{"meta":{"title":"Legal instruments in Cicero’s forensic dossier","scope":"A curated identification of instruments directly relevant to the legal issues, procedural setting, or explicit legal comparisons in the 33 atlas text units. It is not a concordance of every lex-name in all of Cicero, nor a reconstruction of the complete Roman statute book.","terminology":"Lex is an enactment or operative rule, not necessarily a modern code. Many conventionally titled leges were plebiscita proposed by tribunes. Edicts, individual interdicts and provincial settlements have different sources of authority.","evidencePolicy":"A link identifies the role of a rule in an argument. It does not establish guilt, validity of an alleged act, or agreement among modern historians. Governing charge, entitlement, remedy, analogy and earlier proceeding remain separate.","datePolicy":"Dates identify enactments, not dates of every speech that mentions them. Uncertain dates and conventional identifications remain labeled. General dates and names are historical identifications, not necessarily explicit in the excerpt.","translationPolicy":"Chinese text translates the displayed focus quotation only. Expanded Latin gives the complete supporting numbered section and retains the archived edition’s gaps and editorial signs; it is not presented as a new complete Chinese translation. The original 65 bilingual dossier units remain available unchanged.","coveragePolicy":"All 33 atlas units receive instrument links or an explicit evidence-limit note. Coverage means reviewed inclusion in this register, not exhaustion of every law mentioned in the full text.","sourcePolicy":"Cicero sections are extracted unchanged from the locally archived canonical Perseus Latin XML. Asconius excerpts are transcribed from the linked Clark 1907 text; they are commentary, not continuous Cicero. Greenidge references use printed page numbers.","chronologyPolicy":"Dates distinguish speech delivery, published textual units, enactment, promulgation, issue of an order, and attested use. A terminus, disputed year or date of citation is not a precise origin date. Connected speech dates do not define a law’s continuous period in force."},"instruments":[{"id":"burrienus","label":"Praetorian edict invoked under P. Burrienus","zh":"布里恩努斯所援用的裁判官告示","kind":"edict","date":"Operative before the hearing of 81 BCE","concepts":["property","obligation","representation","edict","recovery"],"rule":"The edict states conditions for putting a person’s property into another’s possession. Cicero contests whether Quinctius meets any relevant condition, including concealment to defraud and failure of defence in absence.","procedure":"The immediate sponsio tests whether the property was possessed for thirty days under the edict. Dolabella’s direction to make the sponsio is a case-specific procedural order, not a separate statute.","limit":"A debt claim, a praetorian grant of possession, and lawful possession under the edict are not interchangeable. The source has a lacuna in §60; it is preserved in the expanded text.","evidence":["L-phi001-30-1","L-phi001-60-2"],"greenidge":"pp. 255–258, 531–541","status":"Explicit text; conventional identification","chronology":{"event":"Attested use","date":"before 81 BCE","display":"Attested use: before 81 BCE","status":"Creation/first promulgation not independently dated","originalDate":"Operative before the hearing of 81 BCE","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"Applied before the hearing of 81 BCE. The register does not establish the edict’s first promulgation or a continuous effective term.","datedContexts":[{"work":"quinctio","date":"81 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Governing remedy"}],"basis":"Chronology retained from the existing sourced dossier and instrument register. Source loci and reconstruction limits are attached to the instrument.","researchDating":"The secure bound is application before the hearing of 81 BCE. The narrated possession and later order are successive events, not dates of first promulgation. Neither passage supplies a consular year for creation of this clause."},"research":{"existence":"Quinctio 30 expressly names the edict of P. Burrienus inside the condition of the sponsio; §60 reports the edictal ground concerning an absent person not defended as required. These attest a rule invoked in a real dispute, through the defendant’s advocate.","dating":"The secure bound is application before the hearing of 81 BCE. The narrated possession and later order are successive events, not dates of first promulgation. Neither passage supplies a consular year for creation of this clause.","operation":"Naevius seeks security on the footing that goods have been possessed under the edict for thirty days. Cicero contests whether possession satisfied the edict at all. Default, adequate representation, possession and eventual sale must therefore be examined separately; the underlying partnership debt is not itself decided by this preliminary question.","transmission":"No independent edict tablet is identified in this dossier. The operative condition survives inside Cicero’s account of Dolabella’s procedural order; §60 supplies another part of the edictal framework.","debate":"Greenidge reconstructs the sequence from an advocate’s incomplete narrative. It does not license treating Naevius’ claim to possess as a proved lawful execution. Compare the separate Dolabella record for the individual order.","summaryZh":"须分别考察告示规定、财产占有是否合规，以及多拉贝拉命令订立的诉讼赌约；不能由占有主张直接推出债务成立。","citations":[{"id":"G-255-258","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 255-258","locator":"Printed pp. 255-258","pdfPages":[275,278],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-531-541","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 531-541","locator":"Printed pp. 531-541","pdfPages":[551,561],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"witnessIds":[],"ancientEvidenceIds":["L-phi001-30-1","L-phi001-60-2"],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-burrienus-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Quinctio 30 expressly names the edict of P. Burrienus inside the condition of the sponsio; §60 reports the edictal ground concerning an absent person not defended as required. These attest a rule invoked in a real dispute, through the defendant’s advocate."},{"id":"LR-burrienus-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"The secure bound is application before the hearing of 81 BCE. The narrated possession and later order are successive events, not dates of first promulgation. Neither passage supplies a consular year for creation of this clause."},{"id":"LR-burrienus-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"Naevius seeks security on the footing that goods have been possessed under the edict for thirty days. Cicero contests whether possession satisfied the edict at all. Default, adequate representation, possession and eventual sale must therefore be examined separately; the underlying partnership debt is not itself decided by this preliminary question."},{"id":"LR-burrienus-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"No independent edict tablet is identified in this dossier. The operative condition survives inside Cicero’s account of Dolabella’s procedural order; §60 supplies another part of the edictal framework."},{"id":"LR-burrienus-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"Greenidge reconstructs the sequence from an advocate’s incomplete narrative. It does not license treating Naevius’ claim to possess as a proved lawful execution. Compare the separate Dolabella record for the individual order."}]}},{"id":"lucullus","label":"Lucullus’ edict on damage by armed or assembled households","zh":"卢库卢斯关于武装或集结奴仆致损的告示","kind":"edict","date":"Introduced in 76 BCE","concepts":["violence","property","edict","intent","remedy"],"rule":"The formula quoted in Pro Tullio concerns damage maliciously done by a household using armed or assembled men; the remedy is fourfold. Cicero explains Lucullus’ response to organized violence after civil war.","procedure":"Recuperatores assess liability and value. Cicero argues that omission of iniuria from this formulation excludes a defence that would be available under ordinary Aquilian damage law.","limit":"That construction is the advocate’s argument. Do not equate a fourfold civil remedy with a prosecution under the lex Plautia de vi, or silently replace this wording with a later juristic formula.","evidence":["L-phi006-7-3","L-phi006-12-4"],"greenidge":"pp. 206–210, 551–556","status":"Explicit text; conventional identification","chronology":{"event":"Introduced","date":"76 BCE","display":"Introduced: 76 BCE","status":"Conventional introduction date in the register","originalDate":"Introduced in 76 BCE","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"The remedy is applied in Pro Tullio, usually dated 72 or 71 BCE; introduction in 76 BCE is a separate event.","datedContexts":[{"work":"tullio","date":"72 or 71 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Governing remedy"}],"basis":"Chronology retained from the existing sourced dossier and instrument register. Source loci and reconstruction limits are attached to the instrument.","researchDating":"76 BCE is the conventional date of Lucullus’ praetorship and introduction of the remedy; the later Tullius hearing, conventionally 72 or 71, proves subsequent application. The speech’s retrospective narrative does not give an exact day of issue."},"research":{"existence":"Tullio 7–12 names M. Lucullus and explains his response to violent acts by armed or assembled slave households. The speech reports the formula’s terms and the reason for a more severe remedy than ordinary wrongful-damage litigation.","dating":"76 BCE is the conventional date of Lucullus’ praetorship and introduction of the remedy; the later Tullius hearing, conventionally 72 or 71, proves subsequent application. The speech’s retrospective narrative does not give an exact day of issue.","operation":"The action makes damage inflicted with malicious intent by an armed or assembled household the decisive question and seeks a fourfold assessment. Cicero uses the special wording to narrow permissible defences. This is a private penal remedy; it is not the later public prosecution under the Plautian or Pompeian violence laws.","transmission":"The edict is reconstructed from forensic quotations and commentary, not a surviving posted original. Preserve the wording quoted in the speech instead of presenting an expanded modern edict reconstruction as authentic text.","debate":"The relation to the Aquilian action and later robbery remedies requires historical reconstruction. A shared concern with violence is not identity of action, formula or penalty.","summaryZh":"卢库卢斯的告示提供加重的私人损害救济；告示创设年代与《为图利乌斯辩护》的审理年代是两个事件。","citations":[{"id":"G-206-210","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 206-210","locator":"Printed pp. 206-210","pdfPages":[226,230],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-551-556","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 551-556","locator":"Printed pp. 551-556","pdfPages":[571,576],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"witnessIds":["RW-tull7"],"ancientEvidenceIds":["L-phi006-7-3","L-phi006-12-4"],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-lucullus-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Tullio 7–12 names M. Lucullus and explains his response to violent acts by armed or assembled slave households. The speech reports the formula’s terms and the reason for a more severe remedy than ordinary wrongful-damage litigation."},{"id":"LR-lucullus-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"76 BCE is the conventional date of Lucullus’ praetorship and introduction of the remedy; the later Tullius hearing, conventionally 72 or 71, proves subsequent application. The speech’s retrospective narrative does not give an exact day of issue."},{"id":"LR-lucullus-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"The action makes damage inflicted with malicious intent by an armed or assembled household the decisive question and seeks a fourfold assessment. Cicero uses the special wording to narrow permissible defences. This is a private penal remedy; it is not the later public prosecution under the Plautian or Pompeian violence laws."},{"id":"LR-lucullus-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"The edict is reconstructed from forensic quotations and commentary, not a surviving posted original. Preserve the wording quoted in the speech instead of presenting an expanded modern edict reconstruction as authentic text."},{"id":"LR-lucullus-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"The relation to the Aquilian action and later robbery remedies requires historical reconstruction. A shared concern with violence is not identity of action, formula or penalty."}]}},{"id":"armed-interdict","label":"Interdict de vi hominibus armatis","zh":"关于武装暴力驱逐的禁令","kind":"interdict","date":"Republican praetorian remedy; applied in Caecina’s case","concepts":["property","violence","interdict","interpretation"],"rule":"The praetor orders restoration after armed dispossession. The controversy turns on whether intimidation preventing entry falls within the language of being driven out.","procedure":"A sponsio follows the defendant’s assertion that he has restored possession; the recuperatores decide that procedural issue. The proceeding is possessory, not a final determination of ownership.","limit":"An interdict is a magistrate’s order within praetorian jurisdiction. It is not itself a lex passed by an assembly. Cicero contrasts its unqualified wording with other possessory situations.","evidence":["L-phi008-23-5"],"greenidge":"pp. 210–227, 556–568","status":"Explicit text; conventional identification","chronology":{"event":"Origin","date":"Republican; exact date unknown","display":"Origin: Republican; exact date unknown","status":"Origin of the remedy is not dated by the application in Caecina","originalDate":"Republican praetorian remedy; applied in Caecina’s case","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"Applied before the Caecina hearing, usually dated 69 BCE (disputed). That application does not date the creation of the remedy.","datedContexts":[{"work":"caecina","date":"usually 69 BCE?","event":"Speech","role":"Governing remedy"}],"basis":"Chronology retained from the existing sourced dossier and instrument register. Source loci and reconstruction limits are attached to the instrument.","researchDating":"The remedy existed before the Caecina hearing, usually placed around 69 BCE. That hearing cannot establish the first creation of the general interdict; the particular order was issued earlier in this dispute."},"research":{"existence":"Caecina 23 reports the command associated with armed expulsion; §§31–35 make its wording the object of argument. This is direct evidence for the interdict used in the dispute, mediated by Cicero’s defence.","dating":"The remedy existed before the Caecina hearing, usually placed around 69 BCE. That hearing cannot establish the first creation of the general interdict; the particular order was issued earlier in this dispute.","operation":"The central dispute concerns whether preventing entry by armed force counts as the expulsion contemplated by the command. Cicero argues that a narrowly literal reading would reward intimidation. Restoration of possession and the wager enforcing the order must be distinguished from an adjudication of ownership.","transmission":"The dossier preserves a Ciceronian witness to an interdict, not an independently surviving praetorian album. The later juristic taxonomy is useful comparison but cannot silently replace the Republican wording.","debate":"The breadth of the remedy, the role of previous possession and the procedural reconstruction are contested. Cicero’s purposive argument is a litigant’s interpretation, not a neutral judicial holding.","summaryZh":"武装驱逐禁令的适用争议集中于阻止进入是否也构成驱逐；占有救济并不等于所有权判决。","citations":[{"id":"G-210-227","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 210-227","locator":"Printed pp. 210-227","pdfPages":[230,247],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-556-568","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 556-568","locator":"Printed pp. 556-568","pdfPages":[576,588],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"witnessIds":[],"ancientEvidenceIds":["L-phi008-23-5"],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-armed-interdict-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Caecina 23 reports the command associated with armed expulsion; §§31–35 make its wording the object of argument. This is direct evidence for the interdict used in the dispute, mediated by Cicero’s defence."},{"id":"LR-armed-interdict-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"The remedy existed before the Caecina hearing, usually placed around 69 BCE. That hearing cannot establish the first creation of the general interdict; the particular order was issued earlier in this dispute."},{"id":"LR-armed-interdict-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"The central dispute concerns whether preventing entry by armed force counts as the expulsion contemplated by the command. Cicero argues that a narrowly literal reading would reward intimidation. Restoration of possession and the wager enforcing the order must be distinguished from an adjudication of ownership."},{"id":"LR-armed-interdict-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"The dossier preserves a Ciceronian witness to an interdict, not an independently surviving praetorian album. The later juristic taxonomy is useful comparison but cannot silently replace the Republican wording."},{"id":"LR-armed-interdict-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"The breadth of the remedy, the role of previous possession and the procedural reconstruction are contested. Cicero’s purposive argument is a litigant’s interpretation, not a neutral judicial holding."}]}},{"id":"aquilia","label":"Lex Aquilia de damno","zh":"阿奎利乌斯损害法","kind":"plebiscitum","date":"Third century BCE; precise date disputed","concepts":["property","homicide","obligation","remedy"],"rule":"The Aquilian regime supplies the ordinary action for wrongful damage, including killing another’s slave. Tullio explicitly contrasts this law with Lucullus’ more severe remedy.","procedure":"In Roscio Comoedo, Panurgus’ killing generated an earlier damages action and settlement; the present dispute concerns the partners’ financial relationship and the scope of that settlement.","limit":"Roscio Comoedo §32 describes damnum iniuria but does not name the lex Aquilia. Identification of that earlier action as Aquilian is Greenidge’s reconstruction. Do not call the present action simply an Aquilian trial.","evidence":["L-phi006-9-6","L-phi003-32-7"],"greenidge":"pp. 543–544, 553–554","status":"Explicit text; conventional identification","chronology":{"event":"Enactment","date":"3rd century BCE; disputed","display":"Enactment: 3rd century BCE; disputed","status":"Precise date disputed","originalDate":"Third century BCE; precise date disputed","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.","datedContexts":[{"work":"tullio","date":"72 or 71 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Explicit comparison"},{"work":"roscio-comoedo","date":"later 70s BCE?","event":"Speech","role":"Underlying transaction"}],"basis":"Chronology retained from the existing sourced dossier and instrument register. Source loci and reconstruction limits are attached to the instrument.","researchDating":"Do not turn the often repeated 287/286 BCE date into a certainty. Rotondi records competing chronologies and the problematic dependence on Theophilus; Crawford argues for an early third-century setting but separates this inference from the surviving juristic testimony."},"research":{"existence":"Tullio 9 explicitly names the Aquilian law. Ulpian, Digest 9.2.1.1, expressly identifies it as a plebiscite proposed by the tribune Aquilius. Gaius 3.210 and 3.215–218 distinguishes its chapters.","dating":"Do not turn the often repeated 287/286 BCE date into a certainty. Rotondi records competing chronologies and the problematic dependence on Theophilus; Crawford argues for an early third-century setting but separates this inference from the surviving juristic testimony.","operation":"Chapter one concerns killing another’s slave or herd animal and a valuation over the previous year; chapter three concerns other damaging acts and a thirty-day valuation. Chapter two concerns fraudulent release by an adstipulator. Juristic interpretation and extensions of liability are part of its history, not automatically its original enactment.","transmission":"No original inscribed text is used here. Digest 9.2 quotes and interprets clauses centuries later. Crawford’s reconstructed text, including disputed wording and tense, is explicitly conjectural; it must not be displayed as a verbatim ancient tablet.","debate":"In Roscio Comoedo, the Panurgus transaction is reconstructed as Aquilian litigation; this is different from Cicero expressly naming the law there. The edict in Tullio offers a distinct penal action.","summaryZh":"《阿奎利亚法》的平民决议性质有法学家明文说明；精确颁布年与原始条文均须保留争议，后世解释不能冒充原文。","citations":[{"id":"R-241-242","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 241-242","locator":"Printed pp. 241-242","pdfPages":[256,257],"url":null},{"id":"C2-723-725","source":"C2","label":"M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. II (1996), pp. 723-725","locator":"Printed pp. 723-725","pdfPages":[176,178],"url":null},{"id":"G-543-544","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 543-544","locator":"Printed pp. 543-544","pdfPages":[563,564],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"witnessIds":["RW-digest9211"],"ancientEvidenceIds":["L-phi006-9-6","L-phi003-32-7"],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-aquilia-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Tullio 9 explicitly names the Aquilian law. Ulpian, Digest 9.2.1.1, expressly identifies it as a plebiscite proposed by the tribune Aquilius. Gaius 3.210 and 3.215–218 distinguishes its chapters."},{"id":"LR-aquilia-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"Do not turn the often repeated 287/286 BCE date into a certainty. Rotondi records competing chronologies and the problematic dependence on Theophilus; Crawford argues for an early third-century setting but separates this inference from the surviving juristic testimony."},{"id":"LR-aquilia-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"Chapter one concerns killing another’s slave or herd animal and a valuation over the previous year; chapter three concerns other damaging acts and a thirty-day valuation. Chapter two concerns fraudulent release by an adstipulator. Juristic interpretation and extensions of liability are part of its history, not automatically its original enactment."},{"id":"LR-aquilia-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"No original inscribed text is used here. Digest 9.2 quotes and interprets clauses centuries later. Crawford’s reconstructed text, including disputed wording and tense, is explicitly conjectural; it must not be displayed as a verbatim ancient tablet."},{"id":"LR-aquilia-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"In Roscio Comoedo, the Panurgus transaction is reconstructed as Aquilian litigation; this is different from Cicero expressly naming the law there. The edict in Tullio offers a distinct penal action."}]}},{"id":"cornelia-sicariis","label":"Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis","zh":"科尔内利乌斯刺杀与毒杀法","kind":"lex","date":"81 BCE; Sullan legislation","concepts":["homicide","intent","scope","jury"],"rule":"The statute establishes the poisoning/murder inquiry and includes a clause against procuring wrongful public condemnation. In Cluentio, Cicero parses both conduct and the classes of persons covered.","procedure":"The defence separates the poisoning charge from the prejudicial history of the Oppianicus trial, arguing that the judicial-conspiracy clause does not reach Cluentius as an eques.","limit":"The personal-scope argument is Cicero’s contested statutory construction, not a blanket immunity from poisoning liability. The Roscius Amerinus attribution is the conventional identification of the Sullan murder-court framework; the later lex Pompeia de parricidiis must not be projected back into 80 BCE.","evidence":["L-phi010-148-8","L-phi010-154-9"],"greenidge":"pp. 423–424","status":"Explicit text; conventional identification","chronology":{"event":"Enacted","date":"81 BCE","display":"Enacted: 81 BCE","status":"Conventional Sullan dating","originalDate":"81 BCE; Sullan legislation","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.","datedContexts":[{"work":"cluentio","date":"66 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Governing charge"},{"work":"roscio-amerino","date":"80 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Reconstructed framework"}],"basis":"Chronology retained from the existing sourced dossier and instrument register. Source loci and reconstruction limits are attached to the instrument.","researchDating":"81 BCE is the conventional date within Sulla’s criminal-law settlement. The Cluentius speech of 66 attests later use, not enactment. Roscius’ trial in 80 belongs to the reconstructed early Sullan court framework."},"research":{"existence":"Cluentio 148–154 quotes and analyses portions of the Cornelian criminal statute. These are exceptionally important contemporary witnesses because the defence turns on which persons and conduct the clauses reach.","dating":"81 BCE is the conventional date within Sulla’s criminal-law settlement. The Cluentius speech of 66 attests later use, not enactment. Roscius’ trial in 80 belongs to the reconstructed early Sullan court framework.","operation":"Separate poisoning liability from the clause about procuring an unjust capital condemnation. Cicero’s argument about senatorial status addresses the scope of a particular clause, not a general immunity of equestrians from murder law. Later Digest 48.8 and Collatio testimony describes a much developed body of law.","transmission":"Contemporary forensic quotation is supplemented by imperial jurists; no complete Republican statute survives in this dossier. Later rules on punishment and newly assimilated offences must be dated to their own witnesses.","debate":"Do not assign the later Pompeian parricide statute to Roscius’ trial. Nor does an advocate’s exclusionary reading establish that the court accepted every part of it.","summaryZh":"必须区分毒杀条款与枉致死罪的条款；特定条款的身份限制不能变成骑士普遍不负杀人责任。","citations":[{"id":"R-357-358","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 357-358","locator":"Printed pp. 357-358","pdfPages":[372,373],"url":null},{"id":"G-423-424","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 423-424","locator":"Printed pp. 423-424","pdfPages":[443,444],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"witnessIds":[],"ancientEvidenceIds":["L-phi010-148-8","L-phi010-154-9"],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-cornelia-sicariis-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Cluentio 148–154 quotes and analyses portions of the Cornelian criminal statute. These are exceptionally important contemporary witnesses because the defence turns on which persons and conduct the clauses reach."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-sicariis-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"81 BCE is the conventional date within Sulla’s criminal-law settlement. The Cluentius speech of 66 attests later use, not enactment. Roscius’ trial in 80 belongs to the reconstructed early Sullan court framework."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-sicariis-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"Separate poisoning liability from the clause about procuring an unjust capital condemnation. Cicero’s argument about senatorial status addresses the scope of a particular clause, not a general immunity of equestrians from murder law. Later Digest 48.8 and Collatio testimony describes a much developed body of law."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-sicariis-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"Contemporary forensic quotation is supplemented by imperial jurists; no complete Republican statute survives in this dossier. Later rules on punishment and newly assimilated offences must be dated to their own witnesses."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-sicariis-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"Do not assign the later Pompeian parricide statute to Roscius’ trial. Nor does an advocate’s exclusionary reading establish that the court accepted every part of it."}]}},{"id":"proscription-law","label":"Proscription law: “Valeria or Cornelia”","zh":"公敌宣告法：瓦莱里乌斯法或科尔内利乌斯法","kind":"uncertain","date":"Sullan settlement, 82–81 BCE","concepts":["property","scope","proscription"],"rule":"Cicero asks whether the sale of the elder Roscius’ estate could be lawful even under the proscription legislation itself. He invokes categories of eligible victims and a statutory time limit.","procedure":"The estate sale supplies motive and an attack on Chrysogonus’ position within the murder defence. It is not the statute defining the murder charge.","limit":"Cicero expressly declines to identify the enactment: sive Valeria est sive Cornelia. Preserve that alternative; neither a modern family-name label nor a confident attribution removes the source’s ambiguity.","evidence":["L-phi002-125-10"],"greenidge":"pp. 80–81","status":"Identification explicitly uncertain in Cicero","chronology":{"event":"Sullan settlement","date":"82–81 BCE; identity uncertain","display":"Sullan settlement: 82–81 BCE; identity uncertain","status":"Alternative statutory identification retained","originalDate":"Sullan settlement, 82–81 BCE","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.","datedContexts":[{"work":"roscio-amerino","date":"80 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Contested legality"}],"basis":"Chronology retained from the existing sourced dossier and instrument register. Source loci and reconstruction limits are attached to the instrument.","researchDating":"The relevant setting is the Sullan settlement of 82–81 BCE. The June limit reported in the speech belongs to the operation of the proscription arrangements, not necessarily the date of their enactment."},"research":{"existence":"Roscio Amerino 125 names alternatives, “Valerian or Cornelian,” and expressly says the speaker does not know which. The following argument addresses the categories whose property could be sold; §128 invokes a June deadline.","dating":"The relevant setting is the Sullan settlement of 82–81 BCE. The June limit reported in the speech belongs to the operation of the proscription arrangements, not necessarily the date of their enactment.","operation":"Cicero contests whether the elder Roscius falls within the authorized category of confiscation and whether the sale was timely. These are objections to title and administrative action used within a murder defence; the speech does not become an independent action to annul the whole Sullan settlement.","transmission":"The strongest witness includes uncertainty in its own wording. Appian and Plutarch provide historical accounts of the dictatorship and proscriptions, but cannot erase the uncertainty in Cicero’s statutory identification.","debate":"Rotondi distinguishes the Valerian authorization of the dictatorship from Cornelian proscription arrangements and discusses whether the latter derived force from the former. This is an interpretive model, not a recovered complete statute.","summaryZh":"西塞罗本人明确保留“瓦莱里亚或科尔内利亚”的疑问；应把授权独裁、公布名单与财产没收的规范层次分别呈现。","citations":[{"id":"R-348-349","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 348-349","locator":"Printed pp. 348-349","pdfPages":[363,364],"url":null},{"id":"G-80-81","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 80-81","locator":"Printed pp. 80-81","pdfPages":[100,101],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"witnessIds":[],"ancientEvidenceIds":["L-phi002-125-10"],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-proscription-law-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Roscio Amerino 125 names alternatives, “Valerian or Cornelian,” and expressly says the speaker does not know which. The following argument addresses the categories whose property could be sold; §128 invokes a June deadline."},{"id":"LR-proscription-law-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"The relevant setting is the Sullan settlement of 82–81 BCE. The June limit reported in the speech belongs to the operation of the proscription arrangements, not necessarily the date of their enactment."},{"id":"LR-proscription-law-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"Cicero contests whether the elder Roscius falls within the authorized category of confiscation and whether the sale was timely. These are objections to title and administrative action used within a murder defence; the speech does not become an independent action to annul the whole Sullan settlement."},{"id":"LR-proscription-law-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"The strongest witness includes uncertainty in its own wording. Appian and Plutarch provide historical accounts of the dictatorship and proscriptions, but cannot erase the uncertainty in Cicero’s statutory identification."},{"id":"LR-proscription-law-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"Rotondi distinguishes the Valerian authorization of the dictatorship from Cornelian proscription arrangements and discusses whether the latter derived force from the former. This is an interpretive model, not a recovered complete statute."}]}},{"id":"cornelia-repetundis","label":"Lex Cornelia de repetundis","zh":"科尔内利乌斯行省勒索法","kind":"lex","date":"81 BCE; before the Julian replacement of 59","concepts":["extortion","jury","calendar","recovery"],"rule":"The Sullan extortion statute forms the legal framework of the prosecution of Verres and, in the conventional reconstruction, Fonteius. The surviving Verrine texts address official extraction, judicial abuse and the trial’s structure.","procedure":"Divinatio selects the prosecutor within that prosecution; it does not decide Verres’ guilt. Rabirio Postumo later identifies the Cornelian statute as a predecessor carrying the recipient-recovery clause.","limit":"The six Verrine trial text units belong to one prosecution; the five books of the second action were published rather than delivered. Rabirio Postumo is governed by the later Julian statute, not this predecessor.","evidence":["L-phi030-9-11"],"greenidge":"pp. 415–428, 493–496","status":"Court framework reconstructed; predecessor explicitly named","chronology":{"event":"Enacted","date":"81 BCE","display":"Enacted: 81 BCE","status":"Conventional Sullan dating","originalDate":"81 BCE; before the Julian replacement of 59","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"The reconstructed operative regime for Verres in 70 BCE and Fonteius, usually 69 BCE; the register identifies the Julian replacement in 59 BCE.","datedContexts":[{"work":"divinatio","date":"70 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Reconstructed framework"},{"work":"verres-actio1","date":"70 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Reconstructed framework"},{"work":"verres-2-1","date":"70 BCE","event":"Published text","role":"Reconstructed framework"},{"work":"verres-2-2","date":"70 BCE","event":"Published text","role":"Reconstructed framework"},{"work":"verres-2-3","date":"70 BCE","event":"Published text","role":"Reconstructed framework"},{"work":"verres-2-4","date":"70 BCE","event":"Published text","role":"Reconstructed framework"},{"work":"verres-2-5","date":"70 BCE","event":"Published text","role":"Reconstructed framework"},{"work":"fonteio","date":"usually 69 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Reconstructed framework"},{"work":"rabirio-postumo","date":"54 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Statutory predecessor"}],"basis":"Chronology retained from the existing sourced dossier and instrument register. Source loci and reconstruction limits are attached to the instrument.","researchDating":"The conventional Sullan date is 81 BCE, but Rotondi marks that dating with a question. Its place between Servilian and Julian legislation is independently supported by Cicero’s sequence; a full enactment date is not."},"research":{"existence":"Rabirio Postumo 9 explicitly says that the recipient-recovery clause passed from the Servilian into the Cornelian and then the Julian law. The statute’s existence is thus stronger evidence than any reconstruction of its complete contents.","dating":"The conventional Sullan date is 81 BCE, but Rotondi marks that dating with a question. Its place between Servilian and Julian legislation is independently supported by Cicero’s sequence; a full enactment date is not.","operation":"The relevant provision reaches money that passed to someone other than the convicted official. Greenidge places Verres’ and Fonteius’ trials within the Cornelian regime. Their institutional setting and the preserved recipient clause are different kinds of evidence.","transmission":"Only fragments and references transmitted through literature are available here. The three-stage sequence in Rabirio Postumo does not show that every procedural or penal provision remained identical.","debate":"Avoid importing the whole of Julian or imperial repetundae law into the Sullan statute. Explicit continuity of one chapter is narrower than continuity of an entire code.","summaryZh":"《为拉比里乌斯·波斯图穆斯辩护》证明追及所得条款的承继关系；一个条款沿用不等于整部法律内容相同。","citations":[{"id":"R-360","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 360","locator":"Printed pp. 360","pdfPages":[375],"url":null},{"id":"G-415-428","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 415-428","locator":"Printed pp. 415-428","pdfPages":[435,448],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-501-504","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 501-504","locator":"Printed pp. 501-504","pdfPages":[521,524],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"witnessIds":[],"ancientEvidenceIds":["L-phi030-9-11"],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-cornelia-repetundis-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Rabirio Postumo 9 explicitly says that the recipient-recovery clause passed from the Servilian into the Cornelian and then the Julian law. The statute’s existence is thus stronger evidence than any reconstruction of its complete contents."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-repetundis-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"The conventional Sullan date is 81 BCE, but Rotondi marks that dating with a question. Its place between Servilian and Julian legislation is independently supported by Cicero’s sequence; a full enactment date is not."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-repetundis-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"The relevant provision reaches money that passed to someone other than the convicted official. Greenidge places Verres’ and Fonteius’ trials within the Cornelian regime. Their institutional setting and the preserved recipient clause are different kinds of evidence."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-repetundis-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"Only fragments and references transmitted through literature are available here. The three-stage sequence in Rabirio Postumo does not show that every procedural or penal provision remained identical."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-repetundis-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"Avoid importing the whole of Julian or imperial repetundae law into the Sullan statute. Explicit continuity of one chapter is narrower than continuity of an entire code."}]}},{"id":"iulia-repetundis","label":"Lex Iulia de pecuniis repetundis","zh":"尤利乌斯行省勒索法","kind":"lex","date":"59 BCE; Caesar’s consular legislation","concepts":["extortion","scope","recovery","examination"],"rule":"The Julian statute governs extortion and associated recovery. Rabirio Postumo quotes its instruction to pursue money into the hands of recipients after the original defendant has been condemned.","procedure":"The derivative quo ea pecunia pervenerit proceeding raises whether, and how, an equestrian recipient may be reached. Greenidge also identifies Flacco’s “recent and new law” limiting investigative companions as this statute; Scaurus’ trial belongs to its period.","limit":"Flacco §13 does not supply the law’s name: the identification is attributed to Greenidge, not presented as an explicit quotation. Rabirius’ claim about equestrian status is the defence’s construction of the interaction between clauses.","evidence":["L-phi030-8-12","L-phi017-13-13"],"greenidge":"pp. 415–428, 485, 501–504","status":"Explicit text; conventional identification","chronology":{"event":"Enacted","date":"59 BCE","display":"Enacted: 59 BCE","status":"Consular legislation","originalDate":"59 BCE; Caesar’s consular legislation","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"The post-59 BCE extortion regime; the Flacco identification is qualified, while Rabirio Postumo (54 BCE) expressly names the Julian recipient-recovery clause. No terminal date is assigned here.","datedContexts":[{"work":"rabirio-postumo","date":"54 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Governing remedy"},{"work":"flacco","date":"59 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Reconstructed framework"},{"work":"scauro","date":"54 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Reconstructed framework"}],"basis":"Chronology retained from the existing sourced dossier and instrument register. Source loci and reconstruction limits are attached to the instrument.","researchDating":"59 BCE is Caesar’s consular enactment year. The Flaccus defence later that year calls a law recent and new without naming it at §13; its identification as Julian is Greenidge’s interpretation. Rabirio Postumo in 54 gives explicit naming."},"research":{"existence":"Rabirio Postumo 8–12 names the Julian law and quotes the words governing money that reached another recipient. Cicero’s contemporary correspondence and later Digest 48.11 provide further witnesses to the broad anti-extortion regime.","dating":"59 BCE is Caesar’s consular enactment year. The Flaccus defence later that year calls a law recent and new without naming it at §13; its identification as Julian is Greenidge’s interpretation. Rabirio Postumo in 54 gives explicit naming.","operation":"The recipient proceeding depends on the prior official extortion case and assessment, but the defence disputes both the reach of the clause and what Postumus received. The law also belongs to the regulation of provincial office and gifts; those wider provisions need their own loci.","transmission":"This is a statute reconstructed from multiple literary and juristic witnesses, not a surviving complete bronze. Late imperial texts under its title may preserve extensions and altered penalties.","debate":"Do not equate every payment in a governor’s orbit with proved extortion, or every recipient with a principal defendant. Distinguish the quoted chapter from the advocate’s account of Gabinius’ conviction.","summaryZh":"恺撒的朱利亚勒索法与追及受领人的程序相关；应分别证明主案、款项流向和受领人的责任。","citations":[{"id":"R-389-391","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 389-391","locator":"Printed pp. 389-391","pdfPages":[404,406],"url":null},{"id":"G-485","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 485","locator":"Printed pp. 485","pdfPages":[505],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-501-504","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 501-504","locator":"Printed pp. 501-504","pdfPages":[521,524],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"witnessIds":[],"ancientEvidenceIds":["L-phi030-8-12","L-phi017-13-13"],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-iulia-repetundis-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Rabirio Postumo 8–12 names the Julian law and quotes the words governing money that reached another recipient. Cicero’s contemporary correspondence and later Digest 48.11 provide further witnesses to the broad anti-extortion regime."},{"id":"LR-iulia-repetundis-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"59 BCE is Caesar’s consular enactment year. The Flaccus defence later that year calls a law recent and new without naming it at §13; its identification as Julian is Greenidge’s interpretation. Rabirio Postumo in 54 gives explicit naming."},{"id":"LR-iulia-repetundis-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"The recipient proceeding depends on the prior official extortion case and assessment, but the defence disputes both the reach of the clause and what Postumus received. The law also belongs to the regulation of provincial office and gifts; those wider provisions need their own loci."},{"id":"LR-iulia-repetundis-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"This is a statute reconstructed from multiple literary and juristic witnesses, not a surviving complete bronze. Late imperial texts under its title may preserve extensions and altered penalties."},{"id":"LR-iulia-repetundis-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"Do not equate every payment in a governor’s orbit with proved extortion, or every recipient with a principal defendant. Distinguish the quoted chapter from the advocate’s account of Gabinius’ conviction."}]}},{"id":"servilia-repetundis","label":"Lex Servilia de repetundis (Glaucia)","zh":"塞尔维利乌斯行省勒索法（格劳基亚）","kind":"plebiscitum","date":"Usually dated 104 or 101 BCE; chronology disputed","concepts":["extortion","calendar","recovery"],"rule":"An earlier extortion enactment contained the recipient-recovery clause. Cicero also attributes the requirement of a second hearing to Glaucia.","procedure":"Verres is invited rhetorically to imagine trial under the older Acilian arrangement. Rabirio Postumo uses the history of unchanged statutory language to contest a new interpretation.","limit":"A predecessor mentioned in argument is not thereby the law in force at either trial. Do not conflate this enactment with other laws bearing the name Servilia.","evidence":["L-phi030-9-14","L-phi005-2.1.26-15"],"greenidge":"pp. 493–496, 501–504","status":"Explicit text; conventional identification","chronology":{"event":"Enactment","date":"104 or 101 BCE; disputed","display":"Enactment: 104 or 101 BCE; disputed","status":"Competing dates, not a continuous interval","originalDate":"Usually dated 104 or 101 BCE; chronology disputed","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.","datedContexts":[{"work":"rabirio-postumo","date":"54 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Statutory predecessor"},{"work":"verres-2-1","date":"70 BCE","event":"Published text","role":"Statutory predecessor"}],"basis":"Chronology retained from the existing sourced dossier and instrument register. Source loci and reconstruction limits are attached to the instrument.","researchDating":"Glaucia’s law is conventionally assigned to 104 or 101 BCE; the exact chronology is disputed. Rotondi’s older placement around 111 differs sharply and rests on assumptions about reuse of the Bembine bronze. It is recorded as an older reconstruction, not silently adopted."},"research":{"existence":"Rabirio Postumo 9 attributes the inherited recipient clause to the Servilian law. Verrines II.1.26 contrasts its two-hearing arrangement with Acilian procedure. These identify particular procedural innovations, not the full statute.","dating":"Glaucia’s law is conventionally assigned to 104 or 101 BCE; the exact chronology is disputed. Rotondi’s older placement around 111 differs sharply and rests on assumptions about reuse of the Bembine bronze. It is recorded as an older reconstruction, not silently adopted.","operation":"The important comparisons concern the selection of an accuser, a repeated hearing and reaching money transferred to another recipient. The two-stage hearing could be exploited for delay in Verres’ prosecution.","transmission":"Crawford distinguishes the inscribed Gracchan repetundae law from innovations associated with Glaucia. The Tarentum fragment has been assigned to several different laws; its label cannot securely supply Glaucia’s complete text.","debate":"Keep Glaucia’s statute distinct from Caepio’s Servilian jury legislation. A shared gentilicium does not identify proposer, date, jury composition or operative clauses.","summaryZh":"格劳基亚的塞尔维利亚法不能与凯皮奥同姓的审判法混同；铜表归属及年代均有研究史上的分歧。","citations":[{"id":"R-322","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 322","locator":"Printed pp. 322","pdfPages":[337],"url":null},{"id":"C1-51-52","source":"C1","label":"M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. I (1996), pp. 51-52","locator":"Printed pp. 51-52","pdfPages":[78,79],"url":null},{"id":"C1-209","source":"C1","label":"M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. I (1996), pp. 209","locator":"Printed pp. 209","pdfPages":[236],"url":null},{"id":"G-493-496","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 493-496","locator":"Printed pp. 493-496","pdfPages":[513,516],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"witnessIds":[],"ancientEvidenceIds":["L-phi030-9-14","L-phi005-2.1.26-15"],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-servilia-repetundis-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Rabirio Postumo 9 attributes the inherited recipient clause to the Servilian law. Verrines II.1.26 contrasts its two-hearing arrangement with Acilian procedure. These identify particular procedural innovations, not the full statute."},{"id":"LR-servilia-repetundis-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"Glaucia’s law is conventionally assigned to 104 or 101 BCE; the exact chronology is disputed. Rotondi’s older placement around 111 differs sharply and rests on assumptions about reuse of the Bembine bronze. It is recorded as an older reconstruction, not silently adopted."},{"id":"LR-servilia-repetundis-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"The important comparisons concern the selection of an accuser, a repeated hearing and reaching money transferred to another recipient. The two-stage hearing could be exploited for delay in Verres’ prosecution."},{"id":"LR-servilia-repetundis-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"Crawford distinguishes the inscribed Gracchan repetundae law from innovations associated with Glaucia. The Tarentum fragment has been assigned to several different laws; its label cannot securely supply Glaucia’s complete text."},{"id":"LR-servilia-repetundis-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"Keep Glaucia’s statute distinct from Caepio’s Servilian jury legislation. A shared gentilicium does not identify proposer, date, jury composition or operative clauses."}]}},{"id":"acilia-repetundis","label":"Lex Acilia repetundarum","zh":"阿基利乌斯行省勒索法","kind":"plebiscitum","date":"Before Glaucia; exact year disputed","concepts":["extortion","calendar","jury"],"rule":"Cicero contrasts the Acilian possibility of conviction after one hearing, or postponement for further inquiry, with the later obligatory second hearing.","procedure":"The comparison exposes the tactical significance of trial scheduling and evidence presentation in the Verrine prosecution.","limit":"Cicero’s “I restore that Acilian law to you” is a rhetorical hypothetical, not a legislative revival. The statutory fragments elsewhere surviving epigraphically are not reproduced or reconstructed here.","evidence":["L-phi005-2.1.26-16"],"greenidge":"pp. 493–496","status":"Explicit text; conventional identification","chronology":{"event":"Enactment disputed","date":"Before Glaucia; exact year disputed","display":"Enactment disputed · Before Glaucia; exact year disputed","status":"123–122 BCE is a traditional identification; LEPOR favours a distinct Acilian measure shortly before 111","originalDate":"Before Glaucia; exact year disputed","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.","datedContexts":[{"work":"verres-2-1","date":"70 BCE","event":"Published text","role":"Explicit comparison"}],"basis":"The previous 123–122 BCE label conflated a conventional attribution with a secure date. LEPOR notice 3 favours a separate Acilian measure shortly before 111, succeeding a Sempronian law; notice 682 prefers Sempronian attribution for the bronze. Crawford dates the bronze to the Gracchan period but remains neutral about naming Acilius as proposer. The named Acilian law is securely earlier than Glaucia’s Servilian law; its exact year remains disputed.","previousResearchDisplay":"Enactment: 123–122 BCE","researchDating":"The previous 123–122 BCE label conflated a conventional attribution with a secure date. LEPOR notice 3 favours a separate Acilian measure shortly before 111, succeeding a Sempronian law; notice 682 prefers Sempronian attribution for the bronze. Crawford dates the bronze to the Gracchan period but remains neutral about naming Acilius as proposer. The named Acilian law is securely earlier than Glaucia’s Servilian law; its exact year remains disputed."},"research":{"existence":"Verrines II.1.26 expressly contrasts the Acilian law with the Servilian law. The bronze repetundae statute conventionally associated with it supplies a second, documentary evidence stream, whose precise statutory identification remains debated.","dating":"The previous 123–122 BCE label conflated a conventional attribution with a secure date. LEPOR notice 3 favours a separate Acilian measure shortly before 111, succeeding a Sempronian law; notice 682 prefers Sempronian attribution for the bronze. Crawford dates the bronze to the Gracchan period but remains neutral about naming Acilius as proposer. The named Acilian law is securely earlier than Glaucia’s Servilian law; its exact year remains disputed.","operation":"The bronze regulates patrons, selection of jurors, witnesses, voting, assessment, recovery and rewards. Its absence of a clear clause on presentation of the parties’ speeches matters: a detailed procedural reconstruction still has gaps.","transmission":"Documentary control: Crawford, Roman Statutes I, law 1; CIL I² 583. The reverse carries the agrarian law of 111 BCE. Fragment survival, early copies and restoration all mediate the edition. Do not call every supplemented letter a surviving letter.","debate":"The existence of an inscribed extortion statute is secure; equating that object with the named Acilian law is a further identification. Crawford rejects its equation with Glaucia’s law, explaining the missing characteristic innovations.","summaryZh":"应把西塞罗所称《阿基利亚法》与现存追偿法铜表区分：铜表确实存在，但二者同一仍是需要论证的鉴定。","citations":[{"id":"R-312-313","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 312-313","locator":"Printed pp. 312-313","pdfPages":[327,328],"url":null},{"id":"C1-39-42","source":"C1","label":"M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. I (1996), pp. 39-42","locator":"Printed pp. 39-42","pdfPages":[66,69],"url":null},{"id":"C1-51-52","source":"C1","label":"M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. I (1996), pp. 51-52","locator":"Printed pp. 51-52","pdfPages":[78,79],"url":null},{"id":"LP3","source":"LP3","label":"LEPOR, notice 3: Loi Acilia de repetundis","locator":"Sources and Commentaire","url":"https://telma.irht.cnrs.fr/outils/lepor/notice3/"},{"id":"LP682","source":"LP682","label":"LEPOR, notice 682: Loi Sempronia (plutôt qu’Acilia) de repetundis","locator":"Sources and Commentaire","url":"https://telma.irht.cnrs.fr/outils/lepor/notice682/"}],"witnessIds":[],"ancientEvidenceIds":["L-phi005-2.1.26-16"],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-acilia-repetundis-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Verrines II.1.26 expressly contrasts the Acilian law with the Servilian law. The bronze repetundae statute conventionally associated with it supplies a second, documentary evidence stream, whose precise statutory identification remains debated."},{"id":"LR-acilia-repetundis-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"The previous 123–122 BCE label conflated a conventional attribution with a secure date. LEPOR notice 3 favours a separate Acilian measure shortly before 111, succeeding a Sempronian law; notice 682 prefers Sempronian attribution for the bronze. Crawford dates the bronze to the Gracchan period but remains neutral about naming Acilius as proposer. The named Acilian law is securely earlier than Glaucia’s Servilian law; its exact year remains disputed."},{"id":"LR-acilia-repetundis-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"The bronze regulates patrons, selection of jurors, witnesses, voting, assessment, recovery and rewards. Its absence of a clear clause on presentation of the parties’ speeches matters: a detailed procedural reconstruction still has gaps."},{"id":"LR-acilia-repetundis-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"Documentary control: Crawford, Roman Statutes I, law 1; CIL I² 583. The reverse carries the agrarian law of 111 BCE. Fragment survival, early copies and restoration all mediate the edition. Do not call every supplemented letter a surviving letter."},{"id":"LR-acilia-repetundis-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"The existence of an inscribed extortion statute is secure; equating that object with the named Acilian law is a further identification. Crawford rejects its equation with Glaucia’s law, explaining the missing characteristic innovations."}]}},{"id":"rupilia","label":"Lex Rupilia","zh":"鲁皮利乌斯西西里司法规约","kind":"provincial","date":"132 or 131 BCE","concepts":["jurisdictions","treaty","civiljudge","governor"],"rule":"Cicero describes a decree of P. Rupilius made with ten commissioners, called lex Rupilia in Sicily. It allocates adjudication according to litigants’ civic identities and the type of dispute.","procedure":"Same-city Sicilian disputes use local law; inter-city disputes require the appointed selection procedure. Roman–Sicilian disputes have specific rules for the judge’s civic status.","limit":"This is a provincial administrative settlement, not a Roman comitial lex merely because Sicilians call it lex. Cicero’s account of Verres’ departures supplies an accusation, not an independently preserved trial verdict.","evidence":["L-phi005-2.2.32-17"],"greenidge":"pp. 109–132","status":"Explicit text; conventional identification","chronology":{"event":"Settlement","date":"132 or 131 BCE","display":"Settlement · 132 or 131 BCE","status":"Competing dates: 132 consular year; Rotondi p. 489 dates the settlement 131","originalDate":"132 or 131 BCE","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"Invoked in the Verrines of 70 BCE as the existing provincial jurisdictional arrangement against which Verres’ conduct is tested.","datedContexts":[{"work":"verres-2-2","date":"70 BCE","event":"Published text","role":"Contested legality"}],"basis":"The former atlas date 132 BCE needs qualification. Rotondi dates the settlement to 131; 132 is the consulship and commonly repeated dating. Display 132–131 BCE, with the disagreement explained, not as a two-year effective term.","previousResearchDisplay":"Settlement: 132 BCE","researchDating":"The former atlas date 132 BCE needs qualification. Rotondi dates the settlement to 131; 132 is the consulship and commonly repeated dating. Display 132–131 BCE, with the disagreement explained, not as a two-year effective term."},"research":{"existence":"Verrines II.2.32 calls the arrangement a decretum of Rupilius made with ten commissioners and says the Sicilians call it the Rupilian law. §§37–44 test its operation in Heraclius’ inheritance dispute.","dating":"The former atlas date 132 BCE needs qualification. Rotondi dates the settlement to 131; 132 is the consulship and commonly repeated dating. Display 132–131 BCE, with the disagreement explained, not as a two-year effective term.","operation":"The rules distinguish disputes within one city, between Sicilians of different cities, between an individual and a community, and between Roman and Sicilian parties. The method of choosing judges varies with those categories.","transmission":"No self-contained provincial charter survives here. Cicero’s terminology itself warns against treating this as an ordinary Roman popular statute. The governor’s subsequent edict helps sustain local and inter-community rules in practice.","debate":"Dubouloz shows why alleged injustice cannot always be reduced to a technically illegal appointment: Verres could correct formal selection while still exerting pressure. Preserve Cicero’s accusations separately from that procedural analysis.","summaryZh":"鲁皮利乌斯的安排应视为总督与十名委员形成的司法规定；132与131年的差别需说明，不能直接称为完整行省法典。","citations":[{"id":"R-489","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 489","locator":"Printed pp. 489","pdfPages":[504],"url":null},{"id":"DUB-104-108","source":"DUB","label":"Julien Dubouloz, “La juridiction du gouverneur provincial. Réflexions sur les Verrines comme sources pour l’histoire du droit”, in J. R. W. Prag (ed.), Sicilia nutrix plebis Romanae (2007), pp. 104-108","locator":"Printed pp. 104-108","pdfPages":[110,114],"url":"https://www.julien-dubouloz.fr/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/19-londres-2004-article.pdf"},{"id":"G-109-132","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 109-132","locator":"Printed pp. 109-132","pdfPages":[129,152],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"witnessIds":["RW-ver2232"],"ancientEvidenceIds":["L-phi005-2.2.32-17"],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-rupilia-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Verrines II.2.32 calls the arrangement a decretum of Rupilius made with ten commissioners and says the Sicilians call it the Rupilian law. §§37–44 test its operation in Heraclius’ inheritance dispute."},{"id":"LR-rupilia-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"The former atlas date 132 BCE needs qualification. Rotondi dates the settlement to 131; 132 is the consulship and commonly repeated dating. Display 132–131 BCE, with the disagreement explained, not as a two-year effective term."},{"id":"LR-rupilia-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"The rules distinguish disputes within one city, between Sicilians of different cities, between an individual and a community, and between Roman and Sicilian parties. The method of choosing judges varies with those categories."},{"id":"LR-rupilia-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"No self-contained provincial charter survives here. Cicero’s terminology itself warns against treating this as an ordinary Roman popular statute. The governor’s subsequent edict helps sustain local and inter-community rules in practice."},{"id":"LR-rupilia-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"Dubouloz shows why alleged injustice cannot always be reduced to a technically illegal appointment: Verres could correct formal selection while still exerting pressure. Preserve Cicero’s accusations separately from that procedural analysis."}]}},{"id":"hieronica","label":"Lex Hieronica","zh":"希耶罗西西里什一税规制","kind":"provincial","date":"Royal Sicilian regime retained under Roman rule","concepts":["extortion","community","governor","jurisdictions"],"rule":"The Hieronian system regulates the Sicilian tithe and disputes between cultivators and collectors. Cicero represents continuity of its terms as part of Rome’s provincial commitments.","procedure":"Its assessment and collection procedures matter because an edict favoring a collector can turn a nominal tax obligation into an effectively unlimited demand.","limit":"The designation refers to an inherited royal fiscal system, not a Roman popular enactment. The text’s claim of unbroken legitimate continuity is part of Cicero’s prosecution narrative.","evidence":["L-phi005-2.2.32-18","L-phi005-2.3.15-19"],"greenidge":"pp. 109–132","status":"Explicit text; conventional identification","chronology":{"event":"Origin","date":"Sicilian royal period; undated","display":"Origin: Sicilian royal period; undated","status":"No exact creation date established in this register","originalDate":"Royal Sicilian regime retained under Roman rule","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"Reported as the fiscal regime retained under Roman rule and contrasted with Verres’ governorship of 73–71 BCE, in the published Verrines of 70 BCE. No continuous effective interval is reconstructed.","datedContexts":[{"work":"verres-2-2","date":"70 BCE","event":"Published text","role":"Contested legality"},{"work":"verres-2-3","date":"70 BCE","event":"Published text","role":"Contested legality"}],"basis":"Chronology retained from the existing sourced dossier and instrument register. Source loci and reconstruction limits are attached to the instrument.","researchDating":"The evidence supports a royal Sicilian background before Roman incorporation, followed by later Roman use. It does not date a single act of promulgation or prove that every Republican provision originated with Hiero II."},"research":{"existence":"Verrines II.3.12–15 describes the fiscal arrangement associated with Hiero and Roman retention of it; II.2.32 expressly connects disputes between cultivators and tithe contractors with the Hieronian grain law.","dating":"The evidence supports a royal Sicilian background before Roman incorporation, followed by later Roman use. It does not date a single act of promulgation or prove that every Republican provision originated with Hiero II.","operation":"The system connects tithe auctions, assessment, local cultivators, contractors and dispute resolution. Verres’ alleged abuses operate through changes to these relationships and the practical availability of remedies, not simply through a different nominal tax rate.","transmission":"No original royal code is reproduced. Bell investigates architectural and administrative traces at Morgantina as evidence for fiscal practices; archaeological association with the system is an inference, not an inscribed copy of the law.","debate":"Separate continuity of a named institution from unchanged wording or unchanged territorial coverage. Cicero’s idealized contrast between inherited order and Verres’ conduct serves the prosecution.","summaryZh":"希耶罗粮税制度的王政背景、罗马沿用与韦雷斯时期实际运作须分层；建筑遗存只能辅助重建行政实践，不能代替法条。","citations":[{"id":"DUB-107-108","source":"DUB","label":"Julien Dubouloz, “La juridiction du gouverneur provincial. Réflexions sur les Verrines comme sources pour l’histoire du droit”, in J. R. W. Prag (ed.), Sicilia nutrix plebis Romanae (2007), pp. 107-108","locator":"Printed pp. 107-108","pdfPages":[113,114],"url":"https://www.julien-dubouloz.fr/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/19-londres-2004-article.pdf"},{"id":"BELL-117-120","source":"BELL","label":"Malcolm Bell III, “Apronius in the Agora: Sicilian Civil Architecture and the Lex Hieronica”, in J. R. W. Prag (ed.), Sicilia nutrix plebis Romanae (2007), pp. 117-120","locator":"Printed pp. 117-120","pdfPages":[122,125],"url":null},{"id":"G-109-132","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 109-132","locator":"Printed pp. 109-132","pdfPages":[129,152],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"witnessIds":["RW-ver2232"],"ancientEvidenceIds":["L-phi005-2.2.32-18","L-phi005-2.3.15-19"],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-hieronica-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Verrines II.3.12–15 describes the fiscal arrangement associated with Hiero and Roman retention of it; II.2.32 expressly connects disputes between cultivators and tithe contractors with the Hieronian grain law."},{"id":"LR-hieronica-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"The evidence supports a royal Sicilian background before Roman incorporation, followed by later Roman use. It does not date a single act of promulgation or prove that every Republican provision originated with Hiero II."},{"id":"LR-hieronica-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"The system connects tithe auctions, assessment, local cultivators, contractors and dispute resolution. Verres’ alleged abuses operate through changes to these relationships and the practical availability of remedies, not simply through a different nominal tax rate."},{"id":"LR-hieronica-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"No original royal code is reproduced. Bell investigates architectural and administrative traces at Morgantina as evidence for fiscal practices; archaeological association with the system is an inference, not an inscribed copy of the law."},{"id":"LR-hieronica-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"Separate continuity of a named institution from unchanged wording or unchanged territorial coverage. Cicero’s idealized contrast between inherited order and Verres’ conduct serves the prosecution."}]}},{"id":"verres-inheritance","label":"Verres’ urban inheritance edict","zh":"维勒斯在罗马关于继承的告示","kind":"edict","date":"74 BCE urban praetorship","concepts":["property","edict","scope","interpretation"],"rule":"In the Asellus inheritance, Verres is accused of changing the edict so that a daughter’s inheritance, valid when her father died, would no longer be recognized. Cicero attacks retrospective alteration of legal expectations.","procedure":"The issue concerns praetorian treatment of a testament and its relation to the lex Voconia, not an accusation that Verres himself legislated a new comitial inheritance statute.","limit":"Distinguish an allegation of an opportunistic edict from the independent proof of its motivation. The later Cornelian edict law of 67 BCE cannot be applied retroactively to this conduct.","evidence":["L-phi005-2.1.104-20"],"greenidge":"pp. 79–99","status":"Explicit text; conventional identification","chronology":{"event":"Edict issued","date":"74 BCE","display":"Edict issued: 74 BCE","status":"Dated to the urban praetorship","originalDate":"74 BCE urban praetorship","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"The challenged urban edict belongs to 74 BCE; the accusation discussing it dates to 70 BCE.","datedContexts":[{"work":"verres-2-1","date":"70 BCE","event":"Published text","role":"Contested legality"}],"basis":"Chronology retained from the existing sourced dossier and instrument register. Source loci and reconstruction limits are attached to the instrument.","researchDating":"74 BCE dates Verres’ urban praetorship, during which the challenged edict belongs. The accusation was published in 70. Neither date should be mistaken for the enactment of the older Voconian law."},"research":{"existence":"Verrines II.1.104–110 recounts the urban inheritance edict and its effect on Asellus’ daughter. Cicero contrasts Verres’ innovation with established law and the treatment of earlier wills.","dating":"74 BCE dates Verres’ urban praetorship, during which the challenged edict belongs. The accusation was published in 70. Neither date should be mistaken for the enactment of the older Voconian law.","operation":"The dispute concerns access to an inheritance through praetorian handling of a will and the relevance of census status. Cicero attacks retrospective alteration of the consequences of acts already performed in reliance on existing rules.","transmission":"The evidence is the prosecutor’s report of edictal wording and practice. No posted urban edict is separately available. The account must be read with the whole Asellus episode.","debate":"Cicero’s examples involving forgery and homicide illustrate prospectivity; they are not additional charges against Asellus’ daughter. Treat Verres’ administrative innovation separately from the statute he purportedly used.","summaryZh":"74年的城市裁判官告示因追溯影响既有遗嘱而受攻击；其与《沃科尼亚法》的关系是争议所在，不能把二者合并。","citations":[{"id":"G-79-99","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 79-99","locator":"Printed pp. 79-99","pdfPages":[99,119],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"R-283-284","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 283-284","locator":"Printed pp. 283-284","pdfPages":[298,299],"url":null}],"witnessIds":[],"ancientEvidenceIds":["L-phi005-2.1.104-20"],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-verres-inheritance-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Verrines II.1.104–110 recounts the urban inheritance edict and its effect on Asellus’ daughter. Cicero contrasts Verres’ innovation with established law and the treatment of earlier wills."},{"id":"LR-verres-inheritance-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"74 BCE dates Verres’ urban praetorship, during which the challenged edict belongs. The accusation was published in 70. Neither date should be mistaken for the enactment of the older Voconian law."},{"id":"LR-verres-inheritance-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"The dispute concerns access to an inheritance through praetorian handling of a will and the relevance of census status. Cicero attacks retrospective alteration of the consequences of acts already performed in reliance on existing rules."},{"id":"LR-verres-inheritance-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"The evidence is the prosecutor’s report of edictal wording and practice. No posted urban edict is separately available. The account must be read with the whole Asellus episode."},{"id":"LR-verres-inheritance-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"Cicero’s examples involving forgery and homicide illustrate prospectivity; they are not additional charges against Asellus’ daughter. Treat Verres’ administrative innovation separately from the statute he purportedly used."}]}},{"id":"voconia","label":"Lex Voconia","zh":"沃科尼乌斯继承法","kind":"plebiscitum","date":"169 BCE","concepts":["property","scope","interpretation"],"rule":"The Voconian inheritance restrictions are central to Cicero’s argument that Asellus’ daughter could lawfully inherit: the applicability of the law depends on the statutory classification, not simply on the heir being female.","procedure":"Cicero contrasts its temporal reach with Verres’ edict. In Balbo, the law is used as an example in the discussion of whether allied communities adopt Roman legislation.","limit":"Do not summarize this as a universal prohibition on women inheriting. Balbo’s citizenship is not granted under the lex Voconia.","evidence":["L-phi005-2.1.108-21"],"greenidge":"pp. 79–99","status":"Explicit text; conventional identification","chronology":{"event":"Enacted","date":"169 BCE","display":"Enacted: 169 BCE","status":"Conventional enactment year","originalDate":"169 BCE","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.","datedContexts":[{"work":"verres-2-1","date":"70 BCE","event":"Published text","role":"Contested legality"},{"work":"balbo","date":"56 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Explicit comparison"}],"basis":"Chronology retained from the existing sourced dossier and instrument register. Source loci and reconstruction limits are attached to the instrument.","researchDating":"169 BCE is the conventional year of the tribune Q. Voconius Saxa’s enactment, supported by the historical tradition collected by Rotondi. Its invocation by Cicero in 70 is evidence of later relevance."},"research":{"existence":"Verrines II.1.106–110 names the law in the Asellus inheritance dispute. Gaius 2.226 and 2.274 separately report restrictions on legacies and on instituting a woman as heir.","dating":"169 BCE is the conventional year of the tribune Q. Voconius Saxa’s enactment, supported by the historical tradition collected by Rotondi. Its invocation by Cicero in 70 is evidence of later relevance.","operation":"The restriction depends on the testator’s assessed property status; it is not a ban on all female inheritance. Gaius also reports a restriction preventing a legatee from receiving more than heirs, and later mechanisms that could circumvent the restriction.","transmission":"The law is known through separate literary and juristic witnesses. Their monetary thresholds and formulations require care; the dossier does not present a synthesized modern wording as a complete statute.","debate":"Verres’ treatment of an uncensused testator is central to Cicero’s criticism. Later fideicommissary practice is evidence of the statute’s reception, not a provision enacted in 169.","summaryZh":"《沃科尼亚法》不是对女性继承的一概禁止；遗嘱人的财产登记条件和继承人与受遗赠人的区别至关重要。","citations":[{"id":"R-283-284","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 283-284","locator":"Printed pp. 283-284","pdfPages":[298,299],"url":null},{"id":"G-79-99","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 79-99","locator":"Printed pp. 79-99","pdfPages":[99,119],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"LP757","source":"LP757","label":"LEPOR, notice 757: Loi Voconia","locator":"Sources and Commentaire","url":"https://telma.irht.cnrs.fr/outils/lepor/notice757/"}],"witnessIds":["RW-gai2274"],"ancientEvidenceIds":["L-phi005-2.1.108-21"],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-voconia-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Verrines II.1.106–110 names the law in the Asellus inheritance dispute. Gaius 2.226 and 2.274 separately report restrictions on legacies and on instituting a woman as heir."},{"id":"LR-voconia-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"169 BCE is the conventional year of the tribune Q. Voconius Saxa’s enactment, supported by the historical tradition collected by Rotondi. Its invocation by Cicero in 70 is evidence of later relevance."},{"id":"LR-voconia-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"The restriction depends on the testator’s assessed property status; it is not a ban on all female inheritance. Gaius also reports a restriction preventing a legatee from receiving more than heirs, and later mechanisms that could circumvent the restriction."},{"id":"LR-voconia-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"The law is known through separate literary and juristic witnesses. Their monetary thresholds and formulations require care; the dossier does not present a synthesized modern wording as a complete statute."},{"id":"LR-voconia-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"Verres’ treatment of an uncensused testator is central to Cicero’s criticism. Later fideicommissary practice is evidence of the statute’s reception, not a provision enacted in 169."}]}},{"id":"verres-tithes","label":"Verres’ edict favoring the tithe collector","zh":"维勒斯偏袒什一税承包人的告示","kind":"edict","date":"73–71 BCE, Sicilian governorship","concepts":["extortion","edict","remedy","proof"],"rule":"Cicero reports an edict compelling a cultivator to deliver whatever quantity the collector declared due. The prosecution stresses the inequality between immediate compulsion and nominal remedies against an excessive claim.","procedure":"The operative question is who determines the amount and whether a cultivator can practically challenge it. The fiscal norm and the governor’s remedial machinery must be read together.","limit":"The edict is reported by an adversarial advocate. “Verrine law” elsewhere in the speech is polemic, not evidence of an enactment by the Roman people.","evidence":["L-phi005-2.3.25-23"],"greenidge":"pp. 109–132","status":"Explicit text; conventional identification","chronology":{"event":"Edict issued","date":"during 73–71 BCE","display":"Edict issued: during 73–71 BCE","status":"Governorship interval, not proof of a three-year effective term","originalDate":"73–71 BCE, Sicilian governorship","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"Edictal conduct belongs to the governorship of 73–71 BCE and is discussed in the Verrines of 70 BCE; the exact issue date and duration are not independently established.","datedContexts":[{"work":"verres-2-3","date":"70 BCE","event":"Published text","role":"Contested legality"}],"basis":"Chronology retained from the existing sourced dossier and instrument register. Source loci and reconstruction limits are attached to the instrument.","researchDating":"The edict belongs to Verres’ Sicilian governorship of 73–71 BCE. A specific issue day, annual republication and uninterrupted duration cannot be inferred from the governorship interval."},"research":{"existence":"Verrines II.3.25 reports an edict compelling payment of what the tithe collector demanded. §35 quotes the offer of recuperatores if either party wished. These are distinct clauses within Cicero’s reconstruction of fiscal coercion.","dating":"The edict belongs to Verres’ Sicilian governorship of 73–71 BCE. A specific issue day, annual republication and uninterrupted duration cannot be inferred from the governorship interval.","operation":"Nominal remedies against excessive collection coexist with a rule allowing immediate extraction. Cicero argues that farmers could not realistically recover through judges beholden to the governor. The imbalance concerns enforcement, forum and bargaining power.","transmission":"This is a forensic report of a provincial edict, not a law voted by the Roman people. The polemical label “Verrian law” does not alter that legal form.","debate":"Dubouloz distinguishes a choice between local adjudication and the governor’s intervention from the older reconstruction of a choice between a single judge and recuperators. Apparent procedural options must be studied in their provincial setting.","summaryZh":"问题不止是税额，而在先行强征、审判员指定与救济实际可得性；“韦雷斯法”是修辞称呼，不证明存在人民大会法律。","citations":[{"id":"DUB-105-108","source":"DUB","label":"Julien Dubouloz, “La juridiction du gouverneur provincial. Réflexions sur les Verrines comme sources pour l’histoire du droit”, in J. R. W. Prag (ed.), Sicilia nutrix plebis Romanae (2007), pp. 105-108","locator":"Printed pp. 105-108","pdfPages":[111,114],"url":"https://www.julien-dubouloz.fr/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/19-londres-2004-article.pdf"},{"id":"G-109-132","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 109-132","locator":"Printed pp. 109-132","pdfPages":[129,152],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"witnessIds":["RW-ver2335"],"ancientEvidenceIds":["L-phi005-2.3.25-23"],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-verres-tithes-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Verrines II.3.25 reports an edict compelling payment of what the tithe collector demanded. §35 quotes the offer of recuperatores if either party wished. These are distinct clauses within Cicero’s reconstruction of fiscal coercion."