¹ Mattingly, H. B., ‘Two Republican laws of the Tabula Bembina’, JRS 1969, 129 ff.Google Scholar; ‘The extortion law of the Tabula Bembina’, ib. 1970, 154 ff. These are cited as a.c. (69) and a.c. (70). For the original publication of the Tabula Tarentina see Bartoccini, R., Epigraphica IX 1949, 3 ffGoogle Scholar. Throughout this article the term ‘recovery’ is preferred to the inexact ‘extortion’, which misinterprets the act defined as capere pecuniam. This article owes much to the lively criticism of my pupil, Mr. R. Gilbert, especially over the meaning of line 23 of the Lex Repetundarum, though the views here expressed differ from his own. It should be noted that Dr. Mattingly does not claim to have proved his case, but merely to have established its possibility.

² See n. 53, on the deletion of the words in sua ceivitate in 1. 79.

³ Mattingly effects a valuable if minor clarification of lines 51–55 by his placing of the fragment F, but these sections on voting procedure are not involved in the chronological argument.

⁴ Hence it is not necessary to repeat at length Dr. Mattingly's full account of the modern discussions, which will be cited only à propos of particularities.

⁵ e.g. the argument about the praetor peregrinus (a.c. 70, 154–5) occurs in the demonstration that the Tab. Tar. law belongs to the radical legislation of c. 103–100 B.C. The discussion of the Lex Sempronia comes late, between the sections about ampliatio and quo ea pecunia pervenerit. The trial of Carbo, relevant to the theme of the clause nei quis impediat, is examined in a section concerned with editicii iudices.

⁶ Asconius (in Corn. 69) gives the substance of the Lex Cassia as ‘ut quem populus damnasset cuive imperium abrogasset in senatu ne esset’. L.R. 11 and 13 together give: ‘[queive] quaestione ioudicioque puplico condemnatus siet quod circa eum in senatum legei non liceat’. Line 13 continues without a break after liceat, with a further definition.

⁷ The fact that C. Cato after condemnation for Recovery in 113 continues as an active senator until his condemnation under the Lex Mamilia of 109 is explained by the incidence of the censura in 115/4 and 109. The latter censors did not complete their office, cf. MRR i, 546; Veil, ii, 8; Sall., B.J. 40; Cic, Brutus 128.

⁸ Mattingly, a.c. (70) 157. Cic., de Or. I, 121, ‘quod consilium dimiserat (sc. praetor)’ is the basic text. For the date Cicero's ‘annos natus unum et viginti’ (de Or. 3, 74), i.e. 119 B.C., must be preferred to Tacitus, Dial. 34, 7, ‘nono decimo aetatis anno’ (121 B.C.). Hence the identification of the anonymous trial of de Or. I, 121 with a prosecution of Carbo after his consulship in 119 is possible. Cic., ad Fam. 9, 21, 3 is ambiguous as to the charge, listing it with his brother's prosecution for Recovery and maiestas.

⁹ L.R. 39–40: ‘quam rem pr. ex h.1. egerit sei eam rem proferet…facito quoius deicet nomen referre…utei is ad se veniat aut adferatur coram eo quei postulaverit…quoius ex h.l. nominis delatio erit’. For the archaic meaning of proferre, referre cf. citations from Cato in Gell., N.A. 1, 23, 5; 6(7), 13, 14; also Festus 405 (289) s.v. referre.

¹⁰ In L.R. 23–25 the plaintiff puts forward 100 names and the reus may reject 50. Cicero is very specific: ‘cum ex cxxv iudicibus…v et LXX reus reiceret L referret’.

¹¹ The only textual query in this passage concerns ‘iudicis editicium nomen’. Since the Lex Servilia was in force until suspended by either the Lex Plautia or the Lex Cornelia, Cicero should have been well informed about it. The Lex Plautia, which was not a Recovery law (Asconius, in Corn. 70), may not have touched it.

¹² a.c. (70), 160 ff. Mattingly here follows E. Badian, Historia XI, 1962, 208. The texts are collected in Greenidge and Clay, Sources for Roman History ², 34–5, 78, 272–73. Unlike the Lex Servilia Caepionis and the Lex Aurelia, neither the Lex Sempronia nor the Lex Acilia is positively called a lex iudiciaria (save for Plutarch's Greek, C. Gracchus 5).

