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
Perhaps the most difficult part of the famous inscription from Heraclea (around which so many controversies have raged) is the opening section of the extant text, where from a given form of procedure it is required to determine the subject matter. A solution of this puzzling problem, which I proposed some months ago, has recently been made the subject of an interesting article in this journal by Dr. E. G. Hardy. Mr. Hardy has long been engaged in this field, and has rendered much useful service. In this article, however, he seems to be interested in my views chiefly in their relation to his own theory. This is apparent in his agreements with me. For example, one aim of my study was to identify the professiones of Cicero's letters ad Att. xiii. 33, 1, and ad Fam. xvi. 23, 1, with those provided for in the first section of the inscription. It appeared that the returns mentioned by Cicero were registrations of property, that they were to be made yearly, and that they had their prototype in the annual property census of Egypt. It also seemed clear that Caesar's recensus populi of 46 was modelled on the Egyptian kατ' oίkíαm άπoγραφήiKíαν. With these preliminary conclusions (by no means unimportant in themselves) Mr. Hardy is not unwilling to agree. He even goes so far as to say that I have made a good case for ‘a new system of professiones somehow relating to property and introduced in 46.’ He thinks too that the settlement of the frumentations as a part of a more comprehensive legislative scheme (as my view implies) would be most appropriate. So far so good, but when it comes to the vital point of admitting a connection between these matters and vv. 1–19 of the Tablet he draws back as if from some fatal step.
page 38 note 1 Vv. 1–19, Bruns', Fontes, 7th ed., pp. 102–3Google Scholar. The inscription as a whole I regard as the extant portion of the lex Mia Municipalis, but of course this is not assumed in the argument without proof.
page 38 note 2 ‘The Professiones of the Heradean Tablet.’ Jour. Rom. Stud., vol. v. pp. 125–137 (1915)Google Scholar.
page 38 note 3 In the January number. Mr. Hardy's article came late to my notice. This circumstance, together with the pressure of other duties and the fact that California is at a considerable distance from London, has delayed my rejoinder unduly.
page 38 note 4 ‘O neglegentiam miram! semelne putas mihi dixisse Balbum et Faberium professionem relatam? qui etiam eorum iussu miserim qui profiteretur; ita enim oportere dicebant. professus est Philotimus libertus, nosti, credo librarium. sed scribes et quidem confectum.’
page 38 note 5 ‘Tu uero confice professionem si potes: etsi haec pecunia ex eo genere est ut professione nonegeat. uerum tamen!’
page 38 note 6 Suetonius Caes. 41: ‘Recensum populi nec more nec loco solito sed uiginti trecentisque milibus accipientium frumentum e publico ad centum quinquaginta retraxit: ac ne qui noui coetus recensionis causa moueri quandoque possent, instituit quotannis in demortuorum locum ex iis qui non recensi essent, subsortitio a praetore fieret.’
page 39 note 1 See the text in Bruns', Fontes, pp. 102–3 (7th ed.)Google Scholar.
page 39 note 2 v. 13.
page 39 note 3 Ling. Lat. vi. 90. Cf. v. 18: ‘quorum nomina h. l. ad cos. pr. tr. pl. in tabula in albo proposita erunt.’ Mr. Hardy's error infects his translation.
page 39 note 4 Varro, ibid. vi. 87.
page 39 note 5 I do not mean that this was the only kind of difficulty that would arise, but it seems to have been an old one, Compare the phrase censui censendo, and the case mentioned by Cicero in pro Flacco 79–80. See also Greenidge, , Legal Procedure, p. 182Google Scholar; Marquardt, , Staatverwaltung ii. p. 212Google Scholar sq. (French edition); and Naber, ‘de Iure Romano,’ Mnemosyne xxiv. 164.
page 39 note 6 Fam. xvi. 23, I.
page 39 note 7 Mr. Hardy is inclined to reproach me for thinking that participation in the free corn was so nearly universal, and yet (if I understand him) he identifies the accipientes with the total citizen population in Caesar's recensus.
