221-240 of 278 Results  for:

Clear all

Article

Andrew Lintott

Proletarii, as opposed to assidui, were the citizens of Rome too poor to contribute anything to the state except their children (proles). They seem to have been equated with the capite censi as persons who paid no tribute and were exempt from military service except in an emergency (*tumultus), when they were issued with armour and weapons. The alternative explanation produced in *Gellius (NA 16. 10), that the proletarii had property between 1,500 and 375 asses, while the capite censi had 375 or less, is not confirmed elsewhere nor can it be easily reconciled with the single century of capite censi/proletarii in the *comitiacenturiata.In the mid-2nd cent. bce direct taxation for Romans was suspended (see tributum) and the property qualification for military service was lowered. Nevertheless, the distinction between those who were sufficiently wealthy to be regarded as both sound citizens and reliable defenders of their country, and those who were not, remained important in Roman political ideology. C.

Article

Eastland Stuart Staveley and Andrew Lintott

Provocatio was an appeal made to the Roman people against the action of a magistrate (see magistracy, roman), whether the latter was employing summary coercion (*coercitio) on the appellant or presiding over a judicial process. The term means ‘calling out’ or ‘calling “Out”’ and referred to either the summons of the citizens who were expected to support the appeal or the summons of the magistrate concerned to a popular forum. Against the second explanation is the fact that the verb provoco, when it describes an appeal, is never followed by the magistrate challenged as a direct object. Roman annalists described these appeals occurring during the Conflict of the Orders (see rome (history), § 1.2). Although they believed that provocatio had been given legal recognition by a lex Valeria of 509 bce, this law is generally now held to be a fictitious anticipation of the lex Valeria of 300 bce which made the disregard of provocatio by a magistrate a criminal offence (see lex(2) under Leges Valeriae).

Article

According to *Cicero (Ad Brut. 23. 3), it was a dictum of *Solon's that a community was held together by rewards and penalties, and the ascription seems plausible, in so far as Archaic Greek law-codes already show the city asserting its authority in laying down penalties both for universally recognized crimes and for failure to perform the duties imposed by its statutes. Cicero himself argued that the instinct to take vengeance (vindicatio) is nature's gift to man to ensure his own and his family's survival (Inv. 2. 65). Both in Greece and Rome criminal law emerged as an attempt to circumscribe and replace private revenge. Accordingly, just as prosecution in many cases fell to injured persons or their relatives, so the treatment of the convicted man was often closely related to his victims, for example in early homicide law and in matters of physical injury and *theft.

Article

Ernst Badian and Andrew Lintott

Quaestiones, Roman tribunals of inquiry into crimes, later standing courts. In the first three centuries of the Roman republic alleged crimes against the state, if too serious for summary action by a magistrate (or perhaps after such action had been blocked by *provocatio), were tried before the assembly. Crimes against private persons were tried by a magistrate, eventually normally a praetor (but murder was originally a matter for quaestores parricidii) with a personally selected consilium of assessors. A form of civil procedure would have been used, perhaps that involving *sacramentum. By the 2nd cent. bce some political crimes and instances of mass law-breaking with serious public implications came to be handed over to a quaestio, at this point an ad hoc commission under a magistrate, appointed by the senate or the people or both, which investigated cases laid before it without the need for formal prosecution. See e.g. Livy 9.

Article

Ernst Badian and Tony Honoré

Quaestores parricidii (see parricidium) are said to have been appointed by the kings. Under the republic there were two, who prosecuted some capital cases before the people. They fade from our record by the 2nd cent. bce.Financial quaestors (perhaps not connected with them) were at first appointed by the consuls, one by each; after 447 bce (Tac.Ann. 11. 22) they were elected by the tribal assembly. Two were added when plebeians were admitted (421), to administer the *aerarium in Rome (hence urbani) under the senate's direction. Four more were instituted in 267 (Tac. loc. cit.; Livy, Per.15), perhaps called classici and stationed in various Italian towns, notably *Ostia (see food supply). More (we do not know how many and when) were added as various provinces were organized (Sicily even had two), until *Sulla, finding nineteen needed for all these duties, added one for the *water supply and raised the total to twenty.

