Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Giuridiche e

Rivista Internazionale d
dii S
Scienze
cienze G
Giuridiche
iuridiche e Tradizione Romana
Anno XII - 2
2013
01
13 - Quad
Quaderno
der
e no N
N.. 1
11
1 - Nu
N
Nuova
ova
a Se
S
Serie
rie - ISSN
S 1
SN
1825-0300
8 5-0300
82
DIRETTORE:
DIRE
ETTOR
ORE:
E:: F
Francesco
ranc
ra
anc
n es
esco
co
o Sini
DIREZIONE:
Omar
Chessa
D’Orsogna
DIREZION
NE: Oma
ar Che
Ch
hes
essa - Maria
Mar
a ia Rosa
ar
Ros
osa
a Cimma
C mma
Ci
a - Michele
M ch
Mi
chel
ele
el
e Maria Comenale
C me
Co
m na
n le
e Pinto
Pinto
o - Domenico
Domen
enic
en
i o D’
D
’Or
O sogna
Gian Pao
Paolo
Demuro
Giovanni
Lobrano
Attilio
Mastino
Pietro
Pinna
Antonio
Giovanni
Maria
olo
o Dem
e uro - Gi
em
G
o an
ov
nni
n L
obra
ano - At
A
tilio Ma
Mast
stin
ino
o - Pi
P
etro
oP
in
nna
n - An
A
toni
n o Serra - Gi
ni
G
ovan
nni M
a ia Uda
ar
ENTRA
E
NTRA
ARCHIVIO
AR
RCH
CHIV
IV
VIO
O
STATISTICHE
S
TATI
TA
A IST
S IC
CHE
E
ON
DAL
GENNAIO
QUADERNO
11
O LINE
LIN
NE DA
AL 15
5G
EN
NNA
AIO
O 2014 IL
I Q
UADE
D RN
NO N. 1
1 [2013]
3]
3]
©2
2013
013 www.dirittoestoria.it
www.d
dirittoestoria.it
Quaderno edito con il contributo di:
DIPARTIMENTO
DI
IPARTI
ART MENTO
AR
O DI
D GIU
GIURISPRUDENZA
IURI
U ISP
SPRU
RUDE
DENZA
E A
Reg. Trib. di Sassari N. 217 del 3-2-2004
Memorie
Ivs Antiqvvm - Древнее право
Seminario di Diritto Romano
Tradizione Romana
Contributi
REDAZIONE
D & Innovazione
della NUOVA SERIE
Note & Rassegne
redazione@dirittoestoria.it
Monografie
Cronache
Notizie
Direttore responsabile: Francesco Sini
In Memoriam
Autori
Comitato di direzione: Omar Chessa - Maria Rosa Cimma - Michele M. Comenale Pinto - Domenico
Redazione
Giovanni Maria Uda
D'Orsogna - Gian Paolo Demuro - Giovanni Lobrano - Attilio Mastino - Pietro Pinna - Antonio Serra -
Archivio
Links
Search
Corrispondenti stranieri: Ivan A. Biliarsky (Sofia) – Maria das Graças Pinto de Britto (Pelotas) – Ricardo
Combellas (Caracas) – Fei Anling (Pechino) – Leonid L. Kofanov (Mosca) – Ija L. Majak (Mosca) – Antun
Malenica (Novi Sad) – Esperanza Osaba (Bilbao) – †Costantinos G. Pitsakis (Komotini) – Anton
D. Rudokvas (San Pietroburgo) – Teodor Sambrian (Craiova) – Bronislaw W. Sitek (Olsztyn) – Evgenji
A. Sukhanov (Mosca) – Xu Guodong (Xiamen)
Segreteria di redazione: Cristiana M.A. Rinolfi – Antonio Ibba (coordinamento) – Adriana Muroni
(informatica) – Stefania Fusco – Anam. Martin Garcia – Ursula Mariani – Isabella Mastino
Diritto @ Storia si avvale di molteplici modalità e strumenti della comunicazione multimediale (ipertesti, video, audio
etc.); tali strumenti possono essere proposti ed usati dagli autori per i loro contributi e per le loro segnalazioni.
Continuando la "politica editoriale" di Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities, tutti i file pubblicati online in Diritto @ Storia, siano essi ipertesti in formato html, o video o audio, saranno accessibili gratuitamente in
edizione integrale, senza alcuna restrizione, né registrazione preventiva.
Quaderno edito con il contributo di:
Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Reg Trib. di Sassari N. 217 del 3-2-2004
http://www.dirittoestoria.it/11/redazione.htm
Memorie
Ivs Antiqvvm - Дре внее право
Seminario di Diritto Romano
Tradizione Romana
Co ntributi
D & Inno vazione
TRADIZIONE ROMANA
Per la pubblicazione degli articoli della sezione “Tradizione Romana” si è applicato, in maniera rigorosa, il procedimento di
peer review. Ogni articolo è stato valutato positivamente da due referees, che hanno operato con il sistema del double-blind.