¹³ Mattingly, a.c. (70), 161, n. 57 supposes that a lex iudiciaria of Gaius Gracchus provided for the existing quaestio repetundarum and also for any future criminal quaestiones, permanent or extraordinary.

¹⁴ Cic., I in Verr. 51 is the earliest description of any of these, and should not be minimized: ‘qualege populus Romanus de pecuniis repetundis optimis iudiciis…usus est’. Mattingly does not commit himself firmly about the role and date of the Lex Acilia, which he seems to regard as a lex iudiciaria stemming from C. Gracchus (a.c. (70), 161). Since I in Verr. clearly implies that it was an anti-radical measure ‘ad resistendum hominibus audacissimis’ (as Carcopino rightly noted), sponsored by the instigators of the laws of Caepio and the younger Livius Drusus, it has no place in this discussion.

¹⁵ cf. n. 14 above.

¹⁶ a.c. (69), 139 ff.; (70), 154.

¹⁷ a.c. (69), 143; (70), 154–55. Lex Repetundarum 89–90 with Tab.Tar. 12: ‘[quei inter per]egrinos ious deicet facito utei socium nominisque Latini omnium…’

¹⁸ a.c. (70), 155: ‘The fourth chapter (i.e. L.R. 87–90) hardly permits this explanation. The praetor peregrinus is introduced to implement the law forthwith’.

¹⁹ In Tab. Tar. 13, after the initial gap of some 88 letters, there follows: ‘[in c]ontione et apud senatum in sex mensibus prioribus et in sex…’ After a second gap there follows in line 14; ‘[inc]isis fictamque apud forum unde de plano recte legi possitur’.

²⁰ cf., e.g., Livy 40, 44, 6; 44, 17, 10; 45, 12, 13; 16, 4.

²¹ Cf. Mattingly, a.c. (-70), 154, n. 9; 157, n. 25. C. Claudius Pulcher, praetor repetundarum in 95, drafts municipal laws for Sicilian Halaesa: Cic, II in Verr. ii, 122, with CIL ² I, p. 200. Mattingly infers from Cic., pro Rab. perd. 20–21 ‘omnes praetores’, that there was a separate praetor repetundarum in 100. Nominally omnes praetores praeter Glauciam should imply the presence of five praetors at Rome on Dec. 10, 100 B.C. But omnes is stylistic throughout this passage. For the assignation of the quaestio jurisdiction as a province by normal sortitio cf. Cic., I in Verr. 21.

²² a.c. (70), 159. Cic., II in Verr. i, 26, ‘ut opinor Glaucia primus tulit ut comperindinaretur reus. antea vel iudicari primo potuit vel amplius pronuntiari’. On this see Balsdon, J. P. V. D., PBSR XIV, 1938, 108 f.Google Scholar, though more stress should be laid on the normal usage of amplius.

²³ Cf. Brutus 86 (consuls); II in Verr. i, 74–5 (‘per Neronem’, i.e. praetorem). For iudices and non liquere, Caec. 29, Clu. 76, 106, 131. In L.R 47 Carcopino properly restored ‘praetor…ita pronun[tiato amplius]’.

²⁴ Cf. a.c. (70), 159, n. 40.

²⁵ Hence perhaps Cicero's qualification ‘ut opinor’, n. 22 above.

²⁶ The fine was a sum of S.10,000 (L.R. 48), though for lesser offences the jurors were subject only to the multa suprema (ib. 45–6).

²⁷ Mattingly, a.c. (70), 162–63. Cic., pro Rab. Post. 8–12, 37, ‘iubet lex Iulia persequi ab eis ad quos ea pecunia quam is ceperit qui damnatus sit pervenerit…sin hoc…caput…fuit…etiam ante in lege Servilia…’. For the procedure cf. Clu. 116, ‘ad quos pervenisse pecuniam in litibus aestimandis statuta sit’ Rab. Post. 9, ‘in litibus… (aestimandis) nemo appellabatur nisi ex testium dictis aut tabulis privatorum aut rationibus civitatum’ ib. 10, ‘in litibus…cum erant appellati…statim contra dicere solebant’.