},{"id":"LR-verres-tithes-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"The edict belongs to Verres’ Sicilian governorship of 73–71 BCE. A specific issue day, annual republication and uninterrupted duration cannot be inferred from the governorship interval."},{"id":"LR-verres-tithes-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"Nominal remedies against excessive collection coexist with a rule allowing immediate extraction. Cicero argues that farmers could not realistically recover through judges beholden to the governor. The imbalance concerns enforcement, forum and bargaining power."},{"id":"LR-verres-tithes-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"This is a forensic report of a provincial edict, not a law voted by the Roman people. The polemical label “Verrian law” does not alter that legal form."},{"id":"LR-verres-tithes-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"Dubouloz distinguishes a choice between local adjudication and the governor’s intervention from the older reconstruction of a choice between a single judge and recuperators. Apparent procedural options must be studied in their provincial setting."}]}},{"id":"plautia-vis","label":"Lex Plautia / Plotia de vi","zh":"普劳提乌斯公共暴力法","kind":"uncertain","date":"63 BCE; origin disputed","concepts":["violence","state","jury","scope"],"rule":"The usual statutory identification of the public-violence proceedings underlying Pro Sulla and Pro Sestio is the lex Plautia. It must be separated from civil interdicts and Lucullus’ damages remedy.","procedure":"Caelio concerns a public de vi inquiry, but §70 names Q. Catulus as the law’s proposer. The relationship between that enactment and the law called Plautia is disputed.","limit":"The supplied Greenidge volume, p. 424 n. 6, explicitly leaves the relationship unresolved. No secure plebiscitum classification or exact enactment date is imposed here. In Milone §35, a Plautian prosecution concerns Clodius in an earlier case, not Milo’s present special trial.","evidence":["L-phi031-35-24","L-phi024-70-25"],"greenidge":"pp. 424–425","status":"Conventional framework; chronology and relation to Lutatia disputed","chronology":{"event":"Attested application","date":"63 BCE; origin disputed","display":"Attested application · 63 BCE; origin disputed","status":"Sallust, Catiline 31.4; earlier enactment hypotheses remain disputed","originalDate":"63 BCE; origin disputed","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.","datedContexts":[{"work":"sulla","date":"62 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Reconstructed framework"},{"work":"sestio","date":"56 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Reconstructed framework"},{"work":"caelio","date":"56 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Disputed identification"},{"work":"milone","date":"52 BCE","event":"Trial / delivery","role":"Earlier proceeding"}],"basis":"An explicit historical attestation belongs to the Catilinarian crisis of 63 BCE. Earlier enactment dates, including 78, 70 and the mid-60s, depend on identifying related measures and proposers. Replace the former unqualified mid-60s terminus with the demonstrable 63 BCE witness.","previousResearchDisplay":"Attested by: mid-60s BCE; origin disputed","researchDating":"An explicit historical attestation belongs to the Catilinarian crisis of 63 BCE. Earlier enactment dates, including 78, 70 and the mid-60s, depend on identifying related measures and proposers. Replace the former unqualified mid-60s terminus with the demonstrable 63 BCE witness."},"research":{"existence":"Milone 35 expressly mentions proceedings against Clodius under a Plotian law. Sallust, Catiline 31.4, provides a separate explicit witness to Catiline being prosecuted under the Plautian law by L. Paulus.","dating":"An explicit historical attestation belongs to the Catilinarian crisis of 63 BCE. Earlier enactment dates, including 78, 70 and the mid-60s, depend on identifying related measures and proposers. Replace the former unqualified mid-60s terminus with the demonstrable 63 BCE witness.","operation":"The statute provides a public prosecution for vis. The Clodius proceeding mentioned in Milone is an earlier case; Milo’s trial in 52 rests on Pompey’s special law. Caelius’ governing statute raises a distinct identification problem.","transmission":"No complete statute is recovered. The spelling Plautia/Plotia and the interpretation of Caelio 70 must be tracked; later references to property held by force do not reconstruct the whole criminal law.","debate":"Rotondi regards a separate Lutatius law as less likely than a Plautian law promoted under Catulus’ influence. Other reconstructions separate them. The atlas retains two research records without claiming two independently proven enactments.","summaryZh":"《普劳提亚暴力法》有明确名称见证，但创设年与所谓《卢塔提亚法》的关系不明；米洛提及的旧案不可变成其本案法源。","citations":[{"id":"R-377-378","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 377-378","locator":"Printed pp. 377-378","pdfPages":[392,393],"url":null},{"id":"G-424","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 424","locator":"Printed pp. 424","pdfPages":[444],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"witnessIds":["RW-sall314"],"ancientEvidenceIds":["L-phi031-35-24","L-phi024-70-25"],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-plautia-vis-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Milone 35 expressly mentions proceedings against Clodius under a Plotian law. Sallust, Catiline 31.4, provides a separate explicit witness to Catiline being prosecuted under the Plautian law by L. Paulus."},{"id":"LR-plautia-vis-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"An explicit historical attestation belongs to the Catilinarian crisis of 63 BCE. Earlier enactment dates, including 78, 70 and the mid-60s, depend on identifying related measures and proposers. Replace the former unqualified mid-60s terminus with the demonstrable 63 BCE witness."},{"id":"LR-plautia-vis-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"The statute provides a public prosecution for vis. The Clodius proceeding mentioned in Milone is an earlier case; Milo’s trial in 52 rests on Pompey’s special law. Caelius’ governing statute raises a distinct identification problem."},{"id":"LR-plautia-vis-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"No complete statute is recovered. The spelling Plautia/Plotia and the interpretation of Caelio 70 must be tracked; later references to property held by force do not reconstruct the whole criminal law."},{"id":"LR-plautia-vis-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"Rotondi regards a separate Lutatius law as less likely than a Plautian law promoted under Catulus’ influence. Other reconstructions separate them. The atlas retains two research records without claiming two independently proven enactments."}]}},{"id":"lutatia-vis","label":"Law of Q. Catulus on vis (lex Lutatia)","zh":"卡图卢斯公共暴力法（卢塔提乌斯法）","kind":"uncertain","date":"Often associated with 78 BCE; identification disputed","concepts":["violence","scope","state","jury"],"rule":"Cicero describes the law at the end of Pro Caelio as one proposed by Q. Catulus amid armed civil discord, directed to the state’s security rather than private sexual animosity.","procedure":"That description is part of the defence’s effort to show a mismatch between the public purpose of the court and the accusation against Caelius.","limit":"The conventional title lex Lutatia and its relation to the lex Plautia are interpretive identifications. Do not display them as two independently proven cumulative charges against Caelius.","evidence":["L-phi024-70-26"],"greenidge":"p. 424 n. 6","status":"Proposer named; relationship to Plautia unresolved","chronology":{"event":"Possible enactment","date":"78 BCE?","display":"Possible enactment: 78 BCE?","status":"Identification and dating disputed","originalDate":"Often associated with 78 BCE; identification disputed","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.","datedContexts":[{"work":"caelio","date":"56 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Disputed identification"}],"basis":"Chronology retained from the existing sourced dossier and instrument register. Source loci and reconstruction limits are attached to the instrument.","researchDating":"78 BCE is a common reconstruction connecting the allusion with Catulus and Lepidus, not a consular date written in the quoted passage. Alternative constructions of the relationship with the Plautian law remain possible."},"research":{"existence":"Caelio 70 says that Q. Catulus carried the law amid armed civil dissension. It does not preserve an independently headed text called “Lex Lutatia”; that title expresses an identification from the proposer’s name.","dating":"78 BCE is a common reconstruction connecting the allusion with Catulus and Lepidus, not a consular date written in the quoted passage. Alternative constructions of the relationship with the Plautian law remain possible.","operation":"Cicero uses the law’s supposed emergency purpose to argue that Caelius’ alleged conduct does not belong within its intended scope. This is purposive forensic argument, not a complete enumeration of statutory offences.","transmission":"The decisive witness is a single Ciceronian locus. Repetition of that locus in many modern books does not create independent ancient corroboration.","debate":"Greenidge explicitly reviews the uncertain connection; Rotondi prefers a Plautian measure associated with Catulus over a separate Lutatius enactment. The record remains useful as a disputed identification rather than a confidently independent code.","summaryZh":"“卢塔提亚法”主要由《为凯利乌斯辩护》70节所称卡图卢斯推出；保留独立条目是为了显示争议，并非断言另有一部完整法律。","citations":[{"id":"R-377-378","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 377-378","locator":"Printed pp. 377-378","pdfPages":[392,393],"url":null},{"id":"G-424","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 424","locator":"Printed pp. 424","pdfPages":[444],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"witnessIds":[],"ancientEvidenceIds":["L-phi024-70-26"],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-lutatia-vis-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Caelio 70 says that Q. Catulus carried the law amid armed civil dissension. It does not preserve an independently headed text called “Lex Lutatia”; that title expresses an identification from the proposer’s name."},{"id":"LR-lutatia-vis-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"78 BCE is a common reconstruction connecting the allusion with Catulus and Lepidus, not a consular date written in the quoted passage. Alternative constructions of the relationship with the Plautian law remain possible."},{"id":"LR-lutatia-vis-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"Cicero uses the law’s supposed emergency purpose to argue that Caelius’ alleged conduct does not belong within its intended scope. This is purposive forensic argument, not a complete enumeration of statutory offences."},{"id":"LR-lutatia-vis-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"The decisive witness is a single Ciceronian locus. Repetition of that locus in many modern books does not create independent ancient corroboration."},{"id":"LR-lutatia-vis-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"Greenidge explicitly reviews the uncertain connection; Rotondi prefers a Plautian measure associated with Catulus over a separate Lutatius enactment. The record remains useful as a disputed identification rather than a confidently independent code."}]}},{"id":"pompeia-vis","label":"Lex Pompeia de vi","zh":"庞培公共暴力法","kind":"lex","date":"52 BCE; Pompey’s sole consulship","concepts":["violence","homicide","exceptional","juryselection"],"rule":"Pompey’s special law specifically includes the killing on the Appian Way. Cicero argues that ordering an inquiry leaves room for a lawful-killing defence despite an admitted death.","procedure":"Asconius describes a shortened trial sequence with witnesses first and final speeches limited to two hours for the prosecution and three for the defence; the president was specially elected.","limit":"This is the law governing Milo’s principal trial. Pompey’s separate ambitus law of the same year and other later proceedings against Milo must not be merged with it.","evidence":["L-phi031-15-27"],"greenidge":"pp. 389–396, 573–574","status":"Explicit text; conventional identification","externalSources":[{"label":"Asconius, In Milonianam, pp. 36–40 Clark","url":"https://www.attalus.org/latin/asconius2.html"}],"chronology":{"event":"Enacted","date":"52 BCE","display":"Enacted: 52 BCE","status":"Special law in the sole consulship","originalDate":"52 BCE; Pompey’s sole consulship","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.","datedContexts":[{"work":"milone","date":"52 BCE","event":"Trial / delivery","role":"Governing charge"}],"basis":"Chronology retained from the existing sourced dossier and instrument register. Source loci and reconstruction limits are attached to the instrument.","researchDating":"52 BCE is fixed by Pompey’s sole consulship and the killing of Clodius. The special inquiry must be kept separate from Pompey’s jury-selection measure of 55; Asconius supplies the event sequence and trial regulations."},"research":{"existence":"Milone 15 describes the new inquiry concerning the Appian Way killing. Asconius 36–40 C supplies the special legislative and trial arrangements and distinguishes them from normal procedure.","dating":"52 BCE is fixed by Pompey’s sole consulship and the killing of Clodius. The special inquiry must be kept separate from Pompey’s jury-selection measure of 55; Asconius supplies the event sequence and trial regulations.","operation":"The law accelerates the case, gives witnesses a prominent preliminary place and restricts the final speeches to two hours for prosecution and three for defence. The president and selected jury belong to this particular statutory framework.","transmission":"Cicero’s surviving speech is a revised published text; Asconius is a later historical commentator. Neither is a complete original statute, but together they let us distinguish trial design from defence strategy.","debate":"The exceptional law does not itself prove Milo’s guilt. A general natural-law defence and a particular statutory question can coexist without being identical.","summaryZh":"庞培于52年创设的特别审理程序应与55年的审判员选任法区分；阿斯科尼乌斯保存审期、证人程序与发言限时等重要细节。","citations":[{"id":"G-389-396","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 389-396","locator":"Printed pp. 389-396","pdfPages":[409,416],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-573-574","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 573-574","locator":"Printed pp. 573-574","pdfPages":[593,594],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"R-405","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 405","locator":"Printed pp. 405","pdfPages":[420],"url":null}],"witnessIds":[],"ancientEvidenceIds":["L-phi031-15-27"],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-pompeia-vis-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Milone 15 describes the new inquiry concerning the Appian Way killing. Asconius 36–40 C supplies the special legislative and trial arrangements and distinguishes them from normal procedure."},{"id":"LR-pompeia-vis-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"52 BCE is fixed by Pompey’s sole consulship and the killing of Clodius. The special inquiry must be kept separate from Pompey’s jury-selection measure of 55; Asconius supplies the event sequence and trial regulations."},{"id":"LR-pompeia-vis-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"The law accelerates the case, gives witnesses a prominent preliminary place and restricts the final speeches to two hours for prosecution and three for defence. The president and selected jury belong to this particular statutory framework."},{"id":"LR-pompeia-vis-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"Cicero’s surviving speech is a revised published text; Asconius is a later historical commentator. Neither is a complete original statute, but together they let us distinguish trial design from defence strategy."},{"id":"LR-pompeia-vis-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"The exceptional law does not itself prove Milo’s guilt. A general natural-law defence and a particular statutory question can coexist without being identical."}]}},{"id":"calpurnia-ambitu","label":"Lex Calpurnia de ambitu","zh":"卡尔普尔尼乌斯选举舞弊法","kind":"lex","date":"67 BCE","concepts":["elections","scope","competition"],"rule":"The Calpurnian law supplied a severe anti-bribery regime before Cicero’s Tullian addition. Murena discusses how paid attendance, seats at shows and public entertainments may fall under it.","procedure":"The defence disputes whether ordinary manifestations of electoral support meet the prohibited categories. It is the construction of offences, not simply a count of supporters, that matters.","limit":"A senatorial interpretation of what violates the law is not itself the same instrument as the lex. The earlier conviction of P. Sulla for ambitus is distinct from the conspiracy charge defended in Pro Sulla.","evidence":["L-phi014-46-28","L-phi014-67-29"],"greenidge":"pp. 424–425","status":"Explicit text; conventional identification","chronology":{"event":"Enacted","date":"67 BCE","display":"Enacted: 67 BCE","status":"Conventional enactment year","originalDate":"67 BCE","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.","datedContexts":[{"work":"murena","date":"63 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Governing charge"},{"work":"sulla","date":"62 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Earlier proceeding"}],"basis":"Chronology retained from the existing sourced dossier and instrument register. Source loci and reconstruction limits are attached to the instrument.","researchDating":"67 BCE is the consular date of C. Calpurnius Piso and M’. Acilius Glabrio. The alternative expanded title Acilia Calpurnia reflects that setting, not a second independently established statute."},"research":{"existence":"Murena 46 names the Calpurnian law; §67 reports a senatorial interpretation of conduct contrary to it. Asconius’ discussion of Cornelius and Dio 36.38 set it in the legislative competition of 67.","dating":"67 BCE is the consular date of C. Calpurnius Piso and M’. Acilius Glabrio. The alternative expanded title Acilia Calpurnia reflects that setting, not a second independently established statute.","operation":"The law strengthened electoral-corruption sanctions. Murena’s defence distinguishes ordinary personal support from paid attendance, organized distribution of seats and indiscriminate feasting. The Senate’s interpretation in 63 must be treated as a later measure.","transmission":"The original law does not survive complete. Penalties and legislative circumstances must be assembled from separate witnesses; Cicero’s §67 preserves the interpretive resolution more directly than the whole statute.","debate":"Sulla’s earlier electoral conviction and later conspiracy prosecution are separate cases. The Calpurnian law should not be made the governing law of every later charge against a convicted candidate.","summaryZh":"《卡尔普尔尼亚选举贿赂法》与63年的解释性元老院决议应分层；对行为的法律定性不能代替其实际发生的证明。","citations":[{"id":"R-374","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 374","locator":"Printed pp. 374","pdfPages":[389],"url":null},{"id":"G-424-425","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 424-425","locator":"Printed pp. 424-425","pdfPages":[444,445],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"witnessIds":["RW-mur67"],"ancientEvidenceIds":["L-phi014-46-28","L-phi014-67-29"],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-calpurnia-ambitu-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Murena 46 names the Calpurnian law; §67 reports a senatorial interpretation of conduct contrary to it. Asconius’ discussion of Cornelius and Dio 36.38 set it in the legislative competition of 67."},{"id":"LR-calpurnia-ambitu-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"67 BCE is the consular date of C. Calpurnius Piso and M’. Acilius Glabrio. The alternative expanded title Acilia Calpurnia reflects that setting, not a second independently established statute."},{"id":"LR-calpurnia-ambitu-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"The law strengthened electoral-corruption sanctions. Murena’s defence distinguishes ordinary personal support from paid attendance, organized distribution of seats and indiscriminate feasting. The Senate’s interpretation in 63 must be treated as a later measure."},{"id":"LR-calpurnia-ambitu-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"The original law does not survive complete. Penalties and legislative circumstances must be assembled from separate witnesses; Cicero’s §67 preserves the interpretive resolution more directly than the whole statute."},{"id":"LR-calpurnia-ambitu-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"Sulla’s earlier electoral conviction and later conspiracy prosecution are separate cases. The Calpurnian law should not be made the governing law of every later charge against a convicted candidate."}]}},{"id":"tullia-ambitu","label":"Lex Tullia de ambitu","zh":"图利乌斯选举舞弊法","kind":"lex","date":"63 BCE; Cicero’s consular legislation","concepts":["elections","scope","calendar"],"rule":"Cicero’s new anti-ambitus law increased penalties and tightened provisions affecting the prosecution of electoral corruption. Defending Murena therefore exposes Cicero to a charge of inconsistency as the law’s author.","procedure":"Murena §§46–47 describes the legislative response to demands for severity, including exile and a penalty relating to illness as an excuse. The defence distinguishes enforcing the law from assuming the defendant guilty.","limit":"Do not attach every rule quoted in Murena to the Tullian enactment: §67 explicitly concerns the Calpurnian law and a senatorial resolution. Greenidge treats the familiar ten-year exile figure with a source qualification.","evidence":["L-phi014-47-30"],"greenidge":"p. 425 and notes","status":"Explicit text; conventional identification","chronology":{"event":"Enacted","date":"63 BCE","display":"Enacted: 63 BCE","status":"Cicero’s consular legislation","originalDate":"63 BCE; Cicero’s consular legislation","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.","datedContexts":[{"work":"murena","date":"63 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Governing charge"}],"basis":"Chronology retained from the existing sourced dossier and instrument register. Source loci and reconstruction limits are attached to the instrument.","researchDating":"63 BCE is the enactment setting in Cicero’s consulship, preceding Murena’s trial. The ten-year exile provision is supported through later historical testimony, not a complete law quoted in Murena."},"research":{"existence":"Murena 3 and 47 make Cicero’s own consular legislation central to the defence; Vatinium 37 expressly states the restriction on gladiatorial shows within two years before candidature, with a testamentary exception.","dating":"63 BCE is the enactment setting in Cicero’s consulship, preceding Murena’s trial. The ten-year exile provision is supported through later historical testimony, not a complete law quoted in Murena.","operation":"The defence faces the tension between Cicero’s authorship of a stricter law and his representation of a successful candidate. Restrictions on spectacles and penalties are distinct provisions. The reference to illness excuses has been interpreted as concerning defendants or jurors; LEPOR notice 717 favours defendants and does not treat the allocation as self-evident.","transmission":"Ciceronian speeches preserve clauses or argumentative references; Dio supplies a later narrative of penalties. Their evidential proximity is different.","debate":"A testamentary exception is not a general permission to buy popularity through shows. Nor does Cicero’s claim to defend within his own law establish acquittal as a general interpretation of every clause.","summaryZh":"图利乌斯法是西塞罗任执政官时的立法；两年内举办角斗表演的禁令及遗嘱例外可由《诘问瓦提尼乌斯》直接核查。","citations":[{"id":"R-379","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 379","locator":"Printed pp. 379","pdfPages":[394],"url":null},{"id":"G-425","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 425","locator":"Printed pp. 425","pdfPages":[445],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"LP717","source":"LP717","label":"LEPOR, notice 717: Loi Tullia Antonia de ambitu","locator":"Sources and Commentaire","url":"https://telma.irht.cnrs.fr/outils/lepor/notice717/"}],"witnessIds":["RW-vat37"],"ancientEvidenceIds":["L-phi014-47-30"],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-tullia-ambitu-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Murena 3 and 47 make Cicero’s own consular legislation central to the defence; Vatinium 37 expressly states the restriction on gladiatorial shows within two years before candidature, with a testamentary exception."},{"id":"LR-tullia-ambitu-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"63 BCE is the enactment setting in Cicero’s consulship, preceding Murena’s trial. The ten-year exile provision is supported through later historical testimony, not a complete law quoted in Murena."},{"id":"LR-tullia-ambitu-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"The defence faces the tension between Cicero’s authorship of a stricter law and his representation of a successful candidate. Restrictions on spectacles and penalties are distinct provisions. The reference to illness excuses has been interpreted as concerning defendants or jurors; LEPOR notice 717 favours defendants and does not treat the allocation as self-evident."},{"id":"LR-tullia-ambitu-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"Ciceronian speeches preserve clauses or argumentative references; Dio supplies a later narrative of penalties. Their evidential proximity is different."},{"id":"LR-tullia-ambitu-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"A testamentary exception is not a general permission to buy popularity through shows. Nor does Cicero’s claim to defend within his own law establish acquittal as a general interpretation of every clause."}]}},{"id":"licinia-sodaliciis","label":"Lex Licinia de sodaliciis","zh":"李锡尼乌斯选举结社法","kind":"lex","date":"55 BCE; Crassus’ consular legislation","concepts":["elections","juryselection","scope","competition"],"rule":"The law targets electoral organization through corrupt sodalicia. Plancio explicitly challenges the attempt to sweep all ambitus allegations into its special framework.","procedure":"Its distinctive jury selection by tribes matters: the prosecution designates tribes on the premise that those communities know the alleged distribution of bribes. Cicero attacks the fit between the chosen procedure and the alleged acts.","limit":"This is not the lex Licinia Iunia on legislative procedure. Shared family names must never be treated as identity of enactment.","evidence":["L-phi028-36-31"],"greenidge":"pp. 425, 433–456","status":"Explicit text; conventional identification","chronology":{"event":"Enacted","date":"55 BCE","display":"Enacted: 55 BCE","status":"Crassus’ consular legislation","originalDate":"55 BCE; Crassus’ consular legislation","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.","datedContexts":[{"work":"plancio","date":"54 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Governing charge"}],"basis":"Chronology retained from the existing sourced dossier and instrument register. Source loci and reconstruction limits are attached to the instrument.","researchDating":"55 BCE places the measure in Crassus’ second consulship. Plancius’ trial in 54 is a later application. Neither date supplies an exact promulgation day."},"research":{"existence":"Plancio 36–39 expressly discusses the Licinian law, its proposer Crassus and the special selection of judges from tribes. This is direct evidence for procedure as well as statutory identification.","dating":"55 BCE places the measure in Crassus’ second consulship. Plancius’ trial in 54 is a later application. Neither date supplies an exact promulgation day.","operation":"The charge concerns organized electoral corruption through associations. The prosecutor nominates four tribes and the defendant rejects one, producing a distinctive disadvantage compared with ordinary jury challenge. Cicero asks whether the selected tribes correspond to the alleged electoral organization.","transmission":"The surviving speech explains the mechanism in advocacy, rather than transmitting the whole law. The label sodalicia should not be made equivalent to every voluntary association.","debate":"Keep this law distinct from the Licinia Iunia on legislative procedure. Shared nomenclature and electoral background do not make their legal functions interchangeable.","summaryZh":"此法针对有组织的选举腐败，其部落选取审判员程序是辩护重点；它不是《利基尼亚—尤尼亚法》。","citations":[{"id":"R-407","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 407","locator":"Printed pp. 407","pdfPages":[422],"url":null},{"id":"G-425","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 425","locator":"Printed pp. 425","pdfPages":[445],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-433-456","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 433-456","locator":"Printed pp. 433-456","pdfPages":[453,476],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"witnessIds":[],"ancientEvidenceIds":["L-phi028-36-31"],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-licinia-sodaliciis-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Plancio 36–39 expressly discusses the Licinian law, its proposer Crassus and the special selection of judges from tribes. This is direct evidence for procedure as well as statutory identification."},{"id":"LR-licinia-sodaliciis-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"55 BCE places the measure in Crassus’ second consulship. Plancius’ trial in 54 is a later application. Neither date supplies an exact promulgation day."},{"id":"LR-licinia-sodaliciis-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"The charge concerns organized electoral corruption through associations. The prosecutor nominates four tribes and the defendant rejects one, producing a distinctive disadvantage compared with ordinary jury challenge. Cicero asks whether the selected tribes correspond to the alleged electoral organization."},{"id":"LR-licinia-sodaliciis-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"The surviving speech explains the mechanism in advocacy, rather than transmitting the whole law. The label sodalicia should not be made equivalent to every voluntary association."},{"id":"LR-licinia-sodaliciis-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"Keep this law distinct from the Licinia Iunia on legislative procedure. Shared nomenclature and electoral background do not make their legal functions interchangeable."}]}},{"id":"papia","label":"Lex Papia","zh":"帕皮乌斯公民身份审查法","kind":"plebiscitum","date":"65 BCE","concepts":["citizenship","scope","jury"],"rule":"The Papian enactment is associated with proceedings challenging claims to Roman citizenship. Archia mentions it when rejecting the idea that his local enrollment was opportunistically fabricated.","procedure":"The inquiry into citizenship must be separated from the law by which citizenship was acquired. In Balbo §52, Cicero explicitly cites a Papian proceeding involving M. Cassius as precedent.","limit":"The attribution of the Archias/Balbus proceedings to the Papian framework is a reconstruction supported by this context, not an extant complete indictment. In particular, Balbo §52 names another man’s case.","evidence":["L-phi016-10-32","L-phi026-52-33"],"greenidge":"p. 425","status":"Named in speeches; current court attribution reconstructed","chronology":{"event":"Enacted","date":"65 BCE","display":"Enacted: 65 BCE","status":"Conventional enactment year","originalDate":"65 BCE","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.","datedContexts":[{"work":"archia","date":"62 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Reconstructed framework"},{"work":"balbo","date":"56 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Precedent / framework"}],"basis":"Chronology retained from the existing sourced dossier and instrument register. Source loci and reconstruction limits are attached to the instrument.","researchDating":"65 BCE is the conventional enactment year. The later Archias and Balbus speeches show use and comparison, not the grant of citizenship in that year."},"research":{"existence":"Archia 10 names the Papian law in discussing people who claimed civic privileges; Balbo 52 gives a specifically Papian prosecution involving Cassius. Dio 37.9.5 places expulsion of outsiders in Papius’ tribunate.","dating":"65 BCE is the conventional enactment year. The later Archias and Balbus speeches show use and comparison, not the grant of citizenship in that year.","operation":"The instrument belongs to exclusion of non-citizens and scrutiny of asserted status. In Archias’ defence the positive entitlement rests on the Plautia Papiria, while the Papian framework concerns contesting that status.","transmission":"Ancient references survive through speeches, commentary and historical narrative. They do not supply a complete procedural code or all exceptions to expulsion.","debate":"The register distinguishes an explicit law named in a precedent from a reconstructed governing framework for a present case. Do not confuse this Republican law with the Augustan Papia Poppaea.","summaryZh":"帕皮乌斯法涉及外来者与身份审查，不是阿尔基阿斯取得公民权的依据；同名线索不能与奥古斯都时代法律混淆。","citations":[{"id":"R-376","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 376","locator":"Printed pp. 376","pdfPages":[391],"url":null},{"id":"G-425","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 425","locator":"Printed pp. 425","pdfPages":[445],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"witnessIds":[],"ancientEvidenceIds":["L-phi016-10-32","L-phi026-52-33"],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-papia-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Archia 10 names the Papian law in discussing people who claimed civic privileges; Balbo 52 gives a specifically Papian prosecution involving Cassius. Dio 37.9.5 places expulsion of outsiders in Papius’ tribunate."},{"id":"LR-papia-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"65 BCE is the conventional enactment year. The later Archias and Balbus speeches show use and comparison, not the grant of citizenship in that year."},{"id":"LR-papia-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"The instrument belongs to exclusion of non-citizens and scrutiny of asserted status. In Archias’ defence the positive entitlement rests on the Plautia Papiria, while the Papian framework concerns contesting that status."},{"id":"LR-papia-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"Ancient references survive through speeches, commentary and historical narrative. They do not supply a complete procedural code or all exceptions to expulsion."},{"id":"LR-papia-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"The register distinguishes an explicit law named in a precedent from a reconstructed governing framework for a present case. Do not confuse this Republican law with the Augustan Papia Poppaea."}]}},{"id":"plautia-papiria","label":"Lex Plautia Papiria","zh":"普劳提乌斯—帕皮里乌斯公民权法","kind":"plebiscitum","date":"89 BCE; tribunes Silvanus and Carbo","concepts":["citizenship","scope","documents","community"],"rule":"Archia §7 states three cumulative conditions: enrollment in an allied community, domicile in Italy when the law was passed, and a declaration before a praetor within sixty days.","procedure":"The defence must establish qualification and the declaration. Local enrollment, Roman residence, and the praetor’s register answer different parts of the statutory test.","limit":"This is the source of Archias’ claimed Roman citizenship, not the lex Papia of 65. The sentence at the end of numbered §7 continues in §8. This section boundary is not a lacuna or evidence that statutory text is missing.","evidence":["L-phi016-7-34"],"greenidge":"pp. 99–109, 425","status":"Explicit text; conventional identification","chronology":{"event":"Enacted","date":"89 BCE","display":"Enacted: 89 BCE","status":"Tribunician enactment","originalDate":"89 BCE; tribunes Silvanus and Carbo","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.","datedContexts":[{"work":"archia","date":"62 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Source of entitlement"}],"basis":"Chronology retained from the existing sourced dossier and instrument register. Source loci and reconstruction limits are attached to the instrument.","researchDating":"89 BCE is the conventional Social War date. The declaration window is measured from enactment; it is not sixty days after Archias’ later trial. The speech’s account of compliance is evidence offered by the defence."},"research":{"existence":"Archia 7 quotes the eligibility conditions associated with Silvanus and Carbo: enrolment in an allied community, domicile in Italy when the law was passed and declaration before a praetor within sixty days.","dating":"89 BCE is the conventional Social War date. The declaration window is measured from enactment; it is not sixty days after Archias’ later trial. The speech’s account of compliance is evidence offered by the defence.","operation":"The legal case requires linking the person to each condition through community testimony, residence and the praetor’s records. Destruction of municipal records does not itself extinguish citizenship, but changes the evidential problem.","transmission":"The quoted conditional wording continues into the following section’s narrative. Preserve paragraph boundaries without representing them as a missing part of the law. The official original is not extant here.","debate":"The statute should not be paraphrased as automatically enfranchising every resident of Italy without conditions. Rotondi’s old discussion contains proposer and procedural details that must be checked against Cicero’s actual wording.","summaryZh":"公民权取得取决于盟邦登记、意大利住所及六十日内向裁判官申报等条件；证据证明这些条件，而非文学声望本身。","citations":[{"id":"R-340-341","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 340-341","locator":"Printed pp. 340-341","pdfPages":[355,356],"url":null},{"id":"G-99-109","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 99-109","locator":"Printed pp. 99-109","pdfPages":[119,129],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"witnessIds":[],"ancientEvidenceIds":["L-phi016-7-34"],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-plautia-papiria-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Archia 7 quotes the eligibility conditions associated with Silvanus and Carbo: enrolment in an allied community, domicile in Italy when the law was passed and declaration before a praetor within sixty days."},{"id":"LR-plautia-papiria-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"89 BCE is the conventional Social War date. The declaration window is measured from enactment; it is not sixty days after Archias’ later trial. The speech’s account of compliance is evidence offered by the defence."},{"id":"LR-plautia-papiria-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"The legal case requires linking the person to each condition through community testimony, residence and the praetor’s records. Destruction of municipal records does not itself extinguish citizenship, but changes the evidential problem."},{"id":"LR-plautia-papiria-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"The quoted conditional wording continues into the following section’s narrative. Preserve paragraph boundaries without representing them as a missing part of the law. The official original is not extant here."},{"id":"LR-plautia-papiria-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"The statute should not be paraphrased as automatically enfranchising every resident of Italy without conditions. Rotondi’s old discussion contains proposer and procedural details that must be checked against Cicero’s actual wording."}]}},{"id":"gellia-cornelia","label":"Lex Gellia Cornelia","zh":"盖利乌斯—科尔内利乌斯公民权授权法","kind":"lex","date":"72 BCE; consuls L. Gellius and Cn. Cornelius","concepts":["citizenship","treaty","authorization","scope"],"rule":"The statute recognizes individual citizenship grants made by Pompey with his council’s advice. Balbo §19 explicitly says the case arises from this law.","procedure":"Pompey’s grant and documentary record are admitted; the dispute concerns whether an allied treaty community’s status limits the grant and whether local adoption is required.","limit":"It authorizes the individual grant at issue. Do not substitute the lex Iulia of 90 or the lex Plautia Papiria simply because all three concern citizenship.","evidence":["L-phi026-19-35"],"greenidge":"pp. 99–109, 425","status":"Explicit text; conventional identification","chronology":{"event":"Enacted","date":"72 BCE","display":"Enacted: 72 BCE","status":"Consular enactment","originalDate":"72 BCE; consuls L. Gellius and Cn. Cornelius","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.","datedContexts":[{"work":"balbo","date":"56 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Source of entitlement"}],"basis":"Chronology retained from the existing sourced dossier and instrument register. Source loci and reconstruction limits are attached to the instrument.","researchDating":"72 BCE is the conventional consular date of L. Gellius Publicola and Cn. Cornelius Lentulus. Pompey’s grant and the trial of 56 are distinct events in the legal history."},"research":{"existence":"Balbo 19 expressly names the law and gives the grant made with the advice of Pompey’s council; §32 tests statutory power against treaty restrictions. Cicero uses the statute as the positive authorization of Balbus’ citizenship.","dating":"72 BCE is the conventional consular date of L. Gellius Publicola and Cn. Cornelius Lentulus. Pompey’s grant and the trial of 56 are distinct events in the legal history.","operation":"The question is whether a commander’s authorized individual grant could benefit a citizen of treaty-bound Gades. Cicero separates the statute’s enabling power, the council’s participation and the effect of treaty provisions.","transmission":"The evidence is a named statute and reported grant inside forensic argument. Neither a complete original statute nor Balbus’ original grant document is reproduced.","debate":"The community’s becoming fundus for collective legislation is not automatically a requirement for an individual military grant. That distinction is argued in Balbo, not to be flattened into a universal rule without examining the treaty.","summaryZh":"格利乌斯—科尔内利乌斯法授权的个人授籍，与城邦整体接受某项罗马法律是不同机制；加的斯条约问题须另行审查。","citations":[{"id":"R-367","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 367","locator":"Printed pp. 367","pdfPages":[382],"url":null},{"id":"G-99-109","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 99-109","locator":"Printed pp. 99-109","pdfPages":[119,129],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"witnessIds":["RW-balbo19"],"ancientEvidenceIds":["L-phi026-19-35"],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-gellia-cornelia-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Balbo 19 expressly names the law and gives the grant made with the advice of Pompey’s council; §32 tests statutory power against treaty restrictions. Cicero uses the statute as the positive authorization of Balbus’ citizenship."},{"id":"LR-gellia-cornelia-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"72 BCE is the conventional consular date of L. Gellius Publicola and Cn. Cornelius Lentulus. Pompey’s grant and the trial of 56 are distinct events in the legal history."},{"id":"LR-gellia-cornelia-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"The question is whether a commander’s authorized individual grant could benefit a citizen of treaty-bound Gades. Cicero separates the statute’s enabling power, the council’s participation and the effect of treaty provisions."},{"id":"LR-gellia-cornelia-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"The evidence is a named statute and reported grant inside forensic argument. Neither a complete original statute nor Balbus’ original grant document is reproduced."},{"id":"LR-gellia-cornelia-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"The community’s becoming fundus for collective legislation is not automatically a requirement for an individual military grant. That distinction is argued in Balbo, not to be flattened into a universal rule without examining the treaty."}]}},{"id":"iulia-civitate","label":"Lex Iulia de civitate","zh":"尤利乌斯公民权法","kind":"lex","date":"90 BCE; L. Julius Caesar, not Caesar’s law of 59","concepts":["citizenship","treaty","community"],"rule":"In Balbo, the Julian citizenship law supplies a comparison involving grants to allies and Latins and a community’s acceptance of the legislation.","procedure":"Cicero distinguishes a collective settlement requiring a people to adopt a law from Pompey’s individually authorized grant. The concept fundus fieri is therefore central.","limit":"An analogy about collective adoption must not be turned into the statute under which Balbus personally acquired citizenship. The name Iulia alone cannot identify a law.","evidence":["L-phi026-21-36"],"greenidge":"pp. 99–109","status":"Explicit text; conventional identification","chronology":{"event":"Enacted","date":"90 BCE","display":"Enacted: 90 BCE","status":"Citizenship law of L. Julius Caesar","originalDate":"90 BCE; L. Julius Caesar, not Caesar’s law of 59","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.","datedContexts":[{"work":"balbo","date":"56 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Explicit comparison"}],"basis":"Chronology retained from the existing sourced dossier and instrument register. Source loci and reconstruction limits are attached to the instrument.","researchDating":"90 BCE dates the citizenship law associated with L. Julius Caesar’s consulship during the Social War. It is not Caesar the dictator’s repetundae law of 59."},"research":{"existence":"Balbo 21 names the Julian law and discusses peoples becoming fundi. Cicero introduces it as a comparison for collective adoption, not as the immediate instrument granting Balbus citizenship.","dating":"90 BCE dates the citizenship law associated with L. Julius Caesar’s consulship during the Social War. It is not Caesar the dictator’s repetundae law of 59.","operation":"The speech uses collective civic arrangements to explain why one must distinguish community-wide acceptance of a Roman law from an authorized benefit to an individual. Citizenship acquisition and the community’s internal legal order are related but separate.","transmission":"The statute is reconstructed from literary testimony. The particular fundus argument in Balbo cannot supply every territorial or political condition of the original enfranchisement.","debate":"Do not cite the Julian law as Balbus’ operative grant, or infer that all allied communities accepted it at the same moment. The relationship in the graph remains comparative.","summaryZh":"90年的朱利亚公民权法是集体授籍比较材料，并非巴尔布斯个人授籍的直接法源。","citations":[{"id":"R-338-339","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 338-339","locator":"Printed pp. 338-339","pdfPages":[353,354],"url":null},{"id":"G-99-109","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 99-109","locator":"Printed pp. 99-109","pdfPages":[119,129],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"witnessIds":[],"ancientEvidenceIds":["L-phi026-21-36"],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-iulia-civitate-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Balbo 21 names the Julian law and discusses peoples becoming fundi. Cicero introduces it as a comparison for collective adoption, not as the immediate instrument granting Balbus citizenship."},{"id":"LR-iulia-civitate-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"90 BCE dates the citizenship law associated with L. Julius Caesar’s consulship during the Social War. It is not Caesar the dictator’s repetundae law of 59."},{"id":"LR-iulia-civitate-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"The speech uses collective civic arrangements to explain why one must distinguish community-wide acceptance of a Roman law from an authorized benefit to an individual. Citizenship acquisition and the community’s internal legal order are related but separate."},{"id":"LR-iulia-civitate-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"The statute is reconstructed from literary testimony. The particular fundus argument in Balbo cannot supply every territorial or political condition of the original enfranchisement."},{"id":"LR-iulia-civitate-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"Do not cite the Julian law as Balbus’ operative grant, or infer that all allied communities accepted it at the same moment. The relationship in the graph remains comparative."}]}},{"id":"licinia-mucia","label":"Lex Licinia Mucia","zh":"李锡尼乌斯—穆基乌斯公民身份法","kind":"lex","date":"95 BCE","concepts":["citizenship","scope","proof"],"rule":"Balbo recalls an earlier severe inquiry into claims to Roman citizenship under this consular law.","procedure":"The precedent supports Cicero’s claim that certain treaty-based objections had not invalidated grants in previous investigations.","limit":"This is an earlier inquiry, not the statute granting Balbus citizenship or the later Papian framework. Absence of a past prosecution is an argument from practice, not a complete proof of every treaty’s meaning.","evidence":["L-phi026-48-37"],"greenidge":"p. 425","status":"Explicit text; conventional identification","chronology":{"event":"Enacted","date":"95 BCE","display":"Enacted: 95 BCE","status":"Consular enactment","originalDate":"95 BCE","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.","datedContexts":[{"work":"balbo","date":"56 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Earlier proceeding"}],"basis":"Chronology retained from the existing sourced dossier and instrument register. Source loci and reconstruction limits are attached to the instrument.","researchDating":"95 BCE is the joint consular year of L. Licinius Crassus and Q. Mucius Scaevola. The later Social War is historical consequence and context, not the law’s enactment event."},"research":{"existence":"Balbo 48 recalls the restrictive law and its severe application. Asconius 67–68 C explains the legislation of Crassus and Scaevola and its connection with resentment among Italian allies.","dating":"95 BCE is the joint consular year of L. Licinius Crassus and Q. Mucius Scaevola. The later Social War is historical consequence and context, not the law’s enactment event.","operation":"The law addressed people asserting Roman citizenship without entitlement. Its use in Balbo is a historical comparison about the handling of status, rather than the positive source of Balbus’ enfranchisement.","transmission":"Cicero’s reference and Asconius’ explanation are separate literary witnesses; no original census investigation dossier is available here.","debate":"Asconius’ causal explanation for allied alienation is historical interpretation. It should not be turned into proof that this one statute alone caused the Social War.","summaryZh":"95年的利基尼亚—穆基亚法限制不具资格的公民身份主张；它在巴尔布斯案中提供历史比较，而非授籍依据。","citations":[{"id":"R-335","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 335","locator":"Printed pp. 335","pdfPages":[350],"url":null},{"id":"G-425","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 425","locator":"Printed pp. 425","pdfPages":[445],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"witnessIds":[],"ancientEvidenceIds":["L-phi026-48-37"],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-licinia-mucia-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Balbo 48 recalls the restrictive law and its severe application. Asconius 67–68 C explains the legislation of Crassus and Scaevola and its connection with resentment among Italian allies."},{"id":"LR-licinia-mucia-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"95 BCE is the joint consular year of L. Licinius Crassus and Q. Mucius Scaevola. The later Social War is historical consequence and context, not the law’s enactment event."},{"id":"LR-licinia-mucia-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"The law addressed people asserting Roman citizenship without entitlement. Its use in Balbo is a historical comparison about the handling of status, rather than the positive source of Balbus’ enfranchisement."},{"id":"LR-licinia-mucia-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"Cicero’s reference and Asconius’ explanation are separate literary witnesses; no original census investigation dossier is available here."},{"id":"LR-licinia-mucia-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"Asconius’ causal explanation for allied alienation is historical interpretation. It should not be turned into proof that this one statute alone caused the Social War."}]}},{"id":"porciae","label":"Leges Porciae / lex Porcia","zh":"波尔基乌斯诸法：公民人身保护","kind":"lex","date":"Early second century BCE; several Porcian enactments","concepts":["citizenship","violence","popular","governor"],"rule":"Cicero invokes Porcian protection against scourging Roman citizens. In Rabirio the protection is contrasted with the archaic punitive machinery invoked by Labienus; in Verres it exposes abuse of a claimed citizen.","procedure":"Citizenship, the place and mode of coercion, and the availability of an appeal or protection are separate questions. The speech turns a citizen’s bodily punishment into an issue of public liberty.","limit":"There were several Porcian laws. A singular or plural rhetorical reference does not securely identify the particular act, date or complete original wording.","evidence":["L-phi012-12-38"],"greenidge":"pp. 307–326, 349–366","status":"Explicit text; conventional identification","chronology":{"event":"Enactments","date":"early 2nd century BCE","display":"Enactments: early 2nd century BCE","status":"Several laws; individual dates not secured here","originalDate":"Early second century BCE; several Porcian enactments","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.","datedContexts":[{"work":"rabirio-perduellio","date":"63 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Protective norm invoked"},{"work":"verres-2-5","date":"70 BCE","event":"Published text","role":"Protective norm invoked"}],"basis":"Chronology retained from the existing sourced dossier and instrument register. Source loci and reconstruction limits are attached to the instrument.","researchDating":"Early second-century BCE is a cautious conventional placement. Rotondi’s discussion shows that the attribution and date of each of the three measures remain insecure; the plural should not be compressed into one precisely dated statute."},"research":{"existence":"Rabirio perduellionis 12 contrasts Porcian protection against rods with the Sempronian protection of citizens’ lives. Republic 2.54 explicitly speaks of three Porcian laws by three Porcii.","dating":"Early second-century BCE is a cautious conventional placement. Rotondi’s discussion shows that the attribution and date of each of the three measures remain insecure; the plural should not be compressed into one precisely dated statute.","operation":"The evidence concerns bodily coercion and the safeguards of citizenship. In Rabirius, Cicero mobilizes those protections against an archaizing capital procedure; in the Verrines the issue is a governor’s treatment of citizens.","transmission":"The laws are known through retrospective literary testimony and allusions, with no complete original text. Family coinage may commemorate civic protection but does not automatically identify all three measures.","debate":"The reach of provocatio outside Rome and under military command is a separate historical question. The dossier does not derive a universal appeal procedure from the short forensic slogan.","summaryZh":"波尔基乌斯诸法必须保留复数；各法作者、日期和境外适用范围不能由一句反杖刑的辩词全部推出。","citations":[{"id":"R-268-269","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 268-269","locator":"Printed pp. 268-269","pdfPages":[283,284],"url":null},{"id":"G-307-326","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 307-326","locator":"Printed pp. 307-326","pdfPages":[327,346],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"witnessIds":[],"ancientEvidenceIds":["L-phi012-12-38"],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-porciae-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Rabirio perduellionis 12 contrasts Porcian protection against rods with the Sempronian protection of citizens’ lives. Republic 2.54 explicitly speaks of three Porcian laws by three Porcii."},{"id":"LR-porciae-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"Early second-century BCE is a cautious conventional placement. Rotondi’s discussion shows that the attribution and date of each of the three measures remain insecure; the plural should not be compressed into one precisely dated statute."},{"id":"LR-porciae-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"The evidence concerns bodily coercion and the safeguards of citizenship. In Rabirius, Cicero mobilizes those protections against an archaizing capital procedure; in the Verrines the issue is a governor’s treatment of citizens."},{"id":"LR-porciae-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"The laws are known through retrospective literary testimony and allusions, with no complete original text. Family coinage may commemorate civic protection but does not automatically identify all three measures."},{"id":"LR-porciae-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"The reach of provocatio outside Rome and under military command is a separate historical question. The dossier does not derive a universal appeal procedure from the short forensic slogan."}]}},{"id":"sempronia-capite","label":"Lex Sempronia de capite civium","zh":"森普罗尼乌斯公民生命案件法","kind":"plebiscitum","date":"123 BCE; C. Gracchus","concepts":["citizenship","popular","authorization"],"rule":"Rabirio §12 attributes to Gaius Gracchus a rule against judging the caput of a Roman citizen without the people’s authorization.","procedure":"Cicero uses it to attack the duumviral condemnation before the popular stage. This is a constitutional protection and jurisdictional argument, not the definition of perduellio itself.","limit":"Caput includes a citizen’s civic and personal standing; the clause should not be flattened into a modern appellate rule. The plural Sempronian laws in Verres does not prove that every detail belongs to one enactment.","evidence":["L-phi012-12-40"],"greenidge":"pp. 307–326, 344–359","status":"Explicit text; conventional identification","chronology":{"event":"Enacted","date":"123 BCE","display":"Enacted: 123 BCE","status":"Gracchan enactment","originalDate":"123 BCE; C. Gracchus","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.","datedContexts":[{"work":"rabirio-perduellio","date":"63 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Protective norm invoked"},{"work":"verres-2-5","date":"70 BCE","event":"Published text","role":"Protective norm invoked"}],"basis":"Chronology retained from the existing sourced dossier and instrument register. Source loci and reconstruction limits are attached to the instrument.","researchDating":"123 BCE is the conventional Gracchan enactment year. The prosecution of Popillius and later invocations in 70 and 63 are distinct episodes, not fresh enactments of the same measure."},"research":{"existence":"Rabirio perduellionis 12 explicitly attributes to a Sempronian law protection against deciding a citizen’s caput without the people’s authorization. Plutarch, Gaius Gracchus 4, supplies historical context for the measure against unauthorized capital action.","dating":"123 BCE is the conventional Gracchan enactment year. The prosecution of Popillius and later invocations in 70 and 63 are distinct episodes, not fresh enactments of the same measure.","operation":"The rule concerns competent authorization for a capital proceeding or deprivation of civic life. Its relationship to standing courts, emergency action and the people’s powers is argued, not resolved merely by quoting a prohibition.","transmission":"The dossier uses literary witnesses to the law and its interpretation, not an original tablet. The plural Sempronian laws elsewhere in Cicero may refer to a broader legislative tradition.","debate":"Do not treat the later Clodian general measure of 58 as the same enactment. Nor should Cicero’s defence of his own actions in 63 automatically settle the law’s proper interpretation.","summaryZh":"塞姆普罗尼乌斯法的重点是公民生命案件的合法授权；紧急状态、常设法庭及58年克洛狄乌斯立法须另作区分。","citations":[{"id":"R-309-310","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 309-310","locator":"Printed pp. 309-310","pdfPages":[324,325],"url":null},{"id":"G-344-359","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 344-359","locator":"Printed pp. 344-359","pdfPages":[364,379],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"witnessIds":[],"ancientEvidenceIds":["L-phi012-12-40"],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-sempronia-capite-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Rabirio perduellionis 12 explicitly attributes to a Sempronian law protection against deciding a citizen’s caput without the people’s authorization. Plutarch, Gaius Gracchus 4, supplies historical context for the measure against unauthorized capital action."},{"id":"LR-sempronia-capite-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"123 BCE is the conventional Gracchan enactment year. The prosecution of Popillius and later invocations in 70 and 63 are distinct episodes, not fresh enactments of the same measure."},{"id":"LR-sempronia-capite-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"The rule concerns competent authorization for a capital proceeding or deprivation of civic life. Its relationship to standing courts, emergency action and the people’s powers is argued, not resolved merely by quoting a prohibition."},{"id":"LR-sempronia-capite-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"The dossier uses literary witnesses to the law and its interpretation, not an original tablet. The plural Sempronian laws elsewhere in Cicero may refer to a broader legislative tradition."},{"id":"LR-sempronia-capite-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"Do not treat the later Clodian general measure of 58 as the same enactment. Nor should Cicero’s defence of his own actions in 63 automatically settle the law’s proper interpretation."}]}},{"id":"papiria-dedication","label":"Lex Papiria de dedicationibus","zh":"帕皮里乌斯奉献法","kind":"plebiscitum","date":"Earlier than 57 BCE; precise date not secured here","concepts":["sacred","authorization","property","pontiffs"],"rule":"Cicero identifies an old tribunician law forbidding consecration of a building, land or altar without authorization of the plebs.","procedure":"He demands the legal authorization for consecrating his house. Pontifical questions are joined to a public-law test of who was empowered to dedicate and what an enactment actually authorized.","limit":"This Papirian law is wholly distinct from the Plautia Papiria on citizenship. Cicero’s transfer of a rule concerning public sacred dedications to his private house is part of the interpretive argument.","evidence":["L-phi020-128-41"],"greenidge":"pp. 373–380","status":"Explicit text; conventional identification","chronology":{"event":"Pre-existing by","date":"57 BCE; origin undated","display":"Pre-existing by: 57 BCE; origin undated","status":"A pre-existing law invoked in 57, not enacted in 57","originalDate":"Earlier than 57 BCE; precise date not secured here","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"Invoked as a pre-existing restriction on dedication in De domo, 57 BCE. “Before 57” is a latest bound, not the creation date.","datedContexts":[{"work":"domo","date":"57 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Contested legality"}],"basis":"Chronology retained from the existing sourced dossier and instrument register. Source loci and reconstruction limits are attached to the instrument.","researchDating":"The law was already old when invoked in 57 BCE. The Licinia precedent is dated by its consuls to 123 BCE, but §136 does not name the Papirian statute: making that precedent a firm terminus for this specific law would be an inference. Its identification with Livy’s measure of 304 remains disputed."},"research":{"existence":"Domo 127–128 names an old tribunician Papirian law forbidding consecration of a building, land or altar without the plebs’ authorization; §§136–137 report the pontiffs’ answer concerning Licinia’s dedication.","dating":"The law was already old when invoked in 57 BCE. The Licinia precedent is dated by its consuls to 123 BCE, but §136 does not name the Papirian statute: making that precedent a firm terminus for this specific law would be an inference. Its identification with Livy’s measure of 304 remains disputed.","operation":"The issue is competence to make a dedication binding on public and sacred law. The prior Licinia case provides a model for asking whether Clodius had adequate authority to consecrate Cicero’s site.","transmission":"Cicero transmits both a legal restriction and a report of pontifical decision-making. These are different documentary layers; neither is an independently surviving original enactment.","debate":"Livy 9.46.7 describes approval by Senate or a majority of tribunes, whereas Cicero stresses authorization of the plebs. Rotondi therefore doubts simple identity and allows a later supplementary measure.","summaryZh":"123年的既往案例证明人民授权原则的历史背景，却没有点名帕皮里乌斯法，故不能直接确定该法的创设上限；它与304年措施的同一性也有疑问。","citations":[{"id":"R-234-235","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 234-235","locator":"Printed pp. 234-235","pdfPages":[249,250],"url":null},{"id":"G-373-380","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 373-380","locator":"Printed pp. 373-380","pdfPages":[393,400],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"witnessIds":["RW-domo136"],"ancientEvidenceIds":["L-phi020-128-41"],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-papiria-dedication-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Domo 127–128 names an old tribunician Papirian law forbidding consecration of a building, land or altar without the plebs’ authorization; §§136–137 report the pontiffs’ answer concerning Licinia’s dedication."},{"id":"LR-papiria-dedication-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"The law was already old when invoked in 57 BCE. The Licinia precedent is dated by its consuls to 123 BCE, but §136 does not name the Papirian statute: making that precedent a firm terminus for this specific law would be an inference. Its identification with Livy’s measure of 304 remains disputed."},{"id":"LR-papiria-dedication-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"The issue is competence to make a dedication binding on public and sacred law. The prior Licinia case provides a model for asking whether Clodius had adequate authority to consecrate Cicero’s site."},{"id":"LR-papiria-dedication-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"Cicero transmits both a legal restriction and a report of pontifical decision-making. These are different documentary layers; neither is an independently surviving original enactment."},{"id":"LR-papiria-dedication-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"Livy 9.46.7 describes approval by Senate or a majority of tribunes, whereas Cicero stresses authorization of the plebs. Rotondi therefore doubts simple identity and allows a later supplementary measure."}]}},{"id":"clodia-exile","label":"Clodius’ enactment naming Cicero’s interdiction","zh":"克洛狄乌斯针对西塞罗的禁绝水火决议","kind":"plebiscitum","date":"58 BCE","concepts":["property","scope","authorization","conflict"],"rule":"The named measure treats Cicero as interdicted from fire and water and underlies the dispossession against which he argues after returning.","procedure":"Domo §47 attacks the retrospective formula ut interdictum sit: Cicero says that declaring an interdiction to have occurred cannot supply a lawful prior judgment.","limit":"Separate the particular measure naming Cicero from the general Clodian measure concerning execution of citizens without trial. The precise legality is contested in the speech, not settled by calling the act a lex.","evidence":["L-phi020-47-42"],"greenidge":"pp. 359–366, 516–525","status":"Explicit text; conventional identification","chronology":{"event":"Enacted","date":"58 BCE","display":"Enacted: 58 BCE","status":"Named Clodian measure","originalDate":"58 BCE","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.","datedContexts":[{"work":"domo","date":"57 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Contested legality"},{"work":"sestio","date":"56 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Historical legal setting"}],"basis":"Chronology retained from the existing sourced dossier and instrument register. Source loci and reconstruction limits are attached to the instrument.","researchDating":"58 BCE is secure. Proposed exact March/April dates depend on reconstructing publication, voting and Cicero’s movements; Rotondi records internal scholarly disagreement. The atlas does not claim a verified exact day."},"research":{"existence":"Domo 47 criticizes the tense of the named measure against Cicero; §50 reports its charge concerning a false senatorial resolution. His letters and later historians show the practical effects of exile and confiscation.","dating":"58 BCE is secure. Proposed exact March/April dates depend on reconstructing publication, voting and Cicero’s movements; Rotondi records internal scholarly disagreement. The atlas does not claim a verified exact day.","operation":"The measure singles out Cicero and supports interdiction, confiscation and restrictions on assistance or restoration. Cicero challenges it as an unlawful privilegium and denies that a properly authorized judgment preceded it.","transmission":"The text is preserved in hostile quotation and historical reports, not a complete plebiscite. The general measure concerning untried citizens is registered separately.","debate":"Greenidge’s reconstruction of a time limit for appearance is criticized by Rotondi. This illustrates why the dossier records arguments rather than harmonizing all accounts into one invented procedure.","summaryZh":"针对西塞罗个人的放逐措施与一般性公民生命法不同；公布、表决、离城与执行的时间顺序仍须谨慎重建。","citations":[{"id":"R-395-396","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 395-396","locator":"Printed pp. 395-396","pdfPages":[410,411],"url":null},{"id":"G-359-366","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 359-366","locator":"Printed pp. 359-366","pdfPages":[379,386],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-516-525","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 516-525","locator":"Printed pp. 516-525","pdfPages":[536,545],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"witnessIds":[],"ancientEvidenceIds":["L-phi020-47-42"],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-clodia-exile-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Domo 47 criticizes the tense of the named measure against Cicero; §50 reports its charge concerning a false senatorial resolution. His letters and later historians show the practical effects of exile and confiscation."},{"id":"LR-clodia-exile-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"58 BCE is secure. Proposed exact March/April dates depend on reconstructing publication, voting and Cicero’s movements; Rotondi records internal scholarly disagreement. The atlas does not claim a verified exact day."},{"id":"LR-clodia-exile-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"The measure singles out Cicero and supports interdiction, confiscation and restrictions on assistance or restoration. Cicero challenges it as an unlawful privilegium and denies that a properly authorized judgment preceded it."},{"id":"LR-clodia-exile-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"The text is preserved in hostile quotation and historical reports, not a complete plebiscite. The general measure concerning untried citizens is registered separately."},{"id":"LR-clodia-exile-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"Greenidge’s reconstruction of a time limit for appearance is criticized by Rotondi. This illustrates why the dossier records arguments rather than harmonizing all accounts into one invented procedure."}]}},{"id":"clodia-auspices","label":"Clodian enactment restricting auspicial obstruction","zh":"克洛狄乌斯限制以占兆阻止议事的决议","kind":"plebiscitum","date":"58 BCE","concepts":["calendar","authorization","people","conflict"],"rule":"Sestio §33 reports restrictions affecting auspices, announcement of adverse signs, intercession and the days on which legislation could be passed, naming the Aelian and Fufian laws.","procedure":"Vatinium §18 contrasts conduct during his tribunate in 59 with the following year’s change. The sequence prevents applying the 58 measure to justify acts in 59.","limit":"Cicero presents the change as destruction of public law. That rhetorical description does not establish total abolition of every auspicial or tribunician power.","evidence":["L-phi022-33-43"],"greenidge":"pp. 344–349","status":"Explicit text; conventional identification","chronology":{"event":"Enacted","date":"58 BCE","display":"Enacted: 58 BCE","status":"Clodian measure","originalDate":"58 BCE","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.","datedContexts":[{"work":"sestio","date":"56 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Historical legal setting"},{"work":"vatinium","date":"56 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Chronological contrast"}],"basis":"Chronology retained from the existing sourced dossier and instrument register. Source loci and reconstruction limits are attached to the instrument.","researchDating":"58 BCE belongs to Clodius’ tribunate under Piso and Gabinius. Vatinium’s conduct in 59 precedes that change; his later examination is not evidence that the Clodian measure already operated in his tribunate."},"research":{"existence":"Sestio 33 attacks the legislative changes of 58. Asconius 8 C explains a prohibition on observing the sky on days when business could be transacted with the people and relates it to the Aelian law.","dating":"58 BCE belongs to Clodius’ tribunate under Piso and Gabinius. Vatinium’s conduct in 59 precedes that change; his later examination is not evidence that the Clodian measure already operated in his tribunate.","operation":"The practical issue is obstruction or validity of assemblies through announced celestial observation and adverse religious reports. Cicero portrays the change as demolition of constitutional safeguards.","transmission":"The record combines polemical Ciceronian characterization with Asconius’ later explanation. It does not preserve the complete statute or every exception.","debate":"“Abolition of auspices” is too broad. Rotondi’s expansive formulation about intercession should not displace the narrower practice described by Asconius; auspices, obnuntiatio and tribunician veto are distinguishable.","summaryZh":"克洛狄乌斯措施涉及以观天等手段阻滞大会，不能概括为废除所有占兆或一切保民官否决权。","citations":[{"id":"R-397","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 397","locator":"Printed pp. 397","pdfPages":[412],"url":null},{"id":"G-344-349","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 344-349","locator":"Printed pp. 344-349","pdfPages":[364,369],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"witnessIds":[],"ancientEvidenceIds":["L-phi022-33-43"],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-clodia-auspices-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Sestio 33 attacks the legislative changes of 58. Asconius 8 C explains a prohibition on observing the sky on days when business could be transacted with the people and relates it to the Aelian law."},{"id":"LR-clodia-auspices-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"58 BCE belongs to Clodius’ tribunate under Piso and Gabinius. Vatinium’s conduct in 59 precedes that change; his later examination is not evidence that the Clodian measure already operated in his tribunate."},{"id":"LR-clodia-auspices-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"The practical issue is obstruction or validity of assemblies through announced celestial observation and adverse religious reports. Cicero portrays the change as demolition of constitutional safeguards."},{"id":"LR-clodia-auspices-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"The record combines polemical Ciceronian characterization with Asconius’ later explanation. It does not preserve the complete statute or every exception."},{"id":"LR-clodia-auspices-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"“Abolition of auspices” is too broad. Rotondi’s expansive formulation about intercession should not displace the narrower practice described by Asconius; auspices, obnuntiatio and tribunician veto are distinguishable."}]}},{"id":"aelia","label":"Lex Aelia","zh":"埃利乌斯议事占兆法","kind":"lex","date":"Second century BCE; exact date and division of provisions uncertain","concepts":["authorization","calendar","people"],"rule":"Cicero treats the Aelian and Fufian laws together as restraints on legislative assemblies through religious/procedural objections.","procedure":"Vatinium is asked whether he convened the plebs contrary to them during his tribunate. Sestio contrasts those restraints with Clodius’ subsequent enactment.","limit":"The texts frequently name the two laws together. Their exact individual provisions cannot be distributed confidently from these passages alone; the two records acknowledge that shared evidence.","evidence":["L-phi023-18-44"],"greenidge":"pp. 344–349","status":"Both laws named; individual provisions uncertain","chronology":{"event":"Enactment","date":"2nd century BCE; uncertain","display":"Enactment: 2nd century BCE; uncertain","status":"Exact date unknown","originalDate":"Second century BCE; exact date and division of provisions uncertain","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"Described in In Vatinium §18 (56 BCE) as operative during Vatinius’ tribunate in 59 BCE, before the Clodian change of 58. The extent of that change remains qualified.","datedContexts":[{"work":"vatinium","date":"56 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Contested legality"},{"work":"sestio","date":"56 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Historical legal setting"}],"basis":"Chronology retained from the existing sourced dossier and instrument register. Source loci and reconstruction limits are attached to the instrument.","researchDating":"The original date and proposer are uncertain. Rotondi’s approximate 158 BCE comes from interpreting Cicero’s rounded century before the Clodian change, not an independently dated enactment record."},"research":{"existence":"Vatinium 18 and 23 names the Aelian and Fufian laws; Asconius 8 C specifically associates the Aelian law with confirmation of obnuntiatio.","dating":"The original date and proposer are uncertain. Rotondi’s approximate 158 BCE comes from interpreting Cicero’s rounded century before the Clodian change, not an independently dated enactment record.","operation":"The law formed part of the procedural and religious constraints invoked against legislation. In Vatinium the question is his handling of constitutional obstacles in 59, before Clodius’ measure.","transmission":"Separate naming and occasional individual allusion support distinct laws, but do not supply a complete division of their clauses. The surviving evidence is literary.","debate":"Do not assign every rule about elections, auspices and legislative timing to this law merely because Cicero often pairs its name with Fufia. The particular allocation remains partly reconstructed.","summaryZh":"埃利乌斯法常与富菲乌斯法并称，但各条款归属和确切年代并不明；“约一百年前”不是精确纪年。","citations":[{"id":"R-288-289","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 288-289","locator":"Printed pp. 288-289","pdfPages":[303,304],"url":null},{"id":"G-344-349","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 344-349","locator":"Printed pp. 344-349","pdfPages":[364,369],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"witnessIds":["RW-vat37"],"ancientEvidenceIds":["L-phi023-18-44"],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-aelia-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Vatinium 18 and 23 names the Aelian and Fufian laws; Asconius 8 C specifically associates the Aelian law with confirmation of obnuntiatio."},{"id":"LR-aelia-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"The original date and proposer are uncertain. Rotondi’s approximate 158 BCE comes from interpreting Cicero’s rounded century before the Clodian change, not an independently dated enactment record."