Note & Rassegne
Mono grafie
Cro nache
Notizie
In Memo riam
Auto ri
Sacra
Re dazione
Archivio
FRANCISCO CUENA BOY – Universidad de Cantabria
Links
Ne funestentur sacra civitatis, ne sanctum municipiorum ius polluatur. Una
reflexión sobre el posible alcance público de la contaminación causada por el
Search
contacto con la muerte
CRISTIANA M.A. RINOLFI – Università di Sassari
Il giuramento dei chierici fra diritto romano e diritto canonico
Responsibility of Municipal Clerks
BRONISŁAW SITEK – Warmińsko-Mazurski University in Olsztyn
Law and Administration Faculty
Responsibility of municipal clerks in Roman law by virtue of improper disposal of
public financial resources on the example of corn trade
Edicta
STEFANIA FUSCO – Università di Sassari
Studi sull’iniuria: l’edictum de convicio
ANNA TARWACKA – University Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński in Warsaw
Faculty of Law and Administration
Cascellius and the Aedilician Edict on Throwing Fruit into the Arena
ANNA TARWACKA – Uniwersytet Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego w Warszawie,
Wydział Prawa i Administracji
Cascellius i edykt edylów o rzucaniu owoców na arenę
Libertas
ADRIANA MURONI – Università di Sassari
Sull'origine della libertas in Roma antica: storiografia annalistica ed elaborazioni
giurisprudenziali
http://www.dirittoestoria.it/11/tradizione.htm
Infanticidium
SEBASTIANO TAFARO – Università di Bari
Diritto alla vita e infanticidium
‘Querela inofficiosi testamenti’ / ‘iudicatum’
RICCARDO FERCIA - Università di Cagliari
'Querela inofficiosi testamenti' e 'iudicatum': problemi e prospettive tra II e III
secolo
Retentio
MASSIMILIANO VINCI – Università di Roma Tor Vergata
La tutela del possessore per i ‘miglioramenti’ sulla res evitta: il criterio di
applicazione della retentio nel pensiero di Africano (D. 39.2.44.1)
Contratti
ANTONIO SACCOCCIO – Università di Brescia
Dal ‘Sistema romano dei contratti’ di Giuseppe Grosso all’affermarsi del principio
del consensualismo in America Latina
GIOVANNI GUIDA – Università Roma Tre
Compravendita e suggestioni in tema di superamento del principio di relatività
degli effetti del contratto
Lessico legislazione imperiale
ANNA DE FRANCESCO – Università di Bari “Aldo Moro”
Note sull’«anzianità di servizio» nel lessico della legislazione imperiale romana
Tradizione giusromanistica in Russia
&
codificazione del diritto privato
GÁBOR HAMZA – Università Eötvös Loránd Budapest
socio ordinario dell’Accademia delle Scienze Ungherese
Lo sviluppo e la codificazione del diritto privato e la tradizione giusromanistica in
Russia e nell’Unione Sovietica
Diritto @ Storia si avvale di molteplici modalità e strumenti della comunicazione multimediale (ipertesti, video, audio etc.);
tali strumenti possono essere proposti ed usati dagli autori per i loro contributi e per le loro segnalazioni.
Continuando la "politica editoriale" di Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities, tutti i file pubblicati
on-line in Diritto @ Storia, siano essi ipertesti in formato html, o video o audio, saranno accessibili gratuitamente in
edizione integrale, senza alcuna restrizione, né registrazione preventiva.
Quaderno edito con il contributo di:
Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Reg Trib. di Sassari N. 217 del 3-2-2004
http://www.dirittoestoria.it/11/tradizione.htm
ANNA TARWACKA
University Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński in Warsaw
Faculty of Law and Administration
Cascellius and the Aedilician Edict on Throwing
Fruit into the Arena
ABSTRACT: Lo scopo dell’editto Ne quis in arenam nisi pomum misisse velit fu quello di
prevenire il disturbo dell’ordine pubblico da parte degli spettatori insoddisfatti dei giochi
gladiatori. L’editto vietò di lanciare nell’arena tutto oltre la frutta. Le sanzioni contro coloro che
non avessero rispettato le norme edittali furono conformi con i limiti della coercizione degli edili,
i quali potevano imporre una multa, prendere un pegno oppure ritenere o imprigionare il
cittadino. L’impulso per questo editto fu una richiesta da parte di Vatinio, il quale era stato preso
a sassate durante i giochi gladiatori da lui organizzati. La ragione di una così violenta reazione
degli spettatori fu probabilmente il fatto che Vatinio era candidato per la pretura e i giochi
furono interpretati come una forma di corruzione elettorale. Tenendo conto che fu Clodio l’edile
in questo momento, sembra assai attrattiva, anche se impossibile da verificare, la tesi che
proprio da lui Vatinio avesse cercato aiuto. Mentre Cascellio, il maestro di lingua tagliente,
utilizzò l’opportunità di un responsum concernente l’uso del termine pomum per uno scherzo
pungente: “se lancerai una pigna contro Vatinio, essa sarà frutta!”.
The intellectual accomplishment of Roman lawyers seems so overwhelming
that they make the characters themselves seem monumental and rather unreal. The
sources do not provide us with many anecdotes connected with their lives.
One of the lawyers who had a reputation for exceptional wit was Aulus
Cascellius, who lived in the 1st century B.C.[1]. Pomponius praised him in his
Enchiridion for his eloquence[2]. Cascellius had a habit of using witty quips when
advising his clients[3]. Macrobius recorded that when a merchant asked him how to
split a ship between his partner and himself, Cascellius replied that if they split the
ship they would both end up with nothing[4]. Quintilian cited the same anecdote to
illustrate a rhetorical device known as dissimulatio, meaning the use of a word with
two meanings[5]. Here dividere, the verb the client used, meant “to divide up the
partnership’s assets” to the client; but Cascellius read it in its literal sense, “to split
up the ship physically”.
This article concerns another of Cascellius’ witty remarks cited by
Macrobius[6].
Macrob., Sat. 2.6.1: Cascellius iurisconsultus urbanitatis mirae
libertatisque habebatur; praecipue tamen is iocus eius innotuit: Lapidatus a
populo Vatinius, cum gladiatorium munus ederet, obtinuerat, ut aediles
edicerent, ne quis in arenam nisi pomum misisse vellet. forte his diebus
Cascellius consultus a quodam, an nux pinea pomum esset, respondit: ‘Si in
Vatinium missurus es, pomum est’.
According to the author of Saturnalia Cascellius had a reputation for a
remarkably outspoken wit. One of his quips became quite famous. Vatinius had been
stoned by the populace at a gladiatorial show which he was giving, and so he
prevailed on the aediles to issue an edict forbidding the throwing of anything but
fruit in the arena. It so happened that Cascellius at that time was asked by a client
http://www.dirittoestoria.it/11/tradizione/Tarwacka-Cascellius-Edilician-Edict-Fruit-Arena.htm
Pagina 6 di 14
to advise whether a nux pinea was a fruit or not, and his reply was: «If you throw
one at Vatinius, it is».
