Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
Johnston, David
2015.
The Cambridge Companion to Roman Law.
Article contents
The Xenokritai in Babatha's Archive: (Pap. Yadin 28 - 30)
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 July 2014
Extract
Babatha had a dispute with the guardians of Jesus, her son (from her first marriage). We do not know the reasons for this dispute, however, she seems to have been interested in the formula by which, under Roman law, the tutor could be called upon to account for the loss that the ward had suffered. Hence, we can find three nearly identical Greek translations of the actio tutelae in her archive (about 124/25 A.D.). Here we will only examine the appointment of the judges. The text of Pap. Yadin 28 1.1–4 runs as follows:
These lines were translated in the standard edition of the Babatha archive by N. Lewis in this manner:
Between a plaintiff X son of Y and a defendant A for up to 2,500 denarii there shall be (local?) judges.
Lewis does not comment on his (cautious) translation of xenokritai as “local judges”. Presumably, however, it reflects the opinion of the first editor, H. J. Polotsky, that the xenokritai are non-Roman judges (iudices peregrini). Consequently, the Latin version should have been as follows:
. . . . . . dumtaxat denarium MMD iudices peregrini sunto.
- Type
- Ancient and Jewish Law
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1995
References
1 The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters. (Greek Papyri, Jerusalem, 1989) 118 ff.; cf. SB 10288. The problems of taxatio shall not be discussed here; cf. D. Nörr, (1995) 112 ZSS 51 ff. Remarkable is the mention of the parties in the datio (iudicis); cf. Gai. inst. 4.35 ff. On problems of guardianship see recently Cotton, H., (1993) 83 JRS 94 ff.Google Scholar; Chiusi, T., (1994) 111 ZSS 178 ff.Google Scholar with literature. On “Römisches Provinzialrecht in der Provinz Arabia” cf. the still fundamental article of Wolff, H. J., “Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welf” (ANRW) II 15, (1980) 763 ff.Google Scholar (published as separatum 1972).
2 Cf. Gai. inst. 4.43, 51.
3 Cicero's use of peregrini iudices in ad Att. 6.1.15 (cf. also 6.2.4) is just as untechnical as the expression urbanus praetor (in contrast to praetor urbanus); cf. the mentioning of a femina peregrini iuris in the military diploma (a. 85) published by Roxan, M. and Eck, W., (1993) 93 ZPE 67 ff.Google Scholar Cicero might have thought that non-Roman (peregrini) judges were judging between Greeks — while the constitution of the jury was left to the local law. This text may be left aside, cf. recently Peppe, L., (1991) 32 Labeo 14 ff. (mit Lit.).Google Scholar
4 Corpus Glossatorum Latinorum III 336, 44; cf. also 528, 5.
5 See e.g. Aristoteles, Politics 1300 b; Kl. Pauly — Wissowa s.v. xenodikai.
6 Cf. e.g. IK 21 (Stratonikeia I) n. 229 a and b. On the metapempta dikasteria cf. Robert, L., Xenion. Festschrift P. J. Zepos, (1973) 765 ff.Google Scholar; Marshall, A. J., ANRW II 13, (1980) 626 ff.Google ScholarBiscardi, A. (cf. especially Studi G. Scherillo I, 1972, 111 ff.)Google Scholar interpreted the xenokritai of Pap. Yadin 28 ff. in this way. Even if one does not follow his opinion (cf. already H. J. Wolff (supra n. 1), 805 f.), his thorough studies are still important — as xenokritai in another context may in fact be “judges from abroad”.
7 Cf. infra IV.
8 Cf. already P. J. Parsons, Pap. Oxy XLII (1974), n. 3016; Wittmann, R., (1976) 93 ZSS 482 n. 7Google Scholar; Talamanca, M., (1979) 82 BIDR 274 f.Google Scholar; Nörr, D., (1982) 99 ZSS 473.Google Scholar
9 A useful summary of the discussion on recuperatores till 1967 can be found in G. Pugliese, NNDI 14, 1076 ff. The discovery of the lex Irnitano, newly stimulated the discussion, cf. Simshäuser, W., (1982) 109 ZSS 189 f.Google Scholar, Lamberti, F., Tabulae Irnitanae, (1993) 177 f.Google Scholar (with further literature).
10 (1974) 64 JRS 195 ff.; lastly Pohl, H., Die römische Politik und die Piraterie im östlichen Mittelmeerraum (1993) 216 ff.Google Scholar A new edition can be found in W. Blümel, IK 41 (Inschriften von Knidos I), 1992 n. 32. Above all, the revision of col. V, containing the provisions on a lawsuit before recuperatores in Rome, is important (cf. Lintott, A., (1990) 68 RHD 1 ff.).Google Scholar The recuperatores are seemingly referred to as xenokritai here.
