We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Cicero, after a discussion of the value of Cornelius' bill about privilegia, is clearly here dealing with the bill, ‘ut praetores ex edictis suis perpetuis ius dicerent’ (cf. Asconius, 59 C). The pluperfect subjunctives suggest that he is arguing that notorious unjust judgements of previous years would not have happened, if Cornelius' bill had been then in force.
Cicero, after a discussion of the value of Cornelius' bill about privilegia,' is clearly here dealing with the bill, ‘ut praetores ex edictis suis perpetuis ius dicerent’ (cf. Asconius, 59 C). The pluperfect subjunctives suggest that he is arguing that notorious unjust judgements of previous years would not have happened, if Cornelius' bill had been then in force.
1 Frs. 32–6 (Schoell, Puccioni); Asc. 72–4 C, cf. 57–9 C; Dio 36.39, on which see now Griffin, M., JRS 63 (1973), 196 ff.Google Scholar
2 Cf. Asc. 59 C; Dio 36.40.1–2. Evidence of Verres' disregard of his urban and provincial edict may be found in Verr. 2.1.119; 2.2.90.
3 Muted strictures on Dolabella's partiality and lack of legal acumen in Cic, . Quinct. 30–1.Google Scholar
4 CIL I2.ii.589.Google Scholar
5 ‘Les Discours égarés de Cicéron pro Cornelio’, Mededelingen v.d. Koninkl. Vlaamse Acad, van Belgie xxxii, no. 4, 1970, p. 24.Google Scholar
6 RE Caecilius, no. 99, invoked by Cicero also in Rosc. Am. 77, Verr. 4.79 ff. Cf. Münzer, , Römische Adelsparteien, pp. 314 ff.Google Scholar
7 The last clause or something very similar must clearly be supplemented in Quinct. 60.
8 Cf. Cic, Verr. 2.1.114; 117. On these passages see Watson, A., Law of Succession in later Roman Republic, pp. 71 ff.Google Scholar For the general phraseology used to describe the praetor's action, cf. Fam. 7.21–‘si bonorum Turpiliae possessionem Q. Caepio praetor ex edicto suo mihi dedit’, where it is argued that this phrase did not apply if the praetor had acted improperly. It is possible that Scipio was requesting bonorum possessio secundum tabulas (Verr. 2.1.117) but Cicero does not say that Sisenna disregarded the tabulae as well as his edict.
9 Cf. Cic. Verr. 2.1.114; Gaius 2.119 ff.
10 Cf. Gaius 3.39 ff.; Dig. 38.2.1.2 on which see Watson, , Law of Succession, pp. 185 ff.,Google ScholarLaw of Persons, pp. 232 ff.Google Scholar
11 Gaius 3.41; Cic. Verr. 2.1.125 ff. Gaius merely shows that this innovation was in the praetor's edict before the lex Papia Poppaea. Watson, cited in note 10, has argued that the Cicero passage shows that the rights of patrons and their families under the XII tables had been reformed under the edict by 75 B.C., so that women (without special aid from Verres) could not inherit through the patron. The innovation by which the patron and his male descendants had a right to half the property against all but the freedman's natural children was also probably in force. Watson's basic conclusions are accepted by Treggiari, S., Roman Freedmen during the late Republic, pp. 78 f.Google Scholar