This amusing story prompts several questions. The first thing we should do is
to examine the legal issues connected with the aediles’ edict, along with its political
circumstances.
Like all Roman magistrates, the aediles enjoyed the right to issue edicts[7].
The best-known edicts are, of course, those associated with the jurisdictive activities
of the praetors, the curule aediles, and the governors of provinces. We know far less
about edicts concerning public law[8].
The edicts a magistrate issued at the beginning of his term in office and
known as edicta perpetua remained in force for the whole of his term; but there
were also provisional edicts called edicta repentina, which were issued whenever a
need arose. Every year the aediles published an edictum perpetuum[9] concerning
the operations of marketplaces, which were subject to their authority; but
occasionally they took action in response to a new situation by issuing an edictum
repentinum.
Macrobius quoted the text of the edict verbatim, making an indirect statement
dependent on the verb edicerent. Put into direct speech, the injunction would then
read Ne quis in arenam nisi pomum misisse velit. The use of the prohibitive
subjunctive stresses the absolute nature of the ban. David Daube was of the opinion
that the use of this grammatical structure meant that the edict carried a serious
threat of an undefined penalty on those who infringed it[10]. We have to agree that
this edict imposed an outright prohibition, and perhaps in a subsequent passage,
which Macrobius did not cite, information was given on the kind of sanctions
instituted for infringements of its provisions.
Apart from jurisdiction, the aediles’ powers included care of order in the city
(cura urbis)[11] including care of the roads (cura viarum)[12], the provision of
water (cura aquarum)[13], the provision of grain (cura annonae)[14], and policing
duties[15]. Another of their tasks was to organise the games and oversee them
(cura ludorum)[16].
Even though in this case it was not the aediles who organised the games,
they were still responsible for seeing that the show proceeded in a peaceful and
orderly manner, and hence on Vatinius’ request they issued an edict to prevent any
potentially dangerous behaviour on the part of spectators. Throwing stones into the
arena was certainly dangerous; hence they permitted only the throwing of fruit.
Putting the injunction into practice must have involved the aediles’ coërcitio
(coercive powers), which included imposing fines[17] and taking pledge[18]. The
aediles were also authorised to administer flogging within a limited scope[19]. The
most likely penalty for failure to keep to the standards laid down by the aediles was
a fine. However, we should consider the diverse potential developments. If the
stone-throwing was mischief done by one man, bringing him to order and imposing
a fine would not have been a problem at all. But if a large number of persons were
violating the law, the aediles may possibly have needed to resort to more serious
measures, perhaps – as Lintott thought[20] – by asking senior magistrates for
assistance.
But maybe the aediles had sufficient means to take the required action on
their own? We know that they had auxiliary staff called the viatores or
messengers[21], and thereby had the right to detain and imprison citizens (ius
prendendi)[22], as we learn from Gellius[23], whose information comes from Varro.
The aediles appear to have had the power even to arrest a citizen, availing
themselves of the services of the viatores and public slaves[24].
To arrive at the right interpretation of the sense of the edict we need to
establish the political circumstances in which it was issued and also – as far as
possible – its date. Macrobius’ account tells us that Vatinius organised a gladiators’
show and that the people pelted him with stones.
Gladiatorial games arranged by Vatinius were ridiculed by Cicero in his speech
http://www.dirittoestoria.it/11/tradizione/Tarwacka-Cascellius-Edilician-Edict-Fruit-Arena.htm
Pagina 7 di 14
Pro Sestio, which was delivered in 56 BC. It is not certain whether this text concerns
the same event, but that is quite likely.
Cicero wrote that Vatinius held the gladiators’ games during an election
campaign[25], thereby breaking the regulations imposed by the lex Tullia de
ambitu, which had been passed on a motion tabled by Cicero himself[26]. This law
was no doubt carried in response to Catiline’s election campaign. Cicero promulgated
it following a senatus consultum calling on the two consuls to adopt such a measure.
It was not tabled by Cicero’s fellow consul, M. Antonius Hybrida, who presumably
preferred to remain neutral with respect to Catiline[27].
One of the provisions of the lex Tullia prohibited prospective candidates from
holding games within two years before their campaign[28].
Cic., In Vat. 37: 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 quo quis petat petiturusve sit gladiatores dare nisi
ex testamento praestituta 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?
In his cross-examination of Vatinius, who was a witness in the trial of Sestius,
Cicero asked him why he did not consider the lex Tullia a law, if it had been adopted
on the grounds of the Senate’s resolution and without the use of violence, following
the auspices and in compliance with the leges Aelia et Fufia[29], especially as Cicero
himself observed the laws which Vatinius had carried. He stressed that despite the
law prohibiting candidates standing or about to stand for election from organising
gladiator shows within two years of their campaign, Vatinius had held such games
during his very campaign; and he asked him sarcastically whether he thought that a
tribune of the plebs would save him from prosecution for political corruption. This
last question was an allusion to the proceedings of 58 BC against Vatinius[30], who
had been charged on the grounds of the lex Licinia Iunia[31], and was only
acquitted thanks to the intervention of Clodius, who was tribune at the time[32].
Cic., Pro Sest. 135: sed habet defensiones duas: primum 'do’, inquit,
'bestiarios: lex scripta de gladiatoribus’. Festive! accipite aliquid etiam acutius.
dicet se non gladiatores, sed unum gladiatorem dare et totam aedilitatem in
munus hoc transtulisse. praeclara aedilitas! unus leo, ducenti bestiarii.
