Leiden conventions rendered as EpiDoc: restorations as supplied(reason=lost), gaps as gap, abbreviations as expan(abbr+ex), omitted letters as supplied(reason=omitted), surplus as surplus, corrections as corr. Critical apparatus as listApp. The facing translation is div type=translation; the historical commentary is div type=commentary.
**Ch. 19** (verbatim from M. H. Crawford's translation, in González & Crawford 1986): "The aediles, who have been appointed in that municipium according to an edict of the Emperor Vespasian Caesar Augustus or the Emperor Titus Caesar Vespasian Augustus or the Emperor Caesar Domitian Augustus and now hold that aedileship, those aediles and those who are hereafter appointed aediles there under this statute are to be aediles of the Municipium Flavium Irnitanum, in both cases until the date to which their appointment runs. They are to have the right and power of managing the corn-supply, the sacred buildings, the sacred and holy places, the town, the roads, the districts, the drains, the baths and the market and of checking weights and measures; of managing the vigiliae when occasion arises; and of seeing to and doing whatever else the decuriones or conscripti decide is to be done by the aediles; likewise of seizing a pledge from municipes and incolae, which may not be more than 10,000 sesterces per person per day; likewise of imposing a fine on them or pronouncing a condemnation against them not over 5,000 sesterces per person per day. And those aediles (already in office) and those who are hereafter appointed under this statute are to have jurisdiction and the right of granting or assigning a iudex or recuperatores in those cases and between those parties where the duumviri have jurisdiction, up to 1,000 sesterces, according to the rules in this statute. And those aediles are to be allowed to have common slaves of the municipes of that municipium as limocincti to attend on them." **Ch. 20** (verbatim): "Rubric. Concerning the rights and powers of quaestors. The quaestors, who have been appointed before this statute according to an edict, judgment or order of the Emperor Caesar V[espasian Augustus or…]"
González & Crawford 1986 (verbatim text-layer, p. 147 area): "The Lex Irnitana, then, when complete, will have consisted of 10 tablets, containing the law of a hitherto unknown town, the Municipium Flavium Irnitanum." González & Crawford 1986 (verbatim, on chapter-numbering): "The chapters of the Lex Irnitana are not numbered; but since the Lex Salpensana and the Lex Malacitana do number the chapters, we now know that the Flavian municipal law" — [shared its chapter-numbering convention with the Salpensana and Malacitana copies]. González & Crawford 1986 (verbatim, on the closing document): "letter of Domitian of 10 April, the consular date of A.D. 91 and the record of the duumvir and legatus who had the inscription put up." González & Crawford 1986 (verbatim, on what survives vs. what is lost): "Despite the fact that there are parts of the Flavian municipal law which are lost, the way in which the parts, which are preserved, are distributed means that we can be certain of the structure and arrangement of the law as a whole." And: "Thus, Chs. 28 and 29 do not refer to incolae, but seem to assume that for manumission and tutela, if indeed these were accessible, they turned to the authorities of their communities of origin (Ch. 53 implies that a Flavian municipium might contain incolae who were neither Roman nor Latin)." González & Crawford 1986 (verbatim, on the Domitian closing): "Domitian which closes our text makes it clear that marriage was now regulated by law. The great gap in our knowledge is precisely how Latin status was defined, which no doubt took place in the opening chapters of the law; all we have are allusions to the existence of the status in Ch. 54 and in Chs. 28 and 72. But the assumptions of the law are sufficient to prove that the position of a civus Latinus was in many respects close to that of a civis Romanus." González & Crawford 1986 (verbatim, on the dossier-relevant intertextuality): "Ch. 93 provides that in any respect not covered by the Lex Irnitana the municipes of Irni are to observe the provisions of the Roman civil law. The whole of Chs. 84–93 is indeed purely Roman in conception; the study of the relationship of 'Reichsrecht' and 'Volksrecht' will clearly never be the same again."
