., Ann. 12. 60. 4, Semproniis rogationibus).

3 Eder, op. cit., (n. I), 126 ff. Cf. e.g. H. M.Last, CAH ix (1932), 75 f., characteristic for his generation. Gruen, E. S., Roman Politics and the Criminal Courts, 149–78 B.C. (1968), 87 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar. D. Stockton, op. cit. (n. 2), 138 ff., though concentrating on the composition of the juries, summarizes briefly the contents of the law and notes the clause about domicile (cf. below p. 22). General historians confine themselves to the political line with varying stress, cf. Scullard, H. H., From the Gracchi to Nero3 (1970), 35–6Google Scholar. Christ, K., Krise und Untergang der römischen Republik (1979), 139Google Scholar. Nicolet, C., Rome et la conquête du monde méditerranéen (1977), I. 420 f.Google Scholar, cf. his detailed study in L'Ordre équestre (1966), I. 475 ff.

4 cf. Cic., Clu. 104, 108, Rab. Post. 13, 16. Scullard, op. cit., (n. 3), 35 ‘a crime which only senators could commit’. Last, op. cit. (n. 3), 69, 76–7, is ambiguous.

5 Military tribunes: Pol. 6. 19. I. Livy records seven groups of tribunes between 205 and 167, containing thirty-eight persons. Of these three or four were consulars and one a praetorian senator, serving against Perseus or Gentius in 171 and 168 (Livy 42. 49. 9, 44. 31. 15, 37. 5. 41. 2), while two praetorians served in Spain in 181–80 (ib. 40. 35. 3). In 171, to secure experienced soldiers for the Macedonian army, magisterial selection was substituted for popular election (ib. 42. 31. 4–5). Livy 42. 49. 9 comments on the exceptional result that two consulars and three iuvenes illustres, who also may have been former tribunes, were appointed among the (twelve) officers needed. C. Cassius in 168, not designated consular by Livy 44. 31. 15, may be the son of the consul of 171 rather than the man himself (pace MRR I. sub anno 168). The remaining thirty-three tribunes include some nine persons with obscure names indicating families that were not yet senatorial—e.g. Matienus (205), Maevius (203), Ligurius (197), Atius, Caelius (178), Pompeius (171), and C. Octavius (205, cf. Suet., Aug. 2. 2). The famous consuls of 195, M. Cato and L. Valerius Flaccus, also served as tribunes bis in 191 against Antiochus, holding high positions: Livy notes them as consulares, but wrongly calls them legati (36. 17. 1, 18. 8, 21. 4–8; cf. sources cited in MRR I. sub anno 191). For the evidence in full see ib., for the years 205, 203, 197–6, 191, 182–1, 178, 171, 170–168. Later evidence is too scanty to be significant. Quaestors: the number was raised from eight a year in 267 (Livy, Ep. 15, Tac., Ann. II. 22. 8) to twelve after the cessation of Livy's narrative in 167 (Lydus, de mag. I. 27, where the date but not the number is confused, ignored by Tac., loc. cit., and by de Martino, F., St. Cost. Rom. II. 241Google Scholar f., 403–4). Senate of three hundred, Livy, Ep. 60; Maccabees I. 8 has three hundred and twenty.

6 cf. lists in de Fontette, op. cit. (n. I), 85 f., 91 f., 100 f., 105 f. The sole instance from Italy was the conviction of P. Septimius Scaevola in 72 for offences in Apulia (Cic., Clu. 115–6, Verr. I. 38), though the law was also invoked against senators for judicial bribery at Rome (ib., and Clu. 104).

7 For the connection of arbitrium and dicio with deditio see Livy 26. 33. 13, cf. 9. 20. 4, 8. For the formula of deditio, Livy I. 38. 2: cf. my Roman Citizenship 2 60 f., 96, 383.

8 Socii et amici, for a recent discussion cf. Cimma, M. R., Reges socii et amici populi Romani (1976), 37 ffGoogle Scholar. Strictly, in amicitia should refer to the first step of receptio in amicitiam by a consul on campaign that preceded the formal establishment of alliance either by foedus or by senatorial decree; regis nomine, cf. n. II.