For his defence Vatinius relied on a literal interpretation of the lex Tullia,
claiming that he had not held a show of gladiators but ludi bestiarii – games
involving wild animals. Only one gladiator, not “gladiators” had appeared in these
games, as alleged by Vatinius, who said he had held these games in recompense for
the aedileship he never had – a reference to the election of 56 BC which he had
lost[33]. The organisation of games was one of the aediles’ duties, and what
Vatinius was trying to say was that all he wanted to do was to put on a show for the
money he would have spent for that purpose had he been elected aedile. Cicero’s
final taunt, “A true aedileship truly. One lion, two hundred men who fight with
beasts”, has been explained in a scholiast’s commentary based on information drawn
from the writings of Tiro[34]. The gladiator whose services were hired was called Leo
(“Lion”), and the aim of Cicero’s irony was to suggest to his recipients that Vatinius’
games were merely a smokescreen to cover up the menace of seditio, a coup d’état.
Cicero’s client Sestius stood accused of unlawful violence. However, in
situations of impending domestic strife magistrates were authorised to apply the
means necessary to avert a threat. There were two factors working within the state
http://www.dirittoestoria.it/11/tradizione/Tarwacka-Cascellius-Edilician-Edict-Fruit-Arena.htm
Pagina 8 di 14
– the law and violence. If the latter was the dominant force, magistrates had to do
all they could to restore the rule of law. Cicero was arguing that the situation Sestius
was facing had the characteristics of a state of necessity[35].
Cicero’s speeches indicate two of the potential reasons why Vatinius was
pelted with stones. First, the poor quality of the show[36], for which he had hired
slaves from a quarry rather than the services of professional gladiators, and secondly
the fact that it had been held during his electoral campaign[37]. Cicero also
mentioned that voters often drifted away from candidates who engaged in ambitus.
Cic., Har. resp. 56: Repulsi sunt ii quos ad omnia progredientis, quos
munera contra leges gladiatoria parantis, quos apertissime largientis non
solum alieni sed etiam sui, vicini, tribules, urbani, rustici reppulerunt.
Neither townspeople nor countryfolk voted for those who organised games in
violation of the laws and openly practised corruption; they were not voted for even
by members of their own families, their neighbours, or members of their tribus.
Cicero stressed that Vatinius had been rejected in an election to the aedileship[38].
The office for which Vatinius was standing when he organised the gladiator
show Cicero was censuring him for was the praetorship[39]. He won it only thanks
to the support of Pompey and Crassus, beating Cato[40].
The citizens’ attitude to Vatinius seems to have been rather unfavourable, or
even hostile[41]. Thus it would come as no surprise if his games backfired and
resulted in his outright rejection by the spectators. So perhaps Cicero and Macrobius
were referring to the same show[42].
Cicero’s expression in ipsa petitione provides relevant information as regards
the edict’s presumable date, limiting the time interval to the electoral campaign for
the praetor’s office for 55 BC. The election itself was held very late, in February 55
BC[43], but the campaign must have been going on for a long time before. The
term petitio does not refer merely to the time when the list of candidates was
announced, viz. after their professio, but to the entire duration of the campaign,
which lasted about a year prior to the election[44].
The trial of Sestius took place in March 56 BC[45], and thus it marks the
terminus ante quem. Since Vatinius lost an election to the aedileship, the date of
that election must delimit the terminus post quem, since only then was he eligible to
stand for the praetorship.
In 57 BC Vatinius had returned to Rome from Gaul, where he had been
Caesar’s legate, and ran for the aedileship of 56 BC. It was probably the office of
curule aedile, not the plebeian aedile, that he was after, as indicated by his
purchase of a toga praetexta for the occasion[46]. This election was postponed
several times due to the bad omens reported by Milo, who declared that he would
keep watching the sky for signs[47]. The election was ultimately held on 20th
January 56 BC.
Since the trial of Sestius was held in March, Vatinius’ games most probably
took place in February. The short time he would have had to prepare them would
account for their low quality. Thus it would appear that the edict referred to by
Macrobius was issued by the aediles of 56 BC, the same tandem against whom
Vatinius had recently lost an election. It is not clear whether they were the curule or
the plebeian aediles[48].
The fact that Clodius was curule aedile at the time is a most interesting
point[49]. As I have already explained, Vatinius was one of the adherents of Caesar,
serving as plebeian tribune during the latter’s consulate and later as his legate in
Gaul. He was also a witness for the prosecution in the trial against Sestius, which
was being backed by Clodius[50]. Politically Vatinius and Clodius shared common
ground and goals.
If my dating for Vatinius’ games is correct, then it is highly probable that he
had Clodius to thank for the issue of the edict. While Clodius could not have issued it
http://www.dirittoestoria.it/11/tradizione/Tarwacka-Cascellius-Edilician-Edict-Fruit-Arena.htm
Pagina 9 di 14
on his own, for every time the sources including Macrobius tell us that the aediles
issued an edict they always use the plural aediles[51], he could have persuaded the
other aedile holding the magistracy with him of the need for such an edict.
Macrobius’ information that Vatinius obtained (obtinuerat) the edict from the aediles
is all the more understandable if we assume that there was a bond of mutual
amicitia (friendship, or in fact a mutual dependence) joining magistrate and citizen.
To arrive at the correct interpretation of the sentence Ne quis in arenam nisi
pomum misisse velit (“No-one shall throw anything into the arena but fruit”) in the
edict we shall need to establish the exact meaning of pomum (“fruit”).
D. 50.16.205 (Paul. 4 epit. Alf. dig.): Qui fundum vendidit, “pomum”
recepit: nuces et ficos et uvas dumtaxat duracinas et purpureas et quae eius
generis essent, quas non vini causa haberemus, quas Graeci τρωξίµους
appellarent, recepta videri.
In his summary of Alfenus’ Digests[52], Paulus wrote of someone who was
selling an estate and kept the “fruit” (pomum) for himself, explaining that
apparently he kept the nuts, figs, and grapes which were firm and purple, and other
of the kind which cannot be used for wine-making. Hence it would appear that the
term pomum meant fruit intended to be eaten[53], as confirmed by the
corresponding Greek term, trwvximo", “edible”. Significantly, Alfenus was a
contemporary of Cascellius, hence we may apply this definition to the situation in
question.
