Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T17:15:41.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Lex Irnitana and Procedure in the Civil Courts*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

Alan Rodger
Alan Rodger
Affiliation:
Advocates' Library, Edinburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The procedural rules of civil courts stimulate interest among few except the lawyers who practise in them. The procedures of the courts of the Roman world may therefore not seem an enticing topic. But procedure lies at the heart of any legal system and the Roman legal system is no exception. So when the discovery of the Lex Irnitana brought us fresh material about the jurisdiction and procedure of the local magistrates and courts at Irni, it added greatly to our understanding of one of the central institutions of the first-century Roman world. But the information is not always easy to interpret. The purpose of this article is first to try to solve an apparent mystery in Chapter 90 of the Lex and then to use the new material to fill out our picture of procedure in this period. In this way it is hoped to contribute to a fuller understanding of the Lex Irnitana as a whole.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 81 , November 1991 , pp. 74 - 90
Copyright
Copyright ©Alan Rodger 1991. 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 References in this article are to the text in González, J., ‘The Lex Irnitana: a New Copy of the Flavian Municipal Law’, JRS 76 (1986), 147–243Google Scholar, including an Appendix containing an excellent translation by Michael Crawford, hereinafter González (1986). A full discussion of the literature is to be found in W. Simshäuser, ZSS 107 (1990), 543–61, hereinafter Simshäuser (1990). Since then Curchin, L. A., The Local Magistrates of Roman Spain (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar has appeared. The following works are cited by the abbreviation noted only: J. A. Crook, D. E. L. Johnston, P. G. Stein, ‘Intertiumjagd and the Lex Irnitana: a Colloquium’, ZPE 70 (1987), 173–84 cited as ZPE (1987); Johnston, D., ‘Three Thoughts on Roman Private Law and the Lex Irnitana’, JRS 77 (1987), 62–77Google Scholar cited as Johnston (1987); Kaser, M., Das römische Zivilprozessrecht (1966)Google Scholar cited as Prozessrecht.

2 Simshäuser (1990), 549 ff.

3 ZPE (1987), 181 ff.

4 Simshäuser (1990), 550 ff.

5 Part X below contains an outline of the system as envisaged in this article.

6 González (1986), 234; Johnston (1987), 70 ff.; ZPE (1987), passim; Simshäuser (1990), 549.

7 González (1986), 197.

8 González (1986), loc. cit.

9 See below Part V.

10 See the works cited in n. 6.

11 González (1986), 197 (emphasis added).

12 Simshäuser (1990), 552.

13 See for instance ZPE (1987), 175; Simshäuser (1990), 549 ff.

14 Simshäuser (1990), 552 ff. and, for example, González (1986), 197–8 and 234–5.

15 TLL VI, 556 lines 3–62 deal with various kinds of legal notices. Cf. OLD, s.v. denuntio 5; VIR II, 172 lines 39 ff.

16 OLD, loc. cit.

17 In Part VIII, text accompanying n. 57.

18 González (1986), 198.

19 Simshäuser (1990), 544 ff. and 555 ff. It will be apparent that my analysis differs somewhat from his.

20 Rodger, A., ‘The Jurisdiction of Local Magistrates: Chapter 84 of the Lex Irnitana’, ZPE 84 (1990), 147–61Google Scholar, esp. at 147–51.

21 See below Part IX.

22 There is a slip in the translation in González (1986), 196 which reads as if the construction were ‘dari addicique iudicare iubeto’.

23 At the colloquium in Cambridge I shared the common view that Chapter 90 was not concerned with the in iure stage: ZPE (1987), 176.

24 González (1986), 234. See below Part VIII, text accompanying n. 51.

25 In Part VIII, text accompanying n. 57.

26 Simshäuser (1990), 554 ff.

27 Kipp, Th., Comperendinatio, RE IV, 789 lines 28 ffGoogle Scholar. Kelly, J. M., Roman Litigation (1966), 119–20Google Scholar thought it very unlikely that this was ever a general rule.