},{"id":"LR-aelia-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"The law formed part of the procedural and religious constraints invoked against legislation. In Vatinium the question is his handling of constitutional obstacles in 59, before Clodius’ measure."},{"id":"LR-aelia-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"Separate naming and occasional individual allusion support distinct laws, but do not supply a complete division of their clauses. The surviving evidence is literary."},{"id":"LR-aelia-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"Do not assign every rule about elections, auspices and legislative timing to this law merely because Cicero often pairs its name with Fufia. The particular allocation remains partly reconstructed."}]}},{"id":"fufia","label":"Lex Fufia","zh":"富菲乌斯议事占兆法","kind":"lex","date":"Second century BCE; exact date and division of provisions uncertain","concepts":["authorization","calendar","people"],"rule":"Cicero treats the Aelian and Fufian laws together as restraints on legislative assemblies through religious/procedural objections.","procedure":"Vatinium is asked whether he convened the plebs contrary to them during his tribunate. Sestio contrasts those restraints with Clodius’ subsequent enactment.","limit":"The texts frequently name the two laws together. Their exact individual provisions cannot be distributed confidently from these passages alone; the two records acknowledge that shared evidence.","evidence":["L-phi023-18-45"],"greenidge":"pp. 344–349","status":"Both laws named; individual provisions uncertain","chronology":{"event":"Enactment","date":"2nd century BCE; uncertain","display":"Enactment: 2nd century BCE; uncertain","status":"Exact date unknown","originalDate":"Second century BCE; exact date and division of provisions uncertain","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"Described together with the Aelian law as operative in 59 BCE before the Clodian change of 58; separate individual provisions and exact dates are not established.","datedContexts":[{"work":"vatinium","date":"56 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Contested legality"},{"work":"sestio","date":"56 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Historical legal setting"}],"basis":"Chronology retained from the existing sourced dossier and instrument register. Source loci and reconstruction limits are attached to the instrument.","researchDating":"A second-century BCE date is approximate. The proposer and exact year are not secured by the passages in this dossier; the law cannot simply inherit every inferred detail of the Aelian measure."},"research":{"existence":"Vatinium 18 attests the paired Aelian and Fufian framework; other Ciceronian references collected by Rotondi distinguish the Fufian name in legislative disputes.","dating":"A second-century BCE date is approximate. The proposer and exact year are not secured by the passages in this dossier; the law cannot simply inherit every inferred detail of the Aelian measure.","operation":"The relevant role is procedural control of legislation and the possible consequences of violating such controls. Cicero invokes these safeguards rhetorically against Vatinius’ use of tribunician power.","transmission":"No complete statute survives here. Reconstructions allocating an action or penalty specifically to Fufia depend on scattered literary references rather than a quoted complete chapter.","debate":"Do not confuse this older Fufian law with Fufius Calenus’ later jury-voting law or the Fufia Caninia on manumission. These are different instruments.","summaryZh":"这里的富菲乌斯法属于较早的立法程序规范，不是后来审判投票或解放奴隶方面的同名法律。","citations":[{"id":"R-288-289","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 288-289","locator":"Printed pp. 288-289","pdfPages":[303,304],"url":null},{"id":"G-344-349","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 344-349","locator":"Printed pp. 344-349","pdfPages":[364,369],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"witnessIds":["RW-vat37"],"ancientEvidenceIds":["L-phi023-18-45"],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-fufia-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Vatinium 18 attests the paired Aelian and Fufian framework; other Ciceronian references collected by Rotondi distinguish the Fufian name in legislative disputes."},{"id":"LR-fufia-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"A second-century BCE date is approximate. The proposer and exact year are not secured by the passages in this dossier; the law cannot simply inherit every inferred detail of the Aelian measure."},{"id":"LR-fufia-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"The relevant role is procedural control of legislation and the possible consequences of violating such controls. Cicero invokes these safeguards rhetorically against Vatinius’ use of tribunician power."},{"id":"LR-fufia-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"No complete statute survives here. Reconstructions allocating an action or penalty specifically to Fufia depend on scattered literary references rather than a quoted complete chapter."},{"id":"LR-fufia-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"Do not confuse this older Fufian law with Fufius Calenus’ later jury-voting law or the Fufia Caninia on manumission. These are different instruments."}]}},{"id":"caecilia-didia","label":"Lex Caecilia Didia","zh":"凯基利乌斯—狄狄乌斯立法程序法","kind":"lex","date":"98 BCE; consular legislation","concepts":["authorization","calendar","scope","people"],"rule":"Cicero invokes requirements of prior promulgation and the prohibition on joining unrelated subjects in one legislative vote.","procedure":"Domo §41 uses the promulgation interval against Clodius’ rapid adoption; §53 explains why a voter should not be forced to accept an unwanted measure to obtain a wanted one.","limit":"The application of ordinary legislative notice to an adoption is Cicero’s contested analogy. A criticism under this law is not automatically a completed judicial annulment of every Clodian act.","evidence":["L-phi020-53-46"],"greenidge":"pp. 79–82","status":"Explicit text; conventional identification","chronology":{"event":"Enacted","date":"98 BCE","display":"Enacted: 98 BCE","status":"Consular enactment","originalDate":"98 BCE; consular legislation","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.","datedContexts":[{"work":"domo","date":"57 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Contested legality"},{"work":"sestio","date":"56 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Conduct alleged against another"}],"basis":"Chronology retained from the existing sourced dossier and instrument register. Source loci and reconstruction limits are attached to the instrument.","researchDating":"98 BCE is the consular enactment year of Q. Caecilius Metellus Nepos and T. Didius. The later cases are evidence of continuing invocation, not proof of an unchanged effective term."},"research":{"existence":"Domo 41 invokes the law in an argument about publication before a vote; §53 explains the objection to bundling unlike proposals. Philippic 5.8 couples its name with the trinundinum requirement.","dating":"98 BCE is the consular enactment year of Q. Caecilius Metellus Nepos and T. Didius. The later cases are evidence of continuing invocation, not proof of an unchanged effective term.","operation":"The two principal questions are sufficient public notice and freedom to accept or reject distinct proposals separately. Cicero applies those principles to Clodius’ adoption and legislation, but that application itself requires legal argument.","transmission":"The statute is known through citations and explanations. The exact conversion of trinum nundinum into modern elapsed days is not supplied as an uncontroversial number here.","debate":"The rule against a rogatio per saturam is not a general modern single-subject doctrine with identical exceptions. The ancient political and voting mechanisms need to remain visible.","summaryZh":"凯基利乌斯—狄狄乌斯法涉及预先公布和禁止混合表决；三次集市间隔的历法换算不应伪装成无争议的固定天数。","citations":[{"id":"R-335","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 335","locator":"Printed pp. 335","pdfPages":[350],"url":null},{"id":"G-79-82","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 79-82","locator":"Printed pp. 79-82","pdfPages":[99,102],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"witnessIds":[],"ancientEvidenceIds":["L-phi020-53-46"],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-caecilia-didia-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Domo 41 invokes the law in an argument about publication before a vote; §53 explains the objection to bundling unlike proposals. Philippic 5.8 couples its name with the trinundinum requirement."},{"id":"LR-caecilia-didia-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"98 BCE is the consular enactment year of Q. Caecilius Metellus Nepos and T. Didius. The later cases are evidence of continuing invocation, not proof of an unchanged effective term."},{"id":"LR-caecilia-didia-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"The two principal questions are sufficient public notice and freedom to accept or reject distinct proposals separately. Cicero applies those principles to Clodius’ adoption and legislation, but that application itself requires legal argument."},{"id":"LR-caecilia-didia-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"The statute is known through citations and explanations. The exact conversion of trinum nundinum into modern elapsed days is not supplied as an uncontroversial number here."},{"id":"LR-caecilia-didia-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"The rule against a rogatio per saturam is not a general modern single-subject doctrine with identical exceptions. The ancient political and voting mechanisms need to remain visible."}]}},{"id":"licinia-iunia","label":"Lex Licinia Iunia","zh":"李锡尼乌斯—尤尼乌斯立法程序法","kind":"lex","date":"62 BCE; consular legislation","concepts":["authorization","calendar","popular"],"rule":"A consular law concerning safeguards around legislation is explicitly invoked in Vatinium’s prior summons before the praetor C. Memmius.","procedure":"Vatinium §33 asks about an accusation under that law, the instruction to appear on the thirtieth day, and the resort to tribunician interference and force.","limit":"The quoted speech directly establishes the named accusation and summons, not the complete content of the law’s publication/deposit provisions. It is unrelated to the Licinian sodalicia law of 55.","evidence":["L-phi023-33-47"],"greenidge":"pp. 456–504","status":"Explicit text; conventional identification","chronology":{"event":"Enacted","date":"62 BCE","display":"Enacted: 62 BCE","status":"Consular enactment","originalDate":"62 BCE; consular legislation","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.","datedContexts":[{"work":"vatinium","date":"56 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Earlier proceeding"},{"work":"sestio","date":"56 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Conduct alleged against another"}],"basis":"Chronology retained from the existing sourced dossier and instrument register. Source loci and reconstruction limits are attached to the instrument.","researchDating":"62 BCE is the consular date of D. Junius Silanus and L. Licinius Murena. The interrogation of Vatinius in 56 concerns a prior accusation, not the law’s enactment."},"research":{"existence":"Vatinium 33 expressly refers to proceedings under the Licinia Iunia; Philippic 5.8 mentions the more recent Junia Licinia alongside Caecilia Didia. The reversed order of names does not create another law.","dating":"62 BCE is the consular date of D. Junius Silanus and L. Licinius Murena. The interrogation of Vatinius in 56 concerns a prior accusation, not the law’s enactment.","operation":"The law belongs to authentication and publication of legislation. The familiar requirement to deposit a copy at the treasury, with witnesses, rests on wider testimony and scholarly reconstruction; the Vatinium passage alone proves neither its entire wording nor all procedural penalties.","transmission":"Scattered literary testimony supports a legislative safeguard and enforcement. Rotondi records disagreement over whether the deposit concerned the proposed text or the enacted law.","debate":"Do not present the deposit-before-vote interpretation as undisputed. Separate the charge under the law from proof that the charge was sustained.","summaryZh":"利基尼亚—尤尼亚法关系立法文书的保全与公开；国库保存的是法案还是已通过法律，研究史上仍有解释差别。","citations":[{"id":"R-383-384","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 383-384","locator":"Printed pp. 383-384","pdfPages":[398,399],"url":null}],"witnessIds":[],"ancientEvidenceIds":["L-phi023-33-47"],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-licinia-iunia-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Vatinium 33 expressly refers to proceedings under the Licinia Iunia; Philippic 5.8 mentions the more recent Junia Licinia alongside Caecilia Didia. The reversed order of names does not create another law."},{"id":"LR-licinia-iunia-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"62 BCE is the consular date of D. Junius Silanus and L. Licinius Murena. The interrogation of Vatinius in 56 concerns a prior accusation, not the law’s enactment."},{"id":"LR-licinia-iunia-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"The law belongs to authentication and publication of legislation. The familiar requirement to deposit a copy at the treasury, with witnesses, rests on wider testimony and scholarly reconstruction; the Vatinium passage alone proves neither its entire wording nor all procedural penalties."},{"id":"LR-licinia-iunia-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"Scattered literary testimony supports a legislative safeguard and enforcement. Rotondi records disagreement over whether the deposit concerned the proposed text or the enacted law."},{"id":"LR-licinia-iunia-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"Do not present the deposit-before-vote interpretation as undisputed. Separate the charge under the law from proof that the charge was sustained."}]}},{"id":"cornelia-edictis","label":"Lex Cornelia de edictis (C. Cornelius)","zh":"科尔内利乌斯裁判官告示法","kind":"plebiscitum","date":"67 BCE; tribune C. Cornelius","concepts":["edict","authorization","praetor","interpretation"],"rule":"Asconius reports that Cornelius required praetors to administer justice according to their standing edicts, reducing opportunities for inconsistent decisions prompted by influence.","procedure":"It concerns stability of announced jurisdictional rules. In the Cornelius dossier it helps explain the political hostility surrounding his tribunate.","limit":"This is not Sulla’s lex Cornelia de maiestate, under which Cornelius was accused. Perpetuum here means a standing edict, not the later imperial redaction called the Edictum perpetuum. The enactment postdates Verres’ prosecution.","evidence":["L-ASC-48"],"greenidge":"pp. 82–99","status":"Explicit text; conventional identification","chronology":{"event":"Enacted","date":"67 BCE","display":"Enacted: 67 BCE","status":"Tribunician reform, later than Verres’ conduct","originalDate":"67 BCE; tribune C. Cornelius","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.","datedContexts":[{"work":"cornelio-i","date":"65 BCE","event":"Speeches","role":"Historical legal setting"},{"work":"cornelio-ii","date":"65 BCE","event":"Speeches","role":"Historical legal setting"}],"basis":"Chronology retained from the existing sourced dossier and instrument register. Source loci and reconstruction limits are attached to the instrument.","researchDating":"67 BCE is the tribunate of C. Cornelius, distinct from Sulla’s legislation of 81. Verres’ earlier praetorships cannot be judged as violations of a statute that had not yet been enacted."},"research":{"existence":"Asconius 59 C expressly reports that Cornelius carried a law requiring praetors to administer justice according to their standing edicts. Dio 36.40 supplies a parallel historical account.","dating":"67 BCE is the tribunate of C. Cornelius, distinct from Sulla’s legislation of 81. Verres’ earlier praetorships cannot be judged as violations of a statute that had not yet been enacted.","operation":"The law constrains variation in the magistrate’s announced administration of justice and aims at favouritism. It does not abolish praetorian interpretation or transform every edict into a popular statute.","transmission":"Asconius provides an ancient paraphrase incorporating a compact statement of the rule. The complete enactment is lost; the expression edicta perpetua here refers to standing edicts.","debate":"Do not identify this with the imperial codification conventionally associated with Hadrian and Julian. Rotondi already notes that the constraint should not be construed absolutely.","summaryZh":"67年的科尔内利乌斯告示法约束裁判官依其常设告示司法；这里的perpetuum并非哈德良时代的《永久告示》定本。","citations":[{"id":"R-371","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 371","locator":"Printed pp. 371","pdfPages":[386],"url":null},{"id":"G-82-99","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 82-99","locator":"Printed pp. 82-99","pdfPages":[102,119],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"witnessIds":[],"ancientEvidenceIds":["L-ASC-48"],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-cornelia-edictis-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Asconius 59 C expressly reports that Cornelius carried a law requiring praetors to administer justice according to their standing edicts. Dio 36.40 supplies a parallel historical account."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-edictis-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"67 BCE is the tribunate of C. Cornelius, distinct from Sulla’s legislation of 81. Verres’ earlier praetorships cannot be judged as violations of a statute that had not yet been enacted."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-edictis-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"The law constrains variation in the magistrate’s announced administration of justice and aims at favouritism. It does not abolish praetorian interpretation or transform every edict into a popular statute."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-edictis-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"Asconius provides an ancient paraphrase incorporating a compact statement of the rule. The complete enactment is lost; the expression edicta perpetua here refers to standing edicts."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-edictis-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"Do not identify this with the imperial codification conventionally associated with Hadrian and Julian. Rotondi already notes that the constraint should not be construed absolutely."}]}},{"id":"cornelia-maiestate","label":"Lex Cornelia de maiestate (Sulla)","zh":"苏拉的科尔内利乌斯损害国家尊严法","kind":"lex","date":"81 BCE; Sullan legislation","concepts":["state","scope","intent","people"],"rule":"Asconius expressly identifies the Cornelian maiestas statute as the basis of the prosecution of the tribune Cornelius. His reading of a proposal despite intercession is alleged to diminish tribunician authority.","procedure":"The defence distinguishes the admitted conduct from whether it constitutes the statutory wrong. The commentary records an initial proceeding in 66 and a renewed prosecution in 65.","limit":"The continuous speeches are lost; the case is reconstructed through commentary and quotations. Do not transform Asconius’ explanatory narrative into verbatim Cicero, or confuse defendant Cornelius with legislator Sulla.","evidence":["L-ASC-49"],"greenidge":"pp. 423–424","status":"Explicit text; conventional identification","chronology":{"event":"Enacted","date":"81 BCE","display":"Enacted: 81 BCE","status":"Sullan enactment, distinct from Cornelius’ reform of 67","originalDate":"81 BCE; Sullan legislation","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.","datedContexts":[{"work":"cornelio-i","date":"65 BCE","event":"Speeches","role":"Governing charge"},{"work":"cornelio-ii","date":"65 BCE","event":"Speeches","role":"Governing charge"}],"basis":"Chronology retained from the existing sourced dossier and instrument register. Source loci and reconstruction limits are attached to the instrument.","researchDating":"81 BCE is the conventional Sullan enactment date. The accusation in 66 and renewed trial in 65 are later applications; they must not be confused with the defendant’s own legislation in 67."},"research":{"existence":"Asconius 59–61 C expressly identifies the Cornelian maiestas prosecution of Cornelius, including the Cominii accusers and the interruption of the first proceeding.","dating":"81 BCE is the conventional Sullan enactment date. The accusation in 66 and renewed trial in 65 are later applications; they must not be confused with the defendant’s own legislation in 67.","operation":"The accusation turns on Cornelius reading his proposal despite intercession. The defence contests whether the act violated tribunician power and public authority. Legislative reading, a colleague’s veto and completion of a vote are separate stages.","transmission":"The complete statute is not extant here. Asconius’ account and surviving quotations of the defence provide evidence for application, not every act originally covered by maiestas.","debate":"The imperial law of treason and offences against an emperor cannot be retrojected into this Republican dispute. A surviving account of an accusation does not itself prove the charged constitutional violation.","summaryZh":"须区分苏拉的叛国规范、科尔内利乌斯自己的立法，以及66和65年的控诉；宣读法案、否决与通过表决不是同一程序阶段。","citations":[{"id":"R-360","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 360","locator":"Printed pp. 360","pdfPages":[375],"url":null},{"id":"G-423-424","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 423-424","locator":"Printed pp. 423-424","pdfPages":[443,444],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"witnessIds":[],"ancientEvidenceIds":["L-ASC-49"],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-cornelia-maiestate-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Asconius 59–61 C expressly identifies the Cornelian maiestas prosecution of Cornelius, including the Cominii accusers and the interruption of the first proceeding."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-maiestate-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"81 BCE is the conventional Sullan enactment date. The accusation in 66 and renewed trial in 65 are later applications; they must not be confused with the defendant’s own legislation in 67."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-maiestate-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"The accusation turns on Cornelius reading his proposal despite intercession. The defence contests whether the act violated tribunician power and public authority. Legislative reading, a colleague’s veto and completion of a vote are separate stages."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-maiestate-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"The complete statute is not extant here. Asconius’ account and surviving quotations of the defence provide evidence for application, not every act originally covered by maiestas."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-maiestate-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"The imperial law of treason and offences against an emperor cannot be retrojected into this Republican dispute. A surviving account of an accusation does not itself prove the charged constitutional violation."}]}},{"id":"cornelia-exemptions","label":"Cornelius’ revised law on exemption from laws","zh":"科尔内利乌斯关于豁免法律的修订法","kind":"plebiscitum","date":"67 BCE","concepts":["authorization","senate","people","scope"],"rule":"Asconius distinguishes an initial contested proposal from a revised measure requiring two hundred senators for an exemption and preventing obstruction when the matter went to the people.","procedure":"The controversial legislative sequence forms the setting for the accusation that Cornelius bypassed a tribunician veto by reading the proposal himself.","limit":"An initial proposal, the conduct during its presentation, and the later enacted revision are separate legal objects. The register records the revised enactment; it does not mark every abandoned proposal as law.","evidence":["L-ASC-50"],"greenidge":"pp. 79–82","status":"Explicit text; conventional identification","chronology":{"event":"Revised law enacted","date":"67 BCE","display":"Revised law enacted: 67 BCE","status":"Revision distinguished from the initial proposal","originalDate":"67 BCE","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.","datedContexts":[{"work":"cornelio-i","date":"65 BCE","event":"Speeches","role":"Historical legal setting"},{"work":"cornelio-ii","date":"65 BCE","event":"Speeches","role":"Historical legal setting"}],"basis":"Chronology retained from the existing sourced dossier and instrument register. Source loci and reconstruction limits are attached to the instrument.","researchDating":"67 BCE is the relevant tribunician year. The initial proposal and the revised enactment are successive versions, not evidence for two identically worded operative laws."},"research":{"existence":"Asconius 58–59 C distinguishes Cornelius’ original proposal from the revised measure adopted: two hundred senators had to be present for a senatorial exemption, followed by reference to the people without obstructive intercession.","dating":"67 BCE is the relevant tribunician year. The initial proposal and the revised enactment are successive versions, not evidence for two identically worded operative laws.","operation":"The measure regulates who can release a person from a law and how Senate and people participate. It concerns legal exemption, rather than general repeal or the cancellation of every law by the Senate.","transmission":"The revised terms survive in Asconius’ historical explanation. His narrative of opposition and compromise is essential to determining which version was actually carried.","debate":"Displaying only the initial demand for exclusive popular authority would misstate the resulting arrangement. Keep the quorum and later popular step attached to the revised version.","summaryZh":"原案与修正后通过的版本必须分开；二百名元老的出席要求和随后人民程序是理解最终措施的关键。","citations":[{"id":"R-370-371","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 370-371","locator":"Printed pp. 370-371","pdfPages":[385,386],"url":null},{"id":"G-79-82","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 79-82","locator":"Printed pp. 79-82","pdfPages":[99,102],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"witnessIds":[],"ancientEvidenceIds":["L-ASC-50"],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-cornelia-exemptions-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Asconius 58–59 C distinguishes Cornelius’ original proposal from the revised measure adopted: two hundred senators had to be present for a senatorial exemption, followed by reference to the people without obstructive intercession."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-exemptions-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"67 BCE is the relevant tribunician year. The initial proposal and the revised enactment are successive versions, not evidence for two identically worded operative laws."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-exemptions-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"The measure regulates who can release a person from a law and how Senate and people participate. It concerns legal exemption, rather than general repeal or the cancellation of every law by the Senate."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-exemptions-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"The revised terms survive in Asconius’ historical explanation. His narrative of opposition and compromise is essential to determining which version was actually carried."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-exemptions-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"Displaying only the initial demand for exclusive popular authority would misstate the resulting arrangement. Keep the quorum and later popular step attached to the revised version."}]}},{"id":"domitia-priesthoods","label":"Lex Domitia de sacerdotiis","zh":"多米提乌斯祭司选任法","kind":"plebiscitum","date":"104 BCE","concepts":["sacred","authorization","people","pontiffs"],"rule":"The reform shifted an important part of selecting priests from cooptation by the colleges to a popular electoral mechanism.","procedure":"In the fragment of the second Cornelian speech, Cicero invokes Catulus’ uncle Domitius to show that respectable precedents exist for a tribune confronting elite religious corporations.","limit":"This is an argumentative precedent, not the charge against Cornelius. The fragment’s broad description should not be mistaken for a full procedural statement about all tribes or all priestly offices.","evidence":[],"greenidge":"pp. 373–380","status":"Cicero fragment through Asconius; conventional identification","passageIds":["FCO3"],"externalSources":[{"label":"Cicero, Pro Cornelio II, quoted in Asconius pp. 79–80 Clark","url":"https://www.attalus.org/latin/asconius3.html"}],"chronology":{"event":"Enacted","date":"104 BCE","display":"Enacted: 104 BCE","status":"Conventional enactment year","originalDate":"104 BCE","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.","datedContexts":[{"work":"cornelio-ii","date":"65 BCE","event":"Speeches","role":"Explicit comparison"}],"basis":"Chronology retained from the existing sourced dossier and instrument register. Source loci and reconstruction limits are attached to the instrument.","researchDating":"The atlas retains the usual 104 BCE date but now records Rotondi’s 103 dating and attempted reconciliation through a tribunician year beginning in December 104. This is a dating disagreement, not a securely documented enactment interval."},"research":{"existence":"Asconius 79–80 C preserves Cicero’s use of Domitius’ priestly legislation as a precedent. Agrarian Law 2.18 explains the smaller part of the people participating in priestly selection.","dating":"The atlas retains the usual 104 BCE date but now records Rotondi’s 103 dating and attempted reconciliation through a tribunician year beginning in December 104. This is a dating disagreement, not a securely documented enactment interval.","operation":"The measure gives a selected minority of tribes a part in choosing priests, alongside the colleges’ remaining role. Cicero invokes the precedent in Cornelius’ constitutional defence, not as the criminal charge.","transmission":"The law is known through literary testimony and its later repeal or restoration history. Neither a complete voting regulation nor all nomination requirements is preserved in the quoted fragment.","debate":"Do not say that the entire people directly replaced every form of priestly co-option. The smaller voting body and continued collegial acts matter to the juridical reconstruction.","summaryZh":"多米提乌斯祭司选任法涉及部分部落与祭司团的不同作用；104与103的纪年差异及其解释应保留。","citations":[{"id":"R-329","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 329","locator":"Printed pp. 329","pdfPages":[344],"url":null},{"id":"R-352","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 352","locator":"Printed pp. 352","pdfPages":[367],"url":null},{"id":"G-373-380","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 373-380","locator":"Printed pp. 373-380","pdfPages":[393,400],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"witnessIds":["RW-agr218"],"ancientEvidenceIds":[],"fragmentPassageIds":["FCO3"],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-domitia-priesthoods-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Asconius 79–80 C preserves Cicero’s use of Domitius’ priestly legislation as a precedent. Agrarian Law 2.18 explains the smaller part of the people participating in priestly selection."},{"id":"LR-domitia-priesthoods-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"The atlas retains the usual 104 BCE date but now records Rotondi’s 103 dating and attempted reconciliation through a tribunician year beginning in December 104. This is a dating disagreement, not a securely documented enactment interval."},{"id":"LR-domitia-priesthoods-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"The measure gives a selected minority of tribes a part in choosing priests, alongside the colleges’ remaining role. Cicero invokes the precedent in Cornelius’ constitutional defence, not as the criminal charge."},{"id":"LR-domitia-priesthoods-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"The law is known through literary testimony and its later repeal or restoration history. Neither a complete voting regulation nor all nomination requirements is preserved in the quoted fragment."},{"id":"LR-domitia-priesthoods-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"Do not say that the entire people directly replaced every form of priestly co-option. The smaller voting body and continued collegial acts matter to the juridical reconstruction."}]}},{"id":"gabinia-pirates","label":"Lex Gabinia on Pompey’s maritime command","zh":"加比尼乌斯授予庞培海上统帅权法","kind":"plebiscitum","date":"67 BCE","concepts":["authorization","people","empire"],"rule":"The Gabinian proposal for Pompey’s command against piracy supplies a precedent involving obstruction and the political management of a fellow tribune’s opposition.","procedure":"The first Cornelian speech compares actions around the earlier tribunician contest to the accusation against Cornelius.","limit":"An analogy concerning intercession is not proof that the two incidents were procedurally identical. This is not the Gabinian ballot law or another unrelated Gabinian enactment.","evidence":[],"greenidge":"pp. 79–82","status":"Cicero fragment through Asconius; historical identification","passageIds":["FCO1"],"externalSources":[{"label":"Cicero, Pro Cornelio I, quoted in Asconius pp. 71–72 Clark","url":"https://www.attalus.org/latin/asconius3.html"}],"chronology":{"event":"Enacted","date":"67 BCE","display":"Enacted: 67 BCE","status":"Command against piracy","originalDate":"67 BCE","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.","datedContexts":[{"work":"cornelio-i","date":"65 BCE","event":"Speeches","role":"Explicit comparison"}],"basis":"Chronology retained from the existing sourced dossier and instrument register. Source loci and reconstruction limits are attached to the instrument.","researchDating":"67 BCE is the tribunate of A. Gabinius and the anti-piracy command. The following year’s Manilian enlargement of Pompey’s responsibilities is a separate enactment."},"research":{"existence":"Asconius 71–72 C preserves the Gabinian proposal and the response to Trebellius’ veto in the Cornelius commentary. Cicero’s Manilian speech and Plutarch, Pompey 25–26, give other accounts of the extraordinary command.","dating":"67 BCE is the tribunate of A. Gabinius and the anti-piracy command. The following year’s Manilian enlargement of Pompey’s responsibilities is a separate enactment.","operation":"In the Cornelius defence, the important relation is procedural precedent: an obstruction was met with a proposal to remove the obstructing tribune. Powers, geographical extent and resources of the command require their own witnesses.","transmission":"The dossier contains literary descriptions and a fragment of Cicero transmitted by Asconius, not the original statute. The threat of removal should not be turned into a completed deposition.","debate":"Different accounts give details of ships, troops and legates. Do not silently harmonize all figures into one verbatim grant, or confuse this law with an earlier Gabinian ballot law.","summaryZh":"在科尔内利乌斯辩护中，加比尼乌斯法首先是处理否决权的先例；反海盗统帅权与次年的曼尼利乌斯授权不同。","citations":[{"id":"R-371-372","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 371-372","locator":"Printed pp. 371-372","pdfPages":[386,387],"url":null},{"id":"G-79-82","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 79-82","locator":"Printed pp. 79-82","pdfPages":[99,102],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"witnessIds":[],"ancientEvidenceIds":[],"fragmentPassageIds":["FCO1"],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-gabinia-pirates-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Asconius 71–72 C preserves the Gabinian proposal and the response to Trebellius’ veto in the Cornelius commentary. Cicero’s Manilian speech and Plutarch, Pompey 25–26, give other accounts of the extraordinary command."},{"id":"LR-gabinia-pirates-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"67 BCE is the tribunate of A. Gabinius and the anti-piracy command. The following year’s Manilian enlargement of Pompey’s responsibilities is a separate enactment."},{"id":"LR-gabinia-pirates-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"In the Cornelius defence, the important relation is procedural precedent: an obstruction was met with a proposal to remove the obstructing tribune. Powers, geographical extent and resources of the command require their own witnesses."},{"id":"LR-gabinia-pirates-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"The dossier contains literary descriptions and a fragment of Cicero transmitted by Asconius, not the original statute. The threat of removal should not be turned into a completed deposition."},{"id":"LR-gabinia-pirates-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"Different accounts give details of ships, troops and legates. Do not silently harmonize all figures into one verbatim grant, or confuse this law with an earlier Gabinian ballot law."}]}},{"id":"twelve-tables","label":"Twelve Tables: killing a thief; prohibition of privilegia","zh":"十二表法：杀死盗贼与禁止针对个人立法","kind":"lex","date":"Traditional dating 451–450 BCE","concepts":["homicide","necessity","authorization","scope"],"rule":"Milone invokes the permitted killing of a night thief, or an armed resisting day thief, to show that an admitted killing need not be unlawful. Domo invokes the prohibition on legislation directed at private individuals.","procedure":"These are distinct rules used for distinct arguments: substantive justification in one speech and a limit on targeted legislation in the other.","limit":"The wording is mediated by Cicero’s much later advocacy. The register does not present these sentences as surviving fifth-century tablets or as the complete text of the Twelve Tables.","evidence":["L-phi031-9-51","L-phi020-43-52"],"greenidge":"pp. 15–78, 359–366","status":"Explicit text; conventional identification","chronology":{"event":"Traditional dating","date":"451–450 BCE","display":"Traditional dating: 451–450 BCE","status":"Traditional date, not dating of Cicero’s transmitted witness","originalDate":"Traditional dating 451–450 BCE","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.","datedContexts":[{"work":"milone","date":"52 BCE","event":"Trial / delivery","role":"Explicit comparison"},{"work":"domo","date":"57 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Protective norm invoked"}],"basis":"Chronology retained from the existing sourced dossier and instrument register. Source loci and reconstruction limits are attached to the instrument.","researchDating":"451–450 BCE is the traditional date of the decemviral legislation. Cicero’s first-century BCE witness and the much later manuscripts transmitting him are distinct dates in the chain of survival."},"research":{"existence":"Milone 9 explicitly invokes the Twelve Tables on killing a nocturnal thief and a daytime thief who defends himself with a weapon. Domo 43 invokes restrictions on privilegia and capital decisions.","dating":"451–450 BCE is the traditional date of the decemviral legislation. Cicero’s first-century BCE witness and the much later manuscripts transmitting him are distinct dates in the chain of survival.","operation":"In Milo’s defence the rule is an analogy for lawful killing; it does not prove the facts of self-defence on the Appian Way. In Domo the Tables authorize a constitutional objection to legislation against an individual.","transmission":"No original Twelve Tables survive. Crawford, law 40, separates sources, reconstruction and commentary; even the ordering and numbering of reconstructed clauses can differ from Bruns and other editions.","debate":"A later witness may paraphrase rather than quote. Compare Gaius in Digest 9.2.4.1 and Gellius 11.18.6 for the theft rule; their additional conditions must not be silently inserted into Cicero’s words.","summaryZh":"十二表法的传统创设年、晚共和引用与后世传抄是不同时间层；重建条次及措辞不能视作原表实物。","citations":[{"id":"C2-609-610","source":"C2","label":"M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. II (1996), pp. 609-610","locator":"Printed pp. 609-610","pdfPages":[62,63],"url":null},{"id":"G-15-78","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 15-78","locator":"Printed pp. 15-78","pdfPages":[35,98],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-359-366","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 359-366","locator":"Printed pp. 359-366","pdfPages":[379,386],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"witnessIds":[],"ancientEvidenceIds":["L-phi031-9-51","L-phi020-43-52"],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-twelve-tables-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Milone 9 explicitly invokes the Twelve Tables on killing a nocturnal thief and a daytime thief who defends himself with a weapon. Domo 43 invokes restrictions on privilegia and capital decisions."},{"id":"LR-twelve-tables-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"451–450 BCE is the traditional date of the decemviral legislation. Cicero’s first-century BCE witness and the much later manuscripts transmitting him are distinct dates in the chain of survival."},{"id":"LR-twelve-tables-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"In Milo’s defence the rule is an analogy for lawful killing; it does not prove the facts of self-defence on the Appian Way. In Domo the Tables authorize a constitutional objection to legislation against an individual."},{"id":"LR-twelve-tables-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"No original Twelve Tables survive. Crawford, law 40, separates sources, reconstruction and commentary; even the ordering and numbering of reconstructed clauses can differ from Bruns and other editions."},{"id":"LR-twelve-tables-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"A later witness may paraphrase rather than quote. Compare Gaius in Digest 9.2.4.1 and Gellius 11.18.6 for the theft rule; their additional conditions must not be silently inserted into Cicero’s words."}]}},{"id":"sullan-citizenship","label":"Sulla’s law affecting civic status","zh":"苏拉剥夺公民身份的法律","kind":"lex","date":"Sullan settlement; exact enactment date/title not secured","concepts":["citizenship","scope","property"],"rule":"Caecina’s adversary invokes a Sullan law against his civic standing. Cicero answers with the law’s saving clause excluding provisions that could not lawfully be proposed.","procedure":"He links the availability of civil rights and remedies to the argument that citizenship, like liberty, cannot simply be removed by an arbitrary popular command.","limit":"The speech names Sulla but does not provide a full formal title. The argument is contested constitutional reasoning, not a neutral rule that all Roman citizenship deprivations were historically impossible.","evidence":["L-phi008-95-53"],"greenidge":"pp. 566–568","status":"Author and saving clause explicit; exact title not secured","chronology":{"event":"Origin","date":"Sullan settlement; undated","display":"Origin: Sullan settlement; undated","status":"Exact title and enactment date not secured","originalDate":"Sullan settlement; exact enactment date/title not secured","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.","datedContexts":[{"work":"caecina","date":"usually 69 BCE?","event":"Speech","role":"Contested legality"}],"basis":"Chronology retained from the existing sourced dossier and instrument register. Source loci and reconstruction limits are attached to the instrument.","researchDating":"The Sullan settlement supplies the historical setting, conventionally around 81 BCE. Rotondi assigns a citizenship-deprivation law concerning Volaterrae to 81; the current evidence does not recover an official title or exact promulgation event."},"research":{"existence":"Caecina 95–100 debates a Sullan measure affecting citizenship and the retention of rights involving property and inheritance. The statutory saving clause and Cicero’s constitutional objection are separate arguments.","dating":"The Sullan settlement supplies the historical setting, conventionally around 81 BCE. Rotondi assigns a citizenship-deprivation law concerning Volaterrae to 81; the current evidence does not recover an official title or exact promulgation event.","operation":"The defence argues both that citizenship cannot simply be taken away and that the relevant private-law capacity remains protected even on the opponent’s premise. These are alternative routes to standing or entitlement, not a single straightforward concession.","transmission":"A forensic report of a law and its interpretation survives; no original municipal status decree is reproduced. The modern descriptive title must remain visibly supplied.","debate":"Do not treat Cicero’s general proposition as an uncontested description of every historical deprivation of citizenship. The Sullan punitive settlement and legal capacity of particular communities need separate proof.","summaryZh":"《为凯基纳辩护》提出替代性论证：既质疑剥夺公民权的效力，又讨论即使承认对方前提仍保留的财产能力。","citations":[{"id":"R-352-353","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 352-353","locator":"Printed pp. 352-353","pdfPages":[367,368],"url":null},{"id":"G-566-568","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 566-568","locator":"Printed pp. 566-568","pdfPages":[586,588],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"witnessIds":[],"ancientEvidenceIds":["L-phi008-95-53"],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-sullan-citizenship-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Caecina 95–100 debates a Sullan measure affecting citizenship and the retention of rights involving property and inheritance. The statutory saving clause and Cicero’s constitutional objection are separate arguments."},{"id":"LR-sullan-citizenship-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"The Sullan settlement supplies the historical setting, conventionally around 81 BCE. Rotondi assigns a citizenship-deprivation law concerning Volaterrae to 81; the current evidence does not recover an official title or exact promulgation event."},{"id":"LR-sullan-citizenship-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"The defence argues both that citizenship cannot simply be taken away and that the relevant private-law capacity remains protected even on the opponent’s premise. These are alternative routes to standing or entitlement, not a single straightforward concession."},{"id":"LR-sullan-citizenship-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"A forensic report of a law and its interpretation survives; no original municipal status decree is reproduced. The modern descriptive title must remain visibly supplied."},{"id":"LR-sullan-citizenship-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"Do not treat Cicero’s general proposition as an uncontested description of every historical deprivation of citizenship. The Sullan punitive settlement and legal capacity of particular communities need separate proof."}]}},{"id":"flaccus-gold","label":"Flaccus’ provincial edict prohibiting gold export","zh":"弗拉库斯禁止从亚细亚输出黄金的告示","kind":"edict","date":"62–61 BCE governorship; edict’s exact date not supplied","concepts":["extortion","sacred","governor","publicprivate"],"rule":"Flacco §67 explicitly reports an edict forbidding gold export from Asia. It is invoked to defend the interception of funds destined for Jerusalem.","procedure":"The legal question separates the alleged public restriction on export, accounting for seized funds, and the accusation of private appropriation. Cicero invokes earlier senatorial policy in support.","limit":"A governor’s edict does not by itself prove lawful handling of every seized sum. Cicero’s anti-Jewish rhetoric is evidence of his strategy and prejudice, not an endorsed description of Jewish communities.","evidence":["L-phi017-67-54"],"greenidge":"pp. 109–132","status":"Explicit text; conventional identification","chronology":{"event":"Edict issued","date":"during 62–61 BCE","display":"Edict issued: during 62–61 BCE","status":"Governorship interval; exact edict date not supplied","originalDate":"62–61 BCE governorship; edict’s exact date not supplied","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.","datedContexts":[{"work":"flacco","date":"59 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Contested legality"}],"basis":"Chronology retained from the existing sourced dossier and instrument register. Source loci and reconstruction limits are attached to the instrument.","researchDating":"The edict belongs to Flaccus’ Asian administration, conventionally 62–61 BCE; the defence of 59 is later testimony. A precise issue day and complete duration are not established."},"research":{"existence":"Flacco 67 expressly reports Flaccus’ edict forbidding export of gold from Asia and appeals to earlier senatorial policy. The surrounding passages concern money collected for Jerusalem and its handling.","dating":"The edict belongs to Flaccus’ Asian administration, conventionally 62–61 BCE; the defence of 59 is later testimony. A precise issue day and complete duration are not established.","operation":"The legal question includes the governor’s competence to prohibit export and whether the seized money was properly accounted for. Justifying an export restriction does not prove that every seizure or subsequent disposition was lawful.","transmission":"The edict and senatorial precedents are reported by the advocate; no independent posted edict or full accounts survive in this dossier.","debate":"Cicero’s hostile characterization of Jewish participants is rhetoric, not evidence that they lacked rights or that their accusations were false. Keep the claimed public policy distinct from alleged private appropriation.","summaryZh":"弗拉库斯禁运黄金的告示、元老院先例与扣押款项的实际去向须分别证明；辩词中的敌意不能当作关于犹太人的事实判断。","citations":[{"id":"G-109-132","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 109-132","locator":"Printed pp. 109-132","pdfPages":[129,152],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"witnessIds":[],"ancientEvidenceIds":["L-phi017-67-54"],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-flaccus-gold-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Flacco 67 expressly reports Flaccus’ edict forbidding export of gold from Asia and appeals to earlier senatorial policy. The surrounding passages concern money collected for Jerusalem and its handling."},{"id":"LR-flaccus-gold-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"The edict belongs to Flaccus’ Asian administration, conventionally 62–61 BCE; the defence of 59 is later testimony. A precise issue day and complete duration are not established."},{"id":"LR-flaccus-gold-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"The legal question includes the governor’s competence to prohibit export and whether the seized money was properly accounted for. Justifying an export restriction does not prove that every seizure or subsequent disposition was lawful."},{"id":"LR-flaccus-gold-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"The edict and senatorial precedents are reported by the advocate; no independent posted edict or full accounts survive in this dossier."},{"id":"LR-flaccus-gold-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"Cicero’s hostile characterization of Jewish participants is rhetoric, not evidence that they lacked rights or that their accusations were false. Keep the claimed public policy distinct from alleged private appropriation."}]}},{"id":"valeria-debt","label":"Lex Valeria on debt adjustment","zh":"瓦莱里乌斯债务调整法","kind":"lex","date":"86 BCE","concepts":["obligation","documents","scope"],"rule":"The opening fragments of Fonteio discuss payments and accounts following the Valerian law. Cicero argues that Fonteius used the same method as other officials, including the prosecutor’s favored comparator Hirtuleius.","procedure":"The issue is accounting for public receipts and disbursements under a changed debt regime; the names of the fractional account books matter to the reconstruction.","limit":"The speech is fragmentary and does not preserve the full statute. This is the debt law, not the Sullan proscription law whose possible Valerian identity Roscius Amerinus leaves uncertain.","evidence":["L-phi007-1-55","L-phi007-2-56"],"greenidge":"pp. 415–428","status":"Law named in fragmentary text; context identifies debt regime","chronology":{"event":"Enacted","date":"86 BCE","display":"Enacted: 86 BCE","status":"Debt adjustment enactment","originalDate":"86 BCE","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.","datedContexts":[{"work":"fonteio","date":"usually 69 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Underlying transaction"}],"basis":"Chronology retained from the existing sourced dossier and instrument register. Source loci and reconstruction limits are attached to the instrument.","researchDating":"86 BCE is the suffect consulship associated with the law. The later Fonteius prosecution discusses earlier public accounting; it does not date the measure to the trial."},"research":{"existence":"Fonteio’s opening fragments refer to the accounting effects of the debt adjustment. Velleius 2.23.2 explicitly says that Valerius Flaccus ordered creditors to receive a quarter.","dating":"86 BCE is the suffect consulship associated with the law. The later Fonteius prosecution discusses earlier public accounting; it does not date the measure to the trial.","operation":"The adjustment remits three quarters of the relevant debt burden in the historical account. The forensic issue is whether Fonteius’ treasury or accounting conduct can be impugned from records produced under this exceptional adjustment.","transmission":"The speech survives imperfectly at its beginning. A later historian supplies an explicit summary of the fraction; do not fill the missing forensic text with an invented statute.","debate":"Rotondi notes that cessation of operation does not itself prove formal repeal by another Cornelian law. This Valerian debt measure is distinct from the Valerian authorization of Sulla.","summaryZh":"86年的瓦莱里亚债务调整与授权苏拉的同姓法律不同；残篇、后世史家概述与推测中的废止必须分开。","citations":[{"id":"R-347-348","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 347-348","locator":"Printed pp. 347-348","pdfPages":[362,363],"url":null},{"id":"G-415-428","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 415-428","locator":"Printed pp. 415-428","pdfPages":[435,448],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"witnessIds":[],"ancientEvidenceIds":["L-phi007-1-55","L-phi007-2-56"],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-valeria-debt-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Fonteio’s opening fragments refer to the accounting effects of the debt adjustment. Velleius 2.23.2 explicitly says that Valerius Flaccus ordered creditors to receive a quarter."},{"id":"LR-valeria-debt-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"86 BCE is the suffect consulship associated with the law. The later Fonteius prosecution discusses earlier public accounting; it does not date the measure to the trial."},{"id":"LR-valeria-debt-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"The adjustment remits three quarters of the relevant debt burden in the historical account. The forensic issue is whether Fonteius’ treasury or accounting conduct can be impugned from records produced under this exceptional adjustment."},{"id":"LR-valeria-debt-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"The speech survives imperfectly at its beginning. A later historian supplies an explicit summary of the fraction; do not fill the missing forensic text with an invented statute."},{"id":"LR-valeria-debt-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"Rotondi notes that cessation of operation does not itself prove formal repeal by another Cornelian law. This Valerian debt measure is distinct from the Valerian authorization of Sulla."}]}},{"id":"cornelia-falsis","label":"Lex Cornelia testamentaria / nummaria (de falsis)","zh":"科尔内利乌斯遗嘱与货币伪造法","kind":"lex","date":"81 BCE; Sullan legislation","concepts":["property","scope","interpretation"],"rule":"Verres’ prosecution cites the Cornelian testamentary and monetary penal law as an example of fixing a starting date for an inquiry even into conduct already intrinsically wrongful.","procedure":"The example supports the argument against retrospective interference with Asellus’ lawful testament. It is an analogy about statutory time, not a falsum charge in this trial.","limit":"Ancient descriptions vary; the register groups the testamentary/monetary reference under the conventional de falsis identification, without implying that a complete text survives.","evidence":["L-phi005-2.1.108-57"],"greenidge":"p. 424","status":"Explicit text; conventional identification","chronology":{"event":"Enacted","date":"81 BCE","display":"Enacted: 81 BCE","status":"Conventional Sullan dating","originalDate":"81 BCE; Sullan legislation","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.","datedContexts":[{"work":"verres-2-1","date":"70 BCE","event":"Published text","role":"Explicit comparison"}],"basis":"Chronology retained from the existing sourced dossier and instrument register. Source loci and reconstruction limits are attached to the instrument.","researchDating":"81 BCE is the conventional Sullan enactment date. Verres’ urban edict in 74 and the published accusation in 70 are later contexts of comparison."},"research":{"existence":"Verrines II.1.108 cites the testamentary and monetary Cornelian law as an example of a statute operating prospectively. Later Digest 48.10 preserves a developed law of falsum.","dating":"81 BCE is the conventional Sullan enactment date. Verres’ urban edict in 74 and the published accusation in 70 are later contexts of comparison.","operation":"Cicero’s immediate point is temporal application, illustrated by forgery-related legislation. The statute is not the charge under which Verres is prosecuted, and the passage does not establish that Asellus forged a will.","transmission":"Later juristic collections assemble many extensions beyond wills and coins. Crawford expressly declined to reconstruct this law as a text in Roman Statutes, contrasting its evidential position with the already conjectural Aquilian reconstruction.","debate":"Do not back-project imperial extensions or penalties into the law of 81. Its traditional multiple descriptive names do not supply a surviving official title page.","summaryZh":"《科尔内利乌斯伪造法》在此是说明法律不溯及既往的比较；帝政法学扩充的伪造罪范围不能全部回填至81年。","citations":[{"id":"R-356-357","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 356-357","locator":"Printed pp. 356-357","pdfPages":[371,372],"url":null},{"id":"C2-723","source":"C2","label":"M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. II (1996), pp. 723","locator":"Printed pp. 723","pdfPages":[176],"url":null},{"id":"G-424","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 424","locator":"Printed pp. 424","pdfPages":[444],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"witnessIds":[],"ancientEvidenceIds":["L-phi005-2.1.108-57"],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-cornelia-falsis-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Verrines II.1.108 cites the testamentary and monetary Cornelian law as an example of a statute operating prospectively. Later Digest 48.10 preserves a developed law of falsum."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-falsis-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"81 BCE is the conventional Sullan enactment date. Verres’ urban edict in 74 and the published accusation in 70 are later contexts of comparison."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-falsis-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"Cicero’s immediate point is temporal application, illustrated by forgery-related legislation. The statute is not the charge under which Verres is prosecuted, and the passage does not establish that Asellus forged a will."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-falsis-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"Later juristic collections assemble many extensions beyond wills and coins. Crawford expressly declined to reconstruct this law as a text in Roman Statutes, contrasting its evidential position with the already conjectural Aquilian reconstruction."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-falsis-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"Do not back-project imperial extensions or penalties into the law of 81. Its traditional multiple descriptive names do not supply a surviving official title page."}]}},{"id":"aurelia-iudiciaria","label":"Lex Aurelia iudiciaria","zh":"奥雷利乌斯审判员法","kind":"lex","date":"70 BCE; praetor L. Aurelius Cotta","concepts":["juryselection","jury","senate"],"rule":"The Aurelian reform shares jury service among senators, equites and tribuni aerarii. Its relevance is the constitution of the deciding body, not the definition of an offence.","procedure":"The Verrine prosecution puts senatorial judging under pressure while reform is being proposed; the Cornelius trial shows the later three-order composition in operation. Cluentio §130 recalls the sharing of courts with the equestrian order.","limit":"Do not label the senatorial jury trying Verres as already constituted under the new three-order settlement. Later Pompeian changes to selection also prevent treating the 70 BCE law as the complete jury code for every later case.","evidence":["L-ASC-58"],"greenidge":"pp. 433–456","status":"Reform attested by Asconius; text-specific chronological roles distinguished","externalSources":[{"label":"Ancient testimonia: Asconius, Verrines, Cluentio","url":"https://droitromain.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/Leges/aurelia_iudiciaria.htm"}],"chronology":{"event":"Enacted","date":"70 BCE","display":"Enacted: 70 BCE","status":"Distinguish reform debate from the existing Verres jury","originalDate":"70 BCE; praetor L. Aurelius Cotta","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"A reform in 70 BCE, not the constitution of the jury already trying Verres; a later operative jury framework, with further selection changes in 55 BCE.","datedContexts":[{"work":"verres-actio1","date":"70 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Contemporary reform debate"},{"work":"verres-2-2","date":"70 BCE","event":"Published text","role":"Contemporary reform debate"},{"work":"verres-2-3","date":"70 BCE","event":"Published text","role":"Contemporary reform debate"},{"work":"verres-2-5","date":"70 BCE","event":"Published text","role":"Contemporary reform debate"},{"work":"cluentio","date":"66 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Institutional framework"},{"work":"cornelio-i","date":"65 BCE","event":"Speeches","role":"Institutional framework"},{"work":"cornelio-ii","date":"65 BCE","event":"Speeches","role":"Institutional framework"}],"basis":"Chronology retained from the existing sourced dossier and instrument register. Source loci and reconstruction limits are attached to the instrument.","researchDating":"70 BCE is fixed by Cotta’s praetorship and the prosecution of Verres. The existing Verres jury must not be redrawn as already constituted under the three-order arrangement merely because reform was being debated."},"research":{"existence":"Asconius 17 C explicitly credits the praetor L. Aurelius Cotta with distributing jury service among senators, equites and tribuni aerarii. Verrines II.2.174 describes the contemporary proposal for new jurors.","dating":"70 BCE is fixed by Cotta’s praetorship and the prosecution of Verres. The existing Verres jury must not be redrawn as already constituted under the three-order arrangement merely because reform was being debated.","operation":"The reform ends exclusive senatorial control of the relevant public juries and establishes participation from three groups. Their social and census qualifications need to be distinguished from actual panel selection in a particular trial.","transmission":"Asconius is more specific than abbreviated accounts in Livy’s epitome or Velleius that describe a transfer to equites or a division between two orders. Preserve that difference rather than counting the summaries as identical wording.","debate":"Lewis discusses the uncertain identity of tribuni aerarii and their property qualification. The law’s existence and broad redistribution are firmer than every modern reconstruction of its social categories.","summaryZh":"奥雷利乌斯法确立三类审判员的框架；审理韦雷斯的既有审判团与当时改革提案不可混同，财产资格仍有解释问题。","citations":[{"id":"R-369","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 369","locator":"Printed pp. 369","pdfPages":[384],"url":null},{"id":"LEW-213-214","source":"LEW","label":"R. G. Lewis, Asconius: Commentaries on Speeches of Cicero (2006), pp. 213-214","locator":"Printed pp. 213-214","pdfPages":[239,240],"url":null},{"id":"G-433-456","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 433-456","locator":"Printed pp. 433-456","pdfPages":[453,476],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"witnessIds":["RW-asc17"],"ancientEvidenceIds":["L-ASC-58"],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-aurelia-iudiciaria-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Asconius 17 C explicitly credits the praetor L. Aurelius Cotta with distributing jury service among senators, equites and tribuni aerarii. Verrines II.2.174 describes the contemporary proposal for new jurors."},{"id":"LR-aurelia-iudiciaria-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"70 BCE is fixed by Cotta’s praetorship and the prosecution of Verres. The existing Verres jury must not be redrawn as already constituted under the three-order arrangement merely because reform was being debated."},{"id":"LR-aurelia-iudiciaria-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"The reform ends exclusive senatorial control of the relevant public juries and establishes participation from three groups. Their social and census qualifications need to be distinguished from actual panel selection in a particular trial."},{"id":"LR-aurelia-iudiciaria-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"Asconius is more specific than abbreviated accounts in Livy’s epitome or Velleius that describe a transfer to equites or a division between two orders. Preserve that difference rather than counting the summaries as identical wording."},{"id":"LR-aurelia-iudiciaria-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"Lewis discusses the uncertain identity of tribuni aerarii and their property qualification. The law’s existence and broad redistribution are firmer than every modern reconstruction of its social categories."}]}},{"id":"pompeia-iudiciaria","label":"Lex Pompeia iudiciaria","zh":"庞培审判员选任法","kind":"lex","date":"55 BCE; Pompey’s second consulship","concepts":["juryselection","jury"],"rule":"Asconius describes a change in jury selection from centuries and the highest census class, while preserving representation of the same three orders.","procedure":"This is institutional background to later jury trials. It must be read alongside special selection rules, notably the Licinian tribal mechanism discussed in Plancio and the special Pompeian inquiry of 52.","limit":"The cited testimony describes the proposal in Pompey’s second consulship. It does not preserve a complete list of each subsequent trial’s jurors, nor license replacing special procedures with a generic diagram.","evidence":["L-ASC-59"],"greenidge":"pp. 433–456","status":"Institutional reconstruction from Asconius and Greenidge","chronology":{"event":"Promulgation attested","date":"55 BCE","display":"Promulgation attested: 55 BCE","status":"Asconius describes promulgation in the second consulship","originalDate":"55 BCE; Pompey’s second consulship","promulgation":"Separately dated promulgation is attested in 55 BCE; no distinct enactment day is supplied.","effect":"Relevant to the reconstructed post-55 jury-selection framework. Promulgation is attested; a distinct enactment day or complete effective term is not supplied.","datedContexts":[{"work":"plancio","date":"54 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Institutional framework"},{"work":"scauro","date":"54 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Institutional framework"},{"work":"rabirio-postumo","date":"54 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Institutional framework"}],"basis":"Chronology retained from the existing sourced dossier and instrument register. Source loci and reconstruction limits are attached to the instrument.","researchDating":"55 BCE is independently anchored by the second consulship and Asconius’ dating of In Pisonem. The verb promulgavit attests public proposal; Cicero’s lege iudiciaria lata and later reference provide the wider enactment context. No exact voting day is established."},"research":{"existence":"Asconius 17 C expressly says Pompey promulgated the measure in his second consulship and retained selection from the three orders. Pisonem 94 is the contemporary passage being explained; Philippic 1.20 later names the Pompeian law.","dating":"55 BCE is independently anchored by the second consulship and Asconius’ dating of In Pisonem. The verb promulgavit attests public proposal; Cicero’s lege iudiciaria lata and later reference provide the wider enactment context. No exact voting day is established.","operation":"The rule concerns selection from the highest assessed property category and centuries in a manner different from before. It retains the three-order framework rather than creating a new exclusive senatorial or equestrian jury.","transmission":"The original statute is not extant. Rotondi records an unproved attempt to identify Florentine jury fragments with it; those fragments must not be presented as a secure physical copy of this law.","debate":"Lewis, pp. 213–214, explicitly rejects treating Asconius as proof that Pompey raised the census threshold. Enforcement of existing qualification and limits on discretionary selection are alternatives. “Highest census” does not supply a new numerical threshold.","summaryZh":"55年的庞培审判员法保留三阶层结构；阿斯科尼乌斯不能证明庞培提高了财产门槛，更不能据此虚构一个新数额。","citations":[{"id":"R-405","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 405","locator":"Printed pp. 405","pdfPages":[420],"url":null},{"id":"LEW-35","source":"LEW","label":"R. G. Lewis, Asconius: Commentaries on Speeches of Cicero (2006), pp. 35","locator":"Printed pp. 35","pdfPages":[61],"url":null},{"id":"LEW-213-214","source":"LEW","label":"R. G. Lewis, Asconius: Commentaries on Speeches of Cicero (2006), pp. 213-214","locator":"Printed pp. 213-214","pdfPages":[239,240],"url":null},{"id":"G-433-456","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 433-456","locator":"Printed pp. 433-456","pdfPages":[453,476],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"witnessIds":["RW-piso94","RW-asc17"],"ancientEvidenceIds":["L-ASC-59"],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-pompeia-iudiciaria-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Asconius 17 C expressly says Pompey promulgated the measure in his second consulship and retained selection from the three orders. Pisonem 94 is the contemporary passage being explained; Philippic 1.20 later names the Pompeian law."},{"id":"LR-pompeia-iudiciaria-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"55 BCE is independently anchored by the second consulship and Asconius’ dating of In Pisonem. The verb promulgavit attests public proposal; Cicero’s lege iudiciaria lata and later reference provide the wider enactment context. No exact voting day is established."},{"id":"LR-pompeia-iudiciaria-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"The rule concerns selection from the highest assessed property category and centuries in a manner different from before. It retains the three-order framework rather than creating a new exclusive senatorial or equestrian jury."},{"id":"LR-pompeia-iudiciaria-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"The original statute is not extant. Rotondi records an unproved attempt to identify Florentine jury fragments with it; those fragments must not be presented as a secure physical copy of this law."},{"id":"LR-pompeia-iudiciaria-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"Lewis, pp. 213–214, explicitly rejects treating Asconius as proof that Pompey raised the census threshold. Enforcement of existing qualification and limits on discretionary selection are alternatives. “Highest census” does not supply a new numerical threshold."}]}},{"id":"clodia-capite","label":"Lex Clodia concerning citizens executed without judgment","zh":"克洛狄乌斯关于未经审判处死公民的决议","kind":"plebiscitum","date":"58 BCE","concepts":["citizenship","popular","state","conflict"],"rule":"Cassius Dio reports a general measure directed against anyone who had put, or should put, Roman citizens to death without popular condemnation. It was aimed politically at Cicero without naming him in that first formulation.","procedure":"This belongs to the legal background of Cicero’s exile and the restoration narratives in Domo and Sestio. It is distinct from the subsequent measure naming Cicero and his interdiction.","limit":"The general measure’s content here is sourced to Dio 38.14.4, a later historical account, not to a surviving verbatim Clodian statute. Cicero’s own retrospective defence is partisan evidence.","evidence":[],"greenidge":"pp. 359–366","status":"Later historical testimony; distinguish general and named measures","externalSources":[{"label":"Cassius Dio 38.14.4: general measure directed at executions without judgment","url":"https://penelope.uchicago.edu/thayer/e/roman/texts/cassius_dio/38*.html#14"}],"chronology":{"event":"Measure proposed","date":"58 BCE","display":"Measure proposed: 58 BCE","status":"Dio reports the general proposal; distinguish the named measure","originalDate":"58 BCE","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.","datedContexts":[{"work":"domo","date":"57 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Historical legal setting"},{"work":"sestio","date":"56 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Historical legal setting"}],"basis":"Chronology retained from the existing sourced dossier and instrument register. Source loci and reconstruction limits are attached to the instrument.","researchDating":"58 BCE is the tribunician setting. Dio’s account of proposal and the later named measure should be kept in sequence; an exact promulgation or voting day is not secured here."},"research":{"existence":"Dio 38.14.4 describes Clodius’ general measure against putting a citizen to death without trial. Velleius 2.45.1 likewise reports the rule’s general form and its practical direction against Cicero.","dating":"58 BCE is the tribunician setting. Dio’s account of proposal and the later named measure should be kept in sequence; an exact promulgation or voting day is not secured here.","operation":"The legal trigger is alleged killing of a citizen without trial, with interdiction as the reported sanction. The political target is Cicero’s handling of the Catilinarians in 63, but the initial form did not simply name him.","transmission":"The rule is mediated by later historical accounts and retrospective Ciceronian defence. No original plebiscite is reproduced. It is separate from both Gracchus’ earlier safeguard and the later named Clodian exile measure.","debate":"The general wording does not itself decide the controversy about the Senate’s emergency authorization in 63. That is the contested legal and political background.","summaryZh":"58年的一般性克洛狄乌斯措施与随后针对西塞罗个人的措施须分开；一般条文并不自行解决63年紧急授权的合法性。","citations":[{"id":"R-394-395","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 394-395","locator":"Printed pp. 394-395","pdfPages":[409,410],"url":null},{"id":"G-359-366","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 359-366","locator":"Printed pp. 359-366","pdfPages":[379,386],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"witnessIds":["RW-dio3814"],"ancientEvidenceIds":[],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-clodia-capite-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Dio 38.14.4 describes Clodius’ general measure against putting a citizen to death without trial. Velleius 2.45.1 likewise reports the rule’s general form and its practical direction against Cicero."},{"id":"LR-clodia-capite-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"58 BCE is the tribunician setting. Dio’s account of proposal and the later named measure should be kept in sequence; an exact promulgation or voting day is not secured here."},{"id":"LR-clodia-capite-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"The legal trigger is alleged killing of a citizen without trial, with interdiction as the reported sanction. The political target is Cicero’s handling of the Catilinarians in 63, but the initial form did not simply name him."},{"id":"LR-clodia-capite-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"The rule is mediated by later historical accounts and retrospective Ciceronian defence. No original plebiscite is reproduced. It is separate from both Gracchus’ earlier safeguard and the later named Clodian exile measure."},{"id":"LR-clodia-capite-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"The general wording does not itself decide the controversy about the Senate’s emergency authorization in 63. That is the contested legal and political background."}]}},{"id":"dolabella-sponsio","label":"Dolabella’s decree requiring a sponsio","zh":"多拉贝拉命令订立诉讼赌约的裁判命令","kind":"decree","date":"Before the hearing of Pro Quinctio (81 BCE)","concepts":["in-iure","security","representation","praetor"],"rule":"Quinctio §30 reports Dolabella’s decision to require Quinctius to enter a sponsio with Naevius on whether his goods had been possessed for thirty days under Burrienus’ edict.","procedure":"The decree determines the immediate procedural form. Cicero contrasts it with a hearing on the underlying matter and describes the objection that security should be required of both parties or neither.","limit":"This is an individual magistrate’s decision reported by the advocate. Its wording is mediated by the speech; it is not a general edict, a popular enactment, or a surviving independent decree document.","evidence":["L-phi001-30-60"],"greenidge":"pp. 531–541","status":"Individual order reported explicitly in Cicero","chronology":{"event":"Order issued","date":"before the hearing of 81 BCE","display":"Order issued: before the hearing of 81 BCE","status":"Case-specific procedural order","originalDate":"Before the hearing of Pro Quinctio (81 BCE)","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"An order for this particular dispute, issued before the hearing of 81 BCE; not a general law with a reconstructed continuous period in force.","datedContexts":[{"work":"quinctio","date":"81 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Governing remedy"}],"basis":"Chronology retained from the existing sourced dossier and instrument register. Source loci and reconstruction limits are attached to the instrument.","researchDating":"The order precedes the hearing of 81 BCE. It belongs to the sequence of this dispute, not the initial creation of the edict or a general act of legislation."},"research":{"existence":"Quinctio 30 reports Dolabella’s order requiring Quinctius to make a sponsio with Naevius on whether the property had been possessed for thirty days under Burrienus’ edict.","dating":"The order precedes the hearing of 81 BCE. It belongs to the sequence of this dispute, not the initial creation of the edict or a general act of legislation.","operation":"The order makes the lawfulness of the edictal possession a preliminary issue with consequences for security and reputation. Quinctius’ advisers object to exposing his standing through this formulation and ask for a more symmetrical arrangement.","transmission":"Only Cicero’s report of the decree and reaction is available. This is an individual procedural decision, not a second general praetorian edict.","debate":"Cicero calls it novel and criticizes it, but that characterization does not independently establish nullity. Keep the order’s existence, the advocate’s objection and Greenidge’s reconstruction distinct.","summaryZh":"多拉贝拉的命令是本案程序决定，并非另一部告示；“新奇”是辩方评价，不能自动等同于无效。","citations":[{"id":"G-531-541","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 531-541","locator":"Printed pp. 531-541","pdfPages":[551,561],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"witnessIds":[],"ancientEvidenceIds":["L-phi001-30-60"],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-dolabella-sponsio-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Quinctio 30 reports Dolabella’s order requiring Quinctius to make a sponsio with Naevius on whether the property had been possessed for thirty days under Burrienus’ edict."},{"id":"LR-dolabella-sponsio-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"The order precedes the hearing of 81 BCE. It belongs to the sequence of this dispute, not the initial creation of the edict or a general act of legislation."