Cascellius’ retort suggests that the semantic scope of the word pomum was
quite a serious legal problem[54]. By sheer coincidence (forte) the question
concerning the word was put to him at the time when the edict was issued[55]. We
do not know why the client asked him whether a nux pinea could be regarded as a
pomum, and in connection with which legal institution. It might have concerned
usufruct or a contract of sale and purchase, or an inheritance. But what should we
make of the term nux pinea?
Plin. Mai. 15.35: Reliqui arborum fructus vix specie figurave, non modo
saporibus sucisque totiens permixtis atque insitis, enumerari queunt.
Grandissimus pineis nucibus altissimeque suspensus. intus exiles nucleos
lacunatis includit toris, vestitos alia ferruginis tunica, mira naturae cura
molliter semina conlocandi.
Pliny the Elder’s text makes it clear that nux pinea meant the pine cone,
which contains numerous nuclei – small nuts[56]. So the legal issue was whether
pine cones, containing nuts used for culinary purposes, may be regarded as edible
fruit[57].
The part of Cascellius’ reply extant in Macrobius carries a reference to the
edict: if a pine cone is thrown at Vatinius, it is to be recognised as a pomum. But we
do not know Cascellius’ ultimate solution to the problem. Nonetheless, we can
certainly confront Cascellius’ opinion with the ratio of the aediles’ edict.
The magistrates prohibited the throwing of anything into the arena except for
pomum, after Vatinius had been pelted with stones. The aim of their regulation was
to stop violence and prevent the disruption of public order. What the aediles seem
to have meant by pomum were soft fruits, which could not have hurt anyone. A pine
cone does not meet this condition: it is closer to a stone than to a peach…
Cascellius’ joke shows his profound resentment of Vatinius. Although his
political career came to an end at the quaestorship[58], Cascellius was known for his
steadfast opinions and resolution. Under the triumvirs he refused to compile
formulae for their decisions[59]; and he ventured on bold assertions on the period
when Caesar was in power, explaining that there were two circumstances which
allowed him to do so freely – old age and childlessness[60]. Not surprisingly, then,
http://www.dirittoestoria.it/11/tradizione/Tarwacka-Cascellius-Edilician-Edict-Fruit-Arena.htm
Pagina 10 di 14
he was forthright in his enunciations, in his jocular political comments, at a time
when it did not yet require such a high level of civil courage.
The purpose of the edict Ne quis in arenam nisi pomum misisse velit issued by
the aediles was to prevent breaches of the peace by disgruntled spectators at
gladiators’ games. It prohibited the throwing of anything except fruit into the arena.
The penalties for the infringement of these provisions were determined by the
aediles’ powers of coercion, and ranged from fines, taking a pledge, to arrest and
imprisonment. The edict was issued at the request of Vatinius, who had been pelted
with stones during the games he had organised. The reason why the spectators
behaved in such a violent manner was probably the fact that at the time Vatinius
was a candidate for the praetorship, and holding games in such circumstances was a
form of electoral corruption. Since Clodius was one of the aediles at the time, we
may put forward an extremely appealing, though unverifiable conjecture that
Vatinius turned to him for help. Meanwhile Cascellius, a master of witty remarks,
took the opportunity of answering a client’s question on the semantic range of the
term pomum to annoy an unpopular politician by saying, «If you cast a pine cone at
Vatinius, then it is a fruit!».
[Per la pubblicazione degli articoli della sezione “Tradizione Romana” si è applicato, in maniera rigorosa, il procedimento
di peer review. Ogni articolo è stato valutato positivamente da due referees, che hanno operato con il sistema del double-blind].
[1] Cf. W. KUNKEL, Herkunft und soziale Stellung der römischen Juristen, Weimar 1952, 25-27;
R.A. BAUMAN, Lawyers in Roman Transitional Politics. A Study of the Roman Jurists in Their Political
Setting in the Late Republic and Triumvirate, München 1985, 117-123.
[2] 1.2.2.45 (Pomp. l. sing. enchir.): Fuit eodem tempore et Trebatius, qui idem Cornelii Maximi
auditor fuit: Aulus Cascellius, Quintus Mucius Volusii auditor, denique in illius honorem testamento
Publium Mucium nepotem eius reliquit heredem. Fuit autem quaestorius nec ultra proficere voluit, cum
illi etiam Augustus consulatum offerret. ex his Trebatius peritior Cascellio, Cascellius Trebatio
eloquentior fuisse dicitur, Ofilius utroque doctior. Cascellii scripta non exstant nisi unus liber bene
dictorum, Trebatii complures, sed minus frequentantur. Pomponius mentioned Cascellius’ liber bene
dictorum. It could have been compiled either by the jurist himself or on his behalf. Cf. M. SCHANZ, C.
HOSIUS, Geschichte der römischen Literatur bis zum Gesetzgebungswerk des Kaisers Justinian, I, 1927,
(reprint München 1979), 597; A. MANTELLO, ‘De iurisconsultorum philosophia’. Spunti e riflessioni sulla
giurisprudenza del primo principato, [in:] ‘Ius controversum’ e ‘auctoritas principis’. Giuristi. Principe e
diritto nel primo impero. Atti del Convegno internazionale di diritto romano e del IV Premio romanistico
“G. Boulvert”, Copanello, 11-13 giugno 1998, ed. F. MILAZZO, Napoli 2003, 190-191, nt. 61.
[3] Cf. R.A. BAUMAN, op. cit., 119. Both jokes in question seem to be rather genuine, although
the problem has been discussed. Cf. H.E. DIRKSEN, Der Rechtsgelehrte Aulus Cascellius, ein
Zeitgenossene Cicero’s, «Aus den Abhandlungen der Königl. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin»
1858, 231 ff.; C. FERRINI, Aulo Cascellio e i suoi responsi, [in:] Opere di Contardo Ferrini, II, Milano
1929, 55 ff.; F. WIEACKER, Augustus und Die Juristen Seiner Zeit, «TR» 37/1969, 344 with nt. 54;
IDEM, Römische Rechtsgeschichte, I, München 1988, 612.
