CHAPTER I

1 The principal general works in English (and the editions in which they will be quoted) are: W. W. Buckland, A Textbook of Roman Law (3rd ed., rev. by P. Stein, 1963, retaining the pagination of the 2nd ed.

2 For example: Μ. Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire (2nd ed., rev. by P. Μ. Fraser, 1957) [SEHRE]; Tenney Frank, ed., An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, 6 vols. (1933-40) [Econ. Survey]; A. H. Μ. Jones, The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces (1937), and 77ie Greek City from Alexander to Justinian (1940), and The Later Roman Empire, 284-602. A Social, Economic and Administrative Survey (1964)

3 On the sociology of law in general, see the work of Μ. Weber in Μ. Rheinstein, ed., Max Weber on Law in Economy and Society (1954); E. Ehrlich, Fundamental Principles of the Sociology of Law, transl. W. L. Moll (1936); Sir Carleton Kemp Allen, Law in the Making (7th ed., 1964); G. Sawer, Law in Society (1965). Buckland’s way of thinking about Roman law took not much account of its social context, but Schulz in CRL and Nicholas in Introduction say important things about it.

4 Sawer, Law in Society, 183-9

5 H.-I. Marrou, Histoire de Veducation dans I¹antiquite* (1958), 38off

6 The best chronological treatment is Jolowicz, Hist. Introd.

7 See the introductory note to the Oxyrhynchus Papyrus, P.Oxy. 2565

8 A case is made against it by F. Millar in Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 1962, i24ff.; he would move it to ad 214, so from our point of view the difference is unimportant, except for the loss of a famous �landmark’ date

9 See the growing work of A. Watson, the first stage of which is The Law of Obligations in the later Roman Republic (1965)

10 Collected in S. Riccobono etal., ed.,Acta divi Augusti, I (all published) (1945)

T

10a The author does not delude himself that he is here writing sociology. Those who study that subject will miss here the theoretical discussions, concepts and structures which they desiderate. Perhaps at least the facts in this book may be useful as data for a more rigorous approach

11 Certain categories of inscriptions exist in sufficient numbers to be tractable. Thus, (a) some demographic or biometric analysis is done (see, for example, A. R. Bum in Past and Present, IV, 1953,²ff; M. K. Hopkins in Population Studies, vol. XVIII, 1965, 3O9ff); but one should note the very pessimistic conclusions of Hopkins in Population Studies, vol. XX, 1966, 245ff. And (i) the possibilities of analysis of class structure are exemplified by L. R. Taylor in American Journal of Philology [AJP], 1961, 1 i^fF; the papers of P. R. C. Weaver quoted in Chapter II below, at note 119; B. Rawson in Classical Philology, 1966, 7iff; and the papers of R. P. Duncan-Jones in Papers of the British School at Rome [PBSP], 1962, 47#; 1963,1 spfE; 1965, i89ff

12 For example, drawing conclusions about early Rome from the �Indo- European joint family’; see Classical Quarterly [Cl.

13 Schulz, Principles, Chapter 3

14 E. P. Parks, TAe Roman Rhetorical Schools as a Preparation for the Courts under the early Empire (1945), ch. 3; S. F. Bonner, Roman Declamation in the late Republic and early Empire (1949), Chapters V and VI

15 Sawer, Law in Society, 60 and 152

16 Such questions as these are gone into by Kelly, Roman Litigation

17 There is one reference in the Digest to the Celtic and Punic languages: D. 32. 11 pr.

17a Rescripts in the Justinian Code are sometimes addressed to quite humble folk: soldiers, freedmen, a builder (4.65.2), a flat-tenant (4.65.3), and so on

18 For a selection, see J. B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts (1950), 2I7ff

18a See, however, G. R. Driver and Sir John C. Miles, The Babylonian Laws, I (1952), 23-4 and 56-7: �nor is there any reason why at a future date... as much should not be known of it as Roman Law’

19 On which the standard textbook is R. Taubenschlag, The Law of Greco- Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri² (1955). For relating it to its economic background the best aid is the second volume of Econ. Survey, A. C. Johnson’s Roman Egypt to the Reign of Diocletian; and for its historical background see E. Seidl, Ptolemdische Rechtsgeschichte² (1962)