Article

Maria Floriana Cursi

The expression quasi delict cannot be found in Roman legal sources. It has been created on the basis of a title of the JustinianInstitutes (I. 4.5), dealing with “the obligations which arise as though from delict” (quasi ex delicto); in the text of the Institutes, we find a closely related expression, quasi ex maleficio teneri, probably derived from Gaius’sRes cottidianae (or Aurea) in D. 44.7.5.4–6.

The quasi 1 expresses at the same time a similarity with and a difference from the civil wrongs called “delicts.” Delicts are private wrongs—created by contrast with public wrongs, called “crimes”—such as bodily injury and insult (iniuria and defamation), theft (furtum), damage to property (damnum iniuria datum), and theft committed by means of violence (rapina) (Gai. Inst. 3.182). Quasi delicts are acts that cause damage or harm to another person or to his goods outwith the four civil delicts. Since from these acts a duty arises to compensate the damage or the harm caused to the victim, the quasi delicts were considered one of the four sources of obligation in the Justinian Institutes.

Article

Barry Nicholas

Recuperatores were jurymen (usually three or five) who acted in the second stage of Roman civil proceedings in place of the single iudex. They may have been first established by international treaties for cases involving foreigners (Festus, ‘reciperatio’), but in historical times they were available in proceedings between citizens. An advantage of a trial before recuperatores seems to have been its celerity, including the fact that it could be held even on dies nefasti, when other judicial business could not be conducted. Recuperatores could evidently hear a variety of cases (Gai. Inst. 4. 46, 141, 185; and there were others), but no obvious common feature is discernible, save perhaps elements of urgency and public interest. There is much controversy.

Article

Barry Nicholas

The relationship between this and deportatio, within the generic category of exile (exsilium; see exile, Roman), is not altogether clear, but relegatio covers milder forms of exile. It might be either decreed by a magistrate (from the late republic) as a coercive measure or imposed as a penalty in a criminal trial. In the latter form it had different gradations ranging from mere temporary expulsion to deportatio (introduced by Tiberius).

Article

Ernst Badian and Andrew Lintott

Repetundae (pecuniae), (money) to be recovered. The quaestio de repetundis (see quaestiones) was a court established to secure compensation for the illegal acquisition of money or property by Romans in authority abroad. Before the establishment of the permanent quaestio, such offences were either brought before an assembly or tried by a panel of *recuperatores in a quasi-civil suit (Livy 43. 2). A civil procedure was also used originally to bring prosecutions in the quaestio, i.e. the actio sacramento, and a verdict of guilty was followed by an assessment of damages, *litis aestimatio, and simple repayment. C. *Sempronius Gracchus, finding this court corrupt and its senatorial jurors unwilling to convict fellow-senators, had a law passed (which may not be a lex Sempronia, but the lex Acilia mentioned by Cicero), of which major fragments survive on bronze (CIL 12. 583). It was a radical reform: those liable were now all senators, ex-magistrates, or their close relatives (but not *equites who did not fall into either of the last two categories); prosecution took place through denunciation to the *praetor, not a form of civil procedure; wronged parties or their delegates, even non-Romans, were themselves expected to prosecute; a 50-strong trial jury was drawn from an album of equites with no connections with the senate; the penalty was double repayment; rewards, including Roman citizenship, were offered to successful prosecutors; the whole trial procedure was set out in minute detail with emphasis on openness and accountability.

Article

R. Zimmermann

‘It is by nature fair that nobody should enrich himself at the expense of another’: this is, in the words of Sex. *Pomponius (Dig. 12. 6. 14; cf. also Dig. 50. 17. 206), the general proposition underlying what is usually referred to as the law of restitution ( = unjust enrichment). Obligations arising from unjust enrichment are, as Gaius realized, based neither on contract nor on delict (the main classes (summa divisio) of the law of obligations). Justinian placed them in the category of ‘quasi-contracts’. The Roman lawyers carved out certain typical situations in which they were prepared to grant a claim (the so-called condictio) on the basis that the defendant had no good reason to keep what he had received (causa retinendi). A person was granted restitution (a) if he had mistakenly paid or delivered what he did not owe (condictio indebiti);(b) if he had handed over something for a purpose that failed to materialize (condictio causa data causa non secuta);(c) if he had made a payment or delivery, acceptance of which offended the traditional standards of honest and moral behaviour (condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam; recovery was, however, excluded, where the behaviour of the giver was also morally reprehensible: in pari turpitudine melior est causa possidentis);(d) in miscellaneous other cases of enrichment without cause (condictio sine causa);(e) if there had been an unjustified interference with his property (like theft; condictio ex causa furtiva).

