No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Municipal Legislation of Julius Caesar
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 September 2012
Extract
This article has been suggested by a notable new book, H. Rudolph's Stadt und Staat im römischen Italien, in which the author propounds original solutions to several problems of the Roman administration of Italy. His principal contribution to this subject is a theory which assigns to Caesar a leading part in the reformation of the municipal constitutions.
According to Rudolph a first step, but only a short one, in the reorganisation of Italy after the Social War was taken by Cinna, who instituted the quattuorvirate as the universal type of magistracy in the newly enfranchised municipalities. The next step, by which Sulla concentrated the higher jurisdiction of Italy at Rome, was longer, but in a backward direction.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 27 , Issue 1: Papers Presented to Sir Henry Stuart Jones , 1937 , pp. 48 - 53
- Copyright
- Copyright ©M. Cary 1937. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies
References
1 Bruns, Fontes Iuris Romani,7 no. 15.
2 Bruns, no. 17. Rudolph rejects the view that the Fragmentum Atestinum forms part of the Lex Rubria (Bruns, no. 16).
3 CIL v, 2864 (ILS 5406).
4 A by-product of Caesar's legislation is recognised by Rudolph in the Lex Municipi Tarentini (Bruns, no. 27).
5 Bruns, no. 18. On the drafting and enactment of the measures contained in the ‘Tables of Heraclea’ Rudolph follows the conclusions of v. Premerstein. (Zeitschr. der Sav. Staft., xlii, Rom. Abt. 1922, 45 ff.Google Scholar).
6 See the rejoinder by E. G. Hardy (CQ, 1925, 85 ff.) to Fabricius, E. (Heidelberger Sitzungsherichte phil-hist. Klasse, xv (1924–1925), pt. 1)Google Scholar, who has assigned it to 109 B.C.
7 Ch. 53, init.: ‘quae colonia hac lege deducta quodve municipium praefectura forum conciliabulum constitutum erit.’ A similar formula in ch. 55, init.
8 For the causes that might have necessitated a supplementary act in 55 B.C, see Cary, , JRS xix, 1929, 113 ffGoogle Scholar.
9 It is true that, in order to obviate such disputes in future, a general regulating act had been passed in 111 B.C., by which all land-tenures in Italy, whether individual or corporative, had been accurately defined (Bruns, no. 11). But fresh confusion was created by the arbitrary confiscations of Sulla.
10 The Lex Iulia municipalis was probably not a ‘lex data’ from the pen of a special commissioner for Patavium, but a law of the Roman Comitia, and presumably of general application (Cary, , JRS xix, 1929, 116 ffGoogle Scholar). Yet it might have been passed with particular reference to Patavium, as is maintained by Adcock, (CAH, ix, 700)Google Scholar.
11 Ad Familiares xiii, 11, 3.
12 The grounds on which Rudolph rejects v. Premerstein's view include one new argument— that the revision of constitutions in towns already established, such as Fundi, was always left in the hands of the local authorities, and that Roman commissioners, such as are mentioned in the Tables of Heraclea, were only sent out to newly created towns. It is true that at Arpinum no Roman commissioner was employed in 46 B.C.; but this does not preclude their presence in other old-established towns. Our evidence on this point is not nearly sufficient to permit of our drawing hard-and-fast rules.
13 xliii, 47, 2.
14 Some of these inscriptions, e.g. CIL v, 5139 and 7450, are certainly early, and might fall between 49 and 44 B.C. But others, e.g. v, 3134, must be of later date than 44.
15 1495 (Tibur); 1503–1505 (Signia); 1721 (Aeclanum); 2098 (Interamna); 2198 (Aquileia); 1714 (Aquilonia); 1727–8 (Beneventum). In 1574 (probably from Cales) the equivalent title ‘quattuorvir praetor’ is found.
16 This enumeration excludes the unofficial ‘election posters’ at Pompeii.
17 1625 (Herculaneum), 1828, 1634–5 (Pompeii).
18 1625, 1628, 1635, 1721, 2098, 2198.