},{"id":"LR-dolabella-sponsio-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"The order makes the lawfulness of the edictal possession a preliminary issue with consequences for security and reputation. Quinctius’ advisers object to exposing his standing through this formulation and ask for a more symmetrical arrangement."},{"id":"LR-dolabella-sponsio-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"Only Cicero’s report of the decree and reaction is available. This is an individual procedural decision, not a second general praetorian edict."},{"id":"LR-dolabella-sponsio-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"Cicero calls it novel and criticizes it, but that characterization does not independently establish nullity. Keep the order’s existence, the advocate’s objection and Greenidge’s reconstruction distinct."}]}},{"id":"senate-ambitus","label":"Senatus consultum interpreting the lex Calpurnia","zh":"元老院解释卡尔普尔尼乌斯选举舞弊法的决议","kind":"senatusconsultum","date":"63 BCE; reported as made on Cicero’s motion","concepts":["elections","scope","senate","proof"],"rule":"Murena §67 reports a senatorial resolution treating paid attendance on candidates, hired followings, and specified public distributions of places at gladiatorial shows and meals as contrary to the lex Calpurnia.","procedure":"Cicero separates the legal classification from proof: if such acts happened they violate the law, but whether they happened remains disputed. The resolution therefore does not establish Murena’s guilt.","limit":"The resolution interprets the statute; it is not the lex Calpurnia itself or the lex Tullia. The surviving witness here is Cicero’s report, not the independent official record of the senate.","evidence":["L-phi014-67-61","L-phi014-67-62"],"greenidge":"pp. 424–425","status":"Senatorial resolution reported explicitly in Cicero","chronology":{"event":"Resolution adopted","date":"63 BCE","display":"Resolution adopted: 63 BCE","status":"Reported as made on Cicero’s motion","originalDate":"63 BCE; reported as made on Cicero’s motion","promulgation":"No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.","effect":"Reported in Pro Murena (63 BCE) as interpreting the Calpurnian law. The resolution’s legal characterization does not prove that the defendant committed the acts.","datedContexts":[{"work":"murena","date":"63 BCE","event":"Speech","role":"Contested legality"}],"basis":"Chronology retained from the existing sourced dossier and instrument register. Source loci and reconstruction limits are attached to the instrument.","researchDating":"63 BCE is the year of Cicero’s consulship and the Murena defence. The underlying Calpurnian statute dates to 67; the interpretive resolution is a later instrument."},"research":{"existence":"Murena 67 reports the Senate’s resolution on Cicero’s motion and lists paid attendance, paid following, tribe-wide seating and indiscriminate meals as conduct contrary to the Calpurnian law if done.","dating":"63 BCE is the year of Cicero’s consulship and the Murena defence. The underlying Calpurnian statute dates to 67; the interpretive resolution is a later instrument.","operation":"The conditional “if these things were done” separates legal characterization from factual proof. Cicero can endorse the Senate’s rule while arguing that Murena’s activities do not meet it.","transmission":"A senatorial decision is embedded in a forensic account rather than preserved as an independently inscribed senatus consultum. The speech is nevertheless explicit about its nature and Cicero’s role.","debate":"Do not label the resolution a new popular lex or read the enumeration as a factual finding of guilt against Murena. The distinction is the defence’s central procedural move.","summaryZh":"元老院决议把若干行为定性为违法，但附有“若确有其事”的条件；规范判断与穆雷纳实际行为的证明不能混为一谈。","citations":[{"id":"R-374","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 374","locator":"Printed pp. 374","pdfPages":[389],"url":null},{"id":"G-424-425","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 424-425","locator":"Printed pp. 424-425","pdfPages":[444,445],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"witnessIds":["RW-mur67"],"ancientEvidenceIds":["L-phi014-67-61","L-phi014-67-62"],"fragmentPassageIds":[],"reviewed":"2026-09-10","sections":[{"id":"LR-senate-ambitus-existence","key":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","status":"Ancient attestation / identification","text":"Murena 67 reports the Senate’s resolution on Cicero’s motion and lists paid attendance, paid following, tribe-wide seating and indiscriminate meals as conduct contrary to the Calpurnian law if done."},{"id":"LR-senate-ambitus-dating","key":"dating","title":"Dating argument","status":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","text":"63 BCE is the year of Cicero’s consulship and the Murena defence. The underlying Calpurnian statute dates to 67; the interpretive resolution is a later instrument."},{"id":"LR-senate-ambitus-operation","key":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","status":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","text":"The conditional “if these things were done” separates legal characterization from factual proof. Cicero can endorse the Senate’s rule while arguing that Murena’s activities do not meet it."},{"id":"LR-senate-ambitus-transmission","key":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","status":"Transmission / documentary control","text":"A senatorial decision is embedded in a forensic account rather than preserved as an independently inscribed senatus consultum. The speech is nevertheless explicit about its nature and Cicero’s role."},{"id":"LR-senate-ambitus-debate","key":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","status":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","text":"Do not label the resolution a new popular lex or read the enumeration as a factual finding of guilt against Murena. The distinction is the defence’s central procedural move."}]}}],"evidence":[{"id":"L-phi001-30-1","workCode":"phi001","ref":"30","title":"Pro P. Quinctio","latin":"venit Romam Quinctius, vadimonium sistit. iste, homo acerrimus, bonorum possessor, expulsor, ereptor, annum et sex mensis nihil petit, quiescit, condicionibus hunc quoad potest producit, a Cn. Dolabella denique praetore postulat ut sibi Quinctius iudicatum solvi satis det ex formula: quod ab eo petat quoivs ex edicto praetoris bona dies xxx possessa sint. non recusabat Quinctius quin ita satis dare iuberetur, si bona possessa essent ex edicto. decernit— quam aequum, nihil dico, unum hoc dico, novum; et hoc ipsum tacuisse mallem, quoniam utrumque quivis intellegere potuit—sed iubet P. Quinctium sponsionem cum Sex. Naevio facere: si bona sua ex edicto P. Burrieni praetoris dies xxx possessa non essent. recusabant qui aderant tum Quinctio, demonstrabant de re iudicium fieri oportere ut aut uterque inter se aut neuter satis daret; non necesse esse famam alterius in iudicium venire.","quote":"si bona sua ex edicto P. Burrieni praetoris dies xxx possessa non essent.","chinese":"如果他的财产并未依裁判官普布利乌斯·布里恩努斯的告示被占有三十日。","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi001.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"Pro P. Quinctio §30"},{"id":"L-phi001-60-2","workCode":"phi001","ref":"60","title":"Pro P. Quinctio","latin":"docui quod primum pollicitus sum, C. Aquili, causam omnino cur postularet non fuisse, quod neque pecunia debebatur et, si maxime deberetur, commissum nihil esset qua re ad istam rationem perveniretur. attende nunc ex edicto praetoris bona P. Quincti possideri nullo modo potuisse. recita edictum. qui fraudationis causa latitarit. non est is Quinctius; nisi si latitant qui ad negotium suum relicto procuratore proficiscuntur. cui heres non exstabit. ne is quidem. qui exsili causa solum verterit. [LACUNA] quo tempore existimas oportuisse, Naevi, absentem Quinctium defendi aut quo modo? tum cum postulabas ut bona possideres? nemo adfuit; neque enim quisquam divinare poterat te postulaturum, neque quemquam attinebat id recusare quod praetor non fieri, sed ex edicto suo fieri iubebat.","quote":"qui fraudationis causa latitarit.","chinese":"因实施欺诈而隐匿的人。","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi001.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"Pro P. Quinctio §60"},{"id":"L-phi006-7-3","workCode":"phi006","ref":"7","title":"Pro M. Tullio","latin":"iudicium vestrum est, recuperatores, Qvantae pecvniae paret dolo malo familiae P. Fabi vi hominibvs armatis coactisve damnvm datvm esse M. Tvllio. eius rei taxationem nos fecimus; aestimatio vestra est; iudicium datum est in quadruplum.","quote":"iudicium datum est in quadruplum.","chinese":"所授予的诉讼救济为四倍赔偿。","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi006.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"Pro M. Tullio §7"},{"id":"L-phi006-12-4","workCode":"phi006","ref":"12","title":"Pro M. Tullio","latin":"ipsi statuerent quo tempore possent suo iure arma capere, manum cogere, homines occidere. Cum iudicium ita daret ut hoc solum in iudicium veniret, videreturne vi hominibus coactis armatisve damnum dolo malo familiae datum, neque illud adderet inivria, putavit se audaciam improborum sustulisse, cum spem defensionis nullam reliquisset.","quote":"neque illud adderet inivria","chinese":"而没有添入“违法地”这个词","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi006.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"Pro M. Tullio §12"},{"id":"L-phi008-23-5","workCode":"phi008","ref":"23","title":"Pro A. Caecina","latin":"his rebus ita gestis P. Dolabella praetor interdixit, ut est consuetudo, de vi hominibvs ar matis sine ulla exceptione, tantum ut unde deiecisset restitueret. restituisse se dixit. ⟨sponsio facta est. hac de⟩ sponsione vobis iudicandum est.\n\nmaxime fuit optandum Caecinae, recuperatores, ut controversiae nihil haberet, secundo loco ut ne cum tam improbo homine, tertio ut cum tam stulto haberet. etenim non minus nos stultitia illius sublevat quam laedit improbitas. improbus fuit, quod homines coegit, armavit, coactis armatisque vim fecit. laesit in eo Caecinam, sublevat ibidem; nam in eas ipsas res quas improbissime fecit testimonia sumpsit et eis in causa testimoniis utitur.","quote":"P. Dolabella praetor interdixit, ut est consuetudo, de vi hominibvs ar matis sine ulla exceptione, tantum ut unde deiecisset restitueret.","chinese":"裁判官普布利乌斯·多拉贝拉依惯例就武装人员施暴颁发禁令，不附任何抗辩例外，只要求将被驱逐者恢复到原处。","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi008.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"Pro A. Caecina §23"},{"id":"L-phi006-9-6","workCode":"phi006","ref":"9","title":"Pro M. Tullio","latin":"et cum sciret de damno legem esse Aquiliam, tamen hoc ita existimavit, apud maiores nostros cum et res et cupiditates minores essent et familiae non magnae magno metu continerentur ut perraro fieret ut homo occideretur, idque nefarium ac singulare facinus putaretur, nihil opus fuisse iudicio de vi coactis armatisque hominibus; quod enim usu non veniebat, de eo si quis legem aut iudicium constitueret, non tam prohibere videretur quam admonere.","quote":"cum sciret de damno legem esse Aquiliam","chinese":"虽然他知道关于损害已有阿奎利乌斯法","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi006.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"Pro M. Tullio §9"},{"id":"L-phi003-32-7","workCode":"phi003","ref":"32","title":"Pro Q. Roscio Comoedo","latin":"quae deinde sunt consecuta? Panurgum, inquit, hunc servum communem, Q. Flavius Tarquiniensis quidam interfecit. in hanc rem, inquit, me cognitorem dedisti. lite contestata, iudicio damni iniuria constituto tu sine me cum Flavio decidisti. Vtrum pro dimidia parte an pro ⟨re⟩ tota? planius dicam: utrum pro me an et pro me et pro te? pro me; potui exemplo multorum; licitum est; iure fecerunt multi; nihil in ea re tibi iniuriae feci. pete tu tuum, exige et aufer quod debetur; suam quisque partem iuris possideat et persequatur.—at enim tu tuum negotium gessisti bene.—gere et tu tuum bene.—Magno ⟨tu⟩ tuam dimidiam partem decidisti.—Magno et tu tuam partem decide. —HS Q. tu abstulisti.—sit ita hoc, vero HS Q. tu aufer.","quote":"lite contestata, iudicio damni iniuria constituto tu sine me cum Flavio decidisti.","chinese":"在争讼已经确定、违法致损的审判已经设立以后，你却未同我商议便与弗拉维乌斯和解。","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi003.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"Pro Q. Roscio Comoedo §32"},{"id":"L-phi010-148-8","workCode":"phi010","ref":"148","title":"Pro A. Cluentio","latin":"si quis apud me, T.Titi Atti, te reum velit facere, clames te lege pecuniarum repetundarum non teneri; neque haec tua recusatio confessio sit captae pecuniae sed laboris et periculi non legitimi declinatio. nunc quid agatur et quid abs te iuris constituatur vide. iubet lex ea, qua lege haec quaestio constituta est, iudicem quaestionis, hoc est Q.Quintum Voconium, cum eis iudicibus qui ei obvenerint — vos appellat, iudices — quaerere de veneno. in quem quaerere? infinitum est. quicumque fecerit, vendiderit, emerit, habuerit, dederit. quid eadem lex statim adiungit? recita. deque eius capite quaerito. cuius? qui coierit, convenerit? non ita est. quid ergo est? dic. qui tribunus militum legionibus quattuor primis, quive quaestor, tribunus plebis — deinceps omnis magistratus nominavit — quive in senatu sententiam dixit, dixerit. quid tum? qui eorum coiit, coierit, convenit, convenerit quo quis iudicio publico condemnaretur. qui eorum? quorum? videlicet qui supra scripti sunt. quid intersit utro modo scriptum sit, etsi est apertum, ipsa tamen lex nos docet. Vbi enim omnis mortalis adligat, ita loquitur: qui venenum malum fecit, fecerit. omnes viri, mulieres, liberi, servi in iudicium vocantur. si idem de coitione voluisset, adiunxisset: quive coierit. nunc ita est: qeque eius capite quaerito qui magistratum habuerit quive in senatu sententiam dixerit, qui eorum coiit, coierit. num is est Cluentius?","quote":"quaerere de veneno.","chinese":"审理有关毒物的案件。","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi010.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"Pro A. Cluentio §148"},{"id":"L-phi010-154-9","workCode":"phi010","ref":"154","title":"Pro A. Cluentio","latin":"aut sibi ad honores petendos aetatem integram restitui oportere aut, quoniam id non posset, eam condicionem vitae quam secuti petitionem reliquissent manere. iniquum esse eos qui honorum ornamenta propter periculorum multitudinem praetermisissent populi beneficiis esse privatos, iudiciorum novorum periculis non carere. senatorem hoc queri non posse, propterea quod ea condicione proposita petere coepisset quodque permulta essent ornamenta quibus eam mitigare molestiam posset, locus, auctoritas, domi splendor, apud exteras nationes nomen et gratia, toga praetexta, sella curulis, insignia, fasces, exercitus, imperia, provinciae; quibus in rebus cum summa recte factis maiores nostri praemia tum plura peccatis pericula proposita esse voluerunt. illi non hoc recusabant ne ea lege accusarentur qua nunc habitus accusatur, quae tunc erat Sempronia, nunc est Cornelia — intellegebant enim ea lege equestrem ordinem non teneri — sed ne nova lege adligarentur laborabant.","quote":"quae tunc erat Sempronia, nunc est Cornelia","chinese":"当时是森普罗尼乌斯法，如今是科尔内利乌斯法","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi010.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"Pro A. Cluentio §154"},{"id":"L-phi002-125-10","workCode":"phi002","ref":"125","title":"Pro Sex. Roscio Amerino","latin":"primum hoc videamus: eius hominis bona qua ratione venierunt aut quo modo venire potuerunt? atque hoc non ita quaeram, iudices, ut id dicam esse indignum, hominis innocentis bona venisse — si enim haec audientur ac libere dicentur, non fuit tantus homo Sex. Roscius in civitate ut de eo potissimum conqueramur — verum ego hoc quaero: qui potuerunt ista ipsa lege quae de proscriptione est, sive Valeria est sive Cornelia — non enim novi nec scio — verum ista ipsa lege bona Sex. Rosci venire qui potuerunt?","quote":"sive Valeria est sive Cornelia — non enim novi nec scio","chinese":"无论它是瓦莱里乌斯法还是科尔内利乌斯法——因为我既不熟悉，也不知道","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi002.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"Pro Sex. Roscio Amerino §125"},{"id":"L-phi030-9-11","workCode":"phi030","ref":"9","title":"Pro C. Rabirio Postumo","latin":"sin hoc totidem verbis translatum caput est quot fuit non modo in Cornelia sed etiam ante in lege Servilia, per deos immortalis! quid agimus, iudices, aut quem hunc morem novorum iudiciorum in rem publicam inducimus? erat enim haec consuetudo nota vobis quidem omnibus, sed, si usus magister est optimus, mihi debet esse notissima. accusavi de pecuniis repetundis, iudex sedi, praetor quaesivi, defendi plurimos; nulla pars quae aliquam facultatem discendi adferre posset a me afuit. ita contendo, neminem umquam Qvo ea pecvnia pervenisset causam dixisse qui in aestimandis litibus appellatus non esset. in litibus autem nemo appellabatur nisi ex testium dictis aut tabulis privatorum aut rationibus civitatum.","quote":"non modo in Cornelia sed etiam ante in lege Servilia","chinese":"不仅在科尔内利乌斯法中，而且更早在塞尔维利乌斯法中也有","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi030.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"Pro C. Rabirio Postumo §9"},{"id":"L-phi030-8-12","workCode":"phi030","ref":"8","title":"Pro C. Rabirio Postumo","latin":"quod si item a Gabinio seiunctam ostendero, certe quod dicas nihil habebis.\n\nest enim haec causa Qvo ea pecvnia pervenerit quasi quaedam appendicula causae iudicatae atque damnatae. sunt lites aestimatae A. Gabinio, nec praedes dati nec ex bonis populo universae ⟨lites solutae⟩. iubet lex Iulia persequi ab eis ad quos ea pecunia quam is ceperit qui damnatus sit pervenerit. si est hoc novum in lege Iulia, sicuti multa sunt severius scripta quam in antiquis legibus et sanctius, inducatur sane etiam consuetudo huius generis iudiciorum nova;","quote":"iubet lex Iulia persequi ab eis ad quos ea pecunia quam is ceperit qui damnatus sit pervenerit.","chinese":"尤利乌斯法命令向那些取得该笔钱财的人追偿；那是已被判罪者曾经收取的钱财。","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi030.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"Pro C. Rabirio Postumo §8"},{"id":"L-phi017-13-13","workCode":"phi017","ref":"13","title":"Pro L. Flacco","latin":"vehementem accusatorem nacti sumus, iudices, et inimicum in omni genere odiosum ac molestum; quem spero his nervis fore magno usui et amicis et rei publicae; sed certe inflammatus incredibili cupiditate hanc causam accusationemque suscepit. qui comitatus in inquirendo! comitatum dico; immo vero quantus exercitus! quae iactura, qui sumptus, quanta largitio! quae quamquam utilia sunt causae, timide tamen dico, quod vereor ne Laelius ex his rebus quas sibi suscepit gloriae causa putet aliquid oratione mea sermonis in sese aut invidiae esse quaesitum. itaque hanc partem totam relinquam; tantum a vobis petam, iudices, ut, si quid ipsi audistis communi fama atque sermone de vi, de manu, de armis, de copiis, memineritis; quarum rerum invidia lege hac recenti ac nova certus est inquisitioni comitum numerus constitutus.","quote":"lege hac recenti ac nova certus est inquisitioni comitum numerus constitutus.","chinese":"这部新近制定的法律，已经限定调查时随行人员的数目。","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi017.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"Pro L. Flacco §13"},{"id":"L-phi030-9-14","workCode":"phi030","ref":"9","title":"Pro C. Rabirio Postumo","latin":"sin hoc totidem verbis translatum caput est quot fuit non modo in Cornelia sed etiam ante in lege Servilia, per deos immortalis! quid agimus, iudices, aut quem hunc morem novorum iudiciorum in rem publicam inducimus? erat enim haec consuetudo nota vobis quidem omnibus, sed, si usus magister est optimus, mihi debet esse notissima. accusavi de pecuniis repetundis, iudex sedi, praetor quaesivi, defendi plurimos; nulla pars quae aliquam facultatem discendi adferre posset a me afuit. ita contendo, neminem umquam Qvo ea pecvnia pervenisset causam dixisse qui in aestimandis litibus appellatus non esset. in litibus autem nemo appellabatur nisi ex testium dictis aut tabulis privatorum aut rationibus civitatum.","quote":"in lege Servilia","chinese":"在塞尔维利乌斯法中","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi030.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"Pro C. Rabirio Postumo §9"},{"id":"L-phi005-2.1.26-15","workCode":"phi005","ref":"2.1.26","title":"In C. Verrem","latin":"adimo enim comperendinatum: quod habet lex in se molestissimum, bis ut causa dicatur,—quod aut mea causa potius est constitutum quam tua, aut nihilo tua potius quam mea. nam si bis dicere est commodum, certe utriusque commune est; si eum qui posterius dixit opus est redargui, accusatoris causa, ut bis ageretur, constitutum est. verum, ut opinor, Glaucia primus tulit ut comperendinaretur reus; antea vel iudicari primo poterat vel amplius pronuntiari. Vtram igitur putas legem molliorem? opinor, illam veterem, qua vel cito absolvi vel tarde condemnari licebat. ego tibi illam Aciliam legem restituo, qua lege multi semel accusati, semel dicta causa, semel auditis testibus condemnati sunt, nequaquam tam manifestis neque tantis criminibus quantis tu convinceris. Puta te non hac tam atroci, sed illa lege mitissima causam dicere. accusabo; respondebis; testibus editis ita mittam in consilium ut, etiamsi lex ampliandi faciat potestatem, tamen isti turpe sibi existiment non primo iudicare.","quote":"Glaucia primus tulit ut comperendinaretur reus","chinese":"格劳基亚最先立法，规定被告须经历第二次审理","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi005.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"In C. Verrem §2.1.26"},{"id":"L-phi005-2.1.26-16","workCode":"phi005","ref":"2.1.26","title":"In C. Verrem","latin":"adimo enim comperendinatum: quod habet lex in se molestissimum, bis ut causa dicatur,—quod aut mea causa potius est constitutum quam tua, aut nihilo tua potius quam mea. nam si bis dicere est commodum, certe utriusque commune est; si eum qui posterius dixit opus est redargui, accusatoris causa, ut bis ageretur, constitutum est. verum, ut opinor, Glaucia primus tulit ut comperendinaretur reus; antea vel iudicari primo poterat vel amplius pronuntiari. Vtram igitur putas legem molliorem? opinor, illam veterem, qua vel cito absolvi vel tarde condemnari licebat. ego tibi illam Aciliam legem restituo, qua lege multi semel accusati, semel dicta causa, semel auditis testibus condemnati sunt, nequaquam tam manifestis neque tantis criminibus quantis tu convinceris. Puta te non hac tam atroci, sed illa lege mitissima causam dicere. accusabo; respondebis; testibus editis ita mittam in consilium ut, etiamsi lex ampliandi faciat potestatem, tamen isti turpe sibi existiment non primo iudicare.","quote":"ego tibi illam Aciliam legem restituo","chinese":"我现在为你恢复那部阿基利乌斯法","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi005.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"In C. Verrem §2.1.26"},{"id":"L-phi005-2.2.32-17","workCode":"phi005","ref":"2.2.32","title":"In C. Verrem","latin":"verum ut totum genus amplectamini iudiciorum, prius iura Siculorum, deinde istius instituta cognoscite.\n\nSiculi hoc iure sunt ut, quod civis cum cive agat, domi certet suis legibus, quod Siculus cum Siculo non eiusdem civitatis, ut de eo praetor iudices ex P. Rupili decreto, quod is de decem legatorum sententia statuit, quam illi legem Rupiliam vocant, sortiatur. quod privatus a populo petit aut populus a privato, senatus ex aliqua civitate qui iudicet datur, cum alternae civitates reiectae sunt; quod civis Romanus a Siculo petit, Siculus iudex, quod Siculus a civi Romano, civis Romanus datur; ceterarum rerum selecti iudices ex conventu civium Romanorum proponi solent. inter aratores et decumanos lege frumentaria, quam Hieronicam appellant, iudicia fiunt.","quote":"ex P. Rupili decreto, quod is de decem legatorum sententia statuit, quam illi legem Rupiliam vocant","chinese":"依据普布利乌斯·鲁皮利乌斯经十名使节合议所定的命令——当地人称之为鲁皮利乌斯法","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi005.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"In C. Verrem §2.2.32"},{"id":"L-phi005-2.2.32-18","workCode":"phi005","ref":"2.2.32","title":"In C. Verrem","latin":"verum ut totum genus amplectamini iudiciorum, prius iura Siculorum, deinde istius instituta cognoscite.\n\nSiculi hoc iure sunt ut, quod civis cum cive agat, domi certet suis legibus, quod Siculus cum Siculo non eiusdem civitatis, ut de eo praetor iudices ex P. Rupili decreto, quod is de decem legatorum sententia statuit, quam illi legem Rupiliam vocant, sortiatur. quod privatus a populo petit aut populus a privato, senatus ex aliqua civitate qui iudicet datur, cum alternae civitates reiectae sunt; quod civis Romanus a Siculo petit, Siculus iudex, quod Siculus a civi Romano, civis Romanus datur; ceterarum rerum selecti iudices ex conventu civium Romanorum proponi solent. inter aratores et decumanos lege frumentaria, quam Hieronicam appellant, iudicia fiunt.","quote":"inter aratores et decumanos lege frumentaria, quam Hieronicam appellant, iudicia fiunt.","chinese":"耕作者与什一税承包人之间，依照所谓希耶罗粮税法进行审判。","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi005.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"In C. Verrem §2.2.32"},{"id":"L-phi005-2.3.15-19","workCode":"phi005","ref":"2.3.15","title":"In C. Verrem","latin":"itaque decumas lege Hieronica semper vendundas censuerunt, ut iis iucundior esset muneris illius functio, si eius regis qui Siculis carissimus fuit non solum instituta commutato imperio, verum etiam nomen maneret. hoc iure ante Verrem praetorem Siculi semper usi sunt: hic primus instituta omnium, consuetudinem a maioribus traditam, condicionem amicitiae, ius societatis convellere et commutare ausus est.","quote":"decumas lege Hieronica semper vendundas censuerunt","chinese":"他们一贯决定，什一税的承包权应按希耶罗法出售","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi005.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"In C. Verrem §2.3.15"},{"id":"L-phi005-2.1.104-20","workCode":"phi005","ref":"2.1.104","title":"In C. Verrem","latin":"nam ut praetor factus est, qui auspicato a Chelidone surrexisset, sortem nactus est urbanae provinciae magis ex sua Chelidonisque quam ex populi Romani voluntate. qui principio qualis in edicto constituendo fuerit cognoscite.\n\nP. Annius asellus mortuus est C. Sacerdote praetore. is cum haberet unicam filiam neque census esset, quod eum natura hortabatur, lex nulla prohibebat, fecit ut filiam bonis suis heredem institueret. Heres erat filia. faciebant omnia cum pupilla, legis aequitas, voluntas patris, edicta praetorum, consuetudo iuris eius quod erat tum cum asellus est mortuus.","quote":"legis aequitas, voluntas patris, edicta praetorum, consuetudo iuris eius quod erat tum cum asellus est mortuus.","chinese":"法律的公平、父亲的意愿、历任裁判官的告示，以及阿塞卢斯死亡时的法律惯例。","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi005.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"In C. Verrem §2.1.104"},{"id":"L-phi005-2.1.108-21","workCode":"phi005","ref":"2.1.108","title":"In C. Verrem","latin":"in lege Voconia non est fecit fecerit, neque in ulla praeteritum tempus reprehenditur nisi eius rei quae sua sponte tam scelerata et nefaria est ut, etiamsi lex non esset, magnopere vitanda fuerit. atque in his ipsis rebus multa videmus ita sancta esse legibus ut ante facta in iudicium non vocentur; Cornelia testamentaria, nummaria, ceterae complures, in quibus non ius aliquod novum populo constituitur, sed sancitur ut, quod semper malum facinus fuerit, eius quaestio ad populum pertineat ex certo tempore.","quote":"in lege Voconia non est fecit fecerit","chinese":"在沃科尼乌斯法里，并没有“已经做过或今后做出”这样的措辞","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi005.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"In C. Verrem §2.1.108"},{"id":"L-phi026-21-22","workCode":"phi026","ref":"21","title":"Pro L. Cornelio Balbo","latin":"tulit apud maiores nostros legem C. Furius de testamentis, tulit Q. Voconius de mulierum hereditatibus; innumerabiles aliae leges de civili iure sunt latae; quas Latini voluerunt, adsciverunt; ipsa denique Iulia, qua lege civitas est sociis et Latinis data, qui fundi populi facti non essent civitatem non haberent. in quo magna contentio Heracliensium et Neapolitanorum fuit, cum magna pars in iis civitatibus foederis sui libertatem civitati anteferret. postremo haec vis est istius et iuris et verbi, ut fundi populi beneficio nostro, non suo iure fiant.","quote":"de mulierum hereditatibus","chinese":"关于妇女的继承","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi026.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"Pro L. Cornelio Balbo §21"},{"id":"L-phi005-2.3.25-23","workCode":"phi005","ref":"2.3.25","title":"In C. Verrem","latin":"primum edictum, iudices, audite praeclarum: quantum decumanus edidisset aratorem sibi decumae dare oportere, ut tantum arator decumano dare cogeretur. quo modo? quantum poposcerit Apronius, dato. quid est hoc? utrum praetoris institutum in socios an in hostis victos insani edictum atque imperium tyranni? ego tantundem dabo quantum ille poposcerit? poscet omne quantum exaravero. quid omne? plus immo etiam, inquit, si volet. quid tum? quid censes? aut dabis aut contra edictum fecisse damnabere. per deos immortalis, quid est hoc? veri enim simile non est.","quote":"quantum decumanus edidisset aratorem sibi decumae dare oportere, ut tantum arator decumano dare cogeretur.","chinese":"什一税承包人申报耕作者应向自己交付多少什一税，就强迫耕作者向承包人交付多少。","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi005.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"In C. Verrem §2.3.25"},{"id":"L-phi031-35-24","workCode":"phi031","ref":"35","title":"Pro T. Annio Milone","latin":"at valuit odium, fecit iratus, fecit inimicus, fuit ultor iniuriae, punitor doloris sui. quid? si haec non dico maiora fuerunt in Clodio quam in Milone, sed in illo maxima, nulla in hoc, quid voltis amplius? quid enim odisset Clodium Milo, segetem ac materiam suae gloriae, praeter hoc civile odium quo omnis improbos odimus? illi erat ut odisset primum defensorem salutis meae, deinde vexatorem furoris, domitorem armorum suorum, postremo etiam accusatorem suum; reus enim Milonis lege Plotia fuit Clodius quoad vixit. quo tandem animo hoc tyrannum illum tulisse creditis? quantum odium illius et in homine iniusto quam etiam iustum fuisse?","quote":"lege Plotia","chinese":"依普洛提乌斯法","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi031.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"Pro T. Annio Milone §35"},{"id":"L-phi024-70-25","workCode":"phi024","ref":"70","title":"Pro M. Caelio","latin":"Dicta est a me causa, iudices, et perorata. iam intellegitis quantum iudicium sustineatis, quanta res sit commissa vobis. de vi quaeritis. quae lex ad imperium, ad maiestatem, ad statum patriae, ad salutem omnium pertinet, quam legem Quintus Catulus armata dissensione civium rei publicae paene extremis temporibus tulit, quaeque lex sedata illa flamma consulatus mei fumantis reliquias coniurationis exstinxit, hac nunc lege Caeli adulescentia non ad rei publicae poenas sed ad mulieris libidines et delicias deposcitur.","quote":"quam legem Quintus Catulus","chinese":"这部法律，昆图斯·卡图卢斯","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi024.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"Pro M. Caelio §70"},{"id":"L-phi024-70-26","workCode":"phi024","ref":"70","title":"Pro M. Caelio","latin":"Dicta est a me causa, iudices, et perorata. iam intellegitis quantum iudicium sustineatis, quanta res sit commissa vobis. de vi quaeritis. quae lex ad imperium, ad maiestatem, ad statum patriae, ad salutem omnium pertinet, quam legem Quintus Catulus armata dissensione civium rei publicae paene extremis temporibus tulit, quaeque lex sedata illa flamma consulatus mei fumantis reliquias coniurationis exstinxit, hac nunc lege Caeli adulescentia non ad rei publicae poenas sed ad mulieris libidines et delicias deposcitur.","quote":"de vi quaeritis.","chinese":"你们所审理的是公共暴力案件。","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi024.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"Pro M. Caelio §70"},{"id":"L-phi031-15-27","workCode":"phi031","ref":"15","title":"Pro T. Annio Milone","latin":"at enim Cn. Pompeius rogatione sua et de re et de causa iudicavit: tulit enim de caede quae in Appia via facta esset, in qua P. Clodius occisus esset. quid ergo tulit? nempe ut quaereretur. quid porro quaerendum est? factumne sit? at constat. A quo? at paret. vidit igitur etiam in confessione facti iuris tamen defensionem suscipi posse. quod nisi vidisset, posse absolvi eum qui fateretur, cum videret nos fateri, neque quaeri umquam iussisset nec vobis tam hanc salutarem in iudicando litteram quam illam tristem dedisset. mihi vero Cn. Pompeius non modo nihil gravius contra Milonem iudicasse sed etiam statuisse videtur quid vos in iudicando spectare oporteret. nam qui non poenam confessioni, sed defensionem dedit, is causam interitus quaerendam, non interitum putavit.","quote":"tulit enim de caede quae in Appia via facta esset, in qua P. Clodius occisus esset.","chinese":"因为他提出的法案，是关于阿庇亚大道上发生的、普布利乌斯·克洛狄乌斯在其中被杀的那起杀人事件。","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi031.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"Pro T. Annio Milone §15"},{"id":"L-phi014-46-28","workCode":"phi014","ref":"46","title":"Pro L. Murena","latin":"qua re ego expertus et petendi et defendendi et accusandi molestiam sic intellexi in petendo studium esse acerrimum, in defendendo officium, in accusando laborem. itaque sic statuo fieri nullo modo posse ut idem accusationem et petitionem consulatus diligenter adornet atque instruat. Vnum sustinere pauci possunt, utrumque nemo. tu cum te de curriculo petitionis deflexisses animumque ad accusandum transtulisses, existimasti te utrique negotio satis facere posse. vehementer errasti. quis enim dies fuit, postea quam in istam accusandi denuntiationem ingressus es, quem tu non totum in ista ratione consumpseris? legem ambitus flagitasti, quae tibi non deerat; erat enim severissime scripta Calpurnia. gestus est mos et voluntati et dignitati tuae. sed tota illa lex accusationem tuam, si haberes nocentem reum, fortasse armasset; petitioni vero refragata est.","quote":"erat enim severissime scripta Calpurnia.","chinese":"因为卡尔普尔尼乌斯法本已规定得极为严厉。","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi014.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"Pro L. Murena §46"},{"id":"L-phi014-67-29","workCode":"phi014","ref":"67","title":"Pro L. Murena","latin":"qua re, ut ad id quod institui revertar, tolle mihi e causa nomen Catonis, remove vim, praetermitte auctoritatem quae in iudiciis aut nihil valere aut ad salutem debet valere, congredere mecum criminibus ipsis. quid accusas, Cato, quid adfers ad iudicium, quid arguis? ambitum accusas; non defendo. me reprehendis, quod idem defendam quod lege punierim. punivi ambitum, non innocentiam; ambitum vero ipsum vel tecum accusabo, si voles. dixisti senatus consultum me referente esse factum, si mercede obviam candidatis issent, si conducti sectarentur, si gladiatoribus volgo locus tributim et item prandia si volgo essent data, contra legem Calpurniam factum videri. ergo ita senatus iudicat, contra legem facta haec videri, si facta sint; decernit quod nihil opus est, dum candidatis morem gerit. nam factum sit necne vehementer quaeritur; sin factum sit, quin contra legem sit dubitare nemo potest.","quote":"contra legem Calpurniam","chinese":"违反卡尔普尔尼乌斯法","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi014.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"Pro L. Murena §67"},{"id":"L-phi014-47-30","workCode":"phi014","ref":"47","title":"Pro L. Murena","latin":"Poena gravior in plebem tua voce efflagitata est; commoti animi tenuiorum. exsilium in nostrum ordinem; concessit senatus postulationi tuae, sed non libenter duriorem fortunae communi condicionem te auctore constituit. morbi excusationi poena addita est; voluntas offensa multorum quibus aut contra valetudinis commodum laborandum est aut incommodo morbi etiam ceteri vitae fructus relinquendi. quid ergo? haec quis tulit? is qui auctoritati senatus, voluntati tuae paruit, denique is tulit cui minime proderant. illa ⟨quidem⟩ quae mea summa voluntate senatus frequens repudiavit mediocriter adversata tibi esse existimas? confusionem suffragiorum flagitasti, †praerogationum legis Maniliae†, aequationem gratiae, dignitatis, suffragiorum. graviter homines honesti atque in suis vicinitatibus et municipiis gratiosi tulerunt a tali viro esse pugnatum ut omnes et dignitatis et gratiae gradus tollerentur. idem editicios iudices esse voluisti, ut odia occulta civium quae tacitis nunc discordiis continentur in fortunas optimi cuiusque erumperent.","quote":"exsilium in nostrum ordinem","chinese":"对我们这一等级施加流放","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi014.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"Pro L. Murena §47"},{"id":"L-phi028-36-31","workCode":"phi028","ref":"36","title":"Pro Cn. Plancio","latin":"sed aliquando veniamus ad causam. in qua tu nomine legis Liciniae, quae est de sodaliciis, omnis ambitus leges complexus es; neque enim quicquam aliud in hac lege nisi editicios iudices es secutus. quod genus iudicum si est aequum ulla in re nisi in hac tribuaria, non intellego quam ob rem senatus hoc uno in genere tribus edi voluerit ab accusatore neque eandem editionem transtulerit in ceteras causas, de ipso denique ambitu reiectionem fieri voluerit iudicum alternorum, cumque nullum genus acerbitatis praetermitteret, hoc tamen unum praetereundum putarit.","quote":"nomine legis Liciniae, quae est de sodaliciis, omnis ambitus leges complexus es","chinese":"你借着那部关于结社的李锡尼乌斯法之名，把所有选举舞弊法都包罗了进去","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi028.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"Pro Cn. Plancio §36"},{"id":"L-phi016-10-32","workCode":"phi016","ref":"10","title":"Pro Archia Poeta","latin":"quae cum ita sint, quid est quod de eius civitate dubitetis, praesertim cum aliis quoque in civitatibus fuerit ascriptus? etenim cum mediocribus multis et aut nulla aut humili aliqua arte praeditis gratuito civitatem in Graecia homines impertiebant, Reginos credo aut Locrensis aut Neapolitanos aut Tarentinos, quod scaenicis artificibus largiri solebant, id huic summa ingeni praedito gloria noluisse! quid? cum ceteri non modo post civitatem datam sed etiam post legem Papiam aliquo modo in eorum municipiorum tabulas inrepserunt, hic qui ne utitur quidem illis in quibus est scriptus, quod semper se Heracliensem esse voluit, reicietur?","quote":"post legem Papiam","chinese":"在帕皮乌斯法颁布之后","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi016.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"Pro Archia Poeta §10"},{"id":"L-phi026-52-33","workCode":"phi026","ref":"52","title":"Pro L. Cornelio Balbo","latin":"habetis imperatorum summorum et sapientissimorum hominum, clarissimorum virorum, interpretationem iuris ac foederum: dabo etiam iudicum qui huic quaestioni praefuerunt, dabo universi populi Romani, dabo sanctissimum et sapientissimum iudicium etiam senatus. iudices cum prae se ferrent palamque loquerentur quid essent lege Papia de M. Cassio Mamertinis repetentibus iudicaturi, Mamertini publice suscepta causa destiterunt. multi in civitatem recepti ex liberis foederatisque populis ⟦liberati⟧ sunt: nemo umquam est de civitate accusatus, quod aut populus fundus factus non esset, aut quod foedere civitatis mutandae ius impediretur.","quote":"quid essent lege Papia de M. Cassio Mamertinis repetentibus iudicaturi","chinese":"在马墨耳提人提出追究时，他们将如何依据帕皮乌斯法对马尔库斯·卡西乌斯作出裁断","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi026.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"Pro L. Cornelio Balbo §52"},{"id":"L-phi016-7-34","workCode":"phi016","ref":"7","title":"Pro Archia Poeta","latin":"data est civitas Silvani lege et Carbonis: si qui foederatis civitatibus ascripti fuissent, si tum cum lex ferebatur in Italia domicilium habuissent et si sexaginta diebus apud praetorem essent professi. Cum hic domicilium Romae multos iam annos haberet, professus est apud praetorem","quote":"si qui foederatis civitatibus ascripti fuissent, si tum cum lex ferebatur in Italia domicilium habuissent et si sexaginta diebus apud praetorem essent professi.","chinese":"凡已登记于同盟城邦、在该法提出时以意大利为住所，并在六十日内向裁判官申报者。","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi016.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"Pro Archia Poeta §7"},{"id":"L-phi026-19-35","workCode":"phi026","ref":"19","title":"Pro L. Cornelio Balbo","latin":"itaque quod maxime petendum est a vobis idcirco non peto, iudices, ne de vestra sapientia atque de vestra humanitate dubitare videar: est autem petendum ne oderitis ingenium, ne inimici sitis industriae, ne humanitatem opprimendam, ne virtutem puniendam putetis. illud peto, ut, si causam ipsam per se firmam esse et stabilem videritis, hominis ipsius ornamenta adiumento causae potius quam impedimento esse malitis.\n\nnascitur, iudices, causa Corneli ex ea lege quam L. Gellius Cn. Cornelius ex senatus sententia tulerunt; qua lege videmus ⟨rite⟩ esse sanctum ut cives Romani sint ii quos Cn. Pompeius de consili sententia singillatim civitate donaverit. Donatum esse L. Cornelium praesens Pompeius dicit, indicant publicae tabulae. accusator fatetur, sed negat ex foederato populo quemquam potuisse, nisi is populus fundus factus esset, in hanc civitatem venire.","quote":"qua lege videmus ⟨rite⟩ esse sanctum ut cives Romani sint ii quos Cn. Pompeius de consili sententia singillatim civitate donaverit.","chinese":"该法规定：凡格奈乌斯·庞培经顾问团合议而逐一授予公民权者，均依法成为罗马公民。","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi026.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"Pro L. Cornelio Balbo §19"},{"id":"L-phi026-21-36","workCode":"phi026","ref":"21","title":"Pro L. Cornelio Balbo","latin":"tulit apud maiores nostros legem C. Furius de testamentis, tulit Q. Voconius de mulierum hereditatibus; innumerabiles aliae leges de civili iure sunt latae; quas Latini voluerunt, adsciverunt; ipsa denique Iulia, qua lege civitas est sociis et Latinis data, qui fundi populi facti non essent civitatem non haberent. in quo magna contentio Heracliensium et Neapolitanorum fuit, cum magna pars in iis civitatibus foederis sui libertatem civitati anteferret. postremo haec vis est istius et iuris et verbi, ut fundi populi beneficio nostro, non suo iure fiant.","quote":"ipsa denique Iulia, qua lege civitas est sociis et Latinis data","chinese":"最后还有尤利乌斯法本身，依此法，同盟者和拉丁人获得了公民权","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi026.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"Pro L. Cornelio Balbo §21"},{"id":"L-phi026-48-37","workCode":"phi026","ref":"48","title":"Pro L. Cornelio Balbo","latin":"itaque cum paucis annis post hanc civitatis donationem acerrima de civitate quaestio Licinia et Mucia lege venisset, num quis eorum, qui de foederatis civitatibus esset civitate donatus, in iudicium est vocatus? nam Spoletinus T. Matrinius, unus ex iis quos C. Marius civitate donasset, dixit causam ex colonia Latina in primis firma et inlustri. quem cum disertus homo L. Antistius accusaret, non dixit fundum Spoletinum populum non esse factum,—videbat enim populos de suo iure, non de nostro fundos fieri solere,—sed cum lege Apuleia coloniae non essent deductae, qua lege Saturninus C. Mario tulerat ut in singulas colonias ternos civis Romanos facere posset, negabat hoc beneficium re ipsa sublata valere debere.","quote":"acerrima de civitate quaestio Licinia et Mucia lege","chinese":"依李锡尼乌斯—穆基乌斯法进行的极其严厉的公民身份审查","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi026.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"Pro L. Cornelio Balbo §48"},{"id":"L-phi012-12-38","workCode":"phi012","ref":"12","title":"Pro C. Rabirio Perduellionis Reo Ad Quirites","latin":"popularis vero tribunus pl. custos defensorque iuris et libertatis! Porcia lex virgas ab omnium civium Romanorum corpore amovit, hic misericors flagella rettulit; Porcia lex libertatem civium lictori eripuit, Labienus, homo popularis, carnifici tradidit; C. Gracchus legem tulit ne de capite civium Romanorum iniussu vestro iudicaretur, hic popularis a iiviris iniussu vestro non iudicari de cive Romano sed indicta causa civem Romanum capitis condemnari coegit.","quote":"Porcia lex virgas ab omnium civium Romanorum corpore amovit","chinese":"波尔基乌斯法使所有罗马公民的身体免遭棍杖鞭打","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi012.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"Pro C. Rabirio Perduellionis Reo Ad Quirites §12"},{"id":"L-phi005-2.5.163-39","workCode":"phi005","ref":"2.5.163","title":"In C. Verrem","latin":"nomen dulce libertatis! o ius eximium nostrae civitatis! o lex Porcia legesque Semproniae! o graviter desiderata et aliquando reddita plebi Romanae tribunicia potestas! hucine tandem haec omnia reciderunt ut civis Romanus in provincia populi Romani, in oppido foederatorum, ab eo qui beneficio populi Romani fascis et securis haberet deligatus in foro virgis caederetur? quid? cum ignes ardentesque laminae ceterique cruciatus admovebantur, si te illius acerba imploratio et vox miserabilis non inhibebat, ne civium quidem Romanorum qui tum aderant fletu et gemitu maximo commovebare? in crucem tu agere ausus es quemquam qui se civem Romanum esse diceret? nolui tam vehementer agere hoc prima actione, iudices, nolui; vidistis enim ut animi multitudinis in istum dolore et odio et communis periculi metu concitarentur. statui egomet mihi tum modum et orationi meae et C. Numitorio, equiti Romano, primo homini, testi meo; et Glabrionem id quod sapientissime fecit facere laetatus sum, ut repente consilium in medio testimonio dimitteret. etenim verebatur ne populus Romanus ab isto eas poenas vi repetisse videretur, quas veritus esset ne iste legibus ac vestro iudicio non esset persoluturus.","quote":"o lex Porcia legesque Semproniae!","chinese":"啊，波尔基乌斯法与森普罗尼乌斯诸法！","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi005.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"In C. Verrem §2.5.163"},{"id":"L-phi012-12-40","workCode":"phi012","ref":"12","title":"Pro C. Rabirio Perduellionis Reo Ad Quirites","latin":"popularis vero tribunus pl. custos defensorque iuris et libertatis! Porcia lex virgas ab omnium civium Romanorum corpore amovit, hic misericors flagella rettulit; Porcia lex libertatem civium lictori eripuit, Labienus, homo popularis, carnifici tradidit; C. Gracchus legem tulit ne de capite civium Romanorum iniussu vestro iudicaretur, hic popularis a iiviris iniussu vestro non iudicari de cive Romano sed indicta causa civem Romanum capitis condemnari coegit.","quote":"C. Gracchus legem tulit ne de capite civium Romanorum iniussu vestro iudicaretur","chinese":"盖乌斯·格拉古立法规定：未经你们授权，不得审判涉及罗马公民生命与身份的案件。","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi012.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"Pro C. Rabirio Perduellionis Reo Ad Quirites §12"},{"id":"L-phi020-128-41","workCode":"phi020","ref":"128","title":"De Domo Sua Ad Pontifices","latin":"sed quia consecrabantur aedes, non privatorum domicilia, sed quae sacrae nominantur, consecrabantur agri, non ita ut nostra praedia, si qui vellet, sed ut imperator agros de hostibus captos consecraret, statuebantur arae, quae religionem adferrent ipsi ⟨ei⟩ loco ⟨quo⟩ essent consecratae, haec nisi plebs iussisset fieri vetuit. quae si tu interpretaris de nostris aedibus atque agris scripta esse, non repugno; sed quaero quae lex lata sit ut tu aedis meas consecrares, ubi tibi haec potestas data sit, quo iure feceris. neque ego nunc de religione sed de bonis omnium nostrum, nec de pontificio sed de iure publico disputo. lex Papiria vetat aedis iniussu plebis consecrari. sit sane hoc de nostris aedibus ac non de publicis templis: unum ostende verbum consecrationis in ipsa tua lege, si illa lex est ac non vox sceleris et crudelitatis tuae.","quote":"lex Papiria vetat aedis iniussu plebis consecrari.","chinese":"帕皮里乌斯法禁止未经平民大会授权而将建筑奉为神圣。","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi020.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"De Domo Sua Ad Pontifices §128"},{"id":"L-phi020-47-42","workCode":"phi020","ref":"47","title":"De Domo Sua Ad Pontifices","latin":"date hanc tribuno plebis licentiam, et intuemini paulisper animis iuventutem et eos maxime qui inminere iam cupiditate videntur in tribuniciam potestatem: conlegia medius fidius tribunorum plebis tota reperientur, hoc iure firmato, quae coeant de hominum locupletissimorum bonis, praeda praesertim populari et spe largitionis oblata.\n\nat quid tulit legum scriptor peritus et callidus? velitis ivbeatis vt M. Tvllio aqva et igni interdicatvr? crudele, nefarium, ne in sceleratissimo quidem civi sine iudicio ferundum! non tulit vt interdicatvr. quid ergo? vt interdictvm sit. O caenum, o portentum, o scelus! hanc tibi legem Clodius scripsit spurciorem lingua sua, ut interdictum sit cui non sit interdictum? Sexte noster, bona venia, quoniam iam dialecticus ⟨es⟩ et haec quoque liguris, quod factum non est, ut sit factum, ferri ad populum aut verbis ullis sanciri aut suffragiis confirmari potest?","quote":"non tulit vt interdicatvr. quid ergo? vt interdictvm sit.","chinese":"他提出的不是“应当对其禁绝水火”。那是什么？是“对其已禁绝水火”。","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi020.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"De Domo Sua Ad Pontifices §47"},{"id":"L-phi022-33-43","workCode":"phi022","ref":"33","title":"Pro P. Sestio","latin":"quid? sua sponte homines in amicorum periculis vestitum mutare non solent? pro te ipso, Piso, nemone mutabit? ne isti quidem quos legatos non modo nullo senatus consulto, sed etiam repugnante senatu tibi tute legasti? ergo hominis desperati et proditoris rei publicae casum lugebunt fortasse qui volent: civis florentissimi benivolentia bonorum et optime de salute patriae meriti periculum, coniunctum cum periculo civitatis, lugere senatui non licebit? idemque consules, si appellandi sunt consules quos nemo est quin non modo ex memoria sed etiam ex fastis evellendos putet, pacto iam foedere provinciarum, producti in circo Flaminio in contionem ab illa furia ac peste patriae, maximo cum gemitu vestro, illa omnia quae tum contra me contraque rem publicam ⟨agebantur⟩ voce ac sententia sua comprobaverunt.\n\nisdemque consulibus sedentibus atque inspectantibus lata lex est, ne avspicia valerent, ne qvis obnvntiaret, ne qvis legi intercederet, vt omnibvs fastis diebvs legem ferri liceret, vt lex Aelia, lex Fvfia ne valeret: qua una rogatione quis est qui non intellegat universam rem publicam esse deletam?","quote":"vt lex Aelia, lex Fvfia ne valeret","chinese":"使埃利乌斯法与富菲乌斯法不再有效","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi022.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"Pro P. Sestio §33"},{"id":"L-phi023-18-44","workCode":"phi023","ref":"18","title":"In P. Vatinium testem interrogatio","latin":"simul etiam illud volo uti respondeas, cum te tribuno plebis esset etiam tum in re publica lex Aelia et Fufia, quae leges saepe numero tribunicios furores debilitarunt et represserunt, quas contra praeter te nemo umquam est facere conatus,—quae quidem leges anno post, sedentibus in templo duobus non consulibus sed proditoribus huius civitatis ac pestibus, una cum auspiciis, cum intercessionibus, cum omni iure publico conflagraverunt: ecquando dubitaris contra eas leges cum plebe agere et concilium convocare? num quem ex omnibus tribunis plebis, quicumque seditiosi fuerunt, tam audacem audieris fuisse ut umquam contra legem Aeliam aut Fufiam concilium advocaret?","quote":"cum te tribuno plebis esset etiam tum in re publica lex Aelia et Fufia","chinese":"在你担任保民官时，埃利乌斯法与富菲乌斯法在共和国中尚且有效","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi023.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"In P. Vatinium testem interrogatio §18"},{"id":"L-phi023-18-45","workCode":"phi023","ref":"18","title":"In P. Vatinium testem interrogatio","latin":"simul etiam illud volo uti respondeas, cum te tribuno plebis esset etiam tum in re publica lex Aelia et Fufia, quae leges saepe numero tribunicios furores debilitarunt et represserunt, quas contra praeter te nemo umquam est facere conatus,—quae quidem leges anno post, sedentibus in templo duobus non consulibus sed proditoribus huius civitatis ac pestibus, una cum auspiciis, cum intercessionibus, cum omni iure publico conflagraverunt: ecquando dubitaris contra eas leges cum plebe agere et concilium convocare? num quem ex omnibus tribunis plebis, quicumque seditiosi fuerunt, tam audacem audieris fuisse ut umquam contra legem Aeliam aut Fufiam concilium advocaret?","quote":"cum te tribuno plebis esset etiam tum in re publica lex Aelia et Fufia","chinese":"在你担任保民官时，埃利乌斯法与富菲乌斯法在共和国中尚且有效","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi023.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"In P. Vatinium testem interrogatio §18"},{"id":"L-phi020-53-46","workCode":"phi020","ref":"53","title":"De Domo Sua Ad Pontifices","latin":"quod si iam populus Romanus de ista re consultus esset et non omnia per servos latronesque gessisses, nonne fieri poterat ut populo de Cyprio rege placeret, de exsulibus Byzantiis displiceret? quae est, quaeso, alia vis, quae sententia Caeciliae legis et Didiae nisi haec, ne populo necesse sit in coniunctis rebus compluribus aut id quod nolit accipere aut id quod velit repudiare?\n\nquid? si per vim tulisti, tamenne lex est? aut quicquam iure gestum videri potest quod per vim gestum esse constet? an, si in ipsa latione tua capta iam urbe lapides iacti, si manus conlata non est, idcirco tu ad illam labem atque eluviem civitatis sine summa vi pervenire potuisti?","quote":"ne populo necesse sit in coniunctis rebus compluribus aut id quod nolit accipere aut id quod velit repudiare","chinese":"不使人民在捆绑在一起的多个事项中，被迫接受其不愿接受的，或拒绝其愿意接受的","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi020.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"De Domo Sua Ad Pontifices §53"},{"id":"L-phi023-33-47","workCode":"phi023","ref":"33","title":"In P. Vatinium testem interrogatio","latin":"quaero etiam illud ex te, quod privatus admisisti, in quo certe iam tibi dicere non licebit cum clarissimis viris causam tuam esse coniunctam, postulatusne sis lege Licinia et Iunia? edixeritne C. Memmius praetor ex ea lege ut adesses die tricensimo? cum is dies venisset, fecerisne quod in hac re publica non modo factum antea numquam est, sed in omni memoria est omnino inauditum? appellarisne tribunos plebis ne causam diceres—levius dixi; quamquam id ipsum esset et novum et non ferendum—sed appellarisne nominatim pestem illius anni, furiam patriae, tempestatem rei publicae, Clodium. qui tamen cum iure, cum more, cum potestate iudicium impedire non posset, rediit ad illam vim et furorem suum, ducemque se militibus tuis praebuit. in quo ne quid a me dictum in te potius putes quam abs te esse quaesitum, nullum onus imponam mihi testimoni: quae mihi brevi tempore ex eodem isto loco video esse dicenda servabo, teque non arguam, sed, ut in ceteris rebus feci, rogabo.","quote":"postulatusne sis lege Licinia et Iunia?","chinese":"你是否曾依据李锡尼乌斯—尤尼乌斯法受到控告？","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi023.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"In P. Vatinium testem interrogatio §33"},{"id":"L-ASC-48","workCode":null,"ref":"59","title":"Asconius, In Cornelianam","latin":"Aliam deinde legem Cornelius, etsi nemo repugnare ausus est, multis tamen invitis tulit, ut praetores ex edictis suis perpetuis ius dicerent: quae res studium aut gratiam ambitiosis praetoribus qui varie ius dicere assueverant sustulit.","quote":"ut praetores ex edictis suis perpetuis ius dicerent","chinese":"规定裁判官应依照自己事先公布、在任期内持续适用的告示行使司法权。","sourceType":"Asconius: Latin commentary, Clark 1907","url":"https://www.attalus.org/latin/asconius3.html","locator":"Asconius, pp. 59 Clark (1907)"},{"id":"L-ASC-49","workCode":null,"ref":"59–61","title":"Asconius, In Cornelianam","latin":"Sequenti deinde anno M'.Lepido L. Volcacio coss., quo anno praetor Cicero fuit, reum Cornelium duo fratres Cominii lege Cornelia de maiestate fecerunt. Detulit nomen Publius, subscripsit Gaius.","quote":"reum Cornelium duo fratres Cominii lege Cornelia de maiestate fecerunt.","chinese":"科米尼乌斯兄弟二人依据科尔内利乌斯损害国家尊严法控告了科尔内利乌斯。","sourceType":"Asconius: Latin commentary, Clark 1907","url":"https://www.attalus.org/latin/asconius3.html","locator":"Asconius, pp. 59–61 Clark (1907)"},{"id":"L-ASC-50","workCode":null,"ref":"58–59","title":"Asconius, In Cornelianam","latin":"Tum Cornelius ita ferre rursus coepit ne quis in senatu legibus solveretur nisi CC adfuissent, neve quis, cum solutus esset, intercederet, cum de ea re ad populum ferretur. Haec sine tumultu res acta est.","quote":"ne quis in senatu legibus solveretur nisi CC adfuissent","chinese":"除非有二百名元老出席，否则元老院不得豁免任何人遵守法律","sourceType":"Asconius: Latin commentary, Clark 1907","url":"https://www.attalus.org/latin/asconius3.html","locator":"Asconius, pp. 58–59 Clark (1907)"},{"id":"L-phi031-9-51","workCode":"phi031","ref":"9","title":"Pro T. Annio Milone","latin":"quod si xii tabulae nocturnum furem quoquo modo, diurnum autem, si se telo defenderet, interfici impune voluerunt, quis est qui, quoquo modo quis interfectus sit, puniendum putet, cum videat aliquando gladium nobis ad hominem occidendum ab ipsis porrigi legibus? atqui, si tempus est ullum iure hominis necandi, quae multa sunt, certe illud est non modo iustum verum etiam necessarium, cum vi vis inlata defenditur. pudicitiam cum eriperet militi tribunus militaris in exercitu C. Mari, propinquus eius imperatoris, interfectus ab eo est cui vim adferebat; facere enim probus adulescens periculose quam perpeti turpiter maluit. atque hunc ille summus vir scelere solutum periculo liberavit.","quote":"quod si xii tabulae nocturnum furem quoquo modo, diurnum autem, si se telo defenderet, interfici impune voluerunt","chinese":"如果十二表法允许不论何种情形杀死夜间盗贼而不受罚，并允许在白昼盗贼持械自卫时杀死他","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi031.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"Pro T. Annio Milone §9"},{"id":"L-phi020-43-52","workCode":"phi020","ref":"43","title":"De Domo Sua Ad Pontifices","latin":"fueris sane tribunus plebis tam iure legeque, quam fuit hic ipse ⟨P. Ser⟩vilius, vir omnibus rebus clarissimus atque amplissimus: quo iure, quo more, quo exemplo legem nominatim de capite civis indemnati tulisti? vetant leges sacratae, vetant xii tabulae leges privatis hominibus inrogari; id est enim privilegium. nemo umquam tulit; nihil est crudelius, nihil perniciosius, nihil quod minus haec civitas ferre possit. proscriptionis miserrimum nomen illud et omnis acerbitas Sullani temporis quid habet quod maxime sit insigne ad memoriam crudelitatis? opinor, poenam in civis Romanos nominatim sine iudicio constitutam.","quote":"vetant xii tabulae leges privatis hominibus inrogari","chinese":"十二表法禁止针对个别私人制定法律","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi020.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"De Domo Sua Ad Pontifices §43"},{"id":"L-phi008-95-53","workCode":"phi008","ref":"95","title":"Pro A. Caecina","latin":"sunt in eam rem testimonia. postea cur tu, Aebuti, de isto potius fundo quam de alio, si quem habes, Caecinae denuntiabas, si Caecina non possidebat? ipse porro Caecina cur se moribus deduci volebat idque tibi de amicorum et de Aquili sententia responderat.\n\nat enim Sulla legem tulit. Vt nihil de illo tempore, nihil de calamitate rei publicae querar, hoc tibi respondeo, ascripsisse eundem Sullam in eadem lege: si qvid ivs non esset rogarier, eivs ea lege nihilvm rogatvm. quid est quod ius non sit, quod populus iubere aut vetare non possit? Vt ne longius abeam, declarat ista ascriptio esse aliquid; nam, nisi esset, hoc in omnibus legibus non ascriberetur.","quote":"si qvid ivs non esset rogarier, eivs ea lege nihilvm rogatvm.","chinese":"如果有任何事项依法不得提请表决，则本法对该事项视为未作提案。","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi008.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"Pro A. Caecina §95"},{"id":"L-phi017-67-54","workCode":"phi017","ref":"67","title":"Pro L. Flacco","latin":"Cum aurum Iudaeorum nomine quotannis ex Italia et ex omnibus nostris provinciis Hierosolymam exportari soleret, Flaccus sanxit edicto ne ex Asia exportari liceret. quis est, iudices, qui hoc non vere laudare possit? exportari aurum non oportere cum saepe antea senatus tum me consule gravissime iudicavit. huic autem barbarae superstitioni resistere severitatis, multitudinem Iudaeorum flagrantem non numquam in contionibus pro re publica contemnere gravitatis summae fuit. at Cn. Pompeius captis Hierosolymis victor ex illo fano nihil attigit.","quote":"Flaccus sanxit edicto ne ex Asia exportari liceret.","chinese":"弗拉库斯以告示规定，不得将黄金从亚细亚输出。","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi017.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"Pro L. Flacco §67"},{"id":"L-phi007-1-55","workCode":"phi007","ref":"1","title":"Pro M. Fonteio","latin":"[LACUNA] ⟨o⟩portuisse an ita dissolvit ut omnes alii dissolverunt? nam ita ego defendo M. Fonteium, iudices, itaque contendo post legem Valeriam latam [LACUNA] te [LACUNA] quaestore usque ad T. Crispinum quaestorem aliter neminem solvisse; hunc omnium superiorum, huius autem omnis qui postea fuerint auctoritatem dico secutos.","quote":"post legem Valeriam latam","chinese":"在瓦莱里乌斯法颁布之后","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi007.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"Pro M. Fonteio §1"},{"id":"L-phi007-2-56","workCode":"phi007","ref":"2","title":"Pro M. Fonteio","latin":"quid accusas, quid reprendis? nam quod in tabulis dodrantariis et quadrantariis, quas ait ab Hirtuleio institutas, Fontei officium desiderat, non possum existimare utrum ipse erret an vos in errorem inducere velit. quaero enim abs te, M. Plaetori, possitne tibi ipsi probata esse nostra causa, si, qua in re abs te M. Fonteius accusatur, auctorem habet eum quem tu maxime laudas Hirtuleium; qua in re autem laudas Hirtuleium, Fonteius idem fecisse reperitur. reprehendis solutionis genus; eodem modo Hirtuleium dissolvisse publicae tabulae coarguunt. laudas illum quod dodrantarias tabulas instituerit; easdem Fonteius instituit et eodem genere pecuniae. nam ne forte sis nescius et istas tabulas existimes ⟨a⟩d ⟨diversam v⟩e⟨te⟩ris aeris alieni rationem pertinere, ob unam causam et in uno genere sunt institutae. nam cum publicanis qui Africam, qui Aquileiense por⟨torium⟩ [LACUNA]","quote":"in tabulis dodrantariis et quadrantariis","chinese":"在记录四分之三与四分之一数额的账簿中","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi007.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"Pro M. Fonteio §2"},{"id":"L-phi005-2.1.108-57","workCode":"phi005","ref":"2.1.108","title":"In C. Verrem","latin":"in lege Voconia non est fecit fecerit, neque in ulla praeteritum tempus reprehenditur nisi eius rei quae sua sponte tam scelerata et nefaria est ut, etiamsi lex non esset, magnopere vitanda fuerit. atque in his ipsis rebus multa videmus ita sancta esse legibus ut ante facta in iudicium non vocentur; Cornelia testamentaria, nummaria, ceterae complures, in quibus non ius aliquod novum populo constituitur, sed sancitur ut, quod semper malum facinus fuerit, eius quaestio ad populum pertineat ex certo tempore.","quote":"Cornelia testamentaria, nummaria","chinese":"关于遗嘱与货币的科尔内利乌斯法","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi005.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"In C. Verrem §2.1.108"},{"id":"L-ASC-58","workCode":null,"ref":"17","title":"Asconius, In Pisonem","latin":"Legem iudiciariam ante aliquot annos quibus temporibus accusatus est Verres a Cicerone tulit L. Aurelius Cotta praetor, qua communicata sunt iudicia senatui et equitibus Romanis et tribunis aerariis.","quote":"qua communicata sunt iudicia senatui et equitibus Romanis et tribunis aerariis.","chinese":"依该法，审判职能由元老、罗马骑士和财务保民官共同承担。","sourceType":"Asconius: Latin commentary, Clark 1907","url":"https://droitromain.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/Leges/aurelia_iudiciaria.htm","locator":"Asconius, In Pisonem, p. 17 Clark (1907)"},{"id":"L-ASC-59","workCode":null,"ref":"17","title":"Asconius, In Pisonem","latin":"Rursus deinde Pompeius in consulatu secundo, quo haec oratio dicta est, promulgavit ut amplissimo ex censu ex centuriis aliter atque antea lecti iudices, aeque tamen ex illis tribus ordinibus, res iudicarent.","quote":"aeque tamen ex illis tribus ordinibus","chinese":"但仍然平等地从那三个等级中选取","sourceType":"Asconius: Latin commentary, Clark 1907","url":"https://droitromain.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/Leges/aurelia_iudiciaria.htm","locator":"Asconius, In Pisonem, p. 17 Clark (1907)"},{"id":"L-phi001-30-60","workCode":"phi001","ref":"30","title":"Pro P. Quinctio","latin":"venit Romam Quinctius, vadimonium sistit. iste, homo acerrimus, bonorum possessor, expulsor, ereptor, annum et sex mensis nihil petit, quiescit, condicionibus hunc quoad potest producit, a Cn. Dolabella denique praetore postulat ut sibi Quinctius iudicatum solvi satis det ex formula: quod ab eo petat quoivs ex edicto praetoris bona dies xxx possessa sint. non recusabat Quinctius quin ita satis dare iuberetur, si bona possessa essent ex edicto. decernit— quam aequum, nihil dico, unum hoc dico, novum; et hoc ipsum tacuisse mallem, quoniam utrumque quivis intellegere potuit—sed iubet P. Quinctium sponsionem cum Sex. Naevio facere: si bona sua ex edicto P. Burrieni praetoris dies xxx possessa non essent. recusabant qui aderant tum Quinctio, demonstrabant de re iudicium fieri oportere ut aut uterque inter se aut neuter satis daret; non necesse esse famam alterius in iudicium venire.","quote":"sed iubet P. Quinctium sponsionem cum Sex. Naevio facere:","chinese":"但他命令普布利乌斯·昆克提乌斯与塞克斯图斯·奈维乌斯订立诉讼赌约：","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi001.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"Pro P. Quinctio §30"},{"id":"L-phi014-67-61","workCode":"phi014","ref":"67","title":"Pro L. Murena","latin":"qua re, ut ad id quod institui revertar, tolle mihi e causa nomen Catonis, remove vim, praetermitte auctoritatem quae in iudiciis aut nihil valere aut ad salutem debet valere, congredere mecum criminibus ipsis. quid accusas, Cato, quid adfers ad iudicium, quid arguis? ambitum accusas; non defendo. me reprehendis, quod idem defendam quod lege punierim. punivi ambitum, non innocentiam; ambitum vero ipsum vel tecum accusabo, si voles. dixisti senatus consultum me referente esse factum, si mercede obviam candidatis issent, si conducti sectarentur, si gladiatoribus volgo locus tributim et item prandia si volgo essent data, contra legem Calpurniam factum videri. ergo ita senatus iudicat, contra legem facta haec videri, si facta sint; decernit quod nihil opus est, dum candidatis morem gerit. nam factum sit necne vehementer quaeritur; sin factum sit, quin contra legem sit dubitare nemo potest.","quote":"dixisti senatus consultum me referente esse factum","chinese":"你说过，元老院曾依我的提议作出一项决议","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi014.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"Pro L. Murena §67"},{"id":"L-phi014-67-62","workCode":"phi014","ref":"67","title":"Pro L. Murena","latin":"qua re, ut ad id quod institui revertar, tolle mihi e causa nomen Catonis, remove vim, praetermitte auctoritatem quae in iudiciis aut nihil valere aut ad salutem debet valere, congredere mecum criminibus ipsis. quid accusas, Cato, quid adfers ad iudicium, quid arguis? ambitum accusas; non defendo. me reprehendis, quod idem defendam quod lege punierim. punivi ambitum, non innocentiam; ambitum vero ipsum vel tecum accusabo, si voles. dixisti senatus consultum me referente esse factum, si mercede obviam candidatis issent, si conducti sectarentur, si gladiatoribus volgo locus tributim et item prandia si volgo essent data, contra legem Calpurniam factum videri. ergo ita senatus iudicat, contra legem facta haec videri, si facta sint; decernit quod nihil opus est, dum candidatis morem gerit. nam factum sit necne vehementer quaeritur; sin factum sit, quin contra legem sit dubitare nemo potest.","quote":"contra legem facta haec videri, si facta sint","chinese":"这些行为如果确曾发生，就应视为违反法律","sourceType":"Cicero: archived Latin","url":"sources/phi0474.phi014.perseus-lat2.xml","locator":"Pro L. Murena §67"}],"links":[{"id":"burrienus--quinctio","instrument":"burrienus","work":"quinctio","role":"Governing remedy","note":"The edict supplies the legal conditions tested by the sponsio, rather than deciding the alleged debt directly.","evidence":["L-phi001-30-1","L-phi001-60-2"]},{"id":"lucullus--tullio","instrument":"lucullus","work":"tullio","role":"Governing remedy","note":"The quoted formula and its intended reach are the immediate legal issue.","evidence":["L-phi006-7-3","L-phi006-12-4"]},{"id":"armed-interdict--caecina","instrument":"armed-interdict","work":"caecina","role":"Governing remedy","note":"The wording and legal effect of the interdict frame the civil action.","evidence":["L-phi008-23-5"]},{"id":"aquilia--tullio","instrument":"aquilia","work":"tullio","role":"Explicit comparison","note":"Ordinary damage law is contrasted with the operative Lucullan formula.","evidence":["L-phi006-9-6","L-phi003-32-7"]},{"id":"aquilia--roscio-comoedo","instrument":"aquilia","work":"roscio-comoedo","role":"Underlying transaction","note":"Aquilian identification concerns the antecedent killing action, not the current financial action.","evidence":["L-phi006-9-6","L-phi003-32-7"]},{"id":"cornelia-sicariis--cluentio","instrument":"cornelia-sicariis","work":"cluentio","role":"Governing charge","note":"Express statutory exegesis: Cluentio §§148–154 distinguishes clauses and personal scope.","evidence":["L-phi010-148-8","L-phi010-154-9"]},{"id":"cornelia-sicariis--roscio-amerino","instrument":"cornelia-sicariis","work":"roscio-amerino","role":"Reconstructed framework","note":"Conventional identification of the murder court; Roscius’ case predates Pompey’s later parricide statute.","evidence":["L-phi010-148-8","L-phi010-154-9"]},{"id":"proscription-law--roscio-amerino","instrument":"proscription-law","work":"roscio-amerino","role":"Contested legality","note":"The legality of the property sale is attacked on the law’s own terms, separately from the charge of killing.","evidence":["L-phi002-125-10"]},{"id":"cornelia-repetundis--divinatio","instrument":"cornelia-repetundis","work":"divinatio","role":"Reconstructed framework","note":"The pre-Julian public extortion proceeding; the cited later passage explicitly distinguishes its statutory predecessor.","evidence":["L-phi030-9-11"]},{"id":"cornelia-repetundis--verres-actio1","instrument":"cornelia-repetundis","work":"verres-actio1","role":"Reconstructed framework","note":"The pre-Julian public extortion proceeding; the cited later passage explicitly distinguishes its statutory predecessor.","evidence":["L-phi030-9-11"]},{"id":"cornelia-repetundis--verres-2-1","instrument":"cornelia-repetundis","work":"verres-2-1","role":"Reconstructed framework","note":"The pre-Julian public extortion proceeding; the cited later passage explicitly distinguishes its statutory predecessor.","evidence":["L-phi030-9-11"]},{"id":"cornelia-repetundis--verres-2-2","instrument":"cornelia-repetundis","work":"verres-2-2","role":"Reconstructed framework","note":"The pre-Julian public extortion proceeding; the cited later passage explicitly distinguishes its statutory predecessor.","evidence":["L-phi030-9-11"]},{"id":"cornelia-repetundis--verres-2-3","instrument":"cornelia-repetundis","work":"verres-2-3","role":"Reconstructed framework","note":"The pre-Julian public extortion proceeding; the cited later passage explicitly distinguishes its statutory predecessor.","evidence":["L-phi030-9-11"]},{"id":"cornelia-repetundis--verres-2-4","instrument":"cornelia-repetundis","work":"verres-2-4","role":"Reconstructed framework","note":"The pre-Julian public extortion proceeding; the cited later passage explicitly distinguishes its statutory predecessor.","evidence":["L-phi030-9-11"]},{"id":"cornelia-repetundis--verres-2-5","instrument":"cornelia-repetundis","work":"verres-2-5","role":"Reconstructed framework","note":"The pre-Julian public extortion proceeding; the cited later passage explicitly distinguishes its statutory predecessor.","evidence":["L-phi030-9-11"]},{"id":"cornelia-repetundis--fonteio","instrument":"cornelia-repetundis","work":"fonteio","role":"Reconstructed framework","note":"The pre-Julian public extortion proceeding; the cited later passage explicitly distinguishes its statutory predecessor.","evidence":["L-phi030-9-11"]},{"id":"cornelia-repetundis--rabirio-postumo","instrument":"cornelia-repetundis","work":"rabirio-postumo","role":"Statutory predecessor","note":"Cicero compares the recipient clause in the Julian, Cornelian and Servilian enactments.","evidence":["L-phi030-9-11"]},{"id":"iulia-repetundis--rabirio-postumo","instrument":"iulia-repetundis","work":"rabirio-postumo","role":"Governing remedy","note":"The law and recipient-recovery clause are explicitly identified in §§8–12.","evidence":["L-phi030-8-12","L-phi017-13-13"]},{"id":"iulia-repetundis--flacco","instrument":"iulia-repetundis","work":"flacco","role":"Reconstructed framework","note":"The unnamed recent law in §13 is identified as Julian by Greenidge, p. 485 n. 3.","evidence":["L-phi030-8-12","L-phi017-13-13"]},{"id":"iulia-repetundis--scauro","instrument":"iulia-repetundis","work":"scauro","role":"Reconstructed framework","note":"The extortion charge in 54 BCE falls under the post-59 regime; the surviving fragments do not themselves preserve a full charging instrument.","evidence":["L-phi030-8-12","L-phi017-13-13"]},{"id":"servilia-repetundis--rabirio-postumo","instrument":"servilia-repetundis","work":"rabirio-postumo","role":"Statutory predecessor","note":"A historical comparison of unchanged recovery language or the two-hearing procedure.","evidence":["L-phi030-9-14","L-phi005-2.1.26-15"]},{"id":"servilia-repetundis--verres-2-1","instrument":"servilia-repetundis","work":"verres-2-1","role":"Statutory predecessor","note":"A historical comparison of unchanged recovery language or the two-hearing procedure.","evidence":["L-phi030-9-14","L-phi005-2.1.26-15"]},{"id":"acilia-repetundis--verres-2-1","instrument":"acilia-repetundis","work":"verres-2-1","role":"Explicit comparison","note":"Hypothetical procedural comparison, not the current statutory basis.","evidence":["L-phi005-2.1.26-16"]},{"id":"rupilia--verres-2-2","instrument":"rupilia","work":"verres-2-2","role":"Contested legality","note":"The governing provincial jurisdictional arrangement is the standard against which Verres’ judicial conduct is measured.","evidence":["L-phi005-2.2.32-17"]},{"id":"hieronica--verres-2-2","instrument":"hieronica","work":"verres-2-2","role":"Contested legality","note":"The existing tax and adjudication regime is contrasted with Verres’ innovations.","evidence":["L-phi005-2.2.32-18","L-phi005-2.3.15-19"]},{"id":"hieronica--verres-2-3","instrument":"hieronica","work":"verres-2-3","role":"Contested legality","note":"The existing tax and adjudication regime is contrasted with Verres’ innovations.","evidence":["L-phi005-2.2.32-18","L-phi005-2.3.15-19"]},{"id":"verres-inheritance--verres-2-1","instrument":"verres-inheritance","work":"verres-2-1","role":"Contested legality","note":"The Asellus case tests retrospective edict-making and the protection of a named heir.","evidence":["L-phi005-2.1.104-20"]},{"id":"voconia--verres-2-1","instrument":"voconia","work":"verres-2-1","role":"Contested legality","note":"The testament’s statutory eligibility and the argument against retrospective alteration.","evidence":["L-phi005-2.1.108-21"]},{"id":"voconia--balbo","instrument":"voconia","work":"balbo","role":"Explicit comparison","note":"Balbo §21 uses inheritance legislation as an example of local adoption, not as a citizenship-granting law.","evidence":["L-phi026-21-22"]},{"id":"verres-tithes--verres-2-3","instrument":"verres-tithes","work":"verres-2-3","role":"Contested legality","note":"A concrete edict changes the practical operation of the pre-existing tax regime.","evidence":["L-phi005-2.3.25-23"]},{"id":"plautia-vis--sulla","instrument":"plautia-vis","work":"sulla","role":"Reconstructed framework","note":"Conventional identification of the de vi court; not an explicit full statutory quotation in the selected dossier excerpts.","evidence":["L-phi031-35-24","L-phi024-70-25"]},{"id":"plautia-vis--sestio","instrument":"plautia-vis","work":"sestio","role":"Reconstructed framework","note":"Conventional identification of the de vi court; not an explicit full statutory quotation in the selected dossier excerpts.","evidence":["L-phi031-35-24","L-phi024-70-25"]},{"id":"plautia-vis--caelio","instrument":"plautia-vis","work":"caelio","role":"Disputed identification","note":"The common Plautian label must be tested against Caelio §70, which names Catulus.","evidence":["L-phi031-35-24","L-phi024-70-25"]},{"id":"plautia-vis--milone","instrument":"plautia-vis","work":"milone","role":"Earlier proceeding","note":"Milone §35 recalls Clodius’ separate prosecution; Milo’s current proceeding is Pompeian.","evidence":["L-phi031-35-24","L-phi024-70-25"]},{"id":"lutatia-vis--caelio","instrument":"lutatia-vis","work":"caelio","role":"Disputed identification","note":"The speech itself names Catulus; Greenidge discusses competing reconstructions of the law’s identity.","evidence":["L-phi024-70-26"]},{"id":"pompeia-vis--milone","instrument":"pompeia-vis","work":"milone","role":"Governing charge","note":"Special statutory inquiry; the factual killing and its legal justification remain distinct issues.","evidence":["L-phi031-15-27"]},{"id":"calpurnia-ambitu--murena","instrument":"calpurnia-ambitu","work":"murena","role":"Governing charge","note":"The anti-ambitus framework as discussed alongside the recent Tullian enactment.","evidence":["L-phi014-46-28","L-phi014-67-29"]},{"id":"calpurnia-ambitu--sulla","instrument":"calpurnia-ambitu","work":"sulla","role":"Earlier proceeding","note":"The prior electoral conviction explains Sulla’s lost consulship, not the statutory charge in the present defence; Greenidge p. 424 discusses the changing penalties.","evidence":["L-phi014-46-28","L-phi014-67-29"]},{"id":"tullia-ambitu--murena","instrument":"tullia-ambitu","work":"murena","role":"Governing charge","note":"Cicero defends a defendant against the background of his own recent anti-bribery legislation.","evidence":["L-phi014-47-30"]},{"id":"licinia-sodaliciis--plancio","instrument":"licinia-sodaliciis","work":"plancio","role":"Governing charge","note":"Expressly named statute and its special jury-selection mechanism.","evidence":["L-phi028-36-31"]},{"id":"papia--archia","instrument":"papia","work":"archia","role":"Reconstructed framework","note":"Status challenge; distinguish the Papian inquiry from the grant under the Plautia Papiria.","evidence":["L-phi016-10-32","L-phi026-52-33"]},{"id":"papia--balbo","instrument":"papia","work":"balbo","role":"Precedent / framework","note":"The expressly named Papian case is Cassius’ precedent in §52; its relevance is not the source of Balbus’ grant.","evidence":["L-phi016-10-32","L-phi026-52-33"]},{"id":"plautia-papiria--archia","instrument":"plautia-papiria","work":"archia","role":"Source of entitlement","note":"The three statutory conditions structure Cicero’s citizenship proof.","evidence":["L-phi016-7-34"]},{"id":"gellia-cornelia--balbo","instrument":"gellia-cornelia","work":"balbo","role":"Source of entitlement","note":"The speech explicitly identifies the authorizing law and isolates the treaty objection.","evidence":["L-phi026-19-35"]},{"id":"iulia-civitate--balbo","instrument":"iulia-civitate","work":"balbo","role":"Explicit comparison","note":"Collective adoption is distinguished from the individual Gellian-Cornelian grant.","evidence":["L-phi026-21-36"]},{"id":"licinia-mucia--balbo","instrument":"licinia-mucia","work":"balbo","role":"Earlier proceeding","note":"Cicero’s historical evidence for his reading of citizenship and treaty law.","evidence":["L-phi026-48-37"]},{"id":"porciae--rabirio-perduellio","instrument":"porciae","work":"rabirio-perduellio","role":"Protective norm invoked","note":"Challenge to coercive punishment and the duumviral procedure.","evidence":["L-phi012-12-38"]},{"id":"porciae--verres-2-5","instrument":"porciae","work":"verres-2-5","role":"Protective norm invoked","note":"Verrines II.5.163 invokes Porcian and Sempronian protections in the Gavius narrative.","evidence":["L-phi005-2.5.163-39"]},{"id":"sempronia-capite--rabirio-perduellio","instrument":"sempronia-capite","work":"rabirio-perduellio","role":"Protective norm invoked","note":"Popular authorization and the legitimacy of capital adjudication.","evidence":["L-phi012-12-40"]},{"id":"sempronia-capite--verres-2-5","instrument":"sempronia-capite","work":"verres-2-5","role":"Protective norm invoked","note":"The plural reference in II.5.163 invokes the broader Sempronian protection tradition; attribution of its full scope remains qualified.","evidence":["L-phi012-12-40"]},{"id":"papiria-dedication--domo","instrument":"papiria-dedication","work":"domo","role":"Contested legality","note":"Public authorization is the central test applied to the purported consecration of Cicero’s house.","evidence":["L-phi020-128-41"]},{"id":"clodia-exile--domo","instrument":"clodia-exile","work":"domo","role":"Contested legality","note":"Named interdiction, retrospective wording, confiscation and restoration.","evidence":["L-phi020-47-42"]},{"id":"clodia-exile--sestio","instrument":"clodia-exile","work":"sestio","role":"Historical legal setting","note":"Sestio §25 narrates the proposals directed against Cicero; the present defendant is Sestius, charged with vis.","evidence":["L-phi020-47-42"]},{"id":"clodia-auspices--sestio","instrument":"clodia-auspices","work":"sestio","role":"Historical legal setting","note":"Reported change in legislative procedure during the crisis of Cicero’s exile.","evidence":["L-phi022-33-43"]},{"id":"clodia-auspices--vatinium","instrument":"clodia-auspices","work":"vatinium","role":"Chronological contrast","note":"The later enactment must be distinguished from the law operative during Vatinius’ tribunate.","evidence":["L-phi022-33-43"]},{"id":"aelia--vatinium","instrument":"aelia","work":"vatinium","role":"Contested legality","note":"A witness’s earlier conduct is tested against the laws operative in 59 BCE; this interrogation is not a separate trial of Vatinius.","evidence":["L-phi023-18-44"]},{"id":"aelia--sestio","instrument":"aelia","work":"sestio","role":"Historical legal setting","note":"Named in Cicero’s account of the subsequent Clodian alteration in §33.","evidence":["L-phi023-18-44"]},{"id":"fufia--vatinium","instrument":"fufia","work":"vatinium","role":"Contested legality","note":"A witness’s earlier conduct is tested against the laws operative in 59 BCE; this interrogation is not a separate trial of Vatinius.","evidence":["L-phi023-18-45"]},{"id":"fufia--sestio","instrument":"fufia","work":"sestio","role":"Historical legal setting","note":"Named in Cicero’s account of the subsequent Clodian alteration in §33.","evidence":["L-phi023-18-45"]},{"id":"caecilia-didia--domo","instrument":"caecilia-didia","work":"domo","role":"Contested legality","note":"Promulgation and the bundling of distinct subjects are tests of legislative validity.","evidence":["L-phi020-53-46"]},{"id":"caecilia-didia--sestio","instrument":"caecilia-didia","work":"sestio","role":"Conduct alleged against another","note":"Sestio §135 names the law in the attack on Vatinius, not as the vis charge against Sestius.","evidence":["L-phi020-53-46"]},{"id":"licinia-iunia--vatinium","instrument":"licinia-iunia","work":"vatinium","role":"Earlier proceeding","note":"A prior legal summons is used in interrogation of a witness; this speech is not itself that prosecution.","evidence":["L-phi023-33-47"]},{"id":"licinia-iunia--sestio","instrument":"licinia-iunia","work":"sestio","role":"Conduct alleged against another","note":"Explicit reference in Sestio §135, within the attack on Vatinius.","evidence":["L-phi023-33-47"]},{"id":"cornelia-edictis--cornelio-i","instrument":"cornelia-edictis","work":"cornelio-i","role":"Historical legal setting","note":"A reform of the defendant’s tribunate recorded by Asconius; not the charging statute.","evidence":["L-ASC-48"]},{"id":"cornelia-edictis--cornelio-ii","instrument":"cornelia-edictis","work":"cornelio-ii","role":"Historical legal setting","note":"A reform of the defendant’s tribunate recorded by Asconius; not the charging statute.","evidence":["L-ASC-48"]},{"id":"cornelia-maiestate--cornelio-i","instrument":"cornelia-maiestate","work":"cornelio-i","role":"Governing charge","note":"The charging law is named in Asconius’ account, not inferred from the defendant’s family name.","evidence":["L-ASC-49"]},{"id":"cornelia-maiestate--cornelio-ii","instrument":"cornelia-maiestate","work":"cornelio-ii","role":"Governing charge","note":"The charging law is named in Asconius’ account, not inferred from the defendant’s family name.","evidence":["L-ASC-49"]},{"id":"cornelia-exemptions--cornelio-i","instrument":"cornelia-exemptions","work":"cornelio-i","role":"Historical legal setting","note":"The earlier contested proposal and its revised enactment explain the charge’s setting.","evidence":["L-ASC-50"]},{"id":"cornelia-exemptions--cornelio-ii","instrument":"cornelia-exemptions","work":"cornelio-ii","role":"Historical legal setting","note":"The earlier contested proposal and its revised enactment explain the charge’s setting.","evidence":["L-ASC-50"]},{"id":"domitia-priesthoods--cornelio-ii","instrument":"domitia-priesthoods","work":"cornelio-ii","role":"Explicit comparison","note":"Preserved fragment FCO3: popular participation in priestly selection as a tribunician precedent.","evidence":[]},{"id":"gabinia-pirates--cornelio-i","instrument":"gabinia-pirates","work":"cornelio-i","role":"Explicit comparison","note":"Preserved fragment FCO1 and Asconius’ explanation of the tribunician precedent.","evidence":[]},{"id":"twelve-tables--milone","instrument":"twelve-tables","work":"milone","role":"Explicit comparison","note":"A statutory example supports the general distinction between killing and unlawful killing.","evidence":["L-phi031-9-51","L-phi020-43-52"]},{"id":"twelve-tables--domo","instrument":"twelve-tables","work":"domo","role":"Protective norm invoked","note":"Cicero attacks legislation aimed by name at an uncondemned citizen.","evidence":["L-phi031-9-51","L-phi020-43-52"]},{"id":"sullan-citizenship--caecina","instrument":"sullan-citizenship","work":"caecina","role":"Contested legality","note":"The later part of the defence addresses the Sullan civic-status objection, beyond the possessory interdict alone.","evidence":["L-phi008-95-53"]},{"id":"flaccus-gold--flacco","instrument":"flaccus-gold","work":"flacco","role":"Contested legality","note":"A directly attested edict bears on a particular contested act within the extortion defence.","evidence":["L-phi017-67-54"]},{"id":"valeria-debt--fonteio","instrument":"valeria-debt","work":"fonteio","role":"Underlying transaction","note":"The law directly bears on the disputed accounting in the opening fragments, separate from the extortion charging statute.","evidence":["L-phi007-1-55","L-phi007-2-56"]},{"id":"cornelia-falsis--verres-2-1","instrument":"cornelia-falsis","work":"verres-2-1","role":"Explicit comparison","note":"An expressly named example in the argument on prospectivity.","evidence":["L-phi005-2.1.108-57"]},{"id":"aurelia-iudiciaria--verres-actio1","instrument":"aurelia-iudiciaria","work":"verres-actio1","role":"Contemporary reform debate","note":"The prosecution’s pressure on the existing senatorial courts coincides with the proposed reform; see Verrines II.2.174, II.3.223 and II.5.177, not an already reconstituted Verres jury.","evidence":["L-ASC-58"]},{"id":"aurelia-iudiciaria--verres-2-2","instrument":"aurelia-iudiciaria","work":"verres-2-2","role":"Contemporary reform debate","note":"The prosecution’s pressure on the existing senatorial courts coincides with the proposed reform; see Verrines II.2.174, II.3.223 and II.5.177, not an already reconstituted Verres jury.","evidence":["L-ASC-58"]},{"id":"aurelia-iudiciaria--verres-2-3","instrument":"aurelia-iudiciaria","work":"verres-2-3","role":"Contemporary reform debate","note":"The prosecution’s pressure on the existing senatorial courts coincides with the proposed reform; see Verrines II.2.174, II.3.223 and II.5.177, not an already reconstituted Verres jury.","evidence":["L-ASC-58"]},{"id":"aurelia-iudiciaria--verres-2-5","instrument":"aurelia-iudiciaria","work":"verres-2-5","role":"Contemporary reform debate","note":"The prosecution’s pressure on the existing senatorial courts coincides with the proposed reform; see Verrines II.2.174, II.3.223 and II.5.177, not an already reconstituted Verres jury.","evidence":["L-ASC-58"]},{"id":"aurelia-iudiciaria--cluentio","instrument":"aurelia-iudiciaria","work":"cluentio","role":"Institutional framework","note":"A three-order jury regime, rather than a substantive charge; Cluentio §130 and Asconius pp. 61–62 anchor the connection.","evidence":["L-ASC-58"]},{"id":"aurelia-iudiciaria--cornelio-i","instrument":"aurelia-iudiciaria","work":"cornelio-i","role":"Institutional framework","note":"A three-order jury regime, rather than a substantive charge; Cluentio §130 and Asconius pp. 61–62 anchor the connection.","evidence":["L-ASC-58"]},{"id":"aurelia-iudiciaria--cornelio-ii","instrument":"aurelia-iudiciaria","work":"cornelio-ii","role":"Institutional framework","note":"A three-order jury regime, rather than a substantive charge; Cluentio §130 and Asconius pp. 61–62 anchor the connection.","evidence":["L-ASC-58"]},{"id":"pompeia-iudiciaria--plancio","instrument":"pompeia-iudiciaria","work":"plancio","role":"Institutional framework","note":"General post-55 selection background; the particular offence and any special selection rule must be established separately.","evidence":["L-ASC-59"]},{"id":"pompeia-iudiciaria--scauro","instrument":"pompeia-iudiciaria","work":"scauro","role":"Institutional framework","note":"General post-55 selection background; the particular offence and any special selection rule must be established separately.","evidence":["L-ASC-59"]},{"id":"pompeia-iudiciaria--rabirio-postumo","instrument":"pompeia-iudiciaria","work":"rabirio-postumo","role":"Institutional framework","note":"General post-55 selection background; the particular offence and any special selection rule must be established separately.","evidence":["L-ASC-59"]},{"id":"clodia-capite--domo","instrument":"clodia-capite","work":"domo","role":"Historical legal setting","note":"General measure behind the exile crisis; not the current defendant’s charging law in Sestio, and not identical to the named interdiction discussed in Domo §47.","evidence":[]},{"id":"clodia-capite--sestio","instrument":"clodia-capite","work":"sestio","role":"Historical legal setting","note":"General measure behind the exile crisis; not the current defendant’s charging law in Sestio, and not identical to the named interdiction discussed in Domo §47.","evidence":[]},{"id":"dolabella-sponsio--quinctio","instrument":"dolabella-sponsio","work":"quinctio","role":"Governing remedy","note":"The decree orders the sponsio; the separately registered Burrienan edict supplies the conditions that sponsio tests.","evidence":["L-phi001-30-60"]},{"id":"senate-ambitus--murena","instrument":"senate-ambitus","work":"murena","role":"Contested legality","note":"The reported resolution states the legal characterization of acts; Cicero insists that occurrence must still be proved.","evidence":["L-phi014-67-61","L-phi014-67-62"]}],"workNotes":{"marcello":"No governing criminal lex is identified here. This is senatorial praise and counsel following Caesar’s act of clemency; no formal indictment or standing-court procedure should be invented.","ligario":"No securely identified governing criminal statute is assigned. The speech addresses Caesar through responsibility and pardon; treating it automatically as an ordinary lex Iulia maiestatis trial would exceed the evidence.","deiotaro":"No securely identified charging statute is assigned. A foreign king faces allegations before Caesar in an exceptional personal hearing; the juridical setting is not established merely by resemblance to maiestas or homicide.","roscio-comoedo":"The register identifies the Aquilian basis reconstructed for the earlier Panurgus killing action. It does not identify a named lex governing the present account/sponsio dispute.","rabirio-perduellio":"The Porcian and Sempronian rules are protections invoked against the proceeding. The revived duumviral perduellio machinery is not assigned an invented named charging lex.","vatinium":"This is interrogation of a witness in Sestius’ case. The laws raised against Vatinius concern his earlier conduct and proceedings; they are not separate charges tried by this speech."