Article

Tessa Leesen

The Sabiniani (also known as Cassiani) and Proculiani are two law schools which existed in Rome in the 1st century ce and beginning of the 2nd century. Nearly all the prominent jurists of that time belonged to one of these schools. According to Sextus Pomponius (Pomp. Ench. D.1.2.2.47), the origins of these “rival sectae” can be traced back to two eminent jurists living and operating under Augustus’s reign, C. Ateius Capito (2) and M. Antistius Labeo; Pomponius characterizes the former as a conservative and the latter as an innovative jurist. Each school was headed by one or more jurists (Pomp. Ench. D.1.2.2.47-53). The Sabiniani were successively led by C. Ateius Capito, Masurius Sabinus, after whom the school was named, C. Cassius Longinus, who gave his name to the alternative designation of the Sabinian school (i.e., the Cassian school), Caelius Sabinus, L. Iavolenus Priscus, and, finally, P.

Article

Barry Nicholas

Sacramentum signified in the oldest Roman civil proceeding (legis actio sacramento) the sum of money deposited as a stake by both litigants in the stage before the magistrate (in iure). The opposite assertions of the parties as to the plaintiff's claim formed a kind of wager, and it was presumably the wager which was, in form, the issue to be decided by the judge. Although sacramentum has this meaning as early as the *Twelve Tables, the word literally means an oath. Since *Cicero (Caec.97) speaks of the judge as deciding which sacramentum was iustum and we are told that originally the money was paid to the pontiffs and spent on public sacrifices (Varro, Ling. 5. 180; Festus, under sacramentum), it is a reasonable conjecture that in the beginning each party called on heaven to witness to the justice of his claim and the loser's stake paid for sacrifices in expiation of his perjury. In later times the money was not deposited, but guaranteed by sureties (praedes).

Article

Donald Emrys Strong and Janet DeLaine

The voting enclosure for the *comitia tributa, between the Pantheon and the temple of Isis in the *Campus Martius; it was planned and possibly begun by C. *Iulius Caesar (2) (Cic. Att. 4. 16. 14) and completed by M. *Vipsanius Agrippa in 26 bce. The long rectangular voting area (c. 300×95 m.), orientated due north and south, was flanked by colonnades, the porticus of Meleager on the east and the porticus of the Argonauts on the west; the Diribitorium, where the votes were counted, closed its southern end. Parts of the building appear on the Severan *Forma urbis, and some walls of the porticus Argonautarum and Diribitorium survive, dating from a reconstruction after the fire of ce 80.

When the building lost its original purpose, it was used for gladiatorial contests and other forms of entertainment, and served as a luxury bazaar (Mart. 9. 59).

Article

Fergus Graham Burtholme Millar and Graham Burton

Salarium is a term used in the imperial period to denote regular payments to officials. *Augustus instituted the making of regular payments to senatorial and equestrian officials in the provinces (Cassius Dio 53. 15). The word salarium was used (Tac.Agr.42) for the pay of a proconsul which was 1,000,000 sesterces p.a. It is not specifically attested for the different sums paid to *procuratores. Fronto, for example, writes of stipendia (Ad Ant. P. 10). It is also used, for example, of the payment by the emperor to his quaestor Augusti (ILS 8973), payments by an emperor or governor to his comites (Suet.Tib.46; Dig. 1. 22. 4; 50. 13. 1. 8), and the payment by the *fiscus to regular advocati fisci. A few inscriptions are known in which soldiers, mostly evocati of the praetorian cohorts, describe themselves as salarii.

Article

R. Zimmermann

Sale was by far the most important of the Roman consensual *contracts. The parties merely had to agree on the object to be sold and on a price. The handing over of an arrha (earnest) was not required to create contractual liability. Only specific objects could be sold; generic sales (sales by description) were not recognized. Generally, the object of the sale had to exist at the time the contract was concluded. Future objects (res futurae) could, however, be sold conditionally (emptio rei speratae) or as a speculation (emptio spei). According to prevailing opinion, the price had to be in money (i.e. exchange transactions did not amount to sale); also, it had to be real and certain but not necessarily fair (Dig. 19. 2. 22. 3). Justinian, however, (see justinian's codification) recognized an exception: the vendor could rescind the contract, if he had sold land for less than half its true value (Cod.