²⁸ a.c. (70), 163. Mattingly holds that the money redacta in 62 and 67 is distinguished from that ‘ex hace lege in aerario posita’ in 61 and 66, and suggests that redigere and redacta are technical terms for recovery from accessories, being so used in Rab. Post. 37 and ad Fam. 8, 8, 3. But in L.R. 62 ‘[sei is iud]ex ex hace lege pequniam omnem ad quaestorem redigere non potuerit’ refers only to the case of the reus unable to repay in full. The preceding clause L.R. 61 had dealt with the case of payment in full, and 62 follows logically, connecting with the provision in 57–58 for the seizure and sale of the goods of the reus who failed to give praedes. Besides, the monies redacta in 67 are summarized as quae quomque pequnia ex hace lege ad qu[aestorem redacta erit, suggesting money from all possible sources.

²⁹ a.c. (70), 163. He supplements L.R. 23 as ‘neive eum [quern non liceat quod quom eo lege Calpu]rnia aut lege Iunia Sacramento actum siet’.

³⁰ Cic., pro Rab. Post. 12–19, insisting that even equestrian military tribunes, praefecti and comites (13, 19) were exempt under the laws of his time (Cornelia, Iulia).

³¹ His supplement quern non liceat must refer to the commission of a misdeed, as in L.R. 13, ‘[iudicio publico conde]mnatus siet quod circa eum in senatum legei non liceat’. Mattingly, a.c. (70), 163, n. 69 shows his uneasiness by suggesting deceat or quern censor notaverit instead of liceat. But not even the censor would blame you for a possible acquittal.

³² L.R. 3, 4, 7, 9, 19, 24, 25, 29, 30, 41. Itis also used in 5 and 75 for the charge of praevaricatio brought against any of the participants, which was a separate offence. The law also uses petitio, petit, petere, as frequently, and in ious educito, occasionally (6, 19).

³³ Cf. Gaius iv, 13, 15. Kunkel, W., Roman Legal and Constitutional History (1966), 26 n.Google Scholar

³⁴ pro Rab. Post. 9–10, cited above n. 27. The appellatio was followed by a hearing by the same Judices, and the issue decided by the evidence given at the main trial. This was not a separate iudicium, cf. Cic., ad Fam. 8, 8, 2–3.

³⁵ Cf. Gaius iv, 11–21 on the older forms of legis actiones.

³⁶ L.R. 2, ‘Illvir cap. Illvir a.d.a. tribunus mil. I. IIII primis queive filius eorum quoius erit’. The pre-Sullan Senate of some three hundred persons (Livy, Ep. 60) required the equivalent of an annual intake of some ten persons a year at the censorial revisions, i.e. the yearly crop of quaestors with a complement of ex-tribunes, only six of whom could normally hope to reach the praetorship.

³⁷ L.R. 33 (de testibus) excludes from compulsion ‘queive in fide eius siet…[queive eius quoius ex h.l. nomen delatum erit c]ausam deicet dumtaxat unum’; i.e. one of the advocates of the reus is exempted from giving evidence against him. The limitation is to prevent all the comites of the reus from avoiding testimony.

^37a Cic., II in Verr. i, 74; cf. the imperial rule of Ulpian (Dig. 2, 1, 10) forbidding magistrates to adjudicate for sui or sibi.

³⁸ Cf. a.c. (69), 132–33.

³⁹ Some clues to the content of such a clause can be gathered from pro Rab. Post. 8–9 and 37. It might go roughly thus: ‘si tanta pecunia quanta summa litium quae aestimatae sint erint ex bonis eius exve praedibus qui dati sunt redacta non sit sive praedes non dederit reus, praetor iudexve cui ea quaestio h.l. obvenerit persequatur eos ad quos ea pecunia quam is ceperit qui damnatus sit pervenerit redigatque quod eius is qui in litibus aestimandis appellatus sit cepisse probabitur’. This reconstruction in short nonarchaic spelling takes some three hundred letters, and could not be greatly reduced.

¹⁰ For an illustration of the whole text cf. Mattinglv, a.c. (69), Fig. 12, Plates vii-viii, with a.c. (70), 162. CIL I², n. 583.

⁴¹ For text and photograph see Bartoccini, a.c. (above, n. 1) 7 ff.

⁴² Cf. Cic., o.c. 37, ‘si aut praedes dedisset Gabinius aut tantum ex eius bonis quanta summa litium fuisset populus recepisset…quamvis magna ad Postumum ab eo pecunia pervenisset non redigeretur’.