},"research":{"meta":{"title":"Legal texts & instruments · research dossiers","date":"2026-09-10","scope":"All 50 instruments in the existing curated register; not every enactment mentioned anywhere in Cicero.","translationPolicy":"Chinese working translations; no independent second-translator review. Existing evidence translates only its marked focus. New witness cards state their translation scope.","method":"Separate attestation, date argument, operation, transmission and disputed identification. Literary witnesses are not automatically complete enactments.","reviewLimit":"Structural and quotation audits do not certify historical truth or resolve scholarly disagreement."},"sources":{"G":{"id":"G","title":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901)","sha256":"114c987074f147c6d70b0eec4f90715b946788c8e9ff3d86891c7f4059f6e516","pdfPageOffset":20,"url":"greenidge.html","status":"Public-domain scholarship; older reconstruction","access":"On-disk PDF inspected; printed pages cited"},"R":{"id":"R","title":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912)","sha256":"9103a4915b615563a325127b4f1d8a75e10154289c0bc6360e4a988eafa1d321","pdfPageOffset":15,"url":null,"status":"Public-domain scholarship; older chronology and identifications","access":"On-disk PDF inspected; printed pages cited"},"C1":{"id":"C1","title":"M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. I (1996)","sha256":"2d6658dd1155ecfffacb165cf7924d5f8b8327d67a0d2d5e2f77c8b2bc8ed812","pdfPageOffset":27,"url":null,"status":"Modern critical edition; full PDF not redistributed","access":"On-disk PDF inspected; printed pages cited"},"C2":{"id":"C2","title":"M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. II (1996)","sha256":"e0378ad10ae332d19541aaa1a779d60691fb7b524aa179c13259838b52d84ec5","pdfPageOffset":-547,"url":null,"status":"Modern critical edition; full PDF not redistributed","access":"On-disk PDF inspected; printed pages cited"},"LEW":{"id":"LEW","title":"R. G. Lewis, Asconius: Commentaries on Speeches of Cicero (2006)","sha256":"d2d0249e9fda696fe9236f8b6e89cbfee8956580012ab33957f1aa656b52e895","pdfPageOffset":26,"url":null,"status":"Modern translation and commentary; full PDF not redistributed","access":"On-disk PDF inspected; printed pages cited"},"DUB":{"id":"DUB","title":"Julien Dubouloz, “La juridiction du gouverneur provincial. Réflexions sur les Verrines comme sources pour l’histoire du droit”, in J. R. W. Prag (ed.), Sicilia nutrix plebis Romanae (2007)","sha256":"3bec796ceedfac2915175f3e6e3099bf910c3aee84379e45b14ae968ca891495","pdfPageOffset":6,"url":"https://www.julien-dubouloz.fr/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/19-londres-2004-article.pdf","status":"Modern historical analysis; publisher volume consulted on disk; author PDF retrieved but has no usable text layer","access":"On-disk PDF inspected; printed pages cited"},"BELL":{"id":"BELL","title":"Malcolm Bell III, “Apronius in the Agora: Sicilian Civil Architecture and the Lex Hieronica”, in J. R. W. Prag (ed.), Sicilia nutrix plebis Romanae (2007)","sha256":"3bec796ceedfac2915175f3e6e3099bf910c3aee84379e45b14ae968ca891495","pdfPageOffset":5,"url":null,"status":"Modern archaeological interpretation; consulted opening discussion pp. 117–120","access":"On-disk PDF inspected; printed pages cited"},"LP3":{"id":"LP3","title":"LEPOR, notice 3: Loi Acilia de repetundis","url":"https://telma.irht.cnrs.fr/outils/lepor/notice3/","status":"Current critical catalogue; ancient texts and scholarly commentary distinguished","access":"Online text/search-cache inspected 2026-09-10; direct server may return HTTP 403"},"LP682":{"id":"LP682","title":"LEPOR, notice 682: Loi Sempronia (plutôt qu’Acilia) de repetundis","url":"https://telma.irht.cnrs.fr/outils/lepor/notice682/","status":"Current critical catalogue; ancient texts and scholarly commentary distinguished","access":"Online text/search-cache inspected 2026-09-10; direct server may return HTTP 403"},"LP717":{"id":"LP717","title":"LEPOR, notice 717: Loi Tullia Antonia de ambitu","url":"https://telma.irht.cnrs.fr/outils/lepor/notice717/","status":"Current critical catalogue; ancient texts and scholarly commentary distinguished","access":"Online text/search-cache inspected 2026-09-10; direct server may return HTTP 403"},"LP757":{"id":"LP757","title":"LEPOR, notice 757: Loi Voconia","url":"https://telma.irht.cnrs.fr/outils/lepor/notice757/","status":"Current critical catalogue; ancient texts and scholarly commentary distinguished","access":"Online text/search-cache inspected 2026-09-10; direct server may return HTTP 403"}},"witnesses":[{"id":"RW-piso94","instruments":["pompeia-iudiciaria"],"locator":"In L. Calpurnium Pisonem §94","text":"quae cum ita sint—non enim dubito quin, cum haec quae excellunt me nosse videas, non existimes mediam illam partem et turbam flagitiorum tuorum mihi esse inauditam— nihil est quod me hortere, nihil est quod invites; admoneri me satis est. admonebit autem nemo alius nisi rei publicae tempus, quod mihi quidem magis videtur quam tu umquam arbitratus es appropinquare. ecquid vides, ecquid sentis, lege iudiciaria lata, quos posthac iudices simus habituri? neque legetur quisquis voluerit, nec quisquis noluerit non legetur; nulli conicientur in illum ordinem, nulli eximentur; non ambitio ad gratiam, non iniquitas ad aemulationem conitetur; iudices iudicabunt ei quos lex ipsa, non quos hominum libido delegerit. quod cum ita sit, mihi crede, neminem invitum invitabis; res ipsa et rei publicae tempus aut me ipsum, quod nolim, aut alium quempiam aut invitabit aut dehortabitur.","language":"Latin","chinese":"既然如此——因为你看见我知道那些显著的罪行，我相信你不会以为你那一大堆其余恶行我竟全未听闻——你便不必催促我，也不必邀我行动；给我一个提醒就够了。但提醒我的不会是别人，而是国家的时局；在我看来，那个时机比你曾经想象的更近。你可看见、可明白，在审判员法通过之后，我们往后将有怎样的审判员？不是谁想入选就能入选，也不是谁不想入选就可以不入选；不会有人被硬塞进那个行列，也不会有人被抽出；营求不会为徇私而用力，不公不会为嫉恨而推动。执掌审判的，将是法律本身所选择的人，而不是个人好恶所选择的人。既然如此，相信我，你不会把一个不愿行动的人邀来；事情本身和国家的时局，自会促使或劝止我本人——我并不愿走到这一步——或者另外某个人。","annotation":"Read with Asconius 17 C. This is evidence for Cicero’s presentation of the reform and a threat of future prosecution, not a surviving schedule of property thresholds.","workCode":"phi027","ref":"94","sourceType":"Contemporary forensic or political testimony","translationScope":"Complete section printed here; editorial supplements retained","url":"sources/phi0474.phi027.perseus-lat2.xml","check":"Exact archived section","witnessDate":"Cicero, first century BCE; see the speech date in the atlas","dateLimit":"The date of this speech attests invocation, not necessarily enactment.","sha256":"8b09530374abf5c76d906d6c9f7cc887c19b8a95b8f9ee5e20d612e81c193732"},{"id":"RW-vat37","instruments":["tullia-ambitu","aelia","fufia"],"locator":"In P. Vatinium testem interrogatio §37","text":"atque illud etiam audire ⟨de⟩ te cupio, qua re, cum ego legem de ambitu tulerim ex senatus consulto, tulerim sine vi, tulerim salvis auspiciis, tulerim salva lege Aelia et Fufia, tu eam esse legem non putes, praesertim cum ego legibus tuis, quoquo modo latae sunt, paream; cum mea lex dilucide vetet biennio qvo qvis petat petitvrvsve sit gladiatores dare nisi ex testamento praestitvta die, quae tanta in te sit amentia ut in ipsa petitione gladiatores audeas dare? num quem putes illius tui certissimi gladiatoris similem tribunum plebis posse reperiri qui se interponat quo minus reus mea lege fias?","language":"Latin","chinese":"我还想听你说明：我既依元老院决议提出了选举贿赂法，没有使用暴力，没有损害占兆程序，也没有损害《埃利乌斯法》和《富菲乌斯法》，你为何竟不认为那是一部法律？尤其我仍遵守你的那些法律，无论它们究竟怎样通过。我的法律明文禁止：在某人竞选或将要竞选的两年期间内举办角斗表演，除非依遗嘱在预先指定的日期举办。你怎么竟疯狂到敢在竞选当中举行角斗表演？你难道以为还能找到一个保民官，像你那个极可靠的角斗士一样，出面阻止你依我的法律成为被告吗？","annotation":"A quoted restriction and exception support the Tullian dossier; the Aelian and Fufian names concern Cicero’s claimed observance of legislative safeguards. These are different evidential roles.","workCode":"phi023","ref":"37","sourceType":"Contemporary forensic or political testimony","translationScope":"Complete section printed here; editorial supplements retained","url":"sources/phi0474.phi023.perseus-lat2.xml","check":"Exact archived section","witnessDate":"Cicero, first century BCE; see the speech date in the atlas","dateLimit":"The date of this speech attests invocation, not necessarily enactment.","sha256":"0a8775361cdb5bb0895e3775d0f61c1eac1c84d70697dcc3d925f3220c9e2611"},{"id":"RW-mur67","instruments":["senate-ambitus","calpurnia-ambitu"],"locator":"Pro L. Murena §67","text":"qua re, ut ad id quod institui revertar, tolle mihi e causa nomen Catonis, remove vim, praetermitte auctoritatem quae in iudiciis aut nihil valere aut ad salutem debet valere, congredere mecum criminibus ipsis. quid accusas, Cato, quid adfers ad iudicium, quid arguis? ambitum accusas; non defendo. me reprehendis, quod idem defendam quod lege punierim. punivi ambitum, non innocentiam; ambitum vero ipsum vel tecum accusabo, si voles. dixisti senatus consultum me referente esse factum, si mercede obviam candidatis issent, si conducti sectarentur, si gladiatoribus volgo locus tributim et item prandia si volgo essent data, contra legem Calpurniam factum videri. ergo ita senatus iudicat, contra legem facta haec videri, si facta sint; decernit quod nihil opus est, dum candidatis morem gerit. nam factum sit necne vehementer quaeritur; sin factum sit, quin contra legem sit dubitare nemo potest.","language":"Latin","chinese":"因此，回到我原先的论点：请把卡托这个名字从案子中拿开，排除他的影响，暂且不论他的威望——威望在审判中应当毫无作用，或者只应有助于保全被告——请以指控本身同我交锋。卡托，你控告什么？向法庭提出什么？指证什么？你控告选举贿赂；我并不为贿赂辩护。你责备我为自己曾以法律惩罚的事情辩护。我惩罚的是贿赂，不是无辜；你若愿意，我还会同你一起控告贿赂本身。你说元老院依我的提议作出决议：若有人受雇出迎候选人，若有人受雇随行，若角斗表演的座位按部落向众人分配，或向众人普遍提供宴餐，这些行为应视为违反《卡尔普尔尼亚法》。所以元老院判断的是：这些行为如果发生，就应视为违法；它作出一项本无必要的规定，同时顾及候选人的意愿。因为真正受到激烈追问的是事情是否发生；如果确已发生，任何人都不能怀疑其违法。","annotation":"The conditional formulation is essential: the Senate classifies conduct; the trial must still establish whether the conduct occurred.","workCode":"phi014","ref":"67","sourceType":"Contemporary forensic or political testimony","translationScope":"Complete section printed here; editorial supplements retained","url":"sources/phi0474.phi014.perseus-lat2.xml","check":"Exact archived section","witnessDate":"Cicero, first century BCE; see the speech date in the atlas","dateLimit":"The date of this speech attests invocation, not necessarily enactment.","sha256":"1c67790c86ca7d453cf41cd1aba54bf8d145f59cf53b97929f4c4b1349824748"},{"id":"RW-domo136","instruments":["papiria-dedication"],"locator":"De Domo Sua Ad Pontifices §136","text":"sed ut revertar ad ius publicum dedicandi, quod ipsi pontifices semper non solum ad suas caerimonias sed etiam ad populi iussa adcommodaverunt, habetis in commentariis vestris C. Cassium censorem de signo Concordiae dedicando ad pontificum conlegium rettulisse, eique M. Aemilium pontificem maximum pro conlegio respondisse, nisi eum populus Romanus nominatim praefecisset atque eius iussu faceret, non videri eam posse recte dedicari. quid? cum Licinia, virgo Vestalis summo loco nata, sanctissimo sacerdotio praedita, T. Flaminio Q. Metello consulibus aram et aediculam et pulvinar sub saxo dedicasset, nonne eam rem ex auctoritate senatus ad hoc conlegium Sex. Iulius praetor rettulit? cum P. Scaevola pontifex maximus pro conlegio respondit, qvod in loco pvblico Licinia, Gai filia, inivssv popvli dedicasset, sacrvm non viderier. quam quidem rem quanta ⟨tractaverit⟩ severitate quantaque diligentia senatus, ex ipso senatus consulto facile cognoscetis.","language":"Latin","chinese":"不过，让我回到献置的公法原则；祭司们一向不仅使它符合自己的仪式，而且使它符合人民的命令。你们的记录中载有：监察官盖乌斯·卡西乌斯曾把献置和谐女神像的问题提交祭司团，最高祭司马尔库斯·埃米利乌斯代表祭司团回答说，除非罗马人民指名委任他办理，并且他依人民的命令行事，否则看来便不能正当地献置该像。再看另一件事：维斯塔贞女利基尼娅出身极高贵，任职于极神圣的祭司职务，在提图斯·弗拉米尼乌斯与昆图斯·梅特卢斯任执政官时，于岩下献置一座祭坛、一座小祠和一张神座。裁判官塞克斯图斯·尤利乌斯不是依元老院的授权，把此事提交本祭司团了吗？最高祭司普布利乌斯·斯凯沃拉当时代表祭司团答复说：“盖乌斯之女利基尼娅未经人民命令，在公共土地上献置的东西，看来不具有神圣性。”元老院对这件事采取了何等严肃、何等审慎的处理，你们从元老院决议本身便容易知道。","annotation":"The consular pair anchors the Licinia precedent to 123 BCE. The paragraph does not name the Papirian law; it supplies a parallel principle and pontifical response, not a secure enactment date for that law.","workCode":"phi020","ref":"136","sourceType":"Contemporary forensic or political testimony","translationScope":"Complete section printed here; editorial supplements retained","url":"sources/phi0474.phi020.perseus-lat2.xml","check":"Exact archived section","witnessDate":"Cicero, first century BCE; see the speech date in the atlas","dateLimit":"The date of this speech attests invocation, not necessarily enactment.","sha256":"9ea728c9914712be9b05e61df3acae15da4d7584d8b23b7ab9c1221655c3efb1"},{"id":"RW-ver2335","instruments":["verres-tithes"],"locator":"In C. Verrem §2.3.35","text":"illa vero praeclara est clausula edicti, quod omnium controversiarum quae essent inter aratorem et decumanum, si uter velit, edicit se recuperatores daturum. primum quae potest esse controversia, cum is qui petere debet aufert, et cum is non quantum debetur sed quantum commodum est aufert, ille autem unde ablatum est iudicio suum recuperare nullo modo potest? deinde in hoc homo luteus etiam callidus ac veterator esse vult, quod ita scribit, si vter volet, recvperatores dabo. quam lepide se furari putat! Vtrique facit potestatem, sed utrum ita scripserit, si uter volet an si decumanus volet, nihil interest; arator enim tuos istos recuperatores numquam volet.","language":"Latin","chinese":"告示末尾这一条尤其“出色”：对于耕作者与什一税承包人之间的一切争议，他宣布，只要任何一方愿意，便给他们指定追偿审判员。首先，哪里还会有争议可言？本应提出请求的人，竟直接拿走东西；他拿走的又不是应得的数额，而是他自己觉得合意的数额；被拿走东西的人却根本不能通过审判追回自己的财物。其次，这个卑鄙的人还想显得精明老练，写下：“只要任何一方愿意，我就指定追偿审判员。”他以为自己的偷盗手法多么巧妙！他把选择权给双方；但无论写“任何一方愿意”，还是写“什一税承包人愿意”，其实都没有区别，因为耕作者绝不会愿意要你的那些追偿审判员。","annotation":"The quoted option must be read with Cicero’s accusation that collection occurred first and that the offered adjudicators were unacceptable. The accusation is not an independently established finding of judicial corruption.","workCode":"phi005","ref":"2.3.35","sourceType":"Contemporary forensic or political testimony","translationScope":"Complete section printed here; editorial supplements retained","url":"sources/phi0474.phi005.perseus-lat2.xml","check":"Exact archived section","witnessDate":"Cicero, first century BCE; see the speech date in the atlas","dateLimit":"The date of this speech attests invocation, not necessarily enactment.","sha256":"579a4038040e7f6953727a1eb590ff7b7a9ef593c323d820663f7de23f48af31"},{"id":"RW-ver2232","instruments":["rupilia","hieronica"],"locator":"In C. Verrem §2.2.32","text":"verum ut totum genus amplectamini iudiciorum, prius iura Siculorum, deinde istius instituta cognoscite.\n\nSiculi hoc iure sunt ut, quod civis cum cive agat, domi certet suis legibus, quod Siculus cum Siculo non eiusdem civitatis, ut de eo praetor iudices ex P. Rupili decreto, quod is de decem legatorum sententia statuit, quam illi legem Rupiliam vocant, sortiatur. quod privatus a populo petit aut populus a privato, senatus ex aliqua civitate qui iudicet datur, cum alternae civitates reiectae sunt; quod civis Romanus a Siculo petit, Siculus iudex, quod Siculus a civi Romano, civis Romanus datur; ceterarum rerum selecti iudices ex conventu civium Romanorum proponi solent. inter aratores et decumanos lege frumentaria, quam Hieronicam appellant, iudicia fiunt.","language":"Latin","chinese":"为了让你们把握这整类审判，请先了解西西里人的法律，再了解此人的制度。\n西西里人的规则如下：同一城邦的公民之间发生诉讼，在本邦依本邦法律争讼；一个西西里人同另一个不同城邦的西西里人争讼，裁判官便依普布利乌斯·鲁皮利乌斯的决定抽签选取审判员——那是他依十名使节的意见所订立、当地人称为《鲁皮利乌斯法》的安排。私人向城邦请求，或城邦向私人请求时，双方交替排除候选城邦后，指定某一城邦的议事会审理。罗马公民向西西里人请求，指定西西里人任审判员；西西里人向罗马公民请求，指定罗马公民任审判员。其他事项，通常从罗马公民会众中公布选定的审判员。耕作者与什一税承包人之间，则依他们称为《希耶罗法》的粮食法进行审判。","annotation":"The passage directly distinguishes several jurisdictions and legal forms. Calling Rupilius’ decretum a lex is attributed to Sicilian usage; the closing sentence is a separate witness to Hieronian fiscal litigation.","workCode":"phi005","ref":"2.2.32","sourceType":"Contemporary forensic or political testimony","translationScope":"Complete section printed here; editorial supplements retained","url":"sources/phi0474.phi005.perseus-lat2.xml","check":"Exact archived section","witnessDate":"Cicero, first century BCE; see the speech date in the atlas","dateLimit":"The date of this speech attests invocation, not necessarily enactment.","sha256":"1d66c7cbe1539a9974fced15703d579e99ed213d1585135926d6dd79d5a2d251"},{"id":"RW-tull7","instruments":["lucullus"],"locator":"Pro M. Tullio §7","text":"iudicium vestrum est, recuperatores, Qvantae pecvniae paret dolo malo familiae P. Fabi vi hominibvs armatis coactisve damnvm datvm esse M. Tvllio. eius rei taxationem nos fecimus; aestimatio vestra est; iudicium datum est in quadruplum.","language":"Latin","chinese":"追偿审判员们，你们所审理的问题是：“查明马尔库斯·图利乌斯因普布利乌斯·法比乌斯奴仆集团的恶意，以武装或集结人员施暴而蒙受多少金钱的损害。”我们已经就此提出估价；具体评定由你们作出；授予的诉讼救济为四倍赔偿。","annotation":"The formula’s reported words and the fourfold remedy are contemporary evidence. They should not be expanded into a reconstructed complete edict without labelling that reconstruction.","workCode":"phi006","ref":"7","sourceType":"Contemporary forensic or political testimony","translationScope":"Complete section printed here; editorial supplements retained","url":"sources/phi0474.phi006.perseus-lat2.xml","check":"Exact archived section","witnessDate":"Cicero, first century BCE; see the speech date in the atlas","dateLimit":"The date of this speech attests invocation, not necessarily enactment.","sha256":"8e511e6bb902110c016a9e4e32ad1b13ffdc128ad7c0063d3501ed080ff6e1bc"},{"id":"RW-balbo19","instruments":["gellia-cornelia"],"locator":"Pro L. Cornelio Balbo §19","text":"itaque quod maxime petendum est a vobis idcirco non peto, iudices, ne de vestra sapientia atque de vestra humanitate dubitare videar: est autem petendum ne oderitis ingenium, ne inimici sitis industriae, ne humanitatem opprimendam, ne virtutem puniendam putetis. illud peto, ut, si causam ipsam per se firmam esse et stabilem videritis, hominis ipsius ornamenta adiumento causae potius quam impedimento esse malitis.\n\nnascitur, iudices, causa Corneli ex ea lege quam L. Gellius Cn. Cornelius ex senatus sententia tulerunt; qua lege videmus ⟨rite⟩ esse sanctum ut cives Romani sint ii quos Cn. Pompeius de consili sententia singillatim civitate donaverit. Donatum esse L. Cornelium praesens Pompeius dicit, indicant publicae tabulae. accusator fatetur, sed negat ex foederato populo quemquam potuisse, nisi is populus fundus factus esset, in hanc civitatem venire.","language":"Latin","chinese":"所以，审判员们，我没有提出最应向你们提出的请求，是因为不愿显得怀疑你们的智慧与仁厚；那请求就是：不要憎恶才干，不要仇视勤奋，不要认为文雅应受压制、德行应受惩罚。我所请求的是，如果你们看见本案自身立得住、根基稳固，就愿意让当事人的优点有助于他的案子，而不是成为阻碍。\n审判员们，科尔内利乌斯的案子，起于卢基乌斯·格利乌斯与格奈乌斯·科尔内利乌斯依元老院意见提出的那部法律。我们看见，该法〈正式〉规定：凡格奈乌斯·庞培依其顾问团意见逐个授予公民权的人，均为罗马公民。在场的庞培说，卢基乌斯·科尔内利乌斯已经获授公民权；公共记录也表明如此。控方承认这一点，但否认在有关城邦未表示接受的情况下，任何条约城邦成员能够进入罗马公民共同体。","annotation":"This section contains the statute, the commander’s reported act, public records, and the opponent’s treaty objection. These are four distinct evidential steps. Angle brackets retain an editorial supplement.","workCode":"phi026","ref":"19","sourceType":"Contemporary forensic or political testimony","translationScope":"Complete section printed here; editorial supplements retained","url":"sources/phi0474.phi026.perseus-lat2.xml","check":"Exact archived section","witnessDate":"Cicero, first century BCE; see the speech date in the atlas","dateLimit":"The date of this speech attests invocation, not necessarily enactment.","sha256":"d5400827643546d7e61afd08a9d290de47b8cfb2ff95dd5921c95b8852baa55c"},{"id":"RW-agr218","instruments":["domitia-priesthoods"],"locator":"De Lege Agraria §2.18","text":"item, inquit, eodemqve modo, capite altero, vt comitiis pontificis maximi. ne hoc quidem vidit, maiores nostros tam fuisse popularis ut, quem per populum creari fas non erat propter religionem sacrorum, in eo tamen propter amplitudinem sacerdoti voluerint populo supplicari. atque hoc idem de ceteris sacerdotiis Cn. Domitius, tribunus plebis, vir clarissimus, tulit, quod populus per religionem sacerdotia mandare non poterat, ut minor pars populi vocaretur; ab ea parte qui esset factus, is a conlegio cooptaretur.","language":"Latin","chinese":"他在另一章又说：“同样地，以选举最高祭司的同一方式。”他连这一点也没有看明白：我们的祖先如此重视人民，虽然由于祭祀的宗教约束，某一职务不得由全体人民选任，却仍因该祭司职位的尊崇，希望候选人向人民求取支持。杰出的保民官格奈乌斯·多米提乌斯，对其余祭司职位也提出同样规定：既然人民因宗教限制不能授予祭司职务，就召集人民中较小的一部分；由这部分人选出者，再由祭司团吸纳为成员。","annotation":"An independent Ciceronian explanation complements the Cornelius fragment. Selection by a smaller portion of the people and subsequent co-option are separate acts.","workCode":"phi011","ref":"2.18","sourceType":"Contemporary forensic or political testimony","translationScope":"Complete section printed here; editorial supplements retained","url":"sources/phi0474.phi011.perseus-lat2.xml","check":"Exact archived section","witnessDate":"Cicero, first century BCE; see the speech date in the atlas","dateLimit":"The date of this speech attests invocation, not necessarily enactment.","sha256":"82db999ecdb3a6689414c1db1372787ab8adca03d9514fe9c89ba29c55b3a96d"},{"id":"RW-asc17","instruments":["pompeia-iudiciaria","aurelia-iudiciaria"],"locator":"Asconius, In Pisonianam, 17 C (comment on Piso 94)","text":"Legem iudiciariam ante aliquot annos quibus temporibus accusatus est Verres a Cicerone tulit L. Aurelius Cotta praetor, qua communicata sunt iudicia senatui et equitibus Romanis et tribunis aerariis. Rursus deinde Pompeius in consulatu secundo, quo haec oratio dicta est, promulgavit ut amplissimo ex censu ex centuriis aliter atque antea lecti iudices, aeque tamen ex illis tribus ordinibus, res iudicarent.","chinese":"此前若干年，即西塞罗控告韦雷斯的时期，裁判官卢基乌斯·奥雷利乌斯·科塔提出一部审判员法，将审判事务分配给元老、罗马骑士和国库保民官。后来，庞培在第二次执政官任内——本篇演说正是在那时发表的——公布一项提案：审判员应以不同于以往的方式，从最高财产等级、从百人队中选出，但仍同样来自上述三个阶层，由他们审理案件。","annotation":"Asconius expressly dates the proposal by Pompey’s second consulship. His wording does not specify a newly increased census amount. Translation leaves the compressed ex censu / ex centuriis syntax visible.","url":"https://www.attalus.org/latin/asconius1.html","language":"Latin","sourceType":"Later ancient testimony","translationScope":"Entire bounded excerpt printed here","check":"Focused text checked against the cited online edition","archive":"research/online/asconius1.html","witnessDate":"Asconius, first century CE; Clark edition 1907","dateLimit":"The witness reports an earlier instrument; its own date is not the enactment date.","sha256":"87d377db662122d7508a3c2d6916fdf37fd3e900b281bf3603d9dd9df7b97356"},{"id":"RW-digest9211","instruments":["aquilia"],"locator":"Ulpian, Ad edictum 18, preserved in Digest 9.2.1.1","text":"Quae lex Aquilia plebiscitum est, cum eam Aquilius tribunus plebis a plebe rogaverit.","chinese":"这部《阿奎利亚法》是一项平民决议，因为它是由保民官阿奎利乌斯向平民提出并请求通过的。","annotation":"Explicit testimony to legal form and proposer; no enactment year is stated. The Digest’s compilation in 533 CE is not the law’s creation date.","url":"https://droitromain.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/Leges/aquilia.html","language":"Latin","sourceType":"Later ancient testimony","translationScope":"Entire bounded excerpt printed here","check":"Focused text checked against the cited online edition","archive":null,"witnessDate":"Ulpian, early third century CE; Digest compiled 533 CE","dateLimit":"The witness reports an earlier instrument; its own date is not the enactment date.","sha256":"ad59fbff2b7f546e70e380ebb81db61540a4953d5172abac5e0fac48c9a8b1f8"},{"id":"RW-gai2274","instruments":["voconia"],"locator":"Gaius, Institutes 2.274","text":"Item mulier, quae ab eo, qui centum milia aeris census est, per legem Voconiam heres institui non potest, tamen fideicommisso relictam sibi hereditatem capere potest.","chinese":"又如，依《沃科尼亚法》，一个财产登记达到十万阿斯的人不能将某女子指定为继承人；然而，她仍可以取得通过信托遗赠留给自己的遗产。","annotation":"This later jurist identifies a census condition and a fideicommissary route. It does not prohibit every female inheritance or establish the original law’s complete text.","url":"https://telma.irht.cnrs.fr/outils/lepor/notice757/","language":"Latin","sourceType":"Later ancient testimony","translationScope":"Entire bounded excerpt printed here","check":"Focused text checked against the cited online edition","archive":null,"witnessDate":"Gaius, second century CE","dateLimit":"The witness reports an earlier instrument; its own date is not the enactment date.","sha256":"4be91cd9c33711ffab78a04803f78860d6fe5aa9cd452ba11d39c62d7bb9bdad"},{"id":"RW-dio3814","instruments":["clodia-capite"],"locator":"Cassius Dio, Roman History 38.14.4–6; English translation E. Cary (1914), pp. 226–229","text":"Now the law that Clodius next proposed was not on its face enacted against Cicero, since it did not contain his name, but was directed against all, without exception, who should put to death or even had put to death any citizens without the condemnation of the people; yet in reality it was drawn up with especial reference to the orator. 5 It brought within its scope, indeed, the entire senate, because that body had charged the consuls with the protection of the city, by which act it was permitted them to take such steps, and afterwards had condemned Lentulus and the others who were put to death at that time. 6 Nevertheless, Cicero received the whole blame, or at least the greater part of it, since he had laid information against the men and had on each occasion made the motion and put the vote and finally had exacted the penalty of them through those entrusted with such business.","chinese":"克洛狄乌斯接着提出的法律，表面上并不是针对西塞罗制定的，因为其中没有他的名字；它针对的是所有未经人民判决而处死、甚至已经处死任何公民的人，无一例外。然而实际上，该法特别针对这位演说家而拟定。［5］它的范围其实也包括整个元老院，因为该院曾责成执政官保护城市，由此准许他们采取此类措施，后来又判处伦图卢斯以及当时遭处死的其他人。［6］尽管如此，西塞罗仍承担了全部或至少大部分的责难，因为他曾揭发这些人，每一次又都提出动议、交付表决，最后还通过受命办理此事的人对他们执行了刑罚。","annotation":"This is Cary’s public-domain English rendering of Dio, not a Latin law or a new Greek transcription. Chinese is translated from this English witness. Dio’s account of senatorial authorization is a later historical interpretation, not a resolution of the constitutional dispute.","url":"https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/38*.html#14","language":"English translation of Greek","sourceType":"Later ancient testimony","translationScope":"Entire bounded excerpt printed here","check":"Focused text checked against the cited online edition","archive":"research/online/dio38.html","witnessDate":"Dio, early third century CE; E. Cary translation 1914","dateLimit":"The witness reports an earlier instrument; its own date is not the enactment date.","sha256":"5bc5615c1d48d561c5d126a3b7d0a8f6b7f16d484099b4456ebaa94d1f34f449"},{"id":"RW-sall314","instruments":["plautia-vis"],"locator":"Sallust, Bellum Catilinae 31.4","text":"at Catilīnae crūdēlis animus eadem illa movēbat, tametsī praesidia parābantur et ipse lēge Plautiā interrogātus erat ab L. Paullō.","chinese":"然而，卡提利纳凶狠的心仍在推动那些同样的图谋，尽管守备已在部署，他本人也已由卢基乌斯·保卢斯依《普劳提亚法》提出控诉。","annotation":"This explicitly names the law in the events of 63 BCE. It provides an attested application, not the first enactment year; macrons follow the cited reading edition.","url":"https://inusum.com/sallust/bellum-catilinae/","language":"Latin","sourceType":"Later ancient testimony","translationScope":"Entire bounded excerpt printed here","check":"Focused text checked against the cited online edition","archive":null,"witnessDate":"Sallust, later first century BCE, narrating 63 BCE","dateLimit":"The witness reports an earlier instrument; its own date is not the enactment date.","sha256":"9ad15e6fb57b8a90f3090af46f6d3c390ead45799fb7d299c15d4c9acbf9c4a9"}],"claims":[{"id":"LR-burrienus-existence","instrument":"burrienus","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Quinctio 30 expressly names the edict of P. Burrienus inside the condition of the sponsio; §60 reports the edictal ground concerning an absent person not defended as required. These attest a rule invoked in a real dispute, through the defendant’s advocate.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["Pro P. Quinctio §30","Pro P. Quinctio §60"],"scholarship":[{"id":"G-255-258","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 255-258","locator":"Printed pp. 255-258","pdfPages":[275,278],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-531-541","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 531-541","locator":"Printed pp. 531-541","pdfPages":[551,561],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Greenidge reconstructs the sequence from an advocate’s incomplete narrative. It does not license treating Naevius’ claim to possess as a proved lawful execution. Compare the separate Dolabella record for the individual order."},{"id":"LR-burrienus-dating","instrument":"burrienus","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"The secure bound is application before the hearing of 81 BCE. The narrated possession and later order are successive events, not dates of first promulgation. Neither passage supplies a consular year for creation of this clause.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["Pro P. Quinctio §30","Pro P. Quinctio §60"],"scholarship":[{"id":"G-255-258","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 255-258","locator":"Printed pp. 255-258","pdfPages":[275,278],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-531-541","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 531-541","locator":"Printed pp. 531-541","pdfPages":[551,561],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Greenidge reconstructs the sequence from an advocate’s incomplete narrative. It does not license treating Naevius’ claim to possess as a proved lawful execution. Compare the separate Dolabella record for the individual order."},{"id":"LR-burrienus-operation","instrument":"burrienus","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"Naevius seeks security on the footing that goods have been possessed under the edict for thirty days. Cicero contests whether possession satisfied the edict at all. Default, adequate representation, possession and eventual sale must therefore be examined separately; the underlying partnership debt is not itself decided by this preliminary question.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["Pro P. Quinctio §30","Pro P. Quinctio §60"],"scholarship":[{"id":"G-255-258","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 255-258","locator":"Printed pp. 255-258","pdfPages":[275,278],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-531-541","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 531-541","locator":"Printed pp. 531-541","pdfPages":[551,561],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Greenidge reconstructs the sequence from an advocate’s incomplete narrative. It does not license treating Naevius’ claim to possess as a proved lawful execution. Compare the separate Dolabella record for the individual order."},{"id":"LR-burrienus-transmission","instrument":"burrienus","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"No independent edict tablet is identified in this dossier. The operative condition survives inside Cicero’s account of Dolabella’s procedural order; §60 supplies another part of the edictal framework.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["Pro P. Quinctio §30","Pro P. Quinctio §60"],"scholarship":[{"id":"G-255-258","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 255-258","locator":"Printed pp. 255-258","pdfPages":[275,278],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-531-541","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 531-541","locator":"Printed pp. 531-541","pdfPages":[551,561],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Greenidge reconstructs the sequence from an advocate’s incomplete narrative. It does not license treating Naevius’ claim to possess as a proved lawful execution. Compare the separate Dolabella record for the individual order."},{"id":"LR-burrienus-debate","instrument":"burrienus","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"Greenidge reconstructs the sequence from an advocate’s incomplete narrative. It does not license treating Naevius’ claim to possess as a proved lawful execution. Compare the separate Dolabella record for the individual order.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["Pro P. Quinctio §30","Pro P. Quinctio §60"],"scholarship":[{"id":"G-255-258","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 255-258","locator":"Printed pp. 255-258","pdfPages":[275,278],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-531-541","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 531-541","locator":"Printed pp. 531-541","pdfPages":[551,561],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Greenidge reconstructs the sequence from an advocate’s incomplete narrative. It does not license treating Naevius’ claim to possess as a proved lawful execution. Compare the separate Dolabella record for the individual order."},{"id":"LR-lucullus-existence","instrument":"lucullus","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Tullio 7–12 names M. Lucullus and explains his response to violent acts by armed or assembled slave households. The speech reports the formula’s terms and the reason for a more severe remedy than ordinary wrongful-damage litigation.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["Pro M. Tullio §7","Pro M. Tullio §12","Pro M. Tullio §7"],"scholarship":[{"id":"G-206-210","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 206-210","locator":"Printed pp. 206-210","pdfPages":[226,230],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-551-556","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 551-556","locator":"Printed pp. 551-556","pdfPages":[571,576],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The relation to the Aquilian action and later robbery remedies requires historical reconstruction. A shared concern with violence is not identity of action, formula or penalty."},{"id":"LR-lucullus-dating","instrument":"lucullus","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"76 BCE is the conventional date of Lucullus’ praetorship and introduction of the remedy; the later Tullius hearing, conventionally 72 or 71, proves subsequent application. The speech’s retrospective narrative does not give an exact day of issue.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["Pro M. Tullio §7","Pro M. Tullio §12","Pro M. Tullio §7"],"scholarship":[{"id":"G-206-210","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 206-210","locator":"Printed pp. 206-210","pdfPages":[226,230],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-551-556","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 551-556","locator":"Printed pp. 551-556","pdfPages":[571,576],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The relation to the Aquilian action and later robbery remedies requires historical reconstruction. A shared concern with violence is not identity of action, formula or penalty."},{"id":"LR-lucullus-operation","instrument":"lucullus","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"The action makes damage inflicted with malicious intent by an armed or assembled household the decisive question and seeks a fourfold assessment. Cicero uses the special wording to narrow permissible defences. This is a private penal remedy; it is not the later public prosecution under the Plautian or Pompeian violence laws.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["Pro M. Tullio §7","Pro M. Tullio §12","Pro M. Tullio §7"],"scholarship":[{"id":"G-206-210","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 206-210","locator":"Printed pp. 206-210","pdfPages":[226,230],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-551-556","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 551-556","locator":"Printed pp. 551-556","pdfPages":[571,576],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The relation to the Aquilian action and later robbery remedies requires historical reconstruction. A shared concern with violence is not identity of action, formula or penalty."},{"id":"LR-lucullus-transmission","instrument":"lucullus","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"The edict is reconstructed from forensic quotations and commentary, not a surviving posted original. Preserve the wording quoted in the speech instead of presenting an expanded modern edict reconstruction as authentic text.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["Pro M. Tullio §7","Pro M. Tullio §12","Pro M. Tullio §7"],"scholarship":[{"id":"G-206-210","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 206-210","locator":"Printed pp. 206-210","pdfPages":[226,230],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-551-556","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 551-556","locator":"Printed pp. 551-556","pdfPages":[571,576],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The relation to the Aquilian action and later robbery remedies requires historical reconstruction. A shared concern with violence is not identity of action, formula or penalty."},{"id":"LR-lucullus-debate","instrument":"lucullus","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"The relation to the Aquilian action and later robbery remedies requires historical reconstruction. A shared concern with violence is not identity of action, formula or penalty.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["Pro M. Tullio §7","Pro M. Tullio §12","Pro M. Tullio §7"],"scholarship":[{"id":"G-206-210","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 206-210","locator":"Printed pp. 206-210","pdfPages":[226,230],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-551-556","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 551-556","locator":"Printed pp. 551-556","pdfPages":[571,576],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The relation to the Aquilian action and later robbery remedies requires historical reconstruction. A shared concern with violence is not identity of action, formula or penalty."},{"id":"LR-armed-interdict-existence","instrument":"armed-interdict","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Caecina 23 reports the command associated with armed expulsion; §§31–35 make its wording the object of argument. This is direct evidence for the interdict used in the dispute, mediated by Cicero’s defence.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["Pro A. Caecina §23"],"scholarship":[{"id":"G-210-227","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 210-227","locator":"Printed pp. 210-227","pdfPages":[230,247],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-556-568","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 556-568","locator":"Printed pp. 556-568","pdfPages":[576,588],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The breadth of the remedy, the role of previous possession and the procedural reconstruction are contested. Cicero’s purposive argument is a litigant’s interpretation, not a neutral judicial holding."},{"id":"LR-armed-interdict-dating","instrument":"armed-interdict","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"The remedy existed before the Caecina hearing, usually placed around 69 BCE. That hearing cannot establish the first creation of the general interdict; the particular order was issued earlier in this dispute.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["Pro A. Caecina §23"],"scholarship":[{"id":"G-210-227","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 210-227","locator":"Printed pp. 210-227","pdfPages":[230,247],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-556-568","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 556-568","locator":"Printed pp. 556-568","pdfPages":[576,588],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The breadth of the remedy, the role of previous possession and the procedural reconstruction are contested. Cicero’s purposive argument is a litigant’s interpretation, not a neutral judicial holding."},{"id":"LR-armed-interdict-operation","instrument":"armed-interdict","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"The central dispute concerns whether preventing entry by armed force counts as the expulsion contemplated by the command. Cicero argues that a narrowly literal reading would reward intimidation. Restoration of possession and the wager enforcing the order must be distinguished from an adjudication of ownership.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["Pro A. Caecina §23"],"scholarship":[{"id":"G-210-227","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 210-227","locator":"Printed pp. 210-227","pdfPages":[230,247],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-556-568","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 556-568","locator":"Printed pp. 556-568","pdfPages":[576,588],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The breadth of the remedy, the role of previous possession and the procedural reconstruction are contested. Cicero’s purposive argument is a litigant’s interpretation, not a neutral judicial holding."},{"id":"LR-armed-interdict-transmission","instrument":"armed-interdict","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"The dossier preserves a Ciceronian witness to an interdict, not an independently surviving praetorian album. The later juristic taxonomy is useful comparison but cannot silently replace the Republican wording.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["Pro A. Caecina §23"],"scholarship":[{"id":"G-210-227","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 210-227","locator":"Printed pp. 210-227","pdfPages":[230,247],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-556-568","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 556-568","locator":"Printed pp. 556-568","pdfPages":[576,588],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The breadth of the remedy, the role of previous possession and the procedural reconstruction are contested. Cicero’s purposive argument is a litigant’s interpretation, not a neutral judicial holding."},{"id":"LR-armed-interdict-debate","instrument":"armed-interdict","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"The breadth of the remedy, the role of previous possession and the procedural reconstruction are contested. Cicero’s purposive argument is a litigant’s interpretation, not a neutral judicial holding.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["Pro A. Caecina §23"],"scholarship":[{"id":"G-210-227","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 210-227","locator":"Printed pp. 210-227","pdfPages":[230,247],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-556-568","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 556-568","locator":"Printed pp. 556-568","pdfPages":[576,588],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The breadth of the remedy, the role of previous possession and the procedural reconstruction are contested. Cicero’s purposive argument is a litigant’s interpretation, not a neutral judicial holding."},{"id":"LR-aquilia-existence","instrument":"aquilia","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Tullio 9 explicitly names the Aquilian law. Ulpian, Digest 9.2.1.1, expressly identifies it as a plebiscite proposed by the tribune Aquilius. Gaius 3.210 and 3.215–218 distinguishes its chapters.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["Pro M. Tullio §9","Pro Q. Roscio Comoedo §32","Ulpian, Ad edictum 18, preserved in Digest 9.2.1.1"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-241-242","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 241-242","locator":"Printed pp. 241-242","pdfPages":[256,257],"url":null},{"id":"C2-723-725","source":"C2","label":"M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. II (1996), pp. 723-725","locator":"Printed pp. 723-725","pdfPages":[176,178],"url":null},{"id":"G-543-544","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 543-544","locator":"Printed pp. 543-544","pdfPages":[563,564],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"In Roscio Comoedo, the Panurgus transaction is reconstructed as Aquilian litigation; this is different from Cicero expressly naming the law there. The edict in Tullio offers a distinct penal action."},{"id":"LR-aquilia-dating","instrument":"aquilia","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"Do not turn the often repeated 287/286 BCE date into a certainty. Rotondi records competing chronologies and the problematic dependence on Theophilus; Crawford argues for an early third-century setting but separates this inference from the surviving juristic testimony.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["Pro M. Tullio §9","Pro Q. Roscio Comoedo §32","Ulpian, Ad edictum 18, preserved in Digest 9.2.1.1"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-241-242","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 241-242","locator":"Printed pp. 241-242","pdfPages":[256,257],"url":null},{"id":"C2-723-725","source":"C2","label":"M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. II (1996), pp. 723-725","locator":"Printed pp. 723-725","pdfPages":[176,178],"url":null},{"id":"G-543-544","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 543-544","locator":"Printed pp. 543-544","pdfPages":[563,564],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"In Roscio Comoedo, the Panurgus transaction is reconstructed as Aquilian litigation; this is different from Cicero expressly naming the law there. The edict in Tullio offers a distinct penal action."},{"id":"LR-aquilia-operation","instrument":"aquilia","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"Chapter one concerns killing another’s slave or herd animal and a valuation over the previous year; chapter three concerns other damaging acts and a thirty-day valuation. Chapter two concerns fraudulent release by an adstipulator. Juristic interpretation and extensions of liability are part of its history, not automatically its original enactment.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["Pro M. Tullio §9","Pro Q. Roscio Comoedo §32","Ulpian, Ad edictum 18, preserved in Digest 9.2.1.1"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-241-242","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 241-242","locator":"Printed pp. 241-242","pdfPages":[256,257],"url":null},{"id":"C2-723-725","source":"C2","label":"M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. II (1996), pp. 723-725","locator":"Printed pp. 723-725","pdfPages":[176,178],"url":null},{"id":"G-543-544","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 543-544","locator":"Printed pp. 543-544","pdfPages":[563,564],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"In Roscio Comoedo, the Panurgus transaction is reconstructed as Aquilian litigation; this is different from Cicero expressly naming the law there. The edict in Tullio offers a distinct penal action."},{"id":"LR-aquilia-transmission","instrument":"aquilia","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"No original inscribed text is used here. Digest 9.2 quotes and interprets clauses centuries later. Crawford’s reconstructed text, including disputed wording and tense, is explicitly conjectural; it must not be displayed as a verbatim ancient tablet.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["Pro M. Tullio §9","Pro Q. Roscio Comoedo §32","Ulpian, Ad edictum 18, preserved in Digest 9.2.1.1"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-241-242","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 241-242","locator":"Printed pp. 241-242","pdfPages":[256,257],"url":null},{"id":"C2-723-725","source":"C2","label":"M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. II (1996), pp. 723-725","locator":"Printed pp. 723-725","pdfPages":[176,178],"url":null},{"id":"G-543-544","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 543-544","locator":"Printed pp. 543-544","pdfPages":[563,564],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"In Roscio Comoedo, the Panurgus transaction is reconstructed as Aquilian litigation; this is different from Cicero expressly naming the law there. The edict in Tullio offers a distinct penal action."},{"id":"LR-aquilia-debate","instrument":"aquilia","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"In Roscio Comoedo, the Panurgus transaction is reconstructed as Aquilian litigation; this is different from Cicero expressly naming the law there. The edict in Tullio offers a distinct penal action.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["Pro M. Tullio §9","Pro Q. Roscio Comoedo §32","Ulpian, Ad edictum 18, preserved in Digest 9.2.1.1"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-241-242","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 241-242","locator":"Printed pp. 241-242","pdfPages":[256,257],"url":null},{"id":"C2-723-725","source":"C2","label":"M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. II (1996), pp. 723-725","locator":"Printed pp. 723-725","pdfPages":[176,178],"url":null},{"id":"G-543-544","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 543-544","locator":"Printed pp. 543-544","pdfPages":[563,564],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"In Roscio Comoedo, the Panurgus transaction is reconstructed as Aquilian litigation; this is different from Cicero expressly naming the law there. The edict in Tullio offers a distinct penal action."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-sicariis-existence","instrument":"cornelia-sicariis","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Cluentio 148–154 quotes and analyses portions of the Cornelian criminal statute. These are exceptionally important contemporary witnesses because the defence turns on which persons and conduct the clauses reach.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["Pro A. Cluentio §148","Pro A. Cluentio §154"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-357-358","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 357-358","locator":"Printed pp. 357-358","pdfPages":[372,373],"url":null},{"id":"G-423-424","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 423-424","locator":"Printed pp. 423-424","pdfPages":[443,444],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not assign the later Pompeian parricide statute to Roscius’ trial. Nor does an advocate’s exclusionary reading establish that the court accepted every part of it."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-sicariis-dating","instrument":"cornelia-sicariis","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"81 BCE is the conventional date within Sulla’s criminal-law settlement. The Cluentius speech of 66 attests later use, not enactment. Roscius’ trial in 80 belongs to the reconstructed early Sullan court framework.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["Pro A. Cluentio §148","Pro A. Cluentio §154"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-357-358","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 357-358","locator":"Printed pp. 357-358","pdfPages":[372,373],"url":null},{"id":"G-423-424","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 423-424","locator":"Printed pp. 423-424","pdfPages":[443,444],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not assign the later Pompeian parricide statute to Roscius’ trial. Nor does an advocate’s exclusionary reading establish that the court accepted every part of it."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-sicariis-operation","instrument":"cornelia-sicariis","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"Separate poisoning liability from the clause about procuring an unjust capital condemnation. Cicero’s argument about senatorial status addresses the scope of a particular clause, not a general immunity of equestrians from murder law. Later Digest 48.8 and Collatio testimony describes a much developed body of law.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["Pro A. Cluentio §148","Pro A. Cluentio §154"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-357-358","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 357-358","locator":"Printed pp. 357-358","pdfPages":[372,373],"url":null},{"id":"G-423-424","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 423-424","locator":"Printed pp. 423-424","pdfPages":[443,444],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not assign the later Pompeian parricide statute to Roscius’ trial. Nor does an advocate’s exclusionary reading establish that the court accepted every part of it."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-sicariis-transmission","instrument":"cornelia-sicariis","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"Contemporary forensic quotation is supplemented by imperial jurists; no complete Republican statute survives in this dossier. Later rules on punishment and newly assimilated offences must be dated to their own witnesses.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["Pro A. Cluentio §148","Pro A. Cluentio §154"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-357-358","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 357-358","locator":"Printed pp. 357-358","pdfPages":[372,373],"url":null},{"id":"G-423-424","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 423-424","locator":"Printed pp. 423-424","pdfPages":[443,444],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not assign the later Pompeian parricide statute to Roscius’ trial. Nor does an advocate’s exclusionary reading establish that the court accepted every part of it."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-sicariis-debate","instrument":"cornelia-sicariis","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"Do not assign the later Pompeian parricide statute to Roscius’ trial. Nor does an advocate’s exclusionary reading establish that the court accepted every part of it.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["Pro A. Cluentio §148","Pro A. Cluentio §154"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-357-358","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 357-358","locator":"Printed pp. 357-358","pdfPages":[372,373],"url":null},{"id":"G-423-424","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 423-424","locator":"Printed pp. 423-424","pdfPages":[443,444],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not assign the later Pompeian parricide statute to Roscius’ trial. Nor does an advocate’s exclusionary reading establish that the court accepted every part of it."},{"id":"LR-proscription-law-existence","instrument":"proscription-law","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Roscio Amerino 125 names alternatives, “Valerian or Cornelian,” and expressly says the speaker does not know which. The following argument addresses the categories whose property could be sold; §128 invokes a June deadline.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["Pro Sex. Roscio Amerino §125"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-348-349","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 348-349","locator":"Printed pp. 348-349","pdfPages":[363,364],"url":null},{"id":"G-80-81","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 80-81","locator":"Printed pp. 80-81","pdfPages":[100,101],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Rotondi distinguishes the Valerian authorization of the dictatorship from Cornelian proscription arrangements and discusses whether the latter derived force from the former. This is an interpretive model, not a recovered complete statute."},{"id":"LR-proscription-law-dating","instrument":"proscription-law","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"The relevant setting is the Sullan settlement of 82–81 BCE. The June limit reported in the speech belongs to the operation of the proscription arrangements, not necessarily the date of their enactment.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["Pro Sex. Roscio Amerino §125"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-348-349","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 348-349","locator":"Printed pp. 348-349","pdfPages":[363,364],"url":null},{"id":"G-80-81","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 80-81","locator":"Printed pp. 80-81","pdfPages":[100,101],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Rotondi distinguishes the Valerian authorization of the dictatorship from Cornelian proscription arrangements and discusses whether the latter derived force from the former. This is an interpretive model, not a recovered complete statute."},{"id":"LR-proscription-law-operation","instrument":"proscription-law","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"Cicero contests whether the elder Roscius falls within the authorized category of confiscation and whether the sale was timely. These are objections to title and administrative action used within a murder defence; the speech does not become an independent action to annul the whole Sullan settlement.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["Pro Sex. Roscio Amerino §125"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-348-349","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 348-349","locator":"Printed pp. 348-349","pdfPages":[363,364],"url":null},{"id":"G-80-81","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 80-81","locator":"Printed pp. 80-81","pdfPages":[100,101],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Rotondi distinguishes the Valerian authorization of the dictatorship from Cornelian proscription arrangements and discusses whether the latter derived force from the former. This is an interpretive model, not a recovered complete statute."},{"id":"LR-proscription-law-transmission","instrument":"proscription-law","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"The strongest witness includes uncertainty in its own wording. Appian and Plutarch provide historical accounts of the dictatorship and proscriptions, but cannot erase the uncertainty in Cicero’s statutory identification.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["Pro Sex. Roscio Amerino §125"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-348-349","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 348-349","locator":"Printed pp. 348-349","pdfPages":[363,364],"url":null},{"id":"G-80-81","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 80-81","locator":"Printed pp. 80-81","pdfPages":[100,101],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Rotondi distinguishes the Valerian authorization of the dictatorship from Cornelian proscription arrangements and discusses whether the latter derived force from the former. This is an interpretive model, not a recovered complete statute."},{"id":"LR-proscription-law-debate","instrument":"proscription-law","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"Rotondi distinguishes the Valerian authorization of the dictatorship from Cornelian proscription arrangements and discusses whether the latter derived force from the former. This is an interpretive model, not a recovered complete statute.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["Pro Sex. Roscio Amerino §125"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-348-349","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 348-349","locator":"Printed pp. 348-349","pdfPages":[363,364],"url":null},{"id":"G-80-81","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 80-81","locator":"Printed pp. 80-81","pdfPages":[100,101],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Rotondi distinguishes the Valerian authorization of the dictatorship from Cornelian proscription arrangements and discusses whether the latter derived force from the former. This is an interpretive model, not a recovered complete statute."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-repetundis-existence","instrument":"cornelia-repetundis","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Rabirio Postumo 9 explicitly says that the recipient-recovery clause passed from the Servilian into the Cornelian and then the Julian law. The statute’s existence is thus stronger evidence than any reconstruction of its complete contents.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["Pro C. Rabirio Postumo §9"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-360","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 360","locator":"Printed pp. 360","pdfPages":[375],"url":null},{"id":"G-415-428","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 415-428","locator":"Printed pp. 415-428","pdfPages":[435,448],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-501-504","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 501-504","locator":"Printed pp. 501-504","pdfPages":[521,524],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Avoid importing the whole of Julian or imperial repetundae law into the Sullan statute. Explicit continuity of one chapter is narrower than continuity of an entire code."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-repetundis-dating","instrument":"cornelia-repetundis","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"The conventional Sullan date is 81 BCE, but Rotondi marks that dating with a question. Its place between Servilian and Julian legislation is independently supported by Cicero’s sequence; a full enactment date is not.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["Pro C. Rabirio Postumo §9"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-360","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 360","locator":"Printed pp. 360","pdfPages":[375],"url":null},{"id":"G-415-428","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 415-428","locator":"Printed pp. 415-428","pdfPages":[435,448],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-501-504","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 501-504","locator":"Printed pp. 501-504","pdfPages":[521,524],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Avoid importing the whole of Julian or imperial repetundae law into the Sullan statute. Explicit continuity of one chapter is narrower than continuity of an entire code."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-repetundis-operation","instrument":"cornelia-repetundis","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"The relevant provision reaches money that passed to someone other than the convicted official. Greenidge places Verres’ and Fonteius’ trials within the Cornelian regime. Their institutional setting and the preserved recipient clause are different kinds of evidence.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["Pro C. Rabirio Postumo §9"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-360","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 360","locator":"Printed pp. 360","pdfPages":[375],"url":null},{"id":"G-415-428","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 415-428","locator":"Printed pp. 415-428","pdfPages":[435,448],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-501-504","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 501-504","locator":"Printed pp. 501-504","pdfPages":[521,524],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Avoid importing the whole of Julian or imperial repetundae law into the Sullan statute. Explicit continuity of one chapter is narrower than continuity of an entire code."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-repetundis-transmission","instrument":"cornelia-repetundis","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"Only fragments and references transmitted through literature are available here. The three-stage sequence in Rabirio Postumo does not show that every procedural or penal provision remained identical.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["Pro C. Rabirio Postumo §9"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-360","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 360","locator":"Printed pp. 360","pdfPages":[375],"url":null},{"id":"G-415-428","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 415-428","locator":"Printed pp. 415-428","pdfPages":[435,448],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-501-504","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 501-504","locator":"Printed pp. 501-504","pdfPages":[521,524],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Avoid importing the whole of Julian or imperial repetundae law into the Sullan statute. Explicit continuity of one chapter is narrower than continuity of an entire code."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-repetundis-debate","instrument":"cornelia-repetundis","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"Avoid importing the whole of Julian or imperial repetundae law into the Sullan statute. Explicit continuity of one chapter is narrower than continuity of an entire code.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["Pro C. Rabirio Postumo §9"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-360","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 360","locator":"Printed pp. 360","pdfPages":[375],"url":null},{"id":"G-415-428","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 415-428","locator":"Printed pp. 415-428","pdfPages":[435,448],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-501-504","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 501-504","locator":"Printed pp. 501-504","pdfPages":[521,524],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Avoid importing the whole of Julian or imperial repetundae law into the Sullan statute. Explicit continuity of one chapter is narrower than continuity of an entire code."},{"id":"LR-iulia-repetundis-existence","instrument":"iulia-repetundis","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Rabirio Postumo 8–12 names the Julian law and quotes the words governing money that reached another recipient. Cicero’s contemporary correspondence and later Digest 48.11 provide further witnesses to the broad anti-extortion regime.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["Pro C. Rabirio Postumo §8","Pro L. Flacco §13"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-389-391","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 389-391","locator":"Printed pp. 389-391","pdfPages":[404,406],"url":null},{"id":"G-485","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 485","locator":"Printed pp. 485","pdfPages":[505],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-501-504","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 501-504","locator":"Printed pp. 501-504","pdfPages":[521,524],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not equate every payment in a governor’s orbit with proved extortion, or every recipient with a principal defendant. Distinguish the quoted chapter from the advocate’s account of Gabinius’ conviction."},{"id":"LR-iulia-repetundis-dating","instrument":"iulia-repetundis","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"59 BCE is Caesar’s consular enactment year. The Flaccus defence later that year calls a law recent and new without naming it at §13; its identification as Julian is Greenidge’s interpretation. Rabirio Postumo in 54 gives explicit naming.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["Pro C. Rabirio Postumo §8","Pro L. Flacco §13"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-389-391","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 389-391","locator":"Printed pp. 389-391","pdfPages":[404,406],"url":null},{"id":"G-485","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 485","locator":"Printed pp. 485","pdfPages":[505],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-501-504","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 501-504","locator":"Printed pp. 501-504","pdfPages":[521,524],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not equate every payment in a governor’s orbit with proved extortion, or every recipient with a principal defendant. Distinguish the quoted chapter from the advocate’s account of Gabinius’ conviction."},{"id":"LR-iulia-repetundis-operation","instrument":"iulia-repetundis","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"The recipient proceeding depends on the prior official extortion case and assessment, but the defence disputes both the reach of the clause and what Postumus received. The law also belongs to the regulation of provincial office and gifts; those wider provisions need their own loci.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["Pro C. Rabirio Postumo §8","Pro L. Flacco §13"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-389-391","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 389-391","locator":"Printed pp. 389-391","pdfPages":[404,406],"url":null},{"id":"G-485","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 485","locator":"Printed pp. 485","pdfPages":[505],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-501-504","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 501-504","locator":"Printed pp. 501-504","pdfPages":[521,524],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not equate every payment in a governor’s orbit with proved extortion, or every recipient with a principal defendant. Distinguish the quoted chapter from the advocate’s account of Gabinius’ conviction."},{"id":"LR-iulia-repetundis-transmission","instrument":"iulia-repetundis","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"This is a statute reconstructed from multiple literary and juristic witnesses, not a surviving complete bronze. Late imperial texts under its title may preserve extensions and altered penalties.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["Pro C. Rabirio Postumo §8","Pro L. Flacco §13"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-389-391","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 389-391","locator":"Printed pp. 389-391","pdfPages":[404,406],"url":null},{"id":"G-485","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 485","locator":"Printed pp. 485","pdfPages":[505],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-501-504","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 501-504","locator":"Printed pp. 501-504","pdfPages":[521,524],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not equate every payment in a governor’s orbit with proved extortion, or every recipient with a principal defendant. Distinguish the quoted chapter from the advocate’s account of Gabinius’ conviction."},{"id":"LR-iulia-repetundis-debate","instrument":"iulia-repetundis","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"Do not equate every payment in a governor’s orbit with proved extortion, or every recipient with a principal defendant. Distinguish the quoted chapter from the advocate’s account of Gabinius’ conviction.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["Pro C. Rabirio Postumo §8","Pro L. Flacco §13"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-389-391","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 389-391","locator":"Printed pp. 389-391","pdfPages":[404,406],"url":null},{"id":"G-485","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 485","locator":"Printed pp. 485","pdfPages":[505],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-501-504","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 501-504","locator":"Printed pp. 501-504","pdfPages":[521,524],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not equate every payment in a governor’s orbit with proved extortion, or every recipient with a principal defendant. Distinguish the quoted chapter from the advocate’s account of Gabinius’ conviction."