9 Gaius' speech, Gellius, N.A., II. 10. 2–4. Jugurtha, Sall., B.J. 8. I, 35. 10. Phrygia, Appian, Mithr. 57, B.C. I. 22.

10 Cic., Flacc. 84–6: ‘negavit a privato pecuniam in provincia praetorem petere oportere’. Cf. II Verr. 3. 71, 91; for the terms cf. de Fontette, op. cit., 55, Eder, op. cit., 156, n. 4. For specific prohibitions on buying, later, Cic., II Verr. 4. 9.

11 L. 9–11. ‘(quei ex h.) 1. pequniam petet nomenque detulerit … sei eis volet sibei patronos in eam rem darei, pr(aetor) ad quem (nomen detulerit) etc.’. The phrase quei … regis populeive … nomine survives in L. 60 in connection with the proving of a lis aestimata for payment.

12 For the role of cognitores cf. Cic., pro Caec. 14, pro Rosc. Com. 32, II Verr. 2. 106. Cf. Declareuil, J., Rome the Law-Giver (1927), 73 f.Google Scholar, Buckland, W. W., Text-Book of Roman Law (1963), 708 ffGoogle Scholar.

13 cf. II Verr. 2. 106: it was normal to allow the use of a provincial cognitor in provincial jurisdiction.

14 Prusias, cf. Appian, Mithr. 4–7, Pol. 36. 14, Diod. 32. 20–21. Nicomedes, Appian, Mithr. II.

15 Possibly the abortive prosecution of Sulla in the interest of Ariobarzanes involved a cognitor, Plut., , Sulla 5. 12;Google Scholar but this was under the altered system of the Lex Servilia in which a Roman accusator took charge, cf. my art. cit. (1972) (n. I), 97 f.

16 Diod. 35. 25, Appian, B.C. I. 22, 93–7, with clear reference to the active delations of the period 110–90 and the notorious condemnation of Rutilius Rufus.

17 cf. n. 3 above; so too Badian, E., Publicans and Sinners (1972), 65–6Google Scholar.

18 On the assumption that the later equestrian franchise of 400,000 sestertii had been upgraded with those of the other centuriate classes from asses to sestertii by Sulla, the previous qualification in terms of land would be a minimum of one rather than four hundred Roman acres, if basic land values averaged 1,000 sestertii per jugerum as in the first century A.D. (cf. T. Frank, Ec. Survey I. 125, 168, 365 for the meagre evidence).

19 cf. Stockton, op. cit. (n. 2), 152. In L. 23 the formula is replaced by the phrase ‘(queive ab urbe Roma …) aberit queive trans mare erit’.

20 For the upper classes the decem stipendia form the normal maximum, cf. Pol. 6. 19. 2, and the quaestorship, preceded by a military tribunate, was normally held at about the age of thirty. Exemption at sixty, cf. Festus 452L, s.v. sexagenarios de ponte. Professor Nicolet suggested in discussion that there was a large sector of resident landowners living at Rome other than negotiatores but the distinction is not absolute: the publicanus was required to give security in real estate against his possible failure. Cf. the same limitations of age and local domicile in municipal rules, Lex Urs. 91, 98, Tabula Heracleensis 89, 99, for all decurions.

21 Badian, , Publicans and Sinners, 63 fGoogle Scholar.

22 Quaestio Mamilia, Sall., B.J. 40. 5, ‘exercita aspere’, Cic., Brut. 128, ‘Gracchani iudices sustulerunt’, to which the speech of Crassus about the iudicum crudelitas (Cic, de Or. I. 225) may refer. Rutilius Rufus, cf. Livy, Ep. 70, and the numerous sources cited in Greenidge and Clay2, 125–7. Lex Servilia, cf. n. 15.