Article

R. Zimmermann

Security in Roman law was given to the creditor in the form either of rights over the property of the debtor (real security, mortgage) or of a surety (personal security). By the earliest real security, fiducia, the debtor conveyed the ownership of an object to the creditor by *mancipatio or in iure cessio, subject to an agreement for its reconveyance after payment of the debt. The agreement would also usually regulate the creditor's right of sale, etc. Pignus (pledge), on the other hand, only gave the creditor a limited real right (ius in re aliena) over the pledged object. Pignus required agreement and delivery; by it the creditor obtained a possession protected by interdict. However, because of the inconvenience of the debtor's losing possession, the praetor also protected non-possessory pledges (usually referred to as hypotheca)—at first probably in the case of pledges by agricultural tenants to their landlords of slaves, cattle, agricultural implements, etc. The debtor could mortgage the same object successively to several creditors, but the earlier mortgagee enjoyed priority (prior tempore, potior iure).

Article

Piero Treves and Tim Cornell

Sella curulis ('curule chair') was an ivory folding seat, without back or arms, used by the higher Roman magistrates (hence the title ‘curule’ magistrates; see magistracy, roman). The sources maintain that it was a simplified version of the throne used by the old kings, and that it was among the trappings of royal authority that Rome borrowed from the *Etruscans. Examples have been found in Etruscan tombs, and from the 6th cent. bce onwards the sella curulis is represented in paintings and reliefs found at Etruscan sites (but also at Rome and other Latin towns such as *Velitrae). The name was derived (Gell. 3. 18. 3 ff.) from the chariot (Latin currus) in which the magistrate was conveyed to the place of judgement, and originally the sella curulis served as the seat of justice.

Article

Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus (1), son of a consul of 238 bce, as curule aedile (216) was made magister equitum after *Cannae and at once consul (215). With an army including slaves he relieved *Cumae and captured *Philip (3) V's envoys to *Hannibal.

Article

Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus (2), nephew of Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus (1), served under L. *Cornelius Scipio Asiagenes in 190 bce, and as tribune 187 or 184 supported Scipio in his trial. (The details are submerged in legend.) After serving on an embassy to Greece and on a board founding a colony he was aedile 182 and demanded such heavy contributions from subjects and clients that the senate limited future aediles' expenditure. As praetor and proconsul in Spain (180–178) he decisively defeated the *Celtiberians, imposed a settlement they regarded as bearable and founded a city (Gracchuris) for them. He was rewarded with a *triumph and the consulate of 177. He took *Sardinia from its commanders and in two ruthless campaigns subdued the Sardi, celebrating another triumph and recording his deeds in a temple on the *forum Boarium. As censor 169, he and his colleague C. *Claudius Pulcher supported the levies for the Macedonian War and dealt harshly with *equites and *publicani.

Article

Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, son of (2) and of *Cornelia, served at Carthage under his cousin P. *Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus, who married his sister. As quaestor in Spain (137 bce), he used his father's connections to save the army of C. *Hostilius Mancinus by a treaty later disowned by the senate on Scipio's motion. Thus attacked in his fides, he joined a group hostile to Scipio: his father-in-law Ap. *Claudius (1) Pulcher, *princeps senatus and augur; the consul for 133P. *Mucius Scaevola and his brother P. *Licinius Crassus Dives Mucianus, both eminent lawyers and pontifices (see pontifex). As tribune 133, in Scipio's absence, he proposed, with their aid and advice, a law designed to solve Rome's interlocking problems: departure or expulsion of small landowners from their properties, leading to insuperable difficulties in recruiting armies; danger from increasing numbers of slaves; and lack of an assured food supply for the capital. The law reaffirmed the long-ignored limit of 500 iugera of arable public land per person and instituted a commission (to which he, his brother Gaius (see above) and his father-in-law were ultimately elected) to find and confiscate surplus land and distribute it in small lots to poor citizens.