Haut de page
Badian 1972= E. Badian, Publicans and Sinners. Private enterprise in the service of the Roman Republic, Oxford, 1972.
Baltrusch 1989= E. Baltrusch, Regimen morum: die Reglementierung des Privatlebens der Senatoren und Ritter in der römischen Republik und frühen Kaiserzeit, Munich, 1989.
Beck 2005= H. Beck, Karriere und Hierarchie: die römische Aristokratie und die Anfänge des cursus honorum in der mittleren Republik, Berlin, 2005.
Berry 2006= D.H. Berry, Cicero. Political speeches. Translated with introductions and notes, Oxford, 2006.
Bispham 2007= E. Bispham, From Asculum to Actium: the municipalization of Italy from the Social War to Augustus, Oxford, 2007.
Bonnefond-Coudry 1989 = M. Bonnefond-Coudry, Le Sénat de la République romaine de la guerre d’Hannibal à Auguste : pratiques délibératives et prise de décision, Rome, 1989 (BEFAR, 273).
Brennan 2000= T.C. Brennan, The praetorship in the Roman Republic, 2 vol., Oxford.
Bringmann 2003= K. Bringmann, Zur Überlieferung und zum Entstehungsgrund der lex Claudia de nave senatoris, in Klio, 85, 2, 2003, p. 312-321.
Clemente 1983 = G. Clemente, Il plebiscito claudio e le classi dirigenti romane nell’età dell’imperialismo, in Ktèma, 8, 1983, p. 253-259.
Clemente 1990 = G. Clemente, Basi sociali e assetti istituzionali nell’età della conquista, in G. Clemente, F. Coarelli, E. Gabba (ed.), Storia di Roma. Volume secondo. L’impero mediterraneo. I. La repubblica imperiale, Turin, 1990, p. 39-54.
Coudry 2007 = M. Coudry, Loi Claudia interdisant aux sénateurs la possession d’un navire de plus de 300 amphores, in J.-L. Ferrary, Ph. Moreau (dir.), LEPOR. Leges Populi Romani, [En ligne]. Paris : IRHT-TELMA, 2007. URL : http://www.cn-telma.fr/lepor/notice96/. Date de mise à jour : 28/11/2014.
Crawford 1990 = M.H. Crawford, Origini e sviluppo del sistema provinciale romano, in G. Clemente, F. Coarelli, E. Gabba (ed.), Storia di Roma. Volume secondo. L'impero mediterraneo. I. La repubblica imperiale, Turin, 1990, p. 91-122.
Crawford 1996 = M.H. Crawford, Roman statutes, 2 vol., London, 1996 (BICS supplement, 64).
D’Arms 1981 = J.H. D’Arms, Commerce and social standing in ancient Rome, Harvard, 1981.
El Beheiri 2001 = N. El Beheir, Die « lex Claudia de nave senatorum », in RIDA, 48, 2001, p. 57-63.
Feig Vishnia 1996 = R. Feig Vishnia, State, society and popular leaders in mid-Republican Rome, 214-169 BC, London, 1996.
Feig Vishnia 2012 = R. Feig Vishnia, A case of « bad press » ? Gaius Flaminius in ancient historiography, in ZPE, 181, 2012, p. 27-45.
Fossati Vanzetti 1995 = M.B. Fossati Vanzetti, Pauli Sententiae : testo e intepretatio, Padua, 1995.
Fraschetti 1981 = A. Fraschetti, Per una prospografia dello sfruttamento : Romani e Italici in Sicilia (212 - 44 a.c.), in A. Giardina, A. Schiavone (ed.), Società romana e produzione schiavistica. I. L'Italia : insediamenti e forme economiche, Rome, 1981, p. 51-77.
Gabba 1988 = E. Gabba, Ricchezza e classe dirigente romana fra III e I sec. a.C., in Del buon uso della ricchezza : saggi di storia economica e sociale del mondo antico, Milan, 1988, p. 27-44 (first published in RSI, 93, 1981, p. 541-558).