23 For the exegesis of L. 48 ‘quotiens quomque amplius bis in uno iu(dicio iudicare negarint)’, see my art. cit. (1972) (n. I), 87, Eder, op. cit., 203, n. I. Cf. the eight ampliationes in the suit against L. Cotta, Val. Max. 8. I. II.

24 L. 36, 42–44, 45–46, 48. Fines went from the multa suprema of 3,020 asses (Festus 129L, s.v. multam maximam) to 10,000 sestertii.

25 Sall., B.J. 33. 2–3, 34. I. This scene took place at the first hearing of the anquisitio of the indicium populi initiated by the tribune Memmius (cf. ib. 31. 26, ‘quae nisi quaesita erunt’: Sallust disguises the technicalities), although the summoning of Jugurtha had been authorized by a plebiscite.

26 FIRA 2 I. 6. 1–3; 9. C 15–29. The second law introduces the system of private prosecution by quivolet before a special indicium for the infliction of its penalties, while the first relies on magisterial prosecution before a court of recuperatores.

27 L. 56, 'quom eo (h). 1. nisei quod post ea fecerit … aut (nisei de litibus) aestumandis aut nisei de sanctione hoiusce legis actio nei es(to).

28 The terms (neive tribu mo)veto neive equom adimito indicate action by a censor, though the word is missing. The Bantian law imposed a string of social and political disqualifications directly upon persons condemned under its provisions (FIRA 2 I. 6. 1–8), but also instructed the censors not to list them as senators.

29 For this law and its connection with that nequis iudicio circumveniatur see Ewins, art. cit. (n. 2).

30 See Greenidge, A. H. J., The Legal Procedure of Cicero's Time (1901), 341 f., 344 ffGoogle Scholar. ‘Democracy’, cf. Cic., de Re Pub. 2. 39–40, Sall., B.J. 40. 5–42. 5, for attitudes.

31 FIRA 2 1. 9. C 23–4.

32 L. 20–22, 24–5.

33 L. 25, ‘(sei is quoius no)men … delatum erit, L iudices ex h. 1. non legerit edideritve … (tum eipe)r eum praetorem advorsariumve mora non er(it quo) minus legal edatve (sc. is qui nomen detulerit) … Quei ita lectei erunt eis in eam rem ioudices sunto …’.

34 cf. e.g. Cic., II Verr. I. 13–14, 2. 23–4, 3. 61, Flacc. 68.

35 L. 39, ‘discourse rather than 'enter into argument’.

36 L. 35–6. Eder, op. cit. (n. 1), 194 n. 1, 195 n. 2, thinks this refers to a preliminary organization of the evidence, because in the later system the patronus cross-examines (e.g. Cic., Flacc. 22). But Gaius may well have left the initiative to the praetor in order to ensure the calling of the witnesses.

37 Gaius, Inst. 4. 49–52, cf. Cic., Tull. 7. This applied in the system of legis actio per sacramentum, cf. Buckland, op. cit. (n. 12), 612.

38 This section seems to be displaced; it should follow the chapter de leitibus aestumandeis.

39 L. 62–4.

40 L. 66–9.

41 cf. Buckland, op. cit. (n. 12), 642 ff., for personal seizure and private venditio bonorum.

42 L. 30–4.

43 The mostly lost chapter de inro(ganda multa) separates the two concerning witnesses.

44 Above n. 25.

45 Livy 42. 22. 7–8. Gaius, Inst. 4. 105, for iudicia quae imperio continentur; cf. Greenidge, op. cit. (n. 30), 140.

46 L. 72–3.' For magistrate abierit cf. L. 9. It commonly refers to the ending of annual office. L. 27 likewise maintains juries ‘unius rei in perpetuum’.

47 The normal annual conscription consisted of four consular legions with three hundred cavalrymen each, and a supplement of three thousand pedites and three hundred equites for existing legions. The establishment of eight to ten legions which were frequently in active service in the first part of the second century, revealed by Livy's annual reviews, was maintained by the retention of legions for continuous periods of two to six or more years, thus providing also for the praetorian military commands. Only a quarter of the legions between 200 and 168 served for a single season. Cf. the detailed studies of Afzelius, A., Die römische Kriegsmacht (1944), 34 ff., 48 ff.Google Scholar, and his tables on pp. 47, 57, 61, 62–3.