11 FIRA 18 (lex agraria) line 35. Further evidence in Blümel (supra n. 10) and Kaser, M., Römisches Zivilprozeßrecht (RZP) (1966) 217Google Scholar n. 13. - Instead of kreinein one would expect kreiseis.
12 As to the plural apophaseis see Nörr, supra n. 1, at 85.
13 On this cf. Wolff, H. J., (1975) 92 ZSS 273Google Scholar; Modrzejewski, J., (1975) 53 RHD 109Google Scholar; Volterra, E., (1975) 26 Iura 191 f.Google Scholar A different opinion in Biscardi, A., Festschrift, E. Seidl, (1975) 15 ff.Google Scholar (see also (1981) 27 Labeo 331 ff.); on this opinion cf. M. Talamanca, (supra n. 8). Cf. also Katzoff, R., ANRW II 13, (1980) 841.Google Scholar
14 Cf. infra IV.
15 BGU II 611; cf. the edition of Girard II, 7th ed., n. VI 11 with literature.
16 On these texts cf. Biscardi's article, supra n. 6.
17 Cf. now Nörr, D., “Zu den Xenokriten in TAM II 2 Nr. 508 (Pinara)”, in Rom und der Griechische Osten (Festschrift H. H. Schmitt) (1995) 187 ff.Google Scholar
18 Cf. the evidence of Marshall (supra n. 6), 652.
19 See the 1st edict of Cyrene (FIRA I n. 68); Cic. Verr. II 2.17.41; further evidence in Wieacker, F., Römische Rechtsgeschichte (RG) I, (1988) 485 n. 36.Google Scholar
20 Dessau 6286, 7789; Didyma 272 (see L. Robert, Gnomon 31 (1959) 665).
21 Cf. only Simshäuser (supra n. 9), 189 ff.
22 On such expenses at the time of the conventus cf. Burton, G. P., (1975) 65 JRS 98.Google Scholar
23 On Athens cf. recently Todd, S. C., The Shape of Athenian Law, (1993) 82 ff.Google Scholar, 123 ff. On the expression diken lanchanein ib. 125; cf. the evidence in Liddell-Scott s. v. lanchano I 2 and Cic. in Verr. II 2.15.37 f. (dicam sortiri; cf. Käser, , RZP, 374).Google Scholar
24 On this inscription cf. Spawforth, A. J.-Walker, S., (1986) 76 JRS 88 ff.Google Scholar
25 See supra n. 6, at 121 f.
26 Cf. Lesky, A., Geschichte der griechischen Literatur, (3rd ed., 1973) 95 ff.Google Scholar
27 On the historical background see Bowersock, G. W., Roman Arabia, (1983) 76 ff.Google Scholar On the provincial edict cf. the summary of Wieacker, RG I 483 ff.; cf. also Martini, R., Ricerche in tema di editto provinciale, (1969)Google Scholar; Peppe, L., (1991) 32 Labeo 14 ff.Google Scholar; further literature in Bretone, M., Storia del diritto romano, (2nd ed., 1987) 442 f.Google ScholarCf. also lex Irnitana c. 85.
28 Cf. Lenel, O., Edictum Perpetuum, (3rd ed., 1927) 318 f.Google Scholar; the clausula qua de re agitur is missing (cf. also Gai. inst. 4.47). On recuperatores sunto cf. Gai. inst. 4.46.
29 An original formula (of the condictio) is preserved, too, in the archive of the Sulpicii (tab. Pomp. 34; cf. Camodeca, G., L'archivio puteolano dei Sulpicii I, (1992) 171 n. 23)Google Scholar; M.Lemosse, (1969) 47 RHD 291 ff.; J.G.Wolf, (1979) 45 SDHI 141 ff.
30 Cf. supra n. 3. The recuperatores of Pap. Yadin 28 ff. not being a municipal court it is not necessary to discuss the theses of Rodger, A. on the competence of this court ((1991) 81 JRS 87 ff.Google Scholar; cf. also P. Birks, (1988) 47 Cambridge Law Journal 59 f.) in detail. But contending a special competence of the recuperatores for cases involving higher values, the taxatio of the formula should not be left aside.
31 Cf. once more Cic. ad Att. 6.1.15.
32 See only Bowersock (supra n. 27), 84 ff., 121.
33 lex Irnitana c;. 84. According to frag. Atestinum (FIRA 120) the parties can agree upon the municipal jurisdiction in a case of actio tutelae up to a value of 10000 sesterces.
34 arg. Gai. inst. 1.20.
