« PreviousContinue »
exclusively from the Senate. In that year the tribune Gaius Gracchus transferred the iudicia to the equites. This lex Sempronia was confirmed and strengthened by the lex Servilia repetundarum of Gaius Servilius Glaucia, probably in BC 104 or 100, intended, it seems, to reverse a lex Servilia of Quintus Servilius Caepio passed in BC 106, of which we know very little. But the lex Cornelia of Sulla in BC 81 again installed the senators as iudices, an arrangement which lasted until B C 70. In that year the lex Aurelia of Lucius Aurelius Cotta introduced a new system. The juries were for the future to consist of three decuriae, one of senators and two of men of equestrian rating; one of these two to be formed of men who had served as tribuni aerarii. This last arrangement was in force at the time of Murena's trial. [See Mommsen, book IV CC 3, 6, 10, book v c 3.]
C. On $ 62, dixisti: quippe, iam. Here the mss have dixisti quippe iam, the only variant being Lag 9 which has quicpe iam. All editors accept the correction of Manutius, quippiam. What I wish to point out is that this restoration of the passage, though plausible, is not necessary. In § 74 we find ergo ad cenam petitionis causa si quis vocat, condemnetur. quippe, inquit; "tu mihi'..., de fin iv § 7 ista ipsa quae tu breviter, regem dictatorem divitem solum esse sapientem, a te quidem apte ac rotunde ; quippe; habes enim a rhetoribus, v § 84 quem hunc appellas, Zeno ? 'beatum, inquit. etiam beatissimum ? 'quippe,' inquiet, de orat II § 218. leve nomen habet utraque res. quippe; leve enim est totum hoc risum movere, see also pro Rosc Am § 52, pro Planc $ 53, pro Caec $ 55, on which Jordan adds de republ i § 61, ad Att V 15 § 1. Madvig on de fin v § 84 says 'quippe is not used ironically by Zeno, as though he were making fun of himself; it gives a strong affirmative answer, with a sort of wonder at any doubt having been possible. I believe then that in the present passage we might retain the MSS reading, which it must be granted is a strange corruption for quippiam, had that been in the original.
dixisti : quippe, iam fixum et statutum est, 'you have said:' 'to be sure I have ; henceforth 'tis fastened and established for ever.'
D. On $ 75, lectuli Punicani.
The received interpretation of this passage is, that part of Tubero's bad taste was shewn in providing mean couches for the guests to recline upon at the banquet. I wish to trace up the authorities for this view and against it.
1. Valerius Maximus vil 5 tells the same story, almost word for word after Cicero; but in pointing out the offence given to the Roman people, he says not a word about the lectuli as mean, or as having been in any way improper; on the contrary, he says that the people punished the public scandal of such an entertainment by voting against Tubero at the praetorian election, because it thought non unius convivii numerum sed totam se in illis pelliculis iacuisse, thus laying the whole stress on the skins.
Seneca Ep 96 (95) § 72 says proderit dicere Tuberonis ligneos lectos, cum in publicum sternerent, haedinasque pro stragulis pelles, et ante ipsius Iovis cellam adposita conviviis vasa fictilia. He evidently uses the term ligneos in contempt.
3. Isidorus Orig xx 11 § 3 says lectuli Punicani, parvi et humiles et lignei ; nam huiusmodi lecti ex Carthagine primum advecti sunt. Humiles seems=not raised high above the ground, perhaps even “unpretending.'
4. Pliny Nat Hist XXXIII § 144 tells us that these couches were inlaid with precious metals. One Carvilius Pollio was the first to put silver upon dinner-couches; he, however, did not go so far as to overlay them or make them look as splendid as Delian furniture ; he only did them in the Punic style ; he applied gold also in the same style ; and shortly afterwards the silvered couches were made on the Delian plan. All this ostentation, he adds, was expiated by the Sullan civil war. The ‘Punic style' must mean inlaid work. We see also that the date of Carvilius Pollio falls before BC 88; how much, cannot be inferred.
5. Livy XXXIX 6 in speaking of the triumph of Cn Manlius Vulso (BC 187) over the Galatians, goes on to remark that it was the Asiatic army that first brought foreign luxury to Rome. As an instance of this he adduces the introduction of couches, with bronze feet (lecti aerati). Cicero also, II in Verr Iv § 60, speaks of the same articles as having been extorted from people in Sicily by
Verres ; and the context makes it certain that he means them for a mark of luxury.
6. sternere does not imply the providing of the couches themselves. Compare ii in Verr Iv § 58 lectos optime stratos, Tusc disp v § 61 in aureo lecto strato pulcherrimo textili stragulo, and many passages in Plautus. Of course it may do so; thus Metellus (chief Pontiff 243—221 BC) ap Macrob III 13 § 11 says triclinia lectis eburnis strata fuerunt.