Genovese 1999 = M. Genovese, Gli interventi edittali di Verre in materia di decime sicule, Acireale-Milan, 1999.
Guarino 1983 = A. Guarino, Quaestus omnis patribus indecorus, in Labeo, 28, 1983, p. 7-16.
Harris 1979 = W.V. Harris, War and imperialism in Republican Rome, 327-70 B.C., Oxford, 1979.
Holm 1898 = A. Holm, Geschichte Siciliens im Alterthum, III, Leipzig, 1898.
Hopkins 1978 = K. Hopkins, Conquerors and Slaves, Cambridge, 1978.
Kay 2014 = P. Kay, Rome’s Economic Revolution, Oxford, 2014.
Levens 1946 = R.G.C. Levens, Cicero. The fifth Verrine oration, London, 1946.
Lintott 1999 = A. Lintott, The constitution of the Roman republic, Oxford, 1999.
Long 1862 = G. Long, M. Tullii Ciceronis Orationes. With a commentary by George Long. vol. 1. Verrinarum libri septem, London, 1862.
Malitz 1979 = J. Malitz, Römische Staatsrecht Stellenregister, Munich, 1979.
Manganaro 1982 = G. Manganaro, I senatori di Sicilia e il problema del latifondo, in Atti del colloquio internazionale AIEGL, su epigrafia ed ordine senatorio, Roma, 14-20 maggio 1981, Rome, 1982, II, p. 369‑385 (Tituli, 5).
Moatti 2000 = C. Moatti, Le contrôle de la mobilité des personnes dans l’empire romain, in MEFRA, 112-2, 2000, p. 925‑958.
Mommsen 1887-1888 = Th. Mommsen, Römische Staatsrecht, 3 vol. , Leipzig, 1887-1888.
Mommsen 1889-1895 = Th. Mommsen, Droit public romain, trans. P.-F. Girard, 7 vol. , Paris, 1889-1895 (Manuel des antiquités romaines, 1-7).
Nicolet 1966-1974 = C. Nicolet, L’ordre équestre à l'époque républicaine : (312-43 av. J.-C.), 2 vol., Paris, 1966-1974.
Nicolet 2000 = C. Nicolet, Économie, société et institutions au IIe siècle av. J.-C. : de la lex Claudia à l’ager exceptus, in Censeurs et publicains. Économie et fiscalité dans la Rome antique, Paris, 2000, p. 19-43 (first published in Annales ESC, 35(5), 1980, p. 871-894).
Pinzone 2000 = A. Pinzone, La « romanizzazione » della Sicilia occidentale in età repubblicana, in Terze giornate internazionali di studi sull'area elima (Gibellina-Erice-Contessa Entellina, 23-26 ottobre 1997), Atti, Pisa-Gibellina, 2000, II, p. 849‑878.
Prag 2011 = J.R.W. Prag, Provincial governors and auxiliary soldiers, in N. Barrandon, F. Kirbihler (ed.), Les gouverneurs et les provinciaux sous la République romaine, Rennes, 2011, p. 15‑28.
Prag 2014 = J.R.W. Prag, The quaestorship in the third and second centuries BC, in J. Dubouloz, S. Pittia, G. Sabatini (ed.), L’imperium Romanum en perspective. Les savoirs d’empire dans la République romaine et leur héritage dans l’Europe médiévale et moderne, Besançon, p. 193‑209.
Rawson 1976 = E. Rawson, The Ciceronian Aristocracy and its Properties, in M. I. Finley (ed.), Studies in Roman Property, Cambridge, 1976, p. 85-102, 182-188.
Rawson 1977 = E. Rawson, More on the « Clientelae » of the Patrician Claudii, in Historia, 26(3), 1977, p. 340-357.
Roman 1994 = Y. Roman, L’idéologie des nobles à Rome et ses conséquences économiques et sociales à l’époque républicaine, in Ktèma, 19, 1994, p. 111-118.
Ryan 1995 = F.X. Ryan, Two senators in 73 BC, in ZPE, 108, 1995, p. 306‑308.