[4] Macrob., Sat. 2.6.2: Mercatori deinde, quemadmodum cum socio navim divideret,
interroganti respondisse traditur; ‘Navim si dividis, nec tu nec socius habebis’.
[5] Quint., Inst. 6.3.87: cui sine dubio frequentissimam dat occasionem ambiguitas, ut
Cascellio, qui consultatori dicenti ‘navem dividere volo’, ‘perdes’ inquit.
[6] None of these jokes were counted in Cascellius’ juridical oeuvre by O. LENEL, Palingenesia
iuris civilis, I, Lipsiae 1889, 107-108, on the grounds that ad ius civile non pertineant.
[7] G. 1.6: Ius autem edicendi habent magistratus populi Romani. Cf. T. KIPP, ‘Edictum’, «RE»
10/1910, 1940-1948.
[8] Practically all magistrates issued edicts; for consuls’ edicts, see e.g. Gell. 13.15.1; for
dictators’ edicts, see Liv. 3.27; for edicts issued by tribunes of the plebs see Cic., In Verr. 2.2.100; for
http://www.dirittoestoria.it/11/tradizione/Tarwacka-Cascellius-Edilician-Edict-Fruit-Arena.htm
Pagina 11 di 14
censors’ edicts see Gell. 15.11; Suet., De rhet. 25.2. Cf. A. TARWACKA, ‘Censores edixerunt’.
Przedmiot i cele edyktów cenzorskich, «CPH» 63.1/2011, 193-219; EADEM, Prawne aspekty urzędu
cenzora w starożytnym Rzymie, Warszawa 2012, 120-157. There is no information on quaestors’ edicts,
which does not mean that none were issued. Cf. W. KUNKEL, R. WITTMANN, Staatsordnung und
Staatspraxis der römischen Republik. Zweiter Abschnitt. Die Magistratur, München 1995, 180 ff.
[9] Cf. O. LENEL, Das Edictum Perpetuum, Lipsiae 1907, 529 ff.; G. IMPALLOMENI, L'editto degli
edili curuli, Padova 1955, passim; É. JAKAB, ‘Praedicere’ und ‘cavere’ beim Marktkauf – Sachmängel im
griechischen und römischen Recht, München 1997, 97 ff.; R. ORTU, ‘Aiunt aedlies...’. Dichiarazioni del
venditore e vizi della cosa venduta nell'editto ‘de mancipiis emundis vendundis’, Torino 2008, 40 ff., and
the literature cited therein.
[10] D. DAUBE, ‘Ne quis fecisse velit’, «ZSS» 78/1961, 390-391. Cf. IDEM, Forms of Roman
Legislation, Oxford 1956, 37-49. Cf. also É. JAKAB, op. cit., 125.
[11] Cf. Cic., In Verr. 2.5.36; W. KUNKEL, R. WITTMANN, op. cit., 481 ff.; R. KAMIŃSKA, ‚Totam
urbem tuendam esse commissam’ (Cic., in Verr. 2.5.36). The Aediles as Guardians of Order in
Republican Rome, «Zeszyty Prawnicze» 12.3/2012, 177-198.
[12] Cf. W. KUNKEL, R. WITTMANN, op. cit., 483 ff.; R. KAMIŃSKA, Ochrona dróg publicznych
przez urzędników rzymskich, «Zeszyty Prawnicze» 8.2/2008, 75 ff.
[13] Cf. W. KUNKEL, R. WITTMANN, op. cit., 488 ff.; R. KAMIŃSKA, ‘Cura aquarum’ w prawie
rzymskim, «Zeszyty Prawnicze» 10.2/2010, 95-98.
[14] W. KUNKEL, R. WITTMANN, op. cit., 478 ff.; M. KURYŁOWICZ, Zur Tätigkeit der römischen
Ädilen. Teil III, «OIR» 9/2004, 89-104.
[15] W. NIPPEL, Public Order in Ancient Rome, Cambridge 1995, 16-19; M. KURYŁOWICZ,
‘Tresviri capitales’ oraz edylowie rzymscy jako magistratury policyjne, «Annales UMCS», Sec. G Ius,
40/1993, 76-77; IDEM, Zur Marktpolizei der römischen Ädilen, [in:] Au-delà des frontières. Mélanges de
droit romain offerts à Witold Wołodkiewicz, II, Warszawa 2000, 439-456; IDEM, Zur Tätigkeit der
römischen Ädilen. I. ‘Loca aedilem metuentia’, «OIR» 7/2002, 42-58; IDEM, Nadzór magistratur
rzymskich nad porządkiem publicznym, [in:] Bezpieczeństwo i porządek publiczny - historia, teoria,
praktyka: Konferencja naukowa. Hadle Szklarskie, 26 września 2003 r., ed. E. URA, Rzeszów 2003, 43.
[16] Cf. W. KUNKEL, R. WITTMANN, op. cit., 504-509.
[17] TH. MOMMSEN, Römisches Staatsrecht, II.1, 3 ed., Graz 1952 (Nachdruck), 492-497; W.
KUNKEL, R. WITTMANN, op. cit., 163 and 490 ff.
[18] Cf. W. KUNKEL, R. WITTMANN, op. cit., 490 nt. 65; M. KURYŁOWICZ, Zur Tätigkeit der
römischen Ädilen. Teil III, 99-102.
[19] Flagellation was banned as a punishment administered on Roman citizens at least as of the
lex Porcia de tergo civium, but it was allowed on actors. Cf. A.W. LINTOTT, ‘Provocatio’. From the
Struggle of Orders to the Principate, «ANRW» 1.2/1972, 249-253; B. SANTALUCIA, Processo penale,
[w:] Studi di diritto penale romano, Roma 1994, 179; W. KUNKEL, R. WITTMANN, op. cit., 490 nt. 65;
P. KOŁODKO, Prawne ograniczenia chłosty w prawie rzymskim, «Miscellanea historico-iuridica» 4/2006,
31-32.