48 Cic., Rab. Post. 17.

49 Gell., N.A. 10. 3. 3.

50 cf. L. 28, and n. 28 above.

51 Double costs, L. 59. Exile, L. 29. The law does not define the destination of the extra payment.

52 Cic., Off. 2. 75.

53 Nothing prevented a tribune from completing his anquisitio and pronouncing his sentence against a magistrate in office, but at the final iudicium before the Comitia the reus could plead public office as an excusatio: cf. Livy 43. 16. 11–12, Cic., dom. 45. Cf. Cicero's summary, ibid., of the difficulty of securing convictions, and the lack of any possibility of postponement if on the dies dicta the hearing was legitimately cancelled.

54 cf. the full discussion (and earlier bibliography) of these sections by Mattingly, art. cit. (1970) (n. 1), 163 ff., and myself, art. cit. (1972) (n. 1), 94 ff. For restorations, see n. 58 below.

55 See the lists of persons enfranchised viritim in Badian, E., Foreign Clientelae (1958), 302 ff.Google Scholar, and the discussion in my RC 2, 136 ff., 144 ff. The enfranchisement of provincial peregrini begins in the decade 90–80.

56 Sc. de Asclepiade, FIRA 2 1. 35. 3–4, 19–20 (Sherk no. 22). The resemblance was noted by Mommsen, GS 1. 63 f.; cf. Eder, op. cit. (n. 1), 230 n. 1.

57 For prosecution of senators for offences in Italy under the later Le x Cornelia, cf. n. 6.

58 Strachan-Davidson, J. L., Problems of the Roman Criminal Law (1912), 1. 147 ff.Google Scholar, holding that the beneficiaries of the clauses de ceivitate danda and de provocatione … danda should be the same categories of persons, restored L. 78 to read: ‘sei quis eorum quei (in amicitia dicione potestate P.R. sient, sociumve nominisve Latini … quei eorum dictat)or, etc.’. This makes the two sections refer to all types of non-Romans, but it is not faithful to the definition of L. 1 on which it is based, abbreviating and inverting the order of categories— ‘quoi socium nominisve Latini exterarumve nationum, etc’. His supplement cannot be added to L. 76 as it stands in the Tabula, because that continued immediately with ‘ex hace lege alterei nomen … detolerit’. But, as Mattingly observed, in L. 78 this latter clause is displaced to a later position. Mattingly would restore both 76 and 78 to commence with the words ‘si quiseorum quei Romanus non erit quibus eorum ex h. 1. alieno nomine petundi … ius erit’. He argued that the rewards of the law were not for plaintiffs but for patroni, and that these were limited to Latins and Romans. His failure to recognize that the phrase about alio nomine refers not to patroni but cognitores (above pp. 20–1) invalidates his thesis, but the unsatisfactory state of the texts remains clear. But difficulties disappear if the opening phrase in de provocatione danda is supplemented to include both socii and the nomen Latinum: the drafter in his pleonastic fashion merely allows for the special condition of former Latin magistrates to whom the options are not open since they have already exercised them (or one of them) ex honore. Apart from these, chief plaintiffs, whether Italian or Latin, are offered the alternatives to Roman citizenship. Cf. for another explanation of the special favour of Latini my art. cit. (1972) (n. 1), 95–97.

59 Citizenship bill, cf. Appian, B.C. 1. 23. 99, Plut., C. Gracchus 5. 2, 8. 3, 9. 5, Vell. Pat., 2. 6. 2, with Iulius Victor 6. 4, Cic., Brutus 99; H. M. Last, CAH ix, 51, 78–9, E. Badian, op. cit. (n. 55), 299. Oscans in 90–89, cf. my RC 2, 136 ff., 144 ff.