Ryan 1998 = F.X. Ryan, Rank and Participation in the Republican Senate, Stuttgart, 1998.
Serrao 1956 = F. Serrao, Il frammento leidense di Paolo. Problemi di diritto criminale romano, Milan, 1956.
Shatzman 1975 = I. Shatzman, Senatorial wealth and Roman politics, Brussells, 1975 (Coll. Latomus, 142).
Steel 2007 = C.E.W. Steel, The rhetoric of the de frumento, in J. R. W. Prag (ed.), Sicilia nutrix plebis romanae. Rhetoric, law, and taxation in Cicero’s Verrines, London, 2007, p. 37-48 (BICS supplement, 97).
Suolahti 1970 = J. Suolahti, Legatio libera, in Arctos, 6, 1970, p. 113‑119.
Tchernia 2011 = A. Tchernia, Le plebiscitum Claudianum, in Les Romains et le commerce, Naples, 2011, p. 199-228 (first published in J. Andreau, V. Chankowski (ed.), Vocabulaire et expression de l’économie dans le monde antique, Bordeaux, 2007, p. 253-278).
Venturini 1979 = C. Venturini, Studi sul « crimen repetundarum » nell’età repubblicana, Milan, 1979.
Venturini 2009 = C. Venturini, Senatori e navi dal plebiscito Claudio alla lex Iulia repetundarum : qualche rilievo, in A. Palma (ed.), Scritti in onore di Generoso Melillo, Naples, 2009, III, p. 1459‑71.
Walbank 1957 = F.W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, I, Oxford, 1957.
Whittaker 1985 = C.R. Whittaker, Trade and aristocracy in the Roman Empire, in Opus, 4, 1985, p. 49‑75.
Willems 1883-1885 = P. Willems, Le sénat de la République Romaine. Sa composition et ses attributions, 3 vol. , Louvain-Paris-Berlin, 1883-1885 (reprint Aalen1968).
Wiseman 1971 = T.P. Wiseman, New men in the Roman Senate, 139 B.C.-A.D. 14, Oxford, 1971.
Zevi 1994 = F. Zevi, Le grandi navi mercantili, Puteoli e Roma, in Le ravitaillement en blé de Rome et des centres urbains des débuts de la République jusqu’au Haut Empire, Naples-Rome, 1994, p. 61-68 (CEFR, 196).
Zevi 2002 = F. Zevi, Appunti per una storia di Ostia repubblicana, in MEFRA, 114-1, 2002, p. 13‑58.
Cic. Clu. 150 : « What senator ever refused to consider himself bound to submit to a greater strictness in the laws’ demands upon him, proportionate to the greater dignity of the position to which he had been raised by the favour of the Roman people ? How many are the advantages which we forgo, how many the inconveniences and difficulties to which we submit ! And the compensation for all these is the great honour and dignity of our position. Now apply the same conditions of life to the order of knights, and to the other orders : they will not put up with them ; for they hold that they should be less exposed to the entanglements of laws, stipulations and the courts, inasmuch as they have either been unable to reach the highest position in the state, or have not tried to reach it. » (Loeb transl. with minor corrections ; translations are my own unless indicated otherwise.)
Livy 21.63.3-4: « [...] Flaminius was also unpopular with the senators on account of a new law, which the tribune Q. Claudius had introduced against the interest of the senate and with C. Flaminius alone of the senators in support. The law stated that no senator, nor senator’s son, should have a sea-going ship of more than 300 amphorae capacity. That size was considered sufficient for the transport of produce from an estate ; all profit was seen as ill-befitting senators. The proposal was carried in the face of heated dispute, and created for Flaminius, as the law’s backer, ill will among the nobiles, but popularity with the plebs, with the result that he obtained a second consulship. »
So, e.g. Guarino 1982, p. 14, « Il motivo e la funzione della lex Claudia del 218 a.C. diventano, insomma, storicamente plausibili solo se si inquadra la legge tra le misure, di ordine religioso e di ordine pratico, che furono prese allo scopo do far tornare la respublica ed il suo ceto di governo alla severa religiosità, probità, parsimonia dei tempi [...] » ; cf. Baltrusch 1989, p. 30-40, Roman 1994, and El Beheiri 2001.
