No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 March 2012
The Lex Irnitana is arguably the most important addition to the material for the study of Roman Law since the discovery of the text of Gaius' Institutes by Niebuhr in 1816. In terms of information about the working of the Roman legal system its importance far outstrips, for example, that of the new fragments of Gaius found in the 1920s and 1930s. In particular it gives us much fresh information on a topic about which we are really very badly informed, viz. the law of civil procedure during the classical period of Roman Law, say, during the first two centuries A.D. While one can debate whether the procedures at Irni were in all respects the same as at Rome, no-one who has studied the inscription can be in any doubt that in its essentials the Lex envisages that the institutions of Irni will use a system which is Roman in nature. So what we have is evidence which can be used to help reconstruct the procedure under the formulary system in the first century A.D.
1 The discovery of the fragments of Gaius was important, however, for the severe check which it administered to some of the wilder excesses of the interpolationists. See, for example, Nelson, H. L. W., Überlieferung, Aufbau und Stil von Gai Institutiones (1981), 16 ff.Google Scholar
2 For one among many discussions see Rodger, (1991), passim, with a summary at 89–90Google Scholar.
3 cf. Crook, J. A., Legal Advocacy in the Roman World (1995), 176Google Scholar. Ch. 5 as a whole gives a stream of insights into how cases would actually have been handled in court.
4 On the nature of the Institutes see, for example, Schulz, F., Roman Legal Science (corrected edn, 1953), 159 ff.Google Scholar; Geschichte der römischen Rechtswissenschaft (1961), 191 ff.
5 On res prolatate and vadimonium see Prozessrecht, 146 and 167 ff. respectively.
6 This account is necessarily only an elementary outline which does not do justice to the many controversial points. For the detail see Prozessrecht, Part Two.
7 Prozessrecht, 177.
8 Few topics in Roman Law have aroused fiercer controversy. For a summary of the various views see Prozessrecht, 215.
9 cf. Buckland, W. W., A Textbook of Roman Law (3rd edn, ed. Stein, P., 1963), 695 ff.Google Scholar
10 ibid., 700.
11 Different rules applied when reciperatores were involved. Cf., for example, Rodger (1991), 87–9. For the purpose of this article, it is sufficient to refer to single judge procedure.
12 cf. chs 86–8.
13 cf. Simshäuser (1990), 552; Rodger (1991), 82.
14 González (1986), 198.
15 cf. Simshäuser, W., ‘Stadtrömisches Verfahrensrecht im Spiegel der lex Irnitana’, ZSS 109 (1992), 163, 199–200Google Scholar.
16 Cicero sets his dialogue de oratore during the games of 91 B.C. when he makes his characters assemble at L. Crassus' villa at Tusculum: 1.7.24. Cf. Balsdon, J. P. V. D., Life and Leisure in Ancient Rome (1969), 212.Google Scholar
17 This is clear from the cumulative form of the provision in which the words ‘neque is dies erit …’ (ll. 37–9) qualify all the descriptions of days which precede it.
18 González (1986), 187. In l. 42 he is translating the text with the emendation de intertiis. See Part VI below.
19 Dig. II.12.1, Ulpian 4 de omnibus tribunalibus. For suggestions of interpolation see Index Interpolationum, ad loc.
20 Balsdon, op. cit. (n. 16), 210 ff., gives a good idea of the importance of periods free from legal business such as the vintage for men of affairs who wanted to get out of Rome.
21 Rodger (1991), 78.
22 Pernice, A., ‘Parerga’, ZSS 14 (1894), 158Google Scholar n. 5 thought that the reference to the undesirability of summoning people from their agricultural tasks in Dig. 11.12.1 pr., Ulpian 4 de omnibus tribunalibus was somehow inappropriate for Rome as a great city.
23 Dig. 11.12.1.2. The suggested interpolations (Index Interpolationum, ad loc.) do not affect the sense.
24 Dig. 11.12.3, Ulpian 2 ad edictum. For the interpolation of ‘tempore vel’ see Lenel, O., ‘Textkritische Miszellen’, ZSS 39 (1918), 119–71Google Scholar, at 126 = Gesam melte Schriften Vol. 4 (eds O. Behrends and F. D'Ippolito, 1992), 131–83, at 138.
25 González (1986), 213.
26 Wlassak, M., Zum römischen Provinzialprozeβ (1919), 62ff.Google Scholar, argues that the passage originally referred to procedure not before the praetor but before Italian iuridici.
27 Buckland, op. cit. (n. 9), 700.
28 ibid. Cf. Dig. XLIV.7.59, Callistratus 1 edicti monitorii.
29 Prozessrecht, 167–70.
30 Prozessrecht, 167 ff.
31 Aulus Gellius, Noct. Att. VI.1.7–10; Valerius Maximus, Facta et Dicta Memorabilia 111.7.1a.
32 González (1986), 162.
33 ibid.
34 González (1986), 214.
35 Lamberti (1993), 302.
36 As reported by Lamberti (1993), 302 in her apparatus to l. 42.
37 Lamberti (1993), 302.
38 ITQUE.EOS, aes.
39 Lamberti (1993), 303.
40 Le Roux, AE 1986, 88 ff., 122.
41 González (1986), 187.
42 Dig. 11.12.3.
43 Gaius, Inst. IV.112; Dig. IX.2.23.8, Ulpian 18 ad edictum.
44 At the end of Part IV supra.
45 Dig. IX.2.5.3, Ulpian 18 ad edictum.
46 On editio of alternative actions see recently Burge, A., ‘Zum Edict De edendo’, ZSS 112 (1995), 1–50Google Scholar, esp. 9 ff.
47 For the freedom to change from the basis stated in the extra-judicial editio actionis, see, for example, Lenel, O., Das Edictum Perpetuum (3rd edn, 1927), 61 ff and Burge, op. cit. (n. 46), 13 ff.Google Scholar
48 cf. Crook, J. A., Johnston, D. E. L. and Stein, P. G., ‘Intertiumjagd and the Lex Irnitana: a colloquium’, ZPE 70 (1987), 173–84, at 181Google Scholar.
49 OLD, s.v. tum 2b.
50 For examples of criticism of jurists (many of them deliberately exaggerated), see D. Nörr, Rechtskritik der römischen Antike (1974), esp. 84 ff.