{"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}],"instruments":[{"id":"burrienus","label":"Praetorian edict invoked under P. Burrienus","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","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","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","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","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”","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","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","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)","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","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","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","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","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","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","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","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)","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","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","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","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","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","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","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","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","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","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","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","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","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","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","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","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","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","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","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)","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)","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","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","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","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","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","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","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","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)","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","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","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","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","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","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."}]}}]}