[20] A.W. LINTOTT, The Constitution of the Roman Republic, Oxford 1999, 99-101. Cf. W.
NIPPEL, op. cit., 21-22.
[21] Cf. Liv. 30.39.7; CIL IV.1933.
[22] Cf. C. CASCIONE, Appunti su ‘prensio’ e ‘vocatio’ nei rapporti tra ‘potestates’ romane, [in:]
Au-delà des fontières. Mélanges de droit romain offerts à Witold Wołodkiewicz, I, Varsovie 2000,
161-178.
[23] Gell. 13.12.6: "In magistratu" inquit "habent alii vocationem, alii prensionem, alii neutrum:
vocationem, ut consules et ceteri, qui habent imperium; prensionem, tribuni plebis et alii, qui habent
viatorem; neque vocationem neque prensionem, ut quaestores et ceteri, qui neque lictorem habent
neque viatorem. Qui vocationem habent, idem prendere, tenere, abducere possunt, et haec omnia,
sive adsunt, quos vocant, sive acciri iusserunt. But it should be added that the aediles acquired this right
after some time; cf. Gell. 13.13.4.
http://www.dirittoestoria.it/11/tradizione/Tarwacka-Cascellius-Edilician-Edict-Fruit-Arena.htm
Pagina 12 di 14
[24] Gell. 13.13.4 ex. Varr.: [scil. aediles] nunc stipati servis publicis non modo prendi non
possunt, sed etiam ultro submovent populum.
[25] Cic., Pro Sest. 133: qui legem meam contemnat, quae dilucide vetat gladiatores biennio
quo quis petierit aut petiturus sit dare. in quo eius temeritatem satis mirari, iudices, non queo. facit
apertissime contra legem.
[26] Cf. G. ROTONDI, ‘Leges publicae populi Romani’, Milano 1912, 379; J. LINDERSKI,
Rzymskie zgromadzenia wyborcze od Sulli do Cezara, Wrocław-Warszawa-Kraków 1966, 70-71; E.
GRUEN, The Last Generation of the Roman Republic, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London 1974, 222-224; E.
BALTRUSCH, ‘Regimen morum’. Die Reglementierung des Privatlebens der Senatoren und Ritter in der
römischen Republik und frühen Kaiserzeit, München 1989, 119; M.H. CRAWFORD, P. MOREAU, ‘Lex
Tullia de ambitu’, [in:] The Roman Statutes, ed. M.H. CRAWFORD, II, London 1996, 761-762; D.
SŁAPEK, ‘Spectaculi spectantes’, czyli o naturze źródeł i milczeniu prawa rzymskiego. Rekonesans, [in:]
Ochrona bezpieczeństwa i porządku publicznego w prawie rzymskim, ed. K. AMIELAŃCZYK, A.
DĘBIŃSKI, D. SŁAPEK, Lublin 2010, 234.
[27] Cf. Asc. 83 C.; L. FASCIONE, ‘Crimen’ e ‘quaestio ambitus’ nell’età repubblicana.
Contributo allo studio del diritto criminale repubblicano, Milano 1984, 72-73; H. KOWALSKI,
Odpowiedzialność karna za przestępstwa wyborcze w Rzymie (II-I wiek p.n.e.), «Folia Societatis
Scientiarum Lublinensis», 34/1993, Humanistyka I, 78; A. ZANDBERG, ‘Leges de ambitu’. Rzymskie
ustawodawstwo wyborcze u schyłku republiki, «Meander» 56/2011, 103-126. Remarkably, Cicero’s
scholiast reported that both consuls had tabled the bill. Schol. Bob. 79 St. But the idea itself had come
from the renowned jurist Servius Sulpicius Rufus.
[28] Cf. Schol. Bob. 140 St. Cicero’s scholiast explained the provisions of the lex Tullia,
comparing it with the less stringent lex Calpurnia de ambitu of 67 BC. However, he was wrong about
Vatinius holding games during his campaign for the office of tribune.
[29] The Aelia et Fufia laws on the disrupting of assemblies by the obnuntiatio had been passed
ca. 158-150 BC. Cf. G. ROTONDI, op. cit., 288-289; G.V. SUMNER, ‘Lex Aelia, Lex Fufia’, «AJP»
84/1963, 337-358; E. LOSKA, Uwagi na temat procedury ‘obnuntiatio’, «Zeszyty Prawnicze» 11.1/2011,
195-213.
[30] Cf. M.C. ALEXANDER, Trials in the Late Roman Republic, 149 BC to 50 BC, Toronto-BuffaloLondon 1990, 125-126.
[31] This law laid down that the proceedings and/or draft bills for a new act had to be deposited
in the aerarium to prevent unlawful amendments. Cf. G. ROTONDI, op. cit., 383-384.
[32] Cf. T.R.S. BROUGHTON, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, II, New York 1952, 195.
[33] Cf. Cic., Pro Sest. 114; T.R.S. BROUGHTON, Candidates Defeated in Roman Elections:
Some Ancient Roman “Also-Rans”, «Transactions of the American Philosophical Society», 81.4/1991,
43.
[34] Schol. Bob. 135 St.: Unus leo, ducenti bestiarii. Cum Vatinius invidiam sibi magnam
conflasset de apparatu gladiatorum, simulaverat se bestiarios potius habere quam gladiatores et unum
gladiatorem confitebatur, cui nomen Leoni fuit. Hanc igitur stultitiam M. Tullius inridens unum leonem
dicit, ducentos bestiarios, id est venatores; sine dubio volens intellegi omnem hanc manum
gladiatoriam seditionis causa comparatam. Hoc etiam dictum de Leone Tullius Tiro, libertus eiusdem,
inter iocos Ciceronis adnumerat. On the now lost treatise De iocis Ciceronis see Quint., Inst. or. 6.3.5;
Macr., Sat. 2.1.12.