⁴³ L.R. 57–58, which requires the reus to give praedes after condemnation, properly precedes 58–59 de litibus aestimandis. Then 60–66 concern repayment arrangements, whether total or incomplete and hence needing proportionate division. After this 67 de pecunia a praedibus exigenda is not so out of place as it at first seems: 62–65 de tributo and 67 are alternatives. Penultimately 67–68, arrangements for storage pending final payment, is in its logical place. Finally 69 puts pressure on the quaestor to do his job properly: ‘moram ne facito’.

⁴⁴ For the oaths in these laws see FIRA ² 1, 6 and 9 c. 11–28; Appian, B.C. I, 29, 130 f., for the lex agraria. On these cf. Mattingly, a.c. (70), 155, n. 15.

⁴⁵ Though the provision for oaths in the Tab. Tar. is relatively summary, being limited to lines 20–22, it devotes a line to penalties for not taking the oath, which are the same as in Tabula Bantina 3. Provisions for fines for other violations of the law, as in Tabula Bantina 2, are perhaps absent rather than lost. Hence the Tab. Tar differs here from the Lex Repetundarum in kind, but from the Tabula Bantina only in quantity

⁴⁶ The provisions in L.R. 57 concerning the reus ‘nisei de sanctione hoiusce legis actio ne esto’, may imply a general provision under ‘the praetor of this law’. But in Tabula Bantina 2 and Lex de piratis c. 23–25 the exaction of fines is left to external powers before another praetor (‘quei volet magistratus’, ‘quei volet qui civis…liber natus sit’).

⁴⁷ a.c. (69), 142: ‘The elaborate oath clauses of the Lex Bantina…require some 500 letters before the point of contact with the Tarentine text’. But in a.c. (70), 155 he less correctly states of the latter: ‘its elaborate oath clause closely parallels those known from the Tabula Bantina…’.

⁴⁸ a.c. (69), 143, n. 87, citing Lex agraria 41–2: ‘si quae lex…est quae mag(istratum)…inque eas leges plebeive scita de ea re…sed fraude sua nei iurato neive…’. This may be completed from line 41 above as ‘[mag(istratum) q]uem minus petere capere gerere habereque liceto’.

⁴⁹ Livy 31, 50, 7. Mattingly l.c. distinguishes between this general oath taken on entering office and the new oaths to specific laws imposed on magistrates already holding office and on senators.

⁵⁰ a.c. (69), 140 ff.

⁵¹ FIRA ² 1, 12, KL.IIII; 21, CIIII.

⁵² I print a comparison of Lex Urs. CIV with Lex Mamilia KL.IIII. Omissions in Lex Urs. are marked by round brackets ( ), substitutions by double round brackets (( )), and additions by square brackets:

qui limites decumanique ((intra fines coloniae Genetivae))^a deducti [factique] erunt quaecumque fossae limitales in eo agro erunt ((qui iussu C. Caesaris dict. imp. et lege Antonia senat. que. c. pl. que. sc.))^a ager datus atsignatus erit, ne quis (eos) limites decumanosque opsaeptos neve quit (in eis) [in]molitum neve quit ibi opsaeptum habeto neve eos arato neve eis fossas opturato neve opsaepito quo minus suo itinere aqua ire fluere possit. si quis atversus ea quit fecerit in res sing. quotienscumq. fecerit HS ((∞^b c.c.G.I.))^c d.d. esto eiusque pecuniae cui volet petitio p.q. ^d (hac lege) esto’.

a, for hac lege; b, for IIII; c, for ‘colonis municipbusve eis in quorum agro id factum erit’; d, this is standard throughout Lex Ursonensis. The substantial changes are solely for the purpose of applying hac lege or colonis eis to the particular case. So too in Lex mun. Tarentini 39–42, and Lex Urs. LXXVII the similarity is very close. The texts reflect a common source with two minor errors rather than variations. The former omits privatorum after sine iniuria, and the latter adjusts the title appropriately twice. Mattingly also quotes Lex mun. Tar. 32–36 and Lex Urs. LXXV on the destruction of buildings. Here the loose definition in the former, ‘nisi quod non deterius restiturus erit’, is replaced by a long and precise formula, which also reflects an intermediate development in Roman law about the requirement of quorums in public proceedings: this is not tralatician at all.

⁵³ Notably where L.R. 78 reads ‘militiae munerisque poplici in su[a quoiusque ceiv]itate vocatio esto’, Mattingly deletes the words in…ceivitate on the grounds of supposed dittography, because they do not appear in the corresponding place in Tab. Tar. 4. But something similar appeared in Tab. Tar. 3, where he admits ‘[in sua quoiusque ceivita]te omnium rerum [immunes]’. The same words make excellent sense in L.R. also, distinguishing local from Roman exemptions; the terminology reappears in SC de Asclepiade (FIRA ² 1, 35, 12), cf. below n. 72.