Plin. NH 7.139-140 ; compare, e.g., Gabba 1988  and Clemente 1983 rejecting the Livian phrase (and cf. Clemente 1990, p. 52) with Nicolet 2000  and Tchernia 2011 , p. 214-222 accepting it but seeking a nuanced interpretation.
A full analysis of the hostile source tradition on Gaius Flaminius in Feig Vishnia 2012 (p. 40 on this passage).
Tchernia 2011  with overviews of earlier bibliography and interpretations ; see also Venturini 2009 and Coudry 2007.
So for instance, with variations and divergence of emphasis as to whether it is primarily about the economic or political separation of the senatorial ordo : Nicolet 2000 , Gabba 1988 , Clemente 1983 (cf. 1990, p. 49-54), Feig Vishnia 1996, p. 34-43, Bringmann 2003, Beck 2005, p. 263-265, Kay 2014, p. 13-14. For completeness’ sake, it should be noted that some have taken the reference to popular legislation directed against the senate in Polyb. 6.16.3 as an allusion to the activities of Flaminius and especially the plebiscitum Claudianum (see Walbank 1957, p. 691).
Cic. II Verr. 5.45-46 : « Never fear, Hortensius, I shall not ask what right a senator had to build a ship ; the laws forbidding it are ancient, and dead, as you are fond of putting it. Once the state was such, the severity of the law courts such, that a prosecutor could think the matter worth presenting amongst his principal charges. What need had you of a ship ? If you were going anywhere on public business, shipping for both transport and protection are provided at public expense ; but as a private citizen neither are you able to travel out to, nor bring back, transmarine property from locations where you are not permitted to own anything. Why then, in the next place, did you break the law by acquiring any such property ? This would have been a powerful charge in the face of the old moral severity of the state. Today I do not put forward this as a charge against you ; I do not even express the general feeling against you by attacking you thus : « Did you never think of the discredit, the danger, the dislike, you must incur by having a merchant vessel openly built for you at a populous centre in the province that you were governing ? » What did you suppose those who saw it would say, or those who heard of it think ? That you were going to take the ship to Italy empty ? That you were going into the shipping business when you reached Rome ? No-one could even suppose that you had an estate on the Italian coast, and were providing yourself with a merchant vessel for the export of your produce. »
Cf. Cic. Leg. 3.20 (namque ut C. Flaminium atque ea, quae iam prisca uidentur propter uetustatem, relinquam, quid iuris bonis uiris Ti. Gracchi tribunatus reliquit ?) for an implied consensus that events of the time of Flaminius are too remote to carry weight.
For this last point, see Venturini 2009, p. 1469-1471.
Digest 50.5.3 : « Scaevola, Rules, book 3 : Exemption from any public munus is granted by reason of their ship to anyone who has built a sea-going ship and provided it for the transport of the corn supply of the Roman people, provided it is of not less than fifty thousand modii capacity, or five or more of not less than ten thousand modii capacity, as long as the ship is in use or another in its place. Senators, however, cannot enjoy this exemption since they cannot ever own a ship under the lex Iulia on extortion. » (trans. Watson).
Paul, Sententiae, V.28.3 (Serrao 1956, p. 19-23 ; Fossati Vanzetti 1995, p. 141) : « Senators or their parents, if they are under their parents’ authority, are not allowed to collect public taxes, or to own ships for making profits, or to undertake to provide chariot horses at the festivals ; and if that is done it is punished under the lex repetundarum. »
Tchernia 2011 , p. 208.
E.g. Badian 1972, p. 16 with n. 16, but already in Mommsen 1889-1895, VI, 2, p. 110, etc.
Ascon. 93C : « In addition Antonius had contracted with the treasury to supply four-hourse chariots for a fee – a contract which is legally available to senators. » (trans. Lewis).