page 40 note 1 Mon. Aneyr. iii. 15, 20: ‘Consul tertium decimum (23 B.C.) sexagenos denarios plebei, quae turn frumentum publicum accipiebat, dedi; ea millia hominum paullo plura quam duccenta fuerunt.’
page 40 note 2 Suetonius, Aug. 42, 10.
page 40 note 3 The recensus populi as originated by Caesar is certainly retained by Augustus (Suetonius, Aug. 40).
page 40 note 4 Suetonius, , Caes. 41Google Scholar.
page 40 note 5 Jour. Rom. Stud. iv. 71.
page 40 note 6 i. 44.
page 40 note 7 In the United States the military census, involving about ten million men, was taken in one day.
page 40 note 8 Caes. 41; Aug. 40.
page 41 note 1 ‘Une statistique de locaux affectés a l'habitation dans la Rome impériale,’ Memoires de l' Académic des inscriptions it belle-lettres (1915). A summary of this authoritative study is given by Magoffin, in the American Journal of Philology, 04, 1917Google Scholar. The words in the text are his.
page 41 note 2 See (e.g.) Six Roman Laws, pp. 166 sqq.
page 41 note 3 One of the few occurrences of this word is in a contract of sale in a Dacian triptich (CIL. iii. p. 947): ‘Conuenitque inter eos uti Veturius Valens pro ea domo usque ad recensum tributa dependat.’
page 41 note 4 xxxviii. 28, 2.
page 41 note 5 xliii. 16, 1.
page 42 note 1 xiii. 33, 1.
page 42 note 2 Shuckburgh (as I afterwards found) recognized the relation with sure insight. See a note in on Cic. Att. xiii. 33, 1, in his translation.
page 42 note 3 Fam. xvi. 23, 1.
page 42 note 4 Greenidge, Roman Public Life, p. 222: ‘All objects of property, corporeal or incorporeal, which constituted pecunia in the later sense of the word, were subject to valuation and taxation.’ I wish to call attention to the three following parallels of pecunia = property. Cic. de Leg. iii. 3, 7: ‘familias pecuniasque censento’ Livy 29, 37, 7 (where the twelve Latin colonies in 204 B.C. sent their census to Rome, showing): ‘quantum numero militum et quantum pecuniaualerent.’ Tab. v. 147: ‘et rationem pecuniaeex formula census…accipito.’ Thus pecunia is the technical word for property in relation to the census.
page 42 note 5 Note on Suetonius, Aug. 37, 4.
page 42 note 6 Ling. Lat. vi. 87.
page 43 note 1 Varro, ibid., vi. 86.
page 43 note 2 Jour. Rom. Stud. iv. 86.
page 43 note 3 Mr. Hardy makes much of the difficulty of posting the professi in the forum. Of a similar objection to Legras' hypothesis he speaks most softly. Merely for the convenience of my theory (and to save the trouble of answering literalminded critics) I could wish the provision had been omitted. With the provision had been omitted. With the help of a little imagination one might suppose that Caesar (having some other matters on hand at this time) determined the principle and left the details to subordinates. It was ingrained in Roman practice that a list of this character should be brought to the public notice. This precedent was followed by those who drafted the legislation, and who in carrying out the main idea did not inquire too closely whether the means were practicable. Our own laws are not always workable, and allowance should always be made for imperfect drafting.
page 44 note 1 The care of the streets before this had been a public charge. Cf. Cic. Leg. iii. 3, 7: ‘Censores…uias…tuento.’
page 44 note 2 Vv. 20–56.
page 44 note 3 Mitteis, , Grundzüge, ii. 90–112Google Scholar
page 44 note 4 Naber, , Obs. de Iure Romano, Mnemosyne, xxiv. 161Google Scholar.
page 44 note 5 Jour. Rom. Stud. iv. 85–87.
page 44 note 6 It seems clear that otherwise Caesar left the local census as he found it.
page 45 note 1 Ibid. p. 90.
page 45 note 2 Fam. vi. 18, 1.