20 L. Wenger, Die Quellen des romischen Rechts (1953) [Quellen], takes just under a thousand large pages to do so

21 For speculations upon whom see A. M. Honoré, Gaius, A Biography (1962). The essential text, translation and commentary are F. de Zulueta, ed., The Institutes of Gaius, I (1946) (text and facing translation); II (1953) (commentary); but important also is the latest edition, in progress, by M. David and H. L. W. Nelson, Gai Institutionum Commentarii IV (1954-) (Studia Gaiana, vols. II and III). The work as we have it has a complex history; it may be a post-classical �epitome’ of Gaius’ actual text or even posthumous notes, and it is not free from interpolations and glosses.

22 See H. F. Jolowicz in Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 1952, 88ff

23 It also contains the �New Laws’ promulgated by Justinian later in his reign, which will not concern us at all. The standard edition is Corpus luris Civilis, I, Institutiones, ed. P. Krueger and Digesta, ed. Th. Mommsen and P. Krueger; II, Codex lustinianus, ed. P. Krueger; III, Novellae, ed. R. Scholl and W. Kroll

24 Going �upwards*, the titles are grouped into fifty books. Going �down­wards’, the fragments (unless very short) are paragraphed on a traditional principle like the floors of an English building: the �ground floor’ is called principium and then come paras. 1, 2 and so on. Thus a typical Digest reference will be D. 26. 6. 4. 3 (= Digest, Book 26, Title 6, �who may apply for guardians’, fragment 4—from Book 13 of the Disputations of Tryphoninus—para. 3); or D. 43. 27. 1 pr. (^Digest, Book 43, title 27, �concerning felling of trees’, fragment 1—from Book 71 of Ulpian’s commentary on the edict—initial para.) There linger different, and at first confusing, older habits of citation, and on such matters H. J. Roby, Introduction to the Study of Justinian s Digest (1884) is still a useful guide

25 See M. Kaser in Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fur Rechtsgeschichte, romanistische Abteilung [ZSS] 1952, 6off.; W. Kunkel, An Introduction to Roman Legal and Constitutional History, transi. J. M. Kelly (1966) [Intro­duction], I36ff; and for advanced discussion Wieacker, Textstufen, passim

26 The Controversiae of the elder Seneca and the pseudo-Quintilian Declama­tiones are evidence in plenty. Petronius thought them drivel: Satyricon, 1

zy D. 29. 2. 86 pr.; 36.1.48; and 34. 9.16.1 (it is hard to believe that the last of these was not some relative of the historian Cassius Dio Cocceianus)

28 D. 4. 4. 11. 2; 16. 1. 19. 1; 17. 2. 52. 7; 28. 5. 35 pr.; 31. 83; 36.

29 D. 4.2.9. 3

30 D. 4. 4. 38 pr.; 14. 5. 8; 32. 27. 1; 36. 1. 76. 1; 49. 14. 50

31 Fontes iuris Romani anteiustiniani I, Leges, cd. S. Riccobono³ (1941); II, Auctores, ed. G. Baviera et al. (1940: includes Gaius’s Institutes and the â€?Vatican Fragments’, â€?Titles from Ulpian’, â€?Opinions of Paulus’, etc.); Ill, Negotia, ed. V. Arangio-Ruiz (1943) [References will be to Fontes I or II or III]

32 This last is not in Fontes. The first edition is by W. L. Westermann and A. Arthur Schiller, Apokrimata. Decisions of Septimius Severus on Legal Matters (1954); but for the text revised by H. C. Youtie and revised comments by Schiller see Chronique d'Egypte, 1955, 327ff [Reference will be to Apokrimata]

33 Not in Fontes, but published by V. Arangio-Ruiz and G. Pugliese Carratelli in the periodical La Parola del Passato, as follows: nos. I-XII in vol. i, 1946, 373ff; nos. XIII-XXX in vol. iii, 1948, 165#; nos. XXXI- LVIII in vol. viii, 1953, 454ff; nos. LIX-LXXV in vol. ix, 1954, 54ff; and nos. LXXVI-LXXXVII in vol. x, 1955, 448# [Reference will be to Tab, Here.]