Dio Cass. 55.10.5 : « [...] and that senators should be permitted to contract for both the provision of the horses to compete in the Circus and the care of the temple [sc. of Mars Ultor], just as had been permitted by law for the temples of Apollo and Jupiter Capitolinus. »
See in general Nicolet 1966-1974, I, p. 317-355.
Mommsen 1889-1895, VI, ii, p. 110 n. 3 ; cf. Harris 1979, p. 80, n. 2.
Nicolet 1966-1974, I, p. 329-330 and 336 ; cf. 2000 , p. 38-39.
Gabba 1988 , p. 33.
Badian 1972, p. 103-105 dates the apparent breakdown of a previously imposed separation between the ordines to the observable activities of the publicani in the 70s BC, and one could of course speculate that the reprisal of the measure in the lex Iulia was a direct response to such a situation.
Rawson 1976, p. 90-91, cf. 1977, p. 355 ; as she noted, Badian (1972, p. 88) takes both measures for granted, but without offering any support. Both Crawford (1990, p. 95 with n. 16) and Hopkins (1978, p. 47, n. 65) followed Rawson on the question of land-owning, but it is rarely noted otherwise (D’Arms 1981, p. 68, n. 75 is sceptical ; Fraschetti 1981, p. 64, n. 81 negative ; Berry 2006, p. 46 with note on p. 283 takes it as a given).
The original index locorum to Staatsrecht failed to pick up any reference to Cic. II Verr. 5.45-46 ; the more recent index of Malitz 1979 picks up three separate discussions, none of which, however, raise these possibilities (Mommsen 1889-1895, VII, p. 75, specifically on the pleb. Claudianum ; I, p. 336 n. 6, on a magistrate’s right to a ship when on public service ; VI, 2, p. 110 n. 3, on the desuetude of the pleb. Claudianum and relationship to the prohibition on public contracting).
Mommsen 1889-1895, VII, p. 90-91 with n. 2 and cf. p. 72-3 ; the inserted cross-reference is at 1889-1895, IV, p. 412 n. 8 (in the German edition, 1887-1888, III.ii, p. 912-913 with n. 1 and II.i, p. 690-691). Mommsen made his argument on a back-formation from the measure of Julius Caesar which banned senators’ sons from travelling outside Italy, so the only piece of ancient evidence cited in support is Suet. Iul. 42 (and Paul, Dig. 22.214.171.124 on the libera legatio generally).
Willems 1883-1885, I, p. 204 : « il entend dire que le gouverneur de province ne peut faire des acquisitions dans sa province pendant la durée de son gouvernement » ; this belongs within the context of Willems’ view that land-owning in the provinces was acceptable, indeed widespread, and an assertion that the plebiscitum Claudianum did not prevent this (p. 203, « Aussi la loi [sc. the pleb. Claudianum] ne défendait-elle aucunement aux sénateurs d’avoir des propriétés foncières hors de l’Italie. Les sénateurs avaient des possessions en province et ils les exploitaient comme ils l’entendaient »). See further below, next section.
s.u. « priuatim » and « priuatus » (ed. Kruse), in TLL, X, 2, ix, 1996, col. 1383-87 and 1388-98.
These include the second-century BC lex Porcia limiting the movement of governors, referenced in the lex de prouinciis praetoriis (Crawford 1996, no. 12, Cnidos Copy, Col. III, lines 4-5) and the lex Antonia de Termessibus (Crawford 1996, no. 19, col. II, line 16) ; the second-century BC(?) measure prohibiting the purchase of slaves by governors (Crawford 1990, p. 102) ; and the measures of the lex Cornelia de maiestate restricting the movements and actions of governors (e.g. Cic. Pis. 50). Most of these measures were clearly reprised in the lex Iulia de repetundis of 59 BC (cf. Crawford 1996, II, p. 770). Rawson 1976, p. 184 n. 27 notes land’s absence in Cic. Q.fr. 1.1.8 (« It is a glorious thought that you should have been three years in Asia in supreme command, and not been tempted by the offer of any statue, picture, plate, garment, or slave, by any fascination of human beauty, or any pecuniary proposals »).