Now, whatever the passage of Isidorus may mean, it is of little or no weight. The passage of Seneca proves that in the opinion of the writer these couches were common and coarse, as being made of wood. But Seneca, though a Stoic in theory, was notoriously luxurious, and would naturally think lightly of couches which might for all that have been magnificent in the days of Tubero (who was a contemporary of the Gracchi). Pliny shews that the Punic couches were of considerable value, though not extravagantly rich if compared with others used in his own day. In fact at the date of the story (B C 129) any metallic ornamentation of a couch was rare and costly. It is not, moreover, clear that Tubero provided the couches: and from the language used it is more likely that he did not, for (a) stravit pelliculis haedinis lectulos Punicanos savours strongly of a purposed juxtaposition for the sake of contrast, and (b) he did not provide the tables, or they would have been coarse and rough also, and must have been mentioned ; again (c) stravit requires an accusative case, exposuit leaves the 'tables' to be implied; unless then it can be shewn that the tables were rough and provided by Tubero, I maintain that the presumption is that he did not provide the couches. Fabius provided the tables and couches (a great many would be wanted, and no doubt some had to be hired or borrowed), not splendid, but elegant; Tubero put dirty skins on the couches and common Samian ware on the tables, and so I think the story is understood by Valerius Maximus. Lastly, what says Cicero himself? his haedinis pelliculis praetura deiectus est.
The diminutive lectulos seems not to imply contempt, but the employment of ordinary sofas (see pictures in Rich, Dict Ant) to make up the large number of couches wanted on this occasion.
E. GELLIUS XX. 10 (ed Hertz).
Ex iure manum consertum uerba sunt ex antiquis actionibus, quae, cum lege agitur et uindiciae contenduntur, dici nunc quoque apud praetorem solent. rogaui ego Romae grammaticum, celebri hominem fama et multo nomine, quid haec uerba essent? tum ille me despiciens : 'aut erras,' inquit, 'adulescens, aut ludis; rem enim doceo grammaticam, non ius respondeo : si quid igitur ex Vergilio, Plauto, Ennio quaerere habes, quaeras licet.'
ex Ennio ergo, inquam, “est, magister, quod quaero. Ennius enim uerbis hisce usus est.' cumque ille demiratus aliena haec esse a poetis et haud usquam inueniri in carminibus Ennii diceret, tum ego hos uersus ex octauo annali absentes* dixi, nam forte eos tamquam insigniter praeter alios factos memineram :
pellitur e medio sapientia, ui geritur res ;
rem repetunt regnumque petunt, uadunt solida ui. cum hos ego uersus Ennianos dixissem : 'credo, inquit grammaticus, 'iam tibi.' sed tu uelim credas mihi, Quintum Ennium didicisse hoc non ex poeticae literis, set ex iuris aliquo perito. eas igitur tu quoque, inquit, et discas, unde Ennius didicit.'
usus consilio sum magistri, quod docere ipse debuerat, a quo discerem, praetermonstrantis. itaque id, quod ex iureconsultis quodque ex libris eorum didici, inferendum his commentariis existimaui; quoniam in medio rerum et hominum uitam qui colunt, ignorare non oportet uerba actionum ciuilium celebriora. (manum conserere.") nam de qua re disceptatur in iure [in re] praesenti, siue ager siue quid aliud est, cum aduersario simul manu prendere et in ea re [soll]emnibus uerbis uindicare, id est 'uindicia.' correptio manus in re atque in loco praesenti apud praetorem ex duodecim tabulis fiebat, in quibus ita scriptum est: si qui in iure manum conserunt. sed postquam praetores propagatis Italiae finibus, datis iurisdictioni(bu)s negotiis occupati, p[rof]i
* In line 11 absentes = 'from memory,'' without book.'
cisci uindiciarum dicendarum causa [ad] longinquas res grauabantur, institutum est contra duodecim tabulas tacito (con]sensu, ut litigantes non in iure apud praetorem manum consererent, sed' iure manum consertum' uocarent, id est alter alterum ex iure ad conserendam manum in rem, de qua ageretur, uocaret atque profecti simul in agrum, de quo litigabatur, terrae aliquid ex eo, uti unam glebam, in ius in urbem ad praetorem deferrent et in ea gleba, tamquam in toto agro, uindicarent. idcirco Ennius significare uolens (bellum), non, ut ad praetorem solitum est, legitimis actionibus neque ex iure manum consertum, sed bello ferroque et uera ui atque solida [......] ; quod uidetur dixisse, conferens uim illam ciuilem et festucariam, quae uerbo diceretur, non quae manu fieret, cum ui bellica et cruenta.
F. On § 47.
Feeling as I do that the explanation of this passage given in the notes is far from being wholly satisfactory, I here add an abstract of that given by Sorof in his able review* of Tischer's edition, with which Halm agrees in many points. My own comments are in brackets.
(1.) He thinks that the plebs are any persons of that order (as opposed to the ordo senatorius) concerned in any way. Why not, he asks, the bribed voters ? may they not have lost for a time the right of voting? [This needs some parallel to render it plausible.]
(2.) He refers the morbi excusatio to the party or parties acfused. ceteri vitae fructus relinquendi cannot, he urges, refer to any penalty inflicted on jurors, witnesses, and such like: it must have been the infamia or exile. The accused often employed the pretence of ill-health as a ruse for protracting a trial till they had entered on their office and were beyond reach of prosecution. Ferratius well notes the reference to Murena's illness in § 86, in spite of which the trial took place. The Twelve Tables + ordered an adjournment in such cases. [The former part of this consists of assumptions which our ignorance of the necessary details leaves us unable either to maintain or refute. Why may there not have
* Zeitschrift für das gymnasialwesen, 15th year, pp 758 foll.