33a Not in Fontes, but published by B. A. van Groningen, A Family-Archive from Tebtunis (P. Fam. Tebt.), Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava, vol. VI (1950). [Reference will be to P. Fam. Tebt.]

34 Not in Fontes. See Ann Perkins, ed., The Excavations at Dura-Europos, Final Report V, Part I, The Parchments and Papyri, ed. C. B. Welles, R. O. Fink and J. F. Gilliam (1959). Law documents from the Dead Sea caves are discussed by E. Volterra in lura, 1963, 2QfT

35 Interestingly discussed by Wenger, Quellen, 878ff

36 Berger, Dictionary, 8o2ff gives a bibliography of works written about the contributions to legal knowledge derivable from the writings of various Latin authors

37 Pro Quinctio, pro Roscio comoedo, pro Caecina and the debris of pro Tullio

3 8 An analysis of them is given by Zulueta, The Institutes of Gaius H, 13 ff

39 Cicero, Topica, 28

40 Gai.

41 They are collected in G. Rotondi, Leges Publicae Populi Romani (1912, reprinted 1962)

42 The post-Augustan leges are in Rotondi, op. cit., 463-71

43 By M. W. Frederiksen in foumal of Roman Studies [fRS], 1965, i89f

44 Of the mass of literature (the whole controverted topic of 'imperium and auctoritas⁹ is relevant) we need only quote the survey of M. Hammond in TAe Antonine Monarchy, 336S and the notes thereto. The view that the Principate was from the beginning constitutionally different from all merely magisterial powers was argued by R. Orestano, Il potere normativo degli imperatori e le costituzioni imperiali (1937) and also in Bullettino dell⁹ Istituto di diritto romano [BLDR], 1936-7, 219#

45 D. 1. 4. 1 pr.

46 Gai. Inst. I, 5. The phrase may be a later interpolation, to make Gaius match Ulpian, who gives a similar but more cogently expressed reason. Hammond’s book shows how a generalized notion of�sovereignty’ grew up over the years

47 Different scholars have a variety of systems, see Hammond, Antonine Monarchy, 339

48 The third Edict of Cyrene, Fontes I, no. 68 (p. 408)

49 Fontes I, no. 72. Cf, more recently discovered, the epistula of (probably) Augustus to Vardacate, L’annee epigraphique, 1947, no. 44 and A. Degrassi in Athenaeum, 1948, 254ff

50 See Schiller in Apokrimata, 45; and, on the libellus, the note in The Letters of

Pliny. A Historical and Social Commentary, by A. N. Sherwin-Wliite (1966) [Sherwin-White, Pliny], 716-7

51 D. 36. 1. 30

52 D. 29.1.1 pr.

52a See Sherwin-White, Pliny, 589-91

53 D. 5. 3· 20. 6

54 D. 2.15. 8 pr.

55 Fontes I, no. 60

56 D. 1. 1. 7

57 See Jolowicz, Hist. Introduce, 95fr

58 The phrase �civil law’ was (and is) used in several different senses, but they are easily enough distinguished by context: (a) the whole law of Rome, as when we speak of �Professors of Civil Law*; (t) ius civile as opposed to ius publicum (the law of constitution and administration); (c) ius civile as opposed to ius honorarium; and (J) ius civile as opposed to iusgentium, which will be explained later

59 For Verres and the urban and provincial edicts see the whole passage II in Verrem I, 104 to the end of the speech

60 Cicero, ad fam. Ill, 8, 4

61 Cicero, ad Alt. VI, 1,15; and the sequel is important

62 The attempt of A. Guarino (in Studi in memoria di E. Albertario 1,1953,625fr andXt/i del congresso intemazionale di diritto romano, Verona, 1948, II (1951), i69ff) to displace this standard view has not met with acceptance. In its codified form the praetor’s edict has been reconstructed out of the many Digest fragments taken from commentaries upon it. The standard work is O. Lenel, Das Edictum Perpetuum* (1927, reprinted 1956); but the text can be read in Fontes 1,335fr