[35] Cf. Cic., Pro Sest. 92; W.K. LACEY, Cicero, Pro Sestio, 96-143, «CQ» 12/1962, 68-71; E.
LOSKA, ‘Contra tribunum plebis furiosum et audacem’. Spory między urzędnikami zagrożeniem dla
bezpieczeństwa republiki? [in:] Ochrona bezpieczeństwa i porządku publicznego w prawie rzymskim, ed.
K. AMIELAŃCZYK, A. DĘBIŃSKI, M. KURYŁOWICZ, Lublin 2010, 173-182.
[36] Cf. A.S. PEASE, Notes on Stoning among the Greeks and Romans, «TAPA» 38/1907, 15.
[37] Cf. Cic., Pro Sest. 115-116, on the people voicing their opinion during theatre
performances and gladiator shows. Cf. F.F. ABOTT, The Theatre as Factor in Roman Politics under the
Republic, «TAPA» 38/1907, 49-56.
http://www.dirittoestoria.it/11/tradizione/Tarwacka-Cascellius-Edilician-Edict-Fruit-Arena.htm
Pagina 13 di 14
[38] Cic., Pro Sest. 114: aedilitatem petivit cum bonis viris et hominibus primis sed non
praestantissimis opibus et gratia: tribum suam non tulit, Palatinam denique, per quam omnes illae
pestes vexare rem publicam dicebantur, perdidit, nec quicquam illis comitiis quod boni viri vellent nisi
repulsam tulit.
[39] Cf. J. LINDERSKI, op. cit., 71.
[40] Cic., Ad Q.F. 2.7.3; Ad fam. 1.9.19; Liv., Per. 105; Val. Max. 7.5.6; T.R.S. BROUGHTON,
The Magistrates..., II, 216.
[41] Catullus (14.3) wrote on the odium Vatinianum.
[42] This was a certainty for U.C.J. GEBHARDT, ‘Sermo Iuris’. Rechtssprache und Recht in der
augusteischen Dichtung, Leiden-Boston 2009, 19.
[43] Cf. J. LINDERSKI, op. cit., 140-141.
[44] Cf. Cic., Ad Att. 1.1.1; J. LINDERSKI, op. cit., 69-70.
[45] Cf. M.C. ALEXANDER, op. cit., 132.
[46] Cf. Cic., In Vat. 16; TH. MOMMSEN, op. cit., I, 448 nt. 3; II, 485; H. GUNDEL, Vatinius (3),
«RE» VIII.A1/1955, 504-505; T.R.S. BROUGHTON, Candidates Defeated..., 43.
[47] Milo wanted to stop Clodius from standing in an election, as he wanted him prosecuted for
the exercise of violence (de vi). Cf. J. LINDERSKI, op. cit., 138-139.
[48] Although doubts have been raised as to whether the aediles of the plebs had the ius
edicendi, see W. KUNKEL, R. WITTMANN, op. cit., 180, nt. 301, who are right to refer to Tab. Her.
34-36 as evidence that they could issue edicts. This passage tells us that an aedile could issue an edict
announcing the terms and conditions for the conclusion of a locatio viae tuendae for the maintenance of
a road which was under his care but had been neglected by a citizen who owned an adjoining property.
Each of the aediles had a quarter of the city assigned to him by lot, hence also the plebeian aediles
concluded locationes and published the conditions thereof in an edict.
[49] His fellow aedile may have been Claudius Marcellus. We do not know the names of the
aediles for that year. Cf. T.R.S. BROUGHTON, The Magistrates..., II, 208.
[50] Cf. W.J. TATUM, The Patrician Tribune Publius Clodius Pulcher, Chapel Hill 1999, 205-208.
[51] Aiunt aediles; For example cf. D. 21.1.38 pr. (Ulp. 2 ad ed. aedil. cur.); 21.1.40.1 (Ulp. 2
ad ed. aedil. cur.).
[52] Cf. O. LENEL, Palingenesia..., I, 50.
[53] The term pomum also occurred in legal contexts concerning servitudes (D. 8.1.8 pr.) and
usufruct (D. 22.1.45).
[54] R.A. BAUMAN, op. cit., 119 nt. 324, compares this issue with the terms arbor and glans in
the Law of the Twelve Tables (Tab. 7.9 and 7.10 respectively).
[55] U.C.J. GEBHARDT, op. cit., 19, seems to be wrong to claim that this question was
deliberately posed as a joke in connection with the edict.
[56] Cf. C. HENDERSON, Cato's Pine Cones and Seneca's Plums: Fronto p. 149 vdH., «TAPA»
86/1955, 256-260.
[57] For examples of the culinary use of pine-nuts, see for instance Apic., De re coq. 1.13; 1.33;
2.3.2; 2.5.1; 4.1; 7.12.3; 8.7.15; 10.2.3.
[58] Cf. D. 1.2.2.45 (Pomp. l. sing. enchir.) cited in note 2. Cf. A. RODGER, A Note on A.
Cascellius, «CQ» 22/1972, 135-138.
[59] The composition of formulae, referred to by the term agere, was part of the activities of
jurists (cf. Cic., De or. 1.212). Cf. A. RODGER, op. cit., 135-138.
http://www.dirittoestoria.it/11/tradizione/Tarwacka-Cascellius-Edilician-Edict-Fruit-Arena.htm
Pagina 14 di 14
[60] Val. Max. 6.2.12: Age, Cascellius vir iuris civilis scientia clarus quam periculose contumax!
nullius enim aut gratia aut auctoritate conpelli potuit ut de aliqua earum rerum, quas triumviri
dederant, formulam conponeret, hoc animi iudicio universa eorum beneficia extra omnem ordinem
legum ponens. idem cum multa de temporibus <Caesaris> liberius loqueretur, amicique ne id faceret
monerent, duas res, quae hominibus amarissimae viderentur, magnam sibi licentiam praebere
respondit, senectutem et orbitatem.
http://www.dirittoestoria.it/11/tradizione/Tarwacka-Cascellius-Edilician-Edict-Fruit-Arena.htm