⁵⁴ ‘sei quis eorum quei ceivis Romanus non erit ex hace lege alterie nomen …ad praetorem quoius ex hace lege quaestio erit detolerit et is eo iudicio hace lege condemnatus erit tum …’. What follows is clarified by the next section: ‘tum quei eiu [s nomen] detolerit quoius eorum opera ma[xime unius eum condemnatum esse constiterit]’. For the supplement cf. Asconius, in Mil. 48 (54 C).

⁵⁵ The words sei ceivis Romanus ex h.l. fieri nolet appear in neither version of the section.

⁵⁶ Cf. text in n. 54.

⁵⁷ a.c. (70), 167–68. See below, p. 94.

⁵⁸ ‘quei ex h.]l. pequniam petet nomenque detulerit…sei eis volet patronum in earn rem darei praetor ad quem [nomen detulerit…dato dum] nei quern eorum det sciens dolo malo, etc.’. The tense of detulerit (76) is decisive, cf. ib. 12, ‘[eor]um praetor…alium patronum eiei…[dato]‘[sei quis ali]eno nomine’, followed after a gap of some 134 letters by the formula quaestio eius praetoris esto, etc. This is one of the main divisions of the section defining the kinds of plaintiffs admitted.

⁶⁰ In L.R. 63, ‘[diemque edito quo…]quoius regis populeive nomine lis aestumata erit legati adessint’. In L.R. 60 the parallel to line 6 is explicit: ‘[quei satisfecerit nomine su]o parentisve suei…leitem aestumatam esse queive…[satis]fecerit regis populeive ceivisve suei nomine leitem aestumatam esse sibei’. The final sibei indicates that the same party who has acted in the main hearing now comes to collect repayment. What else is this but a definition of quei alieno nomine petit? Mattingly a.c. (70), 167 admits that the advocates have no place at the settlement of claims. He sought (ib., and n. 95) to discover the legati in the fragmentary line 4, separate from the speakers alieno nomine, where he restores ‘[sei quis satisfecerit…se legat]um esse uti peteret de ea re eius petitio…esto’. The Latinity of this is obscure, and the words regis populeive nomine would be required with peteret, as in 60 and 63 with aestumatam esse.

⁶¹ a.c. (70), 166, n. 89, citing Asconius 48 (54 C).

⁶² ib. 167 ad fin.

⁶³ Cic., pro Clu. 104, 114, ‘qua lege in eo genere a senatore ratio repeti solet’, the plaintiff being a Roman citizen. Not enough survives in L.R. 75 to reveal who brings the charge of praevaricatio.

⁶⁴ a.c. (69), 141–42.

⁶⁵ Cf. Taylor, L. R., Party politics in the age of Caesar (1949), 113 f.Google Scholar on the rewards of the leges Corneliae, including promotion in senatorial standing, e.g. pro Balbo 57.

⁶⁶ a.c. (70), 168. But ib. n. 98 the ‘effective Latin orators’, cited from Brutus 169, are both Italici and Latini by origin.

⁶⁷ Cf. e.g. Cic.,. Div. in Caec. 2–4, 20–21, 53–4.

⁶⁸ For the recuperatorial basis of the lex repetundarum, cf. my analysis in JRS XLII, 1952, 53 f. For the later divinatio and inquisitio see below, pp. 97–8.

⁶⁹ Mattingly, a.c. (70), 166, citing Strachan-Davidson, , Problems of the Roman criminal law (1912) 1, 147 f.Google Scholar The first clause is remarkably complete at the beginning (cited n. 54 above). The second clause jumps from ‘sei quis eorum quei’ to ‘[dicta]tor praetor, etc.’.

⁷⁰ Cf. my Roman Citizenship (1939), 63 f., 123; and recently Heurgon, J., Les origines de la république (Fondation Hardt xiii, 1967), 112Google Scholar f. For the survival of the dictator in some Latin states, Roman Citizenship 60 f. Compare also the formulation of the later Tab. Her. 83–4: ‘queiquomque Ilvir(ei) IIIIvir(ei) erunt aliove quo nomine mag(istratum)…habebunt’.