63 Codex Theodosianus, 1. 4. 3 (see 1. 4. 1 and 2 for earlier official authoriza­tions). On the significance of the �Law of Citations’ see Wieacker, Text­stufen, 156fr

64 D. 1. 2. 2. 48-9

65 On this endlessly argued ius respondendi the principal bibliography down to 1952 is given in Berger’s Dictionary on p. 532. For some more recent items see G. Provera in Studia et Documenta Historiae et Iuris, 1962, 342fr

66 Gai. Inst. 1,7

66a For Gai. Inst. 1,7 as interpolated see Wieacker, Textstufen, 38 and 157

67 The two books are: F. Schulz, Roman Legal Science (1946; there is a revised edition in German, Geschichte der römischen Rechtswissenschaft, 1961) and W. Kunkel, Herkunfi und soziale Stellung der römischen Juristen (1952). The process is summed up by Nicholas, Introduction, 29-30

68 Auctor ad Herennium, II, 19

69 �Equity’ was not, as in England down to the Judicature Acts, administered in a separate set of courts, and the Romans did not use the word aequitas as a label for the ius honorarium. But on the nature and growth of �equit­able* rules in Roman law see W. W. Buckland, Equity in Roman Law (1911), and Allen, Law in the Making, 392S

70 Eg. Jolowicz, Hist. Introd., 359#, Schulz, Principles, 20S, Allen, op. dt., 8off

71 D. 1. 3. 32.1

72 See J. A. C. Thomas in Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis [Tijdschrift], 1963, 39#

73 D. 21. 2. 6

74 D. 26. 7. 7.10

75 Pliny, Ep. X, 108-9 112--13)

76 See F. H. Hinsley, Sovereignty (1966), I79ff

77 On what was meant by a Roman dtizen sec Chapter II

78 See E. Volterra, Diritto rotnano e diritti orientali (1937), and also below, Chapter VIII, p. 283

78a Unfortunately, only for Egypt do we know much about this fusion: Taubenschlag, Law of Greco-Roman Egypt, 27S

79 On which see Chapter HI. What is said here, and not its contrary, is implied by Pliny, Ep. X, 72-3. See also F. Millar in JRS, 1966,1 $6ff, especially 160

80 For an example see Gai. Inst. I, 47 (if the clause �senatus ita censuit.. is not an interpolation)

81 Hammond, Antonine Monarchy, 340. For a case of specific change see D. 48.18.1.19

82 Pliny, Ep. X, 58,10

83 See E. Voltena in Studi di storia e diritto in onore di Enrico Besta, I (1939), 449# and G. I. Luzzatto in Scritti di diritto rotnano in onore di Contardo Ferrini, ed. G. G. Archi (Milan, 1946), 265if

84 Pliny, Ep. X, 97, 1

85 This is settled by the first Edict of Cyrene, Fontes I, no. 68, and the Leiden inscription, Suppiementum Epigraphicum Graecum [SEG], vol. XVIII, no. 555

86 Fontes I, no. 73. (Almost the whole of this preamble is R. Herzog’s con­jectural restoration of missing lines, but the point here being made is not affected.)

87 Cf. Cicero, de legibus, III, 46. On the publication and preservation of the law see Fritz, Freiherr von Schwind, Zur Frage der Publikation im römischen Recht (1940), and Frederiksen in JRS, 1965,184fr

88 Pliny, Ep. X, 58

89 Ibid., 65-6

90 Ibid., 72-3

91 Ibid., 79, 5

92 Tacitus, Histories IV, 40, 2; Suetonius, divus Vespasianus, 8, 5

93 Pliny, Ep. VI, 33, 3-4

94 Juvenal, Satires VID, 79

95 The Horace passages are, respectively: Epistles I, xvi, 40; Satires I, ix.

passim; Satires II, vi, 23 fF

96 Pliny, Ep. I, 20,12 and VI, 2,7

97 For which see R. E. Megarry, Miscellany-at-Law (1955), 76-7