E.g. Long 1862, p. 557-558 (« A senator by the old law might have been forbidden to have (habere) lands out of Italy. To forbid him mercari, to be a mercator, would hardly be necessary. It had long been settled that a senator could not be a trader. Graevius affirms that senators had and were allowed to have land in the provinces ; but he gives no evidence. ») ; Levens 1946, p. 99-100 (concluding on this phrase that the idea is a prohibition of a general character, such that it is not as an individual but as a senator « that Verres was, or would have been in the past, debarred from owning property abroad ») ; Berry 2006, p. 46 and note ad loc. on p. 283.
Cic. Leg. 3.18 : Iam illud apertum est profecto, nihil esse turpius quam est quemquam legari nisi rei publicae causa. Omitto quem ad modum isti se gerant atque gesserint, qui legatione hereditatis aut syngraphas suas persequuntur; in hominibus est hoc fortasse uitium ; sed quaero, quid reapse sit turpius quam sine procuratione senator legatus, sine mandatis, sine ullo rei publicae munere. Quod quidem genus legationis ego consul, quamquam ad commodum senatus pertinere uidebatur, tamen adprobante senatu frequentissimo, nisi mihi leuis tribunus plebis tum intercessisset, sustulissem. Minui tamen tempus et, quod erat infinitum, annum feci. Ita turpitudo manet diuturnitate sublata. Sed iam, si placet, de prouinciis decedatur in urbemque redeatur (« Also it is obvious at once that nothing can be more disgraceful than the appointment of an ambassador for any other than a public purpose. I will say nothing of the behaviour, either at present or in the past, of those who go out as ambassadors to claim legacies or enforce contracts, for perhaps that is due to a weakness of human nature. But I ask only this: what could be more disgraceful than the mere fact of a senator’s holding an appointment as an ambassador without official duties, without instructions, without any public business whatever to attend to? In fact, when I was consul I should have been able to abolish embassies of this kind with the approbation of a full meeting of the Senate, in spite of the fact that the custom gave the Senate valuable privileges, if it had not been for the intercession of an irresponsible plebeian tribune; but I did limit the duration of such appointments, which had previously been unrestricted, to one year. And so the disgrace still persists, but with the allowance of time limited. »), trans. Keyes, Loeb edn. Cf. Cic. Att. 15.11.4 for the subsequent revision by Caesar.
E.g. Shatzman 1975, p. 69, and fundamentally Mommsen 1889-1895, IV, p. 412, « Cette « mission libre », comme on l’appelait, n’était pas seulement un des abus les plus nuisibles et les plus criants de l’oligarchie qui exploitait l’État comme un domain privé [...] » (but as noted above n. 24, see VII, p. 90-91 with n. 2).
Willems 1883-1885, I, p. 149-150 and cf. 203 (ultimately in the same spirit as Shatzman, a benefit) ; Suolahti 1970, p. 118-119 views it entirely in reverse from the perspective of the Imperial period and the question of compulsory attendance of the Senate, merely observing of the Republican period that « As the senators were still entirely Italians and mostly members of the Roman aristocracy, they usually did not wish to stay away from the capital for longer periods. But as the number of the men from provinces in the Senate increased, it was found necessary to take steps to keep them in Rome. » Bonnefond-Coudry 1989, p. 370-371 likewise considers the libera legatio merely within the context of legitimate grounds for absence from the Senate, without pursuing the further implications (or this text) ; similarly Lintott 1999, p. 73 and Moatti 2000, p. 939.