},{"id":"LR-servilia-repetundis-existence","instrument":"servilia-repetundis","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Rabirio Postumo 9 attributes the inherited recipient clause to the Servilian law. Verrines II.1.26 contrasts its two-hearing arrangement with Acilian procedure. These identify particular procedural innovations, not the full statute.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["Pro C. Rabirio Postumo §9","In C. Verrem §2.1.26"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-322","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 322","locator":"Printed pp. 322","pdfPages":[337],"url":null},{"id":"C1-51-52","source":"C1","label":"M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. I (1996), pp. 51-52","locator":"Printed pp. 51-52","pdfPages":[78,79],"url":null},{"id":"C1-209","source":"C1","label":"M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. I (1996), pp. 209","locator":"Printed pp. 209","pdfPages":[236],"url":null},{"id":"G-493-496","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 493-496","locator":"Printed pp. 493-496","pdfPages":[513,516],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Keep Glaucia’s statute distinct from Caepio’s Servilian jury legislation. A shared gentilicium does not identify proposer, date, jury composition or operative clauses."},{"id":"LR-servilia-repetundis-dating","instrument":"servilia-repetundis","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"Glaucia’s law is conventionally assigned to 104 or 101 BCE; the exact chronology is disputed. Rotondi’s older placement around 111 differs sharply and rests on assumptions about reuse of the Bembine bronze. It is recorded as an older reconstruction, not silently adopted.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["Pro C. Rabirio Postumo §9","In C. Verrem §2.1.26"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-322","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 322","locator":"Printed pp. 322","pdfPages":[337],"url":null},{"id":"C1-51-52","source":"C1","label":"M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. I (1996), pp. 51-52","locator":"Printed pp. 51-52","pdfPages":[78,79],"url":null},{"id":"C1-209","source":"C1","label":"M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. I (1996), pp. 209","locator":"Printed pp. 209","pdfPages":[236],"url":null},{"id":"G-493-496","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 493-496","locator":"Printed pp. 493-496","pdfPages":[513,516],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Keep Glaucia’s statute distinct from Caepio’s Servilian jury legislation. A shared gentilicium does not identify proposer, date, jury composition or operative clauses."},{"id":"LR-servilia-repetundis-operation","instrument":"servilia-repetundis","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"The important comparisons concern the selection of an accuser, a repeated hearing and reaching money transferred to another recipient. The two-stage hearing could be exploited for delay in Verres’ prosecution.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["Pro C. Rabirio Postumo §9","In C. Verrem §2.1.26"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-322","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 322","locator":"Printed pp. 322","pdfPages":[337],"url":null},{"id":"C1-51-52","source":"C1","label":"M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. I (1996), pp. 51-52","locator":"Printed pp. 51-52","pdfPages":[78,79],"url":null},{"id":"C1-209","source":"C1","label":"M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. I (1996), pp. 209","locator":"Printed pp. 209","pdfPages":[236],"url":null},{"id":"G-493-496","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 493-496","locator":"Printed pp. 493-496","pdfPages":[513,516],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Keep Glaucia’s statute distinct from Caepio’s Servilian jury legislation. A shared gentilicium does not identify proposer, date, jury composition or operative clauses."},{"id":"LR-servilia-repetundis-transmission","instrument":"servilia-repetundis","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"Crawford distinguishes the inscribed Gracchan repetundae law from innovations associated with Glaucia. The Tarentum fragment has been assigned to several different laws; its label cannot securely supply Glaucia’s complete text.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["Pro C. Rabirio Postumo §9","In C. Verrem §2.1.26"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-322","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 322","locator":"Printed pp. 322","pdfPages":[337],"url":null},{"id":"C1-51-52","source":"C1","label":"M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. I (1996), pp. 51-52","locator":"Printed pp. 51-52","pdfPages":[78,79],"url":null},{"id":"C1-209","source":"C1","label":"M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. I (1996), pp. 209","locator":"Printed pp. 209","pdfPages":[236],"url":null},{"id":"G-493-496","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 493-496","locator":"Printed pp. 493-496","pdfPages":[513,516],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Keep Glaucia’s statute distinct from Caepio’s Servilian jury legislation. A shared gentilicium does not identify proposer, date, jury composition or operative clauses."},{"id":"LR-servilia-repetundis-debate","instrument":"servilia-repetundis","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"Keep Glaucia’s statute distinct from Caepio’s Servilian jury legislation. A shared gentilicium does not identify proposer, date, jury composition or operative clauses.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["Pro C. Rabirio Postumo §9","In C. Verrem §2.1.26"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-322","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 322","locator":"Printed pp. 322","pdfPages":[337],"url":null},{"id":"C1-51-52","source":"C1","label":"M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. I (1996), pp. 51-52","locator":"Printed pp. 51-52","pdfPages":[78,79],"url":null},{"id":"C1-209","source":"C1","label":"M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. I (1996), pp. 209","locator":"Printed pp. 209","pdfPages":[236],"url":null},{"id":"G-493-496","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 493-496","locator":"Printed pp. 493-496","pdfPages":[513,516],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Keep Glaucia’s statute distinct from Caepio’s Servilian jury legislation. A shared gentilicium does not identify proposer, date, jury composition or operative clauses."},{"id":"LR-acilia-repetundis-existence","instrument":"acilia-repetundis","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Verrines II.1.26 expressly contrasts the Acilian law with the Servilian law. The bronze repetundae statute conventionally associated with it supplies a second, documentary evidence stream, whose precise statutory identification remains debated.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["In C. Verrem §2.1.26"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-312-313","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 312-313","locator":"Printed pp. 312-313","pdfPages":[327,328],"url":null},{"id":"C1-39-42","source":"C1","label":"M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. I (1996), pp. 39-42","locator":"Printed pp. 39-42","pdfPages":[66,69],"url":null},{"id":"C1-51-52","source":"C1","label":"M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. I (1996), pp. 51-52","locator":"Printed pp. 51-52","pdfPages":[78,79],"url":null},{"id":"LP3","source":"LP3","label":"LEPOR, notice 3: Loi Acilia de repetundis","locator":"Sources and Commentaire","url":"https://telma.irht.cnrs.fr/outils/lepor/notice3/"},{"id":"LP682","source":"LP682","label":"LEPOR, notice 682: Loi Sempronia (plutôt qu’Acilia) de repetundis","locator":"Sources and Commentaire","url":"https://telma.irht.cnrs.fr/outils/lepor/notice682/"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The existence of an inscribed extortion statute is secure; equating that object with the named Acilian law is a further identification. Crawford rejects its equation with Glaucia’s law, explaining the missing characteristic innovations."},{"id":"LR-acilia-repetundis-dating","instrument":"acilia-repetundis","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"The previous 123–122 BCE label conflated a conventional attribution with a secure date. LEPOR notice 3 favours a separate Acilian measure shortly before 111, succeeding a Sempronian law; notice 682 prefers Sempronian attribution for the bronze. Crawford dates the bronze to the Gracchan period but remains neutral about naming Acilius as proposer. The named Acilian law is securely earlier than Glaucia’s Servilian law; its exact year remains disputed.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["In C. Verrem §2.1.26"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-312-313","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 312-313","locator":"Printed pp. 312-313","pdfPages":[327,328],"url":null},{"id":"C1-39-42","source":"C1","label":"M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. I (1996), pp. 39-42","locator":"Printed pp. 39-42","pdfPages":[66,69],"url":null},{"id":"C1-51-52","source":"C1","label":"M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. I (1996), pp. 51-52","locator":"Printed pp. 51-52","pdfPages":[78,79],"url":null},{"id":"LP3","source":"LP3","label":"LEPOR, notice 3: Loi Acilia de repetundis","locator":"Sources and Commentaire","url":"https://telma.irht.cnrs.fr/outils/lepor/notice3/"},{"id":"LP682","source":"LP682","label":"LEPOR, notice 682: Loi Sempronia (plutôt qu’Acilia) de repetundis","locator":"Sources and Commentaire","url":"https://telma.irht.cnrs.fr/outils/lepor/notice682/"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The existence of an inscribed extortion statute is secure; equating that object with the named Acilian law is a further identification. Crawford rejects its equation with Glaucia’s law, explaining the missing characteristic innovations."},{"id":"LR-acilia-repetundis-operation","instrument":"acilia-repetundis","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"The bronze regulates patrons, selection of jurors, witnesses, voting, assessment, recovery and rewards. Its absence of a clear clause on presentation of the parties’ speeches matters: a detailed procedural reconstruction still has gaps.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["In C. Verrem §2.1.26"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-312-313","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 312-313","locator":"Printed pp. 312-313","pdfPages":[327,328],"url":null},{"id":"C1-39-42","source":"C1","label":"M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. I (1996), pp. 39-42","locator":"Printed pp. 39-42","pdfPages":[66,69],"url":null},{"id":"C1-51-52","source":"C1","label":"M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. I (1996), pp. 51-52","locator":"Printed pp. 51-52","pdfPages":[78,79],"url":null},{"id":"LP3","source":"LP3","label":"LEPOR, notice 3: Loi Acilia de repetundis","locator":"Sources and Commentaire","url":"https://telma.irht.cnrs.fr/outils/lepor/notice3/"},{"id":"LP682","source":"LP682","label":"LEPOR, notice 682: Loi Sempronia (plutôt qu’Acilia) de repetundis","locator":"Sources and Commentaire","url":"https://telma.irht.cnrs.fr/outils/lepor/notice682/"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The existence of an inscribed extortion statute is secure; equating that object with the named Acilian law is a further identification. Crawford rejects its equation with Glaucia’s law, explaining the missing characteristic innovations."},{"id":"LR-acilia-repetundis-transmission","instrument":"acilia-repetundis","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"Documentary control: Crawford, Roman Statutes I, law 1; CIL I² 583. The reverse carries the agrarian law of 111 BCE. Fragment survival, early copies and restoration all mediate the edition. Do not call every supplemented letter a surviving letter.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["In C. Verrem §2.1.26"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-312-313","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 312-313","locator":"Printed pp. 312-313","pdfPages":[327,328],"url":null},{"id":"C1-39-42","source":"C1","label":"M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. I (1996), pp. 39-42","locator":"Printed pp. 39-42","pdfPages":[66,69],"url":null},{"id":"C1-51-52","source":"C1","label":"M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. I (1996), pp. 51-52","locator":"Printed pp. 51-52","pdfPages":[78,79],"url":null},{"id":"LP3","source":"LP3","label":"LEPOR, notice 3: Loi Acilia de repetundis","locator":"Sources and Commentaire","url":"https://telma.irht.cnrs.fr/outils/lepor/notice3/"},{"id":"LP682","source":"LP682","label":"LEPOR, notice 682: Loi Sempronia (plutôt qu’Acilia) de repetundis","locator":"Sources and Commentaire","url":"https://telma.irht.cnrs.fr/outils/lepor/notice682/"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The existence of an inscribed extortion statute is secure; equating that object with the named Acilian law is a further identification. Crawford rejects its equation with Glaucia’s law, explaining the missing characteristic innovations."},{"id":"LR-acilia-repetundis-debate","instrument":"acilia-repetundis","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"The existence of an inscribed extortion statute is secure; equating that object with the named Acilian law is a further identification. Crawford rejects its equation with Glaucia’s law, explaining the missing characteristic innovations.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["In C. Verrem §2.1.26"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-312-313","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 312-313","locator":"Printed pp. 312-313","pdfPages":[327,328],"url":null},{"id":"C1-39-42","source":"C1","label":"M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. I (1996), pp. 39-42","locator":"Printed pp. 39-42","pdfPages":[66,69],"url":null},{"id":"C1-51-52","source":"C1","label":"M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. I (1996), pp. 51-52","locator":"Printed pp. 51-52","pdfPages":[78,79],"url":null},{"id":"LP3","source":"LP3","label":"LEPOR, notice 3: Loi Acilia de repetundis","locator":"Sources and Commentaire","url":"https://telma.irht.cnrs.fr/outils/lepor/notice3/"},{"id":"LP682","source":"LP682","label":"LEPOR, notice 682: Loi Sempronia (plutôt qu’Acilia) de repetundis","locator":"Sources and Commentaire","url":"https://telma.irht.cnrs.fr/outils/lepor/notice682/"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The existence of an inscribed extortion statute is secure; equating that object with the named Acilian law is a further identification. Crawford rejects its equation with Glaucia’s law, explaining the missing characteristic innovations."},{"id":"LR-rupilia-existence","instrument":"rupilia","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Verrines II.2.32 calls the arrangement a decretum of Rupilius made with ten commissioners and says the Sicilians call it the Rupilian law. §§37–44 test its operation in Heraclius’ inheritance dispute.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["In C. Verrem §2.2.32","In C. Verrem §2.2.32"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-489","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 489","locator":"Printed pp. 489","pdfPages":[504],"url":null},{"id":"DUB-104-108","source":"DUB","label":"Julien Dubouloz, “La juridiction du gouverneur provincial. Réflexions sur les Verrines comme sources pour l’histoire du droit”, in J. R. W. Prag (ed.), Sicilia nutrix plebis Romanae (2007), pp. 104-108","locator":"Printed pp. 104-108","pdfPages":[110,114],"url":"https://www.julien-dubouloz.fr/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/19-londres-2004-article.pdf"},{"id":"G-109-132","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 109-132","locator":"Printed pp. 109-132","pdfPages":[129,152],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Dubouloz shows why alleged injustice cannot always be reduced to a technically illegal appointment: Verres could correct formal selection while still exerting pressure. Preserve Cicero’s accusations separately from that procedural analysis."},{"id":"LR-rupilia-dating","instrument":"rupilia","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"The former atlas date 132 BCE needs qualification. Rotondi dates the settlement to 131; 132 is the consulship and commonly repeated dating. Display 132–131 BCE, with the disagreement explained, not as a two-year effective term.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["In C. Verrem §2.2.32","In C. Verrem §2.2.32"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-489","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 489","locator":"Printed pp. 489","pdfPages":[504],"url":null},{"id":"DUB-104-108","source":"DUB","label":"Julien Dubouloz, “La juridiction du gouverneur provincial. Réflexions sur les Verrines comme sources pour l’histoire du droit”, in J. R. W. Prag (ed.), Sicilia nutrix plebis Romanae (2007), pp. 104-108","locator":"Printed pp. 104-108","pdfPages":[110,114],"url":"https://www.julien-dubouloz.fr/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/19-londres-2004-article.pdf"},{"id":"G-109-132","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 109-132","locator":"Printed pp. 109-132","pdfPages":[129,152],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Dubouloz shows why alleged injustice cannot always be reduced to a technically illegal appointment: Verres could correct formal selection while still exerting pressure. Preserve Cicero’s accusations separately from that procedural analysis."},{"id":"LR-rupilia-operation","instrument":"rupilia","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"The rules distinguish disputes within one city, between Sicilians of different cities, between an individual and a community, and between Roman and Sicilian parties. The method of choosing judges varies with those categories.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["In C. Verrem §2.2.32","In C. Verrem §2.2.32"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-489","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 489","locator":"Printed pp. 489","pdfPages":[504],"url":null},{"id":"DUB-104-108","source":"DUB","label":"Julien Dubouloz, “La juridiction du gouverneur provincial. Réflexions sur les Verrines comme sources pour l’histoire du droit”, in J. R. W. Prag (ed.), Sicilia nutrix plebis Romanae (2007), pp. 104-108","locator":"Printed pp. 104-108","pdfPages":[110,114],"url":"https://www.julien-dubouloz.fr/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/19-londres-2004-article.pdf"},{"id":"G-109-132","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 109-132","locator":"Printed pp. 109-132","pdfPages":[129,152],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Dubouloz shows why alleged injustice cannot always be reduced to a technically illegal appointment: Verres could correct formal selection while still exerting pressure. Preserve Cicero’s accusations separately from that procedural analysis."},{"id":"LR-rupilia-transmission","instrument":"rupilia","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"No self-contained provincial charter survives here. Cicero’s terminology itself warns against treating this as an ordinary Roman popular statute. The governor’s subsequent edict helps sustain local and inter-community rules in practice.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["In C. Verrem §2.2.32","In C. Verrem §2.2.32"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-489","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 489","locator":"Printed pp. 489","pdfPages":[504],"url":null},{"id":"DUB-104-108","source":"DUB","label":"Julien Dubouloz, “La juridiction du gouverneur provincial. Réflexions sur les Verrines comme sources pour l’histoire du droit”, in J. R. W. Prag (ed.), Sicilia nutrix plebis Romanae (2007), pp. 104-108","locator":"Printed pp. 104-108","pdfPages":[110,114],"url":"https://www.julien-dubouloz.fr/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/19-londres-2004-article.pdf"},{"id":"G-109-132","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 109-132","locator":"Printed pp. 109-132","pdfPages":[129,152],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Dubouloz shows why alleged injustice cannot always be reduced to a technically illegal appointment: Verres could correct formal selection while still exerting pressure. Preserve Cicero’s accusations separately from that procedural analysis."},{"id":"LR-rupilia-debate","instrument":"rupilia","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"Dubouloz shows why alleged injustice cannot always be reduced to a technically illegal appointment: Verres could correct formal selection while still exerting pressure. Preserve Cicero’s accusations separately from that procedural analysis.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["In C. Verrem §2.2.32","In C. Verrem §2.2.32"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-489","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 489","locator":"Printed pp. 489","pdfPages":[504],"url":null},{"id":"DUB-104-108","source":"DUB","label":"Julien Dubouloz, “La juridiction du gouverneur provincial. Réflexions sur les Verrines comme sources pour l’histoire du droit”, in J. R. W. Prag (ed.), Sicilia nutrix plebis Romanae (2007), pp. 104-108","locator":"Printed pp. 104-108","pdfPages":[110,114],"url":"https://www.julien-dubouloz.fr/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/19-londres-2004-article.pdf"},{"id":"G-109-132","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 109-132","locator":"Printed pp. 109-132","pdfPages":[129,152],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Dubouloz shows why alleged injustice cannot always be reduced to a technically illegal appointment: Verres could correct formal selection while still exerting pressure. Preserve Cicero’s accusations separately from that procedural analysis."},{"id":"LR-hieronica-existence","instrument":"hieronica","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Verrines II.3.12–15 describes the fiscal arrangement associated with Hiero and Roman retention of it; II.2.32 expressly connects disputes between cultivators and tithe contractors with the Hieronian grain law.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["In C. Verrem §2.2.32","In C. Verrem §2.3.15","In C. Verrem §2.2.32"],"scholarship":[{"id":"DUB-107-108","source":"DUB","label":"Julien Dubouloz, “La juridiction du gouverneur provincial. Réflexions sur les Verrines comme sources pour l’histoire du droit”, in J. R. W. Prag (ed.), Sicilia nutrix plebis Romanae (2007), pp. 107-108","locator":"Printed pp. 107-108","pdfPages":[113,114],"url":"https://www.julien-dubouloz.fr/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/19-londres-2004-article.pdf"},{"id":"BELL-117-120","source":"BELL","label":"Malcolm Bell III, “Apronius in the Agora: Sicilian Civil Architecture and the Lex Hieronica”, in J. R. W. Prag (ed.), Sicilia nutrix plebis Romanae (2007), pp. 117-120","locator":"Printed pp. 117-120","pdfPages":[122,125],"url":null},{"id":"G-109-132","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 109-132","locator":"Printed pp. 109-132","pdfPages":[129,152],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Separate continuity of a named institution from unchanged wording or unchanged territorial coverage. Cicero’s idealized contrast between inherited order and Verres’ conduct serves the prosecution."},{"id":"LR-hieronica-dating","instrument":"hieronica","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"The evidence supports a royal Sicilian background before Roman incorporation, followed by later Roman use. It does not date a single act of promulgation or prove that every Republican provision originated with Hiero II.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["In C. Verrem §2.2.32","In C. Verrem §2.3.15","In C. Verrem §2.2.32"],"scholarship":[{"id":"DUB-107-108","source":"DUB","label":"Julien Dubouloz, “La juridiction du gouverneur provincial. Réflexions sur les Verrines comme sources pour l’histoire du droit”, in J. R. W. Prag (ed.), Sicilia nutrix plebis Romanae (2007), pp. 107-108","locator":"Printed pp. 107-108","pdfPages":[113,114],"url":"https://www.julien-dubouloz.fr/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/19-londres-2004-article.pdf"},{"id":"BELL-117-120","source":"BELL","label":"Malcolm Bell III, “Apronius in the Agora: Sicilian Civil Architecture and the Lex Hieronica”, in J. R. W. Prag (ed.), Sicilia nutrix plebis Romanae (2007), pp. 117-120","locator":"Printed pp. 117-120","pdfPages":[122,125],"url":null},{"id":"G-109-132","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 109-132","locator":"Printed pp. 109-132","pdfPages":[129,152],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Separate continuity of a named institution from unchanged wording or unchanged territorial coverage. Cicero’s idealized contrast between inherited order and Verres’ conduct serves the prosecution."},{"id":"LR-hieronica-operation","instrument":"hieronica","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"The system connects tithe auctions, assessment, local cultivators, contractors and dispute resolution. Verres’ alleged abuses operate through changes to these relationships and the practical availability of remedies, not simply through a different nominal tax rate.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["In C. Verrem §2.2.32","In C. Verrem §2.3.15","In C. Verrem §2.2.32"],"scholarship":[{"id":"DUB-107-108","source":"DUB","label":"Julien Dubouloz, “La juridiction du gouverneur provincial. Réflexions sur les Verrines comme sources pour l’histoire du droit”, in J. R. W. Prag (ed.), Sicilia nutrix plebis Romanae (2007), pp. 107-108","locator":"Printed pp. 107-108","pdfPages":[113,114],"url":"https://www.julien-dubouloz.fr/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/19-londres-2004-article.pdf"},{"id":"BELL-117-120","source":"BELL","label":"Malcolm Bell III, “Apronius in the Agora: Sicilian Civil Architecture and the Lex Hieronica”, in J. R. W. Prag (ed.), Sicilia nutrix plebis Romanae (2007), pp. 117-120","locator":"Printed pp. 117-120","pdfPages":[122,125],"url":null},{"id":"G-109-132","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 109-132","locator":"Printed pp. 109-132","pdfPages":[129,152],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Separate continuity of a named institution from unchanged wording or unchanged territorial coverage. Cicero’s idealized contrast between inherited order and Verres’ conduct serves the prosecution."},{"id":"LR-hieronica-transmission","instrument":"hieronica","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"No original royal code is reproduced. Bell investigates architectural and administrative traces at Morgantina as evidence for fiscal practices; archaeological association with the system is an inference, not an inscribed copy of the law.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["In C. Verrem §2.2.32","In C. Verrem §2.3.15","In C. Verrem §2.2.32"],"scholarship":[{"id":"DUB-107-108","source":"DUB","label":"Julien Dubouloz, “La juridiction du gouverneur provincial. Réflexions sur les Verrines comme sources pour l’histoire du droit”, in J. R. W. Prag (ed.), Sicilia nutrix plebis Romanae (2007), pp. 107-108","locator":"Printed pp. 107-108","pdfPages":[113,114],"url":"https://www.julien-dubouloz.fr/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/19-londres-2004-article.pdf"},{"id":"BELL-117-120","source":"BELL","label":"Malcolm Bell III, “Apronius in the Agora: Sicilian Civil Architecture and the Lex Hieronica”, in J. R. W. Prag (ed.), Sicilia nutrix plebis Romanae (2007), pp. 117-120","locator":"Printed pp. 117-120","pdfPages":[122,125],"url":null},{"id":"G-109-132","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 109-132","locator":"Printed pp. 109-132","pdfPages":[129,152],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Separate continuity of a named institution from unchanged wording or unchanged territorial coverage. Cicero’s idealized contrast between inherited order and Verres’ conduct serves the prosecution."},{"id":"LR-hieronica-debate","instrument":"hieronica","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"Separate continuity of a named institution from unchanged wording or unchanged territorial coverage. Cicero’s idealized contrast between inherited order and Verres’ conduct serves the prosecution.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["In C. Verrem §2.2.32","In C. Verrem §2.3.15","In C. Verrem §2.2.32"],"scholarship":[{"id":"DUB-107-108","source":"DUB","label":"Julien Dubouloz, “La juridiction du gouverneur provincial. Réflexions sur les Verrines comme sources pour l’histoire du droit”, in J. R. W. Prag (ed.), Sicilia nutrix plebis Romanae (2007), pp. 107-108","locator":"Printed pp. 107-108","pdfPages":[113,114],"url":"https://www.julien-dubouloz.fr/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/19-londres-2004-article.pdf"},{"id":"BELL-117-120","source":"BELL","label":"Malcolm Bell III, “Apronius in the Agora: Sicilian Civil Architecture and the Lex Hieronica”, in J. R. W. Prag (ed.), Sicilia nutrix plebis Romanae (2007), pp. 117-120","locator":"Printed pp. 117-120","pdfPages":[122,125],"url":null},{"id":"G-109-132","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 109-132","locator":"Printed pp. 109-132","pdfPages":[129,152],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Separate continuity of a named institution from unchanged wording or unchanged territorial coverage. Cicero’s idealized contrast between inherited order and Verres’ conduct serves the prosecution."},{"id":"LR-verres-inheritance-existence","instrument":"verres-inheritance","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Verrines II.1.104–110 recounts the urban inheritance edict and its effect on Asellus’ daughter. Cicero contrasts Verres’ innovation with established law and the treatment of earlier wills.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["In C. Verrem §2.1.104"],"scholarship":[{"id":"G-79-99","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 79-99","locator":"Printed pp. 79-99","pdfPages":[99,119],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"R-283-284","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 283-284","locator":"Printed pp. 283-284","pdfPages":[298,299],"url":null}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Cicero’s examples involving forgery and homicide illustrate prospectivity; they are not additional charges against Asellus’ daughter. Treat Verres’ administrative innovation separately from the statute he purportedly used."},{"id":"LR-verres-inheritance-dating","instrument":"verres-inheritance","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"74 BCE dates Verres’ urban praetorship, during which the challenged edict belongs. The accusation was published in 70. Neither date should be mistaken for the enactment of the older Voconian law.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["In C. Verrem §2.1.104"],"scholarship":[{"id":"G-79-99","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 79-99","locator":"Printed pp. 79-99","pdfPages":[99,119],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"R-283-284","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 283-284","locator":"Printed pp. 283-284","pdfPages":[298,299],"url":null}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Cicero’s examples involving forgery and homicide illustrate prospectivity; they are not additional charges against Asellus’ daughter. Treat Verres’ administrative innovation separately from the statute he purportedly used."},{"id":"LR-verres-inheritance-operation","instrument":"verres-inheritance","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"The dispute concerns access to an inheritance through praetorian handling of a will and the relevance of census status. Cicero attacks retrospective alteration of the consequences of acts already performed in reliance on existing rules.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["In C. Verrem §2.1.104"],"scholarship":[{"id":"G-79-99","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 79-99","locator":"Printed pp. 79-99","pdfPages":[99,119],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"R-283-284","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 283-284","locator":"Printed pp. 283-284","pdfPages":[298,299],"url":null}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Cicero’s examples involving forgery and homicide illustrate prospectivity; they are not additional charges against Asellus’ daughter. Treat Verres’ administrative innovation separately from the statute he purportedly used."},{"id":"LR-verres-inheritance-transmission","instrument":"verres-inheritance","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"The evidence is the prosecutor’s report of edictal wording and practice. No posted urban edict is separately available. The account must be read with the whole Asellus episode.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["In C. Verrem §2.1.104"],"scholarship":[{"id":"G-79-99","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 79-99","locator":"Printed pp. 79-99","pdfPages":[99,119],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"R-283-284","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 283-284","locator":"Printed pp. 283-284","pdfPages":[298,299],"url":null}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Cicero’s examples involving forgery and homicide illustrate prospectivity; they are not additional charges against Asellus’ daughter. Treat Verres’ administrative innovation separately from the statute he purportedly used."},{"id":"LR-verres-inheritance-debate","instrument":"verres-inheritance","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"Cicero’s examples involving forgery and homicide illustrate prospectivity; they are not additional charges against Asellus’ daughter. Treat Verres’ administrative innovation separately from the statute he purportedly used.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["In C. Verrem §2.1.104"],"scholarship":[{"id":"G-79-99","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 79-99","locator":"Printed pp. 79-99","pdfPages":[99,119],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"R-283-284","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 283-284","locator":"Printed pp. 283-284","pdfPages":[298,299],"url":null}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Cicero’s examples involving forgery and homicide illustrate prospectivity; they are not additional charges against Asellus’ daughter. Treat Verres’ administrative innovation separately from the statute he purportedly used."},{"id":"LR-voconia-existence","instrument":"voconia","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Verrines II.1.106–110 names the law in the Asellus inheritance dispute. Gaius 2.226 and 2.274 separately report restrictions on legacies and on instituting a woman as heir.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["In C. Verrem §2.1.108","Gaius, Institutes 2.274"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-283-284","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 283-284","locator":"Printed pp. 283-284","pdfPages":[298,299],"url":null},{"id":"G-79-99","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 79-99","locator":"Printed pp. 79-99","pdfPages":[99,119],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"LP757","source":"LP757","label":"LEPOR, notice 757: Loi Voconia","locator":"Sources and Commentaire","url":"https://telma.irht.cnrs.fr/outils/lepor/notice757/"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Verres’ treatment of an uncensused testator is central to Cicero’s criticism. Later fideicommissary practice is evidence of the statute’s reception, not a provision enacted in 169."},{"id":"LR-voconia-dating","instrument":"voconia","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"169 BCE is the conventional year of the tribune Q. Voconius Saxa’s enactment, supported by the historical tradition collected by Rotondi. Its invocation by Cicero in 70 is evidence of later relevance.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["In C. Verrem §2.1.108","Gaius, Institutes 2.274"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-283-284","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 283-284","locator":"Printed pp. 283-284","pdfPages":[298,299],"url":null},{"id":"G-79-99","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 79-99","locator":"Printed pp. 79-99","pdfPages":[99,119],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"LP757","source":"LP757","label":"LEPOR, notice 757: Loi Voconia","locator":"Sources and Commentaire","url":"https://telma.irht.cnrs.fr/outils/lepor/notice757/"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Verres’ treatment of an uncensused testator is central to Cicero’s criticism. Later fideicommissary practice is evidence of the statute’s reception, not a provision enacted in 169."},{"id":"LR-voconia-operation","instrument":"voconia","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"The restriction depends on the testator’s assessed property status; it is not a ban on all female inheritance. Gaius also reports a restriction preventing a legatee from receiving more than heirs, and later mechanisms that could circumvent the restriction.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["In C. Verrem §2.1.108","Gaius, Institutes 2.274"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-283-284","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 283-284","locator":"Printed pp. 283-284","pdfPages":[298,299],"url":null},{"id":"G-79-99","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 79-99","locator":"Printed pp. 79-99","pdfPages":[99,119],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"LP757","source":"LP757","label":"LEPOR, notice 757: Loi Voconia","locator":"Sources and Commentaire","url":"https://telma.irht.cnrs.fr/outils/lepor/notice757/"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Verres’ treatment of an uncensused testator is central to Cicero’s criticism. Later fideicommissary practice is evidence of the statute’s reception, not a provision enacted in 169."},{"id":"LR-voconia-transmission","instrument":"voconia","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"The law is known through separate literary and juristic witnesses. Their monetary thresholds and formulations require care; the dossier does not present a synthesized modern wording as a complete statute.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["In C. Verrem §2.1.108","Gaius, Institutes 2.274"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-283-284","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 283-284","locator":"Printed pp. 283-284","pdfPages":[298,299],"url":null},{"id":"G-79-99","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 79-99","locator":"Printed pp. 79-99","pdfPages":[99,119],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"LP757","source":"LP757","label":"LEPOR, notice 757: Loi Voconia","locator":"Sources and Commentaire","url":"https://telma.irht.cnrs.fr/outils/lepor/notice757/"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Verres’ treatment of an uncensused testator is central to Cicero’s criticism. Later fideicommissary practice is evidence of the statute’s reception, not a provision enacted in 169."},{"id":"LR-voconia-debate","instrument":"voconia","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"Verres’ treatment of an uncensused testator is central to Cicero’s criticism. Later fideicommissary practice is evidence of the statute’s reception, not a provision enacted in 169.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["In C. Verrem §2.1.108","Gaius, Institutes 2.274"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-283-284","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 283-284","locator":"Printed pp. 283-284","pdfPages":[298,299],"url":null},{"id":"G-79-99","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 79-99","locator":"Printed pp. 79-99","pdfPages":[99,119],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"LP757","source":"LP757","label":"LEPOR, notice 757: Loi Voconia","locator":"Sources and Commentaire","url":"https://telma.irht.cnrs.fr/outils/lepor/notice757/"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Verres’ treatment of an uncensused testator is central to Cicero’s criticism. Later fideicommissary practice is evidence of the statute’s reception, not a provision enacted in 169."},{"id":"LR-verres-tithes-existence","instrument":"verres-tithes","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Verrines II.3.25 reports an edict compelling payment of what the tithe collector demanded. §35 quotes the offer of recuperatores if either party wished. These are distinct clauses within Cicero’s reconstruction of fiscal coercion.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["In C. Verrem §2.3.25","In C. Verrem §2.3.35"],"scholarship":[{"id":"DUB-105-108","source":"DUB","label":"Julien Dubouloz, “La juridiction du gouverneur provincial. Réflexions sur les Verrines comme sources pour l’histoire du droit”, in J. R. W. Prag (ed.), Sicilia nutrix plebis Romanae (2007), pp. 105-108","locator":"Printed pp. 105-108","pdfPages":[111,114],"url":"https://www.julien-dubouloz.fr/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/19-londres-2004-article.pdf"},{"id":"G-109-132","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 109-132","locator":"Printed pp. 109-132","pdfPages":[129,152],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Dubouloz distinguishes a choice between local adjudication and the governor’s intervention from the older reconstruction of a choice between a single judge and recuperators. Apparent procedural options must be studied in their provincial setting."},{"id":"LR-verres-tithes-dating","instrument":"verres-tithes","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"The edict belongs to Verres’ Sicilian governorship of 73–71 BCE. A specific issue day, annual republication and uninterrupted duration cannot be inferred from the governorship interval.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["In C. Verrem §2.3.25","In C. Verrem §2.3.35"],"scholarship":[{"id":"DUB-105-108","source":"DUB","label":"Julien Dubouloz, “La juridiction du gouverneur provincial. Réflexions sur les Verrines comme sources pour l’histoire du droit”, in J. R. W. Prag (ed.), Sicilia nutrix plebis Romanae (2007), pp. 105-108","locator":"Printed pp. 105-108","pdfPages":[111,114],"url":"https://www.julien-dubouloz.fr/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/19-londres-2004-article.pdf"},{"id":"G-109-132","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 109-132","locator":"Printed pp. 109-132","pdfPages":[129,152],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Dubouloz distinguishes a choice between local adjudication and the governor’s intervention from the older reconstruction of a choice between a single judge and recuperators. Apparent procedural options must be studied in their provincial setting."},{"id":"LR-verres-tithes-operation","instrument":"verres-tithes","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"Nominal remedies against excessive collection coexist with a rule allowing immediate extraction. Cicero argues that farmers could not realistically recover through judges beholden to the governor. The imbalance concerns enforcement, forum and bargaining power.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["In C. Verrem §2.3.25","In C. Verrem §2.3.35"],"scholarship":[{"id":"DUB-105-108","source":"DUB","label":"Julien Dubouloz, “La juridiction du gouverneur provincial. Réflexions sur les Verrines comme sources pour l’histoire du droit”, in J. R. W. Prag (ed.), Sicilia nutrix plebis Romanae (2007), pp. 105-108","locator":"Printed pp. 105-108","pdfPages":[111,114],"url":"https://www.julien-dubouloz.fr/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/19-londres-2004-article.pdf"},{"id":"G-109-132","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 109-132","locator":"Printed pp. 109-132","pdfPages":[129,152],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Dubouloz distinguishes a choice between local adjudication and the governor’s intervention from the older reconstruction of a choice between a single judge and recuperators. Apparent procedural options must be studied in their provincial setting."},{"id":"LR-verres-tithes-transmission","instrument":"verres-tithes","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"This is a forensic report of a provincial edict, not a law voted by the Roman people. The polemical label “Verrian law” does not alter that legal form.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["In C. Verrem §2.3.25","In C. Verrem §2.3.35"],"scholarship":[{"id":"DUB-105-108","source":"DUB","label":"Julien Dubouloz, “La juridiction du gouverneur provincial. Réflexions sur les Verrines comme sources pour l’histoire du droit”, in J. R. W. Prag (ed.), Sicilia nutrix plebis Romanae (2007), pp. 105-108","locator":"Printed pp. 105-108","pdfPages":[111,114],"url":"https://www.julien-dubouloz.fr/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/19-londres-2004-article.pdf"},{"id":"G-109-132","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 109-132","locator":"Printed pp. 109-132","pdfPages":[129,152],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Dubouloz distinguishes a choice between local adjudication and the governor’s intervention from the older reconstruction of a choice between a single judge and recuperators. Apparent procedural options must be studied in their provincial setting."},{"id":"LR-verres-tithes-debate","instrument":"verres-tithes","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"Dubouloz distinguishes a choice between local adjudication and the governor’s intervention from the older reconstruction of a choice between a single judge and recuperators. Apparent procedural options must be studied in their provincial setting.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["In C. Verrem §2.3.25","In C. Verrem §2.3.35"],"scholarship":[{"id":"DUB-105-108","source":"DUB","label":"Julien Dubouloz, “La juridiction du gouverneur provincial. Réflexions sur les Verrines comme sources pour l’histoire du droit”, in J. R. W. Prag (ed.), Sicilia nutrix plebis Romanae (2007), pp. 105-108","locator":"Printed pp. 105-108","pdfPages":[111,114],"url":"https://www.julien-dubouloz.fr/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/19-londres-2004-article.pdf"},{"id":"G-109-132","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 109-132","locator":"Printed pp. 109-132","pdfPages":[129,152],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Dubouloz distinguishes a choice between local adjudication and the governor’s intervention from the older reconstruction of a choice between a single judge and recuperators. Apparent procedural options must be studied in their provincial setting."},{"id":"LR-plautia-vis-existence","instrument":"plautia-vis","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Milone 35 expressly mentions proceedings against Clodius under a Plotian law. Sallust, Catiline 31.4, provides a separate explicit witness to Catiline being prosecuted under the Plautian law by L. Paulus.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["Pro T. Annio Milone §35","Pro M. Caelio §70","Sallust, Bellum Catilinae 31.4"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-377-378","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 377-378","locator":"Printed pp. 377-378","pdfPages":[392,393],"url":null},{"id":"G-424","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 424","locator":"Printed pp. 424","pdfPages":[444],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Rotondi regards a separate Lutatius law as less likely than a Plautian law promoted under Catulus’ influence. Other reconstructions separate them. The atlas retains two research records without claiming two independently proven enactments."},{"id":"LR-plautia-vis-dating","instrument":"plautia-vis","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"An explicit historical attestation belongs to the Catilinarian crisis of 63 BCE. Earlier enactment dates, including 78, 70 and the mid-60s, depend on identifying related measures and proposers. Replace the former unqualified mid-60s terminus with the demonstrable 63 BCE witness.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["Pro T. Annio Milone §35","Pro M. Caelio §70","Sallust, Bellum Catilinae 31.4"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-377-378","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 377-378","locator":"Printed pp. 377-378","pdfPages":[392,393],"url":null},{"id":"G-424","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 424","locator":"Printed pp. 424","pdfPages":[444],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Rotondi regards a separate Lutatius law as less likely than a Plautian law promoted under Catulus’ influence. Other reconstructions separate them. The atlas retains two research records without claiming two independently proven enactments."},{"id":"LR-plautia-vis-operation","instrument":"plautia-vis","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"The statute provides a public prosecution for vis. The Clodius proceeding mentioned in Milone is an earlier case; Milo’s trial in 52 rests on Pompey’s special law. Caelius’ governing statute raises a distinct identification problem.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["Pro T. Annio Milone §35","Pro M. Caelio §70","Sallust, Bellum Catilinae 31.4"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-377-378","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 377-378","locator":"Printed pp. 377-378","pdfPages":[392,393],"url":null},{"id":"G-424","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 424","locator":"Printed pp. 424","pdfPages":[444],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Rotondi regards a separate Lutatius law as less likely than a Plautian law promoted under Catulus’ influence. Other reconstructions separate them. The atlas retains two research records without claiming two independently proven enactments."},{"id":"LR-plautia-vis-transmission","instrument":"plautia-vis","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"No complete statute is recovered. The spelling Plautia/Plotia and the interpretation of Caelio 70 must be tracked; later references to property held by force do not reconstruct the whole criminal law.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["Pro T. Annio Milone §35","Pro M. Caelio §70","Sallust, Bellum Catilinae 31.4"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-377-378","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 377-378","locator":"Printed pp. 377-378","pdfPages":[392,393],"url":null},{"id":"G-424","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 424","locator":"Printed pp. 424","pdfPages":[444],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Rotondi regards a separate Lutatius law as less likely than a Plautian law promoted under Catulus’ influence. Other reconstructions separate them. The atlas retains two research records without claiming two independently proven enactments."},{"id":"LR-plautia-vis-debate","instrument":"plautia-vis","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"Rotondi regards a separate Lutatius law as less likely than a Plautian law promoted under Catulus’ influence. Other reconstructions separate them. The atlas retains two research records without claiming two independently proven enactments.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["Pro T. Annio Milone §35","Pro M. Caelio §70","Sallust, Bellum Catilinae 31.4"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-377-378","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 377-378","locator":"Printed pp. 377-378","pdfPages":[392,393],"url":null},{"id":"G-424","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 424","locator":"Printed pp. 424","pdfPages":[444],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Rotondi regards a separate Lutatius law as less likely than a Plautian law promoted under Catulus’ influence. Other reconstructions separate them. The atlas retains two research records without claiming two independently proven enactments."},{"id":"LR-lutatia-vis-existence","instrument":"lutatia-vis","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Caelio 70 says that Q. Catulus carried the law amid armed civil dissension. It does not preserve an independently headed text called “Lex Lutatia”; that title expresses an identification from the proposer’s name.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["Pro M. Caelio §70"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-377-378","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 377-378","locator":"Printed pp. 377-378","pdfPages":[392,393],"url":null},{"id":"G-424","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 424","locator":"Printed pp. 424","pdfPages":[444],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Greenidge explicitly reviews the uncertain connection; Rotondi prefers a Plautian measure associated with Catulus over a separate Lutatius enactment. The record remains useful as a disputed identification rather than a confidently independent code."},{"id":"LR-lutatia-vis-dating","instrument":"lutatia-vis","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"78 BCE is a common reconstruction connecting the allusion with Catulus and Lepidus, not a consular date written in the quoted passage. Alternative constructions of the relationship with the Plautian law remain possible.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["Pro M. Caelio §70"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-377-378","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 377-378","locator":"Printed pp. 377-378","pdfPages":[392,393],"url":null},{"id":"G-424","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 424","locator":"Printed pp. 424","pdfPages":[444],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Greenidge explicitly reviews the uncertain connection; Rotondi prefers a Plautian measure associated with Catulus over a separate Lutatius enactment. The record remains useful as a disputed identification rather than a confidently independent code."},{"id":"LR-lutatia-vis-operation","instrument":"lutatia-vis","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"Cicero uses the law’s supposed emergency purpose to argue that Caelius’ alleged conduct does not belong within its intended scope. This is purposive forensic argument, not a complete enumeration of statutory offences.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["Pro M. Caelio §70"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-377-378","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 377-378","locator":"Printed pp. 377-378","pdfPages":[392,393],"url":null},{"id":"G-424","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 424","locator":"Printed pp. 424","pdfPages":[444],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Greenidge explicitly reviews the uncertain connection; Rotondi prefers a Plautian measure associated with Catulus over a separate Lutatius enactment. The record remains useful as a disputed identification rather than a confidently independent code."},{"id":"LR-lutatia-vis-transmission","instrument":"lutatia-vis","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"The decisive witness is a single Ciceronian locus. Repetition of that locus in many modern books does not create independent ancient corroboration.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["Pro M. Caelio §70"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-377-378","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 377-378","locator":"Printed pp. 377-378","pdfPages":[392,393],"url":null},{"id":"G-424","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 424","locator":"Printed pp. 424","pdfPages":[444],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Greenidge explicitly reviews the uncertain connection; Rotondi prefers a Plautian measure associated with Catulus over a separate Lutatius enactment. The record remains useful as a disputed identification rather than a confidently independent code."},{"id":"LR-lutatia-vis-debate","instrument":"lutatia-vis","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"Greenidge explicitly reviews the uncertain connection; Rotondi prefers a Plautian measure associated with Catulus over a separate Lutatius enactment. The record remains useful as a disputed identification rather than a confidently independent code.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["Pro M. Caelio §70"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-377-378","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 377-378","locator":"Printed pp. 377-378","pdfPages":[392,393],"url":null},{"id":"G-424","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 424","locator":"Printed pp. 424","pdfPages":[444],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Greenidge explicitly reviews the uncertain connection; Rotondi prefers a Plautian measure associated with Catulus over a separate Lutatius enactment. The record remains useful as a disputed identification rather than a confidently independent code."},{"id":"LR-pompeia-vis-existence","instrument":"pompeia-vis","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Milone 15 describes the new inquiry concerning the Appian Way killing. Asconius 36–40 C supplies the special legislative and trial arrangements and distinguishes them from normal procedure.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["Pro T. Annio Milone §15"],"scholarship":[{"id":"G-389-396","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 389-396","locator":"Printed pp. 389-396","pdfPages":[409,416],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-573-574","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 573-574","locator":"Printed pp. 573-574","pdfPages":[593,594],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"R-405","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 405","locator":"Printed pp. 405","pdfPages":[420],"url":null}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The exceptional law does not itself prove Milo’s guilt. A general natural-law defence and a particular statutory question can coexist without being identical."},{"id":"LR-pompeia-vis-dating","instrument":"pompeia-vis","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"52 BCE is fixed by Pompey’s sole consulship and the killing of Clodius. The special inquiry must be kept separate from Pompey’s jury-selection measure of 55; Asconius supplies the event sequence and trial regulations.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["Pro T. Annio Milone §15"],"scholarship":[{"id":"G-389-396","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 389-396","locator":"Printed pp. 389-396","pdfPages":[409,416],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-573-574","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 573-574","locator":"Printed pp. 573-574","pdfPages":[593,594],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"R-405","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 405","locator":"Printed pp. 405","pdfPages":[420],"url":null}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The exceptional law does not itself prove Milo’s guilt. A general natural-law defence and a particular statutory question can coexist without being identical."},{"id":"LR-pompeia-vis-operation","instrument":"pompeia-vis","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"The law accelerates the case, gives witnesses a prominent preliminary place and restricts the final speeches to two hours for prosecution and three for defence. The president and selected jury belong to this particular statutory framework.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["Pro T. Annio Milone §15"],"scholarship":[{"id":"G-389-396","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 389-396","locator":"Printed pp. 389-396","pdfPages":[409,416],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-573-574","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 573-574","locator":"Printed pp. 573-574","pdfPages":[593,594],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"R-405","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 405","locator":"Printed pp. 405","pdfPages":[420],"url":null}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The exceptional law does not itself prove Milo’s guilt. A general natural-law defence and a particular statutory question can coexist without being identical."},{"id":"LR-pompeia-vis-transmission","instrument":"pompeia-vis","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"Cicero’s surviving speech is a revised published text; Asconius is a later historical commentator. Neither is a complete original statute, but together they let us distinguish trial design from defence strategy.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["Pro T. Annio Milone §15"],"scholarship":[{"id":"G-389-396","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 389-396","locator":"Printed pp. 389-396","pdfPages":[409,416],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-573-574","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 573-574","locator":"Printed pp. 573-574","pdfPages":[593,594],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"R-405","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 405","locator":"Printed pp. 405","pdfPages":[420],"url":null}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The exceptional law does not itself prove Milo’s guilt. A general natural-law defence and a particular statutory question can coexist without being identical."},{"id":"LR-pompeia-vis-debate","instrument":"pompeia-vis","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"The exceptional law does not itself prove Milo’s guilt. A general natural-law defence and a particular statutory question can coexist without being identical.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["Pro T. Annio Milone §15"],"scholarship":[{"id":"G-389-396","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 389-396","locator":"Printed pp. 389-396","pdfPages":[409,416],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-573-574","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 573-574","locator":"Printed pp. 573-574","pdfPages":[593,594],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"R-405","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 405","locator":"Printed pp. 405","pdfPages":[420],"url":null}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The exceptional law does not itself prove Milo’s guilt. A general natural-law defence and a particular statutory question can coexist without being identical."},{"id":"LR-calpurnia-ambitu-existence","instrument":"calpurnia-ambitu","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Murena 46 names the Calpurnian law; §67 reports a senatorial interpretation of conduct contrary to it. Asconius’ discussion of Cornelius and Dio 36.38 set it in the legislative competition of 67.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["Pro L. Murena §46","Pro L. Murena §67","Pro L. Murena §67"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-374","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 374","locator":"Printed pp. 374","pdfPages":[389],"url":null},{"id":"G-424-425","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 424-425","locator":"Printed pp. 424-425","pdfPages":[444,445],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Sulla’s earlier electoral conviction and later conspiracy prosecution are separate cases. The Calpurnian law should not be made the governing law of every later charge against a convicted candidate."},{"id":"LR-calpurnia-ambitu-dating","instrument":"calpurnia-ambitu","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"67 BCE is the consular date of C. Calpurnius Piso and M’. Acilius Glabrio. The alternative expanded title Acilia Calpurnia reflects that setting, not a second independently established statute.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["Pro L. Murena §46","Pro L. Murena §67","Pro L. Murena §67"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-374","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 374","locator":"Printed pp. 374","pdfPages":[389],"url":null},{"id":"G-424-425","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 424-425","locator":"Printed pp. 424-425","pdfPages":[444,445],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Sulla’s earlier electoral conviction and later conspiracy prosecution are separate cases. The Calpurnian law should not be made the governing law of every later charge against a convicted candidate."},{"id":"LR-calpurnia-ambitu-operation","instrument":"calpurnia-ambitu","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"The law strengthened electoral-corruption sanctions. Murena’s defence distinguishes ordinary personal support from paid attendance, organized distribution of seats and indiscriminate feasting. The Senate’s interpretation in 63 must be treated as a later measure.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["Pro L. Murena §46","Pro L. Murena §67","Pro L. Murena §67"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-374","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 374","locator":"Printed pp. 374","pdfPages":[389],"url":null},{"id":"G-424-425","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 424-425","locator":"Printed pp. 424-425","pdfPages":[444,445],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Sulla’s earlier electoral conviction and later conspiracy prosecution are separate cases. The Calpurnian law should not be made the governing law of every later charge against a convicted candidate."},{"id":"LR-calpurnia-ambitu-transmission","instrument":"calpurnia-ambitu","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"The original law does not survive complete. Penalties and legislative circumstances must be assembled from separate witnesses; Cicero’s §67 preserves the interpretive resolution more directly than the whole statute.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["Pro L. Murena §46","Pro L. Murena §67","Pro L. Murena §67"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-374","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 374","locator":"Printed pp. 374","pdfPages":[389],"url":null},{"id":"G-424-425","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 424-425","locator":"Printed pp. 424-425","pdfPages":[444,445],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Sulla’s earlier electoral conviction and later conspiracy prosecution are separate cases. The Calpurnian law should not be made the governing law of every later charge against a convicted candidate."},{"id":"LR-calpurnia-ambitu-debate","instrument":"calpurnia-ambitu","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"Sulla’s earlier electoral conviction and later conspiracy prosecution are separate cases. The Calpurnian law should not be made the governing law of every later charge against a convicted candidate.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["Pro L. Murena §46","Pro L. Murena §67","Pro L. Murena §67"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-374","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 374","locator":"Printed pp. 374","pdfPages":[389],"url":null},{"id":"G-424-425","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 424-425","locator":"Printed pp. 424-425","pdfPages":[444,445],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Sulla’s earlier electoral conviction and later conspiracy prosecution are separate cases. The Calpurnian law should not be made the governing law of every later charge against a convicted candidate."},{"id":"LR-tullia-ambitu-existence","instrument":"tullia-ambitu","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Murena 3 and 47 make Cicero’s own consular legislation central to the defence; Vatinium 37 expressly states the restriction on gladiatorial shows within two years before candidature, with a testamentary exception.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["Pro L. Murena §47","In P. Vatinium testem interrogatio §37"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-379","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 379","locator":"Printed pp. 379","pdfPages":[394],"url":null},{"id":"G-425","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 425","locator":"Printed pp. 425","pdfPages":[445],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"LP717","source":"LP717","label":"LEPOR, notice 717: Loi Tullia Antonia de ambitu","locator":"Sources and Commentaire","url":"https://telma.irht.cnrs.fr/outils/lepor/notice717/"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"A testamentary exception is not a general permission to buy popularity through shows. Nor does Cicero’s claim to defend within his own law establish acquittal as a general interpretation of every clause."},{"id":"LR-tullia-ambitu-dating","instrument":"tullia-ambitu","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"63 BCE is the enactment setting in Cicero’s consulship, preceding Murena’s trial. The ten-year exile provision is supported through later historical testimony, not a complete law quoted in Murena.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["Pro L. Murena §47","In P. Vatinium testem interrogatio §37"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-379","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 379","locator":"Printed pp. 379","pdfPages":[394],"url":null},{"id":"G-425","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 425","locator":"Printed pp. 425","pdfPages":[445],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"LP717","source":"LP717","label":"LEPOR, notice 717: Loi Tullia Antonia de ambitu","locator":"Sources and Commentaire","url":"https://telma.irht.cnrs.fr/outils/lepor/notice717/"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"A testamentary exception is not a general permission to buy popularity through shows. Nor does Cicero’s claim to defend within his own law establish acquittal as a general interpretation of every clause."},{"id":"LR-tullia-ambitu-operation","instrument":"tullia-ambitu","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"The defence faces the tension between Cicero’s authorship of a stricter law and his representation of a successful candidate. Restrictions on spectacles and penalties are distinct provisions. The reference to illness excuses has been interpreted as concerning defendants or jurors; LEPOR notice 717 favours defendants and does not treat the allocation as self-evident.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["Pro L. Murena §47","In P. Vatinium testem interrogatio §37"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-379","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 379","locator":"Printed pp. 379","pdfPages":[394],"url":null},{"id":"G-425","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 425","locator":"Printed pp. 425","pdfPages":[445],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"LP717","source":"LP717","label":"LEPOR, notice 717: Loi Tullia Antonia de ambitu","locator":"Sources and Commentaire","url":"https://telma.irht.cnrs.fr/outils/lepor/notice717/"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"A testamentary exception is not a general permission to buy popularity through shows. Nor does Cicero’s claim to defend within his own law establish acquittal as a general interpretation of every clause."},{"id":"LR-tullia-ambitu-transmission","instrument":"tullia-ambitu","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"Ciceronian speeches preserve clauses or argumentative references; Dio supplies a later narrative of penalties. Their evidential proximity is different.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["Pro L. Murena §47","In P. Vatinium testem interrogatio §37"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-379","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 379","locator":"Printed pp. 379","pdfPages":[394],"url":null},{"id":"G-425","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 425","locator":"Printed pp. 425","pdfPages":[445],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"LP717","source":"LP717","label":"LEPOR, notice 717: Loi Tullia Antonia de ambitu","locator":"Sources and Commentaire","url":"https://telma.irht.cnrs.fr/outils/lepor/notice717/"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"A testamentary exception is not a general permission to buy popularity through shows. Nor does Cicero’s claim to defend within his own law establish acquittal as a general interpretation of every clause."},{"id":"LR-tullia-ambitu-debate","instrument":"tullia-ambitu","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"A testamentary exception is not a general permission to buy popularity through shows. Nor does Cicero’s claim to defend within his own law establish acquittal as a general interpretation of every clause.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["Pro L. Murena §47","In P. Vatinium testem interrogatio §37"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-379","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 379","locator":"Printed pp. 379","pdfPages":[394],"url":null},{"id":"G-425","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 425","locator":"Printed pp. 425","pdfPages":[445],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"LP717","source":"LP717","label":"LEPOR, notice 717: Loi Tullia Antonia de ambitu","locator":"Sources and Commentaire","url":"https://telma.irht.cnrs.fr/outils/lepor/notice717/"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"A testamentary exception is not a general permission to buy popularity through shows. Nor does Cicero’s claim to defend within his own law establish acquittal as a general interpretation of every clause."},{"id":"LR-licinia-sodaliciis-existence","instrument":"licinia-sodaliciis","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Plancio 36–39 expressly discusses the Licinian law, its proposer Crassus and the special selection of judges from tribes. This is direct evidence for procedure as well as statutory identification.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["Pro Cn. Plancio §36"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-407","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 407","locator":"Printed pp. 407","pdfPages":[422],"url":null},{"id":"G-425","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 425","locator":"Printed pp. 425","pdfPages":[445],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-433-456","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 433-456","locator":"Printed pp. 433-456","pdfPages":[453,476],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Keep this law distinct from the Licinia Iunia on legislative procedure. Shared nomenclature and electoral background do not make their legal functions interchangeable."},{"id":"LR-licinia-sodaliciis-dating","instrument":"licinia-sodaliciis","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"55 BCE places the measure in Crassus’ second consulship. Plancius’ trial in 54 is a later application. Neither date supplies an exact promulgation day.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["Pro Cn. Plancio §36"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-407","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 407","locator":"Printed pp. 407","pdfPages":[422],"url":null},{"id":"G-425","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 425","locator":"Printed pp. 425","pdfPages":[445],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-433-456","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 433-456","locator":"Printed pp. 433-456","pdfPages":[453,476],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Keep this law distinct from the Licinia Iunia on legislative procedure. Shared nomenclature and electoral background do not make their legal functions interchangeable."},{"id":"LR-licinia-sodaliciis-operation","instrument":"licinia-sodaliciis","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"The charge concerns organized electoral corruption through associations. The prosecutor nominates four tribes and the defendant rejects one, producing a distinctive disadvantage compared with ordinary jury challenge. Cicero asks whether the selected tribes correspond to the alleged electoral organization.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["Pro Cn. Plancio §36"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-407","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 407","locator":"Printed pp. 407","pdfPages":[422],"url":null},{"id":"G-425","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 425","locator":"Printed pp. 425","pdfPages":[445],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-433-456","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 433-456","locator":"Printed pp. 433-456","pdfPages":[453,476],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Keep this law distinct from the Licinia Iunia on legislative procedure. Shared nomenclature and electoral background do not make their legal functions interchangeable."},{"id":"LR-licinia-sodaliciis-transmission","instrument":"licinia-sodaliciis","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"The surviving speech explains the mechanism in advocacy, rather than transmitting the whole law. The label sodalicia should not be made equivalent to every voluntary association.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["Pro Cn. Plancio §36"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-407","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 407","locator":"Printed pp. 407","pdfPages":[422],"url":null},{"id":"G-425","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 425","locator":"Printed pp. 425","pdfPages":[445],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-433-456","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 433-456","locator":"Printed pp. 433-456","pdfPages":[453,476],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Keep this law distinct from the Licinia Iunia on legislative procedure. Shared nomenclature and electoral background do not make their legal functions interchangeable."},{"id":"LR-licinia-sodaliciis-debate","instrument":"licinia-sodaliciis","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"Keep this law distinct from the Licinia Iunia on legislative procedure. Shared nomenclature and electoral background do not make their legal functions interchangeable.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["Pro Cn. Plancio §36"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-407","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 407","locator":"Printed pp. 407","pdfPages":[422],"url":null},{"id":"G-425","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 425","locator":"Printed pp. 425","pdfPages":[445],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-433-456","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 433-456","locator":"Printed pp. 433-456","pdfPages":[453,476],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Keep this law distinct from the Licinia Iunia on legislative procedure. Shared nomenclature and electoral background do not make their legal functions interchangeable."},{"id":"LR-papia-existence","instrument":"papia","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Archia 10 names the Papian law in discussing people who claimed civic privileges; Balbo 52 gives a specifically Papian prosecution involving Cassius. Dio 37.9.5 places expulsion of outsiders in Papius’ tribunate.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["Pro Archia Poeta §10","Pro L. Cornelio Balbo §52"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-376","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 376","locator":"Printed pp. 376","pdfPages":[391],"url":null},{"id":"G-425","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 425","locator":"Printed pp. 425","pdfPages":[445],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The register distinguishes an explicit law named in a precedent from a reconstructed governing framework for a present case. Do not confuse this Republican law with the Augustan Papia Poppaea."},{"id":"LR-papia-dating","instrument":"papia","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"65 BCE is the conventional enactment year. The later Archias and Balbus speeches show use and comparison, not the grant of citizenship in that year.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["Pro Archia Poeta §10","Pro L. Cornelio Balbo §52"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-376","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 376","locator":"Printed pp. 376","pdfPages":[391],"url":null},{"id":"G-425","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 425","locator":"Printed pp. 425","pdfPages":[445],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The register distinguishes an explicit law named in a precedent from a reconstructed governing framework for a present case. Do not confuse this Republican law with the Augustan Papia Poppaea."