35 Cf. Gai. inst. 4.105, 109; see also Cic. Verr. II.2.13.32 ff.
36 Cf. only the 1st and 4th edict from Cyrene (FIRA I 68) and Mod.X.27.1.6.8 (Krinein). As to the decurial iudicum cf. Sherwin-White, A.N., The Roman Citizenship (2nd ed., 1973) 250 n. 1.Google Scholar On the possible pre-selection of the judges in poleis see Veyne, P., (1985) 59 Rev. Phil. 21 ff.Google Scholar; (1989) 63, 194. On the panels of judges see recently Haensch, R., (1992) 109ZSS 278 f.Google Scholar The question whether the governor established “local courts” by datio iudicis (iudicum) must be separated as well from the autonomous jurisdiction and the use of peregrines as iudices dati; cf. Cic. in Verr. II 2.13.32 ff., and Marshall's arguments (supra n. 6), 654 ff.
37 Cf. the evidence in Kaser, , (1964) 81 ZSS 386Google Scholar; Wieacker, RG I 485 n. 36.
38 Cf. the peregrini recuperatores in Theophilos' paraphrase of the Institutes 1.6.4, quasi a hybrid of xenokritai and recuperatores.
39 Cf. only Lenel (supra n. 28), 26, 397 n. 10. Cf. Paul. D. 5.1.12; 42.1.38; Ulp. D. 40.2.16 pr.; CJ 7.1.1 (a. 211).
40 Cf. e.g. Kaser, , (1964) 81 ZSS 388 n. 42Google Scholar; Pugliese, G., Il processo civile romano II 1, (1963) 195 n. 102.Google Scholar An example is Cic. Verr. II 5.29.70.
41 With the exception of Pap. Oxy. XLII 3016, there is seemingly no evidence for (the possible special case of) Egypt; cf. Anagnostou-Cañas, V., Juge et sentence dans l'Égypte romaine. Thèse (Paris, 1982).Google Scholar
42 With regard to Pap. Yadin 28 ff. it would perhaps be useful to reconsider (partly) the arguments of Johnston, D., (1987) 77 JRS 67 ff.Google Scholar
43 Cf. e.g. lex Urs. (FIRA I 21) c. 95.
44 See supra III, at n. 14.
45 Cf. the evidence in Kaser, , RZP, 144 n. 68.Google Scholar
46 Cic. Verr. II 2.13.32 f.; 2.15.38 ff.; 2.17.41 ff. On the procedural law of the Verrnes see e.g. Mellano, L. D., Sui rapporti tra governatore provinciale e giudici locali alla luce delle Verrine, (1977).Google Scholar Further details (especially with regard to the criminal procedure) in Maggio, L., (1993) 39 babeo 238 ff.Google Scholar and in Scuderi, R., Rend. Mor. Atti Ace. Lincei, S. 9/V (1994), 119 ff.Google Scholar
47 The much discussed other aspects of the disputes between Hermippos and Heracleides shall be left aside; cf. only Kaser, , (1977) 94 ZSS 128 n. 104Google Scholar; Benöhr, H.-P., (1990) 107 ZSS 216 ff.Google Scholar (both with further details). According to Schmidlin, B., Das Rekuperatorenverfahren, (1963) 53 ff.Google Scholar, 69 n. 6 the recuperatores were acting in a special function (consequences of an ignored in ius vocatio). This interpretation cannot be excluded; contra cf. Kaser, , (1964) 81 ZSS 386.Google Scholar The existence of an acrto mandati contraria is suggested by Mucius in Cels. D. 17.1.48 pr.; cf. also Cic. de off. 3.70. Cf. now Nörr, “Sulle specificità del mandato romano”, SDHI (in print).
48 See once more Cic. ad Att. 6.1.15.
49 For the provincials the reference to the 1st edict of Cyrene may suffice.
50 Cf. only lex Irnitana c. 85, 89, 91. On the problem see some remarks of Crawford, M. in: Estudios sobre la tabula Siarensis (González, J., Arce, J., eds.) (1988) 127 ff.Google Scholar; Lamberti (supra n. 9), 251 ff.; Nörr, D., Rechtskritik in der römischen Antike, Abh. Bay. Ak. d. W. (1974) 149 ff.Google Scholar
51 Cf. the evidence in Kaser, M., Römische Rechtsquellen und angewandte Juristenmethode, (1986) 60 ff.Google Scholar (from Festschrift F. Schwind, 1978, 115 ff.).
52 Cf. only Labeo in Paul. D. 22.6.9.3 on the copia iuris consulti; on this topic Winkel, L., Error iuris nocet: Rechtsirrtum als Problem der Rechtsordnung, (1985) 60 ff.Google Scholar
53 On them cf. Kunkel, W., Herkunft und soziale Stellung der römischen Juristen, (2nd ed., 1967) 354 ff.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by