Cic. Fam. 12.21 (to Q. Cornificius, governor of Africa Vetus, spring 44 BC) : Gaius Anicius, familiaris meus, uir omnibus rebus ornatus, negotiorum suorum causa legatus est in Africam legatione libera. Eum uelim rebus omnibus adiuues, operamque des, ut quam commodissime sua negotia conficiat ; in primisque, quod ei carissimum est, dignitatem eius tibi commendo; idque a te peto, quod ipse in prouincia facere sum solitus non rogatus, ut omnibus senatoribus lictores darem; quod idem acceperam et cognoueram a summis uiris factitatum [...]. Both Willems 1883-1885, I, p. 149 and Mommsen 1889-1895, IV, p. 412 cite the letter misleadingly for this point. Cf. Cic. II Verr. 4.25.
Cic. Pis. 50, Vat. 12.
Venturini 1979, p. 473 §h.
Suet. Iul. 42 ; Mommsen 1889-1895, VII, p. 91 n. 2.
Dio Cass. 52.42.6 ; Tac. Ann. 12.23.1 ; Suet. Claud. 16.2.
Livy 36.3.2-4 ; Livy 43.11.4.
See esp. Crawford 1990, p. 95 (and cf. p. 120), « Certo è che alla fine del III secolo a.C. esisteva a Roma tutta una serie di norme e consuetudini che presupponevano non soltanto un’idea di Italia, ma anche una preoccupazione per cosa fosse Italia e per cosa non lo fosse. » Full discussion in Bispham 2007, p. 53-73 ; on the formula togatorum in relation to terra Italia, Prag 2011, p. 19-20. Livy records several episodes of relevance during the Second Punic War, e.g. 25.7.4, 27.5.15, 28.38.12.
Varro ap. Gell., NA 14.7.10 ; Cic. Phil. 1.12 ; Dio Cass. 54.18.3, 55.3.3.
On senatorial attendance and the issue of quorum see esp. Ryan 1998, p. 13-51 (concluding that some quorum requirements go back to the mid-Republic, but that quorum was selectively prescribed ; the question of restriction to Italy is not discussed) ; see also Bonnefond-Coudry 1989, p. 401-413.
E.g. Willems 1883-1885, I, p. 203 « [...] la loi [sc. the plebiscitum Claudianum] ne défendait-elle aucunement aux sénateurs d’avoir des propriétés foncières hors de l’Italie. Les sénateurs avaient des possessions en province et ils les exploitaient comme ils l’entendaient ; ils les administraient par leurs affranchis et leurs hommes d’affaires » (the examples cited belong to the 40s BC) ; Shatzman 1975 is at once cautious in the conclusions that he draws and simultaneously consistent in assuming the existence of such estates, as e.g. p. 34, « Our information regarding senatorial property in the provinces is disappointing. We would expect to find many senators owning property in Sicily, the oldest province. Actually only three are known [...]. To sum up, the paucity of evidence is no proof that there was little senatorial property in the provinces ; on the other hand, because we know that 23 senators owned property in the provinces we cannot conclude that such ownership was very common. » Wiseman 1971, p. 81, n. 6 makes passing reference to provincial estates, the existence of which appears to be assumed, but there is no other mention of this or evidence produced (Appendix III lists senators’ estates in Italy only).
On Shatzman 1975, table VII, Rawson (1976, p. 184, n. 25) comments « all uncertain or erroneous, except Schol. Bub. 90 ». Nicolet 2000 , p. 35 flagged the need for caution while accepting the general idea of such landowning : « Admettons la fréquence (qu’il faudrait vérifier en reprenant de près les listes de Shatzman) d’un phénomène de ce type. »
Shatzman 1975, p. 19 and 45 and no. 60 ; cf. Nicolet 1966-1974, II, p. 926-929, no. 204. The « evidence » consists of a fragment of Lucilius (fr. 287-8 (Warmington) = Porphyrio ad Hor. Sat. I.3.1), which simply reads : Lucilius « Sardiniensem » dixit in sexto satyrarum sic « e Sicula Lucilius Sardiniensem terram ».