⁷¹ Livius Drusus in 122, retrenching on the proposal of Fulvius Flaccus in 125, limits the offer of ius provocationis to Latins (Plut., C. Gracchus g), while the Italici lack any similar advantage in 91–90 (cf. Roman Citizenship 128). Latins by 89 have at least the ius c.R. per honorem adipiscendi, and probably from c. 125 (below, p. 96).

⁷² FIRA ² 1, 35. They receive local immunitas omnium rerum and muneris publici vacatio, and instead of the ius provocationis a choice between local, neutral or proconsular jurisdiction.

⁷³ Mattingly, a.c. (70), 167, n. 92 follows Bradeen, D. W., Class Journ. LIV, 1958–1959, 221 f.Google ScholarBrunt, P. A., JRS LV, 1965, 90Google Scholar, n. 4.

⁷⁴ The controversy raised by F. de Visscher in a series of articles, from his Edits d'Auguste (1940), 108 ff. onwards, about the working of dual citizenship, need not be here discussed. Whatever changes developed after 50 B.C., Cic., pro Balbo 41–43 shows that Cornelius Balbus ceased technically to be a citizen of Gades when he became a c.R. in 72 B.C. under the Lex Gellia. Cicero, in pro Caecina 100 about the same date, asserts the rule of incompatibility firmly in a passage that is not coloured by the needs of his case.

⁷⁵ Asconius, in Pis. 3 ‘ut possent habere ius quod ceterae Latinae coloniae, id est ut petendo magistratum civitatem Romanam adipiscerentur’ can only refer to the previously existing coloniae Latinae. He is well informed in the context about the historical background. Such scholars must reject id est, etc., while accepting what goes before.

⁷⁶ Cf. Tibiletti, G., Rend. Ist. Lomb. Sci. Lett. LXXXVI 1953, 45 f.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Cic., pro Balbo 32 lists Cenomani, Insubres, Helvetii, Iapydes, ‘quorum in foederibus exceptum est ne quis eorum a nobis civis recipiatur’.

⁷⁸ ib. 53–54 ‘quo modo…L. Cossinius Tiburs pater huius equitis Romani…damnato T. Caelio, quomodo ex eadem civitate T. Coponius—nepotes T. et C. Coponios nostis—damnato C. Masone civis Romanus est factus?…accusatori maiores nostri maiora praemia…esse voluerunt?’. For Mattingly's view, cf. a.c. (70), 163–65.

⁷⁹ pro Balbo 52, ‘dabo etiam iudicum…dabo universi populi Romani…dabo iudicium etiam senatus’; ib. 53 takes this up with ‘cognoscite nunc populi Romani iudicium’, meaning legislation.

⁸⁰ Cf. my Roman Citizenship 91. Livy 27, 9–10 excludes these from his list of Latin Colonies, pace Mattingly, a.c. (70), 164, n. 77; cf. A. Toynbee, J., Hannibal's Legacy (1965) i, 249Google Scholar, n. 3; Salmon, E. T., Phoenix ix, 1955, 74.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Mattingly, a.c. (70), 164, n. 78.

⁸² ib. 167, n. 98; cf. n. 66 above. It is not stated in pro Balbo 53–54 that the men from Tibur were patroni rather than plaintiffs conducting their own cases.

⁸³ Tab. Tar. 12: ‘[is praetor…quei inter peregrinos] ius deicat is facito utei socium nominisque Latini omnium…’. Ib. 13, 14 concern publication at Rome, while 16 concerns publication in and outside Italy. So the Italici are to have their attention drawn to the fact of their exclusion from the special rewards of the law, on Mattingly's hypothesis.

⁸⁴ Badian, E., CR LXVIII, 1954, 101 f.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Levick, B., CR LXXXI, 1967, 256–58.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ ‘si acerbissima lege Servilia (A)…hanc … viam populi iussu patere passi sunt (B) neque ius est hoc reprehensum (B) Licinia et Mucia lege (A)’. Here populi iussu construes with patere and lege Servilia with passi sunt: they cannot both go with passi sunt. ‘The principes viri allowed what the People had ordered—that the way should remain open’ is the effect.