},{"id":"LR-papia-operation","instrument":"papia","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"The instrument belongs to exclusion of non-citizens and scrutiny of asserted status. In Archias’ defence the positive entitlement rests on the Plautia Papiria, while the Papian framework concerns contesting that status.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["Pro Archia Poeta §10","Pro L. Cornelio Balbo §52"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-376","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 376","locator":"Printed pp. 376","pdfPages":[391],"url":null},{"id":"G-425","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 425","locator":"Printed pp. 425","pdfPages":[445],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The register distinguishes an explicit law named in a precedent from a reconstructed governing framework for a present case. Do not confuse this Republican law with the Augustan Papia Poppaea."},{"id":"LR-papia-transmission","instrument":"papia","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"Ancient references survive through speeches, commentary and historical narrative. They do not supply a complete procedural code or all exceptions to expulsion.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["Pro Archia Poeta §10","Pro L. Cornelio Balbo §52"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-376","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 376","locator":"Printed pp. 376","pdfPages":[391],"url":null},{"id":"G-425","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 425","locator":"Printed pp. 425","pdfPages":[445],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The register distinguishes an explicit law named in a precedent from a reconstructed governing framework for a present case. Do not confuse this Republican law with the Augustan Papia Poppaea."},{"id":"LR-papia-debate","instrument":"papia","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"The register distinguishes an explicit law named in a precedent from a reconstructed governing framework for a present case. Do not confuse this Republican law with the Augustan Papia Poppaea.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["Pro Archia Poeta §10","Pro L. Cornelio Balbo §52"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-376","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 376","locator":"Printed pp. 376","pdfPages":[391],"url":null},{"id":"G-425","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 425","locator":"Printed pp. 425","pdfPages":[445],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The register distinguishes an explicit law named in a precedent from a reconstructed governing framework for a present case. Do not confuse this Republican law with the Augustan Papia Poppaea."},{"id":"LR-plautia-papiria-existence","instrument":"plautia-papiria","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Archia 7 quotes the eligibility conditions associated with Silvanus and Carbo: enrolment in an allied community, domicile in Italy when the law was passed and declaration before a praetor within sixty days.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["Pro Archia Poeta §7"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-340-341","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 340-341","locator":"Printed pp. 340-341","pdfPages":[355,356],"url":null},{"id":"G-99-109","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 99-109","locator":"Printed pp. 99-109","pdfPages":[119,129],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The statute should not be paraphrased as automatically enfranchising every resident of Italy without conditions. Rotondi’s old discussion contains proposer and procedural details that must be checked against Cicero’s actual wording."},{"id":"LR-plautia-papiria-dating","instrument":"plautia-papiria","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"89 BCE is the conventional Social War date. The declaration window is measured from enactment; it is not sixty days after Archias’ later trial. The speech’s account of compliance is evidence offered by the defence.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["Pro Archia Poeta §7"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-340-341","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 340-341","locator":"Printed pp. 340-341","pdfPages":[355,356],"url":null},{"id":"G-99-109","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 99-109","locator":"Printed pp. 99-109","pdfPages":[119,129],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The statute should not be paraphrased as automatically enfranchising every resident of Italy without conditions. Rotondi’s old discussion contains proposer and procedural details that must be checked against Cicero’s actual wording."},{"id":"LR-plautia-papiria-operation","instrument":"plautia-papiria","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"The legal case requires linking the person to each condition through community testimony, residence and the praetor’s records. Destruction of municipal records does not itself extinguish citizenship, but changes the evidential problem.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["Pro Archia Poeta §7"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-340-341","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 340-341","locator":"Printed pp. 340-341","pdfPages":[355,356],"url":null},{"id":"G-99-109","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 99-109","locator":"Printed pp. 99-109","pdfPages":[119,129],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The statute should not be paraphrased as automatically enfranchising every resident of Italy without conditions. Rotondi’s old discussion contains proposer and procedural details that must be checked against Cicero’s actual wording."},{"id":"LR-plautia-papiria-transmission","instrument":"plautia-papiria","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"The quoted conditional wording continues into the following section’s narrative. Preserve paragraph boundaries without representing them as a missing part of the law. The official original is not extant here.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["Pro Archia Poeta §7"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-340-341","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 340-341","locator":"Printed pp. 340-341","pdfPages":[355,356],"url":null},{"id":"G-99-109","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 99-109","locator":"Printed pp. 99-109","pdfPages":[119,129],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The statute should not be paraphrased as automatically enfranchising every resident of Italy without conditions. Rotondi’s old discussion contains proposer and procedural details that must be checked against Cicero’s actual wording."},{"id":"LR-plautia-papiria-debate","instrument":"plautia-papiria","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"The statute should not be paraphrased as automatically enfranchising every resident of Italy without conditions. Rotondi’s old discussion contains proposer and procedural details that must be checked against Cicero’s actual wording.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["Pro Archia Poeta §7"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-340-341","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 340-341","locator":"Printed pp. 340-341","pdfPages":[355,356],"url":null},{"id":"G-99-109","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 99-109","locator":"Printed pp. 99-109","pdfPages":[119,129],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The statute should not be paraphrased as automatically enfranchising every resident of Italy without conditions. Rotondi’s old discussion contains proposer and procedural details that must be checked against Cicero’s actual wording."},{"id":"LR-gellia-cornelia-existence","instrument":"gellia-cornelia","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Balbo 19 expressly names the law and gives the grant made with the advice of Pompey’s council; §32 tests statutory power against treaty restrictions. Cicero uses the statute as the positive authorization of Balbus’ citizenship.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["Pro L. Cornelio Balbo §19","Pro L. Cornelio Balbo §19"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-367","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 367","locator":"Printed pp. 367","pdfPages":[382],"url":null},{"id":"G-99-109","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 99-109","locator":"Printed pp. 99-109","pdfPages":[119,129],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The community’s becoming fundus for collective legislation is not automatically a requirement for an individual military grant. That distinction is argued in Balbo, not to be flattened into a universal rule without examining the treaty."},{"id":"LR-gellia-cornelia-dating","instrument":"gellia-cornelia","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"72 BCE is the conventional consular date of L. Gellius Publicola and Cn. Cornelius Lentulus. Pompey’s grant and the trial of 56 are distinct events in the legal history.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["Pro L. Cornelio Balbo §19","Pro L. Cornelio Balbo §19"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-367","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 367","locator":"Printed pp. 367","pdfPages":[382],"url":null},{"id":"G-99-109","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 99-109","locator":"Printed pp. 99-109","pdfPages":[119,129],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The community’s becoming fundus for collective legislation is not automatically a requirement for an individual military grant. That distinction is argued in Balbo, not to be flattened into a universal rule without examining the treaty."},{"id":"LR-gellia-cornelia-operation","instrument":"gellia-cornelia","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"The question is whether a commander’s authorized individual grant could benefit a citizen of treaty-bound Gades. Cicero separates the statute’s enabling power, the council’s participation and the effect of treaty provisions.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["Pro L. Cornelio Balbo §19","Pro L. Cornelio Balbo §19"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-367","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 367","locator":"Printed pp. 367","pdfPages":[382],"url":null},{"id":"G-99-109","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 99-109","locator":"Printed pp. 99-109","pdfPages":[119,129],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The community’s becoming fundus for collective legislation is not automatically a requirement for an individual military grant. That distinction is argued in Balbo, not to be flattened into a universal rule without examining the treaty."},{"id":"LR-gellia-cornelia-transmission","instrument":"gellia-cornelia","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"The evidence is a named statute and reported grant inside forensic argument. Neither a complete original statute nor Balbus’ original grant document is reproduced.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["Pro L. Cornelio Balbo §19","Pro L. Cornelio Balbo §19"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-367","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 367","locator":"Printed pp. 367","pdfPages":[382],"url":null},{"id":"G-99-109","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 99-109","locator":"Printed pp. 99-109","pdfPages":[119,129],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The community’s becoming fundus for collective legislation is not automatically a requirement for an individual military grant. That distinction is argued in Balbo, not to be flattened into a universal rule without examining the treaty."},{"id":"LR-gellia-cornelia-debate","instrument":"gellia-cornelia","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"The community’s becoming fundus for collective legislation is not automatically a requirement for an individual military grant. That distinction is argued in Balbo, not to be flattened into a universal rule without examining the treaty.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["Pro L. Cornelio Balbo §19","Pro L. Cornelio Balbo §19"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-367","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 367","locator":"Printed pp. 367","pdfPages":[382],"url":null},{"id":"G-99-109","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 99-109","locator":"Printed pp. 99-109","pdfPages":[119,129],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The community’s becoming fundus for collective legislation is not automatically a requirement for an individual military grant. That distinction is argued in Balbo, not to be flattened into a universal rule without examining the treaty."},{"id":"LR-iulia-civitate-existence","instrument":"iulia-civitate","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Balbo 21 names the Julian law and discusses peoples becoming fundi. Cicero introduces it as a comparison for collective adoption, not as the immediate instrument granting Balbus citizenship.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["Pro L. Cornelio Balbo §21"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-338-339","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 338-339","locator":"Printed pp. 338-339","pdfPages":[353,354],"url":null},{"id":"G-99-109","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 99-109","locator":"Printed pp. 99-109","pdfPages":[119,129],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not cite the Julian law as Balbus’ operative grant, or infer that all allied communities accepted it at the same moment. The relationship in the graph remains comparative."},{"id":"LR-iulia-civitate-dating","instrument":"iulia-civitate","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"90 BCE dates the citizenship law associated with L. Julius Caesar’s consulship during the Social War. It is not Caesar the dictator’s repetundae law of 59.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["Pro L. Cornelio Balbo §21"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-338-339","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 338-339","locator":"Printed pp. 338-339","pdfPages":[353,354],"url":null},{"id":"G-99-109","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 99-109","locator":"Printed pp. 99-109","pdfPages":[119,129],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not cite the Julian law as Balbus’ operative grant, or infer that all allied communities accepted it at the same moment. The relationship in the graph remains comparative."},{"id":"LR-iulia-civitate-operation","instrument":"iulia-civitate","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"The speech uses collective civic arrangements to explain why one must distinguish community-wide acceptance of a Roman law from an authorized benefit to an individual. Citizenship acquisition and the community’s internal legal order are related but separate.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["Pro L. Cornelio Balbo §21"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-338-339","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 338-339","locator":"Printed pp. 338-339","pdfPages":[353,354],"url":null},{"id":"G-99-109","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 99-109","locator":"Printed pp. 99-109","pdfPages":[119,129],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not cite the Julian law as Balbus’ operative grant, or infer that all allied communities accepted it at the same moment. The relationship in the graph remains comparative."},{"id":"LR-iulia-civitate-transmission","instrument":"iulia-civitate","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"The statute is reconstructed from literary testimony. The particular fundus argument in Balbo cannot supply every territorial or political condition of the original enfranchisement.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["Pro L. Cornelio Balbo §21"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-338-339","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 338-339","locator":"Printed pp. 338-339","pdfPages":[353,354],"url":null},{"id":"G-99-109","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 99-109","locator":"Printed pp. 99-109","pdfPages":[119,129],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not cite the Julian law as Balbus’ operative grant, or infer that all allied communities accepted it at the same moment. The relationship in the graph remains comparative."},{"id":"LR-iulia-civitate-debate","instrument":"iulia-civitate","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"Do not cite the Julian law as Balbus’ operative grant, or infer that all allied communities accepted it at the same moment. The relationship in the graph remains comparative.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["Pro L. Cornelio Balbo §21"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-338-339","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 338-339","locator":"Printed pp. 338-339","pdfPages":[353,354],"url":null},{"id":"G-99-109","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 99-109","locator":"Printed pp. 99-109","pdfPages":[119,129],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not cite the Julian law as Balbus’ operative grant, or infer that all allied communities accepted it at the same moment. The relationship in the graph remains comparative."},{"id":"LR-licinia-mucia-existence","instrument":"licinia-mucia","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Balbo 48 recalls the restrictive law and its severe application. Asconius 67–68 C explains the legislation of Crassus and Scaevola and its connection with resentment among Italian allies.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["Pro L. Cornelio Balbo §48"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-335","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 335","locator":"Printed pp. 335","pdfPages":[350],"url":null},{"id":"G-425","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 425","locator":"Printed pp. 425","pdfPages":[445],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Asconius’ causal explanation for allied alienation is historical interpretation. It should not be turned into proof that this one statute alone caused the Social War."},{"id":"LR-licinia-mucia-dating","instrument":"licinia-mucia","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"95 BCE is the joint consular year of L. Licinius Crassus and Q. Mucius Scaevola. The later Social War is historical consequence and context, not the law’s enactment event.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["Pro L. Cornelio Balbo §48"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-335","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 335","locator":"Printed pp. 335","pdfPages":[350],"url":null},{"id":"G-425","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 425","locator":"Printed pp. 425","pdfPages":[445],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Asconius’ causal explanation for allied alienation is historical interpretation. It should not be turned into proof that this one statute alone caused the Social War."},{"id":"LR-licinia-mucia-operation","instrument":"licinia-mucia","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"The law addressed people asserting Roman citizenship without entitlement. Its use in Balbo is a historical comparison about the handling of status, rather than the positive source of Balbus’ enfranchisement.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["Pro L. Cornelio Balbo §48"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-335","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 335","locator":"Printed pp. 335","pdfPages":[350],"url":null},{"id":"G-425","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 425","locator":"Printed pp. 425","pdfPages":[445],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Asconius’ causal explanation for allied alienation is historical interpretation. It should not be turned into proof that this one statute alone caused the Social War."},{"id":"LR-licinia-mucia-transmission","instrument":"licinia-mucia","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"Cicero’s reference and Asconius’ explanation are separate literary witnesses; no original census investigation dossier is available here.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["Pro L. Cornelio Balbo §48"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-335","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 335","locator":"Printed pp. 335","pdfPages":[350],"url":null},{"id":"G-425","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 425","locator":"Printed pp. 425","pdfPages":[445],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Asconius’ causal explanation for allied alienation is historical interpretation. It should not be turned into proof that this one statute alone caused the Social War."},{"id":"LR-licinia-mucia-debate","instrument":"licinia-mucia","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"Asconius’ causal explanation for allied alienation is historical interpretation. It should not be turned into proof that this one statute alone caused the Social War.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["Pro L. Cornelio Balbo §48"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-335","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 335","locator":"Printed pp. 335","pdfPages":[350],"url":null},{"id":"G-425","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 425","locator":"Printed pp. 425","pdfPages":[445],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Asconius’ causal explanation for allied alienation is historical interpretation. It should not be turned into proof that this one statute alone caused the Social War."},{"id":"LR-porciae-existence","instrument":"porciae","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Rabirio perduellionis 12 contrasts Porcian protection against rods with the Sempronian protection of citizens’ lives. Republic 2.54 explicitly speaks of three Porcian laws by three Porcii.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["Pro C. Rabirio Perduellionis Reo Ad Quirites §12"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-268-269","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 268-269","locator":"Printed pp. 268-269","pdfPages":[283,284],"url":null},{"id":"G-307-326","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 307-326","locator":"Printed pp. 307-326","pdfPages":[327,346],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The reach of provocatio outside Rome and under military command is a separate historical question. The dossier does not derive a universal appeal procedure from the short forensic slogan."},{"id":"LR-porciae-dating","instrument":"porciae","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"Early second-century BCE is a cautious conventional placement. Rotondi’s discussion shows that the attribution and date of each of the three measures remain insecure; the plural should not be compressed into one precisely dated statute.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["Pro C. Rabirio Perduellionis Reo Ad Quirites §12"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-268-269","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 268-269","locator":"Printed pp. 268-269","pdfPages":[283,284],"url":null},{"id":"G-307-326","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 307-326","locator":"Printed pp. 307-326","pdfPages":[327,346],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The reach of provocatio outside Rome and under military command is a separate historical question. The dossier does not derive a universal appeal procedure from the short forensic slogan."},{"id":"LR-porciae-operation","instrument":"porciae","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"The evidence concerns bodily coercion and the safeguards of citizenship. In Rabirius, Cicero mobilizes those protections against an archaizing capital procedure; in the Verrines the issue is a governor’s treatment of citizens.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["Pro C. Rabirio Perduellionis Reo Ad Quirites §12"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-268-269","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 268-269","locator":"Printed pp. 268-269","pdfPages":[283,284],"url":null},{"id":"G-307-326","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 307-326","locator":"Printed pp. 307-326","pdfPages":[327,346],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The reach of provocatio outside Rome and under military command is a separate historical question. The dossier does not derive a universal appeal procedure from the short forensic slogan."},{"id":"LR-porciae-transmission","instrument":"porciae","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"The laws are known through retrospective literary testimony and allusions, with no complete original text. Family coinage may commemorate civic protection but does not automatically identify all three measures.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["Pro C. Rabirio Perduellionis Reo Ad Quirites §12"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-268-269","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 268-269","locator":"Printed pp. 268-269","pdfPages":[283,284],"url":null},{"id":"G-307-326","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 307-326","locator":"Printed pp. 307-326","pdfPages":[327,346],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The reach of provocatio outside Rome and under military command is a separate historical question. The dossier does not derive a universal appeal procedure from the short forensic slogan."},{"id":"LR-porciae-debate","instrument":"porciae","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"The reach of provocatio outside Rome and under military command is a separate historical question. The dossier does not derive a universal appeal procedure from the short forensic slogan.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["Pro C. Rabirio Perduellionis Reo Ad Quirites §12"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-268-269","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 268-269","locator":"Printed pp. 268-269","pdfPages":[283,284],"url":null},{"id":"G-307-326","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 307-326","locator":"Printed pp. 307-326","pdfPages":[327,346],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The reach of provocatio outside Rome and under military command is a separate historical question. The dossier does not derive a universal appeal procedure from the short forensic slogan."},{"id":"LR-sempronia-capite-existence","instrument":"sempronia-capite","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Rabirio perduellionis 12 explicitly attributes to a Sempronian law protection against deciding a citizen’s caput without the people’s authorization. Plutarch, Gaius Gracchus 4, supplies historical context for the measure against unauthorized capital action.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["Pro C. Rabirio Perduellionis Reo Ad Quirites §12"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-309-310","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 309-310","locator":"Printed pp. 309-310","pdfPages":[324,325],"url":null},{"id":"G-344-359","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 344-359","locator":"Printed pp. 344-359","pdfPages":[364,379],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not treat the later Clodian general measure of 58 as the same enactment. Nor should Cicero’s defence of his own actions in 63 automatically settle the law’s proper interpretation."},{"id":"LR-sempronia-capite-dating","instrument":"sempronia-capite","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"123 BCE is the conventional Gracchan enactment year. The prosecution of Popillius and later invocations in 70 and 63 are distinct episodes, not fresh enactments of the same measure.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["Pro C. Rabirio Perduellionis Reo Ad Quirites §12"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-309-310","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 309-310","locator":"Printed pp. 309-310","pdfPages":[324,325],"url":null},{"id":"G-344-359","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 344-359","locator":"Printed pp. 344-359","pdfPages":[364,379],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not treat the later Clodian general measure of 58 as the same enactment. Nor should Cicero’s defence of his own actions in 63 automatically settle the law’s proper interpretation."},{"id":"LR-sempronia-capite-operation","instrument":"sempronia-capite","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"The rule concerns competent authorization for a capital proceeding or deprivation of civic life. Its relationship to standing courts, emergency action and the people’s powers is argued, not resolved merely by quoting a prohibition.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["Pro C. Rabirio Perduellionis Reo Ad Quirites §12"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-309-310","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 309-310","locator":"Printed pp. 309-310","pdfPages":[324,325],"url":null},{"id":"G-344-359","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 344-359","locator":"Printed pp. 344-359","pdfPages":[364,379],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not treat the later Clodian general measure of 58 as the same enactment. Nor should Cicero’s defence of his own actions in 63 automatically settle the law’s proper interpretation."},{"id":"LR-sempronia-capite-transmission","instrument":"sempronia-capite","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"The dossier uses literary witnesses to the law and its interpretation, not an original tablet. The plural Sempronian laws elsewhere in Cicero may refer to a broader legislative tradition.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["Pro C. Rabirio Perduellionis Reo Ad Quirites §12"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-309-310","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 309-310","locator":"Printed pp. 309-310","pdfPages":[324,325],"url":null},{"id":"G-344-359","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 344-359","locator":"Printed pp. 344-359","pdfPages":[364,379],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not treat the later Clodian general measure of 58 as the same enactment. Nor should Cicero’s defence of his own actions in 63 automatically settle the law’s proper interpretation."},{"id":"LR-sempronia-capite-debate","instrument":"sempronia-capite","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"Do not treat the later Clodian general measure of 58 as the same enactment. Nor should Cicero’s defence of his own actions in 63 automatically settle the law’s proper interpretation.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["Pro C. Rabirio Perduellionis Reo Ad Quirites §12"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-309-310","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 309-310","locator":"Printed pp. 309-310","pdfPages":[324,325],"url":null},{"id":"G-344-359","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 344-359","locator":"Printed pp. 344-359","pdfPages":[364,379],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not treat the later Clodian general measure of 58 as the same enactment. Nor should Cicero’s defence of his own actions in 63 automatically settle the law’s proper interpretation."},{"id":"LR-papiria-dedication-existence","instrument":"papiria-dedication","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Domo 127–128 names an old tribunician Papirian law forbidding consecration of a building, land or altar without the plebs’ authorization; §§136–137 report the pontiffs’ answer concerning Licinia’s dedication.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["De Domo Sua Ad Pontifices §128","De Domo Sua Ad Pontifices §136"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-234-235","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 234-235","locator":"Printed pp. 234-235","pdfPages":[249,250],"url":null},{"id":"G-373-380","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 373-380","locator":"Printed pp. 373-380","pdfPages":[393,400],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Livy 9.46.7 describes approval by Senate or a majority of tribunes, whereas Cicero stresses authorization of the plebs. Rotondi therefore doubts simple identity and allows a later supplementary measure."},{"id":"LR-papiria-dedication-dating","instrument":"papiria-dedication","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"The law was already old when invoked in 57 BCE. The Licinia precedent is dated by its consuls to 123 BCE, but §136 does not name the Papirian statute: making that precedent a firm terminus for this specific law would be an inference. Its identification with Livy’s measure of 304 remains disputed.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["De Domo Sua Ad Pontifices §128","De Domo Sua Ad Pontifices §136"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-234-235","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 234-235","locator":"Printed pp. 234-235","pdfPages":[249,250],"url":null},{"id":"G-373-380","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 373-380","locator":"Printed pp. 373-380","pdfPages":[393,400],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Livy 9.46.7 describes approval by Senate or a majority of tribunes, whereas Cicero stresses authorization of the plebs. Rotondi therefore doubts simple identity and allows a later supplementary measure."},{"id":"LR-papiria-dedication-operation","instrument":"papiria-dedication","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"The issue is competence to make a dedication binding on public and sacred law. The prior Licinia case provides a model for asking whether Clodius had adequate authority to consecrate Cicero’s site.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["De Domo Sua Ad Pontifices §128","De Domo Sua Ad Pontifices §136"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-234-235","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 234-235","locator":"Printed pp. 234-235","pdfPages":[249,250],"url":null},{"id":"G-373-380","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 373-380","locator":"Printed pp. 373-380","pdfPages":[393,400],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Livy 9.46.7 describes approval by Senate or a majority of tribunes, whereas Cicero stresses authorization of the plebs. Rotondi therefore doubts simple identity and allows a later supplementary measure."},{"id":"LR-papiria-dedication-transmission","instrument":"papiria-dedication","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"Cicero transmits both a legal restriction and a report of pontifical decision-making. These are different documentary layers; neither is an independently surviving original enactment.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["De Domo Sua Ad Pontifices §128","De Domo Sua Ad Pontifices §136"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-234-235","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 234-235","locator":"Printed pp. 234-235","pdfPages":[249,250],"url":null},{"id":"G-373-380","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 373-380","locator":"Printed pp. 373-380","pdfPages":[393,400],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Livy 9.46.7 describes approval by Senate or a majority of tribunes, whereas Cicero stresses authorization of the plebs. Rotondi therefore doubts simple identity and allows a later supplementary measure."},{"id":"LR-papiria-dedication-debate","instrument":"papiria-dedication","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"Livy 9.46.7 describes approval by Senate or a majority of tribunes, whereas Cicero stresses authorization of the plebs. Rotondi therefore doubts simple identity and allows a later supplementary measure.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["De Domo Sua Ad Pontifices §128","De Domo Sua Ad Pontifices §136"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-234-235","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 234-235","locator":"Printed pp. 234-235","pdfPages":[249,250],"url":null},{"id":"G-373-380","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 373-380","locator":"Printed pp. 373-380","pdfPages":[393,400],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Livy 9.46.7 describes approval by Senate or a majority of tribunes, whereas Cicero stresses authorization of the plebs. Rotondi therefore doubts simple identity and allows a later supplementary measure."},{"id":"LR-clodia-exile-existence","instrument":"clodia-exile","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Domo 47 criticizes the tense of the named measure against Cicero; §50 reports its charge concerning a false senatorial resolution. His letters and later historians show the practical effects of exile and confiscation.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["De Domo Sua Ad Pontifices §47"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-395-396","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 395-396","locator":"Printed pp. 395-396","pdfPages":[410,411],"url":null},{"id":"G-359-366","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 359-366","locator":"Printed pp. 359-366","pdfPages":[379,386],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-516-525","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 516-525","locator":"Printed pp. 516-525","pdfPages":[536,545],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Greenidge’s reconstruction of a time limit for appearance is criticized by Rotondi. This illustrates why the dossier records arguments rather than harmonizing all accounts into one invented procedure."},{"id":"LR-clodia-exile-dating","instrument":"clodia-exile","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"58 BCE is secure. Proposed exact March/April dates depend on reconstructing publication, voting and Cicero’s movements; Rotondi records internal scholarly disagreement. The atlas does not claim a verified exact day.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["De Domo Sua Ad Pontifices §47"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-395-396","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 395-396","locator":"Printed pp. 395-396","pdfPages":[410,411],"url":null},{"id":"G-359-366","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 359-366","locator":"Printed pp. 359-366","pdfPages":[379,386],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-516-525","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 516-525","locator":"Printed pp. 516-525","pdfPages":[536,545],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Greenidge’s reconstruction of a time limit for appearance is criticized by Rotondi. This illustrates why the dossier records arguments rather than harmonizing all accounts into one invented procedure."},{"id":"LR-clodia-exile-operation","instrument":"clodia-exile","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"The measure singles out Cicero and supports interdiction, confiscation and restrictions on assistance or restoration. Cicero challenges it as an unlawful privilegium and denies that a properly authorized judgment preceded it.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["De Domo Sua Ad Pontifices §47"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-395-396","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 395-396","locator":"Printed pp. 395-396","pdfPages":[410,411],"url":null},{"id":"G-359-366","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 359-366","locator":"Printed pp. 359-366","pdfPages":[379,386],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-516-525","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 516-525","locator":"Printed pp. 516-525","pdfPages":[536,545],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Greenidge’s reconstruction of a time limit for appearance is criticized by Rotondi. This illustrates why the dossier records arguments rather than harmonizing all accounts into one invented procedure."},{"id":"LR-clodia-exile-transmission","instrument":"clodia-exile","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"The text is preserved in hostile quotation and historical reports, not a complete plebiscite. The general measure concerning untried citizens is registered separately.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["De Domo Sua Ad Pontifices §47"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-395-396","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 395-396","locator":"Printed pp. 395-396","pdfPages":[410,411],"url":null},{"id":"G-359-366","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 359-366","locator":"Printed pp. 359-366","pdfPages":[379,386],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-516-525","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 516-525","locator":"Printed pp. 516-525","pdfPages":[536,545],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Greenidge’s reconstruction of a time limit for appearance is criticized by Rotondi. This illustrates why the dossier records arguments rather than harmonizing all accounts into one invented procedure."},{"id":"LR-clodia-exile-debate","instrument":"clodia-exile","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"Greenidge’s reconstruction of a time limit for appearance is criticized by Rotondi. This illustrates why the dossier records arguments rather than harmonizing all accounts into one invented procedure.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["De Domo Sua Ad Pontifices §47"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-395-396","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 395-396","locator":"Printed pp. 395-396","pdfPages":[410,411],"url":null},{"id":"G-359-366","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 359-366","locator":"Printed pp. 359-366","pdfPages":[379,386],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-516-525","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 516-525","locator":"Printed pp. 516-525","pdfPages":[536,545],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Greenidge’s reconstruction of a time limit for appearance is criticized by Rotondi. This illustrates why the dossier records arguments rather than harmonizing all accounts into one invented procedure."},{"id":"LR-clodia-auspices-existence","instrument":"clodia-auspices","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Sestio 33 attacks the legislative changes of 58. Asconius 8 C explains a prohibition on observing the sky on days when business could be transacted with the people and relates it to the Aelian law.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["Pro P. Sestio §33"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-397","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 397","locator":"Printed pp. 397","pdfPages":[412],"url":null},{"id":"G-344-349","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 344-349","locator":"Printed pp. 344-349","pdfPages":[364,369],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"“Abolition of auspices” is too broad. Rotondi’s expansive formulation about intercession should not displace the narrower practice described by Asconius; auspices, obnuntiatio and tribunician veto are distinguishable."},{"id":"LR-clodia-auspices-dating","instrument":"clodia-auspices","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"58 BCE belongs to Clodius’ tribunate under Piso and Gabinius. Vatinium’s conduct in 59 precedes that change; his later examination is not evidence that the Clodian measure already operated in his tribunate.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["Pro P. Sestio §33"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-397","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 397","locator":"Printed pp. 397","pdfPages":[412],"url":null},{"id":"G-344-349","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 344-349","locator":"Printed pp. 344-349","pdfPages":[364,369],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"“Abolition of auspices” is too broad. Rotondi’s expansive formulation about intercession should not displace the narrower practice described by Asconius; auspices, obnuntiatio and tribunician veto are distinguishable."},{"id":"LR-clodia-auspices-operation","instrument":"clodia-auspices","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"The practical issue is obstruction or validity of assemblies through announced celestial observation and adverse religious reports. Cicero portrays the change as demolition of constitutional safeguards.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["Pro P. Sestio §33"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-397","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 397","locator":"Printed pp. 397","pdfPages":[412],"url":null},{"id":"G-344-349","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 344-349","locator":"Printed pp. 344-349","pdfPages":[364,369],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"“Abolition of auspices” is too broad. Rotondi’s expansive formulation about intercession should not displace the narrower practice described by Asconius; auspices, obnuntiatio and tribunician veto are distinguishable."},{"id":"LR-clodia-auspices-transmission","instrument":"clodia-auspices","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"The record combines polemical Ciceronian characterization with Asconius’ later explanation. It does not preserve the complete statute or every exception.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["Pro P. Sestio §33"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-397","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 397","locator":"Printed pp. 397","pdfPages":[412],"url":null},{"id":"G-344-349","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 344-349","locator":"Printed pp. 344-349","pdfPages":[364,369],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"“Abolition of auspices” is too broad. Rotondi’s expansive formulation about intercession should not displace the narrower practice described by Asconius; auspices, obnuntiatio and tribunician veto are distinguishable."},{"id":"LR-clodia-auspices-debate","instrument":"clodia-auspices","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"“Abolition of auspices” is too broad. Rotondi’s expansive formulation about intercession should not displace the narrower practice described by Asconius; auspices, obnuntiatio and tribunician veto are distinguishable.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["Pro P. Sestio §33"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-397","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 397","locator":"Printed pp. 397","pdfPages":[412],"url":null},{"id":"G-344-349","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 344-349","locator":"Printed pp. 344-349","pdfPages":[364,369],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"“Abolition of auspices” is too broad. Rotondi’s expansive formulation about intercession should not displace the narrower practice described by Asconius; auspices, obnuntiatio and tribunician veto are distinguishable."},{"id":"LR-aelia-existence","instrument":"aelia","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Vatinium 18 and 23 names the Aelian and Fufian laws; Asconius 8 C specifically associates the Aelian law with confirmation of obnuntiatio.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["In P. Vatinium testem interrogatio §18","In P. Vatinium testem interrogatio §37"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-288-289","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 288-289","locator":"Printed pp. 288-289","pdfPages":[303,304],"url":null},{"id":"G-344-349","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 344-349","locator":"Printed pp. 344-349","pdfPages":[364,369],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not assign every rule about elections, auspices and legislative timing to this law merely because Cicero often pairs its name with Fufia. The particular allocation remains partly reconstructed."},{"id":"LR-aelia-dating","instrument":"aelia","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"The original date and proposer are uncertain. Rotondi’s approximate 158 BCE comes from interpreting Cicero’s rounded century before the Clodian change, not an independently dated enactment record.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["In P. Vatinium testem interrogatio §18","In P. Vatinium testem interrogatio §37"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-288-289","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 288-289","locator":"Printed pp. 288-289","pdfPages":[303,304],"url":null},{"id":"G-344-349","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 344-349","locator":"Printed pp. 344-349","pdfPages":[364,369],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not assign every rule about elections, auspices and legislative timing to this law merely because Cicero often pairs its name with Fufia. The particular allocation remains partly reconstructed."},{"id":"LR-aelia-operation","instrument":"aelia","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"The law formed part of the procedural and religious constraints invoked against legislation. In Vatinium the question is his handling of constitutional obstacles in 59, before Clodius’ measure.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["In P. Vatinium testem interrogatio §18","In P. Vatinium testem interrogatio §37"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-288-289","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 288-289","locator":"Printed pp. 288-289","pdfPages":[303,304],"url":null},{"id":"G-344-349","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 344-349","locator":"Printed pp. 344-349","pdfPages":[364,369],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not assign every rule about elections, auspices and legislative timing to this law merely because Cicero often pairs its name with Fufia. The particular allocation remains partly reconstructed."},{"id":"LR-aelia-transmission","instrument":"aelia","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"Separate naming and occasional individual allusion support distinct laws, but do not supply a complete division of their clauses. The surviving evidence is literary.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["In P. Vatinium testem interrogatio §18","In P. Vatinium testem interrogatio §37"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-288-289","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 288-289","locator":"Printed pp. 288-289","pdfPages":[303,304],"url":null},{"id":"G-344-349","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 344-349","locator":"Printed pp. 344-349","pdfPages":[364,369],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not assign every rule about elections, auspices and legislative timing to this law merely because Cicero often pairs its name with Fufia. The particular allocation remains partly reconstructed."},{"id":"LR-aelia-debate","instrument":"aelia","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"Do not assign every rule about elections, auspices and legislative timing to this law merely because Cicero often pairs its name with Fufia. The particular allocation remains partly reconstructed.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["In P. Vatinium testem interrogatio §18","In P. Vatinium testem interrogatio §37"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-288-289","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 288-289","locator":"Printed pp. 288-289","pdfPages":[303,304],"url":null},{"id":"G-344-349","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 344-349","locator":"Printed pp. 344-349","pdfPages":[364,369],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not assign every rule about elections, auspices and legislative timing to this law merely because Cicero often pairs its name with Fufia. The particular allocation remains partly reconstructed."},{"id":"LR-fufia-existence","instrument":"fufia","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Vatinium 18 attests the paired Aelian and Fufian framework; other Ciceronian references collected by Rotondi distinguish the Fufian name in legislative disputes.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["In P. Vatinium testem interrogatio §18","In P. Vatinium testem interrogatio §37"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-288-289","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 288-289","locator":"Printed pp. 288-289","pdfPages":[303,304],"url":null},{"id":"G-344-349","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 344-349","locator":"Printed pp. 344-349","pdfPages":[364,369],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not confuse this older Fufian law with Fufius Calenus’ later jury-voting law or the Fufia Caninia on manumission. These are different instruments."},{"id":"LR-fufia-dating","instrument":"fufia","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"A second-century BCE date is approximate. The proposer and exact year are not secured by the passages in this dossier; the law cannot simply inherit every inferred detail of the Aelian measure.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["In P. Vatinium testem interrogatio §18","In P. Vatinium testem interrogatio §37"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-288-289","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 288-289","locator":"Printed pp. 288-289","pdfPages":[303,304],"url":null},{"id":"G-344-349","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 344-349","locator":"Printed pp. 344-349","pdfPages":[364,369],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not confuse this older Fufian law with Fufius Calenus’ later jury-voting law or the Fufia Caninia on manumission. These are different instruments."},{"id":"LR-fufia-operation","instrument":"fufia","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"The relevant role is procedural control of legislation and the possible consequences of violating such controls. Cicero invokes these safeguards rhetorically against Vatinius’ use of tribunician power.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["In P. Vatinium testem interrogatio §18","In P. Vatinium testem interrogatio §37"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-288-289","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 288-289","locator":"Printed pp. 288-289","pdfPages":[303,304],"url":null},{"id":"G-344-349","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 344-349","locator":"Printed pp. 344-349","pdfPages":[364,369],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not confuse this older Fufian law with Fufius Calenus’ later jury-voting law or the Fufia Caninia on manumission. These are different instruments."},{"id":"LR-fufia-transmission","instrument":"fufia","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"No complete statute survives here. Reconstructions allocating an action or penalty specifically to Fufia depend on scattered literary references rather than a quoted complete chapter.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["In P. Vatinium testem interrogatio §18","In P. Vatinium testem interrogatio §37"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-288-289","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 288-289","locator":"Printed pp. 288-289","pdfPages":[303,304],"url":null},{"id":"G-344-349","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 344-349","locator":"Printed pp. 344-349","pdfPages":[364,369],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not confuse this older Fufian law with Fufius Calenus’ later jury-voting law or the Fufia Caninia on manumission. These are different instruments."},{"id":"LR-fufia-debate","instrument":"fufia","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"Do not confuse this older Fufian law with Fufius Calenus’ later jury-voting law or the Fufia Caninia on manumission. These are different instruments.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["In P. Vatinium testem interrogatio §18","In P. Vatinium testem interrogatio §37"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-288-289","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 288-289","locator":"Printed pp. 288-289","pdfPages":[303,304],"url":null},{"id":"G-344-349","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 344-349","locator":"Printed pp. 344-349","pdfPages":[364,369],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not confuse this older Fufian law with Fufius Calenus’ later jury-voting law or the Fufia Caninia on manumission. These are different instruments."},{"id":"LR-caecilia-didia-existence","instrument":"caecilia-didia","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Domo 41 invokes the law in an argument about publication before a vote; §53 explains the objection to bundling unlike proposals. Philippic 5.8 couples its name with the trinundinum requirement.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["De Domo Sua Ad Pontifices §53"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-335","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 335","locator":"Printed pp. 335","pdfPages":[350],"url":null},{"id":"G-79-82","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 79-82","locator":"Printed pp. 79-82","pdfPages":[99,102],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The rule against a rogatio per saturam is not a general modern single-subject doctrine with identical exceptions. The ancient political and voting mechanisms need to remain visible."},{"id":"LR-caecilia-didia-dating","instrument":"caecilia-didia","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"98 BCE is the consular enactment year of Q. Caecilius Metellus Nepos and T. Didius. The later cases are evidence of continuing invocation, not proof of an unchanged effective term.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["De Domo Sua Ad Pontifices §53"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-335","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 335","locator":"Printed pp. 335","pdfPages":[350],"url":null},{"id":"G-79-82","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 79-82","locator":"Printed pp. 79-82","pdfPages":[99,102],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The rule against a rogatio per saturam is not a general modern single-subject doctrine with identical exceptions. The ancient political and voting mechanisms need to remain visible."},{"id":"LR-caecilia-didia-operation","instrument":"caecilia-didia","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"The two principal questions are sufficient public notice and freedom to accept or reject distinct proposals separately. Cicero applies those principles to Clodius’ adoption and legislation, but that application itself requires legal argument.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["De Domo Sua Ad Pontifices §53"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-335","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 335","locator":"Printed pp. 335","pdfPages":[350],"url":null},{"id":"G-79-82","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 79-82","locator":"Printed pp. 79-82","pdfPages":[99,102],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The rule against a rogatio per saturam is not a general modern single-subject doctrine with identical exceptions. The ancient political and voting mechanisms need to remain visible."},{"id":"LR-caecilia-didia-transmission","instrument":"caecilia-didia","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"The statute is known through citations and explanations. The exact conversion of trinum nundinum into modern elapsed days is not supplied as an uncontroversial number here.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["De Domo Sua Ad Pontifices §53"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-335","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 335","locator":"Printed pp. 335","pdfPages":[350],"url":null},{"id":"G-79-82","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 79-82","locator":"Printed pp. 79-82","pdfPages":[99,102],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The rule against a rogatio per saturam is not a general modern single-subject doctrine with identical exceptions. The ancient political and voting mechanisms need to remain visible."},{"id":"LR-caecilia-didia-debate","instrument":"caecilia-didia","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"The rule against a rogatio per saturam is not a general modern single-subject doctrine with identical exceptions. The ancient political and voting mechanisms need to remain visible.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["De Domo Sua Ad Pontifices §53"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-335","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 335","locator":"Printed pp. 335","pdfPages":[350],"url":null},{"id":"G-79-82","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 79-82","locator":"Printed pp. 79-82","pdfPages":[99,102],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The rule against a rogatio per saturam is not a general modern single-subject doctrine with identical exceptions. The ancient political and voting mechanisms need to remain visible."},{"id":"LR-licinia-iunia-existence","instrument":"licinia-iunia","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Vatinium 33 expressly refers to proceedings under the Licinia Iunia; Philippic 5.8 mentions the more recent Junia Licinia alongside Caecilia Didia. The reversed order of names does not create another law.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["In P. Vatinium testem interrogatio §33"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-383-384","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 383-384","locator":"Printed pp. 383-384","pdfPages":[398,399],"url":null}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not present the deposit-before-vote interpretation as undisputed. Separate the charge under the law from proof that the charge was sustained."},{"id":"LR-licinia-iunia-dating","instrument":"licinia-iunia","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"62 BCE is the consular date of D. Junius Silanus and L. Licinius Murena. The interrogation of Vatinius in 56 concerns a prior accusation, not the law’s enactment.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["In P. Vatinium testem interrogatio §33"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-383-384","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 383-384","locator":"Printed pp. 383-384","pdfPages":[398,399],"url":null}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not present the deposit-before-vote interpretation as undisputed. Separate the charge under the law from proof that the charge was sustained."},{"id":"LR-licinia-iunia-operation","instrument":"licinia-iunia","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"The law belongs to authentication and publication of legislation. The familiar requirement to deposit a copy at the treasury, with witnesses, rests on wider testimony and scholarly reconstruction; the Vatinium passage alone proves neither its entire wording nor all procedural penalties.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["In P. Vatinium testem interrogatio §33"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-383-384","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 383-384","locator":"Printed pp. 383-384","pdfPages":[398,399],"url":null}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not present the deposit-before-vote interpretation as undisputed. Separate the charge under the law from proof that the charge was sustained."},{"id":"LR-licinia-iunia-transmission","instrument":"licinia-iunia","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"Scattered literary testimony supports a legislative safeguard and enforcement. Rotondi records disagreement over whether the deposit concerned the proposed text or the enacted law.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["In P. Vatinium testem interrogatio §33"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-383-384","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 383-384","locator":"Printed pp. 383-384","pdfPages":[398,399],"url":null}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not present the deposit-before-vote interpretation as undisputed. Separate the charge under the law from proof that the charge was sustained."},{"id":"LR-licinia-iunia-debate","instrument":"licinia-iunia","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"Do not present the deposit-before-vote interpretation as undisputed. Separate the charge under the law from proof that the charge was sustained.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["In P. Vatinium testem interrogatio §33"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-383-384","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 383-384","locator":"Printed pp. 383-384","pdfPages":[398,399],"url":null}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not present the deposit-before-vote interpretation as undisputed. Separate the charge under the law from proof that the charge was sustained."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-edictis-existence","instrument":"cornelia-edictis","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Asconius 59 C expressly reports that Cornelius carried a law requiring praetors to administer justice according to their standing edicts. Dio 36.40 supplies a parallel historical account.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["Asconius, pp. 59 Clark (1907)"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-371","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 371","locator":"Printed pp. 371","pdfPages":[386],"url":null},{"id":"G-82-99","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 82-99","locator":"Printed pp. 82-99","pdfPages":[102,119],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not identify this with the imperial codification conventionally associated with Hadrian and Julian. Rotondi already notes that the constraint should not be construed absolutely."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-edictis-dating","instrument":"cornelia-edictis","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"67 BCE is the tribunate of C. Cornelius, distinct from Sulla’s legislation of 81. Verres’ earlier praetorships cannot be judged as violations of a statute that had not yet been enacted.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["Asconius, pp. 59 Clark (1907)"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-371","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 371","locator":"Printed pp. 371","pdfPages":[386],"url":null},{"id":"G-82-99","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 82-99","locator":"Printed pp. 82-99","pdfPages":[102,119],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not identify this with the imperial codification conventionally associated with Hadrian and Julian. Rotondi already notes that the constraint should not be construed absolutely."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-edictis-operation","instrument":"cornelia-edictis","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"The law constrains variation in the magistrate’s announced administration of justice and aims at favouritism. It does not abolish praetorian interpretation or transform every edict into a popular statute.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["Asconius, pp. 59 Clark (1907)"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-371","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 371","locator":"Printed pp. 371","pdfPages":[386],"url":null},{"id":"G-82-99","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 82-99","locator":"Printed pp. 82-99","pdfPages":[102,119],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not identify this with the imperial codification conventionally associated with Hadrian and Julian. Rotondi already notes that the constraint should not be construed absolutely."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-edictis-transmission","instrument":"cornelia-edictis","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"Asconius provides an ancient paraphrase incorporating a compact statement of the rule. The complete enactment is lost; the expression edicta perpetua here refers to standing edicts.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["Asconius, pp. 59 Clark (1907)"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-371","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 371","locator":"Printed pp. 371","pdfPages":[386],"url":null},{"id":"G-82-99","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 82-99","locator":"Printed pp. 82-99","pdfPages":[102,119],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not identify this with the imperial codification conventionally associated with Hadrian and Julian. Rotondi already notes that the constraint should not be construed absolutely."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-edictis-debate","instrument":"cornelia-edictis","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"Do not identify this with the imperial codification conventionally associated with Hadrian and Julian. Rotondi already notes that the constraint should not be construed absolutely.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["Asconius, pp. 59 Clark (1907)"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-371","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 371","locator":"Printed pp. 371","pdfPages":[386],"url":null},{"id":"G-82-99","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 82-99","locator":"Printed pp. 82-99","pdfPages":[102,119],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not identify this with the imperial codification conventionally associated with Hadrian and Julian. Rotondi already notes that the constraint should not be construed absolutely."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-maiestate-existence","instrument":"cornelia-maiestate","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Asconius 59–61 C expressly identifies the Cornelian maiestas prosecution of Cornelius, including the Cominii accusers and the interruption of the first proceeding.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["Asconius, pp. 59–61 Clark (1907)"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-360","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 360","locator":"Printed pp. 360","pdfPages":[375],"url":null},{"id":"G-423-424","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 423-424","locator":"Printed pp. 423-424","pdfPages":[443,444],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The imperial law of treason and offences against an emperor cannot be retrojected into this Republican dispute. A surviving account of an accusation does not itself prove the charged constitutional violation."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-maiestate-dating","instrument":"cornelia-maiestate","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"81 BCE is the conventional Sullan enactment date. The accusation in 66 and renewed trial in 65 are later applications; they must not be confused with the defendant’s own legislation in 67.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["Asconius, pp. 59–61 Clark (1907)"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-360","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 360","locator":"Printed pp. 360","pdfPages":[375],"url":null},{"id":"G-423-424","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 423-424","locator":"Printed pp. 423-424","pdfPages":[443,444],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The imperial law of treason and offences against an emperor cannot be retrojected into this Republican dispute. A surviving account of an accusation does not itself prove the charged constitutional violation."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-maiestate-operation","instrument":"cornelia-maiestate","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"The accusation turns on Cornelius reading his proposal despite intercession. The defence contests whether the act violated tribunician power and public authority. Legislative reading, a colleague’s veto and completion of a vote are separate stages.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["Asconius, pp. 59–61 Clark (1907)"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-360","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 360","locator":"Printed pp. 360","pdfPages":[375],"url":null},{"id":"G-423-424","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 423-424","locator":"Printed pp. 423-424","pdfPages":[443,444],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The imperial law of treason and offences against an emperor cannot be retrojected into this Republican dispute. A surviving account of an accusation does not itself prove the charged constitutional violation."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-maiestate-transmission","instrument":"cornelia-maiestate","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"The complete statute is not extant here. Asconius’ account and surviving quotations of the defence provide evidence for application, not every act originally covered by maiestas.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["Asconius, pp. 59–61 Clark (1907)"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-360","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 360","locator":"Printed pp. 360","pdfPages":[375],"url":null},{"id":"G-423-424","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 423-424","locator":"Printed pp. 423-424","pdfPages":[443,444],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The imperial law of treason and offences against an emperor cannot be retrojected into this Republican dispute. A surviving account of an accusation does not itself prove the charged constitutional violation."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-maiestate-debate","instrument":"cornelia-maiestate","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"The imperial law of treason and offences against an emperor cannot be retrojected into this Republican dispute. A surviving account of an accusation does not itself prove the charged constitutional violation.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["Asconius, pp. 59–61 Clark (1907)"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-360","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 360","locator":"Printed pp. 360","pdfPages":[375],"url":null},{"id":"G-423-424","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 423-424","locator":"Printed pp. 423-424","pdfPages":[443,444],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The imperial law of treason and offences against an emperor cannot be retrojected into this Republican dispute. A surviving account of an accusation does not itself prove the charged constitutional violation."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-exemptions-existence","instrument":"cornelia-exemptions","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Asconius 58–59 C distinguishes Cornelius’ original proposal from the revised measure adopted: two hundred senators had to be present for a senatorial exemption, followed by reference to the people without obstructive intercession.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["Asconius, pp. 58–59 Clark (1907)"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-370-371","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 370-371","locator":"Printed pp. 370-371","pdfPages":[385,386],"url":null},{"id":"G-79-82","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 79-82","locator":"Printed pp. 79-82","pdfPages":[99,102],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Displaying only the initial demand for exclusive popular authority would misstate the resulting arrangement. Keep the quorum and later popular step attached to the revised version."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-exemptions-dating","instrument":"cornelia-exemptions","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"67 BCE is the relevant tribunician year. The initial proposal and the revised enactment are successive versions, not evidence for two identically worded operative laws.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["Asconius, pp. 58–59 Clark (1907)"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-370-371","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 370-371","locator":"Printed pp. 370-371","pdfPages":[385,386],"url":null},{"id":"G-79-82","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 79-82","locator":"Printed pp. 79-82","pdfPages":[99,102],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Displaying only the initial demand for exclusive popular authority would misstate the resulting arrangement. Keep the quorum and later popular step attached to the revised version."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-exemptions-operation","instrument":"cornelia-exemptions","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"The measure regulates who can release a person from a law and how Senate and people participate. It concerns legal exemption, rather than general repeal or the cancellation of every law by the Senate.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["Asconius, pp. 58–59 Clark (1907)"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-370-371","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 370-371","locator":"Printed pp. 370-371","pdfPages":[385,386],"url":null},{"id":"G-79-82","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 79-82","locator":"Printed pp. 79-82","pdfPages":[99,102],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Displaying only the initial demand for exclusive popular authority would misstate the resulting arrangement. Keep the quorum and later popular step attached to the revised version."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-exemptions-transmission","instrument":"cornelia-exemptions","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"The revised terms survive in Asconius’ historical explanation. His narrative of opposition and compromise is essential to determining which version was actually carried.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["Asconius, pp. 58–59 Clark (1907)"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-370-371","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 370-371","locator":"Printed pp. 370-371","pdfPages":[385,386],"url":null},{"id":"G-79-82","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 79-82","locator":"Printed pp. 79-82","pdfPages":[99,102],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Displaying only the initial demand for exclusive popular authority would misstate the resulting arrangement. Keep the quorum and later popular step attached to the revised version."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-exemptions-debate","instrument":"cornelia-exemptions","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"Displaying only the initial demand for exclusive popular authority would misstate the resulting arrangement. Keep the quorum and later popular step attached to the revised version.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["Asconius, pp. 58–59 Clark (1907)"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-370-371","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 370-371","locator":"Printed pp. 370-371","pdfPages":[385,386],"url":null},{"id":"G-79-82","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 79-82","locator":"Printed pp. 79-82","pdfPages":[99,102],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Displaying only the initial demand for exclusive popular authority would misstate the resulting arrangement. Keep the quorum and later popular step attached to the revised version."},{"id":"LR-domitia-priesthoods-existence","instrument":"domitia-priesthoods","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Asconius 79–80 C preserves Cicero’s use of Domitius’ priestly legislation as a precedent. Agrarian Law 2.18 explains the smaller part of the people participating in priestly selection.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["Asconius, pp. 79–80 Clark","De Lege Agraria §2.18"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-329","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 329","locator":"Printed pp. 329","pdfPages":[344],"url":null},{"id":"R-352","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 352","locator":"Printed pp. 352","pdfPages":[367],"url":null},{"id":"G-373-380","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 373-380","locator":"Printed pp. 373-380","pdfPages":[393,400],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not say that the entire people directly replaced every form of priestly co-option. The smaller voting body and continued collegial acts matter to the juridical reconstruction."