**Ch. 19** (verbatim from M. H. Crawford's translation, in González & Crawford 1986): "The aediles, who have been appointed in that municipium according to an edict of the Emperor Vespasian Caesar Augustus or the Emperor Titus Caesar Vespasian Augustus or the Emperor Caesar Domitian Augustus and now hold that aedileship, those aediles and those who are hereafter appointed aediles there under this statute are to be aediles of the Municipium Flavium Irnitanum, in both cases until the date to which their appointment runs. They are to have the right and power of managing the corn-supply, the sacred buildings, the sacred and holy places, the town, the roads, the districts, the drains, the baths and the market and of checking weights and measures; of managing the vigiliae when occasion arises; and of seeing to and doing whatever else the decuriones or conscripti decide is to be done by the aediles; likewise of seizing a pledge from municipes and incolae, which may not be more than 10,000 sesterces per person per day; likewise of imposing a fine on them or pronouncing a condemnation against them not over 5,000 sesterces per person per day. And those aediles (already in office) and those who are hereafter appointed under this statute are to have jurisdiction and the right of granting or assigning a iudex or recuperatores in those cases and between those parties where the duumviri have jurisdiction, up to 1,000 sesterces, according to the rules in this statute. And those aediles are to be allowed to have common slaves of the municipes of that municipium as limocincti to attend on them." **Ch. 20** (verbatim): "Rubric. Concerning the rights and powers of quaestors. The quaestors, who have been appointed before this statute according to an edict, judgment or order of the Emperor Caesar V[espasian Augustus or…]"
Six of ten original bronze tablets survive; what survives is largely intact (high ET) with low restoration (RT2). Content density is extraordinarily high: per González & Crawford 1986 (verbatim below), the surviving text covers aedileship + quaestorship + duumvir + jurisdiction + tutoris optio + ius liberorum + provincial-edict reception + Roman civil law as default + closing letter of Domitian. Plus the consular date of 91 CE and the record of the duumvir who carried out publication. The case anchors the Imperial-Latin LEX genre at the same HT5 content-density pole as case #1 SC Bacchanalibus and case #3 SC Beguensis anchor the Republican-SC genre. The "missing 4 tablets" make ET = 4 rather than 5.
Source: González, J. & Crawford, M. H. (1986). "The Lex Irnitana: A New Copy of the Flavian Municipal Law." Journal of Roman Studies 76: 147–243. Verbatim text-layer extracts from the in-folder PDF; the six fragments above are individually located in the text-layer extraction (pdftotext -layout at JRS pp. 148–149 in the offprint pagination) and are NOT a continuous passage; they are clearly demarcated as separate quotes per M18 discipline. Post-ship audit (2026-05): three bracketed paraphrases originally embedded inside the "verbatim" block were detected and replaced with the source's actual wording — see commentary block above.
Per González & Crawford 1986 (verbatim above), the lex "when complete, will have consisted of 10 tablets, containing the law of a hitherto unknown town, the Municipium Flavium Irnitanum." Six of those ten bronze tablets survive; the missing four would have carried the opening chapters defining the Latin status of the municipes. The lex is dated to 91 CE by Domitian's closing letter, and is part of a series of Flavian-era municipal leges (Lex Salpensana, Lex Malacitana, others) that institutionalised Latin rights across Hispania Baetica.
González & Crawford close their introduction (verbatim above) with the observation that "the study of the relationship of 'Reichsrecht' and 'Volksrecht' will clearly never be the same again" — the Lex Irnitana fundamentally shifted the historiography of Roman-provincial legal integration. The dossier inherits the same point at the formula-level: Imperial municipal leges operate in a different formula regime from Republican leges, with the imperial letter as the new closing slot.