⁸⁷ For the evidence see Div. in Caec. 10, 24, 47–50, 61–2, especially 10, ‘si certamen inter aliquos sit cui potissimum delatio detur’, and 49, ‘ex illo grege moratorum qui subscriptionem sibi postularunt cuicumque vos delationem dedissetis’. cf. Il in Verr. i, 15, ‘non modo deferendi nominis sed ne subscribendi quidem cum id postularet facerent potestatem’. For the voting, Div. in Caec. 24, ‘ceratam…tabellam dari’. Later, under the Lex Julia, Cic., ad Q.f. III, 2, 1. For opposition to the plaintiff's selection, Div. in Caec. 63–65; cf. RE v, 1234.

⁸⁸ Div. in Caec. 49, 62, 64; II in Verr. i, 15. Asconius, in Scaur. 17 (19C). The term, used also of inquisitio (I in Verr. 6), seems non-technical. It appears in L.R. 19 as a summary for the whole action of the plaintiff: ‘sei deiuraverit calumniae causae non pos[tulare’. cf. ib. 41.

⁸⁹ Below, nn. 95, 96.

⁹⁰ Div. in Caec. 63–64, especially ‘ne…auctoritate iudicum comprobaretur’. The cases, which are not well documented, are dated to c. 103–100 by the quaestorship of Gnaeus Pompeius, intendant against T. Albucius, the last of the three listed, and the reference to the Sicilian praetorship and trial of C. Servilius, the first in the list, in Diod. 36. 9 about 102 B.C. L. Flaccus, sandwiched between these two, should be the consul of 100 or that of 86, earlier in his career, since the scholiast affirms that the list is in chronological order. His would-be prosecutor may be the son of M. Aurelius Scaurus, consul in 108 and not a noted orator (Cic., Brutus 135). For the dating of the fourth case to c. 89 see MRR II, 33, though a post-Sullan date might better fit the reference to Achaei.

⁹¹ Div. in Caec. 64, ‘nuper cum in P. Gabinium … L. Piso delationem nominis postularet et contra Q. Caecilius peteret…valebat plurimum…quod eum sibi Achaei patronum adoptarant’. For the initiative of the Roman accusator in two cases c. 95–93 cf. Asconius 19 (21 C), citing the Lex Servilia.

⁹² L.R. 9–10. The request for a patronus comes from the plaintiff, and is answered by the instruction to the praetor ‘[dato dum] nei quern eorum det sciens d. m. quoiei is’ etc., the rest of the clause being filled with disqualifications or exceptions. The gap of some 102 letters in the operative part of the clause is largely filled by Mommsen's inevitable supplement, and allows no space for the insertion of a voting procedure. In 11–12 the restoration after pr. quei ex h.l. quaeret alium patronum eiei quei … of sibi darei petet dato is equally inevitable.

⁹³ L.R. 30–36 contain ‘de conquisitione facienda’, ‘testibus ut denuntietur’, ‘de inroganda multa’, ‘de testibus custodiendis’.

⁹⁴ Cf. 30, where the correlate of ‘[quo]iu[s] nomen ex h.l. ad se delatum erit’ must be Mommsen's ‘quei ex h.l. nomen detolerit’.

⁹⁵ Cf. 31, ‘[iubeto] conquaeri in terra Italia in oppideis foreis concilia[boleis]’; 33, ‘[testimonium dice]re iubeto’; 34, ‘sei qua tabulas libros leiterasve pop[licas]…proferre…[volet]…conquaer]ive de ea re volet apud pr. is praetor ei morara nei fa[cito]’.

⁹⁶ Cic., Il in Verr. i, 16 ‘vim in inquirendo tantam habui quantam mihi lex dabat’; pro Flacco 36 ‘agenti vi legis iure accusationis’, i.e. under the Lex Iulia. For the Lex Servilia cf. Asconius, in Scaur. 19 (21 C).

⁹⁷ cf. Crassus' defence of the law of Caepio (Brutus 164): ‘invidia concitatur in iudicia et accusatorum factionem contra quorum potentiam populariter tum dicendum fuit’. This suggests that the role of the accusator was beginning to emerge already through manipulation of the system of the Lex Repetundarum. But Crassus may have had in mind the special quaestiones of the period. Eder, W., Das vorsullanische Repetundenverfahren (Munich 1969), 164Google Scholar, n. 3, citing earlier discussions, notes the difference between the role of the patroni under the L.R. and under the Lex Cornelia, but probes no further.

⁹⁸ a.c. (69), 138–39. The argument may be intended to indicate that the length of the law is not limited by the height of the tablet. Dr. Mattingly now paradoxically dates the publication of the agrarian law after the law of Glaucia, Latomus 1971, 281 ff.