},{"id":"LR-domitia-priesthoods-dating","instrument":"domitia-priesthoods","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"The atlas retains the usual 104 BCE date but now records Rotondi’s 103 dating and attempted reconciliation through a tribunician year beginning in December 104. This is a dating disagreement, not a securely documented enactment interval.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["Asconius, pp. 79–80 Clark","De Lege Agraria §2.18"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-329","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 329","locator":"Printed pp. 329","pdfPages":[344],"url":null},{"id":"R-352","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 352","locator":"Printed pp. 352","pdfPages":[367],"url":null},{"id":"G-373-380","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 373-380","locator":"Printed pp. 373-380","pdfPages":[393,400],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not say that the entire people directly replaced every form of priestly co-option. The smaller voting body and continued collegial acts matter to the juridical reconstruction."},{"id":"LR-domitia-priesthoods-operation","instrument":"domitia-priesthoods","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"The measure gives a selected minority of tribes a part in choosing priests, alongside the colleges’ remaining role. Cicero invokes the precedent in Cornelius’ constitutional defence, not as the criminal charge.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["Asconius, pp. 79–80 Clark","De Lege Agraria §2.18"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-329","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 329","locator":"Printed pp. 329","pdfPages":[344],"url":null},{"id":"R-352","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 352","locator":"Printed pp. 352","pdfPages":[367],"url":null},{"id":"G-373-380","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 373-380","locator":"Printed pp. 373-380","pdfPages":[393,400],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not say that the entire people directly replaced every form of priestly co-option. The smaller voting body and continued collegial acts matter to the juridical reconstruction."},{"id":"LR-domitia-priesthoods-transmission","instrument":"domitia-priesthoods","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"The law is known through literary testimony and its later repeal or restoration history. Neither a complete voting regulation nor all nomination requirements is preserved in the quoted fragment.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["Asconius, pp. 79–80 Clark","De Lege Agraria §2.18"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-329","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 329","locator":"Printed pp. 329","pdfPages":[344],"url":null},{"id":"R-352","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 352","locator":"Printed pp. 352","pdfPages":[367],"url":null},{"id":"G-373-380","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 373-380","locator":"Printed pp. 373-380","pdfPages":[393,400],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not say that the entire people directly replaced every form of priestly co-option. The smaller voting body and continued collegial acts matter to the juridical reconstruction."},{"id":"LR-domitia-priesthoods-debate","instrument":"domitia-priesthoods","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"Do not say that the entire people directly replaced every form of priestly co-option. The smaller voting body and continued collegial acts matter to the juridical reconstruction.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["Asconius, pp. 79–80 Clark","De Lege Agraria §2.18"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-329","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 329","locator":"Printed pp. 329","pdfPages":[344],"url":null},{"id":"R-352","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 352","locator":"Printed pp. 352","pdfPages":[367],"url":null},{"id":"G-373-380","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 373-380","locator":"Printed pp. 373-380","pdfPages":[393,400],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not say that the entire people directly replaced every form of priestly co-option. The smaller voting body and continued collegial acts matter to the juridical reconstruction."},{"id":"LR-gabinia-pirates-existence","instrument":"gabinia-pirates","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Asconius 71–72 C preserves the Gabinian proposal and the response to Trebellius’ veto in the Cornelius commentary. Cicero’s Manilian speech and Plutarch, Pompey 25–26, give other accounts of the extraordinary command.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["Asconius, pp. 71–72 Clark"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-371-372","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 371-372","locator":"Printed pp. 371-372","pdfPages":[386,387],"url":null},{"id":"G-79-82","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 79-82","locator":"Printed pp. 79-82","pdfPages":[99,102],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Different accounts give details of ships, troops and legates. Do not silently harmonize all figures into one verbatim grant, or confuse this law with an earlier Gabinian ballot law."},{"id":"LR-gabinia-pirates-dating","instrument":"gabinia-pirates","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"67 BCE is the tribunate of A. Gabinius and the anti-piracy command. The following year’s Manilian enlargement of Pompey’s responsibilities is a separate enactment.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["Asconius, pp. 71–72 Clark"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-371-372","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 371-372","locator":"Printed pp. 371-372","pdfPages":[386,387],"url":null},{"id":"G-79-82","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 79-82","locator":"Printed pp. 79-82","pdfPages":[99,102],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Different accounts give details of ships, troops and legates. Do not silently harmonize all figures into one verbatim grant, or confuse this law with an earlier Gabinian ballot law."},{"id":"LR-gabinia-pirates-operation","instrument":"gabinia-pirates","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"In the Cornelius defence, the important relation is procedural precedent: an obstruction was met with a proposal to remove the obstructing tribune. Powers, geographical extent and resources of the command require their own witnesses.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["Asconius, pp. 71–72 Clark"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-371-372","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 371-372","locator":"Printed pp. 371-372","pdfPages":[386,387],"url":null},{"id":"G-79-82","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 79-82","locator":"Printed pp. 79-82","pdfPages":[99,102],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Different accounts give details of ships, troops and legates. Do not silently harmonize all figures into one verbatim grant, or confuse this law with an earlier Gabinian ballot law."},{"id":"LR-gabinia-pirates-transmission","instrument":"gabinia-pirates","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"The dossier contains literary descriptions and a fragment of Cicero transmitted by Asconius, not the original statute. The threat of removal should not be turned into a completed deposition.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["Asconius, pp. 71–72 Clark"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-371-372","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 371-372","locator":"Printed pp. 371-372","pdfPages":[386,387],"url":null},{"id":"G-79-82","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 79-82","locator":"Printed pp. 79-82","pdfPages":[99,102],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Different accounts give details of ships, troops and legates. Do not silently harmonize all figures into one verbatim grant, or confuse this law with an earlier Gabinian ballot law."},{"id":"LR-gabinia-pirates-debate","instrument":"gabinia-pirates","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"Different accounts give details of ships, troops and legates. Do not silently harmonize all figures into one verbatim grant, or confuse this law with an earlier Gabinian ballot law.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["Asconius, pp. 71–72 Clark"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-371-372","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 371-372","locator":"Printed pp. 371-372","pdfPages":[386,387],"url":null},{"id":"G-79-82","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 79-82","locator":"Printed pp. 79-82","pdfPages":[99,102],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Different accounts give details of ships, troops and legates. Do not silently harmonize all figures into one verbatim grant, or confuse this law with an earlier Gabinian ballot law."},{"id":"LR-twelve-tables-existence","instrument":"twelve-tables","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Milone 9 explicitly invokes the Twelve Tables on killing a nocturnal thief and a daytime thief who defends himself with a weapon. Domo 43 invokes restrictions on privilegia and capital decisions.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["Pro T. Annio Milone §9","De Domo Sua Ad Pontifices §43"],"scholarship":[{"id":"C2-609-610","source":"C2","label":"M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. II (1996), pp. 609-610","locator":"Printed pp. 609-610","pdfPages":[62,63],"url":null},{"id":"G-15-78","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 15-78","locator":"Printed pp. 15-78","pdfPages":[35,98],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-359-366","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 359-366","locator":"Printed pp. 359-366","pdfPages":[379,386],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"A later witness may paraphrase rather than quote. Compare Gaius in Digest 9.2.4.1 and Gellius 11.18.6 for the theft rule; their additional conditions must not be silently inserted into Cicero’s words."},{"id":"LR-twelve-tables-dating","instrument":"twelve-tables","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"451–450 BCE is the traditional date of the decemviral legislation. Cicero’s first-century BCE witness and the much later manuscripts transmitting him are distinct dates in the chain of survival.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["Pro T. Annio Milone §9","De Domo Sua Ad Pontifices §43"],"scholarship":[{"id":"C2-609-610","source":"C2","label":"M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. II (1996), pp. 609-610","locator":"Printed pp. 609-610","pdfPages":[62,63],"url":null},{"id":"G-15-78","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 15-78","locator":"Printed pp. 15-78","pdfPages":[35,98],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-359-366","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 359-366","locator":"Printed pp. 359-366","pdfPages":[379,386],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"A later witness may paraphrase rather than quote. Compare Gaius in Digest 9.2.4.1 and Gellius 11.18.6 for the theft rule; their additional conditions must not be silently inserted into Cicero’s words."},{"id":"LR-twelve-tables-operation","instrument":"twelve-tables","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"In Milo’s defence the rule is an analogy for lawful killing; it does not prove the facts of self-defence on the Appian Way. In Domo the Tables authorize a constitutional objection to legislation against an individual.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["Pro T. Annio Milone §9","De Domo Sua Ad Pontifices §43"],"scholarship":[{"id":"C2-609-610","source":"C2","label":"M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. II (1996), pp. 609-610","locator":"Printed pp. 609-610","pdfPages":[62,63],"url":null},{"id":"G-15-78","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 15-78","locator":"Printed pp. 15-78","pdfPages":[35,98],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-359-366","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 359-366","locator":"Printed pp. 359-366","pdfPages":[379,386],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"A later witness may paraphrase rather than quote. Compare Gaius in Digest 9.2.4.1 and Gellius 11.18.6 for the theft rule; their additional conditions must not be silently inserted into Cicero’s words."},{"id":"LR-twelve-tables-transmission","instrument":"twelve-tables","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"No original Twelve Tables survive. Crawford, law 40, separates sources, reconstruction and commentary; even the ordering and numbering of reconstructed clauses can differ from Bruns and other editions.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["Pro T. Annio Milone §9","De Domo Sua Ad Pontifices §43"],"scholarship":[{"id":"C2-609-610","source":"C2","label":"M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. II (1996), pp. 609-610","locator":"Printed pp. 609-610","pdfPages":[62,63],"url":null},{"id":"G-15-78","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 15-78","locator":"Printed pp. 15-78","pdfPages":[35,98],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-359-366","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 359-366","locator":"Printed pp. 359-366","pdfPages":[379,386],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"A later witness may paraphrase rather than quote. Compare Gaius in Digest 9.2.4.1 and Gellius 11.18.6 for the theft rule; their additional conditions must not be silently inserted into Cicero’s words."},{"id":"LR-twelve-tables-debate","instrument":"twelve-tables","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"A later witness may paraphrase rather than quote. Compare Gaius in Digest 9.2.4.1 and Gellius 11.18.6 for the theft rule; their additional conditions must not be silently inserted into Cicero’s words.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["Pro T. Annio Milone §9","De Domo Sua Ad Pontifices §43"],"scholarship":[{"id":"C2-609-610","source":"C2","label":"M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. II (1996), pp. 609-610","locator":"Printed pp. 609-610","pdfPages":[62,63],"url":null},{"id":"G-15-78","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 15-78","locator":"Printed pp. 15-78","pdfPages":[35,98],"url":"greenidge.html"},{"id":"G-359-366","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 359-366","locator":"Printed pp. 359-366","pdfPages":[379,386],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"A later witness may paraphrase rather than quote. Compare Gaius in Digest 9.2.4.1 and Gellius 11.18.6 for the theft rule; their additional conditions must not be silently inserted into Cicero’s words."},{"id":"LR-sullan-citizenship-existence","instrument":"sullan-citizenship","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Caecina 95–100 debates a Sullan measure affecting citizenship and the retention of rights involving property and inheritance. The statutory saving clause and Cicero’s constitutional objection are separate arguments.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["Pro A. Caecina §95"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-352-353","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 352-353","locator":"Printed pp. 352-353","pdfPages":[367,368],"url":null},{"id":"G-566-568","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 566-568","locator":"Printed pp. 566-568","pdfPages":[586,588],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not treat Cicero’s general proposition as an uncontested description of every historical deprivation of citizenship. The Sullan punitive settlement and legal capacity of particular communities need separate proof."},{"id":"LR-sullan-citizenship-dating","instrument":"sullan-citizenship","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"The Sullan settlement supplies the historical setting, conventionally around 81 BCE. Rotondi assigns a citizenship-deprivation law concerning Volaterrae to 81; the current evidence does not recover an official title or exact promulgation event.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["Pro A. Caecina §95"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-352-353","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 352-353","locator":"Printed pp. 352-353","pdfPages":[367,368],"url":null},{"id":"G-566-568","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 566-568","locator":"Printed pp. 566-568","pdfPages":[586,588],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not treat Cicero’s general proposition as an uncontested description of every historical deprivation of citizenship. The Sullan punitive settlement and legal capacity of particular communities need separate proof."},{"id":"LR-sullan-citizenship-operation","instrument":"sullan-citizenship","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"The defence argues both that citizenship cannot simply be taken away and that the relevant private-law capacity remains protected even on the opponent’s premise. These are alternative routes to standing or entitlement, not a single straightforward concession.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["Pro A. Caecina §95"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-352-353","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 352-353","locator":"Printed pp. 352-353","pdfPages":[367,368],"url":null},{"id":"G-566-568","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 566-568","locator":"Printed pp. 566-568","pdfPages":[586,588],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not treat Cicero’s general proposition as an uncontested description of every historical deprivation of citizenship. The Sullan punitive settlement and legal capacity of particular communities need separate proof."},{"id":"LR-sullan-citizenship-transmission","instrument":"sullan-citizenship","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"A forensic report of a law and its interpretation survives; no original municipal status decree is reproduced. The modern descriptive title must remain visibly supplied.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["Pro A. Caecina §95"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-352-353","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 352-353","locator":"Printed pp. 352-353","pdfPages":[367,368],"url":null},{"id":"G-566-568","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 566-568","locator":"Printed pp. 566-568","pdfPages":[586,588],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not treat Cicero’s general proposition as an uncontested description of every historical deprivation of citizenship. The Sullan punitive settlement and legal capacity of particular communities need separate proof."},{"id":"LR-sullan-citizenship-debate","instrument":"sullan-citizenship","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"Do not treat Cicero’s general proposition as an uncontested description of every historical deprivation of citizenship. The Sullan punitive settlement and legal capacity of particular communities need separate proof.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["Pro A. Caecina §95"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-352-353","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 352-353","locator":"Printed pp. 352-353","pdfPages":[367,368],"url":null},{"id":"G-566-568","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 566-568","locator":"Printed pp. 566-568","pdfPages":[586,588],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not treat Cicero’s general proposition as an uncontested description of every historical deprivation of citizenship. The Sullan punitive settlement and legal capacity of particular communities need separate proof."},{"id":"LR-flaccus-gold-existence","instrument":"flaccus-gold","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Flacco 67 expressly reports Flaccus’ edict forbidding export of gold from Asia and appeals to earlier senatorial policy. The surrounding passages concern money collected for Jerusalem and its handling.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["Pro L. Flacco §67"],"scholarship":[{"id":"G-109-132","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 109-132","locator":"Printed pp. 109-132","pdfPages":[129,152],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Cicero’s hostile characterization of Jewish participants is rhetoric, not evidence that they lacked rights or that their accusations were false. Keep the claimed public policy distinct from alleged private appropriation."},{"id":"LR-flaccus-gold-dating","instrument":"flaccus-gold","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"The edict belongs to Flaccus’ Asian administration, conventionally 62–61 BCE; the defence of 59 is later testimony. A precise issue day and complete duration are not established.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["Pro L. Flacco §67"],"scholarship":[{"id":"G-109-132","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 109-132","locator":"Printed pp. 109-132","pdfPages":[129,152],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Cicero’s hostile characterization of Jewish participants is rhetoric, not evidence that they lacked rights or that their accusations were false. Keep the claimed public policy distinct from alleged private appropriation."},{"id":"LR-flaccus-gold-operation","instrument":"flaccus-gold","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"The legal question includes the governor’s competence to prohibit export and whether the seized money was properly accounted for. Justifying an export restriction does not prove that every seizure or subsequent disposition was lawful.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["Pro L. Flacco §67"],"scholarship":[{"id":"G-109-132","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 109-132","locator":"Printed pp. 109-132","pdfPages":[129,152],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Cicero’s hostile characterization of Jewish participants is rhetoric, not evidence that they lacked rights or that their accusations were false. Keep the claimed public policy distinct from alleged private appropriation."},{"id":"LR-flaccus-gold-transmission","instrument":"flaccus-gold","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"The edict and senatorial precedents are reported by the advocate; no independent posted edict or full accounts survive in this dossier.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["Pro L. Flacco §67"],"scholarship":[{"id":"G-109-132","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 109-132","locator":"Printed pp. 109-132","pdfPages":[129,152],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Cicero’s hostile characterization of Jewish participants is rhetoric, not evidence that they lacked rights or that their accusations were false. Keep the claimed public policy distinct from alleged private appropriation."},{"id":"LR-flaccus-gold-debate","instrument":"flaccus-gold","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"Cicero’s hostile characterization of Jewish participants is rhetoric, not evidence that they lacked rights or that their accusations were false. Keep the claimed public policy distinct from alleged private appropriation.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["Pro L. Flacco §67"],"scholarship":[{"id":"G-109-132","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 109-132","locator":"Printed pp. 109-132","pdfPages":[129,152],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Cicero’s hostile characterization of Jewish participants is rhetoric, not evidence that they lacked rights or that their accusations were false. Keep the claimed public policy distinct from alleged private appropriation."},{"id":"LR-valeria-debt-existence","instrument":"valeria-debt","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Fonteio’s opening fragments refer to the accounting effects of the debt adjustment. Velleius 2.23.2 explicitly says that Valerius Flaccus ordered creditors to receive a quarter.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["Pro M. Fonteio §1","Pro M. Fonteio §2"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-347-348","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 347-348","locator":"Printed pp. 347-348","pdfPages":[362,363],"url":null},{"id":"G-415-428","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 415-428","locator":"Printed pp. 415-428","pdfPages":[435,448],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Rotondi notes that cessation of operation does not itself prove formal repeal by another Cornelian law. This Valerian debt measure is distinct from the Valerian authorization of Sulla."},{"id":"LR-valeria-debt-dating","instrument":"valeria-debt","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"86 BCE is the suffect consulship associated with the law. The later Fonteius prosecution discusses earlier public accounting; it does not date the measure to the trial.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["Pro M. Fonteio §1","Pro M. Fonteio §2"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-347-348","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 347-348","locator":"Printed pp. 347-348","pdfPages":[362,363],"url":null},{"id":"G-415-428","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 415-428","locator":"Printed pp. 415-428","pdfPages":[435,448],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Rotondi notes that cessation of operation does not itself prove formal repeal by another Cornelian law. This Valerian debt measure is distinct from the Valerian authorization of Sulla."},{"id":"LR-valeria-debt-operation","instrument":"valeria-debt","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"The adjustment remits three quarters of the relevant debt burden in the historical account. The forensic issue is whether Fonteius’ treasury or accounting conduct can be impugned from records produced under this exceptional adjustment.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["Pro M. Fonteio §1","Pro M. Fonteio §2"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-347-348","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 347-348","locator":"Printed pp. 347-348","pdfPages":[362,363],"url":null},{"id":"G-415-428","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 415-428","locator":"Printed pp. 415-428","pdfPages":[435,448],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Rotondi notes that cessation of operation does not itself prove formal repeal by another Cornelian law. This Valerian debt measure is distinct from the Valerian authorization of Sulla."},{"id":"LR-valeria-debt-transmission","instrument":"valeria-debt","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"The speech survives imperfectly at its beginning. A later historian supplies an explicit summary of the fraction; do not fill the missing forensic text with an invented statute.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["Pro M. Fonteio §1","Pro M. Fonteio §2"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-347-348","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 347-348","locator":"Printed pp. 347-348","pdfPages":[362,363],"url":null},{"id":"G-415-428","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 415-428","locator":"Printed pp. 415-428","pdfPages":[435,448],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Rotondi notes that cessation of operation does not itself prove formal repeal by another Cornelian law. This Valerian debt measure is distinct from the Valerian authorization of Sulla."},{"id":"LR-valeria-debt-debate","instrument":"valeria-debt","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"Rotondi notes that cessation of operation does not itself prove formal repeal by another Cornelian law. This Valerian debt measure is distinct from the Valerian authorization of Sulla.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["Pro M. Fonteio §1","Pro M. Fonteio §2"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-347-348","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 347-348","locator":"Printed pp. 347-348","pdfPages":[362,363],"url":null},{"id":"G-415-428","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 415-428","locator":"Printed pp. 415-428","pdfPages":[435,448],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Rotondi notes that cessation of operation does not itself prove formal repeal by another Cornelian law. This Valerian debt measure is distinct from the Valerian authorization of Sulla."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-falsis-existence","instrument":"cornelia-falsis","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Verrines II.1.108 cites the testamentary and monetary Cornelian law as an example of a statute operating prospectively. Later Digest 48.10 preserves a developed law of falsum.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["In C. Verrem §2.1.108"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-356-357","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 356-357","locator":"Printed pp. 356-357","pdfPages":[371,372],"url":null},{"id":"C2-723","source":"C2","label":"M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. II (1996), pp. 723","locator":"Printed pp. 723","pdfPages":[176],"url":null},{"id":"G-424","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 424","locator":"Printed pp. 424","pdfPages":[444],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not back-project imperial extensions or penalties into the law of 81. Its traditional multiple descriptive names do not supply a surviving official title page."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-falsis-dating","instrument":"cornelia-falsis","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"81 BCE is the conventional Sullan enactment date. Verres’ urban edict in 74 and the published accusation in 70 are later contexts of comparison.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["In C. Verrem §2.1.108"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-356-357","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 356-357","locator":"Printed pp. 356-357","pdfPages":[371,372],"url":null},{"id":"C2-723","source":"C2","label":"M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. II (1996), pp. 723","locator":"Printed pp. 723","pdfPages":[176],"url":null},{"id":"G-424","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 424","locator":"Printed pp. 424","pdfPages":[444],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not back-project imperial extensions or penalties into the law of 81. Its traditional multiple descriptive names do not supply a surviving official title page."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-falsis-operation","instrument":"cornelia-falsis","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"Cicero’s immediate point is temporal application, illustrated by forgery-related legislation. The statute is not the charge under which Verres is prosecuted, and the passage does not establish that Asellus forged a will.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["In C. Verrem §2.1.108"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-356-357","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 356-357","locator":"Printed pp. 356-357","pdfPages":[371,372],"url":null},{"id":"C2-723","source":"C2","label":"M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. II (1996), pp. 723","locator":"Printed pp. 723","pdfPages":[176],"url":null},{"id":"G-424","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 424","locator":"Printed pp. 424","pdfPages":[444],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not back-project imperial extensions or penalties into the law of 81. Its traditional multiple descriptive names do not supply a surviving official title page."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-falsis-transmission","instrument":"cornelia-falsis","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"Later juristic collections assemble many extensions beyond wills and coins. Crawford expressly declined to reconstruct this law as a text in Roman Statutes, contrasting its evidential position with the already conjectural Aquilian reconstruction.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["In C. Verrem §2.1.108"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-356-357","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 356-357","locator":"Printed pp. 356-357","pdfPages":[371,372],"url":null},{"id":"C2-723","source":"C2","label":"M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. II (1996), pp. 723","locator":"Printed pp. 723","pdfPages":[176],"url":null},{"id":"G-424","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 424","locator":"Printed pp. 424","pdfPages":[444],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not back-project imperial extensions or penalties into the law of 81. Its traditional multiple descriptive names do not supply a surviving official title page."},{"id":"LR-cornelia-falsis-debate","instrument":"cornelia-falsis","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"Do not back-project imperial extensions or penalties into the law of 81. Its traditional multiple descriptive names do not supply a surviving official title page.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["In C. Verrem §2.1.108"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-356-357","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 356-357","locator":"Printed pp. 356-357","pdfPages":[371,372],"url":null},{"id":"C2-723","source":"C2","label":"M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. II (1996), pp. 723","locator":"Printed pp. 723","pdfPages":[176],"url":null},{"id":"G-424","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 424","locator":"Printed pp. 424","pdfPages":[444],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not back-project imperial extensions or penalties into the law of 81. Its traditional multiple descriptive names do not supply a surviving official title page."},{"id":"LR-aurelia-iudiciaria-existence","instrument":"aurelia-iudiciaria","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Asconius 17 C explicitly credits the praetor L. Aurelius Cotta with distributing jury service among senators, equites and tribuni aerarii. Verrines II.2.174 describes the contemporary proposal for new jurors.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["Asconius, In Pisonem, p. 17 Clark (1907)","Asconius, In Pisonianam, 17 C (comment on Piso 94)"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-369","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 369","locator":"Printed pp. 369","pdfPages":[384],"url":null},{"id":"LEW-213-214","source":"LEW","label":"R. G. Lewis, Asconius: Commentaries on Speeches of Cicero (2006), pp. 213-214","locator":"Printed pp. 213-214","pdfPages":[239,240],"url":null},{"id":"G-433-456","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 433-456","locator":"Printed pp. 433-456","pdfPages":[453,476],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Lewis discusses the uncertain identity of tribuni aerarii and their property qualification. The law’s existence and broad redistribution are firmer than every modern reconstruction of its social categories."},{"id":"LR-aurelia-iudiciaria-dating","instrument":"aurelia-iudiciaria","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"70 BCE is fixed by Cotta’s praetorship and the prosecution of Verres. The existing Verres jury must not be redrawn as already constituted under the three-order arrangement merely because reform was being debated.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["Asconius, In Pisonem, p. 17 Clark (1907)","Asconius, In Pisonianam, 17 C (comment on Piso 94)"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-369","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 369","locator":"Printed pp. 369","pdfPages":[384],"url":null},{"id":"LEW-213-214","source":"LEW","label":"R. G. Lewis, Asconius: Commentaries on Speeches of Cicero (2006), pp. 213-214","locator":"Printed pp. 213-214","pdfPages":[239,240],"url":null},{"id":"G-433-456","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 433-456","locator":"Printed pp. 433-456","pdfPages":[453,476],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Lewis discusses the uncertain identity of tribuni aerarii and their property qualification. The law’s existence and broad redistribution are firmer than every modern reconstruction of its social categories."},{"id":"LR-aurelia-iudiciaria-operation","instrument":"aurelia-iudiciaria","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"The reform ends exclusive senatorial control of the relevant public juries and establishes participation from three groups. Their social and census qualifications need to be distinguished from actual panel selection in a particular trial.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["Asconius, In Pisonem, p. 17 Clark (1907)","Asconius, In Pisonianam, 17 C (comment on Piso 94)"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-369","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 369","locator":"Printed pp. 369","pdfPages":[384],"url":null},{"id":"LEW-213-214","source":"LEW","label":"R. G. Lewis, Asconius: Commentaries on Speeches of Cicero (2006), pp. 213-214","locator":"Printed pp. 213-214","pdfPages":[239,240],"url":null},{"id":"G-433-456","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 433-456","locator":"Printed pp. 433-456","pdfPages":[453,476],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Lewis discusses the uncertain identity of tribuni aerarii and their property qualification. The law’s existence and broad redistribution are firmer than every modern reconstruction of its social categories."},{"id":"LR-aurelia-iudiciaria-transmission","instrument":"aurelia-iudiciaria","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"Asconius is more specific than abbreviated accounts in Livy’s epitome or Velleius that describe a transfer to equites or a division between two orders. Preserve that difference rather than counting the summaries as identical wording.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["Asconius, In Pisonem, p. 17 Clark (1907)","Asconius, In Pisonianam, 17 C (comment on Piso 94)"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-369","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 369","locator":"Printed pp. 369","pdfPages":[384],"url":null},{"id":"LEW-213-214","source":"LEW","label":"R. G. Lewis, Asconius: Commentaries on Speeches of Cicero (2006), pp. 213-214","locator":"Printed pp. 213-214","pdfPages":[239,240],"url":null},{"id":"G-433-456","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 433-456","locator":"Printed pp. 433-456","pdfPages":[453,476],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Lewis discusses the uncertain identity of tribuni aerarii and their property qualification. The law’s existence and broad redistribution are firmer than every modern reconstruction of its social categories."},{"id":"LR-aurelia-iudiciaria-debate","instrument":"aurelia-iudiciaria","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"Lewis discusses the uncertain identity of tribuni aerarii and their property qualification. The law’s existence and broad redistribution are firmer than every modern reconstruction of its social categories.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["Asconius, In Pisonem, p. 17 Clark (1907)","Asconius, In Pisonianam, 17 C (comment on Piso 94)"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-369","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 369","locator":"Printed pp. 369","pdfPages":[384],"url":null},{"id":"LEW-213-214","source":"LEW","label":"R. G. Lewis, Asconius: Commentaries on Speeches of Cicero (2006), pp. 213-214","locator":"Printed pp. 213-214","pdfPages":[239,240],"url":null},{"id":"G-433-456","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 433-456","locator":"Printed pp. 433-456","pdfPages":[453,476],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Lewis discusses the uncertain identity of tribuni aerarii and their property qualification. The law’s existence and broad redistribution are firmer than every modern reconstruction of its social categories."},{"id":"LR-pompeia-iudiciaria-existence","instrument":"pompeia-iudiciaria","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Asconius 17 C expressly says Pompey promulgated the measure in his second consulship and retained selection from the three orders. Pisonem 94 is the contemporary passage being explained; Philippic 1.20 later names the Pompeian law.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["Asconius, In Pisonem, p. 17 Clark (1907)","In L. Calpurnium Pisonem §94","Asconius, In Pisonianam, 17 C (comment on Piso 94)"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-405","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 405","locator":"Printed pp. 405","pdfPages":[420],"url":null},{"id":"LEW-35","source":"LEW","label":"R. G. Lewis, Asconius: Commentaries on Speeches of Cicero (2006), pp. 35","locator":"Printed pp. 35","pdfPages":[61],"url":null},{"id":"LEW-213-214","source":"LEW","label":"R. G. Lewis, Asconius: Commentaries on Speeches of Cicero (2006), pp. 213-214","locator":"Printed pp. 213-214","pdfPages":[239,240],"url":null},{"id":"G-433-456","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 433-456","locator":"Printed pp. 433-456","pdfPages":[453,476],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Lewis, pp. 213–214, explicitly rejects treating Asconius as proof that Pompey raised the census threshold. Enforcement of existing qualification and limits on discretionary selection are alternatives. “Highest census” does not supply a new numerical threshold."},{"id":"LR-pompeia-iudiciaria-dating","instrument":"pompeia-iudiciaria","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"55 BCE is independently anchored by the second consulship and Asconius’ dating of In Pisonem. The verb promulgavit attests public proposal; Cicero’s lege iudiciaria lata and later reference provide the wider enactment context. No exact voting day is established.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["Asconius, In Pisonem, p. 17 Clark (1907)","In L. Calpurnium Pisonem §94","Asconius, In Pisonianam, 17 C (comment on Piso 94)"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-405","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 405","locator":"Printed pp. 405","pdfPages":[420],"url":null},{"id":"LEW-35","source":"LEW","label":"R. G. Lewis, Asconius: Commentaries on Speeches of Cicero (2006), pp. 35","locator":"Printed pp. 35","pdfPages":[61],"url":null},{"id":"LEW-213-214","source":"LEW","label":"R. G. Lewis, Asconius: Commentaries on Speeches of Cicero (2006), pp. 213-214","locator":"Printed pp. 213-214","pdfPages":[239,240],"url":null},{"id":"G-433-456","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 433-456","locator":"Printed pp. 433-456","pdfPages":[453,476],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Lewis, pp. 213–214, explicitly rejects treating Asconius as proof that Pompey raised the census threshold. Enforcement of existing qualification and limits on discretionary selection are alternatives. “Highest census” does not supply a new numerical threshold."},{"id":"LR-pompeia-iudiciaria-operation","instrument":"pompeia-iudiciaria","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"The rule concerns selection from the highest assessed property category and centuries in a manner different from before. It retains the three-order framework rather than creating a new exclusive senatorial or equestrian jury.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["Asconius, In Pisonem, p. 17 Clark (1907)","In L. Calpurnium Pisonem §94","Asconius, In Pisonianam, 17 C (comment on Piso 94)"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-405","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 405","locator":"Printed pp. 405","pdfPages":[420],"url":null},{"id":"LEW-35","source":"LEW","label":"R. G. Lewis, Asconius: Commentaries on Speeches of Cicero (2006), pp. 35","locator":"Printed pp. 35","pdfPages":[61],"url":null},{"id":"LEW-213-214","source":"LEW","label":"R. G. Lewis, Asconius: Commentaries on Speeches of Cicero (2006), pp. 213-214","locator":"Printed pp. 213-214","pdfPages":[239,240],"url":null},{"id":"G-433-456","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 433-456","locator":"Printed pp. 433-456","pdfPages":[453,476],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Lewis, pp. 213–214, explicitly rejects treating Asconius as proof that Pompey raised the census threshold. Enforcement of existing qualification and limits on discretionary selection are alternatives. “Highest census” does not supply a new numerical threshold."},{"id":"LR-pompeia-iudiciaria-transmission","instrument":"pompeia-iudiciaria","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"The original statute is not extant. Rotondi records an unproved attempt to identify Florentine jury fragments with it; those fragments must not be presented as a secure physical copy of this law.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["Asconius, In Pisonem, p. 17 Clark (1907)","In L. Calpurnium Pisonem §94","Asconius, In Pisonianam, 17 C (comment on Piso 94)"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-405","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 405","locator":"Printed pp. 405","pdfPages":[420],"url":null},{"id":"LEW-35","source":"LEW","label":"R. G. Lewis, Asconius: Commentaries on Speeches of Cicero (2006), pp. 35","locator":"Printed pp. 35","pdfPages":[61],"url":null},{"id":"LEW-213-214","source":"LEW","label":"R. G. Lewis, Asconius: Commentaries on Speeches of Cicero (2006), pp. 213-214","locator":"Printed pp. 213-214","pdfPages":[239,240],"url":null},{"id":"G-433-456","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 433-456","locator":"Printed pp. 433-456","pdfPages":[453,476],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Lewis, pp. 213–214, explicitly rejects treating Asconius as proof that Pompey raised the census threshold. Enforcement of existing qualification and limits on discretionary selection are alternatives. “Highest census” does not supply a new numerical threshold."},{"id":"LR-pompeia-iudiciaria-debate","instrument":"pompeia-iudiciaria","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"Lewis, pp. 213–214, explicitly rejects treating Asconius as proof that Pompey raised the census threshold. Enforcement of existing qualification and limits on discretionary selection are alternatives. “Highest census” does not supply a new numerical threshold.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["Asconius, In Pisonem, p. 17 Clark (1907)","In L. Calpurnium Pisonem §94","Asconius, In Pisonianam, 17 C (comment on Piso 94)"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-405","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 405","locator":"Printed pp. 405","pdfPages":[420],"url":null},{"id":"LEW-35","source":"LEW","label":"R. G. Lewis, Asconius: Commentaries on Speeches of Cicero (2006), pp. 35","locator":"Printed pp. 35","pdfPages":[61],"url":null},{"id":"LEW-213-214","source":"LEW","label":"R. G. Lewis, Asconius: Commentaries on Speeches of Cicero (2006), pp. 213-214","locator":"Printed pp. 213-214","pdfPages":[239,240],"url":null},{"id":"G-433-456","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 433-456","locator":"Printed pp. 433-456","pdfPages":[453,476],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Lewis, pp. 213–214, explicitly rejects treating Asconius as proof that Pompey raised the census threshold. Enforcement of existing qualification and limits on discretionary selection are alternatives. “Highest census” does not supply a new numerical threshold."},{"id":"LR-clodia-capite-existence","instrument":"clodia-capite","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Dio 38.14.4 describes Clodius’ general measure against putting a citizen to death without trial. Velleius 2.45.1 likewise reports the rule’s general form and its practical direction against Cicero.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["Cassius Dio, Roman History 38.14.4–6; English translation E. Cary (1914), pp. 226–229"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-394-395","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 394-395","locator":"Printed pp. 394-395","pdfPages":[409,410],"url":null},{"id":"G-359-366","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 359-366","locator":"Printed pp. 359-366","pdfPages":[379,386],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The general wording does not itself decide the controversy about the Senate’s emergency authorization in 63. That is the contested legal and political background."},{"id":"LR-clodia-capite-dating","instrument":"clodia-capite","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"58 BCE is the tribunician setting. Dio’s account of proposal and the later named measure should be kept in sequence; an exact promulgation or voting day is not secured here.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["Cassius Dio, Roman History 38.14.4–6; English translation E. Cary (1914), pp. 226–229"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-394-395","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 394-395","locator":"Printed pp. 394-395","pdfPages":[409,410],"url":null},{"id":"G-359-366","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 359-366","locator":"Printed pp. 359-366","pdfPages":[379,386],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The general wording does not itself decide the controversy about the Senate’s emergency authorization in 63. That is the contested legal and political background."},{"id":"LR-clodia-capite-operation","instrument":"clodia-capite","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"The legal trigger is alleged killing of a citizen without trial, with interdiction as the reported sanction. The political target is Cicero’s handling of the Catilinarians in 63, but the initial form did not simply name him.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["Cassius Dio, Roman History 38.14.4–6; English translation E. Cary (1914), pp. 226–229"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-394-395","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 394-395","locator":"Printed pp. 394-395","pdfPages":[409,410],"url":null},{"id":"G-359-366","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 359-366","locator":"Printed pp. 359-366","pdfPages":[379,386],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The general wording does not itself decide the controversy about the Senate’s emergency authorization in 63. That is the contested legal and political background."},{"id":"LR-clodia-capite-transmission","instrument":"clodia-capite","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"The rule is mediated by later historical accounts and retrospective Ciceronian defence. No original plebiscite is reproduced. It is separate from both Gracchus’ earlier safeguard and the later named Clodian exile measure.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["Cassius Dio, Roman History 38.14.4–6; English translation E. Cary (1914), pp. 226–229"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-394-395","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 394-395","locator":"Printed pp. 394-395","pdfPages":[409,410],"url":null},{"id":"G-359-366","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 359-366","locator":"Printed pp. 359-366","pdfPages":[379,386],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The general wording does not itself decide the controversy about the Senate’s emergency authorization in 63. That is the contested legal and political background."},{"id":"LR-clodia-capite-debate","instrument":"clodia-capite","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"The general wording does not itself decide the controversy about the Senate’s emergency authorization in 63. That is the contested legal and political background.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["Cassius Dio, Roman History 38.14.4–6; English translation E. Cary (1914), pp. 226–229"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-394-395","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 394-395","locator":"Printed pp. 394-395","pdfPages":[409,410],"url":null},{"id":"G-359-366","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 359-366","locator":"Printed pp. 359-366","pdfPages":[379,386],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"The general wording does not itself decide the controversy about the Senate’s emergency authorization in 63. That is the contested legal and political background."},{"id":"LR-dolabella-sponsio-existence","instrument":"dolabella-sponsio","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Quinctio 30 reports Dolabella’s order requiring Quinctius to make a sponsio with Naevius on whether the property had been possessed for thirty days under Burrienus’ edict.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["Pro P. Quinctio §30"],"scholarship":[{"id":"G-531-541","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 531-541","locator":"Printed pp. 531-541","pdfPages":[551,561],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Cicero calls it novel and criticizes it, but that characterization does not independently establish nullity. Keep the order’s existence, the advocate’s objection and Greenidge’s reconstruction distinct."},{"id":"LR-dolabella-sponsio-dating","instrument":"dolabella-sponsio","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"The order precedes the hearing of 81 BCE. It belongs to the sequence of this dispute, not the initial creation of the edict or a general act of legislation.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["Pro P. Quinctio §30"],"scholarship":[{"id":"G-531-541","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 531-541","locator":"Printed pp. 531-541","pdfPages":[551,561],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Cicero calls it novel and criticizes it, but that characterization does not independently establish nullity. Keep the order’s existence, the advocate’s objection and Greenidge’s reconstruction distinct."},{"id":"LR-dolabella-sponsio-operation","instrument":"dolabella-sponsio","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"The order makes the lawfulness of the edictal possession a preliminary issue with consequences for security and reputation. Quinctius’ advisers object to exposing his standing through this formulation and ask for a more symmetrical arrangement.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["Pro P. Quinctio §30"],"scholarship":[{"id":"G-531-541","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 531-541","locator":"Printed pp. 531-541","pdfPages":[551,561],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Cicero calls it novel and criticizes it, but that characterization does not independently establish nullity. Keep the order’s existence, the advocate’s objection and Greenidge’s reconstruction distinct."},{"id":"LR-dolabella-sponsio-transmission","instrument":"dolabella-sponsio","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"Only Cicero’s report of the decree and reaction is available. This is an individual procedural decision, not a second general praetorian edict.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["Pro P. Quinctio §30"],"scholarship":[{"id":"G-531-541","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 531-541","locator":"Printed pp. 531-541","pdfPages":[551,561],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Cicero calls it novel and criticizes it, but that characterization does not independently establish nullity. Keep the order’s existence, the advocate’s objection and Greenidge’s reconstruction distinct."},{"id":"LR-dolabella-sponsio-debate","instrument":"dolabella-sponsio","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"Cicero calls it novel and criticizes it, but that characterization does not independently establish nullity. Keep the order’s existence, the advocate’s objection and Greenidge’s reconstruction distinct.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["Pro P. Quinctio §30"],"scholarship":[{"id":"G-531-541","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 531-541","locator":"Printed pp. 531-541","pdfPages":[551,561],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Cicero calls it novel and criticizes it, but that characterization does not independently establish nullity. Keep the order’s existence, the advocate’s objection and Greenidge’s reconstruction distinct."},{"id":"LR-senate-ambitus-existence","instrument":"senate-ambitus","dimension":"existence","title":"Existence & identification","text":"Murena 67 reports the Senate’s resolution on Cicero’s motion and lists paid attendance, paid following, tribe-wide seating and indiscriminate meals as conduct contrary to the Calpurnian law if done.","evidenceStatus":"Ancient attestation / identification","ancientReadingSet":["Pro L. Murena §67","Pro L. Murena §67","Pro L. Murena §67"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-374","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 374","locator":"Printed pp. 374","pdfPages":[389],"url":null},{"id":"G-424-425","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 424-425","locator":"Printed pp. 424-425","pdfPages":[444,445],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not label the resolution a new popular lex or read the enumeration as a factual finding of guilt against Murena. The distinction is the defence’s central procedural move."},{"id":"LR-senate-ambitus-dating","instrument":"senate-ambitus","dimension":"dating","title":"Dating argument","text":"63 BCE is the year of Cicero’s consulship and the Murena defence. The underlying Calpurnian statute dates to 67; the interpretive resolution is a later instrument.","evidenceStatus":"Chronological reconstruction; qualifications retained","ancientReadingSet":["Pro L. Murena §67","Pro L. Murena §67","Pro L. Murena §67"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-374","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 374","locator":"Printed pp. 374","pdfPages":[389],"url":null},{"id":"G-424-425","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 424-425","locator":"Printed pp. 424-425","pdfPages":[444,445],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not label the resolution a new popular lex or read the enumeration as a factual finding of guilt against Murena. The distinction is the defence’s central procedural move."},{"id":"LR-senate-ambitus-operation","instrument":"senate-ambitus","dimension":"operation","title":"Legal & procedural operation","text":"The conditional “if these things were done” separates legal characterization from factual proof. Cicero can endorse the Senate’s rule while arguing that Murena’s activities do not meet it.","evidenceStatus":"Interpretation of ancient testimony","ancientReadingSet":["Pro L. Murena §67","Pro L. Murena §67","Pro L. Murena §67"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-374","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 374","locator":"Printed pp. 374","pdfPages":[389],"url":null},{"id":"G-424-425","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 424-425","locator":"Printed pp. 424-425","pdfPages":[444,445],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not label the resolution a new popular lex or read the enumeration as a factual finding of guilt against Murena. The distinction is the defence’s central procedural move."},{"id":"LR-senate-ambitus-transmission","instrument":"senate-ambitus","dimension":"transmission","title":"Text & documentary survival","text":"A senatorial decision is embedded in a forensic account rather than preserved as an independently inscribed senatus consultum. The speech is nevertheless explicit about its nature and Cicero’s role.","evidenceStatus":"Transmission / documentary control","ancientReadingSet":["Pro L. Murena §67","Pro L. Murena §67","Pro L. Murena §67"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-374","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 374","locator":"Printed pp. 374","pdfPages":[389],"url":null},{"id":"G-424-425","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 424-425","locator":"Printed pp. 424-425","pdfPages":[444,445],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not label the resolution a new popular lex or read the enumeration as a factual finding of guilt against Murena. The distinction is the defence’s central procedural move."},{"id":"LR-senate-ambitus-debate","instrument":"senate-ambitus","dimension":"debate","title":"Disputes & limits","text":"Do not label the resolution a new popular lex or read the enumeration as a factual finding of guilt against Murena. The distinction is the defence’s central procedural move.","evidenceStatus":"Uncertainty / competing reconstruction","ancientReadingSet":["Pro L. Murena §67","Pro L. Murena §67","Pro L. Murena §67"],"scholarship":[{"id":"R-374","source":"R","label":"Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 374","locator":"Printed pp. 374","pdfPages":[389],"url":null},{"id":"G-424-425","source":"G","label":"A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 424-425","locator":"Printed pp. 424-425","pdfPages":[444,445],"url":"greenidge.html"}],"citationScope":"Exact loci named in the paragraph govern its claims; the attached reading set is instrument-level context, not independent corroboration of every statement.","limit":"Do not label the resolution a new popular lex or read the enumeration as a factual finding of guilt against Murena. The distinction is the defence’s central procedural move."}],"onlineSources":[{"id":"phi001","url":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/PerseusDL/canonical-latinLit/master/data/phi0474/phi001/phi0474.phi001.perseus-lat2.xml","local":"research/online/phi001.xml","sha256":"2f5edbc4193f200e6043c875d3145a7260279063f1ec1bad022c6122effc651f","bytes":84085,"retrieved":"2026-09-10","status":"retrieved","matchesPriorArchive":false,"bodyTextMatchesPriorArchive":true,"comparisonScope":"Whitespace-normalized body text, distinct from whole-file hash and XML header changes"},{"id":"phi002","url":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/PerseusDL/canonical-latinLit/master/data/phi0474/phi002/phi0474.phi002.perseus-lat2.xml","local":"research/online/phi002.xml","sha256":"562d840d45ef4734be44fd22bf808fe04827db230bdf85796cc4c76c48370afd","bytes":182051,"retrieved":"2026-09-10","status":"retrieved","matchesPriorArchive":false,"bodyTextMatchesPriorArchive":true,"comparisonScope":"Whitespace-normalized body text, distinct from whole-file hash and XML header changes"},{"id":"phi003","url":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/PerseusDL/canonical-latinLit/master/data/phi0474/phi003/phi0474.phi003.perseus-lat2.xml","local":"research/online/phi003.xml","sha256":"a27a6461e3fe7d288be49edf1aafdf497af6d840cab25256cb63c441201d71b9","bytes":50969,"retrieved":"2026-09-10","status":"retrieved","matchesPriorArchive":false,"bodyTextMatchesPriorArchive":true,"comparisonScope":"Whitespace-normalized body text, distinct from whole-file hash and XML header changes"},{"id":"phi004","url":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/PerseusDL/canonical-latinLit/master/data/phi0474/phi004/phi0474.phi004.perseus-lat2.xml","local":"research/online/phi004.xml","sha256":"38786c6be197bac877b523d548955b5a71ffecfb31a3ca8fd39ca8bac503b8fd","bytes":76745,"retrieved":"2026-09-10","status":"retrieved","matchesPriorArchive":false,"bodyTextMatchesPriorArchive":true,"comparisonScope":"Whitespace-normalized body text, distinct from whole-file hash and XML header changes"},{"id":"phi005","url":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/PerseusDL/canonical-latinLit/master/data/phi0474/phi005/phi0474.phi005.perseus-lat2.xml","local":"research/online/phi005.xml","sha256":"f4a0c6e02d357ba104d61d192194b1877cde0948507d30fb3398ffe73e9ccaa8","bytes":1320654,"retrieved":"2026-09-10","status":"retrieved","matchesPriorArchive":false,"bodyTextMatchesPriorArchive":true,"comparisonScope":"Whitespace-normalized body text, distinct from whole-file hash and XML header changes"},{"id":"phi006","url":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/PerseusDL/canonical-latinLit/master/data/phi0474/phi006/phi0474.phi006.perseus-lat2.xml","local":"research/online/phi006.xml","sha256":"446bbb6fa1a53e57a2d00e5f22ee54baf80ec7be770d72864a47514eff7f0a1d","bytes":50859,"retrieved":"2026-09-10","status":"retrieved","matchesPriorArchive":false,"bodyTextMatchesPriorArchive":true,"comparisonScope":"Whitespace-normalized body text, distinct from whole-file hash and XML header changes"},{"id":"phi007","url":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/PerseusDL/canonical-latinLit/master/data/phi0474/phi007/phi0474.phi007.perseus-lat2.xml","local":"research/online/phi007.xml","sha256":"84280a5c46056ac94c390ab10ec5b9194c197f74b82241d3a2c3114f74007f17","bytes":70962,"retrieved":"2026-09-10","status":"retrieved","matchesPriorArchive":false,"bodyTextMatchesPriorArchive":true,"comparisonScope":"Whitespace-normalized body text, distinct from whole-file hash and XML header changes"},{"id":"phi008","url":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/PerseusDL/canonical-latinLit/master/data/phi0474/phi008/phi0474.phi008.perseus-lat2.xml","local":"research/online/phi008.xml","sha256":"b12d67ff8e437307ff79ee782865556aad68e0a0ba521d80165ddabfd6a7e614","bytes":94205,"retrieved":"2026-09-10","status":"retrieved","matchesPriorArchive":false,"bodyTextMatchesPriorArchive":true,"comparisonScope":"Whitespace-normalized body text, distinct from whole-file hash and XML header changes"},{"id":"phi009","url":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/PerseusDL/canonical-latinLit/master/data/phi0474/phi009/phi0474.phi009.perseus-lat2.xml","local":"research/online/phi009.xml","sha256":"ce29597bc7146e962859f51bce83bbd1b0be1cafbe188f73b25e76aa8b0be4e2","bytes":103996,"retrieved":"2026-09-10","status":"retrieved","matchesPriorArchive":false,"bodyTextMatchesPriorArchive":true,"comparisonScope":"Whitespace-normalized body text, distinct from whole-file hash and XML header changes"},{"id":"phi010","url":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/PerseusDL/canonical-latinLit/master/data/phi0474/phi010/phi0474.phi010.perseus-lat2.xml","local":"research/online/phi010.xml","sha256":"7364381e80e57c2e84e8c5a0cc4735364acf63ff4d11d24c603b47ecb58fb849","bytes":331825,"retrieved":"2026-09-10","status":"retrieved","matchesPriorArchive":false,"bodyTextMatchesPriorArchive":true,"comparisonScope":"Whitespace-normalized body text, distinct from whole-file hash and XML header changes"},{"id":"phi011","url":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/PerseusDL/canonical-latinLit/master/data/phi0474/phi011/phi0474.phi011.perseus-lat2.xml","local":"research/online/phi011.xml","sha256":"934a8333081aed8fdafb99906fd63c9e80b7eed76dc6fc5dcaf67865632e108d","bytes":134986,"retrieved":"2026-09-10","status":"retrieved","matchesPriorArchive":false,"bodyTextMatchesPriorArchive":true,"comparisonScope":"Whitespace-normalized body text, distinct from whole-file hash and XML header changes"},{"id":"phi012","url":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/PerseusDL/canonical-latinLit/master/data/phi0474/phi012/phi0474.phi012.perseus-lat2.xml","local":"research/online/phi012.xml","sha256":"7fbe3841a92f5fe6d0a17359703662553796334c6a0204e9b3f1e484012eb201","bytes":38504,"retrieved":"2026-09-10","status":"retrieved","matchesPriorArchive":false,"bodyTextMatchesPriorArchive":true,"comparisonScope":"Whitespace-normalized body text, distinct from whole-file hash and XML header changes"},{"id":"phi013","url":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/PerseusDL/canonical-latinLit/master/data/phi0474/phi013/phi0474.phi013.perseus-lat2.xml","local":"research/online/phi013.xml","sha256":"344862f8157ac8c22a73da3b4d3a7f01b15d095ab270cd9fadf58f92dff7c8f3","bytes":175619,"retrieved":"2026-09-10","status":"retrieved","matchesPriorArchive":false,"bodyTextMatchesPriorArchive":true,"comparisonScope":"Whitespace-normalized body text, distinct from whole-file hash and XML header changes"},{"id":"phi014","url":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/PerseusDL/canonical-latinLit/master/data/phi0474/phi014/phi0474.phi014.perseus-lat2.xml","local":"research/online/phi014.xml","sha256":"c31b431d5f662de1d393e6fe8fec3caa2be5bd6a115bc6c4de0c48edd917a35a","bytes":155984,"retrieved":"2026-09-10","status":"retrieved","matchesPriorArchive":false,"bodyTextMatchesPriorArchive":true,"comparisonScope":"Whitespace-normalized body text, distinct from whole-file hash and XML header changes"},{"id":"phi015","url":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/PerseusDL/canonical-latinLit/master/data/phi0474/phi015/phi0474.phi015.perseus-lat2.xml","local":"research/online/phi015.xml","sha256":"06e3fad58b1f40a0bc6d74bc1e2d8a936f2a872d668cc826695c5fcf49a321db","bytes":146425,"retrieved":"2026-09-10","status":"retrieved","matchesPriorArchive":false,"bodyTextMatchesPriorArchive":true,"comparisonScope":"Whitespace-normalized body text, distinct from whole-file hash and XML header changes"},{"id":"phi016","url":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/PerseusDL/canonical-latinLit/master/data/phi0474/phi016/phi0474.phi016.perseus-lat2.xml","local":"research/online/phi016.xml","sha256":"da0003aec061860c824e8a83c2f7111be32416be438387b637cb8807f8346c3e","bytes":52899,"retrieved":"2026-09-10","status":"retrieved","matchesPriorArchive":false,"bodyTextMatchesPriorArchive":true,"comparisonScope":"Whitespace-normalized body text, distinct from whole-file hash and XML header changes"},{"id":"phi017","url":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/PerseusDL/canonical-latinLit/master/data/phi0474/phi017/phi0474.phi017.perseus-lat2.xml","local":"research/online/phi017.xml","sha256":"9e330c7865e23feb7ffea64d14fe53876d04f9b89b71baa886bd806fdb726107","bytes":105551,"retrieved":"2026-09-10","status":"retrieved","matchesPriorArchive":false,"bodyTextMatchesPriorArchive":true,"comparisonScope":"Whitespace-normalized body text, distinct from whole-file hash and XML header changes"},{"id":"phi018","url":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/PerseusDL/canonical-latinLit/master/data/phi0474/phi018/phi0474.phi018.perseus-lat2.xml","local":"research/online/phi018.xml","sha256":"d6b64ecb22f2ac9915c2e78969746973d36950182cfba7ef5e1faaf5ab808088","bytes":41606,"retrieved":"2026-09-10","status":"retrieved","matchesPriorArchive":false,"bodyTextMatchesPriorArchive":true,"comparisonScope":"Whitespace-normalized body text, distinct from whole-file hash and XML header changes"},{"id":"phi019","url":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/PerseusDL/canonical-latinLit/master/data/phi0474/phi019/phi0474.phi019.perseus-lat2.xml","local":"research/online/phi019.xml","sha256":"8743c180be6f2cadd41a90377092aa915b493268545a32a0998cfad6f58f5183","bytes":58308,"retrieved":"2026-09-10","status":"retrieved","matchesPriorArchive":false,"bodyTextMatchesPriorArchive":true,"comparisonScope":"Whitespace-normalized body text, distinct from whole-file hash and XML header changes"},{"id":"phi020","url":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/PerseusDL/canonical-latinLit/master/data/phi0474/phi020/phi0474.phi020.perseus-lat2.xml","local":"research/online/phi020.xml","sha256":"69cf6658972f2babd9ec36c6c46d3c92e1d6bf249f8afd9e0f62d5bb389872b7","bytes":200861,"retrieved":"2026-09-10","status":"retrieved","matchesPriorArchive":false,"bodyTextMatchesPriorArchive":true,"comparisonScope":"Whitespace-normalized body text, distinct from whole-file hash and XML header changes"},{"id":"phi021","url":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/PerseusDL/canonical-latinLit/master/data/phi0474/phi021/phi0474.phi021.perseus-lat2.xml","local":"research/online/phi021.xml","sha256":"2dfb79d35a6c7ba638276b771f94bb910c8d876b53c954fbd4e7b56325bfe2dd","bytes":92951,"retrieved":"2026-09-10","status":"retrieved","matchesPriorArchive":false,"bodyTextMatchesPriorArchive":true,"comparisonScope":"Whitespace-normalized body text, distinct from whole-file hash and XML header changes"},{"id":"phi022","url":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/PerseusDL/canonical-latinLit/master/data/phi0474/phi022/phi0474.phi022.perseus-lat2.xml","local":"research/online/phi022.xml","sha256":"8a9fcadf284ca01bf5c62ab193392f5ea0f095ca5a49e3929c2beb4445d0e622","bytes":226127,"retrieved":"2026-09-10","status":"retrieved","matchesPriorArchive":false,"bodyTextMatchesPriorArchive":true,"comparisonScope":"Whitespace-normalized body text, distinct from whole-file hash and XML header changes"},{"id":"phi023","url":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/PerseusDL/canonical-latinLit/master/data/phi0474/phi023/phi0474.phi023.perseus-lat2.xml","local":"research/online/phi023.xml","sha256":"63233c918fc6ff0da896705a8dd645d94c19ba1e0bd99e64f857ab345643c14d","bytes":62473,"retrieved":"2026-09-10","status":"retrieved","matchesPriorArchive":false,"bodyTextMatchesPriorArchive":true,"comparisonScope":"Whitespace-normalized body text, distinct from whole-file hash and XML header changes"},{"id":"phi024","url":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/PerseusDL/canonical-latinLit/master/data/phi0474/phi024/phi0474.phi024.perseus-lat2.xml","local":"research/online/phi024.xml","sha256":"d910979ec21532dee2513485ab2626dc57e85795a4cfb8f8122c1ee981ec7fd9","bytes":148389,"retrieved":"2026-09-10","status":"retrieved","matchesPriorArchive":false,"bodyTextMatchesPriorArchive":true,"comparisonScope":"Whitespace-normalized body text, distinct from whole-file hash and XML header changes"},{"id":"phi025","url":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/PerseusDL/canonical-latinLit/master/data/phi0474/phi025/phi0474.phi025.perseus-lat2.xml","local":"research/online/phi025.xml","sha256":"8e2b38ad4aa0c0351ee4fb2223aac64fd1b60f353b25f2f168826893a57c9b18","bytes":62787,"retrieved":"2026-09-10","status":"retrieved","matchesPriorArchive":false,"bodyTextMatchesPriorArchive":true,"comparisonScope":"Whitespace-normalized body text, distinct from whole-file hash and XML header changes"},{"id":"phi026","url":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/PerseusDL/canonical-latinLit/master/data/phi0474/phi026/phi0474.phi026.perseus-lat2.xml","local":"research/online/phi026.xml","sha256":"36f26ff83d7a2f334309714187431bf5dfc2a2a6f12154b716b77da4ff201041","bytes":101307,"retrieved":"2026-09-10","status":"retrieved","matchesPriorArchive":false,"bodyTextMatchesPriorArchive":true,"comparisonScope":"Whitespace-normalized body text, distinct from whole-file hash and XML header changes"},{"id":"phi027","url":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/PerseusDL/canonical-latinLit/master/data/phi0474/phi027/phi0474.phi027.perseus-lat2.xml","local":"research/online/phi027.xml","sha256":"5b05a5a66fd96ef608a87f20a76390988361188bfa902bc6fc33d051f0b75477","bytes":103493,"retrieved":"2026-09-10","status":"retrieved","matchesPriorArchive":false,"bodyTextMatchesPriorArchive":true,"comparisonScope":"Whitespace-normalized body text, distinct from whole-file hash and XML header changes"},{"id":"phi028","url":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/PerseusDL/canonical-latinLit/master/data/phi0474/phi028/phi0474.phi028.perseus-lat2.xml","local":"research/online/phi028.xml","sha256":"506bbbd820346001c69605c7502441346737cf6ea34a8459ee91f781dac574e4","bytes":174787,"retrieved":"2026-09-10","status":"retrieved","matchesPriorArchive":false,"bodyTextMatchesPriorArchive":true,"comparisonScope":"Whitespace-normalized body text, distinct from whole-file hash and XML header changes"},{"id":"phi029","url":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/PerseusDL/canonical-latinLit/master/data/phi0474/phi029/phi0474.phi029.perseus-lat2.xml","local":"research/online/phi029.xml","sha256":"d966cdd1ee5b7589a2eb17e0168dbeac04a41a27371fe677572936fef5991bc2","bytes":49873,"retrieved":"2026-09-10","status":"retrieved","matchesPriorArchive":false,"bodyTextMatchesPriorArchive":true,"comparisonScope":"Whitespace-normalized body text, distinct from whole-file hash and XML header changes"},{"id":"phi030","url":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/PerseusDL/canonical-latinLit/master/data/phi0474/phi030/phi0474.phi030.perseus-lat2.xml","local":"research/online/phi030.xml","sha256":"c4e148be165c093a5f920487bf11098cc8b5cf38ee9062b73271cbed83f5c896","bytes":43483,"retrieved":"2026-09-10","status":"retrieved","matchesPriorArchive":false,"bodyTextMatchesPriorArchive":true,"comparisonScope":"Whitespace-normalized body text, distinct from whole-file hash and XML header changes"},{"id":"phi031","url":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/PerseusDL/canonical-latinLit/master/data/phi0474/phi031/phi0474.phi031.perseus-lat2.xml","local":"research/online/phi031.xml","sha256":"37db813aa530c39710b732f782a9ebdbef8d4bd056563fa28f99ea05e686c8d1","bytes":164078,"retrieved":"2026-09-10","status":"retrieved","matchesPriorArchive":false,"bodyTextMatchesPriorArchive":false,"comparisonScope":"Whitespace-normalized body text, distinct from whole-file hash and XML header changes"},{"id":"phi032","url":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/PerseusDL/canonical-latinLit/master/data/phi0474/phi032/phi0474.phi032.perseus-lat2.xml","local":"research/online/phi032.xml","sha256":"ef887d02427f9eeb5342b4d6eca5a85e921d26d5f5e988763e4a8f3fa5fd645c","bytes":46370,"retrieved":"2026-09-10","status":"retrieved","matchesPriorArchive":false,"bodyTextMatchesPriorArchive":true,"comparisonScope":"Whitespace-normalized body text, distinct from whole-file hash and XML header changes"},{"id":"phi033","url":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/PerseusDL/canonical-latinLit/master/data/phi0474/phi033/phi0474.phi033.perseus-lat2.xml","local":"research/online/phi033.xml","sha256":"a996e58d19ad1891cdfa5190413166f7ba14fd22c62438af75f3c3f08d15933d","bytes":56110,"retrieved":"2026-09-10","status":"retrieved","matchesPriorArchive":false,"bodyTextMatchesPriorArchive":true,"comparisonScope":"Whitespace-normalized body text, distinct from whole-file hash and XML header changes"},{"id":"phi034","url":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/PerseusDL/canonical-latinLit/master/data/phi0474/phi034/phi0474.phi034.perseus-lat2.xml","local":"research/online/phi034.xml","sha256":"61dab01ae88af0ee32497d300bcefb5e57823c01404a3b312bd923091c001446","bytes":66021,"retrieved":"2026-09-10","status":"retrieved","matchesPriorArchive":false,"bodyTextMatchesPriorArchive":true,"comparisonScope":"Whitespace-normalized body text, distinct from whole-file hash and XML header changes"},{"id":"phi035","url":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/PerseusDL/canonical-latinLit/master/data/phi0474/phi035/phi0474.phi035.perseus-lat2.xml","local":"research/online/phi035.xml","sha256":"bae55ef4ade9b050e35f6811a3bdacc3fd187fbaf6a99e8347f9b9f74d38668d","bytes":705654,"retrieved":"2026-09-10","status":"retrieved","matchesPriorArchive":false,"bodyTextMatchesPriorArchive":false,"comparisonScope":"Whitespace-normalized body text, distinct from whole-file hash and XML header changes"},{"id":"asconius1","url":"https://www.attalus.org/latin/asconius1.html","local":"research/online/asconius1.html","sha256":"b66ed6105f54a5317be77ffd4c566c2f72691eafc7c78e38685dcff8637d034c","bytes":37285,"retrieved":"2026-09-10","status":"retrieved","matchesPriorArchive":null},{"id":"asconius2","url":"https://www.attalus.org/latin/asconius2.html","local":"research/online/asconius2.html","sha256":"4427441a5d0f86eb95203dce67dc4f3455ed494d60f639c2045ea8d16f425351","bytes":38379,"retrieved":"2026-09-10","status":"retrieved","matchesPriorArchive":null},{"id":"asconius3","url":"https://www.attalus.org/latin/asconius3.html","local":"research/online/asconius3.html","sha256":"28f1f90ceed6b43dd090694a993662c8b6c868e05e09c75ffd42213883e6159a","bytes":49364,"retrieved":"2026-09-10","status":"retrieved","matchesPriorArchive":null},{"id":"dubouloz2007","url":"https://www.julien-dubouloz.fr/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/19-londres-2004-article.pdf","local":"Julien Dubouloz, La juridiction du gouverneur provincial (2007)","sha256":"26f6db7651a2f0f21cdc6446ad0106264bfa456d3debc020075c72ef91acc614","bytes":2454611,"retrieved":"2026-09-10","status":"retrieved","matchesPriorArchive":null},{"id":"gaius3","url":"https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/gaius3.html","status":"failed","error":"465 Client Error:  for url: https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/gaius3.html"},{"id":"gaius2","url":"https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/gaius2.html","status":"failed","error":"465 Client Error:  for url: https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/gaius2.html"},{"id":"digest9","url":"https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/justinian/digest9.shtml","status":"failed","error":"465 Client Error:  for url: https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/justinian/digest9.shtml"},{"id":"dio38","url":"https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/38*.html","local":"research/online/dio38.html","sha256":"9b8782fd16f8c7a4a781e13845ec8ba3e7b80951f5ab0d13a78ac34e8209f2e5","bytes":122334,"retrieved":"2026-09-10","status":"retrieved","matchesPriorArchive":null}]}}