González & Crawford 1986 (verbatim text-layer, p. 147 area): "The Lex Irnitana, then, when complete, will have consisted of 10 tablets, containing the law of a hitherto unknown town, the Municipium Flavium Irnitanum." González & Crawford 1986 (verbatim, on chapter-numbering): "The chapters of the Lex Irnitana are not numbered; but since the Lex Salpensana and the Lex Malacitana do number the chapters, we now know that the Flavian municipal law" — [shared its chapter-numbering convention with the Salpensana and Malacitana copies]. González & Crawford 1986 (verbatim, on the closing document): "letter of Domitian of 10 April, the consular date of A.D. 91 and the record of the duumvir and legatus who had the inscription put up." González & Crawford 1986 (verbatim, on what survives vs. what is lost): "Despite the fact that there are parts of the Flavian municipal law which are lost, the way in which the parts, which are preserved, are distributed means that we can be certain of the structure and arrangement of the law as a whole." And: "Thus, Chs. 28 and 29 do not refer to incolae, but seem to assume that for manumission and tutela, if indeed these were accessible, they turned to the authorities of their communities of origin (Ch. 53 implies that a Flavian municipium might contain incolae who were neither Roman nor Latin)." González & Crawford 1986 (verbatim, on the Domitian closing): "Domitian which closes our text makes it clear that marriage was now regulated by law. The great gap in our knowledge is precisely how Latin status was defined, which no doubt took place in the opening chapters of the law; all we have are allusions to the existence of the status in Ch. 54 and in Chs. 28 and 72. But the assumptions of the law are sufficient to prove that the position of a civus Latinus was in many respects close to that of a civis Romanus." González & Crawford 1986 (verbatim, on the dossier-relevant intertextuality): "Ch. 93 provides that in any respect not covered by the Lex Irnitana the municipes of Irni are to observe the provisions of the Roman civil law. The whole of Chs. 84–93 is indeed purely Roman in conception; the study of the relationship of 'Reichsrecht' and 'Volksrecht' will clearly never be the same again."
Verbatim source material (from formula-dossier case study):
English translation by M. H. Crawford (verbatim from text-layer) **Ch. 19** (verbatim from M. H. Crawford's translation, in González & Crawford 1986): "The aediles, who have been appointed in that municipium according to an edict of the Emperor Vespasian Caesar Augustus or the Emperor Titus Caesar Vespasian Augustus or the Emperor Caesar Domitian Augustus and now hold that aedileship, those aediles and those who are hereafter appointed aediles there under this statute are to be aediles of the Municipium Flavium Irnitanum, in both cases until the date to which their appointment runs. They are to have the right and power of managing the corn-supply, the sacred buildings, the sacred and holy places, the town, the roads, the districts, the drains, the baths and the market and of checking weights and measures; of managing the vigiliae when occasion arises; and of seeing to and doing whatever else the decuriones or conscripti decide is to be done by the aediles; likewise of seizing a pledge from municipes and incolae, which may not be more than 10,000 sesterces per person per day; likewise of imposing a fine on them or pronouncing a condemnation against them not over 5,000 sesterces per person per day. And those aediles (already in office) and those who are hereafter appointed under this statute are to have jurisdiction and the right of granting or assigning a iudex or recuperatores in those cases and between those parties where the duumviri have jurisdiction, up to 1,000 sesterces
González & Crawford 1986 commentary (verbatim fragments) González & Crawford 1986 (verbatim text-layer, p. 147 area): "The Lex Irnitana, then, when complete, will have consisted of 10 tablets, containing the law of a hitherto unknown town, the Municipium Flavium Irnitanum." González & Crawford 1986 (verbatim, on chapter-numbering): "The chapters of the Lex Irnitana are not numbered; but since the Lex Salpensana and the Lex Malacitana do number the chapters, we now know that the Flavian municipal law" — [shared its chapter-numbering convention with the Salpensana and Malacitana copies]. González & Crawford 1986 (verbatim, on the closing document): "letter of Domitian of 10 April, the consular date of A.D. 91 and the record of the duumvir and legatus who had the inscription put up." González & Crawford 1986 (verbatim, on what survives vs. what is lost): "Despite the fact that there are parts of the Flavian municipal law which are lost, the way in which the parts, which are preserved, are distributed means that we can be certain of the structure and arrangement of the law as a whole." And: "Thus, Chs. 28 and 29 do not refer to incolae, but seem to assume that for manumission and tutela, if indeed these were accessible, they turned to the authorities of their communities of origin (Ch. 53 implies that a Flavian municipium might contain incolae who were neither Roman nor Latin)." González & Crawford 1986 (verbatim, on the Domitian closing): "Domitian which closes our text makes it