Cic. II Verr. 3.93. Annaeus, a senator by 71 BC, is of uncertain origin and identification (Klebs RE, 1, 1894, col. 2225, s. u. « Annaeus » no. 3 is a rigorous summary ; cf. Fraschetti 1981, p. 66, no. 1 ; most recently Ryan 1995, p. 306-307). There is nothing to support a Sicilian origin, rightly rejected, e.g., by Wiseman 1971, p. 212, no. 26 and Manganaro 1982, p. 369‑370). Brocchus does not appear to own the land, since Cicero is explicit that at Segesta commercium in eo agro nemini est, if one is not a Segestan citizen.
Cicero refers to property of the unknown wife of the consul of 73 BC, C. Cassius L. f. Pom. Longinus (Münzer, RE, 3‑2, 1899, col. 1727, s. u. « Cassius » no. 58) : eius uxor, femina primaria, paternas haberet arationes in Leontino. The ager Leontinus was one of the main locations of ager publicus in Sicily, farmed mostly by non-locals (II Verr. 3.109). Paternus (OLD, p. 1308, s. u. « paternus ») primarily signifies « of or connected with a father », including « of inherited property », although (§3) it can also signify « of or connected with one’s birthplace ».
See Steel 2007, p. 38-40 for an overview of the speech’s structure and 42-43 on this passage.
So, e.g. Holm 1898, p. 160 ; cf. Genovese 1999, p. 382-389.
Caes. BCiv. 2.18 : [...] Gaium Gallonium, equitem Romanum, familiarem Domitii, qui eo procurandae hereditatis causa uenerat missus a Domitio [...]. Curiously, cited by Nicolet 2000 , p. 35, Whittaker 1985, p. 57, Crawford 1990, p. 96 n. 16, but not in fact by Shatzman (1975, no. 139).
Shatzman 1975 gathers what he claims to be 23 instances of senators owning land overseas, in his Tables II and III (cf. Table VII and p. 31, 34). Of the 23, only 4 fall before 49 BC and have any plausibility to them : L. Aelius Lamia (his no. 77, a senator no earlier than 54 BC, probably with land in Africa, CIL VIII.25943, Cic. Fam. 12.29) ; T. Annius Milo (no. 86, Cic. Att. 6.5.2 clearly implies property of some sort in the Thracian Chersonese prior to his exile in 52 BC) ; P. Clodius Pulcher (no. 118, Schol. Bob. 90-91 records simply that 5 slaves were sent to Clodius’ uilicus Diogenes in Transalpine Gaul in 61 BC, incidentally the earliest year he could have entered the Senate) ; M. Licinius Crassus, cos. 70 BC (no. 159, Plut. Crass. 2.5 records ownership of silver mines, unlikely to have been in Italy). The rest turn out to be wholly unfounded or very weak inference and/or to date to the late 40s BC or later.
Rawson 1976, p. 91.
Tac. Ann. 6.16.1 (AD 33) : Interea magna uis accusatorum in eos inrupit, qui pecunias faenore auctitabant aduersum legem dictatoris Caesaris, qua de modo credendi possidendique intra Italiam cauetur, omissam olim, quia priuato usui bonum publicum postponitur ; cf. Suet. Tib. 48.
Plin. Ep. 6.19.4 ; SHA, Marcus 11.8 ; Mommsen, 1889-1895, VII, p. 75-76 ; Nicolet 2000 , p. 33 insists that such a measure cannot pre-date Caesar.
Zevi 1994, p. 64 ; Zevi 2002, p. 43-46 ; Tchernia 2011  ; similar perspective also in Feig Vishnia 1996, p. 34-43 ; cf. Pinzone 2000, p. 861, highlighting the coincidence of Flaminius as the first praetor in Sicily, 227 BC.
See especially Venturini 1979, p. 471-482 but also 2009 ; cf. Crawford 1996, II, no.55.
On praetors, see esp. Brennan 2000, I, p. 79-97 ; on the quaestorship at this period, now Prag 2014.
Liv. 34.44.5, 34.54.4-8 ; Ascon. 69-70 C = Valerius Antias, FRHist 25 F.41 with commentary ; Cic. Har. Resp. 24 ; Val. Max. 2.4.3, cf. 4.5.1.Haut de page