28 See for instance Kühner-Stegmann, , Ausführliche Grammatik 3 II, 594 ff.Google Scholar; Löfstedt, E., Syntactica II, 243–4Google Scholar; Hofmann, B.J., Lateinische Umgangssprache2, paras 155 ff.Google Scholar

29 TLL V I, 1678 lines 8 ff. The VIR lists 120 examples: II, 305, lines 38–306, line 4 and see III 1, 1365, lines 26 ff.

30 See the references in Prozessrecht, 28 n. 33.

31 See Part VI.

32 See, for instance, Kalb, W., Das Juristenlatein2 (1888), 46ff.Google Scholar; de Meo, C., Lingue tecniche del latino (1983), 108Google Scholar.

33 Digest XLVII. 10.17.2, Ulpian 57 ad edictum. Cf. VIR II, 301 lines 33–41. In some of the texts listed there a part of actio lurks nearby or may well have done so in the original. Only in Digest XXI. 2.74.1, Hermogenian 2 iuris epitomarum is it not absolutely clear that the missing noun is actio.

34 Ep. VII. 6.9. See TLL V 1, 1678 lines 31 ff.

35 Cicero, pro Murena 12.27. See Prozessrecht, 83 n. 4.

36 Text preceding and accompanying n. 70.

37 ZPE (1987), 177–9.

38 Sbordone, F., ‘Nuovo contributo alle tavolette cerate pompeiane’, Rendiconti dell'accademia di archaeologia lettere e belle arti di Napoli, N.S. 46 (1971), 175–6Google Scholar; AE 1973, No. 145; Bove, L., Documenti processuali dalle Tabulae Pompeianae di Murecine (1979), 114–17Google Scholar.

39 cf. ZPE (1987), 181–2; Johnston (1987), 71.

40 ZPE (1987), 181–2.

41 ZPE (1987), 182.

42 TLL V 1, 982, lines 16–32; OLD s.v. dico 10c. No example of iudicem dicere is listed in the Thesaurus or in VIR III 1, 1348.

43 Sbordone, op. cit. (n. 38), 176; Bove, op. cit. (n.38), 115.

44 J. Crook, ‘Working Notes on Some of the New Pompeii Tablets’, ZPE 29 (1978), 229, 232; ZPE (1987), 182.

45 The usage would seem to be some kind of development of that found in OLD s.v. sumo 15.

46 Sbordone, op. cit. (n. 38); Bove, op. cit. (n. 38), 115 and 117.

47 It should be noted that Crook has very plausibly conjectured that in tertium should be read in Tabula Pompeiana 9 which would then have an exactly parallel structure to that of Tabula Pompeiana 24 as far as diceretur, at which point the text breaks off, ZPE 29 (1978), 231–2. See also Camodeca, AE 1986, No. 187.

48 ZPE (1987), 175–6 and 180; Simshäuser (1990), 552.

49 Prozessrecht, 217 n. 14.

50 ZPE (1987), 177–8; Simshäuser 550.

51 Part III above. See González (1986), 234.

52 Simshäuser (1990), 553–4.

53 cf. Gaius, , Institutes IV. 104Google Scholar.

54 cf. Digest L. 16.2, Paul 1 ad edictum.

55 See the discussion in ZPE (1987), 180.

56 See Part IX below.

57 In Part II, text accompanying n. 15.

58 So in substance Simshäuser (1990), 552–3.

59 ZPE (1987), 179–80; Simshäuser (1990), 553.

60 Part III.

61 González (1986), 235.

62 Prozessrecht, 83 ff. and 274.

63 OLD s.v. dies 7.

64 González (1986), 233.

65 See generally J. M. Kelly, Studies in the Civil Judicature of the Roman Republic (1976), chs 2 and 5 with the literature cited there.

66 For this use of oportebit see D. Daube, Forms of Roman Legislation (1956), 8 ff.

67 See González (1986), 232.

68 P. Birks, ‘New Light on the Roman Legal System: the Appointment of Judges’, CLJ (1988), 47, 36–60, 59–60.

69 Rodger, ZPE 84 (1990), 148 f.

70 Birks, op.cit. (n. 68), 60.

71 cf. Schmidlin, B., Das Rekuperatorenverfahren (1963), 117–19Google Scholar.

72 See, for example, Pliny, Ep. III. 20.9 and the other texts mentioned in Wenger, L., Reciperatio, RE 2te Reihe I 1, 427 lines 22 ff. and 431 lines 48 ff.Google Scholar and Schmidlin, op. cit. (n. 71), 130 ff.

73 FIRA I2, 187.